Women as lust objects

Wait a second.... classic Lowism?

 

Back in the day we read a lot of Catharine MacKinnon. As far as I know she´s still alive and well although maybe not as influential now as she was in the 80s and 90s. She literally wrote the book on sexual harassment, but honestly I can´t remember what she had to say about objectification, if anything. She has been influential in defining what she believes are the social harms caused by pornography and helped establish how particular crimes against women, e.g. systematic rape, fit legally into the framework for prosecuting genocide.

 

Responding to what LOH said about objectification being widespread, in that we don't always think of our fellow human beings as people with the same feelings and free will as ourselves, that may be true but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. Personally, I think we should treat, say, police and retail workers as more than a means to an end.

In fact, I think this tendency to treat people, for whatever reason, as nothing *more* than a means to an end is the cause of the worst tragedies in history, racism, genocide, all kinds of war, sexism and domestic violence of all sorts. If you treat people as automatons for your own designs you go off the deep end. And yes, I think some sexual relationships are carried out that way, maybe more than a lot of people would like to think.

 

Should I have called it a Lowiism?

It's where one looks at a concept in such a detached manner that the conclusion one comes up with creates a bizarre paradigm shift that leaves more questions than it answers and seems to fly directly in the face of the people who came up with the concept in the first place.

 

The point I was trying to make earlier is that I think one can be sexually attracted to another and not be lustful regardless of the "intensity" of the attraction. I'm not sure if mild sexual attraction or extreme sexual attraction indicate lust--I think lust is a different way of handling/reacting and thinking about such feelings.

I think it's important in a discussion like this to differentiate between lust and sexual attraction before moving forward to discuss the issue of objectification based on lust or "lust objects."

 

Fine with the phrasing, just curious as to what it meant, exactly.

 

Wow, you couldn't have put it any better.

 

I just got done reading this thread and I am so glad I didn't see any posts from my sister on here. We're adults and I'm not going to pretend she's some kind of virgin princess, but if she would've posted something about porn or BDSM, it would've made the holidays a bit awkward.

Great thread overall. Highly entertaining and informative.

I have a question to throw out there to anyone: Would you let your kid watch porn? If so, at what age? Why?

 

I would never allow my children or other children (if I had the opportunity) to watch porn. I think porn is an abomination (at least based on my definition/understanding of what "porn" is).

 

Please correct my summary of your position if I have it wrong, but the way I read it you're saying: "Because some human beings feel sexual desire for non-human animals or objects (qv bestiality and fetishism), it follows that some human beings who feel sexual desire for other human beings treat/conceive of/behave towards the targets of their sexual desire as though they were objects."

If this is accurate, it strikes me as circular reasoning and I find it illogical. If it is not accurate, please clarify what you mean, because I'm getting lost in the syntax.

To clarify my own position, I wrote upthread:

Moreover, your statement makes one ask whether you feel that rape is not at all an expression of lust?

Again, can you please clarify your meaning here? I do not understand what you're asking. Do I feel that rape is an expression of lust? If that is it, then yes, in part, sexual desire is an element in the impulse to

 

I agree.

 

And what do you consider porn?

 

Children shouldn't watch porn, because then they might consider sex to be enjoyable, when it's actually a humiliating, awkward process.

Duh.

 

Nope. I tried to say that you seemed to be assuming that

a)people lust (have sexual desires) for other people,

therefore, whenever someone experiences lust, they implicitly assume the humanity of the object of attention. This fails to acknowledge that some people sometimes lust for objects or animals, rather than people, therefore experiencing lust =/= implicitly assumes the humanity of the object of desire.

This is very far from saying that everybody who experiences lust objectifies the object of attention, just to say that lust in and of itself is not suficient for the person experiencing it to acknowledge the humanity of that same object.

The significance of lust/sexual desire as one (of several) motivator for rape is that rape is a de-humanizing act and humiliating act which in no way recognizes the humanity of the victim, at least insofar as recognizing its humanity entails recognizing and respecting its integrity as a person. Insofar as we can see objetification a

 

I think it's a good question: should you let your children watch porn?

In our society, children are brought up with porn. From sucking the motherly udder to being hypnotized by Lady Gaga, the obsession with the female body is entrenched in our society. Now, I'm not saying that's anybody's fault. I think the human race is inherently pornographic - it's why we procreate. We lust for the other sex, we cover it, we make babies. It's like a grand trick to get us freewheeling horny men to make commitments.

Would you let your children watch porn? They're already seeing it. They see the new Britney Spears Greatest Hits album cover and they can see the new Kool Rap Posse clip with the shaking booty. Will you let them realize it's porn? Will you make them see that just shaking yer booty isn't the same as stating your opinion? Will you point out that a body can be hot, but that if you can't get your point across, your relationship with the person with the hot body won't be a walk in the park?

If you can, then having your child watch porn can be a wholesome experience for the whole family.

 

I think part of the concern is the disparate expectations between males and females regarding beauty. Female beauty is celebrated, demanded, and expected, while males can get off easier.

 

They certainly can! *badumching*

I think lust can be, and should be, a big part of a healthy romantic relationship. Lust can also be a damaging force, both for people lusted after and for people doing the lusting. It's all about impulse control really; I don't think you can help being stimulated by things you see or hear, but just because you lust after someone doesn't mean you're going to rape them or stalk them.

The Bible says that lust, when it has conceived, brings forth sin; lust can certainly be the first step toward doing anti-social and unhealthy things. But then, so can anything really; likewise, the energy and passion of lust can certainly be channelled into a fulfilling, satisfying, passionate sexual and emotional relationship. In theory.

 

Agreed with Rogue1.5, above. The way I define lust (n. sexual desire) it is not inherently harmful or deleterious, but essential to health as an adult and, of course, pleasurable. Any anthropologist will confirm that sexual gratification is a basic need along with food, clothing and shelter (although psychologists make a further distinction, with sex in a second tier above the base of material requirements). In short, sex is a need and lust is the urge to fill that need.

Even if one takes a biblical tact, in Genesis God enjoined us to "go forth and multiply", and is on record at various points in Scripture for ordering two people together for that very purpose. So, from a religious perspective lust is divinely ordered, and from a biological perspective, perfectly natural and normal.

So defined, lust, like all other essential urges, is tied to pleasure. To balance hunger, for example, we find pleasure in eating. It is only in the unchecked satiation of this natural urge that filling the need can become harmful. Overindulgence in eating, the vice of gluttony, can lead to obesity and poor health. It's the same, or can be the same, with lust; there can be no dispute that overindulgence in sexual activity can also lead to serious ills.

 

"Assume" is not the right word for what happens when a human being naturally, biologically desires sex with another human being. A physical attraction occurs because of the physiological dynamic between the sex organs, and because of hormonal stimulation in the brain. Of course social norms and learned behaviors influence the form these urges take, but at its root all of this is ingrained and genetic, a basic human need, a predictable response to a known stimulus.

Accusing people of either gender of being somehow in the wrong for feeling sexual urges is as insulting as it is out of step with reality. Accusing men, in particular, of the unprovable and untestable hypothesis that we "objectify" the targets of our sexual desire is, in brief, degrading to men.

With regard to fetishes -- lust for a particular object or scenario -- these are learned behaviors, enculturated into the mind over the course of one's sexual development. Contrast this to the essential genetic urge to have sex with another member of one's species, and the primacy of this basic need becomes clear.

I agree that "lust in and of itself is not sufficient for the person experiencing it to acknowledge the humanity of the object of attention". Again, this process happens naturally. But we have different definitions of the term humanity, and specifically of acknowledging said humanity, as you'll see below.

Okay, if you want to discuss rape, we can do that. (The topic is objectification, and so far neither you nor any author of any socio-psychological work has managed convincingly to show that this process occurs at all, in any man or woman. But we can shift streams for a time if you like.) First, I agree that rape is a "de-humanizing act and humiliating act". That's unarguable IMO. But as to a rapist "recognizing the humanity" of the victim, we'll just have to disagree on one another's definitions of that phrase.

From my perspective, recognizing one's humanity means that the cognitive processes of the brain -- synapses, neurons, memory cells, etc. -- realize and acknowledge, involuntarily in an instant, that the figure before it is a human being. There is no decision-making involved, no pause for consideration. We all know when we're looking at another human being.

