1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

Objectification of women - how does it work?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by HereAndThere, Sep 29, 2018.

  1. I can actually see how it seems illogical of people to ask for and promote behavior they think to be wrong, which is how they lead others to believe that such behavior might be acceptable because it is actually desired (why would someone want something that they consider harmful or wrong?). I think this is because our sexualized society teaches us that our "natural instincts" justify inappropriate behavior, because "we can't help it" and "it's only natural" and if some women even actively ask for that kind of behavior (who might also be influenced by society), then that will only worsen the problem. Still, that doesn't change anything about a person being responsible for their own actions.
     
  2. moonesque

    moonesque Fapstronaut
    NoFap Defender

    500
    2,514
    123
    To look at the thread's intention "Objectification of women - how does it work", I will look at the definition and its interaction with women in a practical example. There are a variety of other ideas which are not on the core idea in the intention of this thread, some of which are important. Without exhausting the possibilities of the original idea however, much is lost on the original topic.

    The wikitionary definition of objectification is correct: "The process or manifestation of objectifying"

    • The process - creating of an image, creation of the object from the viewer, holding an image of a thing, creation of purpose and/or value, the key point here is the viewer must create or interact, it is a process, so it must be an active system in which events happen due to interactions, whether this is passive or active (speaks to intention "what you think you're doing" as described in the thread) is not important, the process is occurring; so excuses, compartmentalization, etc have no merit on the process, it happens regardless of our perception on the matter if the process' goal is to manifest the object. An example is when a person sees a woman and becomes aware of a physical aspect of the woman, once the person is aware of it, they hold that awareness in their mind, this is the process, the creation of the image which is separated from the woman. You do not have to depersonalize the whole person to create an image of part of a person, but creating that image as a part of person and detaching it from them has created an object.

    • Manifestation - This is what was fundamental in the last part of the example, manifesting is creating or existing that which has was not existed before. So in the example above, once someone has created that image of the physical feature, they have manifested it mentally. You are not thinking about the person anymore, you have created a mental manifestation of whatever it is and are thinking about it now, the manifestation is its own existence. This separates the object from the source, hence it has taken it away from that person as a separate substance.

    • Objectifying - I believe this point in the definition is trying to say, in order to own, control, have etc. I don't enjoy that the key word is in the definition, but this is because the objectifying is due to it being in and of itself to its own end. Perhaps to say more clearly, the creation of the object is the goal and the end in and of itself, the person, the source has become completely detached from it. There is nothing greater or of more importance of the object, just itself. Objects exist, however especially in the society we live in today, objects are owned. When one manifests an object, it exists so to speak even mentally, once something exists it can be potentially owned. Now if the person who has manifested the object is the only one who knows it exists, as it exists within their own mind, its quite easy to jump to the conclusion that one owns it, also because we typically feel ownership what we create, see artists, inventors, and parents even. Now that object does not belong anymore to the person it came from, it has been taken away. This is not treating the person as having person-hood over their own body at this point, this is where people tend to feel depersonalized from the experience, this is also why its harder to objectify when someone sees another holistically as a person with ownership. Its much harder to steal and hurt another if one understands the experience and process that occurs. So some examples of how people were talking about the service industry in this thread can be seen how they are objectifying and it is wrong, regardless of payment or not. No one is simply an ends to a means, a plumber does not exist to serve, but he does make a living doing this service for others. It is okay to see him as a plumber, but it is greater to see him as a person who does plumbing for a living, but not as his life per se. The objectification of "work" is actually an extremely painful and difficult aspect of our society and not one person doesn't feel the whip hand of the economy driving them to survive another day. Perhaps dramatic, but it isn't as small as it appears when our person-hood is questioned. Many of those in power in the world feel like its worthy to sacrifice life and principle for the object of work and many wars are fought over it even, this starts to speak to objectification (the actual idea of it) and not just its interaction with sexuality.

