| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| benji |
Posted - 08/26/2005 : 09:38:54
...on fashion tv.
absolutely the best television there is.
there is something about lingerie models.
fashion tv is normally pretty boring cause all the models modelling the clothes are so skinny, with no bouncy or squidgy bits, whereas the lingerie models have to be able to fill out the "clothes", which equals more pleasure for me (and everyone else).
i just had to sit thru 20 minutes of a victoria secrets fashion show. i don't know how i did it.
"My Doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes."
|Arthur Dent|
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| danjersey |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 21:28:36
My walk to work is blessed with many women.
my way home is cursed.
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 21:18:03
The discussion of objectification arose out of questions of just what people mean by objectification. I was pointing out that humans have long had an awkward relationship with it, especially when it involved objectifying themselves. People don’t like to regard themselves as objects, whereas they do so readily with most of the rest of existence. I enjoy the irony of women, especially allegedly enlightened feminists, rejecting sexual objectification when that rejection bears much in common with the way the religious have historically carved out a special place for human beings in general. The religious have claimed that there is something special about humans which makes it metaphysically and therefore morally inappropriate to treat them as objects. I also enjoy the irony of the similarity between the way the religious reject objectification and the way the “secular” humanists do the same thing. Each sanctifies and therefore engages in the same basic error about the human condition. Further, these errors, and that of wanting to condemn sexual objectification of woman, are rooted in a false distinction: that there is a moral realm which exists outside that of of the metaphysical or scientific.
Why not simply objectify the entire matter? It is a scientific fact that most men like to ogle women and that while some women accept and even exploit that, others do not. Why inject morality into the discussion? The Dave Noisies of this world would have us believe there is something intrinsically wrong with objectifying the objects of our sexual desires. They would assert that it is TRUE that men should not objectify women. I would claim that such assertions have no truth value at all, and further that no moral claim can be said to have truth value. It is true that objectification and all it entails make a lot of people uncomfortable. It is true that suffering can be caused. It is not true that causing suffering is objectively wrong. It simply is what it is. It is the case that our biological nature makes it possible to suffer and that most of us will escape suffering when we can. It is true that most of us would prefer to avoid witnessing the suffering of others. But it is not true that all men should feel guilty for ogling women or that all women suffer from such ogling. And it is most certainly not true that such ogling somehow “diminishes” the humanity of both ogler and ogled. Certainly not all involved feel diminished. Nor can those offended convincingly explain just what this diminishment involves or how it is that it is any of their business.
To many of us, Maria Sharipova looks good in a short skirt. Who is exploiting whom here? Just what is this higher state of being she is depriving herself of by succumbing to the temptation of using her genetic gifts for fun and profit? How is it OK to “ogle” and reward human beings for other inherent gifts such as intelligence or “virtues” of character while condemning exploitation of gifts of physical appearance? It seems pretty obvious to me that those offended by this normal state of affairs are the ones with the problems and it doesn’t take much speculation to figure out just what those problems might be.
|
| HeywoodJablome |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 18:49:26
The thread states lingerie, what's all this then! |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 18:44:01
Isn't secular humanism more of a philosophy than a religion? I mean, I'd think the word "secular" in and of itself would pretty much exempt it from religious status.
I don't think humans are necessarily more special than any other kind of animal (and perhaps not even any other kind of thing), but the fact remains that I AM human, as (I'm assuming) are the other members of this forum. And it's natural to value one's own species over the others. So I guess I'm a humanist in a sense, but I wouldn't say that means I think humans are the center of the universe or whatever.
I also think one reason humans have been able to survive so long is that we DO help each other out. Yes, we also kill each other, but the philosophy that all humans should only look out for themselves is remarkably short-sighted and based on a mistaken notion of the whole Survival of the Fittest concept. Of course, if you WANT to die because you think you're not worthy of survival, that's your own business, but don't drag other people down with you. So much of the right-wing belief system seems to be based on "screw poor or otherwise disadvantaged people," which I find to be not only cruel, but possibly damaging to the human race as a whole (not to mention antithetical to the teachings of the Bible, which so many right-wingers pretend to believe).
