Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Diogenes]

I don't think any guy would have had a chance worth measuring in that situation. My point was that had he been thinking of her as a person with wants and needs, and not as an object of his desire, he would not have made the offer. At least not in that situation. I think approaching her in the bar would have been fine. I would not call that objectification.

Short version is a failure to show empathy indicates objectification.

I don't know about you but I don't see a courtship attempt as treating anyone as an object. I mean you don't ask a Real Doll® for permission.

I'd be closer to seeing your point if the exchange was reported more along the lines of:

"**** me if I'm wrong, but is your name Joe?" or any number of other crass pick-up lines. Some looming might need to be involved as well, though.

 

[Ocelot]

You know I'm not sure how relevant the actual figures on the response rates to such propositions are but thanks to a tweet the other week from the excellent @RichardWiseman I know where to find some small amount of empirical data on that.

It turns out that the Touch and Go Song "Would you go to bed with me" takes its lyrics from an actual study by Russell D Clark Elaine Hatfield



Apparently students of moderate attractiveness asked other students of similar attractiveness one of three randomly assigned questions. First observing "I've noticed you around campus, I find you very attractive" then
a) "Would you go out with me tonight?"
b) "Would you come over to my apartment tonight?"
c) "Would you go to be with me tonight?"


1978

Sex of Requestor|Date|Apartment|Bed
Male|56%|6%|0%
Female|50%|69%|75%

1982

Sex of Requestor|Date|Apartment|Bed
Male|50%|0%|0%
Female|50%|69%|69%

Obviously 4am in a convention centre lift is a different context to daytime in a campus quadrangle. However there do seem to be a number of similarities with the tested approach (option b) and the narrative relayed by Miss Watson.

One of the main similarities of course is the response from those propositioned in this way.

"In general the female experimenters reported that men were at ease with the request. They would say "Why do we have to wait until tonight?" or "I cannot tonight, but tomorrow would be fine" The men that said "No" even gave apologies i.e. "I'm married" or "I'm going with someone" In contrast, the women's response to the intimate requests from males was "You've got to be kidding," or "What's wrong with you? leave me alone."

From that I think we can be confident in an objective predictions that if elevator guy were to try that a number of times he'd end up offending many many more women than he'd attract back to his room.

 

[RandFan]

So to make that offer, you can't really be thinking of the other person as a person, you have to be seeing them as an opportunity, or fantasy enabler. If you approached that situation seeing them as a person you'd just be quiet, or perhaps say, "I really liked your talk." and make no further invite, though again at 4am, in an elevator, just a bad place to be striking up a conversation.

I reject your premise. Having studied human psychology and human behavior I can confidently say this is just an ad hoc rationalization. Humans, like most animals, are are incredibly varied both genetically and culturally. Our brains are rationalization machines and that's why there are the Darwin awards. If everyone used logic as you suggest we wouldn't have people killing themselves doing monumentally stupid things. Further, I don't accept that asking someone for coffee in an elevator is per se wrong or likely to fail. Depends on the person doing the asking. There's nothing wrong with telling people that women often feel vulnerable in such situations. And elevator offers a low percentage of success and some probability of creeping a woman out for MOST men. A Brad Pitt type could spend his life picking up women in an elevator. So could Justin Bieber.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

Of course you can make that offer and still think of the person as a person. You can just be ignorant of how women are likely to feel in such situations and you could miscalculate your odds of success.

BTW: You've hit on the thing that makes me the most frustrated with A+ types. This illusion that humans are dichotomous. That we only do good things and bad things. Typically it's conservatives who have a black and white view of human psychology. But they do not have a monopoly on bad logic. This is one area where liberals tend to fail to engage in a nuanced view of the world.

We are not all the same. Evolution has guaranteed that we would be diverse in our thoughts and opinions. It's this kind of pop psychology that does liberals no good service.

 

[zooterkin]

One thing everyone's missing about Elevatorgate is that it's common, normal, and natural to proposition someone in private. Neither the one making the proposal nor the proposee usually want to be seen in the process. Someone doing it in front of others would usually be seen as socially inept, or a showoff.

Well, I didn't miss it, but I could never express my thoughts on the matter quite so succinctly. I think I was stunned by the assumption (I can't recall now if it was implicit or explicit) that you should proposition someone in room full of other people, at the risk of public humiliation.

