With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on th sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that. But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on th sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that. But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation
Yeah, I really don't think that a porn-star can be perfectly boiled down to "it's sexist to fap to this person because you're objectifying that person."
To make it more of a point, men who are enthralled with certain porn-stars don't dehumanize their favorite stars, at all. In fact, that idolize them. Perhaps placing them too high in regard. These are the types that travel thousands of miles to get an autograph of Butt-Jams 17 from their favorite actress.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To make it more of a point, men who are enthralled with certain porn-stars don't dehumanize their favorite stars, at all. In fact, that idolize them. Perhaps placing them too high in regard. These are the types that travel thousands of miles to get an autograph of Butt-Jams 17 from their favorite actress.
That is a form of objectification in which you deny a person agency by putting them on a pedestal. It is very common in extremely sexist men and chivalry is a form of it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a form of objectification in which you deny a person agency by putting them on a pedestal.
I disagree, here. I believe the opposite. They deny themselves agency, not their idol. They may restrict their actions because they think too highly of a person (they cannot, for instance, do a good job at work because they are too buys planning their trip to meat (lol) their idol).
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is very common in extremely sexist men and chivalry is a form of it.
I consider that an erroneous parallel because Chivalry viewed women as weaker and dumber than men and, therefore, needed protection by the big strong mans.
How does your comparison fair for the men who view the dominatrix porn star females as idols? AHA! AHHHHHAAAA! lol
An elaboration on my porn star view. I don't know anything about her in real life life, and my focus is on the medium right there in which it is all about her and sex. I don't find it sexist to like it, not desire to research her entire real life history.
If I actually met her, or was in a discussion about her as a person I would treat her as just a tool to fap or sleep with. Which is where I find the difference. Isolated objectification such as that when well it's for that specific purpose and done with the consent of all involves shouldn't automatically equal being sexist. It's just liking something and seeing it.
I sometimes do look at gifs that are just about a sexual act and don't care about the woman doing it. Because well i don't know who she is or anything about that. Not because she's a woman but because I wasn't looking to learn about a person. You've seen what I actually think about this stuff and where I place my banner. Sure some think I'm part of the problem and one day I likely will be. But for now despite my interest and contribution to stuff like that I don't think I'm on the wrong side.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree, here. I believe the opposite. They deny themselves agency, not their idol. They may restrict their actions because they think too highly of a person (they cannot, for instance, do a good job at work because they are too buys planning their trip to meat (lol) their idol).
Well it still treats this person as something other than a person. It really doesn't view them as someone who has their own interests. I do not consider it the opposite of objectification, just a different facet.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I consider that an erroneous parallel because Chivalry viewed women as weaker and dumber than men and, therefore, needed protection by the big strong mans.
You are right with that, the parallel is perhaps not warranted. It is again, another facet of objectification.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it still treats this person as something other than a person. It really doesn't view them as someone who has their own interests. I do not consider it the opposite of objectification, just a different facet.You are right with that, the parallel is perhaps not warranted. It is again, another facet of objectification.
Okay, we can agree on both of those points, then.
Yes, I view idolizing anyone, not just for sexual reasons, to be stupid. As you know, I find the whole "signature culture" to be dumb because it idolizes humans. I don't think any human is so great as to have a scribbling of their name worshiped and loved.
I'd sooner say that objectification, in its broadest sense, is dehumanizing, even if prompted by, say, adoration. I mean, that's the point, right? A person becomes an "object," sometimes more than human, sometimes less. S/he becomes a focus for indulging in one's hopes, desires, fears and so on.
Examples...
- Sex object: Marilyn Monroe
- Hope object: Obama (well, in 2008 anyway).
- Rage object: see Middle East
Originally posted by dadudemonI have long since scratched off "Schwarzeneggar" from my notebook.
I don't think any human is so great as to have a scribbling of their name worshiped and loved.
Originally posted by MindshipThat's more or less my view as well. "Objectification" is dehumanizing. I think there's a distinction between dehumanization and sexism. Again, objectification is an action. Sexism is a motivation and a belief.
I'd sooner say that objectification, in its broadest sense, is dehumanizing, even if prompted by, say, adoration. I mean, that's the point, right? A person becomes an "object," sometimes more than human, sometimes less. S/he becomes a focus for indulging in one's hopes, desires, fears and so on.Examples...
- Sex object: Marilyn Monroe
- Hope object: Obama (well, in 2008 anyway).
- Rage object: see Middle East
It's like, you know, shooting a brown person. Shooting a brown person is not not an inherently racist action. However, shooting a brown person because you believe that brown people don't have a right to existence would classify the action as racist, and subsequently a hate crime.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It doesn't really work at all for what you were saying.I just wanted to say it because it bore a semblance to what you said.
I like saying it every time one of those statements come up. It happens more often at work during meetings. Oh boy. 😐
It does correspond with something I was thinking though. All objectification is dehumanising, but not all dehumanisation is objectification....
I think alot of objectification is motivated by sexism.
However I would argue that objectification plays a large part in Human mating biology, and therefore is predominantly not motivated by sexism.
Appreciation for the physical appearence is the first stage of attraction for men, in broad strokes, which is a biological thing, not social conditioning. When we see a woman for the first time we look over their bodies and our minds make a snap-decision on her worth in a relationship, completely independently of what their personality may be like, because fertility doesn't give a shit about your ph.D
Men may appreciate their personality later, but the initial phase of attraction for most men is basically objectification. In fact, you could say that we objectfy women, sub-conciously, dozens of times every single day.
This type of objectification is the most common form of all, and I would argue that it isn't sexist. Therefore on average, objectification is not motivated by sexism. Men just have a predisposition to make initial judgements based off of appearance.
EDIT- And please don't mistake this as a form of deterministc argument. I'm not trying to justify any kind of behavior.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen...what kind of porn are you watching?
With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on the sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that. But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation