Objectification: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Being a gay guy, I can blurt out something like "Joey Harrington's got a HOT ASS" to mixed company and people will know I'm saying this with an admixture of comedy and lust. But I suspect that if I was straight man, I suspect I wouldn't have the liberty to say the same thing about a woman's hinder without being seen as desperate and creepy.

So how ready are you to objectify people you're attracted to? And how vocal are you about it?

― Michael Daddino, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I am always vocal but will be more to David because he is motherfuckign one hour late making me miss two classes.

― anthony, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I am tr

― Pennysong Hanle y, Monday, 10 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But the link shows no ass of Harrington. Still, I trust your judgment. ;-)

Objectifying -- uh, duh? Even if you don't say it, you think it. But I reserve such judgments generally to myself due to the weird/creepy thing you mentioned. ;-)

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

straight man comments favourably on woman's body: not always seen as desperate and creepy. it depends on the context of the situation. i generally don't mind straight men doing this, as long as they aren't just talking about a particular woman so that their male buddies will approve and think they aren't gay. should i elaborate? if the typical NZ bloke doesn't like the same women that all straight men supposedly like (eg Britney Spears) then his male friends will think he's gay, which of course to average (beer-swilling, rugby-watching, women-and-gay-hating) NZ bloke, is the biggest affront to his masculinity. trust me, men as stupid as this DO exist, i lived in a hall-of-residence with about 50 of these kind of idiots for a year.

but of course, not all straight men are like that, and i have no problem with straight men expressing a genuine desire for a woman he finds attractive.

do i objectify the people i'm attracted to? guilty as charged. and i am pretty vocal about it. hell, why not? lust ain't always a bad thing!

― di, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I am desperate & creepy.

― duane, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure what constitutes objectification of women. Obviously it has to be more than just experiencing (or expressing) lust for their bodies. Maybe reducing them to being 'a cunt to fuck'? But then even that can be a good sexy thing sometimes, even withing the context of a loving relationship. I think as guilty of turning women into romantic objects (in the sense of unrealistic fantasy objects) as sexual ones.
Maybe it's just a balance to be struck. Morrissey's [..] he drove me home in the van / Complaining "Women only like me for my mind" pops into my mind.

― Nick, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'as guilty' = 'I'm as guilty'

― Nick, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Objectifying things which are actually objects is a good thing. People are objects with (assumed) minds. Therefore objectifying those things which make them objects - ie all the things which aren't the mind - is neutral, and possibly a good thing.

Its when said objectification truns into assuming that there isn't a mind attached to said nice ass that the trouble starts. Plus the impossibility of being objective. Especially if the object you objectify objects to your non-objective objectification.

― Pete, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

the real answer here is that society dictates that men cannot be objectified for some reason, so mike can lust after a guy all he wants and it's not considered creepy or weird because it's assumed the male object of affection should readily accept this. whereas women are considered entirely nonsexual and should only be put on pedestals and not allowed any part in this filthy 'desire' bit unless they are objectifying men themselves.

― ethan, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What about Patrick Swayze's buns?

― Nick, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

objectification = putting on just ONE pedestal

Demand the Multi-Task Pedestal!!

― mark s, Tuesday, 11 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If it was my world I would force you all to read Pope John Paul and Emerson until you were indoctrinated and thought backwards. I mean if instead of things you saw the irradiation of being. Then I would talk about cunts, cunts, cunts, just to feel amused. You seem to think that you are projecting this objectification onto an antagonistic world. There is very little spiritual dimension to contend with. When is there a 'lack of objectification'? In chuch now they talk Oprah style crap. There's nothing left, only ruins, physical ruins I mean, rocks and stones.

― maryann, Wednesday, 12 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.