HOME | DD
brentcherry — Objectification is...Bad?
#catcall #catcalls #consent #fantasize #feminazi #feminism #feminist #hot #notbad #objectify #sexual #sexy #theory #thought #thoughts #feministtheory #consensual #objectification #objectifying #catcalling #sexualobjectification
Published: 2015-08-13 10:17:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 25608; Favourites: 149; Downloads: 18
Redirect to original
Description
Get the high resolution and working files on this piece through my Patreon here! www.patreon.com/BrentJohnOrder high-quality prints on my Curioos shop here! www.curioos.com/brentcherryart
Here's the full journal explaining this piece here: fav.me/d95h6l8
Finally! Something I've been wanting to get done for a while, but haven't figured out how to do it…until now!
You ever hear the countless messages and campaigns by feminists and activists that emphasize and hammer in how horrible it is to objectify someone?
Well, unless you've had your head in the sand for the past few decades, of course you have!
But have you ever stopped to think about how overgeneralized and downright absurd it is?
As social and interactive beings, we objectify non-stop, both consciously and unconsciously. This is common sense. From the basic actions like reading, writing, speaking, playing, to even more complex actions such as dancing, driving, gaming, everything we do is in some way a form of objectification.
Some people like to be catcalled, others not. Some like to be spoken to, and some just want to listen. Some want public attention, and some want privacy. Some want to be fantasized about sexually, and others don't want to be thought of that way.
So as long as it’s not disrespectful, unwelcome, or against required permission, there is absolutely nothing wrong with objectification of any kind.
Background image by here: fav.me/d5tt3t4
Brushes used:
and
, along with some images I found online.
Related content
Comments: 148
Sorry, were you the one who revived a dead argument? Yes? Then if you're going to throw a punch, you'd best bring a fight, not tell your opponent to back down because your minuscule ego was challenged and now your pride is damaged. I suppose I'll be the bigger woman here (bigger than the women you enjoy objectifying so much) and end it. Make sure not to play the victim again in the next few months you try returning to this argument. Goodbye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Keep telling yourself that. Good riddance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Heh heh, looks like he doesn't take second opinions terribly well.
"Strong reasoning and logic outweigh research" pfft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
If the research is faulty or nonsensical, then of course you can't rely on it. It doesn't matter how much research you do on something if your understanding of it is flawed. On top of that, everyone's perception of it is different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Of course they're 2 different things. Check out my journal on it for more information.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I always understood "objectification" to mean reducing someone to a one-dimensional sex object, as if they were only good for one recreational use. But it does seem that certain activists calling themselves "feminists" are conflating that concept with any sexual interest, at least on the part of heterosexual men towards women. People have always checked out and felt sexual attraction towards certain individuals as long as we had sex drives. It's when you force sex onto people, or limit them to one role in society, that it becomes morally wrong. Just my two cents on the matter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's what it's commonly used as. And I agree that forcing sex or limiting them to one role without their consent is wrong. But that would definitely fall under unwelcome and against permission, which proves my point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I disagree.
"As social and interactive beings, we objectify non-stop, both consciously and unconsciously. This is common sense. From the basic actions like reading, writing, speaking, playing, to even more complex actions such as dancing, driving, gaming, everything we do is in some way a form of objectification."
You're confusing two different types of objectification. To objectify in the sense of having the ability to see someone as an object is a normal function of a healthy brain. To objectify in the sense of seeing someone as nothing but an object--to demoralise them--is the function of a perverted mind and, no, it's not common sense. This may seem like simple wordplay, but I assure you, there is quite a difference. In the former, a human being is still considered a human being, though now they have temporarily taken on the qualities of an object. In the latter, a human being is seen as actually becoming an object to be used, typically in a sexual manner. If you'd like to understand more about these differences, feel free to listen to this Ted Talk: The Sexy Lie, by Caroline Heldman .
"Some people like to be catcalled, others not. Some like to be spoken to, and some just want to listen. Some want public attention, and some want privacy. Some want to be fantasized about sexually, and others don't want to be thought of that way."
Honestly, when will we start judging matters through factual, objective analysis rather than fleeting, subjective feelings? Just because some people enjoy the attention they get from showing off their body in a sexual manner doesn't make it right for someone to feed that desire. Psychology plays a huge part in this. We humans are very versatile and adaptable creatures. If we are abused as a children--sexually, mentally, emotionally--or neglected of the healthy attention we should be receiving, with time, we learn to cope. Sometimes that coping involves seeking beneficial forms of attention, such as from teachers or mentors, bonding with them in a way that builds trust and character. Sometimes, however, that coping involves seeking attention in a more negative manner. For example, some kids become delinquents because they know this will get them attention, even if--and especially because--their actions are wrong. The same is true for those who use their bodies to gain attention. In a way, they're demoralising themselves because of this normal defence mechanism. Unfortunately, people with your mindset believe giving them the attention they seek is actually healthy and totally okay when, in truth, it isn't, and you are merely reinforcing what they have been conditioned to believe: That certain pieces of their body are more valuable than who they are as a whole person.
"So as long as it’s not disrespectful, unwelcome, or against required permission, there is absolutely nothing wrong with objectification of any kind."
Whether it is welcome or not, it is always disrespectful and very unhealthy. You are supporting the idea of allowing someone to be seen as a sexual object to be used for someone else's desires. Maybe instead, you should help prevent this by telling someone they're attractive in a respectful manner. There's no need to accentuate the body and its sexual functions for someone to be valuable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
First, I'm not a feminist. Second, this comment was written rather long ago. I'm not debating this issue much these days so no need to get your trousers in a twist, mate. Third, brilliant argument. You certainly showed me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You need to get a good look in the mirror and deal with your arrogance, you're so sure of yourself, yet contradict yourself in the post, I don't have to argue with you to prove you wrong, you're doing that perfectly well by yourself.
"You're confusing two different types of objectification. To objectify in the sense of having the ability to see someone as an object is a normal function of a healthy brain."
"Whether it is welcome or not, it is always disrespectful and very unhealthy."
