The objectification of women
Note the forum. Not in the Image forum....although I'm sure I'll be there if you start one with this same title over there.....
anyway.....the objectification of women has a negative connotation to it. Like it's a BAD thing.
So, maybe it is......but I notice that the women that have the issue with it are not the actual objects. I ask you: If you are the 'object' of desire and adulation.......does it bother you so very much?
Or is this something that bothers the women that are NOT being objectified?
Why are men not seen to be 'objectified' when women swoon over them? Atheletes and Rock stars?
Who started it? the women or the 'men/society' who pay them to do the hawt things they do?
I'm just wondering....
From my perspective, I think it depends who's doing the objectifying. If it's someone that is attractive to me then it's fine, but if it's someone I consider unattractive in some way, then it's annoying.
I think the objection to being objectified was started around the time they started burning bras. I don't mean it never happened before, just that women didn't speak up about it in particular.
Personally, I think if women put themselves in a position where they are objectified, then they should be prepared to deal with it. For example, you don't put your tits in the window then get the shits when someone looks at them. If you don't want people to look, then don't be conspicuous. If you like it sometimes, then do it sometimes, but don't be surprised if people remember the last time you did like it. You can't have it both ways.
A lot of women make a lot of money from being objectified and I don't think there's anything wrong with it if it's what they choose to do and I'd even go so far as to say it's still ok if it's simply a financial decision. We all have to flaunt our talents to make money regardless of whether they're physical, intellectual or academic etc. It's the way the world works. Better to go with the flow than to try and swim against the tide.
Incidentally, it seems to me that it's women observing other women being objectified that seem to have the problem with it.
I guess everyone needs to be someone's champion...
The solution is, we should have more nudity. More nude photos, public nudity, nude bodies and representations of nude bodies everywhere and anywhere. That would solve the objectification problem. (I'm serious. You cover something up and tell people it's nasty and they can't see it, what do you think they're going to do?)
The problem isn't the objectifying of an individual woman. In each instance it's usually fairly easy to argue for its harmlessness as an individual image, against its being exploitative, and for its being more openly accepting of sexuality than has previously been the case.
The problem is the objectifying of women. It is the saturation effect of a particular strand of our culture that can be argued to be damaging and exploitative, because of the cultural image of woman that it implies as normal and desirable.
Does "post your tits!" get you banned here?
No it gets you directed to the What Do You Look Like RFN (NSFW) thread.....and if you're very lucky it also gets you a tit shot.
I've had to stop reading Stranger in a Strange Land because the attitude to women is so out-dated it kills the future premise.
It's only when I see how far we have come in the last 100 years that I realise it's still worth keeping an eye on things.
Yes, the men started the objectification. It's been a man's world for centuries, and only started changing - slowly, slowly - as women got the vote. Men being visual creatures, they will objectify the object of their desire. Any dating site you look at, any casual hook-up site, any would-like-to-meet - the majority of posts by men express a preference for looks. From no fat women, to freckled women, from big busty black to small Asian, from hair colour preference to hair length preference. You only rarely see that in female ads. Their preference is for kind, or caring or GSOH. (Although as an aside, I met a woman who said she wouldn't be interested in a man with less than 9 inches because it wasn't worth it. She wasn't all that appealing a prospect herself, so I just wished her luck - I'd say she was shallow, but she must instead be very deep).
I'm not saying man = bad, woman = good.
Just that men want visual stimulation. And that can affect the perception of a woman as a whole person.
On a slightly serious note albeit in response to a flippant comment, I do think there's a huge problem amongst some of the more right on members of the feminist sorority with equating nudity and titlliation with objectification. The two are not necessarily the same.
I've had to stop reading Stranger in a Strange Land because the attitude to women is so out-dated it kills the future premise.
Is it that one, or the Cat Who Walks Through Walls where one of the main characters spanks a woman?
*chuckles*
I actually loved that book. I loved all Heinlein. I kind of enjoyed the outdated writing in some ways. In the same way I enjoyed Enid Blyton when I was young.
I thrive on objectification....it makes it easier to get my own way.
Women used to be owned as an object, "objectified". We are a little out of context here unless we are talking about women that are still lawfully property.
I don't think we are talking about the deporsonalization of women at all. If we are,then I am guilty of objectifying myself because I don't want lots of people to know me personally...
I wonder what, exactly, does "objectification" mean. If it means treating another human being like an object, man or woman, then it's wrong. But it's a strange term to have the effect of "sexualizing." A sexual object is a toy or a fetish.
I don't care if men treat us like sexual beings; as long as we get to do the same.
This another one of those "consenting adults" issues. As long as the objectifier and the object are cool with it, what's the problem?
I find that I seem to have the sort of personality that allows me to objectify women in an acceptable way for the most part. In other words, most of 'em don't seem to mind because I'm good naturedly serious about it. Hell, some of 'em only are interested in me at all *because* I've objectified them.
I appreciate it. You are the only person who seems to like my ass.
:)
Objectify away!
I wonder what, exactly, does "objectification" mean. If it means treating another human being like an object, man or woman, then it's wrong.
I can't define it, but I can give an example. I was watching a show last night where there was some objectification going on. In filming, there is often a shot that will establish a scene, like the outside of a house, before the camera appears inside that house to see what the characters are doing.
In this show last night, the scene being established was a club, and to establish the scene, the camera panned along with the chest of a skimpily dressed woman as she went into a club. We never saw her face, but her bouncing chest filled the screen for several seconds before the camera ended up pointing at the characters sitting around a table.
