Is your body an object?

[Me Myself]

Am I my body?

I know what you're doing, dude. I understand that you're trying to get where we're coming from when we say "objectification is bad".

It's bad because it reduces a person to nothing more than their body, and implies that they have absolutely no worth as a person.

Well, yes and no.

Reducing a person to nothing beyond their body is something understandably bad and is the most agreeable definition I could give to objecification to make it bad, but then some alleged examples of objectification doesnt seem to do that in my view.

For some reason, sometimes in examples where people are talking about the body of another person without talking about the owner, it seems this is percieved as if it was objectification, which puzzles me greatly.

To me it's like if saying that if I talk about how awesome x car is without talking about the owner I am de-humanizing the owner.

I want an option for "yes, and it doesn't belong to me" (except as granted by human social constructs; ultimately nothing "belongs" or is owned by anything in this universe).

Somehow, I knew you would complain about this

I dont know why or how, I just had a big hunch YOU would complain about it

I preferred to just leave "other" for the interesting and different individuals that would choose such a thing.

Ultimately, nothing belongs to anyone IMHO, but as much as it can I would say my body is mine.

Where's the option to express my dismay at how my object has decayed so much over the last half century?
I used to have the body of a Greek god! Now I've got the body of a god darned Greek!

Flying potato commits suicide

By default, no, since objectification reduces a person to their bodies, leaving nothing else, basically leaving the objectified person in a state as having the same worth as a love-doll.

I almost ever have seen or heard this, yet I ve heard claims about this many many times about phrases or situations in which people are more interested for the object than the person. This is not the same as denying the person's personhood just as much as describing a car without mentioning the owner does not negate an owner or his ownership.

Did you notice, also, that all the poll options say the same thing? (Or is it just me?)

Even "flying potato commits suicide"--very poetic.

It's one of those subjects where the differences in definitions seem mostly either caprichious or poetic. The differences seem mostly by associations and what people feel like saying or not.

Actually, your body is a compound machine, which can be classified as an object, but logically it is multiple objects put together.

I like this. As you say, it is both and object and a conglomerate of objects.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, yes and no.

Reducing a person to nothing beyond their body is something understandably bad and is the most agreeable definition I could give to objecification to make it bad, but then some alleged examples of objectification doesnt seem to do that in my view.

For some reason, sometimes in examples where people are talking about the body of another person without talking about the owner, it seems this is percieved as if it was objectification, which puzzles me greatly.

To me it's like if saying that if I talk about how awesome x car is without talking about the owner I am de-humanizing the owner.

The analogy doesn't work because the relationship between a car and its owner is not at all comparable to the relationship between a person and his/her body.

 

[Me Myself]

The analogy doesn't work because the relationship between a car and its owner is not at all comparable to the relationship between a person and his/her body.

All analogies have differences, you need to establish why the difference is important for the conclusion.

Just because we baby our bodies and psychologically associate with them more than with other objects doesnt mean we need to demonize all others who dont establish this relationship.

I ve asked female friends to rate my visual attractiveness, I am aware for both the points plus and the points less they are rating my body, it is my tool to walk on this world. I may love it and feel very attached to it, but it is what it is. Pretendin is any other thing just becomes a circus.

 

[Riverwolf]

All analogies have differences, you need to establish why the difference is important for the conclusion.

Cars have one purpose: A to B. We can get in and out of them, and some of us choose not to have them at all.

It is not so with our bodies.

Just because we baby our bodies and psychologically associate with them more than with other objects doesnt mean we need to demonize all others who dont establish this relationship.

I ve asked female friends to rate my visual attractiveness, I am aware for both the points plus and the points less they are rating my body, it is my tool to walk on this world. I may love it and feel very attached to it, but it is what it is. Pretendin is any other thing just becomes a circus.

I'm not following you. Could you rephrase?

 

[Me Myself]

Cars have one purpose: A to B. We can get in and out of them, and some of us choose not to have them at all.

