Is objectification necessary for attraction?

[Martinus]

Marti's attempts to enter the seduction community are even more nauseating than Drak's.

I am a bystander with no horse in that race - just commenting on what I see.

[Valmy]

Um...I guess...maybe?  The very act of finding somebody sexually attractive in a physical sense sometimes gets portrayed as objectification.  But maybe if you want something from anybody it is a form of objectification, and if so, then by definition yes.

But I do not really understand what makes an act qualify as objectification even if I can sort of sense it sometimes.  Like porn, hard to define but you know it when you see it.

[garbon]

Marti's attempts to enter the seduction community are even more nauseating than Drak's.

I am a bystander with no horse in that race - just commenting on what I see.

Actually I saw where you threw in gay men. Really the post reads like a justification for why you pay to take care of your boyfriends. You're an alpha male!

[Martinus]

Marti's attempts to enter the seduction community are even more nauseating than Drak's.

I am a bystander with no horse in that race - just commenting on what I see.

Actually I saw where you threw in gay men. Really the post reads like a justification for why you pay to take care of your boyfriends. You're an alpha male!

That was an after thought. The original intention was to discuss objectification of womenbait Merri.

[garbon]

Yes, posting about yourself is often an after thought with you, Marti.

[CountDeMoney]

Really the post reads like a justification for why you pay to take care of your boyfriends. You're an alpha male!

I thought it was because he was over 35 now.

[Josquius]

Of course. In the past (I.e. usually) go out with less hot girls because I actually like them as people (a mistake) but even there there has to be some attraction, I'm not going to go out with a girl I find repulsive just because she's nice

But to answer the question, if we are talking about sexual attraction, then definitely some sort of objectification is necessary.

At least objectification by men is more sincere, as they are still objectifying you because of your body, which is more innately "you", than your wallet or the kind of car you drive (which is what you are being objectified for by women).

Edit: On reflection, I have to refine this: not all males are attracted to good looking people; only alpha males are. This is because alpha males are looking for a partner they can take care of and provide for (with the eventual goal of creating offspring - even if, when you are talking about gay men, this is not biologically possible, the same impulse applies). On the other hand, beta males are looking for someone who will take care of them - which is why they are more attracted to symbols of status and power (and end up with uglier, older and/or fat sugar mommies/daddies).

Also explains why so many hipsters engage in white-knighting, fat acceptance and have uglier and older partners - since hipsters are probably the world's most "pure" beta male demographic.

I wonder if similar tendencies can be seen among women too, or are the chicks who end up as sugar mommies just settling?

....have you been reading that pickup artist stuff?

I disagree

[garbon]

Tyro, objectification doesn't simply mean attraction. That'd be silly.

[Admiral Yi]

Tyro, objectification doesn't simply mean attraction. That'd be silly.

You're the only one so far to suggest the word has any real meaning.  So please go on.

[garbon]

Tyro, objectification doesn't simply mean attraction. That'd be silly.

You're the only one so far to suggest the word has any real meaning.  So please go on.

Well it is like what that editor said: ""I could lie to you if you want and say we are interested in their brains as well. We are not."

It is when you reduce a person to just an image of attractiveness (or sexual gratification) and don't care about that person beyond their worth as a commodity or product that is pleasing to you - the observer. Celebrities are probably the most objectified people of all.

Ultimately a sort dehumanization as only the aesthetics matter.

[garbon]

From wikipedia, objectification is present if any of the following is true:

Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one's own purposes;
Denial of autonomy, Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the 'object's' feelings and experiences.

[derspiess]

[Malthus]

Tyro, objectification doesn't simply mean attraction. That'd be silly.

You're the only one so far to suggest the word has any real meaning.  So please go on.

Well it is like what that editor said: ""I could lie to you if you want and say we are interested in their brains as well. We are not."

It is when you reduce a person to just an image of attractiveness (or sexual gratification) and don't care about that person beyond their worth as a commodity or product that is pleasing to you - the observer. Celebrities are probably the most objectified people of all.

Ultimately a sort dehumanization as only the aesthetics matter.

Strikes me as a non-issue. The people he's talking about are, I assume, professional models. "Objectification" is part of the job description.

No-one in the audience, for example, pretends that runway models are anything more than living hangers for use in displaying designer clothes. When does the audience care about the model's subjective needs? Now, if the person hiring the models acts as if they are things and not people, that's a genuine concern - ditto if this Esquire dude does so. But that is not I think what he's saying.

[garbon]

Strikes me as a non-issue. The people he's talking about are, I assume, professional models. "Objectification" is part of the job description.

No-one in the audience, for example, pretends that runway models are anything more than living hangers for use in displaying designer clothes. When does the audience care about the model's subjective needs? Now, if the person hiring the models acts as if they are things and not people, that's a genuine concern - ditto if this Esquire dude does so. But that is not I think what he's saying.

I think the issue with objectification is transference. Like the feminist concern about porn is that men might end up thinking they should treat women in their everyday lives the same way.  So via media portrayals - a mindset that women are there to sit and look pretty - not think or get involved in serious business matters.

Not that I'm arguing that's happening - just that I don't think any of that is necessary for attraction.

[merithyn]

I think the issue with objectification is transference. Like the feminist concern about porn is that men might end up thinking they should treat women in their everyday lives the same way.  So via media portrayals - a mindset that women are there to sit and look pretty - not think or get involved in serious business matters.

Not that I'm arguing that's happening - just that I don't think any of that is necessary for attraction.

Yeah, I think you're pretty much nailed my thoughts on the topic. I'll let you continue to carry the torch. Thanks, g!