As a guy, I have to admit that I enjoyed the shot, but the woman was clearly objectified. She had no lines. No face. Probably no credit. I'm sure the "actress" was paid in some way for her work, so she was probably happy to be doing the shot, but she was clearly nothing more than an object.
the woman was clearly objectified. She had no lines. No face. Probably no credit. I'm sure the "actress" was paid in some way for her work
If she was an "extra" or just a woman who happened to be on the street when they were filming, she probably wasn't identified or paid. You have to get into permissions and model releases when a person is identifiable. If they're not identifiable, then use of images of them without permission or compensation is fair game. (We're not talking news coverage here.. there are exceptions for that.) This is why when they have news stories about how fat Americans are becoming, you'll often see stock footage of some fat person walking down the street, shot shoulders-down and from behind.
SteveDallas: I objetify you. In every way.
Including my grammar Nazism?
In this show last night, the scene being established was a club, and to establish the scene, the camera panned along with the chest of a skimpily dressed woman as she went into a club. We never saw her face, but her bouncing chest filled the screen for several seconds before the camera ended up pointing at the characters sitting around a table.
To me, the questionable part of that is not how the individual actress was regarded (or not,) but rather what a nice rack of scantily-clad boobs is supposed to convey about this club. That the club is hip? Trashy? I think objectification depends somewhat on whether there were other cues about the club that might be linked to boobs.
I know objectification when I see it.
[COLOR="White"]How 'bout some pics?[/COLOR]
Porn is good. That is all. Carry on. :fumette:
Nowt wrong with porn (other than the tendency of some brands of it to utilise unwilling, or desperate actors). Far more damaging than the most rampant porn, is the trend in television, movies and magazines, towards anonymous, 'perfect' young women with unthreatening features and fake tits. The drop in age of what is considered most sexy, from womanly to girlish, combined with the seemingly earlier sexualisation of girls (toddlers wearing T-Shirts with the caption 'future porn star', glammed up six year olds flirting with adults for entertainment, boyfriend-girlfriend themes in young children's tv etc) combined with the saturation of the public domain with idealised, sexualised images of young women. This stuff is far more dangerous than mere porn. Overt sexual expression is a healthy development for society imo, far better for us to be able to explore our sexuality than hide it under a cloak of 'decency'. The argument against 'rape' or violently themed porn, even, loses some of its power when you realise many of the people who enjoy that sort of thing are women.
It's not so much the forgetting that the boobe etc belong to a woman, but forgetting that a woman is a type of person with feelings, opinions, intelligence etc. Fine to admire the boobs, but make sure your form of admiration is appreciated by the human behind them. If the human chooses to display them covered with cum, appreciate away....
I was just thinking: nicely put on both Dana and monster's posts.
And I was just thinking nicely put on Dana's, monster's AND Shawnee's posts!
:D
It's not so much the forgetting that the boobe etc belong to a woman, but forgetting that a woman is a type of person with feelings, opinions, intelligence etc. Fine to admire the boobs, but make sure your form of admiration is appreciated by the human behind them. If the human chooses to display them covered with cum, appreciate away....
...who just happens to be getting paid for flashing her tits.
What I mean is, would it be objectification if it were her hand you could see? Or perhaps her face?
I think the objectification comes from ones own perception of how you process what you're seeing. We all spend so much time listening to society and doing what's expected of us that we don't stop to think about how it's ok to admire something just because it's there. We don't stop to see the beauty of things. We only stop to think about how we can add some negative connotation to things...like a set of beautiful breasts. I'm not explaining what I mean very well, so I'm sorry for that, but I hope someone will get it. If not, that's ok too.
"Trust me, ladies, if you knew even for a second how we men really look at you,... you would never stop slapping us."
-- the very excellent comedian Larry Miller
One thing for women to consider about this is the way most guys' minds work. Most of us focus on one thing at a time. If our thinking drifts from particle physics to boobs, we'll only be thinking about boobs in that moment. Some guys don't switch to the she's a fellow doctoral candidate channel before going back to physics. That's a problem. Does this make any sense?
Yes, Griff, it does. Men are linear thinkers. :P
No Bri, men are lingerie thinkers.....lingerie
D'Oh! You're right, Dana! :smack:
Ok. This is part of a one minute film. It's just this all the way through. Some guest.... I didn't think something like this would bother me, but it actually does. See, it's ok if I photograph my butt, but if someone else is recording it without my knowledge, I don't like it.:headshake
(Photo removed.....)
The vid. hopefully will not be posted on the internetz! I cannot guarantee this though... ;(
lol! You aren't getting one.
In fact that screen shot should have been even smaller. I wish I had a head....guess not..
I'm all for being objectified.
Go for it, guys.
Objectify away.
I'll just sit over here and bask in a rubenesque way.
You are so good for me, baby.
i like being objectified, too. Mostly by everyone. The only people I don't want objectifiying me are the ones who say, "My arm is swolled," or "you're oncet, twicet, three damn times a laydeeeeeeeee...." coz I hate them guys.
Your wish, is my opportunity. :D
There's a brilliant line in an episode of Cape Wroth where a female character who has allowed herself to be drawn into a destructive and abusive extra-marital affair, says:
"Any woman who says she doesn't want to be objectified is lying."
lol! I just noticed that earlier in the thread I said something cheesy about els. being the only person that liked my butt....Then later after someone took a one minute video of it, along with someone else's, I complained.....
People should just be honest...We like your buttz and we are filming them right now, say could you pull up your shirt just a bit? I guess I don't like my parts being filmed without my knowledge, they could end up on flickr or something.
;)
If it doesn't show your face, no harm, no foul... plus you gather good karma from appreciative men (and lesbians) all over the internet.