Double standard or context distinction?

[Aepervius]

Sorry, I don't see that as being the case. And I don't see anywhere in the definitions provided that dictates such a view.

In fact, I see the word (as defined) as something that is so dependent upon personal view and subjective interpretation as to be fairly useless when discussing behavior.

ETA: Useless except as a word to incite outrage, that is.

re your last sentence.

In fact I INDEED see the word cited as a weapon, to make a small situation inflated to a storm.

And fully agree with this too :

And when they expand that "inappropriateness" to apply to any and all situations and people, instead of just saying "hey, I don't like that, please don't do that to me" I find it even more telling. They may not appreciate being invited back to someone's room for coffee at 4am in a hotel elevator by someone of the opposite sex, but other people are perfectly fine with it. That they assume that no one is fine with it, and that it's "sexualizing" for it to happen... Is bigoted.

getting proposed at night by somebody whereas nobody else is around, be it in a car, bus, train, lift, room, or isolated path with nobody around, is the same basically, and in no way a *generally* socially creepy things with sexual objectification. It can be felt *personally* as creepy, but then if it is personal, then it immediately shows how stupid is the debate and how skewed it has been presented.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Definitions are readily available, I would think!

Objectification is treating somebody like they are not a person (like they don't have feelings, etc) and sexualisation is attaching a sexual context to somebody.

When someone prefixes a polite request with "Don't take this the wrong way...", does that indicate he or she thinks that the person he or she is addressing has feelings or not?

It is not to say that sexualising somebody is always bad. It's only if you act on this and they don't like it.

Only if you have a reasonable idea that the person will not like it before opening your mouth. But when the person in question behaves in public as Ms. Watson does, I don't think I'm going to condemn a bloke for thinking she may be up for it and politely asking if she actually is.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

 

[Alan]

I did not say that Rebecca Watson was objectified. In that situation.

 

[JJM 777]

Is it a double standard to allow oneself to be "sexualized" in one context (such as appearing in a provocative calendar), but then to object to being "sexualized" in another

Wanting one thing at one moment and something else at some other moment is not a double standard, it is simply freedom of choice. Unless the person first willingly engages in sexualization, and then steps on the church pulpit to preach that sexualization is a sin.

 

[Darat]

Definitions are readily available, I would think!

Objectification is treating somebody like they are not a person (like they don't have feelings, etc) and sexualisation is attaching a sexual context to somebody.

It is not to say that sexualising somebody is always bad. It's only if you act on this and they don't like it.

And how do you know unless you ask? In another thread that may have touched on these types of matters the impression I gained was that it was somehow wrong to just want to have sex with someone, yet it was not wrong to just want to have a chat. Indeed the distinct impression I got was that if you did feel sexual attraction towards someone you had to disguise that for some time before it became appropriate bring it up. In other words if all you were interested in was sex with the person you had to lie to them about that, which to me seems quite dishonest.

I can't see how if someone falls in the spectrum of folk that you find sexually attractive from appearance alone how anyone can avoid "sexualising" them. Of course in most situations that means you don't jump on them and scream "SEX NOW PLEASE!" but I think to deny that we do think of one another in terms of sexuality is strange and counter to the reality.

 

[Darat]

I thought this was a good enough question to warrant its own thread without being tied down to real people or events--as it comes up more often than just the particular incident causing trouble lately.

Is it a double standard to allow oneself to be "sexualized" in one context (such as appearing in a provocative calendar), but then to object to being "sexualized" in another (such as becoming a target of sexual advances at times when one would rather be noticed for one's intellectual contributions)?


...snip..

I don't think it's as much a double standard as simply a belief about how the world should operate in a particular way. And to me when those beliefs are used as part of an ideology the ideology fails to model the real world since the real world is not simple (all ideologies suffer from this flaw).

 

[gnome]

I didn't mean to imply that you thought being sexual was bad, or that all sexualization is bad. If my post came across as being directed specifically at you, or characterizing your views that way, I apologize as it was not my intent in the slightest.

This whole thing just has me shocked and appalled at the "skeptical community" for there total and utter lack of rationality on the subject, and I suspect a bit of that seeped into my post.

Which is why I started the topic... hoping some elements of rationality will emerge if people step back and look at it outside the context of specific events and personalities.

Whether those rational elements will stick once people become involved again is anyone's guess.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Should a stranger ask to have sex with me, I'm going to think that sex is all they are thinking about me. What else could they know about me, besides that I probably have girlparts?

 

[bookitty]

I had no idea an act was required in order to sexualize someone. I guess it depends on how you define "sexualize", and if the meaning is as ambiguous as it appears to be maybe the word shouldn't be used at all.

Yes, human being when interacting with each other should have a solid guideline for things that are/are not done that are universally understood and based on mutual respect.

And wouldn't that be lovely. In reality, we're naked monkeys and our most immediate reaction to another human isn't always cerebral. It's often a grotty mix of hormones, experience, and bias. Civilization is overcoming some of that in order to get along.

If a person meets someone they find very attractive, their first thought might not be "I wonder how I can best treat this person with respect." It might be something a bit more...primal. That is totally normal. However, acting on that often leads to misunderstandings (or in extreme cases, crime.)

Saying that looking is objectifying is a cop out. It is taking something that can not be controlled (an initial reaction) and applying it to something that can be controlled (how you interact.)

The Watson/EG interaction can be viewed as a casual, subtle example of objectification. Watson's needs - to go to sleep after discussing sexism for many hours did not register with EG. He went with his initial reaction - Girl, pretty, more attention, please. **

Personally, I really hate examples like this because at 4 AM after hanging out in a bar, nobody really knows what they are saying or hearing. The above explanation is to shed light on how it is being viewed and is not definitive.

A better example is the man* who hires a woman for her looks because he hopes to sleep with her. Because her qualifications were not the basis for hiring her, she is either ill-suited for the position and can not advance. Or he won't allow her to because advancement would put her out of his reach. Even if he makes his attraction clear, she might not understand why she is working so hard but going nowhere. She is wasting her time. Time that would have been better spent at a job in which her talents, not her looks, were the deciding factor.

* You can switch genders in this example if you like. As more women join the ranks of the bosses, they too are enjoying the power to objectify.

** (ETA) and the reason that the Watson/EG example is being used in a general sense is because some people think that there's a little too much "Girl, pretty, more attention, please" being tossed around in places where skeptics/atheists gather.

 

[marplots]

Yes, human being when interacting with each other should have a solid guideline for things that are/are not done that are universally understood and based on mutual respect.

That's the real beef. Until I know that however I am interacting is offensive, I'm left with whatever cultural standards I'm carrying around in my head. If I didn't act appropriately according to how I had been socialized, that would be evidence that I was defective, but not when behavior doesn't step outside what I think is OK.

Biology and evolution tell us to make babies. Society and culture tell us how to go about it. But there's no single, universal understanding about what that means in practice. Most people, I think, just fall back on either what has worked for them in the past or a kind of shotgun, trying-more-is-better technique.

If it's an unwanted advance, communicate that. Don't assume some stranger speaks your language -- unless and until it becomes the universal norm.

As a man, I've been on the receiving end of undesired approaches. It's a chore to rebuff them. I didn't feel insulted or tainted because someone else had a misunderstanding though. I live in the US -- people are trying to sell me crap I don't want all the time. They feel perfectly justified in pushing their products on me. Am I insulted that they think I am a one-dimensional, stupid consumer? Naw. They want my money. Others want other things.

 

[332nd]

I have some free candy for you.

... Too late to coin the term "Skeptobear"?

 

[tesscaline]

Yes, human being when interacting with each other should have a solid guideline for things that are/are not done that are universally understood and based on mutual respect.

Universally? So, everyone should be the same, in all situations, all the time?

It is this precise sort of wording that causes me to see the word "bigoted" in bright red, flashing like a warning, across posts on this subject.

People are different. People view things differently because they are different. People view things differently in different situations because they're different. "Universal" is simply not applicable. Any insistence that it should be applicable is a gross error, and a view that I have a very hard time not treating with copious amounts of derision.

 

[tesscaline]

I agree with this and also the use of the "objectified", I've become more confused as the days have gone on as to what the words are meant to mean!

Definitions are readily available, I would think!

I think the point that Darat and I are attempting to make is that, while there are dictionary definitions available, the people who are discussing subjects of "sexualization" and "objectification" are not using those dictionary definitions. Or if they are using those dictionary definitions, they are attaching connotations to the words that are unnecessary or confusing.

For me, objectification means what you said it means: "being treated as if you do not have feelings/wants/needs". But other people seem to be confusing "sexualization" and "objectification" as if the two words are interchangeable, and mean the same thing, or as if the two are automatically linked in some inherent way. This is not the case if you actually go look at the dictionary definitions.

Objectification, in my view, isn't even always a bad thing. I mean, it can be pretty darned flattering (to me anyway) to be sexually objectified in some cases, because it means that someone sees you as being physically attractive enough that they are overwhelmed, and have a hard time seeing more than that facet of you, in the moment. Where it becomes an issue is if that objectification is happening all the time, and in situations where the person being objectified is not content with such a view. So this goes back to whether or not something is inappropriate.

All behavior has the potential to be inappropriate, just as all behavior has the potential to be appropriate, depending on what the participants in the scenario want/need/feel about that behavior. And not everyone wants/needs/feels the same things in the same situations. So there can be no universal judgement about whether or not any particular behavior is inappropriate or not. We have to go on a case by case basis.