 

[zooterkin]

This is a friend of a friend, so take with a pinch of salt, but I head tell of a completely average guy who had slept with well over 2,000 women. The reason was that he asked every single woman he met in any circumstances whatsoever to sleep with him.

I've heard the story many times, over at least 35 years, but never actually met such a person; which isn't to say it doesn't work. I'm certain that some people have tried it, inspired by the tale, but whether they kept accurate records of their success rate I don't know.

 

[Piscivore]

BTW: You've hit on the thing that makes me the most frustrated with A+ types. This illusion that humans are dichotomous. That we only do good things and bad things. Typically it's conservatives who have a black and white view of human psychology. But they do not have a monopoly on bad logic. This is one area where liberals tend to fail to engage in a nuanced view of the world.

It's not a conservative or liberal thing, it is an ideologue thing. Anyone that believes strongly in any ideology eventually succumbs to this kind of thinking, because they've formed an unshakeable faith in a particular set of ideas they think accounts for everything--so any new data, every new experience, and every action either agrees with those predetermined answers, or doesn't.

 

[RandFan]

It's not a conservative or liberal thing, it is an ideologue thing. Anyone that believes strongly in any ideology eventually succumbs to this kind of thinking, because they've formed an unshakeable faith in a particular set of ideas they think accounts for everything--so any new data, every new experience, and every action either agrees with those predetermined answers, or doesn't.

Having recently read The Righteous Mind I have to say you are correct and I should have worded that differently. I would say it's one of degree. If you randomly picked 100 conservatives and 100 liberals I would guess the liberals have somewhat more nuanced view of the world. I'll hasten to add that my opinion is based on my former conservative POV and other anecdotal observations.

I should have been less absolute about my opinion and I should have noted it's only an opinion.

 

[WillyWonka]

Having recently read The Righteous Mind I have to say you are correct and I should have worded that differently. I would say it's one of degree. If you randomly picked 100 conservatives and 100 liberals I would guess the liberals have somewhat more nuanced view of the world. I'll hasten to add that my opinion is based on my former conservative POV and other anecdotal observations.

I think that 100 conservatives would also have quite a range of views; social conservatives and fiscal conservatives do not necessarily agree on every points. In Canada, Mulroney, a conservative prime minister, was a fiscal conservative but was very liberal in his views. Right now, Stephen Harper, has not shown to be a very socially conservative PM. Elizabeth May, the head of the Green Party, a left leaning party, is an ordained minister, and is quite socially conservative (she is against abortion, for example).

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Firstly, thanks for replying. There is indeed a strong bias against your position (not you as a person) here, so I can more than understand if you ignore most posts disagreeing with you.

Oh I think a lot of it is personal as well, though not necessarily conscious. It is hard to hold a negative opinion of someone's ideas, especially as A+ is represented here, and not also feel some overflow onto the person. Price of playing in this pool so I don't lose sleep over it.

You say this falls under "objectifying" women; caring only about their looks, maybe posture and attitude, but not being bothered about their skills, hobbies, goals, beliefs, or philosophies. Do I understand correctly that you find attraction based on externalities a bad thing? Or is it acting on that attraction that is bad? I'd be interested to finally understand the reasoning behind why objectification is bad per se, other than that some people don't want it directed at them. After all, in the vast majority of interactions with people, we don't care about their views or philosophies, life goals or hobbies. I don't know what life goals my boss has, I don't care what philosophies my cashier has. All fine with you, I presume, but problematic if sexual attraction is added? Or only so if the sexual attraction is then expressed?

You are reading a lot more than I intended into both the term objectifying and why I disapprove of it, in this circumstance. For starters no, I have no problem at all with people finding each other attractive, for any characteristics that we find attractive. Finding someone attractive is not what I would define as objectifying.

For me, and I think RW as I infer from her use, objectifying is when you treat someone as an object. An extreme example would be slavery however on the much more mild scale when you find someone attractive, and do not care who they are as a person, what they like or dislike. When you act in a manner which is callous to their perceptions. In short, failure to display empathy.

