Is your body an object?

[Riverwolf]

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.

Your average person doesn't think this way, and in public, you have to accommodate whatever culture you're in, regardless of whether you agree or not.

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.

Not the same. You can control where you look, but you can't control who looks at you and how.

should have said felt attached to instead of liking.

Still wouldn't matter.

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

In this case, it absolutely is.

You wouldnt care about being looked if you werent looking at the person.

Yes I would, actually, and so would most others.

It's threatening.

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.

Semantic drivel.

 

[Me Myself]

You started with the semantic stuff. I merely continued it .

Overriding someone's authority over his own eyes because you feel uncofortable is just crazy.

As much as I look up thankully I dont find anything saying it is ilegal to stare at someone. Just "unpolite".

So given that it is not an inherent right to "not be stared at" then staring at someone has nothing to do with prtending said someone is an object. People simply dont get a great deal of control over what other people look at, unless we are talking about you being followed for example.

 

[Riverwolf]

Overriding someone's authority over his own eyes because you feel uncofortable is just crazy.

Which is why that's not what's being proposed. We're asking YOU to exercise some authority over your eyes.

I know you don't hail from the school of thought that identifies the self with the body, but for the sake of this particular argument, ASSUME that we are equally our bodies as much as our minds.

Because 99% of the women you'd be staring at are under that school of thought, and YOU, being in their presence and part of their culture, are socially obligated to accommodate that.

 

[Me Myself]

Which is why that's not what's being proposed. We're asking YOU to exercise some authority over your eyes.

I know you don't hail from the school of thought that identifies the self with the body, but for the sake of this particular argument, ASSUME that we are equally our bodies as much as our minds.

Because 99% of the women you'd be staring at are under that school of thought, and YOU, being in their presence and part of their culture, are socially obligated to accommodate that.

Even if I am my body, other people are free to see me. My body is not hurt by someone else's gaze.

That's why there are no laws against it. There is no inherent right to control who looks at you how.

 

[Riverwolf]

Even if I am my body, other people are free to see me. My body is not hurt by someone else's gaze.

You're somehow free from being creeped out, it seems.

But considering that's not the way it is with most people, you have to accommodate those who DO get creeped out. Don't use yourself as a model for how others think and behave.

That's why there are no laws against it. There is no inherent right to control who looks at you how.

There is no LEGAL right(nor should there be because there's no measurable harm), but that doesn't change the fact that continuing to stare after having been asked not to is absolutely objectification as society has chosen to define that term, whether you like it or not, because doing so indicates that you don't care about the person's desires; you just care about their body (whether that's actually the case or not.)

Honestly, dude, your entire argument pretty much just boils down to "You're not the boss of me!" That's simply not good enough.

 

[Me Myself]

You're somehow free from being creeped out, it seems.

But considering that's not the way it is with most people, you have to accommodate those who DO get creeped out.

1- A lot of things creep me out, they dont become a direct disrespect to me or objectification just becuse they creep me out.

2-To that which I have, I have. To that which is not necessar I have no obligation.

There is no LEGAL right(nor should there be because there's no measurable harm), but that doesn't change the fact that continuing to stare after having been asked not to is absolutely objectification as society has chosen to define that term, whether you like it or not, because doing so indicates that you don't care about the person's desires; you just care about their body (whether that's actually the case or not.)

Nope, just care about the view in this case. It's like the sky, the sun or a tree. They are there. You can see them and admire their beauty.

Society is composed by individual entities. I dont have to agree to popular terms at all. The forum would be limited to polls to find out what the current society truth is and people noding to them.


The thing is staring at someone is just staring. You are not "using" them, you are just watching. For most people "using" requires some type of handling if we go by popular consensus terms. Using the Tv means you dont let other people change channel for example.

"Using" the tree because you are watching it is not a common term. So I object to using the term objectfication for sing your natural right to admire anything in your enviroment. This of course includes people, as we are not invisible.

 

[Me Myself]

Honestly, dude, your entire argument pretty much just boils down to "You're not the boss of me!" That's simply not good enough.

