Talk:Sexual objectification

	This sexuality related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Stare rape

I heard the loaded phrase "stare rape" thrown around before. It describes the phenomenon of men gazing at women but makes it a snarl phrase. Should we even bother acknowledging radical feminists?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a non-issue

the title may be somewhat misleading but I believe it is a non issue objectification of people is not an issue as objectification, is for a matter of factly somewhat true, I think in this case we're talking about reduction to body and appearance, why is that an issue. The whole basis for enjoying say art is body and appearance theres nothing wrong with enjoying something beautiful and not beautiful and making stuff like that so the viewers of media can enjoy it if anything those going against so called "sexual objectification" are simply being christian conservatives under a progressive guise taking away common sense and fun for issues that keep in mind are based upon things that are more good. It's like freedom of speech there are downsides to my interpretation of it as being Noam Chomsky's interpretation of absolutist or near absolutist free speech but in principle it is superior but in this case in simple basics it is superior. ^{— Unsigned, by: Samuelzhzhhz / talk / contribs}

@Samuelzhzhhz You seem very confused. Sexual objectification, specifically, is not admiring someone as beautiful or whathaveyou, it is reducing them down to sexual appeal in majority or entirety. This is not bad per se, as in some social interactions it is in fact a mutually desired outcome, but an object of lust is not treated in a humanized manner. We do not, for example, watch porn to learn the actor's hopes and dreams, to hear about their day, to treat them as humans. We watch porn because we find the scene or scenes sexually arousing. All of this is encompassed term itself, objectification, or the act of reducing to an object, a non-person. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

sorry for responding years later, but what makes a person's hopes and dreams any less objectifying than their sexuality and physical body?

Reducing then entirely to sexual appeal is not what we do when we watch porn, porn is like art, we appreciate the art ans i see nothing wrong with it, just like i see nothing wrong with someone sitting down in front of some stupid painting of a canvas with randomly splashed paint all over it. We understand that there is a person behind it but that we are appreciating their sexual appeal first and foremost, secondly, there is the question of sexappeal vs not sex appeal, because i think you are forgetting the fact than most Simps dont necessarily just simp for the prettiest girl around, they also like a good personality. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:448a:1082:6ac4:b07a:2059:b43b:9306 / talk / contribs}

But art itself can be sexually objectifying. To turn someone to an object to be acted upon is basically the definition of objectification, and if there is not a explicit depiction or subtext hinting to additional character, or sense of humanity, or implication to the subjects unique subjectivity then the art can be objectifying and often is. I believe that porn itself doesn't necessarily have to be sexually objectifying given performers are provided with agency in how they are depicted, and what acts they are willing to perform without social or economic pressure (which is only the case up to an certain extent depending on the dynamics of the studio and production company). But most performers in most mainstream pornography do not get provided this explicit sense of agency or provided a real human personality to the character they play. Often they are only depicted and used solely towards serving the sexual gratification of the viewer. That is objectifying, and pornography being art doesn't negate that. Most pornography does not put an effort in depicting a real human personality besides "submissive slut" in service to the male gaze. Adult performers have complained about this before. Sexual objectification is not something solely decided by the consumer of the product. It is about the presentation and agency of the subject in the artwork as well. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

And what is then particularly wrong about it and thus i defend my point that it is indeed a non issue. To add, to thatthe male gaze i similarly a non issue, even more obviously so, it is just people complaining that the majority gets what they want, to put it into perspective, i play grand strategy video games, I complain bout not getting more games, well yes because the majority doesnt like grand strategy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:448a:1082:6ac4:90e9:7aca:4adb:16a5 / talk 15:47, 21 August 2022}

Even a cursory glance at the wikipedia page on sexual objectification will cite multiple studies stating the negative psychological effects of objectification. Something seemingly sort of obvious considering that objectification is dehumanizing by definition. Valuing people soley for their sexual attributes contributes to significant issues in self-esteem, self-image, and confidence in one’s abilities and non-physical characteristics. All of this can feed into issues of body dysmorphia, gender inequality, and eating disorders. Sure something seems like a “non-issue” when you won’t even take the most basic steps to learning what the issue even is. How would you feel if people primarily treated you as a good looking hole to fuck? Acted as if you have no valuable skills, talents, or intelligence? That your autonomy and sense of self is meaningless, that your consent does not matter? That’s what we are talking about when we talk about sexual objectification. A sexual object is one who is a passive instrument who is acted upon, a sexual subject is someone who actively acts upon their desires and has their subjectivity and autonomy affirmed and respected. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC).

Actually, if you are addicted to thinking about women for their sex appeal, then that does have a subconscious effect on your brain that makes it harder to see women for the people they are, and you should not underestimate the effect that your subconscious thoughts have on your behavior. Separating what you know about a woman's humanity and the pleasure you get from their sex appeal is not as easy as you think. 149.19.32.94 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I am returning here aftrr quite a while. So to point out things, I generally ignore the negative psychological effects here, which we can point to almost anything and say it has a negative psychological effect in some way. Paddington can probably have a negative psychological effect because he is so perfectly good. Instead I would like to question in principle what is wrong with sexual objectification, I'l grant thr assumption that humans are more signifigant than objects in some way. What is wrong with focusing on our bodies in a sexual manner? Why is sexual objectification the only one considered problematic? Why not 'skill objectification' where we objectify people into what they can and cannot do? And what if there is no real person being the target of the objectification? ignore again the negative psychological effects. If we distinctify the body from the human, then we can say rhat appreciating the body, a thing just doesn't seem problematic at all, anymore than it is so for art. ^{— Unsigned, by: 114.122.68.81 / talk / contribs}

That's a false dichotomy. For the capitalist skill objectification is "good" because growth and productivity! We all know your worth as a human being is measured solely on how much profit you can generate for your corporate overlords. Just like for the sexist sexual objectification is "good" because of fertility rates and stay in the kitchen, damnit! Both can be harmful at the same time. It's not a competition. Carthage (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't even comprehend the BoN's writing in in that above post, I am surprised you were able to pull out something coherent to respond to. Kid is literally making up words as they go along. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sexual objectification is not good because of fertility rates and stay in the kitchen, ask porn watchers and a good chunk of them like femdom. I'm not saying skill objectification is or is not wrong, but rather pointing out that perhaps the reason the opposition to sexual objectification is to do with sex rather than objectification, we have to simplify things a lot, it's in our nature, what does it mean to reduce a person to an object? What I mean is I don't see where the line ends and a human begins. What is the difference between objectification and treating a person as a full human being? And I mean objectification in the general non sexual sense as I want clarity on this. As for you sorta dumb, I'll just say your username speaks for itself.

MrEnter's hot take

I don't disagree with this one particular take but it probably should be mentioned that he's a garbage media critic who spread doubt about vaccination during the pandemic and was infamous briefly for his spiel against Turning Red for not showcasing the events of 9-11. Can we find better and more thorough critiques of the trope that men are sex-crazed perverts? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

the events of what....excuse me? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC).

this is a meme edit mocking him, but he actually said those lines lmao --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Research related to gaming floating around

I've seen it propped up in a few places as a response to the criticism that sexual objectification is harmful. Any thoughts on it? I haven't looked into the research myself yet. I really want to know the limitations of the research because objetification in games DOES make me very uncomfortable but I'm not experiencing, like, long-term detrimental mental health effects. Even if this research is slam-dunk true, why just games? Why isn't this applicable to any other industry?

• https://www.psypost.org/2022/06/sexualized-video-games-are-not-causing-harm-to-male-or-female-players-according-to-new-research-63388

--It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Moral concept evolved from the condemnation of sex out of marriage by religious traditions?

Is there any research suggesting something along those lines? In a certain way part of the discourse around this topic seems to be a secularized version of the broad shaming of impure thoughts by religious conservative traditions. Sex being sinful out of marriage is replaced by a condemnation of sexual attraction triggered by visual stimulus alone, apparently demanding suppression of such unchaste thoughts, the decent thing is to have a focus fist on intellect and personality first, not bodies/sin, "saving themselves" for after personal/intellectual connections/marriage. It's also noteworthy the contrast with some other forms of non-condemned non-sexual objectification. It's bad to find people sexually attractive based on their looks only, this kind of thought should be purged once it occurs and the attention driven to something non-sinful, but it's okay to chose sports team-mates based on they physical appearance, thinking only of athletic performance and not personality, intellect. Even sports that often put the athletes' health in jeopardy, with risks of lifelong brain damage, don't seem to be comparably as morally condemned as sexually-focused things such as naked photo shoots, deemed as sinful in religious traditions, and hateful towards women in secularized version of the same moral condemnation. Even though such work is not nearly as dangerous to one's health as many sports. Ironically, even the fashion industry, less inherently sexual, is also less morally condemned in this regard, despite the largely female-driven aesthetic standards for female models being less healthy (figures that look "skinnier"/"slimmer," although in some cases they can really be approaching obesity as it can be a result of very little muscle mass) than those that generally appeal to heterossexual males, more "bodacious," "curvy," but still not overweight or obese, except for rarer niches. The wording itself, "objectification," is somewhat problematic, as if a secular replacement for stereotypical religious vocabulary like "depravity," "perversion," "impurity," found in a hurry. In a literal reading, it pretty much implies a psychopath-level of lack of empathy, seeing people as objects. But people really sexually objectifying others would just proceed and rape them as if they were a sex doll/toy, literal objects. That's not even the case in most actual rapes. But in reality the term is not as literal, it seem to refer on an impure/morally reprehensible momentary focus on sexually attractive physical attributes, suggesting a psychopath-like lack of empathy towards the "sexual object," while it can be argued that, with most people, not being psychopaths (even men), this focus is really not that different from the "objectification" of an athlete or a worker when their performance is considered. Instances where there's no moral condemnation, as there's no sex/sin, except for actual sex work or nude modeling.

It would be good to relate it with Pornography and Unify Some Things

I just thought that Rationalwiki seems to take a sex-positive outlook on pornography and that editorial bias would be naturally weaved in here. Arguments defending it, or if it turns out that's an outlier, check the srticle on Pornography, which seems to take a pro-pornography stance surprisingly. ^{— Unsigned, by: 158.140.182.75 / talk / contribs}