Unfortunately, there is too much of society that is hyper-sensitive about sexual subjects. To the degree that showing a bare female nipple on national television creates a HUGE uproar, with government action against multiple parties, but movies that depict extremely violent content are aired without even the slightest twitch of an eye by anyone. The US, as a country, is so mired in sexual puritanism that we can't even, as a society, discuss these subjects openly, honestly, or without using weaponized words like "sexualization" or "objectification" or "misogyny". If we can't even talk about sex, or sexuality, without it turning into a screaming match with both sides hollering "rape! misogyny! don't sexualize me!", then how can we possibly hope to address subjects that involve either one to any degree of completeness?

It makes me sad that this mentality is still so deeply entrenched in US society (I won't speak to any other country, I don't know how things are, sexual climate wise, in other countries), even despite the leaps and bounds we've gained in terms of accepting homosexuality and transgender as part of society (not a completely won battle, but way better than it was 20 years ago). Apparently it's a lot easier to talk about same-sex relationships than it is to talk about different-sex relationships *shrug*.

 

[stevea]

As I read this thread I feel as though I am seeing either - a lack of foundational definitions, - a false dichotomy leading to absurd pointless digressions. It's not even clear if the language difficulties is due to some politically correct, or even Victorian embarrassment.

We are born sexual creatures and so nature 'sexualizes' us in the only meaningful sense of the word. When humans interact, and particularly with some sexual intent, there is often awkwardness and misunderstanding. It's unsurprising that, except in the happy event of mutual agreement, that there is awkwardness and social discomfort. That's no crime.

In the current era it's perfectly reasonable to consider that, say, an offer of coffee and chat in a hotel room at 4AM has a sexual motive, but it's far from certain. Why is it assumed to be sexual, and why is it so offensive to anyone ?

In the current era it's considered reprehensible to compliment someone on their appearance, or most any genetic trait except in clearly social interactions. I think this is another over-reaction of our era.

Perhaps "feeling uncomfortable" isn't the correct bar for an offense.

 

[BStrong]

No. If I flirt with a man once, it does not mean I have to flirt with any other man I meet in future. If I let a Person K hit on me, does not mean I have to let Person J hit on me or enjoy being hit on by Person J, Q, R. If I sleep with Person X once, does not mean I have to sleep with Person X at any other time in future, or their friend Person Y. If I wore a bikini to the beach, it does not mean someone has the right to spy into my house when I'm getting dressed.

I agree.

There's a reason that old joke* is funny - because it's a ridiculous premise


*Do you strip for gym? well how about strippin' for me, I'm Jim's brother!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I thought this was a good enough question to warrant its own thread without being tied down to real people or events--as it comes up more often than just the particular incident causing trouble lately.

Is it a double standard to allow oneself to be "sexualized" in one context (such as appearing in a provocative calendar), but then to object to being "sexualized" in another (such as becoming a target of sexual advances at times when one would rather be noticed for one's intellectual contributions)?

The rule is simple, you need to only make sexual advances to women who find you sexually attractive, and then only when they are interested. It helps if you are a telepathic.

See people want to be sexualized by the people they want to have sex with, but not by the people they do not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. If I flirt with a man once, it does not mean I have to flirt with any other man I meet in future. If I let a Person K hit on me, does not mean I have to let Person J hit on me or enjoy being hit on by Person J, Q, R. If I sleep with Person X once, does not mean I have to sleep with Person X at any other time in future, or their friend Person Y. If I wore a bikini to the beach, it does not mean someone has the right to spy into my house when I'm getting dressed.

The thing is except for the last one, how are the people supposed to know that before they ask or take the action? There is also the issue of a social situation vs intellectual situation, and the appropriateness of the action.

Asking someone in a bar for a one night stand, OK, asking someone in a lecture not OK.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Should a stranger ask to have sex with me, I'm going to think that sex is all they are thinking about me. What else could they know about me, besides that I probably have girlparts?

And yet some people like sex and want to have it, and are OK with having it with people they just meet. So are they supposed to know your feelings on this with out asking you?

Any asking for a date for example has the stated or unstated premise that they want to have sex with you, they may or may not want other things, but then again what percentage of people that you interact with do you interact with on many multiple levels?

So asking in a polite respectful manner is something that people should be OK with. Sure it is awkward for both parties if they do not both want it, but there is no way around it other than avoiding any situation where someone might find it acceptable to try to initiate a sexual relationship with you.

 

[Darat]

The idea that there can be a universally understood code to me flies in the face of the evidence. Within the same society there can be many different cultures that have different codes of behaviour.

Even with a universal interaction - greeting someone - it can can vary from something like a handshake not being appropriate to kissing being appropriate (and yes even in non-social situations). There are simply no universals, all you can do is to hope that people are tolerant of different behaviours and don't take things the wrong way....

 

[gnome]

The rule is simple, you need to only make sexual advances to women who find you sexually attractive, and then only when they are interested. It helps if you are a telepathic.

See people want to be sexualized by the people they want to have sex with, but not by the people they do not.

The second sentence may be accurate, but the first sentence is full of straw. Has anyone proposed that being mistaken about someone's sexual interest is morally wrong (besides sarcastically)? I'd like to see a quote.