Is your body an object?

[Riverwolf]

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.

I'll wager they do.

Besides, regarding women as having the same value as a blow-up doll doesn't mean that they are exactly like blow-up dolls. What it means is that they regard women as nothing more than toys to be used and discarded.

 

[Me Myself]

I'll wager they do.

But you havent said how. Judging the relevant attributes for the job is what happens with all those categories. I dont see why we should pretend its wrong when sex omes into place.

Besides, regarding women as having the same value as a blow-up doll doesn't mean that they are exactly like blow-up dolls. What it means is that they regard women as nothing more than toys to be used and discarded.

Then please say that. I know it may sound caprichous but the very reason for my poll is because I still dont understand what people mean with some of the things they say regarding this issues.

So what you actually are saying is sex slaves then, yes? sure that would be objectification.

If you mean "no, using their wilfully provided services in a way rspectfull to the boundaries they provided as they provided this services and then leaving when they are done recieving said service" then they are not any more or less """toys""" than taxi drivers. For which I wouldnt use such adjective. Of course I wouldnt use it for strippers either.

 

[Riverwolf]

But you havent said how. Judging the relevant attributes for the job is what happens with all those categories. I dont see why we should pretend its wrong when sex omes into place.

Because sex is something extremely personal and otherwise private.

Then please say that. I know it may sound caprichous but the very reason for my poll is because I still dont understand what people mean with some of the things they say regarding this issues.

So what you actually are saying is sex slaves then, yes? sure that would be objectification.

It's easy to forget about sex slaves, since I hear about blow-up dolls far, far more often.

So, yes, that's on me.

If you mean "no, using their wilfully provided services in a way rspectfull to the boundaries they provided as they provided this services and then leaving when they are done recieving said service" then they are not any more or less """toys""" than taxi drivers. For which I wouldnt use such adjective. Of course I wouldnt use it for strippers either.

I have no problem with strippers, so long as everything they're doing is on their terms.

 

[Me Myself]

Because sex is something extremely personal and otherwise private.

private and personal is extremely relative.

It's easy to forget about sex slaves, since I hear about blow-up dolls far, far more often.

So, yes, that's on me.

Yeah, slaves would be the actual case of objectification on my book.

I have no problem with strippers, so long as everything they're doing is on their terms.

As much as with any other job. If they accepted the terms and the terms that all the parties involved are being respected as agreed, then all good and there is no more objetification than on any other job where this happens.

If the boundaries agreed by all parties are not being respected then it is a fom of abuse or slavery. Like in any job.

If you dont feel comfortable with other people valuying your performance priarely by your visual appeal and general dexterity with dancing and stirpping, then dont become a stripper, just as you dont become a clown or an actor if you dont want to be judged in the terms appropiate for those careers.

The "tool" rethoric or "toy" or "object" rethoric doesnt need to come into question in any way different than any other job.

 

[Riverwolf]

private and personal is extremely relative.

But I think you would agree that, compared to other activities, sex and sexuality is the one that most people prefer to keep behind closed doors.

Yeah, slaves would be the actual case of objectification on my book.

And therefore, female objectification when slavery is not present is regarding all women as little more than sex slaves.

This includes staring at women, even when they've explicitly said not to.

As much as with any other job. If they accepted the terms and the terms that all the parties involved are being respected as agreed, then all good and there is no more objetification than on any other job where this happens.

If the boundaries agreed by all parties are not being respected then it is a fom of abuse or slavery. Like in any job.

If you dont feel comfortable with other people valuying your performance priarely by your visual appeal and general dexterity with dancing and stirpping, then dont become a stripper, just as you dont become a clown or an actor if you dont want to be judged in the terms appropiate for those careers.

The "tool" rethoric or "toy" or "object" rethoric doesnt need to come into question in any way different than any other job.

Well, I could make a case for the "tool" rhetoric in plenty of other jobs, but neither here nor there.

When I say on their terms, I also mean that everything is perfectly spelled out what they will be doing, and what they don't have to do. But since sex is one of the basic needs, I'll wager that it's not unheard of for stripper bosses to slip in a little, easily missed clause in the contract that says he's allowed to "visit" his employees. Seeing as the women in question are often desperate, well...

 

[kalyan]

I am not the body...question is not clear though object for what ?

 

[Koldo]

And therefore, female objectification when slavery is not present is regarding all women as little more than sex slaves.

This includes staring at women, even when they've explicitly said not to.
oyees. Seeing as the women in question are often desperate, well...

Isn't it possible to stare at women without objectifying them?

 

[Riverwolf]

Isn't it possible to stare at women without objectifying them?

Sure, if in your mind you're wondering what kind of woman she is, what her story is, her likes/dislikes, etc.

Now, I'm not talking about staring for a second at a woman walking down the street in a bikini. That's a very unusual sight (at least where I live), and we naturally tend to stare, even for a moment, at things we're not used to.

 

[DallasApple]

But I think you would agree that, compared to other activities, sex and sexuality is the one that most people prefer to keep behind closed doors.

Exactly.And why I can't stand comparing sex to other "jobs" .There are few things if any more personal than sex.That is why for example most may not be quite as upset if their spouse gives a person a ride (in their car) verses if they have sex with someone else.

 

[Me Myself]

This includes staring at women, even when they've explicitly said not to.

I dont control other people's eyes, nor I would pretend they are infringing my rights by staring at me. That would be control frikish and childish.

Mind you, I ve been stared and teased by gay guys because I was eating a banana at the time (so funny, people :thud: )

Sure I felt uncomfortable and I told them not to watch and they kept teasing, but they are playing. We talked the rest of the night and they are friends of friends and the general interactin wasnt bad at all. Pretending that their choice of what to do with their eyes infringes my rights in any way or negates my personhood is complete idiocy.

