Objectifying Women
What does it mean to objectify women? Ever since that ridiculous video of a gorgeous woman walking down the streets of New York, this has been a more pressing question, in my mind at least. The tone delivered with the phrase, "objectification of women" is usually negative, with a prescription to not do so usually following. So, what is this thing I'm not supposed to do?
So what about the qualifying "sexual objectification"? So, this is the view that a person, male or female, is a sexual object. So, now, it's a thing, but also a sexual thing. It is in the human nature to be sexual. Human sexuality, rightly ordered, is a good thing. A man desires his wife sexually, and there is nothing wrong with that. A wife desires her husband sexually, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is two people who merely see the sexual aspect of the other. Is it rational to deny that people are not sexual objects? I don't think so. We already saw it isn't rational to deny that people are objects, and I don't think additionally denying we're sexual is that much better.
What then of the "mere sexual objectification"? This is probably half true. So this is the view that I view a person as a sexual object, and nothing else, much like the so-called "marital aids." I have an honest question to those who say I ought not sexually objectify women: Is it wrong to sexually objectify women because I am not considering their whole being, or because I am using them as a means to an end? Or some other reason entirely?
If it is because I am not considering the entirety of the person, that I am considering the body apart from the mind or character of the person, then it would be equally erroneous to consider only your mind or character, apart from your body. Yet, how many woman do you hear say, "I want someone who wants me for who I am, not for my body." Isn't "who I am" a reference to your character? So that too is just as wrong, but I'm not seeing any ironic protests in bad taste against...I dunno...what would you call it? Personalism? Anthropomorphism?Besides, who you are is both body and mind. You are not a mind with a body. So, if this personalism is okay even though it doesn't consider the entirety of the person, then so too should the mere sexual objectification of a person.
Besides, we all make judgments or inductions about people as soon as we see them. Skin color, height, weight, clothes, etc., all play a role in our educated guesses about people. Beauty, being a real thing, is something I can recognize in a person, but your character is not as easily discernible upon a glance. And for some, that's an advantage. Someone people are as fake as their implants, and their beauty is a way of leveling the playing field. And that's okay.
Besides, we all make judgments or inductions about people as soon as we see them. Skin color, height, weight, clothes, etc., all play a role in our educated guesses about people. Beauty, being a real thing, is something I can recognize in a person, but your character is not as easily discernible upon a glance. And for some, that's an advantage. Someone people are as fake as their implants, and their beauty is a way of leveling the playing field. And that's okay.
If it is because I intend to use this sexuality as a mere ends to a mean, then I'm totally on board. But that's completely different than "Don't objectify me!!!1!" It's more like, "I'm not a mere tool." And this makes sense with a proper view of sex. The act of sex is a self-giving activity. By seeing you as a means to an end, I am not giving myself totally to you, and that is contrary to the act of sex, and sex is a good, so it perverts that good, which is bad.
Comments
Post a Comment