Objectification?

At what point does it become "objectification"?

If I look at a girl and see only someone to have sex with, without any concern for her feelings, I'm objectifying her, right? But what if I just think she's hot? Is that objectification?

I thought about this because I heard a story about a woman at a conference; after the lectures, she hung out with some friends until she finally decided to go to bed at 4am. She got into the elevator, and a man got in with her. He said to her, "I think you're very interesting and would like to talk more. Do you want to maybe go back to my room and have some coffee?" Telling the story, the woman said that she felt very uncomfortable that the man had asked her that and doesn't like it when "men sexualize [her] in that manner."

But doesn't everyone sexualize everyone else when they see them? If I see a woman, I think, "That's a woman." I don't think, "That is a person and gender is not important." There's no judgment; I simply notice that women are women and men are men. I don't assume that all women would want to fuck me or need a good fucking. I just understand that their genitals are internal, that they have boobs, etc. I imagine all women, when they see me, understand that I have a penis and balls.

Even if I find a woman attractive, I don't see her as a piece of meat. She's a person, with feelings and hopes and desires and all that shit, but if I think she's hot, I'd still like to stick my dick in her. Because that's what we do, that's how we're programmed. We like sex, we like to fuck, and we fuck things that we find appealing to look at. So of course, we like things that are pleasing to the eye.

Is there a clear line where we go from "natural response" to "objectification"? Or is having any sexual feelings toward a person objectifying them?

My opinion is that people are waaaay too touchy about some (read: almost all) things these days.

There is nothing wrong about "thinking" anything. It's acting on primitive thoughts that is wrong (assuming those somehow violate moral norms or law).


As for the particular scenario in your post...
From a purely biological point of view, a woman IS "something" to put a dick in, and achieving insemination, thus helping sustain the human race.
There is no other way for humans to reproduce naturally (not yet anyway).

The way I see it, people who say things like this, are essentially saying "I don't like the way nature/god arranged things, therefore I rage."


Besides, if anything, I'd say women themselves are enforcing this "objectification" on the rest of society. The beauty cult has existed for way longer than these objections, so, imo, they have it backwards.

Also, I believe it's "natural" for men to "protect" women. Yet I have seen women get offended at being offered help (like opening a door, etc.). Hell, I've heard of a case where a guy tried to help a woman get up after she tripped on the street and injured her leg, only to get sued for sexual harassment later... I mean... WTF!?

It's things like these that also keep pushing this "objectification" (something along the lines of "She's hawt, but I risk all kinds of trouble if I interact with her and she considers it somehow offensive. That means being "human" is pointless. What's left? Let me observe and see if she's the type for a one-night-stand.")


I guess what I want to say in the end is that there is no, and never was, any "line" between a natural response and objectification. A woman is an "object" for sex, for bearing children, for providing emotional comfort at home (this goes for both involved parties), just as a man is an "object" for sex (it's not like only guys want it), for protection (material, physical, emotional), etc. That's how it always was. Until one becomes acquainted with another on a more personal basis, the opposite gender will just fall under these "objectifications".

I think the whole concept is bullshit.

I love beautiful women, I appreciate their beauty and they love it in return. I have never gotten a negative response from being that way.

Really? This says way more about her lack of inter-personal skill than it does about the guy, let alone "objectifying her". He simply (and politely) asked if she would like to continue their encounter, all she had to do was politely refuse him. It happens every day - have we sunk so low into political correctness that it is now deemed inappropriate to simply speak to someone? First, there was nothing sexual (at least overtly) about his question, is it impossible that he simply wanted to get to know her better and see where things would lead? And is there anything wrong with that? I say no - if someone asks you (or anyone else for that matter) out, are they objectifying you or simply expressing interest in getting to know you better. By her definition, anyone asking her out for coffee is 'objectifying her" - so is it only being asked out if she finds the suitor attractive and "objectification" if she finds them uninteresting? That's ludicrous, and people making these types of claims are frankly part of the problem, which lies in the young lady's lack of self-confidence and inter-personal skills. not with the gentleman who asked if she would like to continue the evening.

To answer the objectification question, when you start to see someone else as a tool whose sole purpose is your gratification, without any regard to their rights, wants or feelings - then you're objectifying them - clearly that was NOT the case here. Finding someone attractive is not objectifying them and personally I find the entire example to be ludicrous and down right scary.

From a woman's point of view, not everybody sexualize everyone else okay. Every time we see a hot man we don't automatically think about their dicks or wanting them for sex. What a woman care about is loving on an emotional level, where there is a deep connection to each other based on strong affection and personal attachment.

If we didn't have that initial sexual attraction we would never venture to find out more about people, there would be nothing to spark the initial interest in a girl.

If a man gets into an elevator at 4am, I'd get off that elevator. That's just creepy.

I do actually try to interact with people in a gender neutral manner. Yes, it's not completely possible, but at least realizing you're judging by gender makes you more considerate of your actions.

Oh jayzus not Elevatorgate again.

You have the definition of objectification right--it's the lack of concern for the other person's feelings, safety, and desires. The problem with objectification is this: you ignore the person's other capacities and wishes just because you see the person as a sex object.

I disagree with wcsinn in that I believe it was objectification in that case. Rebecca Watson (the lecturer in the OP's story) was there to give keynote speeches, and she had clearly stated that she was going to bed to rest. I mean, even if she didn't say it, wouldn't it be obvious, going back to her room at 4am? Elevator dude ignored her capacity--i.e. to be there as a speaker, and not to be hit on--and also ignored her wish to be left alone to go to bed.

Disagree away, that's cool, but the details you are stating are an assumption or from another account of the story as they do not appear in this account. But even if that's true, is it it really to much for someone to turn down a request or reply to a question? Yea he was probably hitting on her, but it sounds like a harmless enough encounter - he did not force himself on her, threaten her or in any other way make her feel uncomfortable - if she in fact is uncomfortable being approached it says more about her than him IMHO. You are assuming that anyone who appears as a speaker has no interest in inter-personal relationships - is that some sort of automatic condition I missed out on along the way? As I said, if the story went down as related he asked a polite and simple question, which she declined - I see no harm and no foul.

The details I stated were the ones Rebecca Watson herself said on her blog and on youtube. This is what she said about it on the video, verbatim:



and she added this on her blog post:



Her talk earlier in the day was about how sexism in atheist circles drives women away from participating in atheist orgs and conventions, and what to do to combat this and increase female participation in atheist orgs. Hitting on women all the time when they're there to participate, discuss things, and not be sexualized is part of the problem. I mean, if you were just trying to do your job and people were hitting on you constantly, wouldn't that make you feel harassed and uncomfortable? It's ok to hit on people, but context matters. While at the conference, working in her capacity as a speaker? Not ok. In the bar where Watson was hanging out after the lectures? Ok. Alone in an elevator at 4am after she announced to the bar that she was going to bed? Not ok.

Here's the deal with the guy hitting on her in the elevator: there was no other place for her to go, so she felt unsafe. It's not a failing on her part--many women feel unsafe when in strange places and alone with strangers because shit does happen. Like gizgal says, being alone with someone on an elevator at 4am is creepy enough, but if the guy was propositioning her as well that bumps up the creep factor by a lot. Yes, it ended up being harmless, but it could easily enough have gone the other way, so it was reasonable to be fearful and to be careful. So she went online, told guys to NOT do that.

And this whole shitstorm happened in the atheist blogs.

So yes, it was objectification, albeit a rather mild case, and it turned out ok. But guys have to understand that even if not all women fear being hit on on elevators at 4am when they're alone, women's fears about it are reasonable.

Doesn't matter as long as you don't treat non-objects like objects.

I'm not sure i can give a good response to the specific case mentioned, but i don't think having sexual thoughts about a girl you see is objectifying. As long as you understand she is a person, with thoughts, feelings, and all that your fine.

I still don't think that the guy was objectifying her. Sure, the guy didn't realize the situation, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking of her fealings. Obviously, he was a guy, and we don't know how sertain situations could affect a woman. I wouldn't think twice if a person got in the same elevator as me at 4 A.M., because I obviously don't have some of the same fears as some women.

Saying that it was objectification, to me, was jumping the gun. She posted on the site , telling men to not do that, but do you think if a person regularly objectifies people, they'll listen? It sounded like objectification, but wasn't, in my opinion. Like I said, guys don't understand sertain things about women, and we could make women feal uncomfortable when we don't mean to, and women can do the same thing to men.

