Some Schmo wrote:References?
I wouldn't have thought that the statement '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' would have been contested.
Let me provide an analogy, 'A man who is conditioned to view his wife as his unqualified inferior is a man whose likelihood of treating them with respect and appropriate behaviour is signfiicantly reduced'. Would you disagree?
guy sajer wrote: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.
My point is that if the violent fantasies are not acted out, then they are equally harmless. That is why people don't rule them as immoral or unethical.
I find your position on this a bit absolutist and extreme, although I share your concern about the ill effects of objectification.
Yes, I'm sure you do. My position is that objectification is always harmful in some way, and people shouldn't do it. Your view seems to be that whilst you have concerns about the ill effects of objectification, you don't think that it's actually wrong.
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.
Objectification is learned behaviour. It's not something like breathing, which we can't live without. That being the case, I don't see why it should be tolerated. Why should we tolerate a view of other people as mere objects for our sexual gratification?
A key in this, I think, is that we understand, and internalize, moral rules that constrains our "objectification" within morally or socially acceptable bounds.
You mean we are restrained from acting out our sexual objectification fantasies?
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.
Again, you seem to say that as long as it's all in your head, then everything's fine and it's not wrong. You also seem to believe that a man who is conditioned to think of women as sexual objects will always treat them with respect and not treat them as sexual objects. Do you really believe that's true? Do you believe that a man conditioned to think that women are simply objects for his sexual gratification will treat them with uniform respect?
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.
Well that's meeting me halfway, at least.
liz3564 wrote:I think there should be a solid distinction here between "normal" sexual fantasies and violent sexual fantasies.
Who makes that distinction, and why should it be made? If neither are being acted out, where's the harm?
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'm glad we agree on this, but I recognise we woudl be in the minority. The whole point about mental objectification and fantasies is that they're in someone's mind, and they're not a danger to anyone, right? Not only that, but they're no one else's business, right?
Kimberly Ann wrote: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!
So you wouldn't take offence if you were the subject of someone's sexual fantasies, but you would find it creepy to find out that you were?
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.
If there is nothing wrong with fantasizing, and if everything's ok because it's in your head and not acted out, then what is wrong with violent fantasies which aren't acted out?
Dr. Shades wrote:Is there anything inherently wrong with objectification?
There's a wealth of research literature demonstrating that publicly displayed sexual objectification has undesirable social scripting effects, and is related directly to a range of psychological disorders among men and women (mainly women).
Some Schmo wrote: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.
The subject of this discussion is not porn. Please don't try to hijack the thread so you can rant against your demons.
guy sajer wrote: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.
I agree with you (though I would say 'absolutely' rather than 'probably'), but I realise that you and I would be in the minority.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|