You are right that to some extent we objectify lots of people. I would call that state unfortunate, but inevitable given the limit on how many friends we are actually able to maintain. However in a casual encounter there is no harm, so when you look at porn, assuming all parties in production were GGG about it, no issue. When you attempt to forge a relationship, then objectification is bad. The level of badness goes along with the amount of harm Elevator Guy was tactless. Not the anti-christ, not evil, but worthy of a short rebuke, like someone telling a racist joke or farting in close proximity to others. Not the end of the world, but not a good thing to do.

Certainly condone. I don't judge other people's sexual activities and this falls under that general rule. I do have the personal impression, not supported by much evidence, that if people felt more free to act on random attraction or lust, less constrained by prudery, the world would be a somewhat happier place. As in the attitude towards sex taken in Iain Banks' the Culture. Or bonobos.

Ocelot produced some pretty impressive data on post #7502. Given the high propensity of making the other party uncomfortable do you still condone that behavior? Would you be upset if someone set about to make you and your friends uncomfortable in pursuit of their desires?

I will agree it would be nice if we had a culture that was more sex positive. However we need to establish a culture with an even sexual power balance first. We are a long way from that culture.

I get the impression that having a "get to know you phase" is what distinguishes it from objectification in your view? Fair enough, although I would not see it as a significant difference myself. It's not as if having shared hobbies or life goals was going to matter much, in that context.

You are right, I think the getting to know you phase is critical to avoiding objectification. If it is done authentically. I think some effort at understanding the other person is necessary to avoid objectification, and failure to do so is objectification.

Firstly, you say that my impression of you is inaccurate. I haven't talked about my impression of you, which is actually quite positive. I've only talked about my impression of what you wrote there, which is not so positive.

That doesn't strike you as a rather pedantic difference? In any case your impression of my intent in my words was inaccurate. I will attempt to be more clear since some of that is my fault in communication. For the record, unless I make it clear I'm being snarky I mean what I type.

I disagreed with the estimation of those odds previously. I'm sticking with 95% for now. The real issue however is what Elevator Guy thought his chances were, since that's what the rest of your reasoning is based on. You imply he must have been sure he didn't have a chance, based on your estimate of how often such an offer would be accepted.

How often do people ask for something when they're sure they're not going to get what they ask for? Most of us only ask for something, especially from a stranger, when we feel there's a good chance of a yes. Being rejected after all, feels unpleasant. Some, like the guy I mentioned, are sufficiently inured to that feeling that they'll take a slimmer chance, but those people are very rare indeed. I'd say that in 99% of situations (personal estimate, dispute if you like) people only ask if they think they have better than even odds of getting what they ask for. Given that Elevator Guy asked, I think that's strong evidence that he did not think his offer was going to almost certainly be rejected.

Emphasis mine.

Elevator guy was not asking for something, he was asking for time alone with Rebecca (someone), and for her vulnerability. I do not think he realized that was implicit in his request. I think if he'd thought it out and possessed an average amount of empathy he'd have not made the invitation. It's not about what he thought his chances were, look at the research, talk to female friends. I've taken a straw poll with most of the women in Rebecca's age group that I am friends with and the answer is universally, no don't do that, bad place to ask. (Not scientific, but again post #7502.

You can even see objectification in your terminology. By your description he could have been trying to get a box of cereal or tickets to a concert. Women are not things, sex is not a thing. It is intimacy with a person. (And yes I know it's sometimes very casual, and if everyone signs up for that more power to them but the agreement can not be forced and still be ok.)

Here you lose me entirely. A person who you allegedly know is going to say no, is an opportunity? For what? For denying you conversation? For denying you sex? Seeing someone as a "fantasy enabler" is equally puzzling. What kind of fantasy might that be and how would they enable it? Asking someone to go to your room and have coffee and getting shot down is enabling some person's fantasy? I cannot begin to imagine the type of fantasy life that would make this a feasible theory.

I am not making claims about what EG actually knew. I am stating he should have known. Failure to know is not a high crime it is a social blunder. From that sentence on you are beating straw. The getting shot down fantasy is your creation and all that follows is you taking your creation down.

This is the step where I find it hard to see anything except rationalisation. It appears to be simply random speculation about his motives, attributing specific motives so bizarre that I for one, cannot imagine how they might work.

If you will engage with what I am saying and not the arguments you are projecting for me you will likely skip this problem. The last two quotes are you arguing against yourself.