It appears you'd rather apply a moral judgement to this process, when you assert that to you, "recognizing humanity entails respecting [one's] integrity as a person". I submit that in this case, we are discussing two different ideas, and that we should attempt from this point forward to make a distinction between the phrases "recognizing humanity" and "respecting integrity", in order to avoid confusion.

It's obvious that a rapist does not respect the integrity of his/her victim as a person. Where we differ is here: IMO it does not follow that rape includes an "objectification" of the victim in the mind of the rapist. If you want to make t

 

Merlin, I think you're missing the point of why rape is almost inherently treating a person as an object. A living, breathing human being has their own psychological needs and desires and their own will. Rape inherently disregards this aspect of a person, saying the fact that their will and desire to not have sex with their attacker is irrelevant, they have no more choice in the matter than a doll and they will be treated like one, subservient to the attacker's will. That is objectification. Not caring that there is a mind within the body.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that rape is the complete opposite of objectifying a woman. It is an overt recognition of the woman's personhood that I suspect has at least as much to do with asserting total control, forcing another person to submit, as it does with sexual release. I'm sure in many cases the lure of rape is *because* the woman will resist and doesn't want it. That's part of why rape is so abhorrent. Honestly, if a rape occurs simply because the rapist doesn't see the victim as a person, as merely an object, then the crime (or maybe the nature of the intent) almost doesn't seem as awful.

 

I'm with Jabba. Rape is about asserting control over a person. Not treating them as an object to be used. Plenty of people view their sexual partners as objects to be had, but they're not rapists. They're just eh-holes. Rapists, however, know that the person they're violating is a person. That's what makes it so attractive to them.

 

If the definition of objectification is now "not caring that there is a mind within the body", then IMO the act of rape does not meet this definition. Jabbadabbado has the right of it that "rape is the complete opposite of objectifying a woman", and Fire_Ice_Death is correct when he asserts "Rape is [in part] about asserting control over a person." Mind control and domination of one will over another is part of the thrill of rape.

Even in an extreme example, such as rape of an incapacitated person, this impulse to subject another to one's will is present. If a second human mind and will were not there to be dominated, the perverse thrill for the rapist would be removed, and only the biological urge to have sex would remain, free of the sociopathic impulse to act against the will/knowledge of the victim.

It seems to me the definition of objectification changes to suit the specific rhetorical purposes of each claimant. Surely it cannot be merely Danaan's "disrespecting a person's integrity", because there's already a word for that: namely, disrespect. ShrunkenJedi's "not caring that there is a mind within the body" does seem an apt description for an actual event that I concur does happen, but we've already got a word for that, too: dehumanization. I think we can all agree that that's bad and people shouldn't dehumanize others. And...?

If objectification is defined as a lack of concern for the thoughts/feelings/volition of a certain person, matched by a focus only on the services they can provide, then I will reiterate my assertion, upthread, that hiring a person, any person, to perform a specific task, any task, conforms to the same definition. You're objectifying the clerk at the grocery store because s/he's just a machine that scans your items and takes your payment. What about his/her thoughts and feelings? You're objectifying your accountant, your laundry service, your cable guy, your waiter, your lawyer, your doctor. You only want them for one thing! You're objectifying the girl you see on the street or in the shop who catches your eye and gives you a thrill to think about for a few moments. And...? So...? So-called "objectification" becomes such a widespread, normative and automatic process that the word is rendered useless, meaningless.

At some point we're parsing existing definitions and inventing new words to try and give credence to an unsubstantiated non-event that may or may not occur in the mind of some men when they experience sexual desire for a woman. In any event it plays no part in rape, as established above, and at worst is a by-product of a natural urge that all adult people, everywhere experience.

 

I think the term objectification is being taken way too literally here. The cashier is not a chair, desk, mousetrap, or any other "object" regardless of wether or not I am concerned for what is in her head.

 

I don't think that's the case at all. The definition of the word even says that it's the act of regarding someone as an object. True, the cashier is not an 'object', but neither is the person you're objectifying, the thing is that when you objectify someone you're lowering them to the status of such an object like a chair or a mousetrap or...anything. So in that sense you are objectifying someone when you don't consider them any more than a tool to be used by you whether you run a business and treat an employee like an object or if you're seeing your partner as such. They're essentially the same thing. Which also renders the word meaningless.