Therefore, concerns of generally 'objectifying' someone are not relevant to any discussion of what is good or bad.
edited for syntactical clarity
[ April 07, 2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by AeroB1033 (Member # 6375) on :
[Phony English Accent]......Roight![/Phony English Accent]
[ April 07, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: AeroB1033 ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
When we speak of objectifying people, we are speaking of an attitude that lessens their humanity by considering them as merely a physical object. This is a very real phenomenon.
Any sort of philosophical noumena/phenomena ideal used to back up a statement like "There is nothing that is not objectified" is abstruse and irrelevant to this concept.
Our perceptions of the world lead to an ambiguity of subject and object; on the other hand,the use of the word "objectification" when talking about a social phenomenon is unrelated and thoroughly verifiable.
(edited for clarity)
[ April 07, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Then do it.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
See my most recent post on Pat's pornography thread for an example of objectification.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
and now I'm going to class, so I'll have to wait for further expansion of my statement.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Aero, are you sure that's not a phony aussie accent?
Posted by AeroB1033 (Member # 6375) on :
quote:Aero, are you sure that's not a phony aussie accent?
Pretty sure, 'mate Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I read your argument in Pat's thread and it does not refute what I wrote.
[ April 07, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My standard of morality is based in helping and hurting. In my "Porn Dobie" I'd apply the idea of objectification both to consumer media and to propoganda. When someone is not objectified is when there is genuine interaction and authentic contact between the minds of two people.
For an artist to bring an inner state and express it in a medium, and for the experiencer to receive that inner state back into themselves is really a kind of miracle. It is a kiss that stays.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: When someone is not objectified is when there is genuine interaction and authentic contact between the minds of two people.
What does this mean? We bring preconceptions and assumptions to every single interaction we make. We never see someone outside of their role in society of woman/friend/lover/policeman/mother/sister. Never. It's built into the language. It's built into our psyches. To have interactions with people without these preconceptions would make day to day interaction impossible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I don't agree with your initial premise first of all. But for argument's sake, let's say you're right. Everying does objectify someone, to some extent.
It's still a bad thing. And some things are much more likely to objectify people in good-or bad-ways than others. I think pornography probably falls into that category. This does not mean that I think everyone who watches any pornography will begin to objectify women, or that it is necessarily unhealthy or wicked to watch it.
I just think that it has a tendancy to reduce the people in the film to animalistic qualities, and that those viewing are potentially 'desensitized' to that particular point of view. I think the same thing about violence, mostly.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If you want to say that the particular type of objectification that pornography engages in is 'bad', that's fine. My point is that , first, objectification is an incredibly vague concept. People have been throwing it around as if it's understood what the heck it means or that it's understood to even exist. Second, if objectification is said to be seeing someone, or something, not for who or what they 'really' are, but as a role or a symbol, then everyone objectifies everything to some degree. It begs the question of whether people can ever really be completely known, (or whether you would want to?) in any case. So, my point is that saying that pornography objectifies women is meaningless.
quote: It's still a bad thing. And some things are much more likely to objectify people in good-or bad-ways than others. I think pornography probably falls into that category. This does not mean that I think everyone who watches any pornography will begin to objectify women, or that it is necessarily unhealthy or wicked to watch it.
This is much of the crux of the debate on the other threads, so I won't monkey around with it here other than to say that it's, um, debatable. Again, the point of this thread is to say that that saying porn objectifies women is basically a meaningless statement.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Again, the point of this thread is to say that that saying porn objectifies women is basically a meaningless statement.