NightowlM said:
I don't think you really know what the concept of objectification is about. It's not the same as being physically and sexually attracted to someone. It also doesn't mean that viewing someone at any given moment in a sexualized way because of their physical attributes is objectionable. In your example, you know that your girlfriend is more than just her physical appearance. So the girlfriend example really means little. Here's a link:
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/
I was actually discussing the way my girlfriend was objectifying me, but hey easy mistake. Either way, my girlfriend at the time also used to watch pornography and would view the men and women in that purely as sexual objects. When she looked at me on Skype it was in substitution of pornography and it had nothing to no with me as a person: she would quite happily have done the same to images of a stranger. It wasn't really about me as a person, it was about the fact that she viewed parts of me attractive and wanted to see them. I understand you are arguing that she viewed me more as more than a penis on legs, I simply
do not believe any well-adjusted human being looks at a person doing something sexy and stops seeing them as a person. Sure, they're not considering their personality at the time, but that doesn't mean they don't know it exists.
You're assuming too much when you talk about people who want to be objectified. Sure, some people may like being the center of attention and some may even derive sexual pleasure from it, but to assume that everyone who voluntarily puts themselves in a position that is objectified also wishes to be objectified is too presumptive.
Is it? I mean, in the examples we are looking at, I doubt 'booth babes' think their job is to be anything other than to be objectified and, as reasonable adults, they are quite happy to do that. Whether it is for the reward at the end (money/modelling portfolio work) or simply to enjoy being looked at and desire is irrelevant: they are making the decision for themselves as reasonable adults.
And it's also presumptive to think that gamers have reached a point where everyone sees booth babes as complex individuals and not just a pair of tits to be oggled. And if people over time only see hyper-sexualized images of women without seeing much in the way of complexity in them, then they are more likely to generalize that a great deal.
While I agree with the latter of this statement, I disagree with the former. The fact that there is so much pornography on the internet does not stop people from having sisters, mothers, or female friends. You seem to believe that
more 'gamers' see 'booth babes' as inhuman creatures fit only for oggling, and I simply do not buy that. Everyone always talks about the "unwashed masses" who think this that and the other, but no-one is willing to admit that they are that person. Who do you know who
literally thinks that sexy women are not human?
And using the excuse that "things are like this now and will always be this way so just get used to it" is really lame.
Agreed, I just don't think it has to change in the way you suggest. Sexual objectification will always be fun for people who want to be objectified. When people have complimented me on my appearance without ever knowing me I get a real joy out of that. If I dress up in a way that makes people look at me, I won't complain when the people who look at me only see me as what I'm wearing. The only way we can stop considering people sexy before we know them is to pretend we don't have sexual feelings, which leads to a whole new hell of disasters. If men were equally sexualised and itemised in the media and in general then there is little to worry about.
People working in advertizing think that sex sells, but that doesn't mean that people can't change that. And no one is advocating going back through another victorian age. That's just a common excuse to not do anything about sexual objectification. Someone has trouble with the way women or men are sexualized, then someone complains that those who are concerned are repressed puritans and that they want to turn back time. It's a bullshit tactic.
Why is it so bad to view someone as a sexual object when you have no intention of getting to know them, then? Do you really believe that a significant amount of Western society will stop thinking of women as human beings with feelings just because they don't consider all women's feelings equally?
And again, sexual objectification is not the same as "occasionally see[ing] a woman for something other than their personality."
I personally don't see what's wrong with seeing someone for their physical attributes. If I see a woman walking about in revealing clothing why am I obliged to consider her personality before I feel a degree of sexual attraction to her? Everyone objectifies all the time. Your description of objectification is "viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own". Do you honestly see someone with an attractive face and think "Boy, I bet she has some wonderful aspirations in her life"? No, I imagine you go "she has a pretty face."
I still don't see what's wrong with that, but I admit I just might not understand the concept itself. Please bear with me if I seem to be slow picking up this definition.
Also, we're totally on different pages with our views of 'gamers' in general. I simply do not believe that the majority of gamers are that simple. Call me an optimist, but I just don't.