For someone to ONLY see somebody as an object they'd have to have a mental condition, because to be unable to see somebody as a person means you're unable to consider them as a person, that includes listening to them. If it was not for objectification, many of the worlds people would not have been born.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You need to get a good look in the mirror and deal with your arrogance,"
Not certain how a mirror would help with that.
"I don't have to argue with you to prove you wrong, you're doing that perfectly well by yourself."
Then why continue commenting? Why comment at all? Certainly you must consider my opinion to an extent since you did indeed argue.
"you're so sure of yourself, yet contradict yourself in the post"
Where?
"For someone to ONLY see somebody as an object they'd have to have a mental condition,"
Hence the reason I put "--to demoralise them" after the comment with which you are concerned. Perhaps I should be more clear for the nitpicky--I didn't mean 'to see' literally. I meant 'to see' as in to treat as nothing but a sexual object.
"If it was not for objectification, many of the worlds people would not have been born."
You do realise sexual objectification isn't necessarily about two people having intercourse, yes? It should be perfectly clear I meant the type of sexual objectification shown in adverts, in shows, movies, books, etc. If you had read the rest of the debate, you might have understood that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Everything you've said here I've elaborated in my journal here, so I suggest you take a look at that: fav.me/d95h6l8
I've seen Caroline's talk, and she's also one of the people who doesn't realize that objectification can be a good thing. Objectification can be respectful. It just depends on the person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have already taken a look at your journal and, to be frank, there's nothing of value to it, similar to this image. But, since you insist your opinion is somehow valuable in a factual sense, allow me to ask you just a few questions. Do you have a Ph.D? Have you published journals in your field? Have you done any actual research on this subject of objectification? If so, do you have evidence to show for it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, sorry that you don't find any value in what I've done, but I stand by everything I've said.
No, I don't have a Ph.D or published anything, nor do I have to for anything I've said to be of any value. Sometimes all it takes is a different perspective on something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Sometimes all it takes is a different perspective on something."
That would be fine, except you're not stating your opinion on something as frivolous as your favourite ice cream or favourite colour. You're stating an opinion that supports an issue detrimental to human worth. And, yes, whether your perspective observes it or not, objectification is an issue. Those with Ph.Ds, those who have researched, those who have published their findings, like Caroline, have proven this. How can you possibly be so narcissistic to assume 'a different perspective' that consists of a mere opinion based on mere observation is more valuable than the efforts of these intellectuals? In any case, because of the serious nature of this issue, because it does, indeed, contain an objective answer that clearly shows it is wrong and unhealthy, your opinion is no longer some differing perspective. It's an excuse, an ignorant one at that, and this sort of ignorance, this refusal to accept the reality of the issue, only causes more issues, not less. Perhaps you should stay out of debates you have clearly not researched since you feel so inclined to trust your understanding over the understanding of those who have done the research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And some people are perfectly fine with not being as worthy as others. Again, it's entirely subjective.
No amount of credentials or research is ever going to trump strong logic and reasoning. You want proof of this? Go investigate the idiot Dr. Gail Dines who makes shit up about porn to push her agenda. Caroline isn't nearly as bad as Gail, but her arguments are still faulty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"And some people are perfectly fine with not being as worthy as others. Again, it's entirely subjective."
It's really not when, as I've already explained, there is an objective answer: Objectification is unhealthy. Not just one researcher has come to this conclusion, so, as someone with such strong logic and reasoning, you simply must know there's a reason for this.
"No amount of credentials or research is ever going to trump strong logic and reasoning."
And what is your definition of logic and reasoning?
"You want proof of this? Go investigate the idiot Dr. Gail Dines who makes shit up about porn to push her agenda."
Just because she 'made shit up' doesn't make her credentials invalid. She simply used them incorrectly, twisted her knowledge to manipulate people into believing her. When credentials are used correctly, they reveal many things about our world. Some of those things are issues we should understand and put a stop to rather than ignore and support.
"Caroline isn't nearly as bad as Gail, but her arguments are still faulty."
And you have proof of this? Oh, I suppose it's your subjective 'logic and reasoning' again, telling you her arguments are faulty because your opinion on this matter opposes hers... If not, then, please, enlighten me. Objectively, of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course objectification can be unhealthy. No one's doubting that. But it can also be healthy. And what you're doing is an appeal to popularity fallacy. Having more people come to the same conclusion doesn't automatically make it more valid.
Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, and reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
I'm not saying Dr. Dines' credentials are invalid. I'm saying that having a Ph.D means absolutely nothing if you don't practice it appropriately.
The most glaring flaw of her presentation is that she's working from the standpoint that "all objectification is bad", which I've thoroughly explained in my journal how and why this is not always true. It's all there. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"But it can also be healthy."
Yeah? Please, do explain how lowering the value of a human being to that of a sexual object can be healthy. And unless you wish to go round in circles, I suggest you find some objective sources to back up your opinion, because so far, you have none and your uninformed opinion does not hold water in this debate.
"And what you're doing is an appeal to popularity fallacy. Having more people come to the same conclusion doesn't automatically make it more valid."
Having more people come to the same conclusion about a matter they have researched in the same field of expertise does, indeed, make their opinions more valid than any subjective answer given by any one person who has not done any research in this same particular field. It's a matter of being informed. Would you say your opinion on a matter in quantum mechanics is just as valid as that of a group of quantum physicists? I'd certain hope not.
"Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity, and reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event."
And what, according to you, makes logic and reasoning valid?
"I'm not saying Dr. Dines' credentials are invalid. I'm saying that having a Ph.D means absolutely nothing if you don't practice it appropriately."
And? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a bit of bias. Not every person with a Ph.D in gender studies who fights against objectification is a sham, and if this isn't your point, then why bring into the conversation someone who is a sham?
"The most glaring flaw of her presentation is that she's working from the standpoint that "all objectification is bad"
Is lowering the value of a human being to the status of a sexual object not bad?
