Is your body an object?

[DallasApple]

My body is an object, but so isn't my guitar and the half moon shining into my bedroom.

Yes but not in the same way.I don't know I could be wrong..But I don't think the moon or your guitar "feels".

Even though I have great respect for the moon and all musical instruments.I even told my grandson to not "beat on the guitar" ..as in kick it around..If he could have spit on the moon I would have slapped his hand.

I guess there is a fine line between appreciation and admiration but a great divide between that and objectification .

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't think some people get the difference between a living "object" and a piece of plastic for their use or enjoyment.They are both "objects" for their use.And nothing else.No "offense" to the object.

It's such a foreign concept to me. I don't even stare at my girlfriend if she's not in the mood for that.

 

[Me Myself]

You're infringing on someone's person.

Yes you are, if they're asking you to stop.

You look at someone. You think she looks pretty, so you continue to look (i.e., stare.) This is already rude behavior.
She sees you looking, and finding it uncomfortable, she asks you to stop.
Do you REALLY not realize that you ARE ignoring her desires if you continue to stare even after that?

I know her desires exist, I am not ignoring them.

I just know she doesnt have the authority to order me not to look.

Just because I own a car doesnt mean I have the authority to tell people in the street to not look at it.

I own my car, not their eyes.

My body is just the same. I can walk away if I am so disturbed by people looking at me, but I have the same right to order them what to do with their eyes as they have to shrugg off such order.

Perhaps "excited" would have been a better word. ^_^

Either way, that rapid posting thing doesn't work. :no:

Sure, it is better to keep it at a passing we are not leaving posts and comments behind without noticing.

 

[Riverwolf]

I know her desires exist, I am not ignoring them.

I just know she doesnt have the authority to order me not to look.

Yes she does. It's her body, not yours.

By continuing to look after being told to stop you are, by default, ignoring her.

Just because I own a car doesnt mean I have the authority to tell people in the street to not look at it.

I own my car, not their eyes.

My body is just the same.

And that's what dehumanization is: comparing a living body to a nonliving object.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes she does. It's her body, not yours.

By continuing to look after being told to stop you are, by default, ignoring her.

And that's what dehumanization is: comparing a living body to a nonliving object.

No, de humanization is pretending the living body doesnt has rights and pesonality or diminishing those but just because you know I am human doesnt mean you'll catter to my every wish.

I dont hold posession of someone else's eyes. Pretending I own the light bouncing from my body and coming into your eyes and that you are robbing it away from me or something makes no sense.

If you are not taking my body away from me in any way, in which way are you challenging my ownership of it? you are not. If someone is using his eyes to see at the most interesting thing in the enviroment for him, if it happened to be my body, well, it happened to be it.

I cant challenge his ownership of his eyes by pretending to have authority over what he decides to look or not.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, de humanization is pretending the living body doesnt has rights and pesonality or diminishing those

Which is what you're doing when you compare a living body with a nonliving object. You're not doing it consciously, but you are doing it.

but just because you know I am human doesnt mean you'll catter to my every wish.

But because you're a human I will be polite unless you demonstrate yourself to be unworthy of courtesy.

I dont hold posession of someone else's eyes. Pretending I own the light bouncing from my body and coming into your eyes and that you are robbing it away from me or something makes no sense.

If you are not taking my body away from me in any way, in which way are you challenging my ownership of it? you are not. If someone is using his eyes to see at the most interesting thing in the enviroment for him, if it happened to be my body, well, it happened to be it.

I cant challenge his ownership of his eyes by pretending to have authority over what he decides to look or not.

A human being is NOT like the rest of the environment. Unlike the rest of the environment, you do have the right to tell someone to stop doing something that's making you uncomfortable.

 

[Quintessence]

Not that I've been following this thread much, but ownership or not of one's eyes doesn't seem like the issue to me. The issue is being politely asked to do something by another human being and either regarding it or disregarding it.

Person A: Hey, stop staring at me.
Person B: *keeps staring*

That is what I would call a lack of manners.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not that I've been following this thread much, but ownership or not of one's eyes doesn't seem like the issue to me. The issue is being politely asked to do something by another human being and either regarding it or disregarding it.

Person A: Hey, stop staring at me.
Person B: *keeps staring*

That is what I would call a lack of manners.

:clapTHANK you.

 

[Me Myself]

Which is what you're doing when you compare a living body with a nonliving object. You're not doing it consciously, but you are doing it.

Nope.

That's like saying that by comparing scooby doo and snoopy, I am subconsciously thinking both are made by Hannha Barbera.

Comparing means you talk about two things and talk about their similarities, which of curse does not mean they are completely equal.

A human being is NOT like the rest of the environment. Unlike the rest of the environment, you do have the right to tell someone to stop doing something that's making you uncomfortable.

Of course you have the right to tell him that.

And he has the right to keep watching whatever he finds more interesting.

You cant legislate people's sight , that's just wrong.

 

[Me Myself]

Not that I've been following this thread much, but ownership or not of one's eyes doesn't seem like the issue to me. The issue is being politely asked to do something by another human being and either regarding it or disregarding it.