1- I see you are on my team! Yes, I also believe this is the purpose of cars, but to most people they also have the purpose of looking pretty going really fast, display status have awesome music and several ther shenanigans.

2-My body has one purpose, to by my channel on this life through which my spirit acts. I will eventually get out of it.

Then again, I dont see how the description you gave would be a difference relevant to the analogy being unapplicable.

No analogy is equal to that which it is analogous if it was it would be a repetition not an analogy.

I'm not following you. Could you rephrase?

Hummm... In all honesty I think it may be more helpful if you told me which parts I didnt make myself clear enough if that is possible.

 

[Me Myself]

testing

edit: weird o.0

 

[Riverwolf]

2-My body has one purpose, to by my channel on this life through which my spirit acts. I will eventually get out of it.

I think here's where the confusion is.

The culture which is campaigning against objectification of women doesn't come from a culture that believes this. That kind of thinking is foreign to most of them. This is the "one life, and one life only" culture you're talking to, primarily.

Hummm... In all honesty I think it may be more helpful if you told me which parts I didnt make myself clear enough if that is possible.

I'll try.

Just because we baby our bodies and psychologically associate with them more than with other objects doesnt mean we need to demonize all others who dont establish this relationship.

What do you mean by "demonize those who don't establish this relationship?" What relationship?

I ve asked female friends to rate my visual attractiveness, I am aware for both the points plus and the points less they are rating my body, it is my tool to walk on this world. I may love it and feel very attached to it, but it is what it is. Pretendin is any other thing just becomes a circus.

You require some kind of feedback on your looks just so you can get through the day?

 

[Titanic]

I am not touching this...

 

[Me Myself]

I think here's where the confusion is.

The culture which is campaigning against objectification of women doesn't come from a culture that believes this. That kind of thinking is foreign to most of them. This is the "one life, and one life only" culture you're talking to, primarily.:

Agreed, I still had to put my personal input on it . That is why I put the other prt though. I dont see how the difference is relevant in a way that would change the conclusion.

I'll try.

Just because we baby our bodies and psychologically associate with them more than with other objects doesnt mean we need to demonize all others who dont establish this relationship.

What do you mean by "demonize those who don't establish this relationship?" What relationship?

There is no inherent relationship between how does one look and hir personality. Thus, hir personality wont affect whether s/he is visually attractive or not, and for those for which sexual attraction is mostly happening through visual stimuli, this means the person may be sexy waaaaaaay before you know hir as a person.

The relationship between the personality (which the viewer dosnt know) and the body (which the viewer is seeing and alredy has opinions about) does not exist in the viewer in the same way than on the user.

My relationship or my attachment to my body is not the same as the attachment strangers link between my body and a personality (of mine) that they ignore completely.



"That girl is really pretty!" *says looking at a picture*

"No she is not! she is a racist, serial killer sadist genocidical maniac who eats her victims alive !"

"I didnt said she was a good person, I said she was pretty."

"objectification!"

[/I]

You require some kind of feedback on your looks just so you can get through the day?

I am not even sure from where does that question come

Did I say I do it daily? Ive asked some time maybe once each a lot of monhs? my she friends how do I look. I know most of them feel being short is a turn off, most of them find my face to be attractive. Most of them like my hair the way I like my hair. Most of them etc etc.

I also know what my ex liked about my physical appeareance and what not. None of this is in any way objectification, it's just their appreciation of my object which has no bearing on my personality.

If a bunch of strane women rate my body and mock it or flirtily talk about it, they are not objectifying me either because I am sure most if not all of them know I am a person.

Actually, sunstone gave a great example in another thread, I'll quote it:

The distinction between objectifying a person and ignoring some aspects of a person can be expressed in behavioral terms thus: A person who is objectifying another person actively resists seeing that other person in any greater light. But a person who is merely ignoring some aspects of a another person is still open to seeing that other person in a greater light.