"which I've thoroughly explained in my journal how and why this is not always true"
You don't seem to understand what objective means. It means I want factual evidence. I want an informed opinion. If you don't have that informed opinion, then find someone who has studied in this area who can support your uninformed opinion. Again, we are not debating your favourite ice cream flavour. We're debating a real and serious issue that is clearly wrong and unhealthy that you support because you believe, without any evidence, it can somehow be beneficial and healthy. I cannot stress how important it is to have the proper knowledge when debating something as controversial as this and how absolutely silly it is when someone without that knowledge decides to not only criticise a doctor in that field of expertise, but also support the opposing side of the conclusions that doctor has reached in her research. It would be just as silly as you having an opinion on how the string theory is a sham without anything to support your opinion while many a quantum physicist would gladly fill a chalkboard with the complex equations needed to back their findings while laughing you straight out of the room.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Yeah? Please, do explain how lowering the value of a human being to that of a sexual object can be healthy. And unless you wish to go round in circles, I suggest you find some objective sources to back up your opinion, because so far, you have none and your uninformed opinion does not hold water in this debate."
Here you go: www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201211/do-women-want-be-objectified and www.nymag.com/thecut/2014/09/when-a-little-objectification-is-a-good-thing.html
Or how about an entire site dedicated to women making money of off objectification: www. myfreecams. com. I've talked to dozens of models on this site who ABSOLUTELY LOVE what they do.
"Having more people come to the same conclusion about a matter they have researched in the same field of expertise does, indeed, make their opinions more valid than any subjective answer given by any one person who has not done any research in this same particular field. It's a matter of being informed."
For years, the majority people believed homosexuality was the same as pedophilia until science and strong evidence proved otherwise. Same goes with the toxicity of marijuana. So no, consensus in no way validates faulty data.
"Would you say your opinion on a matter in quantum mechanics is just as valid as that of a group of quantum physicists? I'd certain hope not."
If I had a firm understanding on how quantum mechanics work and could effectively apply it in my reasoning (which I don't), then yes, it would be just as valid as a certified physicist. Your argument is like saying "vaccines cause autism because there are doctors that say so, despite no evidence or reason to suggest it". That would be absurd.
"And what, according to you, makes logic and reasoning valid?"
If it can be proven and effectively applied in a plausible situation. How else?
"And? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a bit of bias. Not every person with a Ph.D in gender studies who fights against objectification is a sham, and if this isn't your point, then why bring into the conversation someone who is a sham?
Because of the reason I just said. Credentials mean absolutely nothing if you don't practice or apply them appropriately, and especially if you don't have a firm grasp of how things objectively work in your trained field.
"Is lowering the value of a human being to the status of a sexual object not bad?
It entirely depends on how someone views it. I've explained this all in my journal, but seeing as that's not a enough for you, go to any place where people make entire careers off of being objectified, such as a strip club or that cam site I linked to. You'll see countless people who enjoy and feel empowered being objectified.
Also, as someone who HAS been sexually objectified, I can tell you from personal experience that sometimes I got an ego boost and sometimes I felt disgusted. Again, it all depends on the situation and the views.
"You don't seem to understand what objective means. It means I want factual evidence. I want an informed opinion. If you don't have that informed opinion, then find someone who has studied in this area who can support your uninformed opinion. Again, we are not debating your favourite ice cream flavour. We're debating a real and serious issue that is clearly wrong and unhealthy that you support because you believe, without any evidence, it can somehow be beneficial and healthy."
I've provided links that back up my views, but I expect you to respond back in some way dismissing them and saying your understanding of it is more valid. And it's pretty ironic for someone who accuses me of pushing a harmful idea seems to have such a strong "objective" sense of what is "clearly wrong and unhealthy".
"I cannot stress how important it is to have the proper knowledge when debating something as controversial as this and how absolutely silly it is when someone without that knowledge decides to not only criticise a doctor in that field of expertise, but also support the opposing side of the conclusions that doctor has reached in her research. It would be just as silly as you having an opinion on how the string theory is a sham without anything to support your opinion while many a quantum physicist would gladly fill a chalkboard with the complex equations needed to back their findings while laughing you straight out of the room."
If I was talking about something I clearly has no informed opinion on, then you would be right. But as I've demonstrated, I do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If I was talking about something I clearly has no informed opinion on, then you would be right. But as I've demonstrated, I do."
Unfortunately, it's still very clear you do not.
"www. psychologytoday. com/blog/in-love-and-war/201211/do-women-want-be-objectified"
You did read this article in its entirety, didn't you? Unfortunately for you, the facts within it actually support the complete opposite of your argument.
"nymag. com/thecut/2014/09/when-a-little-objectification-is-a-good-thing. html"
This article, on the other hand, discusses objectification in the context of a sexual relationship. To see someone as a sexual object in a sexual relationship is to be expected. They're...in a sexual relationship. The type of objectification I'm discussing is the type you described in your artist's comment. In gaming, in books, while dancing, etc. These are all typically displayed to the public in some manner whereas a sexual relationship typically exists behind closed doors. Further, this objectification is temporary. It exists only while having sex. That woman being objectified in bed can still be seen as a valuable human being outside the bed.
"Or how about an entire site dedicated to women making money of off objectification. I've talked to dozens of models on this site who ABSOLUTELY LOVE what they do."
Doesn't the article you provided above prove how this very type of site is wrong? These women love what they do because they receive positive feedback for their bodies. But what happens when they're older? What value do they have as a model with sagging boobs and bum? None. Because that is what society has taught them and that is what they have been conditioned to believe: Their bodies are more valuable than, say, their minds, their personalities, they're abilities. They may love what they do, but those feelings don't necessarily make it right.
"For years, the majority people believed homosexuality was the same as pedophilia until science and strong evidence proved otherwise. Same goes with the toxicity of marijuana. So no, consensus in no way validates faulty data."
I didn't say consensus validates faulty data. I said people informed in their field of study who come to the same conclusion through research and objective facts have a much more valid opinion than a random stranger without a Ph.D who opposes that opinion when he has never done research in the same particular field.
"If I had a firm understanding on how quantum mechanics work and could effectively apply it in my reasoning (which I don't), then yes, it would be just as valid as a certified physicist."
