Sexual Objectification...lost souls
Since my last post I have been surfing the blog area, reading lots. There are so many to see!!
But, as my interests serve me I have been reading some comments regarding sexual objectification and peoples view about it all. For me, there is so much to say...where do I start? Perhaps not all tonight but I would certainly like to say that for the women who think that sexually objectifying themselves is either freedom or power - wow! you are lost souls. I know to many that will incite anger..but hey...lets have an open discussion.
I could talk about my own personal experiences as a girl, a women - and how I have always throughout my life cringed at the knowledge that someone was gazing apon me...because I am more than that - I am me - inside. But I won't talk about that too much because I know I am but one person in this world...so I do take a step back from myself and my own experiences and discuss the dynamics.
I could also talk about the many, many women I have met in my life who do objectify themselves, and have then later to learnt that they are some of the most insecure women I have met...but once again, I realise these are only just some women in the world - I cannot conclude from that.
But what I can do is say these things:
Objectifying oneself is not freedom...it may feel like freedom but it is a cheap freedom. You are not free, you are being constricted into a set of beliefs and consumed by voyers. Some femenists say that the movement has been liberating for women...I'm not sure how making oneself into an object is liberation to the human spirit.
Empowering? Power? Well..not true power. This is all a fake sence of power...empowerment for yourself comes from within. Sexually objectifiying oneself gives a fake sence of power - but that power felt is dependent on another - on anothers gaze, on anothers positive attention. If power is dependent on another, than it is not true power - because there is no power unless another is giving the attention to feel it. True power is there all the time - regardless of what you look like and regardless of whether people are giving you positive or negative attention.
Anyway...I am not out to offend anyone - just to have an open discussion. I am not religious and I am all for healthy sexuality (I feel the need to say that because too often my ideas are interpreted as such). And I certainly do not believe in telling people who to be and how to behave...I just think that there is one big crazy thing going on in this world between men and women, and I see what happens and how people think about it and I don't understand why people seem to be so lost within themselves...that identity is about sex, interations is about sex, and inside feels superficially full but deep down hollow. And in the meantime we are loosing our ability to deeply connect with another so that they truely know our inner soul, to respect one another as human beings, and maintain integrity within ourselves and our lives. And I guess when it comes to my beliefs...this is so much more worth striving for and eternally fulfulling...rather than a cheap look and wistle...that only lasts seconds.
But, as my interests serve me I have been reading some comments regarding sexual objectification and peoples view about it all. For me, there is so much to say...where do I start? Perhaps not all tonight but I would certainly like to say that for the women who think that sexually objectifying themselves is either freedom or power - wow! you are lost souls. I know to many that will incite anger..but hey...lets have an open discussion.
I could talk about my own personal experiences as a girl, a women - and how I have always throughout my life cringed at the knowledge that someone was gazing apon me...because I am more than that - I am me - inside. But I won't talk about that too much because I know I am but one person in this world...so I do take a step back from myself and my own experiences and discuss the dynamics.
I could also talk about the many, many women I have met in my life who do objectify themselves, and have then later to learnt that they are some of the most insecure women I have met...but once again, I realise these are only just some women in the world - I cannot conclude from that.
But what I can do is say these things:
Objectifying oneself is not freedom...it may feel like freedom but it is a cheap freedom. You are not free, you are being constricted into a set of beliefs and consumed by voyers. Some femenists say that the movement has been liberating for women...I'm not sure how making oneself into an object is liberation to the human spirit.
Empowering? Power? Well..not true power. This is all a fake sence of power...empowerment for yourself comes from within. Sexually objectifiying oneself gives a fake sence of power - but that power felt is dependent on another - on anothers gaze, on anothers positive attention. If power is dependent on another, than it is not true power - because there is no power unless another is giving the attention to feel it. True power is there all the time - regardless of what you look like and regardless of whether people are giving you positive or negative attention.
Anyway...I am not out to offend anyone - just to have an open discussion. I am not religious and I am all for healthy sexuality (I feel the need to say that because too often my ideas are interpreted as such). And I certainly do not believe in telling people who to be and how to behave...I just think that there is one big crazy thing going on in this world between men and women, and I see what happens and how people think about it and I don't understand why people seem to be so lost within themselves...that identity is about sex, interations is about sex, and inside feels superficially full but deep down hollow. And in the meantime we are loosing our ability to deeply connect with another so that they truely know our inner soul, to respect one another as human beings, and maintain integrity within ourselves and our lives. And I guess when it comes to my beliefs...this is so much more worth striving for and eternally fulfulling...rather than a cheap look and wistle...that only lasts seconds.
posted by Personal | 6:33 AM
9 Comments:
Hi there,
I know what you mean about objectification and how some people regard the departure from modesty as "freedom." However, I think all it takes is knowing oneself more deeply, and appreciating it so much that, like a precious gift, that person will protect and cherish his/her intimacy.
Thanks for passing by my blog! Come back soon =)
Sunnyday
http://notjustforsuperheroes.blogspot.com
http://fromwomb2tomb.blogspot.com
objectification is in the eyes of the ojectified. i think when one applies their own views and feelings towards objectification (generally that of a sexual nature) they themselves are contributing to objectification of another variety. they assume that because they have one set of feelings towards sexual objectification others (namely those of the same gender) share the same feelings (ect.) towards the matter, thus looking at others as some idealized potential victim or ally or misguided soul rather than an individual, who may not see things such as body, sexuality, and objectification in a similar light. and such people? those who do not see it as something innately horrible? discounted, critiqued, drive-by psychoanalyzed, and often insulted...not to mention stereotyped and rarely viewed as real people.
to some, most perhaps, sexual intimacy is paramount, to others, that is not the case...yet one group is no less human or more wrong than the other.
I understand your point...the person I am looking at saying she has objectified herself is lost may not think she is at all, may not care at all, may think it is a healthy positive thing.
Would you say such a women is not objectified because she does not believe/want/think/feel she is? - that it is only others that regard her as objectified? Or would you say that she believes she is objectified, knows this, and doesn't mind this because she sees nothing wrong with it? - that is only others that do? I think what you mean is the latter - that just because one objectifies oneself doesn't mean - I guess as you say - they believe it is 'innately horrible', and should be treated as a human, not more wrong than another.
I agree. We should all be treated as humans - its doesn't mean your 'wrong' and I'm 'right' and you should live this way, I should think that way. But the reality is this: When you objectify something - you make it just that - an object. And if something is an object, you can yell and scream and beg people to treat it and think if it as something else - but they won't - its an object! And if one is an object - it is by virtue, less than human. I'm not at all advocating that someone who objectifies themselves is less than human - as I've already discussed - I don't think like that - but I am trying to point out that that is how people think about things. So, when a women objectifies herself, she becomes an object, and to be blunt - it doesn't matter how much she wants to be seen as and treated as a human, with respect, she has commanded people to think of her in such ways - as an object. It is impossible for one to act in one way to command a certain attention, or perspective, but then demand them not to have it. There is a difference between 'command' and 'demand'. Command is something you evoke, non verbally from someone, demand is something you feel you are entitled to even though you may not deserve it - so to speak.
am I rambling??...I just really wanted to say - perhaps what I have already said in another way - most people don't treat objects with any emotion, respect, etc - it is just an object. It can be forgotten, replaced, thrown, broken, sold. So when a women obectifies herself, she becomes that 'thing', but then wants to be treated as a human. Your an object, but you want to be a human, a real person? How do you have both? "watch me as a thing, no emotional attachment, just sex, but then hang on, bring back the emotion and remember I'm a human"...I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to demonstrate what I am saying.
All in all each and everyone of us can live life as we choose, but we must remember that what we do, wether we like it or not, has implications in other peoples eyes, and it is us that are commanding that response. If we don't like that response, than maybe we need to rethink what we are commanding.
I guess I look at it like this: objectification happens to ALL people, often, in a variety of ways. I think it is natural. When a man eyes a woman at the store (or vice versa) and finds her attractive, he knows nothing about her (or him) other than what can be gleened from appearance. That is objectification, and objectification is one of the initial stages of physical attraction. No one ever fell in love across a crowded room based on anything but appearance, hence, via objectification. It takes time to like or even know someones mind, soul, dreams and shortcomings.
When I hire someone to fix my car, or bring me food, or tailor a suit, I do not really care if they are nice people with families or if they like the same food or sports as I do...I care if they can do the job I have hired them for...and that is objectification as well, and everyone does it. I think like all things, it is not a problem unless one reaches a point when it becomes excessive (all women/men/people are merely objects) in the mind of an individual.
As for the woman in question- no one can tell her how to live, or what is right for her. One, its not their perogative, and two, it's insulting and implies she is somehow 'lesser than'. I am a big believer in personal choice and responsibility...no one has an obligattion to approve of a woman who promotes herself as a sexualized creature, but she still has the right to do it. I don't approve or like religious fundamentalists telling people based on their sexual orientation that they are sinners...but they have that right...one also has to remember, all people are individuals, and what one sees as expolitive and degrading another might see as no big thing, people are all wired differently.
Some definitions of objectification from various online web dictionaries. Here are some:
Objectification or objectify:
“refers to behavior in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own.”
“Self-objectification refers to a person's objectification of themselves.”
“to present as an object, esp. of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective”
“To present or regard as an object: “Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally”
“To present or regard as an object”
To be honest, to say that hiring someone for any kind of job is objectifying I think is a very extreme argument , I think your ‘clutching at straws’. You see, If you think of it in its most extreme, I can understand where your coming from, but I really don’t think it fits, by virtue of its definition. To objectify is to treat another ‘without feelings and consciousness’, to ‘treat impersonally’ – so when an IT man is hired for his job – of course he is hired for his skills, but he is hired for ‘who he is’ – is he a ‘decent’ man, does he have other qualities of the job – personality wise, etc But even further than this argument, he is treated ‘as a human’, he comes with unique skills, yes, but also with a unique personality that will fit with the company, unique opinions, a unique personality with thoughts and feelings and emotion. During his work he will interact with many people, with all of these unique things. And yes, he is there for that job – those particular skills, but its not objectification in its true, definable sense of the word. Perhaps a better word would be commodity? Even then I don’t think it fits perfectly, but I think it better defines what your talking about. This man is not presenting himself as an object – he is presenting himself as a person with a skill (skills, knowledge, and personality fit). Furthermore, to objectify oneself is on another level.
I also think that looking at someone from the other side of the crowded room is different to objectification. Sure, I know and fully agree that we all ‘notice’ people – that is, of course we all find different people attractive, not attractive whatever. But I think there is a difference between your eyes and mind seeing someone that is attractive and ‘looking at them’ as if that is all they are. Perhaps this is on a continuum, from extreme (totally objectifying – just a body, piece of meet to glare at for visual, sexual pleasure, nothing else) and acknowledging within your mind that that person has some attractive features. In saying that though, I can’t help but think to myself that they are two different things… Its almost like two completely different ‘mind sets’ – a completely different way to perceive someone.
To say objectification happens to all people all the time is lumping 'most of daily life' - ie: looking at people, hiring them for a job, even looking at an attractive persone into the realm of objectification - something more extreme and having much more dynamics.
First, let me apologise for referring to you as a man. Not sure why I thought you were (something I read on RenEv's blog?) but it shouldn't really matter as the points I made were valid, even if read in the third person, masculine.
Anyhoo... if men see women as mere objects to be used for their own sexual gratification, why would they bother dating or even hiring prostitutes? It would be more cost efficient and less time consuming to just pick of a penis pump and a Victoria's secret catalog.
If anything, I would say the exact opposite is true. A lot of women seem to think that it's enough to simply spread their legs for their husbands and let him have his way with her. But if men are just interested in having an object to masturbate into, their right hand would be the better choice (unless he's a southpaw). The grip is tighter, it's a less strenuous workout, and they don't have to look at a disinterested woman who causes them to doubt their sex appeal by lying there like a dead fish.
Since you're using the typical "men are just interested in sex, and women who want it are a discredit to their gender" stereotype, I'll take the same liberty in making my point. If women are primarily interested in men for marriage and starting a family, then they should feel fulfilled with a husband who comes home in time for dinner and falls asleep by their side every night, giving himself unto no other.
Is it enough for most woman to have a husband who's physically present for them, and who performs his marital obligations out of a sense of duty? Or is it fair to assume that most women want more from their husband than just his presence? They want some kind of emotional connection, engaging conversation and signs of affection.
And while many would be content with a man who displayed his affection in his own, special way, they still might secretly wish that their spouse would be more romantic. Even if she wishes he wrote her love poems, she'd most likely be happy with the occasional, well suited, sweetly sentimental Hallmark™ card.
