I?ll start out by saying there isn?t two sides to this issue, there exists only one side that a majority agree upon. There exist fringe minorities to the extreme right and left, but those are the exception, not the rule. Now you may be wondering, I?ve seen previous topics about this, you are delusional if you think there exists a majority, its two sides fighting. The eventual goal of this paper is to not only show that that assumption is wrong, but hopefully point out the discrepancies that people are having. In short, while the words may give an appearance of different viewpoints at first glance. What both sides are discussing is in fact the same issue.
I?ll start out by defining the goal of the majority. For there to be women such that they are treated as people. That?s it. Everyone not only agrees with this point, all other additional points directly refer back to this main point. In such any smaller goal you may have, is in fact this overbearing main idea. This is important because these smaller points is where the problems start to come out of. Which causes confusion because even though the main idea is the same, the smaller issues create a layer of complexity that gives the appearance of this being an issue dominated by two opposing sides. Or that this this issue isn?t fully agreed upon.
The problem, the core debate is too strongly focused on sexualization. While some think sexualization is intrinsically opposed to the goal of the main goal and itself evil, the majority think sexualization is not inherently bad. To break down why the majority think this way lets define a false dichotomy. You can have either a sexy women, or a women treated as a person. Obviously this is wrong, you can easily have a sexy women treated as a person, and you can have an ugly women not treated as a person. So a sex object requires two things, first that women are sexualized, and second, that they aren?t treated as a person. Sex object and sexy women are not the same thing! Just because someone is sexy doesn?t mean they are being regulated as a sex object.
The above gets trickier when you add in more layers of complexity. While it appears that some in the majority may at first glance appear to not recognize this fact, they in fact do. It is the over saturation of sexualization that makes some feel as if women are being regulated to sex object category, and not treated as a people. They want a larger variety of body types of women to better represent the diversity of body type?s women as people have. Restated this idea stems not from sexualization being inherently wrong, but the abundance of sexualization making some agitated that there is a lack of average looking women. In short, it?s the overabundance of sexualization that is the cause for frustration, not sexualization in general.
After a few rounds of debates, each side is confused about the other side?s point. Side one is claiming that while sexualization isn?t wrong, they would like more types besides sexy. Side two is arguing that being sexy isn?t wrong and that the character of the women should be defined by their merits of their identity as a person instead. But, and this is a heavy but, side one?s focus on oversaturation of sexy women as being a problem brings side two to incorrectly assume side one disagrees with them. Where side one thinks that since side two is arguing with them, they must disagree with their original idea argues back, this leads side two to further conclude side one thinks being sexy is bad, and they argue their point back instead of side one?s original point. Much like a game of phone that many of us played when we were younger, the original idea is misshapen and even though both are in agreement, it gives the appearance that the majority are in disagreement.
Now side one is angry that side two doesn?t see side one?s point of wanting more variety in body types. A minority falsely come to the conclusion that sexualization implies sex object directly without exception. Side two is confused that side one says they wanted to treat women as people, but at the same time don?t get why they can?t see sexy women as people. Which is than perpetuated by the new focus on sexualization, instead of the original focus being on treating women as people. Now the debate has devolved back to the original question that the majority has agreed upon. But now has additional content and extra ideas mixed in, where the complexity leads to both sides no longer being able to understand each other. At this point it is a flame war as the only thing correctly being conveyed is emotions. This right here is where the false assumption that there is a debate going on exists. Because emotions are riding high, everyone assumes the opposing faction is disagreeing with the, when in fact they are not.
I hope this paper was helpful. If you have any disagreements with my conclusions, or would like to add something you feel needs restated or that I didn?t cover well, feel free to add anything.
EDITS: Sorry forum didn't format post correctly from paper.
I?ll start out by defining the goal of the majority. For there to be women such that they are treated as people. That?s it. Everyone not only agrees with this point, all other additional points directly refer back to this main point. In such any smaller goal you may have, is in fact this overbearing main idea. This is important because these smaller points is where the problems start to come out of. Which causes confusion because even though the main idea is the same, the smaller issues create a layer of complexity that gives the appearance of this being an issue dominated by two opposing sides. Or that this this issue isn?t fully agreed upon.
The problem, the core debate is too strongly focused on sexualization. While some think sexualization is intrinsically opposed to the goal of the main goal and itself evil, the majority think sexualization is not inherently bad. To break down why the majority think this way lets define a false dichotomy. You can have either a sexy women, or a women treated as a person. Obviously this is wrong, you can easily have a sexy women treated as a person, and you can have an ugly women not treated as a person. So a sex object requires two things, first that women are sexualized, and second, that they aren?t treated as a person. Sex object and sexy women are not the same thing! Just because someone is sexy doesn?t mean they are being regulated as a sex object.
The above gets trickier when you add in more layers of complexity. While it appears that some in the majority may at first glance appear to not recognize this fact, they in fact do. It is the over saturation of sexualization that makes some feel as if women are being regulated to sex object category, and not treated as a people. They want a larger variety of body types of women to better represent the diversity of body type?s women as people have. Restated this idea stems not from sexualization being inherently wrong, but the abundance of sexualization making some agitated that there is a lack of average looking women. In short, it?s the overabundance of sexualization that is the cause for frustration, not sexualization in general.
After a few rounds of debates, each side is confused about the other side?s point. Side one is claiming that while sexualization isn?t wrong, they would like more types besides sexy. Side two is arguing that being sexy isn?t wrong and that the character of the women should be defined by their merits of their identity as a person instead. But, and this is a heavy but, side one?s focus on oversaturation of sexy women as being a problem brings side two to incorrectly assume side one disagrees with them. Where side one thinks that since side two is arguing with them, they must disagree with their original idea argues back, this leads side two to further conclude side one thinks being sexy is bad, and they argue their point back instead of side one?s original point. Much like a game of phone that many of us played when we were younger, the original idea is misshapen and even though both are in agreement, it gives the appearance that the majority are in disagreement.
Now side one is angry that side two doesn?t see side one?s point of wanting more variety in body types. A minority falsely come to the conclusion that sexualization implies sex object directly without exception. Side two is confused that side one says they wanted to treat women as people, but at the same time don?t get why they can?t see sexy women as people. Which is than perpetuated by the new focus on sexualization, instead of the original focus being on treating women as people. Now the debate has devolved back to the original question that the majority has agreed upon. But now has additional content and extra ideas mixed in, where the complexity leads to both sides no longer being able to understand each other. At this point it is a flame war as the only thing correctly being conveyed is emotions. This right here is where the false assumption that there is a debate going on exists. Because emotions are riding high, everyone assumes the opposing faction is disagreeing with the, when in fact they are not.
I hope this paper was helpful. If you have any disagreements with my conclusions, or would like to add something you feel needs restated or that I didn?t cover well, feel free to add anything.
EDITS: Sorry forum didn't format post correctly from paper.