Key words: "If I had a firm understanding on how X worked and could effectively apply it in my reasoning." Do you have a firm understanding of objectification, how it works, and how to effectively apply it to your reasoning? These comments seem to suggest you do not.
"Your argument is like saying "vaccines cause autism because there are doctors that say so, despite no evidence or reason to suggest it". That would be absurd."
I have been stressing the need for evidence and reason this entire time. How exactly is my argument like saying this?
"If it can be proven and effectively applied in a plausible situation. How else?"
Okay, so, outside of a sexual relationship, how can lowering the value of a human being to nothing more than a sexual object be healthy? You still have yet to prove this yet, again, you still believe it to be true.
"It entirely depends on how someone views it. I've explained this all in my journal, but seeing as that's not a enough for you, go to any place where people make entire careers off of being objectified, such as a strip club or that cam site I linked to. You'll see countless people who enjoy and feel empowered being objectified."
While I agree confidence is a good thing, having confidence in the wrong thing can be detrimental. These models, strippers, etc. are gaining positive feedback for the moment. But, again, what happens when they grow old? What happens when they have the wrong fan say the wrong thing? They may feel empowered by their looks, but someday, those will fade away. No one has eternal beauty. Not based on our societies standards they certainly don't. And once their money-making appearance disappears, then what will they have? Certainly not confidence. Again, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from studies that clearly state objectification is not beneficial, for mental or physical health. It lowers the user's self-worth and, when displayed to the public as it far too often is, it lowers the self-worth of others.
"I've provided links that back up my views, but I expect you to respond back in some way dismissing them and saying your understanding of it is more valid."
Expect away, but I've never said my understanding is more valid. I've said evidence and objective facts are more valid than uninformed opinions.
"And it's pretty ironic for someone who accuses me of pushing a harmful idea seems to have such a strong "objective" sense of what is "clearly wrong and unhealthy""
Does the evidence not prove objectification is unhealthy? It does. So how am I wrong in trusting the evidence that proves such?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Unfortunately, it's still very clear you do not."
I've explained it as thoroughly as I possibly could and with sources like you described. If you don't think I understand it, that's your problem.
"You did read this article in its entirety, didn't you? Unfortunately for you, the facts within it actually support the complete opposite of your argument."
Oops! Wrong link. I meant this one: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11…
"This article, on the other hand, discusses objectification in the context of a sexual relationship. To see someone as a sexual object in a sexual relationship is to be expected. They're...in a sexual relationship. The type of objectification I'm discussing is the type you described in your artist's comment. In gaming, in books, while dancing, etc. These are all typically displayed to the public in some manner whereas a sexual relationship typically exists behind closed doors. Further, this objectification is temporary. It exists only while having sex. That woman being objectified in bed can still be seen as a valuable human being outside the bed."
Whether it's temporary or in a committed relationship is irrelevant. It's objectification nonetheless, and as you pointed out, it's beneficial.
"Doesn't the article you provided above prove how this very type of site is wrong?"
Yes, and I corrected that.
"These women love what they do because they receive positive feedback for their bodies."
OR, they could do it because they get off on being exhibitionists, enjoy interacting with people, and be in an environment where they are in complete and absolute control in what happens in their room. Which is, as I discusses earlier, a form of objectification.
"But what happens when they're older? What value do they have as a model with sagging boobs and bum? None. Because that is what society has taught them and that is what they have been conditioned to believe: Their bodies are more valuable than, say, their minds, their personalities, they're abilities."
That is not for anyone else to decide other than them. Not you. Not me. Not society. THEM. If they want to do cam modeling in their later ages, that's their choice.
"They may love what they do, but those feelings don't necessarily make it right.
And who are you to determine what is right and wrong for them? They're not breaking any laws, within the comfort and safety of their own home, they love what they're doing, and are in complete control what happens in their room online.
"I didn't say consensus validates faulty data. I said people informed in their field of study who come to the same conclusion through research and objective facts have a much more valid opinion than a random stranger without a Ph.D who opposes that opinion when he has never done research in the same particular field."
Opinions are subjective. If something can be objectively proven to be true, then it's not an opinion. And having credentials and a title only proves that you're certified to practice something. It is NOT an indication that you're good at it or smarter than anyone else.
"Key words: "If I had a firm understanding on how X worked and could effectively apply it in my reasoning." Do you have a firm understanding of objectification, how it works, and how to effectively apply it to your reasoning?"
I believe I've demonstrated it thoroughly in my description and my journal on it. But that's my opinion.
"These comments seem to suggest you do not."
And that is nothing more than your opinion.
"I have been stressing the need for evidence and reason this entire time. How exactly is my argument like saying this?"
Because your entire problem and reason for debating me is from the standpoint that one needs to either be a certified professional or have done extensive research in order to have anything of worth to say or be taken seriously. While extensive research is important, you're emphasizing that and credentials over a more crucial factor, which is understanding the subject matter.
"Okay, so, outside of a sexual relationship, how can lowering the value of a human being to nothing more than a sexual object be healthy? You still have yet to prove this yet, again, you still believe it to be true."
Who says being seen as a sexual object is automatically "lowering the value of a human being"? It depends on your view of sexual objectification and the situation at hand. Some see it as a defining characteristic, others may see it as insulting. I've proven that being seen as a sexual object can be healthy with my link to MyFreeCams. Whether you want to accept it or not is your choice.
"While I agree confidence is a good thing, having confidence in the wrong thing can be detrimental. These models, strippers, etc. are gaining positive feedback for the moment. But, again, what happens when they grow old? What happens when they have the wrong fan say the wrong thing? They may feel empowered by their looks, but someday, those will fade away. No one has eternal beauty. Not based on our societies standards they certainly don't."
You're absolutely right. Some day, age is going to get the better of their looks. But beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder. And to make things worse, the model and sex industry relies heavily on outer beauty, and if you're not deemed beautiful enough to make a standing mark, then you won't make it. But that's just how the business works. And if the wrong fan says the wrong thing, they'll either brush it off an learn from it, or let it get the better of them and destroy them. Just like any other career.
"And once their money-making appearance disappears, then what will they have? Certainly not confidence."