For instance, if I am dining in a restaurant and objectifying my waiter when my waiter trips and falls while delivering my food, I might respond by merely being angry at my waiter for dropping my food on the floor. But if I have, on the other hand, been merely ignoring some aspects of my waiter's personhood when he trips and falls, then I might respond by being concerned with whether he is hurt or injured.

You can ignore someone's other attributes while not rejecting their existance.

Other examples of this I gve here in the OP:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...31-concrete-terms-what-you-think-immoral.html


--My posts are acting weird, first the smiley doesnt work and then the weird thumbs down on top of this post o.o

 

[Riverwolf]

Agreed, I still had to put my personal input on it . That is why I put the other prt though. I dont see how the difference is relevant in a way that would change the conclusion.

It's relevant because the relationship we have with our bodies is COMPLETELY different from the relationship we have with cars.

There is no inherent relationship between how does one look and hir personality. Thus, hir personality wont affect whether s/he is visually attractive or not, and for those for which sexual attraction is mostly happening through visual stimuli, this means the person may be sexy waaaaaaay before you know hir as a person.

The relationship between the personality (which the viewer dosnt know) and the body (which the viewer is seeing and alredy has opinions about) does not exist in the viewer in the same way than on the user.

My relationship or my attachment to my body is not the same as the attachment strangers link between my body and a personality (of mine) that they ignore completely.



"That girl is really pretty!" *says looking at a picture*

"No she is not! she is a racist, serial killer sadist genocidical maniac who eats her victims alive !"

"I didnt said she was a good person, I said she was pretty."

"objectification!"

I think I see what you're saying.

Immediate judging based on looks does seem to be a rampant problem in society as a whole, not just for women, but for everyone (he's not wearing a suit and tie, therefore he must be sloppy. no job for him).

But when we're talking about the rampant objectification of women, that's not really what we're talking about. Recognizing beauty is not exactly the same thing.

When I talk about objectification, I'm talking about actively reducing worth (either consciously or subconsciously). Recognizing beauty is not automatically dehumanizing, until it's taken to the next step that there's nothing beyond that beauty.

I am not even sure from where does that question come

I did say I was confused. ^_^

Did I say I do it daily? Ive asked some time maybe once each a lot of monhs? my she friends how do I look. I know most of them feel being short is a turn off, most of them find my face to be attractive. Most of them like my hair the way I like my hair. Most of them etc etc.

I also know what my ex liked about my physical appeareance and what not. None of this is in any way objectification, it's just their appreciation of my object which has no bearing on my personality.

If a bunch of strane women rate my body and mock it or flirtily talk about it, they are not objectifying me either because I am sure most if not all of them know I am a person.

Actually, sunstone gave a great example in another thread, I'll quote it:

You can ignore someone's other attributes while not rejecting their existance.

Other examples of this I gve here in the OP:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...31-concrete-terms-what-you-think-immoral.html

Very well.

Then when we talk about objectification, what Sunstone is talking about as being positive is not what we're talking about.

 

[Me Myself]

It's relevant because the relationship we have with our bodies is COMPLETELY different from the relationship we have with cars.

I think I see what you're saying.

Immediate judging based on looks does seem to be a rampant problem in society as a whole, not just for women, but for everyone (he's not wearing a suit and tie, therefore he must be sloppy. no job for him).

But when we're talking about the rampant objectification of women, that's not really what we're talking about. Recognizing beauty is not exactly the same thing.

When I talk about objectification, I'm talking about actively reducing worth (either consciously or subconsciously). Recognizing beauty is not automatically dehumanizing, until it's taken to the next step that there's nothing beyond that beauty.

I did say I was confused. ^_^

Very well.

Then when we talk about objectification, what Sunstone is talking about as being positive is not what we're talking about.

I dont think he said was positive but I see that example didnt help, s lets forget it. xD

Well going back to your concept, I dont think there are many instances of "actively" reducing anyone to ther sex appeal. This happens in some moments and contexts in which sex appeal is the relevant trait, but reducing anyone to any of hir traits depending on circumstances happens absolutely all the time.

valuying a clown for his capacity to entertein and not how good of a father he is is relevant if you are seeing which clown to hire for your children's party. Valuying a doctor's ability for medical endeavors for what comes to whichdoctor you choose makes every sense even if you discard all other factors that would be relevant in other circumstances, because you are not in those circumstances.

