Sex Object Test

[Brickjectivity]

Been watching Caroline Heldman's TED talk (warning there is a little porn in it) called The Sexy Lie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMS4VJKekW8

In it she says that both men and women are being 'Lied to', and that is the major reason why pornography and sexual objectification culture has become prevalent since the 1960's. She says that people today are so used to it that we don't recognize it anymore. I have extracted, for you, her seven questions to ask about images to determine if they objectify people sexually:

Caroline Heldman's Sex Object Test for images

1) Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person's body? (or does part stand in for the whole person)

2) Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object? (person's sexual attractiveness used to sexualize objects such as furniture, clothes, beer, etc.)

3) Does an image show a sexualized person as interchangeable? (just another body or one of many items that are swappable)

4) Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person that can't consent? (is the person being acted upon as if a sexual object)

5) Does the image suggest that the sexual availability of the person is the defining characteristic of that person?

6) Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity (something that can be bought or that can be sold)

7) Does the image treat a sexualized person's body as a mere canvas (to sell things)?

 

[Alceste]

I've seen that talk before, I think. A very thorough introduction to what is meant by "objectification". Definitely been seeing it everywhere since watching the talk. It put language behind something that has always annoyed me for vague, inexplicable reasons. Even in my own mind, especially as a teenager, I framed my negative emotional reaction as envy: I.e. "I wish I had that body so I could be attractive too". Grew out of that, thank God. It's a certain recipe for terrible sex.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Adding my opinion to the opening post I think, too, that since the 1960's porn has been sensationalized and also made scary and surrounded by rumors. People see sexual objectification as standard and necessary, and they see porn as a black hole from which no man may escape. Particularly pathetic are the numbers of people who have become convinced they are helpless to control their own appetites. Its ridiculous, but that is what people have been programmed to think.

One major rumor is that soft porn inevitable draws people into other kinds of porn, which is not true, at least not for men. This rumor spread because famous rapists were interviewed, and the hosts inevitably asked "Why? Why did you start raping?", and the rapists on TV claimed that porn caused all of their problems. They said it sucked them into an endless vortex of violence! Basically they blamed their evil actions upon porn, making themselves victims, and the TV watching public accepted their ridiculous claims. But their claims were lies. Men don't need a particular extremist level of porn or ever increasing levels of nudity and submission! All a man has to do is stroke and imagine, and that's the end of it. There is no undertow involved. Porn is not a 'Trap' or a 'Cage', but since the 1960's there have been scary campaigns and rumors that it must be so. That's the biggest major rumor.

Secondly I think there is a rumor that since people look at porn, sexual objectification in public media is relatively small beans -- that its no big deal! Men think "Who cares if women are slightly objectified in music videos when we've oggled naked models on our home computers?" and women think "I guess that's just how people are, thinking only of sex all the time. May as well try to grasp the concept." So sexual objectification is no big deal according to this rumor and something that you just have to accept.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'd bang Caroline Heldman if she was gagged.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd bang Caroline Heldman if she was gagged.

What a disgusting comment!

It should be "if she were gagged" because of the subjunctive case.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd bang Caroline Heldman if she was gagged.

Since you can't help yourself its her fault.

 

[`mud]

I forgot.......
what's sex objectification;
oh hell....what's sex ?
~
'mud

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What a disgusting comment!

It should be "if she were gagged" because of the subjunctive case.

I know. I just like to bait the grammar nazis.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Since you can't help yourself its her fault.

Oh, I could help myself. She just seems like she could use a good shagging.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh, I could help myself. She just seems like she could use a good shagging.

Personifying your objects doesn't undo the harm supposedly caused by objectification.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personifying your objects doesn't undo the harm supposedly caused by objectification.

This is the type of nonsense the gag is for.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is the type of nonsense the gag is for.

How far are you willing to go for a frubal? Go that far.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How far are you willing to go for a frubal? Go that far.

If I have a limit, I've yet to find it.

 

[At The Left Hand ov God]

< how I felt when I read this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If I have a limit, I've yet to find it.

You're still here!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You're still here!

Where else would I be?

 

[Brickjectivity]

You said you would go far for frubal.

 

[Revoltingest]

...she says that both men and women are being 'Lied to', and that is the major reason why pornography and sexual objectification culture has become prevalent since the 1960's.

This just smacks of conspiracy theory driven misunderstanding. Porn isn't what it is
because some cabal somewhere directs it. Porn is & has always been a decentralized
industry, with each player trying to deliver what the consumer wants. So naturally,
there will be a diversity of approaches, from mere photos of body parts all the way
to Playboy's making their centerfolds seem to be real people (except for the staple
in the stomach).

She says that people today are so used to it that we don't recognize it anymore. I have extracted, for you, her seven questions to ask about images to determine if they objectify people sexually:

There are plenty of people recognizing & loudly complaining about objectification.
But there is also a far less prudish control over media, & simply greater acceptance
of sex being prominent in human affairs.

1) Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person's body? (or does part stand in for the whole person)
2) Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object? (person's sexual attractiveness used to sexualize objects such as furniture, clothes, beer, etc.)
3) Does an image show a sexualized person as interchangeable? (just another body or one of many items that are swappable)
4) Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person that can't consent? (is the person being acted upon as if a sexual object)
5) Does the image suggest that the sexual availability of the person is the defining characteristic of that person?
6) Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity (something that can be bought or that can be sold)
7) Does the image treat a sexualized person's body as a mere canvas (to sell things)?

I have a partial solution: Don't buy products whose ads or themes offend one.
And to Heldman, I recommend less navel gazing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This just smacks of conspiracy theory driven misunderstanding. Porn isn't what it is
because some cabal somewhere directs it. Porn is & has always been a decentralized
industry, with each player trying to deliver what the consumer wants. So naturally,
there will be a diversity of approaches, from mere photos of body parts all the way
to Playboy's making their centerfolds seem to be real people (except for the staple
in the stomach).

Is that what the video was saying? I didn't really sense a conspiricy theory. Like you I also see no cabal in charge, but sexual ignorance can be as bad or worse.

There are plenty of people recognizing & loudly complaining about objectification.
But there is also have a far less prudish control over media, & simply greater
acceptance of sex being prominent in human affairs.

The loud complaints are partly what has given rise to the mythos that porn is an addictive drug, like it was cocaine. Since the 60's porn has been given a mystique and credited with super evil-powers. Porn has nowhere near the addictive capacity of drugs, yet it is described as an addiction on par with drugs by numerous people. I think less prudish control of the media is less of a factor than numerous warnings against the 'Dangers of pornography'. That is not what the video is about, just my own addition.

I have a partial solution: Don't buy products whose ads offend one.

I think that sometimes this applies to men but is more squarely aimed at women, since most of those kinds of ads are aimed at them.

This speaks directly to men. Watching bikinis on a beach does not destine one to become obsessed with pornography. Porn has no supernatural powers. In addition, don't buy products whose ads are offensive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If Kilgore doesn't show up I'll have to frubal him.