    With these points in mind, let's walk through the example I stated in real-time. A man sees a woman on the street and becomes aware of an aspect of the woman's physical appearance. Once the man is aware, the physical appearance can become internalized mentally and the man creates the image of the aspect of the physical appearance, the object. Given the creation of that image,the man can continuously be aware of it and can let himself have feelings of ownership of the object he created and does with it whatever he wants, thereby detaching it from the person he took it from.

    Let's talk about the first few bullet points HereAndThere mentioned:

    • Porn is an object, a commodity in and of itself. It is created and made into objects for viewing and consumption, it doesn't matter if it is a job or not in the process of making it, the entire concept is already part of objectification, its sole purpose. Prostitution is illegal in the country I live in, but porn creation is not. In a concept, those who create porn are creating an object, but prostitution is fulfilling some role to an individual, perhaps like the service industry examples noted. The detachment from the person is why its easier for people to dehumanize and legalize porn/pornography in general but prostitution feels like some immoral activity for many. Objectification of women contributes to why both of these categories exist in society, but this can explain why porn is more easily seen as acceptable by many. Men can treat prostitutes like objects just as much as pornography, but I believe it is more difficult than pornography for the reasons stated.
    • Machismo, society has for the most part replaced sexuality with objectification. The only definition of masculinity should not have objectification, because objectification as defined has nothing to do with what masculinity means.
    • Feminism, how to detach it from ideology? We are doing that in this thread simply by talking about what it really means. Feminism cannot create objectification. Feminism cannot control objectification. No one can control an idea, they exist and are revealed to us through understanding.
    • Aesthetic, as to the point about with Machismo, our society has replaced beauty with objectification as well. Beauty unlike porn, is not an object, it is an idea. There is a concept of beauty and what it really means that transcends itself and what we know as 'beauty'. The line between art and porn is true purpose and meaning, which is objective though not always easily understandable. While art is creation towards something higher (principle, purpose, transcendence, freedom), porn is creation of an object for something lower ('wants' 'fear' 'shame' 'control').
    It doesn't matter what society tells you, if your experience is that you care about what a woman looks like then be honest about yourself. However, it is one thing to like how a woman looks, but different as to what's more important than physical appearance or what you actually do with it, which is discussed in this thread. Maybe a further question you can ask yourself is, why do you like the women you like in that way? Culturally? Societal? Psychological? Do you really know what you, the real you, likes and doesn't like if there were no pressures from anyone and you had no fear at all? Something to think about and if you come to a conclusion try asking yourself Why? again, you can learn more about yourself and what these topics mean to you in this way, just a practice I've used as well.
     
  3. I thought I already was your best friend?!
     
  4. Well, that goes without saying lol. I meant hypothetically ;)
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  5. HereAndThere

    HereAndThere Fapstronaut

    184
    270
    63
    This whole processes is about denying sex to one self to manipulate ones view of women. Its still artificial, its a result of alot of work and willpower. A lie, a fake. Woman doesnt change if a dont fap for a month or not. They remain the same, just my perception of her changes. I know that perception is powerful, but part of the attraction still comes regardless if im horny or not. I think the ones who have the most issues with objectification benefit the most from this perception modification. They cant appreciate women otherwise.
     
    moonesque likes this.
  6. HereAndThere

    HereAndThere Fapstronaut

    184
    270
    63
    I agree, but thats kinda the norm. Teaching boys and girls values is harder than just celebrating their unique expression of whatever random character trait they have. Women arent really expected to act as ladies, i think you would be actually offended if someone else said that. Unless you stretch definition of lady to common decency and thats not expected anymore either.

    From this i see you recommend teaching boys self control. I agree we would benefit from that.

    What i feel whats right is misguided and short sided. I started as a nice, helpful kid. Being nice and truthful is all well and nice but i learned hundreds of exceptions to these rules during my life so i cant rely anymore on what i feel is right. We kill people in electric chairs, make white lies, virtue signal and sacrifice truth for happiness. Good and wrong is one big pile of grey.

    Ok, i have a question. What if God told you to kill someone? What if you saw a burning bush and you knew in your heart thats God speaking and he asked to kill one of your children? And you cant say it cant happen, i have written proof that it already did once!
     