I would say 4AM in an elevator after a conference and then drinks, is an excellent time to strike up a conversation. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it and I've gathered it's not uncommon after TAM conferences to later have private talks in rooms with strangers. I think what you're trying to say is that it's a bad place to strike up a conversation if you're a MAN and addressing a WOMAN you don't know, because SEX. Would you say it's a problem in any other configuration of genders?

Nope. I am saying it is a bad place to strike up a first conversation. It is a bad place to initiate contact. Research seems to indicate that it would be more agreeable for a woman to ask a man. I still think it is poor taste. Objectification. I am sure that lots of people meet for lots of reasons, including sex, at conferences, I doubt that these meetings come from cold propositions. The rebuke was, "Hey guys don't do that". Look at the absurd amount of outrage that resulted from advice whose response should be, oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that would bother you.

If everyone used logic as you suggest we wouldn't have people killing themselves doing monumentally stupid things.

I am not saying that everyone uses logic, I am saying that everyone ought to be more empathetic. I recognize that many people won't and I think they should face criticism for that failure. Nice straw though, you really knocked it out.

Further, I don't accept that asking someone for coffee in an elevator is per se wrong or likely to fail. Depends on the person doing the asking. There's nothing wrong with telling people that women often feel vulnerable in such situations. And elevator offers a low percentage of success and some probability of creeping a woman out for MOST men. A Brad Pitt type could spend his life picking up women in an elevator. So could Justin Bieber.

Emphasis mine

Seriously?! You actually seem to agree with me. That most men will risk creeping women out if they proposition them in elevators. Why is it so hard to make the next jump, since you have a substantial risk of creeping them out, don't do it. Bradd Pitt and Justin Bieber have nothing to do with this, exceptions do not make the rule. For the record though I would call it crass for them to make such offers too. It's still objectification.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"

Ok, who is ascribing malice? I don't believe I've ever said the act was premeditated to be creepy. Seriously do you think that accidentally causing harm should excuse the person causing harm from the need to apologize and be more careful in the future?

Of course you can make that offer and still think of the person as a person. You can just be ignorant of how women are likely to feel in such situations and you could miscalculate your odds of success.

Almost, First when someone explains to you that you erred, your response should be along the lines of "I'm sorry I didn't realize". Not, "How dare you tell me when I can ask you out!" (Not EG but a whole lot of other guys).

As to being able to do it with thinking of the other person as a person, no. You can't. You have studied psychology, you should be familiar with the idea of simulacra, or the concept of the other person which we hold in our heads. That simulacra is an object, it can only ever stop being one when you take the time to get to know someone.

BTW....

You are punching straw. I never claimed that things were all good or all bad. Most things, actions and thoughts are a mix of good and bad, and goodness and badness are situational.

I think your frustration with us A+ types is that you are interacting with a stereotype and not any of us actual people. And yes, given the amount of straw you just beat, I don't think you were seeing me as me when you typed your words. I've seen you be remarkably clear headed on oppression issues in other threads, the problem seems localized here from what I have seen of you.


One final note, I have spent too long on this post tonight I'll have to post lightly or not at all until later in the weekend to catch up on the things I'm not doing now. If you(general you) want a specific answer and I don't get back before the thread grows another seven pages anyone is welcome to PM me here, or at YouTube, since that engine does private messages better, seriously limit 10, sheesh.

/edit, never mind, somewhere between my last visit and today I have gone from a limit of 10 to 250 PM away, I'll get to them eventually.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

WRT the "getting to know you" thing, part of Watson's complaint was that he evidently had got to know her a bit. He was there in the bar when she was discussing things, he may have been at her speech and his proposition to her was that he found her "interesting". So he obviously had got to know what she was about a bit, and it seems that her mind was at least as important to EG as her body (and that's assuming that he didn't literally mean coffee and chat, which may not necessarily be a safe assumption).

As to exactly what he knew, none of us can know that. We don't know what the 6 hours* of conversation had consisted of. Even had alcohol not been involved, I would doubt any participants' ability to accurately recall every topic of conversation or anecdote told. Perhaps Watson had mentioned a bordello party, posing for a calendar, liking one night stands, or any other of a number of things which might have indicated to him that an unsolicited advance might not be unwelcome.

Which is not to say that he was right. Propositioning someone in a lift is a bad idea for anyone with a brain that's even half-engaged. But, also, we don't know how much he'd had to drink and how sound his judgement was at that point. I'm rambling now, but my 2 points are that if the difference between objectification and non-objectification are whether you've got to know about or care about the inside of the other person's head, then from Watson's own account you cannot call it objectification. Secondly, none of us, not even Watson herself, really have enough information to make a determination of that kind.

*IIRC, it was certainly a long time, maybe even longer. I'm at work so can't check, but maybe she even got to the bar at 6, and then left at 4, which would be 10 hours.

 

[RandFan]

Seriously?! You actually seem to agree with me. That most men will risk creeping women out if they proposition them in elevators. Why is it so hard to make the next jump, since you have a substantial risk of creeping them out, don't do it. Bradd Pitt and Justin Bieber have nothing to do with this, exceptions do not make the rule. For the record though I would call it crass for them to make such offers too. It's still objectification.

That's easy. Let people make informed decisions and not give them blanket instructions to live their lives. Let them decide if they are Brad Pitt good looking or have the confidence to ask women out in elevators. If you want to tell them that most are likely to simply creep women out then I'm happy to keep my mouth shut. It's the telling people what to do rather than informing people and let them make a decision (which they will do anyway) that is so arrogant. It's an opinion about human behavior. There is no absolute a priori when it comes to relations. Just lot's of people with lots of different view points and sensibilities.

Ok, who is ascribing malice? I don't believe I've ever said the act was premeditated to be creepy. Seriously do you think that accidentally causing harm should excuse the person causing harm from the need to apologize and be more careful in the future?

There are no a priori rules for right and wrong. There are only probabilistic statements of what is likely to cause discomfort to some percentage of the populations. FYI: you don't have a right against being creeped out. If someone creeps you out you can tell that person or ignore them. You are free to get up in a conference and dictate to others how they must act in a given situation (or implore them), but you are just being a didactic idiot. You are likely to be seen as arrogant and dogmatic. You are likely to cause controversy and hurt your cause.

As to being able to do it with thinking of the other person as a person, no. You can't. You have studied psychology, you should be familiar with the idea of simulacra, or the concept of the other person which we hold in our heads. That simulacra is an object, it can only ever stop being one when you take the time to get to know someone.

Pure unadulterated horse ****. This is America where you can do what isn't illegal. It might not be the best strategy to get laid but we've not yet outlawed propositioning people in elevators. As for psychology, if you want that argument we can have it. You've not as yet made a demonstrably true statement about psychology so I'll ignore this for the moment. And for the record, simulacra isn't exclusive to men or those with privilege. Nor does it mean that we objectify people we don't know. We are more likely to fail to see other people's humanity but there is nothing automatic about treating someone you don't know as an object. Our first impressions are often distorted and we often don't see other people's humanity. It isn't automatic though. BTW: I really resent people miss-using psychology to justify this kind of pop-psychology. Just because you learn about a word doesn't give you the right to appropriate it as some kind of brow-beating rhetoric. Please don't do that? (that was intended to be ironic not literal).

You are punching straw. I never claimed that things were all good or all bad. Most things, actions and thoughts are a mix of good and bad, and goodness and badness are situational.

EXACTLY! YES! Not just situational but different perspectives due to human varatibility. Which is why it's asinine to give blanket commands of what to do (as RW did) as opposed to giving people information and letting them make informed choices. RW didn't say that many women often feel vulnerable so men could make an informed choice. She said, "don't do that". That's just idiotic.

I think your frustration with us A+ types is that you are interacting with a stereotype and not any of us actual people. And yes, given the amount of straw you just beat, I don't think you were seeing me as me when you typed your words. I've seen you be remarkably clear headed on oppression issues in other threads, the problem seems localized here from what I have seen of you.

A.) This is rhetorical. B.) You need a good long look in the mirror. C.) This is typical of the patronizing, condescending, I'm smarter than you and you have a problem BS of A+

Do me a favor, don't make your arguments about me. Focus on my arguments and not me. If you do that I promise to not personalize the argument and play rhetorical games as you just did. Fair enough?

 

[Diogenes]

...For me, and I think RW as I infer from her use, objectifying is when you treat someone as an object. An extreme example would be slavery however on the much more mild scale when you find someone attractive, and do not care who they are as a person, what they like or dislike...

You don't ask objects for permission.

Assuming sex as the goal is also an assumption.

 

[RandFan]

You don't ask objects for permission.

Great point. One must assume the humanity of another enough that he or she should be asked. RW wasn't asked to have coitus.

Assuming sex as the goal is also an assumption.

A fair assumption but an assumption nonetheless. It is plausible that EG simply wanted coffee.

 

[squealpiggy]

I know this elevator thing has been going round and round in circles for decades (it went round so fast it distorted time itself) but remember that the fallout was not to do with the elevator. Nobody was upset at "guys don't do that". They were upset with this individual in the audience today is a proxy misogynist because she thought that elevatorgate was no big deal.

It was after this point that the complaints about elevator guy shifted from reasonable (I felt creeped out and objectified) to histrionic (this is an example of RAPE CULTURE!!!!!) when the actual occurrence really wasn't that big a deal.

 

[Stout]

You don't ask objects for permission.

Assuming sex as the goal is also an assumption.

As is assuming that elevator guy was straight. What do they call that ? Heterosexism ? Social justice fail on RW's part.

 

[Diogenes]

As is assuming that elevator guy was straight. What do they call that ? Heterosexism ? Social justice fail on RW's part.

Very good point.

It seems that "objectifying" has been stretched by those that like to throw the term around a lot to include any courtship for mating efforts that are not tied to attempting to form a pair bond instead of restricting it to aberrant courtship/mating behaviors.

 

[RandFan]

As is assuming that elevator guy was straight. What do they call that ? Heterosexism ? Social justice fail on RW's part.

There's also a very objectifying reality of calling someone a creep. I can't remember who said "creepy" or "creep" but it hardly gives dignity and humanity to a guy who took no for an answer.

Perhaps, just perhaps, men, varied like all other humans, can't be simply separated into creep and not-creep camps (false dichotomy). That assumes of course that the act of asking a woman out for coffee at 4:00 am is per se creepy. I make no such assumption. A+?

 

[Dissolution]

I know this elevator thing has been going round and round in circles for decades (it went round so fast it distorted time itself) but remember that the fallout was not to do with the elevator. Nobody was upset at "guys don't do that". They were upset with this individual in the audience today is a proxy misogynist because she thought that elevatorgate was no big deal.

It was after this point that the complaints about elevator guy shifted from reasonable (I felt creeped out and objectified) to histrionic (this is an example of RAPE CULTURE!!!!!) when the actual occurrence really wasn't that big a deal.

This.^

Then it went on to Schrodinger's Rapist and disallowing various opinions because of "privilege".

 

[Daald]

From that I think we can be confident in an objective predictions that if elevator guy were to try that a number of times he'd end up offending many many more women than he'd attract back to his room.

Well not really. He just has to ask women that he views as much hotter or uglier than himself

Also I think that the study would show very different numbers if they were to ask the second and third question when they perceived themselves to have a chance.

 

[Lorentz]

Oh I think a lot of it is personal as well, though not necessarily conscious. It is hard to hold a negative opinion of someone's ideas, especially as A+ is represented here, and not also feel some overflow onto the person. Price of playing in this pool so I don't lose sleep over it.

I've wondered about that possibility from before you first showed up here and was watching for it. I've seen lots of mocking and contempt for certain other members of A+, but none towards you. A number of people, including I, have expressed their appreciation for your willingness to debate here from the opposite point of view. I wonder if, entirely understandably, the converse isn't happening. That is, you may be feeling some level of personal attack because a group you are a member of is constantly attacked.

You are reading a lot more than I intended into both the term objectifying and why I disapprove of it, in this circumstance. For starters no, I have no problem at all with people finding each other attractive, for any characteristics that we find attractive. Finding someone attractive is not what I would define as objectifying.

Good, neither would I. I also find no credible interpretation of Elevator Guy's actions that would imply he was objectifying ms. Watson.

For me, and I think RW as I infer from her use, objectifying is when you treat someone as an object. An extreme example would be slavery however on the much more mild scale when you find someone attractive, and do not care who they are as a person, what they like or dislike. When you act in a manner which is callous to their perceptions. In short, failure to display empathy.

I think you're omitting here the dominant form of objectification in human culture; that of in-group / out-group separation. When people form group bonds, they tend to treat those who are out-group as less than human. Some threads on A+ are prime examples of this behaviour; anyone who isn't accepted as in-group gets abuse hurled at them without any consideration for their feelings, based on some random perceived misstep. I don't think men catcalling and whistling at a pretty woman walking by comes anywhere close to that level of objectification. Not that I condone the latter, in case you wondered.

As for the guy who asked lots of women for sex, I do not know why you classify that as objectification. He asked, he did not demand, and actually knowing him, I'd say he regarded each and every one of them as persons. Just persons he didn't know much about other than that he felt sexually attracted to them.

You are right that to some extent we objectify lots of people. I would call that state unfortunate, but inevitable given the limit on how many friends we are actually able to maintain. However in a casual encounter there is no harm, so when you look at porn, assuming all parties in production were GGG about it, no issue.

I agree with you that it's inevitable that we are not involved, nor interested in most people we interact with. I disagree with "unfortunate", but I'd say that the inevitability makes it moot whether it's unfortunate or not.

When you attempt to forge a relationship, then objectification is bad. The level of badness goes along with the amount of harm Elevator Guy was tactless. Not the anti-christ, not evil, but worthy of a short rebuke, like someone telling a racist joke or farting in close proximity to others. Not the end of the world, but not a good thing to do.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

Ocelot produced some pretty impressive data on post #7502. Given the high propensity of making the other party uncomfortable do you still condone that behavior? Would you be upset if someone set about to make you and your friends uncomfortable in pursuit of their desires?

That's a fair point, however those data are from the U.S., from 1978 and 1982. The U.S., which has an incredibly more prudish (and I think, more sex-obsessed) culture than the one I live in. I think it highly unlikely that any of the women I know well would be offended. Most would be amused, some flattered as well.

Would you be upset if someone set about to make you and your friends uncomfortable in pursuit of their desires?

If someone "set out to make" us uncomfortable, that would be a very different thing. Intent may not be magic, but it matters more than any other factor. If someone however risked making us uncomfortable, that's pretty much fine by me. Nobody has the right to not feel uncomfortable in social situations.

I will agree it would be nice if we had a culture that was more sex positive. However we need to establish a culture with an even sexual power balance first. We are a long way from that culture.

I disagree, but let's not have that discussion here on top of all the other subjects.

You are right, I think the getting to know you phase is critical to avoiding objectification. If it is done authentically. I think some effort at understanding the other person is necessary to avoid objectification, and failure to do so is objectification.

Ok, thanks, I'm a bit closer to understanding how you work this concept. I do not believe it however. It's possible to treat another person as a person without knowing the first thing about them. I'm treating you as a person while knowing hardly anything about you and have done so from the start.

Firstly, you say that my impression of you is inaccurate. I haven't talked about my impression of you, which is actually quite positive. I've only talked about my impression of what you wrote there, which is not so positive.

That doesn't strike you as a rather pedantic difference? In any case your impression of my intent in my words was inaccurate. I will attempt to be more clear since some of that is my fault in communication. For the record, unless I make it clear I'm being snarky I mean what I type.

No, it strikes me as essential. I think you're a smart, brave, well-intentioned person. I think many of your views are nonsensical and I'm trying to understand how you make them fit with being smart. I do not respect your views (or anyone's per se), but I respect you. I got the impression that you felt attacked as a person by my earlier comment. I wanted to make it clear that is not the case and will not be the case.

Elevator guy was not asking for something, he was asking for time alone with Rebecca (someone), and for her vulnerability. I do not think he realized that was implicit in his request. I think if he'd thought it out and possessed an average amount of empathy he'd have not made the invitation. It's not about what he thought his chances were, look at the research, talk to female friends. I've taken a straw poll with most of the women in Rebecca's age group that I am friends with and the answer is universally, no don't do that, bad place to ask. (Not scientific, but again post #7502.

As for Elevator Guy's empathy and judgement, well, I'm not decided on that issue. I think I would now, not invite an American woman to my room for coffee in an elevator at 4AM. Now that I know "coffee means sex", that is. I'd have no hesitation in asking guys to my room and possibly European women, depending on the apparent comfort level in their body language. I would be shocked if any subsequently assumed I wanted to have sex with them. I believe I would make my intent clear enough, coffee means coffee.

