When does physical attraction end and objectification begin?

[BornaSkinsFan83]

To start, I know I objectify women too much. I don't mean to. I come from a family of strong women, on both sides, and I was raised pretty much entirely by women. It's nothing but love and respect and appreciation.

 

I'm also a young man though and a have a **** and balls and my brain is functioning (for the most part). So every women I meet there's almost always some sort of inner dialogue of varying lengths about their looks and whether I would have sex with them. It's something I'm aware of about myself, I don't like it, it's something I'd like to change and I'm working on it. But it's there and it's a struggle. So yes, I recognize the objectification of women as an issue in myself and in our society.

 

That brings me to the inspiration of this post...this deadspin article... 

 

 

Deadspin, I know, low hanging fruit, but this one is bugging me. They're basically giving **** to Sports Illustrated for skimpy pictures of super models and their swimsuit edition in general. 

 

Now I could give a **** about SI's swimsuit edition, I could give a **** about SI. Couldn't tell you the last time I read one, let alone bought one. Swimsuits or not. And I think an argument can be made about whether a sports magazine should be even printing anything about models in (or out of) bathing suits. But the larger point that deadspin, I think, is trying to make is that SI is disrespecting and objectifying women just by showing them in various states of undress. That it doesn't matter who is doing it, the doing itself is the problem. 

 

So my question, when does admiring beauty crossover to objectification? Is my simple act of looking twice at a beautiful woman an act of disrespect? Is it wrong to consider someone beautiful? 

 

Other questions but that's the gist. 

 

Oh and just want to say now, I love you @LadySkinsFanand @skinsmarydu

[Corcaigh]

[LadySkinsFan]

I see what you're saying. I can look at an attractive man without sexual desire. I think that's the key, looking at someone and admire their beauty without wanting sex. To me, that's when objectification comes into play. 

 

Maturity has a lot to do with it too. It took me a while to get to the above thought. 

 

Porn enters into and is a cause of objectification. It's basically a way to get off and nothing else.

[Fresh8686]

For me, it's not about stopping or repressing the sexuality that comes up when seeing a woman. That's chemistry and sexual tension, it's automatic and natural. I've worked hard to be even more sensitive and in tune with that (which matures you as a man and actually helps with the next thing I'm about to say). 

 

No, objectification is when I judge a woman based ONLY on that. 

 

So, what I do is make sure to practice seeing who they are and to pick up and remark on what details I see to myself (how she carries herself, shine in her eyes, femininity, demeanor, vibrancy, is she a "phenomenal woman"). Whether it's girls in life or in media. It creates a second standard that chains to my natural reaction and over time merges with it as it internalizes and also becomes automatic. 

 

After years of making it a practice, my reactions to women are much deeper and more encompassing. Now I rarely objectify because I look for sexual personality over just hotness. Seeing behind that first layer and including whatever is beyond it into my reaction to her. Getting behind what masks or walls she might be putting on if I can. And getting past whatever intensities might hit me, like if she's "super hot" or whatever. 

 

If your looking and judging a girl on the spirit she brings to sex it's not objectification at all in my opinion. Because that's about who she is even more than what she looks like. And that's the stuff that makes sex good when you get past any novelty or infatuation stuff. 

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I suppose I'm old fashioned or maybe it's the way I was raised but I just never understood how a man could objectify a female. I know, for me, there's nothing more attractive than a woman with brains.  When I met my last piece of ***, I kept saying to myself, "Damn! What a hot set of brains on this *****! I gotta get my hands on those brains!!"

 

By the way… They were real and they were spectacular! 

[LadySkinsFan]

I like intellectual women, most of my long time lovers were highly educated. 

 

As I got older, I look more for character, intelligence, sense of humor, and those attributes bring a spirit to one's eyes and a beauty.   My personal attraction is light color eyes. 

 

Values when one is younger change as one ages. I find myself attracted to women around my age, not so much way younger.

[Springfield]

I think that people objectify others based on looks as a natural human reaction.  I think we all judge those we meet based on looks and it's not something that we can really control.

 

I am more likely to treat an attractive female or male more positively than an unsightly one.  Now, of course, once that person begins to interact with me then it can change but more visually appealing people generally get a leg up.

 

That said, interactions are paramount.  Some people "click" through positive interactions, beauty, eye contact, aroma, pleasantries, posture, etc.  A person who may not be the most attractive but is most comparable is always preferred, however if the physical attraction isn't there at the start then that person will almost never click.

 

 

I think what I just posted was totally off topic.  Oh well.

[skinsmarydu]

Actually, it wasn't, @Springfield.   Those are all things that "attract"...some things are just deeper than outside...and I will agree, lazy posture/leaning on stuff all the time is the biggest turnoff on Earth to me.  They'd better have Cosmos quotes or something to offset that.

