Languish.org

One of the yahoo comments on that Esquire story said that without objectification, there could be no attraction.

Is this true? I mean, do you have to look at someone at least in part as a sex object before you can be attracted, and how is objectification defined? Does a model, male or female, who uses their attractiveness to help sell shit have a right to complain about being objectified, whatever the definition is? Is simply being attracted to a person objectifying them?

Vote both ways if you want.  :P

I am attracted to Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, we fall in love with their very soul. :whistle:

Objectification can mean different things, depending on who's doing the speaking.

If a good looking woman says it, it means you have to pretend she's smart.

If a homely woman says it, it means you have to stop looking at good looking women.

But seriously.. Objectification, like Hegemony and Imperialism and Paternalism is one of those post modern "technical" terms that seems to mean whatever is most useful for the author.

I know what I mean when I use it (the denial, mockery or apathy to/of moral person-hood, agency or identity). I deny my shoe has agency, I am apathetic to the identity of a spider and I mock the moral person-hood of Raz.

What do you mean when you use it?

Quote from: Viking on March 25, 2013, 05:58:16 PM
What do you mean when you use it?

I never use it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 06:08:19 PM

Quote from: Viking on March 25, 2013, 05:58:16 PM
What do you mean when you use it?

I never use it.

Unfortunately I do, but only when discussing Post-Modern Feminist "scholarship".

Yes.  But since there is no such thing as soul or spirit beyond biological processes, all is object.  That makes things simpler.

Of course, even if there were, the only knowledge you possess of another is the mental object you've created, so whatever makes you want to fuck that, it's still objectification.

Quote from: Ideologue on March 25, 2013, 08:24:01 PM
Of course, even if there were, the only knowledge you possess of another is the mental object you've created, so whatever makes you want to fuck that, it's still objectification.

:rolleyes:

Yes, possibly? It's not always a bad thing.

QuoteWhat do you mean when you use it?

For me the key would be a sort of commodification (whoever's objectified can be owned or replaced by one of like quality) and denial of the object's subjectivity.

I'd love to read more about the 'gaze' though, which seems relevant to what we're talking about.

Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2013, 08:32:19 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on March 25, 2013, 08:24:01 PM
Of course, even if there were, the only knowledge you possess of another is the mental object you've created, so whatever makes you want to fuck that, it's still objectification.

:rolleyes:

How is that untrue?

The lame bullshit about never knowing anyone else.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2013, 05:53:29 PM
Objectification can mean different things, depending on who's doing the speaking.

If a good looking woman says it, it means you have to pretend she's smart.

If a homely woman says it, it means you have to stop looking at good looking women.

:D

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?

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

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 07:31:45 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2013, 08:22:58 AM

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 07:31:45 AM
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! :showoff:

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 08:36:01 AM

Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2013, 08:22:58 AM

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 07:31:45 AM
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! :showoff:

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

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

Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2013, 08:36:01 AM
Really the post reads like a justification for why you pay to take care of your boyfriends. You're an alpha male! :showoff:

I thought it was because he was over 35 now.

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

Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2013, 01:28:54 AM
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

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

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 07:51:18 AM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2013, 12:00:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 07:51:18 AM
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.

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.

:o

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 12:39:09 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2013, 12:00:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 07:51:18 AM
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.

Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2013, 01:00:33 PM
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. ;)

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
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! :D

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 01:10:31 PM

Quote from: Malthus on March 27, 2013, 01:00:33 PM
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. ;)

Men might want women walking up and down in front of them wearing designer clothes?  :P

But seriously - this stuff about "transference" pretty well relies on people being unable, in their everyday lives, to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

What is remarkable is how even very young children can, in fact, do just that - the kid who uses a stick as a toy sword or gun to mow down legions of imaginary enemies does not, by and large, suddenly turn around and murder his or her school chums just because of attitudes formed concerning the amusing nature of massacre; he or she is not destined to grow up to become a Cossack. Similarly, the disintegration of the Hays Code on comic books did not, contrary to 1950s expectations, lead to mass juvenile delinquency and homosexuality ( :D ).  And of objectification via porn were as serious a concern in real life as 1970s feminists assumed, the advent of the Internet has effectively doomed us all.  :P

That said - I agree, I don't see any connection between "objectification" and attraction. If there was, presumably the less individual personality displayed, the less the attraction, looks being equal - and it doesn't work that way (at least, I assume it doesn't!)

Quote from: merithyn on March 27, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
Yeah, I think you're pretty much nailed my thoughts on the topic. I'll let you continue to carry the torch. Thanks, g! :D

Your thoughts on the topic are that you can't really say if objectification is happening? :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
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. ;)

Sounds like the same thinking for banning violent video games.  Meh.

Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2013, 02:04:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
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. ;)

Sounds like the same thinking for banning violent video games.  Meh.

Though mind you, playing Europa Universalis and Civilization *has* inspired me to attempt to take over the world ...  :hmm:

So far, it's not going very well though.  :(

I'm pretty sure that a picture of a person is an object, not an actual human being.  It makes sense to me to treat pictures as objects, actual people as living things and to have a clear distinction between the two.  I think we would be worried about the mental state of people who treated pictures as if they were alive.

Yes.

Failure to pass boner test, no approach, no convo, hence no nothing.

Men are very much focused on the visual when it comes to sexual cues, hence high heels, miniskirts, makeup and revealing dresses by women. Women of a certain outlook find this biological imperative replusive, men should just be neutral, boner-wise when a "portly" woman waddles into view, sits next down to them and starts talking.

When she reveals her "charming" personality along with her financial independence, college degrees earned and relates a funny story from her globetrotting days, men have no reason not to pop wood right there and then.

Except that men don't respond sexually to status cues like women do. What these women have been doing is just solipsitically projecting their own 'gina tingles onto men because...beats me. Men and women are exactly the same?