So, talking about a stripper in terms of how sexy she looks in the pole (whch can heavilyor predominantly include how sexy her body looks to begin with) when you are in the club or talking about the show is the most relevant thing for the subject and context.

So I argue that doing so does not reduce her humanhood in any way.

 

[Riverwolf]

I dont think he said was positive but I see that example didnt help, s lets forget it. xD

Well going back to your concept, I dont think there are many instances of "actively" reducing anyone to ther sex appeal. This happens in some moments and contexts in which sex appeal is the relevant trait, but reducing anyone to any of hir traits depending on circumstances happens absolutely all the time.

valuying a clown for his capacity to entertein and not how good of a father he is is relevant if you are seeing which clown to hire for your children's party. Valuying a doctor's ability for medical endeavors for what comes to whichdoctor you choose makes every sense even if you discard all other factors that would be relevant in other circumstances, because you are not in those circumstances.

So, talking about a stripper in terms of how sexy she looks in the pole (whch can heavilyor predominantly include how sexy her body looks to begin with) when you are in the club or talking about the show is the most relevant thing for the subject and context.

So I argue that doing so does not reduce her humanhood in any way.

It reduces her to nothing more than a sex toy; as I said earlier, in the minds of most attendees, her worth is equal to a blow-up doll. Clowns entertaining children still are human, because they're still acting human, albeit in a more exaggerated way. Doctors are acting with empathy and care for the sake of healing.

Have you ever played Duke Nukem 3D? There's a scene in a strip club where even in the midst of a massive firefight with aliens and the world is ending and there's explosions everywhere, the strippers are just continuing to dance their thing, and you can pay them a dollar and they'll remove their tops briefly.

Now, in this particular context, DN3D is a parody/celebration of adolescent male fantasies, which manifest in more than just strippers, so it's acceptable. But when this sort of behavior appears in other mediums, such as Superhero comics which are supposed to be taken more seriously, that's when there's a problem.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It reduces her to nothing more than a sex toy; as I said earlier, in the minds of most attendees, her worth is equal to a blow-up doll. Clowns entertaining children still are human, because they're still acting human, albeit in a more exaggerated way.

It reduces the clown to nothing more than entertainment for children. In the minds of most attendees, the clown's worth is equal to a costume, makeup, and a bag of tricks. Strippers entertaining men are still human, because they're still acting humn, albeit in a more exaggerated way.

You see how relying on rhetoric for your argument doesn't really present an argument?

 

[Me Myself]

It reduces her to nothing more than a sex toy; as I said earlier, in the minds of most attendees, her worth is equal to a blow-up doll. Clowns entertaining children still are human, because they're still acting human, albeit in a more exaggerated way. Doctors are acting with empathy and care for the sake of healing.

I dont find strippers that act like wallets or tables sexy o_o.

That's ust me though. If they are not acting human, then they are... lying in the floor like any object? I havent been to such strip clubs.

We are not wired to be attracted to human tables. We are wired to be attracted to humans. In the case of strippers, humans with sexually desirable bodies moving in ways that augment their desirability.

Have you ever played Duke Nukem 3D? There's a scene in a strip club where even in the midst of a massive firefight with aliens and the world is ending and there's explosions everywhere, the strippers are just continuing to dance their thing, and you can pay them a dollar and they'll remove their tops briefly.

Now, in this particular context, DN3D is a parody/celebration of adolescent male fantasies, which manifest in more than just strippers, so it's acceptable. But when this sort of behavior appears in other mediums, such as Superhero comics which are supposed to be taken more seriously, that's when there's a problem.

I would prefer if we didnt expan to all other medias here, I feel each could (*and has) warrant (ed) their own thread.