Your argument says that people must force themselves to look away from beauty becase someone decides to take offense. Its not good enough.

You can own your body but not the light bouncing out of it to give me it's image, that is ridiculous.

 

[Riverwolf]

Your argument says that people must force themselves to look away from beauty becase someone decides to take offense. Its not good enough.

It is good enough when the person taking offense is the person you're deliberately making uncomfortable.

 

[Riverwolf]

1- A lot of things creep me out, they dont become a direct disrespect to me or objectification just becuse they creep me out.

2-To that which I have, I have. To that which is not necessar I have no obligation.

Nope, just care about the view in this case. It's like the sky, the sun or a tree. They are there. You can see them and admire their beauty.

And, again, they're nonliving, and so your analogy is worthless, and comparing them to living humans is objectification.

Society is composed by individual entities. I dont have to agree to popular terms at all. The forum would be limited to polls to find out what the current society truth is and people noding to them.

...What? I don't follow.

The thing is staring at someone is just staring. You are not "using" them, you are just watching. For most people "using" requires some type of handling if we go by popular consensus terms. Using the Tv means you dont let other people change channel for example.

"Using" the tree because you are watching it is not a common term. So I object to using the term objectfication for sing your natural right to admire anything in your enviroment. This of course includes people, as we are not invisible.

Who said anything about "using"?

 

[Me Myself]

And, again, they're nonliving, and so your analogy is worthless, and comparing them to living humans is objectification.

Again, Snoopy has nothing to do with Hanah Barbera.

Who said anything about "using"?

people usually use the term using as they associate it with objectification.

Staring at someone has nothing to do with denyng his personhood. For denying his personhood you need to do something you wouldnt do to another human being or wouldnt have done unto yourself.

If you are not puting them down as inferior to you then you either dont consider yourself a person or you are not objectifying them. As simple as that.

 

[Me Myself]

It is good enough when the person taking offense is the person you're deliberately making uncomfortable.

There is a difference between delibertely making uncomfortable and simply not taking orders from them under something they have no jurisdiction on.

We are both persons. I dont have authority over their eyes, they dont have authority over mine. No one is being denied personhood, I am simply denying a person's monopoly over light bouncing over his body.

 

[Riverwolf]

Again, Snoopy has nothing to do with Hanah Barbera.

That analogy still fails, because Snoopy and Hanah Barbera cartoons share more in common than living objects and nonliving objects do in regards to this argument.

people usually use the term using as they associate it with objectification.

Staring at someone has nothing to do with denyng his personhood. For denying his personhood you need to do something you wouldnt do to another human being or wouldnt have done unto yourself.

Right. Such as continuing to stare after being told to stop.

If you are not puting them down as inferior to you then you either dont consider yourself a person or you are not objectifying them. As simple as that.

Like I said earlier: most of this is subconscious, and yes, objectification is quite hypocritical.

Regarding yourself as a person doesn't automatically give allowance to all behaviors towards other human beings.

There is a difference between delibertely making uncomfortable and simply not taking orders from them under something they have no jurisdiction on.

Which, when it has the added effect of making the other person uncomfortable, and you know it's making the other person uncomfortable, then no, there is no difference.

'Sides, this has nothing to do with jurisdictions.

We are both persons. I dont have authority over their eyes, they dont have authority over mine. No one is being denied personhood, I am simply denying a person's monopoly over light bouncing over his body.

No, you're not. That's a pathetic excuse, and is nothing more than a complete misuse of scientific terms and effects in order to justify an objectifying act.

When someone tells you to stop staring, they're not taking authority over your eyes. That's your own pet rhetoric that frankly makes no sense, because it implies you a. have no control over your eyes, and/or b. you're blind and your eyes just happen to end up in their directions.

And, for the record, not all rights are legally-based. People have a right not to put up with rudeness, for example, provided their retaliation, if any, does not break the law (such as slapping, which, while I do approve in some cases such as with groping, could constitute assault), but shouldn't have to relocate to a different restaurant even after they've already paid.

