The Objectification Of Women

[pearanoid]

So in light of recent events on Jenny Good's blog. What are your thoughts on women posing nude or partially nude? Someone said that the PETA adds featuring naked (but covered) women are expoiting women. I think that to propose that a woman can't choose if she does or doesn't want to pose nude is setting things further back in women's rights than just exploitation.

 

I'm sure there are some women who are exploited, and that's awful, but I really can't see the PETA adds being that case. I think someone was just bored and decided to make something from nothing.

[HoboFactory]

In most cases, when women pose or appear in revealing (or no) clothes do so by their own choice. If they're objectified, it's probably their own fault. If she shows off her body, then people will look. Common sense.

[xDirtyx]

I dont buy into the whole "women are being objectified!" bullshit. Not because we should be free to strip if we want or suck dick for a living, but because if I did I would agree to the fact that women are objects. Whoa, lose you there for a minute?

 

To objectify someone is to give them an inanimate label - basically to de-humanize and de personalize them. For me to say that women are being "objectified" I would have to acknowledge the fact that women are indeed objects. If you believe that objectification exists, you make women out to look like the weaker sex since they possess the capability to be nothing more than pretty mantle peices, right? Since I don't believe women are capable of being objects I therefore don't believe that they can be objectified.

 

The crazy group of feminists that are trying to defend the "strength of women everywhere" are basically damaging their own argument by this objectification rationale. If they can accept the fact that women are capable of being objects they've just proved that we are the weaker sex.

 

And thats just something I can't buy into

 

 

(please god tell me that this all makes sense. i tried to explain myself the best i could with a size 12 font and a computer instead of a real life discussion)

[HoboFactory]

I think objectification in this case doesn't refer to being made into objects but rather being treated like objects.

[xDirtyx]

I think objectification in this case doesn't refer to being made into objects but rather being treated like objects.

i fail to see the difference between the two.

[HoboFactory]

The difference is in the degree I think.

[ToadMan]

There are two choose at work: The choice of the women to appear nude, or partially nude; and the choice of others to look, and lear.

 

At which stage do you believe a woman becomes objectified?

 

Objectification is a state, where one object is useable by another. To be objectified, one must either allow them selves to be used by others, or be made to be used by others. I would assert that since these women choose to allow themselves to be used by others, then they objectify themselves.

 

Peace

[cavalier_eternal]

here's my bit. in brief...

 

the denial of 'objectification' doesn't make it any better and it sure as hell doesn't stop it. the fact that you refuse to admit it for reference to having to admit that the possibility of being objectified exists does nothing whatsoever.

 

wake up. some things are nice in a vacuum, but we live in reality. which is why things are the way they are.

 

and the pendulum can swing the other way too. it's all historical. it's all relative. it's a screwed up world, kids. if it stops, make it a point to hit up mars for some prime real estate.

[pearanoid]

I completely agree with Ashley.

 

This whole idea of objectification does more harm. I'm sure there are some women in the world who are objectified and portrayed in a negative way. That's bad.

 

But for a woman to pose nude because she wants to, or whatever her reason, it's her choice. To say she doesn't have that choice is worse.

 

And as for the choice of people to look, a person poses nude in a public magazine or add knowing that people will see it. True, if you don't like it, don't look. But everyone has a choice what to do.

[Dan #2]

I think that the pictures turn this back on us, and i think a lot of people miss the point.

 

We think that these pix of naked women are objectifying someone, but then someone wears fur, and objectifies an animal, we don't give a shit.

 

Too bad that idiot missed the point.

[guitarchick]

OH MY GOD! I’m naked!

QUICK! COVER YOUR EYES!

Nudity is fine to me. I did a whole nude work for my grade 12 art class. The way people reacted to it was quite interesting. Some people would run away from my work, others would say they wish they had the confidence to do it, and the rest just stared at my body.

Nudity doesn’t necessarily mean PORN.

If the picture of Jen naked breast included her rubbing them with an aroused look on her face, that would be inappropriate. But she wasn’t.

[Devan]

In the case of the PETA ads, they weren't done for career advancement, they came from the personal beliefs of the models. In this case, I don't believe it to be objectification, but being paid to pose nude I would.

 

I do understand how one could see it as objectification, the fact that PETA uses the sex appeal of the ads to advocate their cause is where that would come in.

[Munk]

Women are just breasts on legs.

[alas, it was not meant to be]

let me just apologize in advance for being all over the place.

 

objectification of women seems to be more about seeing a woman specifically as an object of sexual desire. she's there to excite you and do whatever you want. because of this, she's not seen as being capable of having her own desires.

 

the one power women do have, and you can't deny it, is the power of sex. if a woman chooses to use her sexual power, by posing nude or whatever, that is her choice. she's entitled to it. to say that she's being exploited or objectified turns her into just another victim and denies her the opportunity to express her own sexuality. not allowing her to have the choice seems worse to me than potentially being seen as an object.

 

the women posing for PeTA were doing it for a cause that they believe in. no one forced them to do it.

 

i doubt that most people seeing those ads would go "BOOBIERS!!!!!!!!!" and ignore the rest of the message. and i doubt that anyone would pay attention if these women had posed for similar ads fully clothed. at least in this instance they're posing in a sexually suggestive manner to get a good message across, instead of just selling the newest car or whatever.

[MrManInvisible]

I can't believe that the same femenists that say abortion is a woman's right to chooses (which I don't exactly agree with but to specific points that I won't get into here) are now saying that a woman can't choose to use her body to get a point across in a way that is known to work. Hypocracy.

[alas, it was not meant to be]

hey now, not all feminists are like that. and really, they have their own reasons for believing what they do. and if there is anyone on here who agrees that the peta ads are supporting the objectification of women, i'd love to hear what they have to say about this.

[cherry_popsicles]

I understand the objections some feminists have to the PETA ads, especially after reading through some of the links swedish posted. I don't personally feel the ads to be objectifying women, though. I think the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" connotes enough of a power to choose on the part of the person in the ad, and the ads never cut out parts of the woman's body (e.g. her face) or focus on the more "sexual" pieces of her. I would prefer to see these ads include more men and more body shapes of both sexes, however, before I were to feel completely comfortable with them.

[alas, it was not meant to be]

for those of you who want naked men, PeTA now has an ad with dennis rodman. something about "Ink, not Mink".

 

i have no idea if it's new or not, but i just saw it the other day. and he's nekkid.

 

edited for stupid typos that make me look stupid.

Edited February 9, 2005 by alas, it was not meant to be

[phantomzero]

It's the same uptightness and redneckness that keeps people objectifying women. The day that people quit having hissy fits every time anyone, man or women, takes off their clothes will be then day that people will no longer be the objects. The prudes of the world need to chill out and relax a little. (not refering to anyone in this discussion, just a general comment on the small town, right wing, christian, uneducated, redneck americans.)

[pearanoid]

I think there might be some of them on this bored. Watch out, man!

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Did Renaissance artists objectify women? Did the ancient Greeks or Romans?

 

What's the difference between a naked classical statue and a PETA ad, besides 1000 years?