Dr. Peterson Weighs in on Self-Abuse

[_Fortigurn]

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

Like the way wade on this forum has described how he was taught to view women? Like the 19th century Victorian version of objectification in which women were put on pedestals and burdened by unrealistic expectations as a result? Does this need to be asked? If they're still being viewed as an object, or even as the personification of an ideal, rather than a human being, it's still wrong.

LDS leaders objectify women all the time. The ol' pedestal is alive and well in SL Central.

Perhaps Dr. Shades can tell us if he thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps Some Schmo can tell us whether he thinks that has any effect on the likelihood of Mormon men treating women with respect and appropriate behaviour.

[_beastie]

I think this point needs to be emphasized: using the phrase "objectifying" in a distinct manner, simply have sexual fantasies about a person does not mean you are objectifying them.

Objectification is an indication of a more serious underlying problem, in my opinion, the inability to view other human beings as "human" as yourself, a type of narcissism. Most people who have sexual fantasies do not have this problem.

Are women objectifying men when they have sexual fantasies about them? (sorry if this has already been addressed and I missed it, it seems an obvious question that has likely already been asked)

Harmony,

I interpreted the dude's remarks are rather tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps I misinterpreted them. His comments reminded me of a HBO documentary (those can get a bit racy) about "sex dolls" that a specialized company makes for masturbatory purposes. Kind of like a very, very, very expensive form of a blow up doll.

[_Fortigurn]

I think this point needs to be emphasized: using the phrase "objectifying" in a distinct manner, simply have sexual fantasies about a person does not mean you are objectifying them.

I've been distinguishing between sexual fantasizing and sexual objectification in order to avoid this confusion. Sexual fantasizing does not necessarily include sexual objectification.

Objectification is an indication of a more serious underlying problem, in my opinion, the inability to view other human beings as "human" as yourself, a type of narcissism. Most people who have sexual fantasies do not have this problem.

I question whether or not sexual objectification is indicative of a 'more serious underlying problem'. I see it as just another form of fantasizing, though I believe it's a negative form. It's learned behaviour which is usually conditioned by environment or example (or both). I doubt that many people would consider it's indicative of some kind of psychological problem.

[_guy sajer]

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?

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.

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?

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?

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).

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.

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.

Hey Fort, I think that the cause of our seeming disagreement is confusion over the term "objectification." I see you do not necessarily think sexual fantasies are bad (except for those of people other than one's spouse). Let me back up a bit and say that perhaps my use of the term "objectification" in my post was misleading, and let me clarify this meaning by defining it as (taken from Google): “Objectification refers to the way in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a human being.”

So, when I refer above to “casual sexual objectification” I do not refer to instances in which people’s fantasies or acts strip others of humanity. It is perhaps a fine line, but one can, I think, see or fanaticize about someone as an “object of sexual desire” without taking the final step that, in essence, sees them as less than human.

One might, for example, view pornography and define the women portrayed therein as primarily objects of desire, lust, pleasure, etc., but willingly grant them all human rights and protections (and even fight for them). (Although they might be shocked to find out how many of the women have been coerced, or otherwise acted under some kind of duress).

So, I guess I am awkwardly trying to say that I do not think, on the whole, that sexual fanaticizing crosses the line into objectification, as defined here. It can, and it does with regularity, but with regularity among, I think, a very small percentage of the population.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

LOL... my demons. Good stuff.

The subject of this thread wasn't objectification, either, but that's the direction it's taken, hasn't it? Try to let go of your own agenda before telling others to let go of theirs. You're pretty funny, man.

[_Runtu]

LOL... my demons. Good stuff.

The subject of this thread wasn't objectification, either, but that's the direction it's taken, hasn't it? Try to let go of your own agenda before telling others to let go of theirs. You're pretty funny, man.

Yes, we are far from the OP, aren't we? I still find the obsession with masturbation to be just a little creepy and disturbing. All that senseless guilt. But then I guess I'm one of those "progressives" Dr. Peterson warns about.

[_harmony]

LOL... my demons. Good stuff.

The subject of this thread wasn't objectification, either, but that's the direction it's taken, hasn't it? Try to let go of your own agenda before telling others to let go of theirs. You're pretty funny, man.

Yes, we are far from the OP, aren't we? I still find the obsession with masturbation to be just a little creepy and disturbing. All that senseless guilt. But then I guess I'm one of those "progressives" Dr. Peterson warns about.

Ya know, the LDS church used to be the most progressive thing out there. We used to be cutting-edge, pushing the envelope. Now, we're so conservative we squeak. I think it has to do with the age of our leaders. We used to have young leaders, men with vision instead of hindsight.

[_Runtu]

Ya know, the LDS church used to be the most progressive thing out there. We used to be cutting-edge, pushing the envelope. Now, we're so conservative we squeak. I think it has to do with the age of our leaders. We used to have young leaders, men with vision instead of hindsight.

At the risk of being too crude, I wonder if the hindsight here is "Maybe we shouldn't have masturbated so much."

I really don't understand the intensity of guilt and shame over masturbation in the church. It makes no sense to me. We have people over on MAD saying that people who masturbate turn into sex offenders and pedophiles. The obvious response is that billions of men manage to masturbate without becoming sex offenders or pedophiles.

Dr. Peterson's approach seems to be that we need to develop self-control. Which is more indicative of a lack of self-control: masturbating or, say, overeating? I'd say similar issues are at work with both. Yet, no one is denied access to a temple for overeating. So, it's not an issue of self-control, after all.

[_harmony]

Ya know, the LDS church used to be the most progressive thing out there. We used to be cutting-edge, pushing the envelope. Now, we're so conservative we squeak. I think it has to do with the age of our leaders. We used to have young leaders, men with vision instead of hindsight.

At the risk of being too crude, I wonder if the hindsight here is "Maybe we shouldn't have masturbated so much."

I really don't understand the intensity of guilt and shame over masturbation in the church. It makes no sense to me. We have people over on MAD saying that people who masturbate turn into sex offenders and pedophiles. The obvious response is that billions of men manage to masturbate without becoming sex offenders or pedophiles.

Dr. Peterson's approach seems to be that we need to develop self-control. Which is more indicative of a lack of self-control: masturbating or, say, overeating? I'd say similar issues are at work with both. Yet, no one is denied access to a temple for overeating. So, it's not an issue of self-control, after all.

I see this as one more example of the church's need to control the members. They control what we eat, what we drink, what we wear, what we do, how we pray, who we associate with, what we do with our money... they control every aspect of our lives. The sad part is that so few of us see it for what it really is.

[_Some Schmo]

Yes, we are far from the OP, aren't we? I still find the obsession with masturbation to be just a little creepy and disturbing. All that senseless guilt. But then I guess I'm one of those "progressives" Dr. Peterson warns about.

Yeah, I think there are about a billion things in the world more worthy of concern than masturbation, given that it's a normal, natural thing.