I think guys sometimes see girls as nothing more than a sex device. This does not mean that they will treat the girl as a sex device, as they will pretend to care about their feelings. but ultimately, their purpose to the guy is to be a sex object, that will be thrown away when it's not good enough. I think this is objectification

then there's some guys who think a girl is hot and sexy, and as a result, they pursue a relationship with them. during this relationship, they'll have sex, and if it just doesn't work out, they break up. I don't think this is objectification

The key difference between these is that in the former, sex remains the entire purpose throughout, while in the latter, sex is the reason they initiated the relationship, not the fundamental purpose.

Crossing the line on objectifying women is when you see a woman for her parts and not as a whole person. There's some obvious example like whistle blowing, staring down a blown, staring at an ass as they walk by, making derogatory comments, etc. But this really depends on the individual woman: how much respect she has for herself against how she perceives these things herself. Some women liked to be honked at while walking down the street. I personally don't, I flip 'em off everytime. I hate it, but I have a girlfriend that loves it.

I think that objectifying part is permissible if she's eying you first.

Women are touchy and complicated. I'm a woman and I feel sorry for the men.

I agree with some of the examples of objectifying, such as whistling at them and making rude comments, but is staring at a girl's ass really objectifying? Sometimes, it's fun to look. There may be nothing else to it. No thoughts like, "That girl has to love sex" or "I'd fuck her like crazy." Just, "That is a nice ass. I like looking at it the way I like looking at a beautiful painting."

Then again, maybe there are few guys that can enjoy looking without thinking about sex.

Yea its rare from my experience and I dont doubt that you're a gentleman in the fact that you're at least asking this question with good intentions, but you have to understand that objectification of women is a much bigger problem than what I can answer.

When are you crossing the line? That's a per person type of question.

Me. I don't like to be honked at, stared at, even glanced at sometimes. Glances can be pervvy too. I've had a very ugly personal experience that makes me wary of men. However, Im not completely broken, I dont carry "I hate all men" experiences with me every day, but I will always be aware and remain skeptical.

From Wikipedia on sexual objectification:
"Feminist scholars say that the objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman's worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another.[2][3] Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists see objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media, women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art, stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces...
women have historically been valued mainly for their physical attributes. Some feminists and psychologists argue that such objectification can lead to negative psychological effects including depression and hopelessness, and can give women negative self-images because of the belief that their intelligence and competence are currently not being, or will never be, acknowledged by society. ... young women are especially susceptible to objectification, as they are often taught that power, respect, and wealth can be derived from one's outward appearance.[14]"

Where is the line? I dont really know, just be sensitive to the fact that one woman might take it differently than another.

OOGLE/look/admire/appreciate/fill in the blank at your own risk.

[font=verdana][color=green]I hate the way that this thread has gone. It has now derailed to objectification of women alone; there's already a thread that covers that well enough. It's here https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=72492.

Now, back onto the topic of objectification as a whole.

Personally, I believe that the subject of objectification is something that someone automatically does when they first meet someone. For example, going back to the women scenario - only briefly - if I see a woman that I'm physically attracted to, I'd be honest and admit that I think "Oh wow, she be great to have sex with". Does that mean that I say it out right? No. Does it mean that I'll wolf-whistle at her? No. Of course not. However, by thinking that, I have objectified her.

Another example could be a random dog you see walking down the street with an owner. If I go up to the dog and give it a stroke and generous petting, I've objectified that dog as a pet. Even though the dog is already a pet of the owner, I, myself, have objectified the dog as a potential pet. If I were to measure it's legs etc, I could have objectified it as a hunting dog/breeding dog/show dog.

Moving onto tools as a whole. These are objects, and thus can be objectified with fear of chastisement from anyone else about objectifying them. However, these in turn can be construed in different ways; i.e. you may see a wooden circular object as a chopping board and I as a circular tray. Is this discriminatory? No; just our minds connecting what we see to what we would want it for.

Of course, this goes back to the first paragraph I discussed about women. Biologically, a male, when it sees a female that it's attracted to, will want it to have sex with. Animals do it all the time, yet they are never scorned for doing so. It is our species self-perceived notion of Civilisation that prevents this view being the norm. It's just that, sometimes, some people choose to base their views on objectification alone; rather than ignoring their previous objectifications and interacting with the object not based on objectification i.e. talking to the women; not petting the dog or reading up on wooden circles.

That's what objectification is. Perceiving something as an object. Whether it be human, animal or an actual object; the actual subject is much wider than originally discussed here.