Says who? Maybe they'll branch off into other occupations, such as makeup artist, director, behind the scenes, etc. That's for them to decide. They don't have to leave the industry altogether because of their looks.
"Again, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from studies that clearly state objectification is not beneficial, for mental or physical health. It lowers the user's self-worth and, when displayed to the public as it far too often is, it lowers the self-worth of others."
You're right. But that is only ONE possible viewpoint out of many on the subject. It's only A answer. Not THE answer.
"Expect away, but I've never said my understanding is more valid. I've said evidence and objective facts are more valid than uninformed opinions."
You're right. And I've demonstrated that what I'm saying is not coming from ignorance or an uninformed opinion. Whether you wish to accept that is your choice.
"Does the evidence not prove objectification is unhealthy? It does. So how am I wrong in trusting the evidence that proves such?"
Trusting evidence isn't the problem here. It's accepting it as the "one and only truth" without question or scrutiny that's the big issue here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If you don't think I understand it, that's your problem."
If you understand, then you wouldn't be supporting objectification. No the type you have described, at least.
"www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11… "
Again, this is meant to support your argument, how? It literally says, "Cameron Diaz might want to think twice before she speaks for every woman," meaning in its context, Cameron might want to think twice before she says every woman wishes to be objectified. I'd have to agree.
"Whether it's temporary or in a committed relationship is irrelevant. It's objectification nonetheless, and as you pointed out, it's beneficial."
Again, I clarified that the type of objectification we're dealing with here is the type you talked about in your artist's comment, the type that is public and more permanent. Obviously objectification in the bed is necessary. It's a sexual relationship, what do you expect? But it's between two people in private, not on a television screen, magazine, game box art, etc. where people are exposed to it.
"OR, they could do it because they get off on being exhibitionists, enjoy interacting with people, and be in an environment where they are in complete and absolute control in what happens in their room. Which is, as I discusses earlier, a form of objectification."
You're right, it is a form of objectification. Obviously. Is it healthy? No. The facts have proven it. The very accidental article you posted proved it. Denying what the article says does not cover up the facts.
"And who are you to determine what is right and wrong for them? They're not breaking any laws, within the comfort and safety of their own home, they love what they're doing, and are in complete control what happens in their room online."
The law doesn't always have to be involved for something to be wrong. My definition of 'wrong' in this case is 'unhealthy', and I've proven that point time and again. It's not healthy for them. It's not healthy for young, impressionable girls. It's not healthy for any woman (or man). Again, it devalues a human being. You have stated it is healthy in some way. I still have yet to see an objective source as to how such is true.
"Opinions are subjective. If something can be objectively proven to be true, then it's not an opinion. And having credentials and a title only proves that you're certified to practice something. It is NOT an indication that you're good at it or smarter than anyone else."
I didn't say it meant you were good at or smarter than anyone else. I'm merely saying, when someone has a higher level of education, has studied for years in their particular field, has done research in their particular field, has had other intellectuals of the same field critique their work and publish it in a journal, they kinda sorta have more information about a given subject than that random stranger on deviantArt who doesn't have a Ph.D in the field, hasn't done any extensive research, and hasn't been published. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. You can make up excuses all you want for how objectification is healthy, but the evidence is still utterly against you until you can find objective evidence to prove it is not.
""These comments seem to suggest you do not."
And that is nothing more than your opinion."
When you say you have reason to believe objectification is healthy when it is clearly not, according to mountains of evidence done on such a topic, then my opinion must be correct in its assumption. That, or you are informed of the dangers of objectification and simply deny them, which seems to be the case, and this form of ignorance is actually more harmful than simply not knowing your subject matter.
"Because your entire problem and reason for debating me is from the standpoint that one needs to either be a certified professional or have done extensive research in order to have anything of worth to say or be taken seriously. While extensive research is important, you're emphasizing that and credentials over a more crucial factor, which is understanding the subject matter."
Let's assume you do know the subject matter. If so, then you must know how unhealthy objectification is. If you know this, why do you support it and consider it healthy? You still have no evidence to back up this assumption and the evidence that does exist is against you. So it seems to me, either you are not informed, or, as stated above, you are informed and deny the facts. Which is it?
"Who says being seen as a sexual object is automatically "lowering the value of a human being"? It depends on your view of sexual objectification and the situation at hand. Some see it as a defining characteristic, others may see it as insulting."
Because...a human being is being seen as an object...? As in, not a human being? And when this is displayed to the public, it pushes those ideals on them, as well.
"But beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder. And to make things worse, the model and sex industry relies heavily on outer beauty, and if you're not deemed beautiful enough to make a standing mark, then you won't make it. But that's just how the business works."
Exactly. So how can you say it's healthy and beneficial for that model, stripper, etc.?
"You're right. And I've demonstrated that what I'm saying is not coming from ignorance or an uninformed opinion. Whether you wish to accept that is your choice."
All right, so you are informed of objectification. This means you are deliberately denying the fact that objectification is unhealthy and I still don't see any objective evidence as to why.
"Trusting evidence isn't the problem here. It's accepting it as the "one and only truth" without question or scrutiny that's the big issue here."
Hopefully you'll forgive me for believing the opinions of multiple scholars who have done their research in their field, published multiple works on the subject, and come to the conclusion objectification is unhealthy over the opinion of some random stranger on line who supports objectification and thinks it's healthy just because. I don't see how I can make it any more clear that they have the upper hand in this debate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If you understand, then you wouldn't be supporting objectification. No the type you have described, at least."
Right, because the way YOU understand it is the only way to do so, right? Remind me, who's the ignorant again?
"Again, this is meant to support your argument, how? It literally says, "Cameron Diaz might want to think twice before she speaks for every woman," meaning in its context, Cameron might want to think twice before she says every woman wishes to be objectified. I'd have to agree."
Read past the first line of the article and you'll see how it supports my argument. And the comment "Cameron Diaz might want to think twice before she speaks for every woman" is nothing more than an opinion. Even though it may be a good point, it doesn't invalidate everything else she says.
