January 30, 2013
-
The problem with “objectification”
The Onion does a pretty good job of satirizing things, and here they satirize sexual objectification.
While I see the point they’re making, and it isn’t completely wrong…
I think part of what is wrong with our society is the very fact that we think “sex object” is a coherent notion, that sexuality makes you into an object, a thing, a piece of meat. I can’t deny that many people think that way, but honestly I think it completely misunderstands what sexuality is (or should be) about.
For me, “sex object” sounds like “friendship object” or “companion object”; it’s a fundamental category error. You can’t have sex with an object, any more than you can be friends with one. Any being worth having sex with is a being worth valuing as a person.
I tried to explain this to someone once; she started by complaining that someone had “hit on her”, but it quickly became clear from the conversation that he had sexually assaulted her. He was touching her breasts and buttocks without her permission. That’s not hitting on you! Honestly he didn’t even want to have sex with you, not the way I would want to. He wanted to use you as a masturbation instrument. If that’s what “hitting on you” has been in your life, I must apologize on behalf of my entire gender; they are doing it wrong, completely wrong.
Like I said, not everyone thinks that way. But I think this kind of talk, even as satire, encourages the idea that this is what sexuality is. It encourages us to think that sex is degrading, violent, oppressive; it supports what is essentially a rapist’s attitude that sex is something you do to someone to hurt them.
It’s good to call attention to this sort of attitude—but we must respond by undermining it, not by reinforcing it. To say that someone is beautiful or sexy must not be to make them into an object, and until it isn’t we have work left to do.
Comments (11)
I agree with this post. I also think that people are aware the sexual objectification of women in our society. While I did find myself laughing at the article and thinking at least the one that taught me how to be a sex object assured me that it was ok to use my brain (you know a woman does need her wits and charm), I don’t think it makes anyone think this is a problem that needs to be changed. Your post reminds me of all the arguments I used to have with my female friends about the difference between sexy and sleazy. I won’t argue against the notion, that both play a role in sexuality. I couldn’t get them to understand that the mindless images of women in porn and rap videos weren’t the only way to be sexy.
Good concluding statement
“He wanted to use you as a masturbation instrument.” In this statement you show a perfect understanding of sexual objectification. To objectify is to want to use someone like an object, and yes you can have sex with objects. There have been objects made to bring people to sexual climax for centuries. Try to think of it this way, “We use objects and relate to people,” or we should relate to, and not use, people. Of course this does break down a bit. I own my dog, but to my way of thinking I relate to my dog. Having said that, I would still not treat a person I loved exactly like my dog. If it came down to the person I loved or the dog I love. I’d hope I made the right one to keep in my life.
This phrase from the Onion article made me wince in awkward laughter -
“an eye-catching repository for male gratification.”
YEESH!
This is a little over my head–I am an old guy from the 30′s. lol
Guys like looking a beautiful gals. That is their nature. It seems that this observation does not apply to females for objectifying males. lol Why, the sexes are different.
I was raised to respect girls and women. I was trained to never do anything that would in anyway cause others to look at a gal with superstition that she was not moral and ethical.
I was taught to never have sex with a gal until we were married. That almost seems ridiculous to the recent generations. I see Xanga sites that advocate all kinds of sexual activities with multiple partners. They will argue that is their right and of course that makes me a prude, homophobic, religious fanatic, etc.
I agree that women and men should be respected. Sex object is a very poor term in describing a gal and she should be offended. I suspect many gals would feel good at being sexually attractive to men and not offended with the term, even though most would say they want to be appreciated for more than their physical beauty.
I am happy to be with my first love who I met in high school and married 57 years ago. She is a lady.
As a chick who goes out to bars and gets hit on by dudes, I have never thought it was ok for them to hit on me by physically groping me. The fact that some girls thinks that is ok make me question were they taught what a healthy relationship is. Of course in any good relationship there will be groping but that shouldn’t be until you have learned to respect each other.
That may be mildly old school but as my mom said they wan’t entrance into the country they better be will to work hard and pay the fees. Of course she didn’t mean literally pay but put in the work and dedication it takes to get to know each other before just rip the pants off and going at it like animal kingdom.
@jwils4life -
While I agree that it’s usually better to establish a relationship before you have sex, I am somewhat concerned about the language you (and your mother) use in this regard, as it seems to support the cultural norm that sex is a commodity, something women “give up” and men “get some”. That’s fundamentally the wrong approach to sexuality, which should be a shared and mutual activity that people enjoy together, not something done out of a sense of obligation or quid pro quo.
@HUMOR_ME_NOW -
You can’t see men as physically attractive because you are heterosexual, and blinded by your own Mind Projection Bias. I assure you, men do have a great many traits that make them physically attractive to straight women and gay men, and I know a lot of both who like to look at naked men.
The thing I don’t like about sexual abstinence until marriage is that it forces you to make a commitment before you can even establish sexual compatibility. You’re being asked to make a promise without being given the full terms of that promise beforehand. I like the idea of establishing a relationship before you have sex, but making a marriage commitment first seems to put the cart before the horse.
Statistically, most people do what I recommend: They establish a relationship, have sex, find that they are compatible, and then eventually get married. Most pre-marital sex is exactly that, sex before marriage with plans to get married eventually.
@Such_are_you -
I guess what I’m trying to say is that masturbation and sex are radically different things, and shouldn’t be thus conflated. Bringing yourself to orgasm with someone else’s body is not the same as having sex with them, and if you don’t understand why you’re exactly the sort of person I’m trying to reach. Sex by its very nature involves more than one participant, and it is about the relationship and sharing between those multiple participants.
To better appreciate the consciousness I’m trying to raise, imagine if someone said “this shoe is my best friend”. Well, maybe they really like the shoe, maybe it gives them a lot of pleasure; but it is clearly not literally their friend, and maybe we shouldn’t even speak that way.
@pnrj -
I don’t mean literally earn it, I agree that is something that should be enjoyed by both parties. I mean be willing to put in work on both sides to understand the type of commitment that having a relationship with sexual activity involves.
@pnrj - When I speak about sex, unless I specifically highlight a certain aspect, I am speaking generally; speaking to the whole crowed, so to speak. While I especially like what you mean when you speak about “sex”, I think you must acknowledge that it is not the typical understanding of the word today. I would specifically call what you are talking about “making love”. Most of the time when people talk about making love they are talking about having sex, and love has nothing to do with it. I have a very nuanced view of sex and relationship, but when making entries on someone’s blog, I’ve not known, I speak in fairly broad generalities; that’s just wisdom. You don’t look very old, so I’d have to say you are an anomaly, and that is heartening considering the subject, and your generation.