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 15:24:09
A few thoughts on the passing parade, as Thomas Sowell says.
The human race has had objections to objectification for centuries and probably millenia, though probably not so long when it comes to sexuality. Religion has long placed humans at the center of things, somehow exempt from the physical laws that they attribute to (most of) the rest of universe. As most here would be aware, the term “objectification” derives from what the philosopher refers to as the subject-object relation, where it is the subject that views and the object that is viewed. From the standpoint of the viewer, the viewer is in the center, with the objects being at a distance. Religion views the human subject and humanity as a whole as being at the center of a reality brought into being and governed by a god. Hence, from the standpoint of religion, the human and humanity are not objects within the view of man, although apparently they are objects in the view of god (except where one may view man as participating in the nature of god, but that’s another story). Within the last century secular humanism has risen as a religion which retains this bias of view in that it too retains humans at the center of things and would therefore exempt humans from a state of nature subject to physical laws. Most notably this is true where humanists would assert that the value-neutral implications of evolution and natural selection do not apply to human beings. Much as the religious still do argue for a special condition of humans within the greater scheme of things, so do the humanists. It is interesting that where the religious may be more likely to be political rightists and the humanists more likely to be political leftists, both demonstrate a similar bias in favor of human beings as the center of things.
More broadly, a strong moral take on the subject-object distinction invokes what the philosopher terms the is-ought dichotomy, which in turn suggests the notion of philosophy as having two distinct prongs: “what is the case about the nature of the world?” and “how should I live my life?” Science increasingly threatens to collapse this dichotomy, on many fronts. Evolution would bring humans completely into the realm of the biological, relativity would obliterate the priority of any particular viewpoint, quantum mechanics would flatten the autonomy of levels of material analysis. Examination of psychology, sociology, and anthropology reveals frontiers of debate between those who worship at some altar of human specialness and those who see greater continuity between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. And if the human will cannot be said to be free in any meaningfull sense, all moral debate is reduced to counting angels on pinheads.
Meanwhile, we would reject sexual objectiification, especially objectification of women by men. To my mind this consists of little more than an attempt to protect the romantic against Freud, to protect the holistic against reduction, and to protect the illusions of woman against the illusions of man.
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 14:06:08
Didn't I specifically say I WASN'T dissing porn?
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 12:54:46
Don't be dissing porn, VoVat. Don't be dissing porn.
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/08/2005 : 12:53:34
Aren't strip clubs generally more of a guy thing anyway? I don't know. I've never been to one either.
As for guys who have serious issues with women, I've run into a few. You know, the type who spend all their time looking at porno and going to strip clubs or whatever, and then get annoyed that real women don't live up to their crazy expectations. Perhaps such men are in the minority, though. I certainly hope so.
And, for what it's worth, I'm not saying I have anything AGAINST porn or strip clubs. It's just that, when coupled with unpleasant attitudes and lack of exposure to actual human relationships, they can be harmful. I don't think they are in and of themselves, though. It's really a personal thing.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 16:55:54
quote:
Originally posted by floop
maybe guys who never have relationshiops and only go to strip clubs think like that.
I've never been to a strip club. Does that make me a loser?
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
|
| Surfer Rosa |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 16:01:01
I see it as being part of human nature and frankly you're denying yourself one of life's great cheap thrills if you don't partake in the odd bit of objectifying.
Fire made it good. |
| floop |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 15:55:13
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
I tend to think the same thing, but sometimes I get the idea that there are more guys like that than you or I might expect.
what gives you that idea mr. VoVat? |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 13:59:21
quote:
i'm sure there are men out there like that, but i think that's the minority..