Funnily enough I've also done a straw poll on all the women I know well (they're starting to think I'm overly interested in feminism, I think). Most assumed he probably wanted sex, a few would have felt a bit uncomfortable, all of them would have been amused, none would have been offended. That's a highly selective group of mostly strong-minded professional women though.

You can even see objectification in your terminology. By your description he could have been trying to get a box of cereal or tickets to a concert. Women are not things, sex is not a thing. It is intimacy with a person. (And yes I know it's sometimes very casual, and if everyone signs up for that more power to them but the agreement can not be forced and still be ok.)

You emphasise my use of the word "something", which I do think is semantic quibbling and really reaching. I couldn't think of another word to fit in that sentence without making it unnecessarily complex.

As for sex, it's not "intimacy with a person". Sex is an activity, which may or may not include intimacy, though many prefer when it does. Tennis is an activity for which intimacy is pretty irrelevant. You can play tennis with another person without treating them like an object, you can have sex with another person without treating them like an object, with or without intimacy. In either case how well you already KNOW that person needn't be relevant.

Here you lose me entirely. A person who you allegedly know is going to say no, is an opportunity? For what? For denying you conversation? For denying you sex? Seeing someone as a "fantasy enabler" is equally puzzling. What kind of fantasy might that be and how would they enable it? Asking someone to go to your room and have coffee and getting shot down is enabling some person's fantasy? I cannot begin to imagine the type of fantasy life that would make this a feasible theory.

I am not making claims about what EG actually knew. I am stating he should have known. Failure to know is not a high crime it is a social blunder. From that sentence on you are beating straw. The getting shot down fantasy is your creation and all that follows is you taking your creation down.

I was pointing out that I could find no feasible interpretation of your statement:

So to make that offer, you can't really be thinking of the other person as a person, you have to be seeing them as an opportunity, or fantasy enabler.

You're right, I named an obviously absurd interpretation. My point however is that I cannot for the life of me come up with a less absurd interpretation. If he knew his request would be rejected, what kind of "opportunity" could it have been, or what kind of "fantasy"? I seriously do not understand how you could say that and stand by it, which is why I take it to be rationalisation.

Nope. I am saying it is a bad place to strike up a first conversation. It is a bad place to initiate contact. Research seems to indicate that it would be more agreeable for a woman to ask a man. I still think it is poor taste. Objectification.

I have no clue what you mean by "I still think it is poor taste. Objectification.". When I ask a man I've heard speak to talk more in my room, I am treating him like an object? Seems utterly absurd to me. Can you explain your reasoning in a bit more detail please?

I am sure that lots of people meet for lots of reasons, including sex, at conferences, I doubt that these meetings come from cold propositions.

Probably not, as most people fear rejection and want to test the waters a bit first.

The rebuke was, "Hey guys don't do that". Look at the absurd amount of outrage that resulted from advice whose response should be, oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that would bother you.

Actually I followed what happened at the time pretty closely, that is, I read the original Pharyngula comments thread (brrr!). There was a lot of hyperbole and snark being swung around in all directions, which certainly didn't help. One of the most prevailing was along the lines of "oh, so we men can't ever ask women to hook up anymore? Humanity will go extinct!'. Which is hyperbole and silly, but there was one underlying point there. Watson didn't initially make it clear WHAT not to do. Not proposition her? Not proposition her in an elevator? Not offer her non-alcholic bevarages after midnight? The most common response was along the lines of "if you don't understand that, you're a douchebag, go stick a dead porcupine in an unmentionable place". It caused me physical pain me to read that thread.

That however was not what caused a sizeable portion of the Internet to explode. The trigger for that was a later presentation in which she quoted Stef McGraw as "parroting misogynist thought", in between some slides containing rape threats.

One final note, I have spent too long on this post tonight I'll have to post lightly or not at all until later in the weekend to catch up on the things I'm not doing now.

As far as I'm concerned, any pace you like. I am happy that you're here to present another side of the discussion and am willing to do much (short of offering you coffee) to keep you in this thread.

p.s. Apologies for the overlong post. If you find yourself constrained by lack of time or interest, please do answer some of the questions (none are rhetorical) rather than respond to everything I typed.