 

[dawny0826]

Is your body an object?

My body is an object in this universe. It's visible, tangible and it has form.

In terms of objectificitation, behind this flesh bag, is an opinionated person, with feelings and thoughts and fortunately, I have rights and there are restrictions in terms as to how people can view and touch this body.

The human body can be viewed through so many different lenses and perspectives.

 

[Me Myself]

That analogy still fails, because Snoopy and Hanah Barbera cartoons share more in common than living objects and nonliving objects do in regards to this argument.

Right. Such as continuing to stare after being told to stop.

Like I said earlier: most of this is subconscious, and yes, objectification is quite hypocritical.

Regarding yourself as a person doesn't automatically give allowance to all behaviors towards other human beings.



Which, when it has the added effect of making the other person uncomfortable, and you know it's making the other person uncomfortable, then no, there is no difference.

'Sides, this has nothing to do with jurisdictions.

No, you're not. That's a pathetic excuse, and is nothing more than a complete misuse of scientific terms and effects in order to justify an objectifying act.

When someone tells you to stop staring, they're not taking authority over your eyes. That's your own pet rhetoric that frankly makes no sense, because it implies you a. have no control over your eyes, and/or b. you're blind and your eyes just happen to end up in their directions.

And, for the record, not all rights are legally-based. People have a right not to put up with rudeness, for example, provided their retaliation, if any, does not break the law (such as slapping, which, while I do approve in some cases such as with groping, could constitute assault), but shouldn't have to relocate to a different restaurant even after they've already paid.

At contrair. Sayng that it is me who chooses what to do with my eyes doesnt mean at all I dont have control on what I do with them. I dont know how you reach that conclusion. Saying that I must abide by other people's command as to what I may look or not, does say I do not have authority over my eyes, because someone else is being given bigger authority.



Which, when it has the added effect of making the other person uncomfortable, and you know it's making the other person uncomfortable, then no, there is no difference.


thats just literally false



Like I said earlier: most of this is subconscious, and yes, objectification is quite hypocritical.


If objectification most be hypocritical, then it cannotr be objectification to hold up someone against the same rights that you hold yourself.

As such, by me recognising the rights of all persons (including those I may find creepy) to use their eyes freely even if this involves choosing to look at me beyond my point of comfort, then me staring beyond the point of comfort of someone else has nothing to do with objectification.

I just noticed the whole argument can be reduced to the fact that me an you differ on which are the rights of humans in this specific regard. Because you put as a right something I do not (for anyone or myself) and ignore a right I do see we all have(using our eyes freely) for everyone too, then of course you believe someone "must" be seeing someone else as an object if they stare.

So ultimately, you are not really talking about objectiication, just baout your perception of human rights, which is where we differ.

Being does not negate personhood unless the person staring beleives himself to be above this.

Because it is equal in rights, it cannot be "objectifying" someone if the alleged objectifier is not infringing what s/he would percive to be hir rights.

 

[Riverwolf]

At contrair. Sayng that it is me who chooses what to do with my eyes doesnt mean at all I dont have control on what I do with them. I dont know how you reach that conclusion. Saying that I must abide by other people's command as to what I may look or not, does say I do not have authority over my eyes, because someone else is being given bigger authority.

Discard this "authority" nonsense; it's not helping you understand me, because it has nothing to do with my argument.

As such, by me recognising the rights of all persons (including those I may find creepy) to use their eyes freely even if this involves choosing to look at me beyond my point of comfort, then me staring beyond the point of comfort of someone else has nothing to do with objectification.

No, that just means you believe that people have a right to objectify others, since others have a right to objectify you.

It's still objectification to disregard the wishes of another for you to stop something involving them that makes them uncomfortable.

Being does not negate personhood unless the person staring beleives himself to be above this.

This means that if you think it's okay for people to walk up and punch you, it's perfectly okay for you to do the same to them.

This line of thinking is not good for living in a world where people disagree. That's why we have social standards in the first place, so people can go out in the world and still be comfortable, and not be threatened by others. Yes, people find staring threatening.