Person A: Hey, stop staring at me.
Person B: *keeps staring*

That is what I would call a lack of manners.

The point is that it has nothing to do with objectification.

 

[Riverwolf]

Nope.

That's like saying that by comparing scooby doo and snoopy, I am saying both are made by Hannha Barbera.

Comparing means you talk about two things and talk about their similarities, which of curse does not mean they are completely equal.

But they're NOT similar in this instance. A car doesn't have feelings. A human being does, and basic social rules dictate to take those feelings into account when doing anything involving them.

Of course you have the right to tell him that.

And he has the right to keep watching whatever he finds more interesting.

I'm not "whatever".

 

[Riverwolf]

The point is that it has nothing to do with objectification.

Yes it does, because it's regarding another human's feelings as relevant as a car's feelings.

 

[Me Myself]

But they're NOT similar in this instance. A car doesn't have feelings.

My butt doesnt has feelings, my hands doesnt have feelings, my face doesnt have feelings.

I can feel however I like about people thinking snoopy has anything to do with Hannah Barbera or about people looking at my face, butt or hands. Or about them looking at my car, my T-shirt, my shoes, etc.

I'm not "whatever".

"sure"

 

[Me Myself]

Yes it does, because it's regarding another human's feelings as relevant as a car's feelings.

Nope, in the example I am comparingth owner's feelings towards his car being watched to the owner feelings toards his body being watched.

I wasnt talking about any car feelings.

 

[Riverwolf]

My butt doesnt has feelings, my hands doesnt have feelings, my face doesnt have feelings.

YOU do, and those being part of you, by extension... yes they do, because you do.

"sure"

You really don't get what I meant?

Nope, in the example I am comparingth owner's feelings towards his car being watched to the owner feelings toards his body being watched.

I wasnt talking about any car feelings.

A person's relationship with his body is COMPLETELY different to a person's relationship to his car, so different that the two aren't remotely comparable.

 

[Me Myself]

YOU do, and those being part of you, by extension... yes they do, because you do.

As far as we know so far, that is just biologically wrong.

A person's relationship with his body is COMPLETELY different to a person's relationship to his car, so different that the two aren't remotely comparable.

relationship of everyone towards everything is different. Just because I really really really like and care for my body does not mean I can demand other people not to look at it in a way that has any serious authority.

Unless I am an army officer talking to a subodinate or something.

 

[Me Myself]

You really don't get what I meant?

Hard to explain. You are you, me is me, everything is everything whatever is whatever.

I think I caught the general vive of what you wanted to express, but I dont agree with what I think you think it should mean.

 

[Riverwolf]

As far as we know so far, that is just biologically wrong.

They are not separate from you.

relationship of everyone towards everything is different. Just because I really really really like and care for my body does not mean I can demand other people not to look at it in a way that has any serious authority.

Yes you can, and this has nothing to do with liking your body.

Hard to explain. You are you, me is me, everything is everything whatever is whatever.

I think I caught the general vive of what you wanted to express, but I dont agree with what I think you think it should mean.

I'm not a what. I'm a who. Is that not the case?

 

[DallasApple]

They are not separate from you.



Yes you can, and this has nothing to do with liking your body.



I'm not a what. I'm a who. Is that not the case?

I can't frubal you more or I would.

 

[Me Myself]

They are not separate from you.

following this line of discussion will get really phylosophical really fast, but they are separate enough.

"me" is my experience. Everything else is a what. My face is a means to my experience.

I am way more intimate to my feelings than I am to the physical face.

This being so, I feel way more intimately attached to my right to percieve the world around me than on quarreling over the right of others to stare at my face.

So I can pretend it is against my "personhood" to think that I objectify people by looking wherever I want, because you are disregarding or ignoring my view of what is or is not correct by prohibiting me from seeing you.

Ultimately, it turns ridiculous.

It's perception. We all have the right to percieve around.

Yes you can, and this has nothing to do with liking your body.

should have said felt attached to instead of liking.

The thing is that people are free to ignore other people's requests. This is not the same as ignoring their personhood.

You wouldnt care about being looked if you werent looking at the person. It's just caprichious. If you dont lik the other person looking at you, look somewhere else.

Yes you can, and this has nothing to do with liking your body.

I'm not a what. I'm a who. Is that not the case?

False dichotomy. Who is a more specific form of what.

what  
Use What in a sentence
what [hwuht, hwot, wuht, wot; unstressed hwuht, wuht] Show IPA
pronoun
1.
(used interrogatively as a request for specific information): What is the matter?
2.
(used interrogatively to inquire about the character, occupation, etc., of a person): What does he do?
3.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the origin, identity, etc., of something): What are those birds?
4.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the worth, usefulness, force, or importance of something): What is wealth without friends?
5.
(used interrogatively to request a repetition of words or information not fully understood, usually used in elliptical constructions): You need what?



noun
17.
the true nature or identity of something, or the sum of its characteristics: a lecture on the whats and hows of crop rotation.



Thing
noun
3.
Informal. a person or thing of some value or consequence: He is really something! This writer has something to say and she says it well.


If I must choose between who and what I must choose what because the who is includd in the what where this doesnt happend the other way around.