Dr. Peterson Weighs in on Self-Abuse

[_guy sajer]

I'll go ahead and ask:

Is there anything inherently wrong with objectification?

Well, yes and no, depends on context and to what extreme.

I believe that the human capacity for empathy is the root of human morality. Objectification can dull, and in extreme cases, destroy empathy. In examples of extreme inhumanity/cruelty (e.g., persecution of Jews during Nazi Germany, slavery, Rawanda genocide, etc.), I think you'll find that a pre-condition was the objectification of entire groups of people. So, a Hutu justifies killing a Tutu, because the Tutu is not human but an object--a "cockroach."

The question, rephrased, is whether it is inherently wrong to ever see someone as less than human? The answer is probably yes.

Do normal sexual fantasies strip people of their humanity? I'd say no. But certainly sexual fantasies can and do cross this line. Where's the line? I'm not sure.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I'll go ahead and ask:

Is there anything inherently wrong with objectification?

Yes.

First, fantasizing about someone sexually isn't necessarliy objectifying them, at least I don't think so.

Second, to truly objectify someone would mean, as I hope we all know, to treat them as an object. Treating people impersonally and as less than human, as if they didn't have feelings or needs is inherently wrong. It especially becomes a dangerous issue if men or women objectify the opposite sex in general, but I don't feel that sexual fantasy necessarily equals objectification in most cases, though it may in some. Men and women who treat other people as objects in general will treat others as objects in their fantasies.

I do think rape fantasies objectify women.

KA

[_Some Schmo]

After reading the last two responses, I think it's worth qualifying what you mean by the word "objectification."

I view this word in light of how it's commonly used: "viewing people as objects of sexual fantasy." In this context, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Dehumanizing is a different (or, at least, more extreme) use of the word.

[_Dr. Shades]

The question, rephrased, is whether it is inherently wrong to ever see someone as less than human? The answer is probably yes.

Second, to truly objectify someone would mean, as I hope we all know, to treat them as an object. Treating people impersonally and as less than human, as if they didn't have feelings or needs is inherently wrong.

Okay, how about this: What about cases of objectification in which the "object" is considered a fantastic or wonderful thing?

[_Yoda]

Objectification is simply un-god-like, and who can feel good about making baby Jesus cry?

ROTFLMAO!

I love Talladega Nights, too!

[_KimberlyAnn]

The question, rephrased, is whether it is inherently wrong to ever see someone as less than human? The answer is probably yes.

Second, to truly objectify someone would mean, as I hope we all know, to treat them as an object. Treating people impersonally and as less than human, as if they didn't have feelings or needs is inherently wrong.

Okay, how about this: What about cases of objectification in which the "object" is considered a fantastic or wonderful thing?

Okay, Dr. Shades, I said I didn't want you to ask permission! :P (Where are the emoticons on this site? Are we supposed to be too sophisticated for those?)

KA

[_guy sajer]

The question, rephrased, is whether it is inherently wrong to ever see someone as less than human? The answer is probably yes.

Second, to truly objectify someone would mean, as I hope we all know, to treat them as an object. Treating people impersonally and as less than human, as if they didn't have feelings or needs is inherently wrong.

Okay, how about this: What about cases of objectification in which the "object" is considered a fantastic or wonderful thing?

You're referring, I presume, to me?

I don't mind at all, as long as my admirers don't peek inside my windows, plant video or recording devises where I do "that which has been done on other worlds," or have a penchant for violence using firearms or butcher knives.

[_Dr. Shades]

Okay, how about this: What about cases of objectification in which the "object" is considered a fantastic or wonderful thing?

Okay, Dr. Shades, I said I didn't want you to ask permission! :P

In your case, if I don't ask permission, I could get arrested!

(Where are the emoticons on this site? Are we supposed to be too sophisticated for those?)

Yes.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Okay, how about this: What about cases of objectification in which the "object" is considered a fantastic or wonderful thing?

Okay, Dr. Shades, I said I didn't want you to ask permission! :P

In your case, if I don't ask permission, I could get arrested!

(Where are the emoticons on this site? Are we supposed to be too sophisticated for those?)

Yes.

Wow! Those must be some fantasies if you could get arrested for them! ;)

Are you having them in a public restroom?

KA

[_skippy the dead]

Returning to the thread on the MAD board: Is MorningStar serious with her posts on page 6 of the thread?

From the Miracle of Forgiveness (pp.77-78):
<skippy snip>

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation - practiced with another person of the same sex - and thence into total homosexuality.

As you see, President Kimball wasn't saying masturbation could make someone turn into a homosexual, but it could lead to doing that with another person of the same sex, which could lead to homosexuality.

Masturbation involves fantasy. When that fantasy is no longer exciting enough, the person often will fantasize about something more exciting, turn to porn, it becomes boring, so they turn to even worse porn, and masturbation conditions that person to find some things acceptable that they used to find repulsive. They learn to associate those things with feeling good. It is like a drug addict going to stronger drugs because they're not getting that same high they used to get. I'm not saying every person who masturbates will become an addict, but it's a definite danger and can interfere with their future romantic life with their spouse because they become desensitized to normal relations.

(Tarski @ Apr 18 2007, 01:51 PM)

Can you show some empirical evidence that when practiced in moderation like it is by most people, is harmful to our happiness?

Plenty of folks have experience both in abstaining and its converse and can testify that it makes not one wit of difference to happiness except in so far as one adopts misplaced guilt. One may as well worry about the soul polluting power of popping one's knuckles.

Can you show me empirical evidence that it's practiced in moderation by most people?

Masturbation can lead to porn addiction, affairs (even with prostitutes), frequenting of strip clubs, loss of trust, disinterest in one's spouse sexually, ED, and other problems. It has much more potential to ruin a marriage and cause one to lose the respect of one's children. Sexual addiction is frequently accompanied by lying about one's behavior, which is even more harmful than the behavior, but obesity is something a person can't hide. In fact, some sexual addicts will even blame their spouse for their addiction, saying they're not attractive enough, yet they continue to offer them the pie so they can keep blaming them rather than admit they have a problem. Or they will complain they don't give them enough intimacy and repeatedly reject their spouse.

In the end, however, I think phaedrus ut gets a gold star for the best response:

How many more kittens must die!