  7. Pinetree

    Pinetree Fapstronaut

    117
    68
    28
    What I am wondering - if we are relating to women based on their mind and personality, is it not the case that we are objectifying their mind and/or personality?

    Of course, in this case, we are not talking about a sexual object, but about a mental/intellectual object.

    And maybe the case is that a women may desire to be a sexual object at a certain point in their life and an intellectual object at another point. And I base this last phrase on talking to a woman about the topic.
     
  8. With all due respect, i think right is always right. We sometimes bend that but it doesn't change the facts. Usually we know what's right and good whether we choose to act on that or not, you yourself just basically said you did. And just because something is done or accepted doesn't make it right. Killing in electric chairs is still a form of murder like it or not, white lies, though accepted and thought to be necessary by most, are still lies. Thats just my take in it anyway, you can never do wrong by doing good.

    Thats a whole different thing than a person telling you its alright and if i knew for a fact it was God i would probably do it, hard as it may be.
     
    Deleted Account and moonesque like this.
  9. I'm too lazy to read out all the posts with thought, but i'd like to still contribute with a video that's relevant to the topic. It's about projection in general, and that is what objectification is essentially about. Objectification of women in my opinion is just projection of one's idea about femininity, and possibly other ideas, to women, instead of perceiving them as they really are.



    BTW. she has a lot of good videos about jungian psychology if anyone's interested.
     
  10. HereAndThere

    HereAndThere Fapstronaut

    184
    270
    63
    I feel uneasy discussing this cause i have no hard standpoint about this, my arguments are floating, based on what society does, not what it should or what is best to do. I know, i feel, superficially what is right, but i dont know if its best thing to do. Is death penalty or white lies good for society in the end? I dont know for sure, i know what i would personally like. And i think statistically things that get done are things that survived the test of time, and are usually the ones that work best. Usually, thats just an assumption. And yes, you can do wrong by doing good. One example: being too protective of ones child stunting his growth. I dont know what to say to you about that God thing. I believe you.
     
  11. HereAndThere

    HereAndThere Fapstronaut

    184
    270
    63
    I put it in my Watch Later. I got close to Jungian ideas from Jordan Peterson, im on the fence about Jung overall.
     
  12. I disagree, but I guess it depends on your upbringing.

    Yes, of course. That's why I hate the phrase "boys will be boys" when someone's kid is caught being too aggressive or being sexually inappropriate. That's total BS and I dont understand why more boys arent pissed off about that being said about them. Because it basically translates to "well, you know boys. They have no ability to control themselves, so why would you expect any more from them?" And that's not true and incredibly rude. Boys can be so much more than that. Boys are wonderful, and they absolutely can control themselves and be great people and do great things. And it really annoys me that our society settles for just assuming they're going to be terrible and shrugging it off when that assumption comes to fruition.

    I mean... I dont see it that way at all. I still believe being nice and helpful is good, killing people in electric chairs is wrong, and sacrificing truth for happiness is dangerous and not wise.

    Honestly, I can't say what I would personally do in that moment, because I've never experienced it. God gives us what we need to handle a situation when we are in it, and I'm not in that situation right now, so at the moment, i would say no, I dont think I would be able to do that. But that doesnt mean obeying God isnt the right choice in that moment, it just means that I'm not perfect. But when God did that to Abraham, it was a test of his idolatry. He had spent so much of his life waiting for a son, and now that he had one, it seems he was forgetting God in the process and idolizing his child too much. So I dont think I would ever be in that position because it's not like God just goes around and tells people to kill their kids all the time.

    But obviously we dont want to turn this into a religious discussion about Abrahan and Isaac, and I feel like this is kind of a distraction from my actual point, and a bit of a strawman anyway. Killing your child is much different than objectifying a person. I'm not asking you to sacrifice much by telling you to not objectify women or watch porn, so that's not really a fair comparison.

    I think that can happen, too. I know women who have sort of "objectified' men for certain things like their money, their intelligence, or their success in sports. If you're singling out one thing and only seeing a person for that one thing, then that's a bit objectifying. But I dont think "personality" can be included in that list, because personality encompasses much more than just one attribute.

    I also cant help but feel like statements like this are just being presented to excuse sexual objectification. Like "see, everything is objecticicaiton, we cant win! Oh well, I guess if we cant win, we should just go back to leering and ogling and watching porn." I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to do, but I can see that happening.

    Well, I think we are all, as humans, a little short sighted when it comes to what we believe is "good" or "best" for society. I hate to get so "religious," but I cant really help it, since its who I am, but that's why I always fall back on what God says, because Hes the only one who knows everything about everything, so if he says something is wrong, I trust that He knows what Hes talking about.

    But I can sympathize with your situation. I think I would be pretty lost as well if I didnt have God. I'm not sure how to advise you, because I dont believe we can just figure all that stuff out on our own, using our own conscience or whatever. I think it's a battle we will always fail in eventually.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2018
    Deleted Account and HereAndThere like this.
  13. Pinetree

    Pinetree Fapstronaut

    117
    68
    28
    I am trying to be objective and look at more sides of a story.

    And I wasn`t generalizing. Just saying that there are sometimes occasions when sexual objectification isn't wrong or bothersome, but maybe just enjoyable by both partners.
     
  14. Mr. Stark

    Mr. Stark Fapstronaut

    403
    15,162
    123
    My Journal
    Yeah you speak absolutely right. I don't know how you understand it so well. But you understand it well. It's good.

    Well it would have been the same with me. Ilove it when I am able to see women acting like human. When girls talk or interact or when I see them behaving like just another of my friends that is boy. I like it to be in a company of a girl. It gives me sort of actually self respect when I see girl like just the fellow haan beings and not an opposite sex with whom I would want to have sex. It give my brain immense satisfaction.


    But the thing is that I am a reserved and shy person and I don't get to have a group of friends in which there are girls and I can have a look at them for what they are in their real life. What they eat, what they think. Just the things other then sexual things or thoughts or talks.
    I starve for humanly interaction with women so that I can grow up myself away from porn induced behaviour towards women.
     
  15. I agree with you, when a girl exposes herself she forgets that she cannot select the people who should be staring at her. If he's hot she feels confident but if he's not or old he's creepy.
     
  16. HereAndThere

    HereAndThere Fapstronaut

    184
    270
    63
    I watched it. She said projection is hard to avoid and i agree. She even mentions evolutionary purpose of projection, which is my projection of Jungian idea of ancestral memory. I think most of our reality has to be a projection because our brain simply doesnt have enough resources to process 100% of sensory input it receives. Brain fills gaps in data with projected expectations. I agree with her alot though im sure she has projections of her own which i would like to understand better to hone my projections of her projections, lol.

    That part where she explains how we would function without projections is cool. Basically, we wouldnt have reality. Or rather we would have very limited experience of reality, removed from the sense of self. I guess there exist a healthy balance in between.

    I guess projection plays a role in objectification of women. In a sense that its such a basic part of human experience that it plays a role in everything. The problem i have is what projection is better? Everybody has them, and everybody worked to temper them in various degrees. So what is truth then? What is "real" reality of femininity. I guess all i can do is to invest work in recognizing my projections and relying on them. At the same time thats alot of work and i cant be sure in anything if i dont trust other peoples projections sometimes. Which returns us to square one.
     
  17. oldman83

    oldman83 Fapstronaut

    9
    7
    3
    It is really sad that i still see women as objects even though i told myself to grow out of it. I am ashame but i hope my recovery will heal me.
     
    R.o.B likes this.
  18. I think the projections which needs to be defined more realistically often evoke intense feelings. Like when you see someone and you just hate them with all your heart. And regarding this topic, if a woman gets you uncontrollably horny, or if you get upset of a successful business woman because she's not a housewife, then it might be good to re-evaluate your thoughts. But such mundane objects like walls and shopping bags don't need to be constantly examined and they rarely get noticed. That would make life way more confusing than it needs to be. There's a video of Jordan Peterson explaining the Hermes/Mercurius figure, and what it means in the human consciousness. Referred to as the messenger of the gods, Mercurius gets our attention to where it is needed. So that's the part of our psyche that gets attracted to things, and is very helpful to notice what is really worthwhile for us to investigate and recognize. So being aware of this Mercurius makes it easier for us to notice our projections.



    As to what is the "real" femininity, that's hard to answer. I think the answer to that lies deep in the individual. Conversations can, and does, of course help discovering the meaning of it. If there is such thing as objectively real femininity, it is anyway perceived differently through individuals, and is in that sense impossible to put into words, at least for time being. Perhaps in the future it could be explained in a objective way that everyone would agree.

    Personally to me femininity is a large concept and most of it i understand more in an intuitive way. Femininity isn't to me just "woman things". I'm not going too deep into this, because i don't want to spend the rest of my day on computer, but the basics as i understand it is that femininity is the receiving and perhaps more expressing quality, where as the masculine is more like the quality that wants to be expressed. Good example of this is the ancient view of the sun representing masculinity and earth femininity. The earth needs enough sunlight and warmth in order to grow things in it. Without it, it would be just a cold rock in the middle of nowhere. And what good is a sun that shines alone, nobody seeing and appreciating it? Although women tend to be more feminine and men masculine, i think humans essentially are a mixture of both. I think the reason for this polarization of these qualities for certain genders lies in our history, where it perhaps was more efficient to have clearly separated roles for everyone.
     
  19. HereAndThere

    HereAndThere Fapstronaut

    184
    270
    63
    Yes, optimizing the way our attention flows sounds simple on the surface, but i think its a harder than it seems. First, on hardware level reticular activating system (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Reticular_formation) is one of the deepest brain formations. His function is/was to notice danger and make us act, its very hard to change its function now because its so crucial. And second, i dont know how to reprogram it, what should be truly worthy of my attention? Its a hard question. I like Petersons symbolism stories, but i think these stories are sometimes random. Not every old story has a deeper meaning.

    Eh, what is the origin of that view where sun is masculine and earth feminine? I didnt hear it before. Sounds like many other yin-yang explanations. I think origin of this view surpasses history. Our species has been living with this femininity-masculinity dance much longer than recorded history. It was everywhere around us in nature. Piece of feminine in masculine, piece of masculine in feminine. Even literally in a sense! Writers of the Bible took that notion literally too, with that rib nonsense. I dunno. Its one of those chicken and the egg situations. Nature influence society, society influence nature.
     
  20. I'm cutting off my computer time for a while, so i'm not able to read the entire article yet. But for the mercurial attention, should you be able to 'reprogram' it? From my experience, it has works well in itself. As a quick example, you might think that it's not worthwhile to give so much attention to music stars, but them getting your attention might indicate that you have a musical talent in you, or the songs the artists perform might have some meaningful lyrics to you. I agree with Jordan on his point that what we see as worth our attention isn't in our conscious control, at least all the time. You can choose to focus on something consciously too, but those things that grab our attention spontaneously happen from subconscious, and it is not always crystal clear immediately what the subconscious is trying to get at. And there are some things which aren't easily understood by us even if something comes to our conscious attention. Mandala's are great examples of these. They are commonly drawings/visions which take the form of circle or rectangular shape and there's all sorts of symbolism. Jung has done a great research considering these, if you're interested. But as i said previously, the stronger the feelings evoked, the greater the need to investigate it. There's no time to simply delve into all the mundane things.

    If the reprogramming was about the warning system in us, then i would say there is no need to reprogram it, unless it's activating unnecessarily, like safe social situations for example. Reprogramming that depends much about the situation, past experiences and even physiology.

    And yes, basically my opinion about masculinity-femininity is about the dualism, yin-yang, through which we perceive the world. The masculinity of sun and femininity of earth (and moon) appears pretty much here and there on spiritual literature. The sun deities are generally depicted in male forms and lunar and earthy deities with female forms, with some exceptions of course. I think it might be as old as the concept of the feminine and masculine, and i think the origin is in the collective unconscious.
     

Share This Page