Well, I could make a case for the "tool" rhetoric in plenty of other jobs, but neither here nor there.

When I say on their terms, I also mean that everything is perfectly spelled out what they will be doing, and what they don't have to do. But since sex is one of the basic needs, I'll wager that it's not unheard of for stripper bosses to slip in a little, easily missed clause in the contract that says he's allowed to "visit" his employees. Seeing as the women in question are often desperate, well...

You are arguing most people sexual objectify them, you still havent put forth a reasonable argumentfor that.

Of course women/strippers are objectified (and its wrong). What I am saying is that I dont currently have any reason to believe most people pretend they are not humans.

You say otherwise.

 

[Riverwolf]

I dont control other people's eyes, nor I would pretend they are infringing my rights by staring at me. That would be control frikish and childish.

Mind you, I ve been stared and teased by gay guys because I was eating a banana at the time (so funny, people :thud: )

Sure I felt uncomfortable and I told them not to watch and they kept teasing, but they are playing. We talked the rest of the night and they are friends of friends and the general interactin wasnt bad at all. Pretending that their choice of what to do with their eyes infringes my rights in any way or negates my personhood is complete idiocy.

We define that kind of behavior as sexual harassment up here.

Staring doesn't infringe upon rights, and I never claimed it did. Neither does yelling sexist comments or verbal abuse.

You are arguing most people sexual objectify them, you still havent put forth a reasonable argumentfor that.

Of course women/strippers are objectified (and its wrong). What I am saying is that I dont currently have any reason to believe most people pretend they are not humans.

You say otherwise.

No I'm not.

The processes I'm talking about are mostly subconscious. Objectifying women is not a conscious thing, most of the time.

 

[DallasApple]

We define that kind of behavior as sexual harassment up here.

So do we.."down " here.

Saying "it wasn't that bad" doesn't change what it is.An infringement.

 

[DallasApple]

Staring doesn't infringe upon rights, and I never claimed it did. Neither does yelling sexist comments or verbal abuse.

It is to me.An infringment on my rights to my pursuit of happiness.

They need to keep their eyes on and enjoy the freedom of porn..Do not confuse women (in public) with "enjoying' your objectification .

Do not transfer your beliefs that they "like it" on to the average woman .Trust me .They don't.

 

[Me Myself]

We define that kind of behavior as sexual harassment up here.

If it happened every time, I could understant that.

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.

No I'm not.

The processes I'm talking about are mostly subconscious. Objectifying women is not a conscious thing, most of the time.

I said I wagered most people dont objectify strippers more than they do lawyers, clowns (etc) and you replied I wager they do.

What you wanted to say instead was that strippers get more objectifications than people from this other jobs? (which is a very different claim, and one I would probably agree with)

I can deliberate about subconscious things all I want, but without a behavioral pattern, I could as well be catching ghosts with jars and showing them to you.

 

[Me Myself]

They need to keep their eyes on and enjoy the freedom of porn..Do not confuse women (in public) with "enjoying' your objectification .

If someone is objectifying someone, they have 0% interest in what this person likes or dislikes. (which excludes both sympathy and sadism)

 

[DallasApple]

If someone is objectifying someone, they have 0% interest in what this person likes or dislikes. (which excludes both sympathy and sadism)

I know what it is .I'm a woman.

 

[Me Myself]

I know what it is .I'm a woman.

You speak as if you include things there that have nothing to do with it, like when you wrote about them confusing enjoyment in their looks. If they are truly objectifying the person, they care about as much of the enjoyment on their looks as they care of the enjoyment of their toasters when they use them.

 

[Riverwolf]

If it happened every time, I could understant that.

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.

Dude, I'm the semantics arguer on the forums and there ain't room for two of us!

...

Darn. We don't have a Western smiley.

Kidding aside, in any case, in our system (don't know about yours), even a single incident can successfully be regarded, and thus reported, as harassment.

I said I wagered most people dont objectify strippers more than they do lawyers, clowns (etc) and you replied I wager they do.

What you wanted to say instead was that strippers get more objectifications than people from this other jobs? (which is a very different claim, and one I would probably agree with)

I can deliberate about subconscious things all I want, but without a behavioral pattern, I could as well be catching ghosts with jars and showing them to you.

The subconscious affects behavior. Objectification is a huge problem in the States.

Wanna see it for yourself? I've already given you some directions.

 

[Me Myself]

Dude, I'm the semantics arguer on the forums and there ain't room for two of us!

...

Darn. We don't have a Western smiley.

Kidding aside, in any case, in our system (don't know about yours), even a single incident can successfully be regarded, and thus reported, as harassment.

I cant tell you I know mine, but any system that prosecutes anyone because they looked at you in a way you didnt like this one time is so wrong I just cant argue about it if its not obvious already.

I mean, a system penalising someone because you dont like how they looked at you once is wrong :areyoucra

I have full right to watch whoever I choose. Its too basic for me to further elaborate.

The subconscious affects behavior. Objectification is a huge problem in the States.

Wanna see it for yourself? I've already given you some directions.

That is why I am asking you to provide me examples of behaviour that can only be interpreted as someone dehuminizing another someone.

 

[DallasApple]

You speak as if you include things there that have nothing to do with it, like when you wrote about them confusing enjoyment in their looks. If they are truly objectifying the person, they care about as much of the enjoyment on their looks as they care of the enjoyment of their toasters when they use them.

Pretty much I don't give a crap what your "enjoyment is" I'm not a walking toaster.I am not a means to your end.Whatever your "end" is.I am not THERE for you to ENJOY.