I tend to think the same thing, but sometimes I get the idea that there are more guys like that than you or I might expect.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| Z_Zoquis |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 12:49:15
"but that still doesn't mean that appreciating physical beauty is "objectification" .."
no argument from me on that count. :)
|
| floop |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 11:22:22
i'm sure there are men out there like that, but i think that's the minority.. maybe guys who never have relationshiops and only go to strip clubs think like that. or guys who have serious issues with women..
but that still doesn't mean that appreciating physical beauty is "objectification" ..
i don't know about you guys, but i've never had a girlfriend complain when i complimented her on her good looks. either in a general way, or, specific physical attributes |
| Z_Zoquis |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 10:42:31
On a more serious note, I tend to think that "objectification" is something that applies more on a broad gender context than on the one on one relationship level. For instance, a guy might come to believe that women in general are defined by their breasts and nothing else. This could of course impact personal relationships in a negative way too though. I mean I'm sure most women would become annoyed if they couldn't have a conversation with their fella without him staring intently at her "prodigious accoutremonts" so to speak. |
| Z_Zoquis |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 10:34:06
If your "lady" says "that's it, I'm leaving you!" and your response is "OK, but are you taking those with you?" than you are guilty of unhealthy objectification. ;)
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 10:24:18
I went on a major lingerie spree this week specifically for the sake of objectification.
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 10:09:31
quote:
I don't see how you can be an object and more than an object at the same time?
It's like how light can be both a wave AND a particle.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 09/07/2005 : 01:26:44
quote:
Originally posted by starmekitten
I don't see how you can be an object and more than an object at the same time?
It's all in Sartre's "Being and nothingness"
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| floop |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 14:01:26
i still don't understand how thinking someone is attractive is viewing them as an object |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 13:58:27
I don't see how you can be an object and more than an object at the same time? |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 13:56:11
It's all Janet Jackson's fault!
Oh, wait. That was last year.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| Carl |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 06:49:41
Maybe it's been banned!! ;) |
| benji |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 05:42:07
well i think it's on probly every day carl. i just have to figure out it's actual programming time and i'll be setting the vcr....
haven't managed to catch it since, which is beginning to worry me..
 Join the Cult of Fat! |
| Carl |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 05:36:35
They should extend it to lingerie week. They'd get more viewers! ;) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 12:04:53
See, I don't think I can separate the various aspects of a person as easily as some of you can.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 09:47:41
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
If you have respect for someone, though, is it possible to treat them as an object?
Even more so.
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
|
| Surfer Rosa |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 07:49:59
Oh yes.
Fire made it good. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 07:48:06
If you have respect for someone, though, is it possible to treat them as an object?
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| Surfer Rosa |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 00:58:18
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
I hold a more Clintonian view. I'm all about compartamentalizing. You can both objectify/treat as an object and respect/have feelings for.
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
What this clever lady said.
Fire made it good. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 19:45:30
I think the real question is how Kathryn defines "is."
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
| Carl |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:32:53
Objectifying lingerie is also not on. |
| floop |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 18:26:42
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Yeah, I think vovat is right. Objectifying implies that you no longer think of the person as a person. You think of them as an object. Something without feelings or deserving of respect. So, if that's the definition:
objectifying = bad
but where exactly do we draw the line between finding someone physically attractive and seeing them as an object? i'm still having a hard time understanding the difference..
if i see a girl i don't know and think she's attractive am i "objectifying" her? i don't know her so i can't have much of an idea of what kind of person she is.. at that stage, it's a purely physical attraction. it could just be a matter of, "wow, she has a nice ass".. does that automatically imply that i don't think she deserves respect or has feelings?
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 17:53:03
I hold a more Clintonian view. I'm all about compartamentalizing. You can both objectify/treat as an object and respect/have feelings for.
Sometimes, no matter how shitty things get, you have to just do a little dance. - Frank
|
| darwin |
Posted - 09/04/2005 : 17:43:40
Yeah, I think vovat is right. Objectifying implies that you no longer think of the person as a person. You think of them as an object. Something without feelings or deserving of respect. So, if that's the definition:
objectifying = bad
|