"Again, I clarified that the type of objectification we're dealing with here is the type you talked about in your artist's comment, the type that is public and more permanent. Obviously objectification in the bed is necessary. It's a sexual relationship, what do you expect? But it's between two people in private, not on a television screen, magazine, game box art, etc. where people are exposed to it."
So objectification is only okay is it's between two people in private? If that's your opinion, then fine. But I think that's absurd, especially with how the cosmetics and modelling industries operate.
"You're right, it is a form of objectification. Obviously. Is it healthy? No. The facts have proven it. The very accidental article you posted proved it. Denying what the article says does not cover up the facts."
Yes, the facts prove that it CAN be unhealthy. I'm not denying that. But it's not ALWAYS unhealthy. If you'd let go of your confirmation bias, you'd see that.
"The law doesn't always have to be involved for something to be wrong. My definition of 'wrong' in this case is 'unhealthy', and I've proven that point time and again. It's not healthy for them. It's not healthy for young, impressionable girls. It's not healthy for any woman (or man). Again, it devalues a human being. You have stated it is healthy in some way. I still have yet to see an objective source as to how such is true."
I've already proven it with the link to the cam site. Not going over this again.
"I didn't say it meant you were good at or smarter than anyone else. I'm merely saying, when someone has a higher level of education, has studied for years in their particular field, has done research in their particular field, has had other intellectuals of the same field critique their work and publish it in a journal, they kinda sorta have more information about a given subject than that random stranger on deviantArt who doesn't have a Ph.D in the field, hasn't done any extensive research, and hasn't been published. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. You can make up excuses all you want for how objectification is healthy, but the evidence is still utterly against you until you can find objective evidence to prove it is not."
While having all that under your belt may definitely help you in cementing respect, it doesn't automatically mean you can't be wrong about something. Why can't you grasp that? I've proven with links, so stop telling me that "I have yet to prove it".
"When you say you have reason to believe objectification is healthy when it is clearly not, according to mountains of evidence done on such a topic, then my opinion must be correct in its assumption. That, or you are informed of the dangers of objectification and simply deny them, which seems to be the case, and this form of ignorance is actually more harmful than simply not knowing your subject matter.<"/I>
That's confirmation bias, as well as appeals to authority, common belief, common folk, and popularity fallacies. Your reasoning makes very little logical sense. And I never once denied the possible dangers of objectification. All I've every said is that it's not always a bad thing.
"Let's assume you do know the subject matter. If so, then you must know how unhealthy objectification is. If you know this, why do you support it and consider it healthy?"
For about the seventh time now, yes, I DO know how unhealthy objectification CAN BE! I only support the kind that IS healthy and beneficial.
"You still have no evidence to back up this assumption and the evidence that does exist is against you. So it seems to me, either you are not informed, or, as stated above, you are informed and deny the facts. Which is it?"
Every time you repeat arguments and questions that have been answered, I'm just going to tell you to go back and read my previous answers. I'm not going to repeat myself.
"Because...a human being is being seen as an object...? As in, not a human being? And when this is displayed to the public, it pushes those ideals on them, as well."
Human beings, like anything else that exists, are objects in nature, regardless of how complex they may be. And as long it's not disrespectful, unwelcome, or against consent, I fail to see what's wrong with that. Not only that, but seeing and appreciating something or someone as a complex existence is still objectification, so you're creating a double standard here.
"Exactly. So how can you say it's healthy and beneficial for that model, stripper, etc.?"
For the reasons I said before. Go back and read them.
"All right, so you are informed of objectification. This means you are deliberately denying the fact that objectification is unhealthy and I still don't see any objective evidence as to why."
Not denying anything, and I'm not going over this again.
"Hopefully you'll forgive me for believing the opinions of multiple scholars who have done their research in their field, published multiple works on the subject, and come to the conclusion objectification is unhealthy over the opinion of some random stranger on line who supports objectification and thinks it's healthy just because. I don't see how I can make it any more clear that they have the upper hand in this debate."
For your information, I have done my research. I've talked to dozens of models, strippers, prostitutes, friends, and scholars both online and off. I even have personal experience being objectified. This type of data-gathering is called "ethnography". Some of it can be recorded, some of it not. But it IS research nonetheless. And if you think the multiple scholars you look up to don't practice it, then you're kidding yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Right, because the way YOU understand it is the only way to do so, right?"
No, and I have not said that. I base my opinion on factual evidence as I have stated to ad nauseam. The evidence states objectification is not healthy. Let me reiterate what it is I wish for you to prove to me: That objectification is healthy using objective facts. Can you do that or not?
"Read past the first line of the article and you'll see how it supports my argument."
I read the article in its entirety. Just because Cameron Diaz states she feels empowered while objectifying herself still does not make objectification healthy. Must I repeat it again?
"So objectification is only okay is it's between two people in private?"
It would be healthier that way, yes.
"But I think that's absurd, especially with how the cosmetics and modelling industries operate."
Based on this and your past comments, you seem to associate personal worth with how well it makes money. Just because something makes money, again, does not make it a healthy action.
"But it's not ALWAYS unhealthy. If you'd let go of your confirmation bias, you'd see that."
I've asked you how many times throughout this argument to provide factual evidence that objectification is healthy. I'm still waiting.
"I've already proven it with the link to the cam site. Not going over this again."
You have stated it is healthy in some way. I still have yet to see an objective source as to how such is true. A cam site is not an objective source. A gossip site is not an objective source. Why not find a journal published by a researcher who has found objectification is not all bad? Or, does that not exist for some strange reason?
"I've proven with links, so stop telling me that "I have yet to prove it"."
When you provide factual evidence that objectification is healthy, I will stop asking you to prove it. Two links to a gossip site and a cam site do not qualify as factual, objective evidence. How can you not grasp that?
"All I've every said is that it's not always a bad thing."
So if it's not always a bad thing, when is it a good thing? That's what I'm asking. Please, provide objective sources from researchers who have done some form of research, not a girl who is in the midst of showing off her body. Thank you.
"I only support the kind that IS healthy and beneficial."
And which kind is that?
"Not only that, but seeing and appreciating something or someone as a complex existence is still objectification, so you're creating a double standard here"
Do we really need to go over the definition of objectification I've been debating this entire time? I mean sexual objectification. When someone is reduced to a sexual object to be used by others for their pleasure, that is completely different from appreciating someone as a complex existence.
"For the reasons I said before. Go back and read them."
Because they feel empowered? Because they love what they do? That is not a factual or objective argument and the research against objectification proves why this is. I'm asking you to provide an objective argument against this research.
"Not denying anything, and I'm not going over this again."
So you know it is unhealthy, but you still believe the forms of objectification you have provided as examples are healthy? Why? Empowerment is not a factual answer. Neither is 'they love what they do'. Find something other than your own opinion and other people's opinions. Find some actual objective research from, I don't know, say, a journal of psychology that proves this?
"And if you think the multiple scholars you look up to don't practice it, then you're kidding yourself."
The difference between those researchers doing that research and you is that I can actually see their findings and how it affects multiple aspects of people's lives. I can see objectification is linked to self-esteem issues, depression, and eating disorders and, on a social scale, is linked to an increase in sexual violence, unplanned pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases. If you've researched so much, why do you continue to support it when the facts are all directly in front of you? No amount of 'I love what I do' or 'I feel empowered' is going to change the fact that the majority of women who are objectified suffer and that their objectification causes more objectification causing more problems. I will continue to stand by my argument until I see a proper argument out of you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"No, and I have not said that. I base my opinion on factual evidence as I have stated to ad nauseam. The evidence states objectification is not healthy. Let me reiterate what it is I wish for you to prove to me: That objectification is healthy using objective facts. Can you do that or not?"
And I base mine on factual evidence as well, which I have provided.
"I read the article in its entirety. Just because Cameron Diaz states she feels empowered while objectifying herself still does not make objectification healthy. Must I repeat it again?"
It doesn't make objectification healthy or beneficial to everyone at all times. Cameron Diaz stating that she feels empowered while objectified ALONE proves that objectification can be healthy. Evidence is right there, screaming at you. If you can't see or accept that, then there is NO reasoning with you.
"It would be healthier that way, yes."
That is entirely subjective and debatable.
"Based on this and your past comments, you seem to associate personal worth with how well it makes money. Just because something makes money, again, does not make it a healthy action."
I agree. Personal worth and health isn't measured by financial success. Only your career is.
"I've asked you how many times throughout this argument to provide factual evidence that objectification is healthy. I'm still waiting."
Cameron Diaz. That's it.
"You have stated it is healthy in some way. I still have yet to see an objective source as to how such is true. A cam site is not an objective source. A gossip site is not an objective source. Why not find a journal published by a researcher who has found objectification is not all bad? Or, does that not exist for some strange reason?"
Then you have absolutely no concept of what "objective" means. "Objective sources" are sources that state the truth as it is. Not cherry-picked sources that fit your confirmation bias on what qualifies as "real evidence".
"When you provide factual evidence that objectification is healthy, I will stop asking you to prove it. Two links to a gossip site and a cam site do not qualify as factual, objective evidence. How can you not grasp that?"
If you refuse to accept what I've provided as proof, then there's no point in engaging in this discussion any further.
"So if it's not always a bad thing, when is it a good thing? That's what I'm asking. Please, provide objective sources from researchers who have done some form of research, not a girl who is in the midst of showing off her body. Thank you."
Nope. Not going over this again.
"And which kind is that?"
Go back and read it.
"Do we really need to go over the definition of objectification I've been debating this entire time? I mean sexual objectification. When someone is reduced to a sexual object to be used by others for their pleasure, that is completely different from appreciating someone as a complex existence."
Viewing someone as a simple object doesn't automatically diminish or eliminate respect for them.
"Because they feel empowered? Because they love what they do? That is not a factual or objective argument and the research against objectification proves why this is. I'm asking you to provide an objective argument against this research."
Holy shit! A person that feels empowered and enjoys being objectified doesn't qualify as a factual or objective argument in favour of objectification?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Are you seriously trying to tell me that a person's positive feelings, preferences, and well-being as a result of objectification do NOT qualify as factual or objective evidence that objectification can be good?Really think about what you just wrote. If that's the case, then I'm ending this discussion RIGHT NOW.
"So you know it is unhealthy, but you still believe the forms of objectification you have provided as examples are healthy? Why? Empowerment is not a factual answer. Neither is 'they love what they do'. Find something other than your own opinion and other people's opinions. Find some actual objective research from, I don't know, say, a journal of psychology that proves this?"
It CAN be unhealthy. Not ALWAYS. And why does it have to be "a journal of psychology"? There are other objective sources that prove my point.
"The difference between those researchers doing that research and you is that I can actually see their findings and how it affects multiple aspects of people's lives. I can see objectification is linked to self-esteem issues, depression, and eating disorders and, on a social scale, is linked to an increase in sexual violence, unplanned pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases. If you've researched so much, why do you continue to support it when the facts are all directly in front of you? No amount of 'I love what I do' or 'I feel empowered' is going to change the fact that the majority of women who are objectified suffer and that their objectification causes more objectification causing more problems. I will continue to stand by my argument until I see a proper argument out of you."
I've provided research that you can see. You just don't accept it. And I continue to support certain types of objectification if the parties involved approve of it, don't impose harm or infringe rights of others, and most importantly, have the choice to partake in it. Objectification can be healthy, and it can be damaging. It's not a black and white issue as you make it out to be, and you would have to be delusional to think otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"And I base mine on factual evidence as well, which I have provided."
Factual evidence comes from reliable sources. A cam site and a gossip site are not reliable sources. Not on the research involving objectification, at least. And, again, even if they were, for some women to say they feel empowered by self-objectification does not trump the research that says objectification is unhealthy for them and for society as a whole. I will ask one last time: Where are the data from reliable sources such as journals of psychology or articles from other researchers that say objectification is healthy?
"Cameron Diaz stating that she feels empowered while objectified ALONE proves that objectification can be healthy. Evidence is right there, screaming at you. If you can't see or accept that, then there is NO reasoning with you."