 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm not even sure what that author of that deadspin article was really trying to say.  She even says "I don't have a new argument here..."

 

I freely admit my response to her isn't original either...her writing and her issues at hand reek of jealousy.  There.  

 

I don't like the Swimsuit Issue anymore, as a photographer I don't really find the photography appealing as I did when I was...15.  Yet, I buy it each year for...nostalgia?  Maybe hoping that the photography will get better...but I usually flip through it once or twice and toss it aside.  In recent years the photography has served as a reminder of what NOT to do.  

 

Anyway...

 

As far as objectification goes, the elephant in the room here is money.  Those models are getting paid, the photographers are getting paid, the people at SI are getting paid.  People fork over their dollars and get something they're happy with.  It's a win for everyone involved.  Again, I find someone sitting on the outside and taking issue with everyone who's having a good time as being jealous.  And the older I get, the more annoying I find people who feel the need to put in their two cents at the expense of others who are having harmless fun.  

 

@LadySkinsFan brought up porn and that's where it crosses the line in some cases, IMO.  There's some degrading stuff in there for sure, but then again people are getting paid.  But the dollars can't wipe away the scarring that some of that stuff will leave.  It can't help the future that they'll face (You were a porn actress? Sorry, we have to reject your application for this job). It can't take care of the destruction of their relationships, their families, etc. 

 

There's nothing wrong with looking at women and appreciating how they look.  And I know LSF is gonna kill me for saying this, but when a girl is wearing tight white shorts that barely cover her ass, she knows what she's doing.  When a girl wears a short skirt out to a bar or when a girl is showing cleavage at the club...well, what's she doing it for?

 

Chappelle nails it:  

 

 

It's not an invite to objectify them or treat them in an objectifying manner, it's just an invite to appreciate the way they look.  

 

@BornaSkinsFan83 that inner dialogue you have is nothing but your natural instinct as an animal, and that's what we are.  Just a group of highly evolved animals with natural instincts that need to be curbed due to the constructs of our society (that's not a complaint, btw).  I don't think there's anything wrong with those thoughts as long as you're not acting on it and being ****ing weird about it, and since I know you're a good dude, you're not.  I don't think you should beat yourself up over thoughts you have because of society and other issues that people have.  They're the ones with the issues, not you.  

 

One last point, and getting back to the SI thing...you can make an argument about whether or not SI should be publishing stuff like that and that's fine.  I can see it both ways, but I, like you, wouldn't miss the Swimsuit Issue...I wouldn't care if they were tweeting out those photos or not...just in the same way that I wouldn't care if the Redskins didn't have cheerleaders anymore.  Let's be real here, there's kids at those games, little boys and little girls...and in the same way I wouldn't let a little kid look at the Swimsuit Issue, I also wouldn't let them look at the cheerleaders twerking all over the place like they do at the two minute warning.  But if part of this issue is an argument about the need to have a swimsuit issue to supplement a sports magazine, we could have the same argument that there's no need for cheerleaders to supplement a football game.  

[skinsmarydu]

39 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

There's nothing wrong with looking at women and appreciating how they look.  And I know LSF is gonna kill me for saying this, but when a girl is wearing tight white shorts that barely cover her ass, she knows what she's doing.  When a girl wears a short skirt out to a bar or when a girl is showing cleavage at the club...well, what's she doing it for?

 

It's not an invite to objectify them or treat them in an objectifying manner, it's just an invite to appreciate the way they look.

My stepdaughter did it once...went out with us (I didn't want to go, unless she changed clothes, but...I don't get to make those decisions, so I kept my head down embarrassed as ****) in a skirt so short you could've seen her tampon string (gross to a point, I know...).  Then she was going to wear said skirt to go shoot pool, I made the prior point to her, and then she made it sound to her dad like it was her decision to change clothes

(And many years earlier, when I took them home to meet my family the first time...she was 15 and knocked up, puking the whole way to VA & back...in the mall, she picked up an orange sequined halter top, and I asked, "What do you want that for?" And the words came out, I've NEVER forgotten..."For the attention." ...anybody else figured out how I have 3 grandkids by 3 different dads?)

Some females are just not right...and I don't think LSF would disagree with that statement.  They don't think about putting themselves in dangerous situations.  True, dress shouldn't matter.  But it does.

[KingGibbs]

It all hinges on that first blow job.

[Riggo-toni]

8 minutes ago, KingGibbs said:

It all hinges on that first blow job.

Ok, this made me crack up.

Maybe I'm a pig, but at least I'm self aware of my porcine nature.

[KingGibbs]

Just now, Riggo-toni said:

Ok, this made me crack up.

