Dr. Peterson Weighs in on Self-Abuse

[_Fortigurn]

I agree that we are hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually. That is not the same as sexual objectification, which is a matter of conscious decision making.

Hmm. I suppose I can't readily see where a bright line would be drawn distinguishing the two, although the two ends of the spectrum are obvious to me.

Sexual stimulation is a biological response which does not necessitate conscious thought. Sexual objectification is a conscious decision which does require conscious thought.

A lot of married people are going to be very unhappy to find out their fantasies are now fair game.

I don't understand what you're saying.

[_Yoda]

Does this mean I have to give up Pierce Brosnan?

Perish the thought!

That would mean I would have to give up Harrison Ford!

[_harmony]

I agree that we are hardwired to be sexually stimulated visually. That is not the same as sexual objectification, which is a matter of conscious decision making.

Hmm. I suppose I can't readily see where a bright line would be drawn distinguishing the two, although the two ends of the spectrum are obvious to me.

Sexual stimulation is a biological response which does not necessitate conscious thought. Sexual objectification is a conscious decision which does require conscious thought.

A lot of married people are going to be very unhappy to find out their fantasies are now fair game.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Liz does. Are you saying all sexual fantasies are bad/evil/a sin? Because if you are, my neighbor (the HC's wife who shops at Fredricks of Hollywood for her costumes) is going to very upset. They have a very active sex life, based on her fantasies. I don't see how that's wrong or anyone else's business.

[_Yoda]

Liz does. Are you saying all sexual fantasies are bad/evil/a sin? Because if you are, my neighbor (the HC's wife who shops at Fredricks of Hollywood for her costumes) is going to very upset. They have a very active sex life, based on her fantasies. I don't see how that's wrong or anyone else's business.

Agreed.

Victoria's Secret and Priscilla's have some nice things as well. ;)

[_Some Schmo]

A man who is conditioned to sexually objectify women is a man whose likelihood of treating them with respect and appropriate behaviour is significantly reduced. He doesn't have to be acting out his fantasies on them for his sexual objectification of them to result in behaviour towards women which is inappropriate at best, or harmful at worst.

References?

[Guest]

I do not believe that sexual objectification is ever a healthy state of mind. I do not believe that 'It doesn't matter what goes on inside your head, just as long as you keep it there'. I do not believe it's ok for people to fantasize about stabbing people in the face several times a day, as long as they don't actually do it. I do not believe it's ok for a man to fantasize about raping women on a daily basis, just as long ashe doesn't do it.

I do not believe in 'Well he's only keeping his sexual fantasies in his head, it's not as if he's acting them out, so his sexual objectification of women doesn't matter'. A man who is conditioned to sexually objectify women is a man whose likelihood of treating them with respect and appropriate behaviour is significantly reduced. He doesn't have to be acting out his fantasies on them for his sexual objectification of them to result in behaviour towards women which is inappropriate at best, or harmful at worst.

I think there's a big difference between harmless sex fantasies, in which, I would guess, hundreds of millions of normal, reasonably well-adjusted people engage, and violent fantasies about killing, rape, and the like.

I find your position on this a bit absolutist and extreme, although I share your concern about the ill effects of objectification.

As a general rule, I oppose gratuitious objectification, or that which crosses some ill-defined line, but I think zero tolerance is unreasonable and contrary to human nature. A key in this, I think, is that we understand, and internalize, moral rules that constrains our "objectification" within morally or socially acceptable bounds.

We all have socially or morally unacceptable impulses, but most of us learn how to control them within morally or socially acceptable bounds. I repeat, there are probably millions of men and women who engage, at times, in sexual objectification via pornography, but the vast majority of these place this behavior within reasonable socially, and arguable morally, acceptable bounds. The causal link between casual sexual objectification and anti-social tendencies is very weak and does not play out in 99% or so, I would guess, of cases.

As a final comment, I am well aware that objectification dulls our capacity for empathy and is a often an enabler in truly henious acts. I don't mean to diminish its potential gravity, I just think that casual sexual objectification (e.g., via fantasies or porn viewing) is, for the most part, pretty tame stuff.

[_Yoda]

A man who is conditioned to sexually objectify women is a man whose likelihood of treating them with respect and appropriate behaviour is significantly reduced. He doesn't have to be acting out his fantasies on them for his sexual objectification of them to result in behaviour towards women which is inappropriate at best, or harmful at worst.

References?

I would be interested in references as well.

I think there should be a solid distinction here between "normal" sexual fantasies and violent sexual fantasies.

I agree that child porn is harmful to the psyche, and downright evil. I also think that some of the more violent images Fort portrayed earlier in his post are not acceptable, and if a person is fantasizing about bashing someone's face in, or raping someone, he or she probably needs to be psychoanalyzed.

I think that fantasy can have a healthy place in a committed sexual relationship, though. If you are comfortable enough with your partner to communicate fantasies, and have fun experimenting, fun can be had by all! :)

[_KimberlyAnn]

I really don't care what DCP has to say on the topic.

Does anyone see anything strange in the first para of this post by "Kadahow"?

Having treated sex offenders I would like to put a thought or two here.

All the sex offenders I treated had to break away from a rich fantasy life. Fantasy about having sex with children, non-consentual sex, and other forms of sexual outlets. What went along with the fantasies was the masterbation. Some clients didn't have too much of a problem, where other clients had a great deal of a problem, like masterbating 10-12 times a day. To change behaviors they had to change life styles. They had to drop the fantasies. In fact there is a treatment mode that was used using masterbation and adult pornography (soft or hard). I chose not to use that method because it still taught the men that its okay to have objects (fantasy removed the humanity of his fantasy victim) of sexual contact, I wanted them to see people (man or woman) as real, children as real and that all could hurt because of his desires and acting out.

I can't put much stock in Kadahow's opinions about masturbation, when he/she obviously can't even spell it. If this was part of your work, wouldn't you be able to spell it correctly? Plus, the method of requiring a teen boy to ask a girl if he can use her as yank material sounds abusive.

Not only is requiring a teen boy to ask a girl's permission to fantasize about her abusive to the boy, it would undoubtedly be disturbing to most girls! I know I wouldn't want to be asked; it's creepy. There may be some girls who would get a kick out of it, but I wouldn't be one of them. Also, though I doubt I'm the object of any man's fantasies (except hopefully my husband's), I would take no offense if I were and wouldn't feel objectified in the least. I definietly do not want to be asked for permission, though!

Also, there is nothing wrong with sexual fantasies. There's a huge difference in fantasizing about lovemaking and imagining stabbing someone in the face, as was used as an example in an earlier post. Fantasizing about sex and actually doing it are two different things. I, for one, would rather be doing it with my husband than fantasizing about it with someone else.

KA

[_Dr. Shades]

I'll go ahead and ask:

Is there anything inherently wrong with objectification?

[_Some Schmo]

I'll go ahead and ask:

Is there anything inherently wrong with objectification?

Nope, but there seems to be something wrong with admitting to doing it.

The word "objectification" is just one of those baggage laden words that the shrill will use when arguing against porn without any credible evidence to back up their claims. Objectification is simply un-god-like, and who can feel good about making baby Jesus cry?