Just the same, a man who wishes his wife was more adventurous in bed, willing to try MFF threesomes and anal sex for his enjoyment, most would still be happy with plain ol' missionary-position sex done enthusiastically.
And a wife who won't indulge her husband in occasional back-door experimentation shouldn't feel too disappointed if he doesn't want to sign up for an 8 week ballroom dancing course.
FrenchKiss:
“First, let me apologise for referring to you as a man. Not sure why I thought you were (something I read on RenEv's blog?) but it shouldn't really matter as the points I made were valid, even if read in the third person, masculine.”
Hey, no worries – didn’t even realize until you said…
”Anyhoo... if men see women as mere objects to be used for their own sexual gratification, why would they bother dating or even hiring prostitutes? It would be more cost efficient and less time consuming to just pick of a penis pump and a Victoria's secret catalog. “
Hey look, I’m not sure how to respond to that – I’m a little confused…I’ll answer as best I can. Men who date: some may be out for a lay, some may want a friend/companion/lover. My views are not so extreme to say that every single many at every single moment in his life sees a women and thinks of her as an object…of course there is other stuff, its not as simple as that. But I do think that the viewing of women as sex objects is big. Hiring prostitutes? *confused* - wouldn’t that suggest that he is seeing a women as merely a means of sex? (which is what I am referring to). As for “It would be more cost efficient and less time consuming to just pick of a penis pump and a Victoria's secret catalog.” – well, yea, but wouldn’t most men go for the ‘real deal’ *confused* - just not sure what the whole relevance here is.
”If anything, I would say the exact opposite is true. A lot of women seem to think that it's enough to simply spread their legs for their husbands and let him have his way with her. But if men are just interested in having an object to masturbate into, their right hand would be the better choice (unless he's a southpaw). The grip is tighter, it's a less strenuous workout, and they don't have to look at a disinterested woman who causes them to doubt their sex appeal by lying there like a dead fish.”
Interesting. I’m not so sure I agree ( a lot of women…)– but hey, I’m sure is true for some. Wouldn’t all that be a ‘problem’ with their sex life? I mean, in that scenario both are going to have ‘issues’.
”Since you're using the typical "men are just interested in sex, and women who want it are a discredit to their gender" stereotype, I'll take the same liberty in making my point. If women are primarily interested in men for marriage and starting a family, then they should feel fulfilled with a husband who comes home in time for dinner and falls asleep by their side every night, giving himself unto no other.”
You know, sorry but I don’t get what your saying – I mean I don’t get the relevance. I am talking about women who sexualise and objectify themselves. I don’t think that women who want sex are a discredit to their gender stereotype – I’m not sure where you came to get to that idea from, nor did I say men are just interested in sex – not sure where you got that from either. This thread is talking about power and objectification, and how women are objectified *confused*
”Is it enough for most woman to have a husband who's physically present for them, and who performs his marital obligations out of a sense of duty? Or is it fair to assume that most women want more from their husband than just his presence? They want some kind of emotional connection, engaging conversation and signs of affection.”
Ok sure, here I see some relevance…I agree. I’m sure there are many men who want this – but, you know what, many will also want to ‘have a perv’, ‘watch some porn’ ‘see a stripper’ anyway.
Sorry, that last comment was a bit disjointed, and apparently I incorporated some of what another poster on another blog (but with similar views to your own) was saying. Her point was about men wanting their significant other to engage in particular sex acts without any concern for how those acts make her feel.
I think that most men, including a great many who hire prostitutes, do not want an object. Sure, they want sex, but they want a living breathing person who will give a little feedback, let them know what they like and what they don't like. And you'd be surprised, but personality and intelligence counts a lot for some men. It's not just about spreading one's legs to allow penetration. They want conversation: genuine interaction. They want to hear about personal histories; discuss politics and world events; they want to know about likes and dislikes- not just in the boudoir, but favorite flavor of ice cream or genre of music (so that they know what to bring the next time they see you).
In fact, I have never experienced the same amount of authority in any other line of work. They love it when I tell them what I want. And by that, I don't mean "give it to me good, baby." I mean the act, the position, take a break, now try this position, I like it this way, no- not that way, like this; and so on and so forth.
They know how I take my coffee. They know my dogs. They know I tend to always be running a little late, no matter how long I had to get ready. And I know that the #2 complaint I hear from men who aren't single is their partner's detatchment/disinterest. The #1 complaint is the infrequency.
The fact that the motivating factor is sex doesn't make it objectification. You may see it as degrading, but that is not the same as objectification. I don't see it as degrading, and it matters not one whit to me that you do, so there.
FrenchKiss:
“I think that most men, including a great many who hire prostitutes, do not want an object. Sure, they want sex, but they want a living breathing person who will give a little feedback, let them know what they like and what they don't like. And you'd be surprised, but personality and intelligence counts a lot for some men. It's not just about spreading one's legs to allow penetration. They want conversation: genuine interaction. They want to hear about personal histories; discuss politics and world events; they want to know about likes and dislikes- not just in the boudoir, but favorite flavor of ice cream or genre of music (so that they know what to bring the next time they see you).”
Obviously you are in sex work – so I do respect your view – I mean, you’re the one ‘living it’ right?! I actually agree somewhat – you know I use open terms such as ‘men’ and ‘women’ – sure it doesn’t account for every single man and women on the earth. As such I think that a lot of men are sold short in this regard. I think that often women think that men want a sex object when what they want is much more – or even completely different. However, I would say that if a man wants conversation: genuine interaction – then why don’t we (as society I mean) teach men and women how to connect more – so that he can obtain this without the selling of someone? (hey, in reality how do you do that right?...just theoretically speaking). For me, to know there is a man who hires a prostitute for a ‘fuck’ is sad – sad that he has to buy such an act, sad that women sells that to someone. To know there is a man who hires a prostitute because he wants to be sexually close to someone, and who does want genuine interaction – I still think that this is sad, sad that this man can’t, feels he can’t, obtain this without buying it. To me, that’s kind of the like the old cliché of buying love – we all know you can’t buy love…ok sure you can but sex, you can buy a conversation – but how fulfilling is that – in the long term. It’s kind of like buying someone to love you – it only lasts whilst the dollar lasts.
“And I know that the #2 complaint I hear from men who aren't single is their partner's detatchment/disinterest. The #1 complaint is the infrequency.”
See, I think again, this is sad…genuinely sad. That two people committed to each other don’t ‘work on their relationship’, or separate to find another partner, perhaps don’t deal with their difficulties and just go buy sex. Similar to infrequency…in that respect, since you are referring explicitly to men who aren’t single –why aren’t these people working on their relationships; or leaving their partners? I mean, so much for commitment. Presuming for a second that some of these men obviously don’t believe in commitment and working ‘with’ their partners, then I still think it is sad that they buy sex- handing over money to buy a body, and an intimacy– see, that’s where I think ‘what is wrong with us’…It simply comes down to beliefs – I don’t think that it is a healthy thing for society as a whole to sell sex, to sell relationships – the whole idea is crazy to me.
“The fact that the motivating factor is sex doesn't make it objectification.”
Um, yes it does. I mean, there is a whole term dedicated to this – sexual objectification. And to break it down – as you will read above – by definition – making oneself and object – without thoughts/feelings, in a physical sense, that is what sexual objectification is.
“You may see it as degrading, but that is not the same as objectification.”
Um, I don’t think I ever used the word degrading. I’ve talked about objectification not being empowering, which is what the original post explains. But I will respond anyway.
Degrading: reduce in status or quality; lowering grade, rank or status
Objectification: refers to behavior in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own; reduced to an object – less than human
Together: they are both referring to a reduction in status – from a human being to an object.
“I don't see it as degrading, and it matters not one whit to me that you do, so there.”
I don’t know why you felt the need to respond in this way. I am here to have an open discussion, to share views, to even be challenged. No matter what I say, even if it is challenging to some, or some disagree – I say so at all times with respect, and respect for different views. I am not the person on any blog, including my own, to have a dig at anyone, be sarcastic, abuse etc etc, as some people are. If you want to challenge me, do so – explain to me why you don’t see it as degrading, have a conversation about it. If you truly don’t care, then I’m assuming you won’t respond, and with all due respect, if you really don’t care – I guess you won’t bother to discuss it. But I am not about to engage with anyone at anytime who simply wants to make blanket and ‘snappy’ statements about how we disagree. I know we disagree – that’s obvious – as I said we can’t either talk about it, or not…no need for this stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home