Maybe I'm a pig, but at least I'm self aware of my porcine nature.

Your honesty is greatly appreciated and respected.

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said:

Ok, this made me crack up.

Maybe I'm a pig, but at least I'm self aware of my porcine nature.

You keep it under wraps well, I didn't even notice...but we were watching Clinton Portis sign jerseys, soooo....I was distracted?

[TradeTheBeal!]

I think this is kind of a reverse "eye of the beholder" type thing.

 

Pretty much everybody, everyday dresses/presents as wishing to be perceived as "attractive".

Certain folks in certain situations clearly dress/present themselves as wishing to be sexually objectified.

 

Its pretty easy to tell the difference between the two after you get a couple years under your belt.

[skinsmarydu]

You've always had groupies, @TryTheBeal!, I'm sure you have tons of stories!

[TradeTheBeal!]

12 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

You've always had groupies, @TryTheBeal!, I'm sure you have tons of stories!

 

Stay medium Mary!

[Spaceman Spiff]

32 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Ok, this made me crack up.

Maybe I'm a pig, but at least I'm self aware of my porcine nature.

 

I laughed, too. 

[Riggo-toni]

I never thought the women in SI were all that hot compared to other celebrity babes. Nowadays there are 100 images that come up in a random Google search that blow the doors off of SI. Never got the hype, and it seems incredibly superfluous in the age of the internet.

 

As many of you know, and much to the chagrin of my wife, I paint a lot of female nudes. I will spend a few hours at a time googling for photos that show beauty and some power of emotion (usually either a sense of isolation or else contemplative serenity). 99% of what shows up is unusable because it crosses the line from sensual to blatantly pornographic, or some simply wouldn't fit into my style of painting.  

 

So yes, I objectify women to some degree I suppose. Hell, anyone who reads this sight knows I occasionally slip in a babe pic here or there.  So what? I'm pretty confident no woman has ever accused me of inappropriate behavior or unwanted sexual advances (okay, maybe my wife might complain about the latter). People need to stop obsessing over denouncing urges developed from millennia of evolution which will never change. Discrimination, harassment, and abuse are egregious issues that be dealt with and appropriately punished, but blathering on about girlie mags or the SI swimsuit issues....Puh-leeze.

 

Oh, and by the way.

[LadySkinsFan]

So, we live in a culture where girls/women choose to get attention through sexual/objectification means instead of through their intellect, character, heart because the sexual/objectification is perceived as more valuable. That's what we are teaching girls that seeking attention is their goal in life.

 

They see it pays off for some, I.e. Kim Kardashian sex tape and the whole Kardashian "celebrity" thing. 

[Dan T.]

John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" on the SI Swimsuit Issue:

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

12 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

So, we live in a culture where girls/women choose to get attention through sexual/objectification means instead of through their intellect, character, heart because the sexual/objectification is perceived as more valuable. That's what we are teaching girls that seeking attention is their goal in life.

 

They see it pays off for some, I.e. Kim Kardashian sex tape and the whole Kardashian "celebrity" thing. 

 

I don't think seeking attention in life is relegated to attractive women.  There are a lot of people out there today that quantify their worth by the amount of instagram/twitter followers that they have and that's for men and women, young and old, ugly and beautiful.  

 

As much as I don't like Kim K, she'd be famous without the sex tape.  As far as intellect goes, she's gotten a lot of money basically doing nothing...you've gotta have some kind of smarts to do that.  I'm not saying she's a mogul like Oprah but I'm sure she's got some insight on how to market things, run a business, etc.  

[Zguy28]

It's an age old struggle. One must exercise self-control and discipline. And when you affirm that people are just evolved animals, why does anybody expect them to act otherwise? Anybody who knows me knows I believe people are made in the image of God and worthy of respect and dignity, not abuse and objectification. The proliferation of porn is one of the most damaging social issues of our time. It sends the message that its ok to objectify and use, and even hurt people (in most cases women) for the sake of selfish pleasure.

[Warhead36]

13 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

For me, it's not about stopping or repressing the sexuality that comes up when seeing a woman. That's chemistry and sexual tension, it's automatic and natural. I've worked hard to be even more sensitive and in tune with that (which matures you as a man and actually helps with the next thing I'm about to say). 

 

No, objectification is when I judge a woman based ONLY on that.

 

This is how I see it as well.

 

There is nothing wrong with admiring a woman's beauty. But when that's all you look at, that's objectification.

[Zguy28]

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

This is how I see it as well.

 

There is nothing wrong with admiring a woman's beauty. But when that's all you look at, that's objectification.

I would argue that objectification is when your thoughts are based what she can do for you, and not on who she is.