You really should understand this by now... Even if a single person is saying objectifying themselves is fun and makes them feel empowered does not make it healthy. You are basing it on how someone in the industry feels. Try looking at the facts. In the long run, that objectification ties her self-worth to her looks and could cause the issues I listed in my last comment. Further, when objectification is shown publicly, it becomes a risk for the younger audience, as many an article on objectification will explain. Again, no amount of women saying they feel good while doing what they do will trump the evidence that it isn't good for them or for society as a whole. I have been trying to get this across to you since the beginning comment.
""It would be healthier that way, yes."
That is entirely subjective and debatable."
Not when the evidence proves when objectification is shown publicly it impresses upon younger audiences and is linked to eating disorders, depression, and self-loathing among other issues.
"Cameron Diaz. That's it."
First of all, is she a researcher? No. Second, she is a bias source. She is literally in the industry. Of course she'll say she loves what she does. How does this prove objectification is healthy? You're basing what is healthy off of feelings and not facts.
"Then you have absolutely no concept of what "objective" means. "Objective sources" are sources that state the truth as it is. Not cherry-picked sources that fit your confirmation bias on what qualifies as "real evidence"."
Interesting you would accuse me of cherry-picking when you're the one who has provided nothing but bias sources--one model and some cam girls--about how objectification is healthy. The researchers I have found do not cherry-pick. They look at the evidence they have gathered from both the women that enjoy objectification and the women that do not and still come to the factual conclusion that objectification, especially when shown publicly, is linked to many disorders and problems. Perhaps I haven't been providing enough evidence myself. Here's some for you to chew on: This study shows, "Findings in both samples supported the mediational model. Additionally, a direct relationship between self-objectification and disordered eating was also observed." This study shows "These results support the theoretical assumptions that visual media encourage women to objectify themselves and that both internalized media ideals and self-objectification offer some account for eating disorders pathology." And last, this study says, "Turning to women’s internalization of cultural SO via self-objectification, objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) postulates that selfobjectification will be related to various psychological consequences, and these psychological consequences will mediate the relationship between selfobjectification and disordered eating, depression, and sexual dysfunction (see Figure 1). Supporting this tenet, Moradi and Huang’s (2008) review of the research revealed that self-objectification has been found to be related to lower internal bodily awareness, more disconnection from bodily functions, decreased flow states, difficulties in task performance, increased body shame, more appearance anxiety, and both eating disorder and depressive symptoms among racial/ethnically diverse groups of women....Furthermore, self-objectification has been found to be related to broader psychosocial constructs, including poorer self-esteem, lower life satisfaction, less relationship satisfaction, lower levels of global well-being, risk-taking, self-harm, and negative attitudes toward breastfeeding (Breines, Crocker, & Garcia, 2008; Harper & Tiggemann, 2008; Mercurio & Landry, 2008; Moradi & Huang, 2008)" I hope you now see just how dangerous is the type of objectification you support. If you don't, then you truly are blind.
"Viewing someone as a simple object doesn't automatically diminish or eliminate respect for them."
Did I say 'simple object'? No. I said sexual object.
"Holy shit! A person that feels empowered and enjoys being objectified doesn't qualify as a factual or objective argument in favour of objectification?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Are you seriously trying to tell me that a person's positive feelings, preferences, and well-being as a result of objectification do NOT qualify as factual or objective evidence that objectification can be good?Really think about what you just wrote. If that's the case, then I'm ending this discussion RIGHT NOW."
Chill out. As I've said before, feelings are not a good indicator of what is healthy. Just because someone feels good doing what they do currently does not mean self-objectification will not have negative consequences for them in the future, as above research has proven. That's like saying if someone enjoys eating at McDonalds everyday, then it must be healthy. Perhaps your issue is focusing on the now rather than the future. What's the point of someone being happy now when they will be miserable with their decision later?
"There are other objective sources that prove my point."
Then provide them.
"You just don't accept it"
You're right. I don't accept bias sources in which some women enjoy what they do for now while they further tie their self-worth to their looks, which will one day disappear, and continue to influence the society while furthering the many issues related to objectification listed above. If you're all right with people developing eating disorders, anxiety issues, substance abuse issues, sexual violence issues, depression, etc. etc. then so be it. You are the delusional one here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, fine. You're right. Feeling good and enjoying something doesn't automatically equate to being healthy. THAT much I'll give you. But if there are no negative effects that come from it, both physical and mental health, then it's not bad or unhealthy.
I'm tired of going around in circles. Believe what you want, but I'm done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"But if there are no negative effects that come from it, both physical and mental health, then it's not bad or unhealthy."
Clearly, there are negative effects, both physical and mental, that come of the objectification you support, so we come back to my original question: Why support it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And when can it be? The only time we've observed it being healthy is when it is kept in the bedroom, but you support more than that type of objectification based on your artist's comment. Why?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For the reasons I said. I'm not discussing this with you any further.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And those reasons have been debunked by the research I have provided. That's fine if you don't wish to discuss this any further. The first step to accepting the truth starts with you, anyhow, and no amount of arguing will change anything when you wish to be blind to the fact that the type of objectification you support is not healthy in any way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed! Sparky destroyed him XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're getting the wrong idea. I was not praising Sparky, I was praising Zaku. Zaku provided real evidence and research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh now you're just being sour, GO TEAM CATHULHU- I mean Sparky!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then why'd you respond? Just to say you don't care? Kind of ironic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I meant that I don't care about your opinion on the matter, I didn't mean that I don't care that you're responding to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This... is worded perfectly. Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Feminist - "Quit objectifying women!"
Me - "What about Chippendales, Playgirl, 'Beefcake' Calendars and 99% of romance novel covers?"
Feminist - "YOU'RE A SEXIST RAPIST SCUMBALL!"
*Graeystone gets blocked in comment sections.*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep! Sums it up quite well!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And it doesn't have to even be about gender-
comments.deviantart.com/1/5528…
They didn't like the fact that I said those blacks who were murdered were also Christian and were killed at a Christian Church while they were in the middle of worshipping and studying God's Word.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
THANK YOU!!! Someone needed to clarify this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>