By all means revive one of those with this comments and I'll reply there

 

[Riverwolf]

It reduces the clown to nothing more than entertainment for children. In the minds of most attendees, the clown's worth is equal to a costume, makeup, and a bag of tricks. Strippers entertaining men are still human, because they're still acting humn, albeit in a more exaggerated way.

You see how relying on rhetoric for your argument doesn't really present an argument?

True. Juggling multiple debates that require actually working the brain often leads to reasoning errors like that. ^_^

Then again, I don't really like the "clown" job to begin with. Frankly, it kinda sounds equally humiliating.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I actually DO care about the person on the pole: what her story is, and why she felt the need to perform in this way, whether it was out of desperation and she's really suffering inside, or she absolutely loves it.

Because strippers were brought up, let's take the dancing thing further. I really enjoy the videos of Lindsey Stirling (if you don't know her, she's a violinist/dancer who's pretty well-known on Youtube), and think she's very sexy. But, her dancing reveals a bit of herself, as well, and I can tell that she absolutely LOVES doing it; she is fully in bliss when she's dancing. Furthermore, I can tell that she's a geek, because a lot of her videos are themed in various video games.

But my problem isn't men being titillated by strippers; that's what they go there for. My problem is when random women on the street are reduced like that, or when women are portrayed like that in the media.

 

[Riverwolf]

I dont find strippers that act like wallets or tables sexy o_o.

That's ust me though. If they are not acting human, then they are... lying in the floor like any object? I havent been to such strip clubs.

We are not wired to be attracted to human tables. We are wired to be attracted to humans. In the case of strippers, humans with sexually desirable bodies moving in ways that augment their desirability.

It's about regarding such women as having the same worth as a blow-up doll.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But my problem isn't men being titillated by strippers; that's what they go there for. My problem is when random women on the street are reduced like that, or when women are portrayed like that in the media.

I think that the issue of objectification is usually brought up more in such contexts, and whether sexual objectification of women in general, leads to other negative side-effects socially and societally. Basically, sexual objectification isn't usually argued on an individual basis, but more as a behavior and attitude applied to a population and analyzed to see if there are effects on the population in general.

 

[Me Myself]

It's about regarding such women as having the same worth as a blow-up doll.

I dont think any man or women ever does that.

I dont think it is even possible to be honest.

I dont put any humilliation on the job of a clown BTW.

The reality is that the doctor is a "medical tool" the cop a "security tool" the clown a "toy" the magician a "toy" the actors are equally "toys".

I can pretend the same with all of those. I have NO IDEA of a SINGLE THING OF THE LIFE of 99.999% of the people I see on TV that entertein me.

I dont see this is morally wrong or problematic though.

 

[Riverwolf]

I dont think any man or women ever does that.

I dont think it is even possible to be honest.

Then you have a lot of disillusionment ahead of you.

This DOES happen, and far too frequently.

I direct you to a particular piece of human scum, Gary Brodsky. I direct you also to Frank Miller.

Go play an online game, say you're a woman, and watch what happens.

 

[Me Myself]

Then you have a lot of disillusionment ahead of you.

This DOES happen, and far too frequently.

I direct you to a particular piece of human scum, Gary Brodsky. I direct you also to Frank Miller.

Go play an online game, say you're a woman, and watch what happens.

I am taking what you say literally. It doesnt happen. It happens that people may care foremost about a women's body with no regard to her personhood, but if they saw her equally valuable as a blown up doll, then they would not care about women and just buy blown up dolls.


No one or to the least a very tiny minority hires a stripper to lie in the floor motionless as if it were a doll.

No one or almost no one hires a prostitute instructes her not to talk or move in any way beyond the way the person moves her. At least the tiniest interactions are expected even when the guy wants missionary position and to be the "dominant" one.

But your comments on the other part of my post woud be more interesting to me.

I'd wager most people dont dehumanize strippers any more than they dehumanize clowns, lawyers, magicians, actors, taxi drivers, cops, etc.