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: 25605; 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
I'm glad to see someone can get the idea of objectification right without sounding like..other people on the interwebs...*cough*cough*FEMINISTS*cough*cough*
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Oh yeah. Too many dense motherfuckers on the internet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gonna have to disagree on this one. Objectification of anything is only bad if that "anything" is able to (and does) choose to let it bother them. For the rest of us, life is life. People are both good and bad. Not everything is as bad as we perceive it, and not everything perceived is as good as we intend it to be.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, yeah. And if that's your point, then you're not disagreeing with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, disagreeing on the level, not on the topic, to be more specific.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is sooooo true. If it wasn't 50 Shades of Grey would have bombed BIIIIG time! LOL!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is where feminist beliefs surrounding objectification clash. One side argues that it is wrong to objectify women, as the women would be only appreciated for her looks. The other side argues that women should feel free to express themselves. I am on the latter side, therefore I completely agree with the above statement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad you do agree with this. It's about as reasonable as I can possibly imagine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yes it really is!
here is a good video about this www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y42hql…
(also for males!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I added it to my favourites, so I'll check it out later! Thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
whenever I see someone using the word "objectification" it does it like is something straightly evil, when there are some cases the complain is actually other or non existence, for example.
A) When a character lack any kind of personality (or is just a cliche in some cases) and is defined by his/her appearance or something similar, that's not always a objectification, is just a bad character.
B) A simple one dimension personality character is not a objectification if everyone else have the same level of characterization, and even if he/she is the only one, that can be the previous case.
C) Extra character that are defined just as a function (policeman, prostitutes, shop attendants, etc) are not objectification, in every story you can't give a personality to every single person that appear, and also, that's something that happen in real life. Ppl tend to forget that most works and services are done by a person, believing that your fast food is served by a machine instead of someone is pretty common.
D) You can use objectification intentionally and still make a good story without implying something bad if you find a good why to write it, if not you could end in case A.
E) I know that I'm repeating myself but again, A BAD STORY IS NOT OBJECTIFICATION AND VICE VERSA.
there are more cases that I could think but then I would be entering in nitpicking territory, like always, good work sire.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, all those examples demonstrate a very lack of understanding of objectification. And thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It grinds my gears when people complain about how a character in a work of fiction, is objectified. She is written or drawn that way, a fictional character does not free will. Its up to the creator.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yeah, I know. If something isn't real, then how can it have consent when it comes to the audience?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I must respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter if the work is fictional or not, you can still make a character objectified. Also, is true that the author can decide what a character should do, but in the dimension of the story, they do have there own personality, origin and free will (if the story give them those). If the character is tri-dimensional and well written, the author does not decide (completely) what he/she does, but he know what he/she would do according to how he define them. For example, if a character is defined by being aggressive, and he suddenly act calmly without any explanation or reason, that makes no sense and make him inconsistent.
Having said all that, I think that I understand what you actually mean (again I think) and I do agree about the image up there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh thank god. There IS someone who gets it. <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've never quite understood the absolutist notion of anything being inherently bad simply as a result of it being what it is. Things to me have to be demonstrated to be bad, but those things may only then be bad within the described context.
Like objectification. If, say, you get someone coming up to you and they stare at your butt, and you ask them not to do that, if they keep doing it, then that's "bad" within that context.
If you happen to like someone staring at your butt however, you're still being objectified if we're keeping to the definition of objectification. But there's no loss in that situation.
On the other hand, there're things that aren't acceptable in any context as far as I can tell. I can't think of any context where rape, as defined as someone forcing themselves sexually onto an unwilling participant, is good thing. But even that's a conclusion come to by considering all the possible contexts as they arrive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Even then, rape have to be bad for something, otherwise is a badthing that happen because....well, just because, it led to really bad logic
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm afraid I don't quite understand your phrasing. Could you say that again in a different way please?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm glad you get the message I'm conveying here!
And you're absolutely right. Rape is, by definition, sex against or without consent. So it's disrespectful, unwelcome, AND against permission in nature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well yes, it all comes down to the fact that all occurrences should be considered on a as-they-come basis. I think it was Picard that said "I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
For instance, I've heard some modern feminists decry sexual acts of simulated rape, where a consenting couple and/or other individuals engage in a fantasy situation of rape. Which of course isn't rape, because it's a consentual fantasy. But because it has a passing resemblance to rape, much like rape jokes/references/depictions/etc., it has to be demonised as some symptom of a higher problem that doesn't exist.
Telling others what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their bedrooms between consenting adults. It doesn't get much more ludicrous than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's reminiscent of the concept of manipulation. I manipulate people exceptionally well into doing things. But I'm going into the medical field, where convincing people to do what's medically best for them is both in their benefit and my job. So manipulation becomes a good thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suppose trying to convince someone to do what you know is the right thing, is a good thing. I don't know if I'd call that "manipulating", since the word typically carries a lot of negative baggage that puts people on the defensive.
I get the principle though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's like how my personality type is something like "guardian" personality which is the morally righteous version of the "con-artist" personality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this message. There tends to be this emotional backlash against ANY kind of objectification, mostly when guys are accused of it.
But like you said, we objectify all the time. Perhaps women objectify men in different ways, but the fact is that it's part of human sexuality to do that. So it really is a matter of being rational and respectful and un-intrusive to others about it, rather than to try to SUPPRESS such thoughts and ideas from being expressed, regardless of the context.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Thank you! That's exactly the crux of this message!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I Knew A Girl On That Chat Site That LOVED Being Objectified. Like Got Turned On Thinking About Becoming Someone's (Namely My) Sexy Wall Decor Like A Hunting Trophy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yeah! I know dozens of girls who love being objectified as well, from friends to camgirls and models.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ya It's A Weird Sub Thing (I'm 100% Dom So I Have NO Idea WHY She Likes It-Just That It Gets Her Horny Just Thinking About It).XD But Ya It Happens More Then People Think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I also have a friend of my who is a little bit(a lot actually) of a sub who like being think in that way, I just one of that thing that turn out
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pretty Much. Kinda Like How I Like Knife Play.<_< >_>
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's a matter of context rather than an ethical absolute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I noticed a double standard with this.
A character named Voldo from the Soul Calibur series is literally a BDSM monster. Never once did I here any complaints, except if you count the one time they had to remove a ballgag in Soul calibur 4 for obvious reasons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Oh God. OH GOD!! Don't remind me of that THING! ;~; when I first played soul caliber it gave me nightmares!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh yeah! I remember people bitching about the sexual objectification of women yet said nothing about the objectification of me.
Fucking double standards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've had the double standard discussion before using Kratos as an example, most people laugh and say "omg you right". But I once had a female friend try to tell me when guy's do it it's objectification, when girls do it it's appreciation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |