Talk:Sexual objectification/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pamela Anderson

Not going to read through the zillion bytes above of talk, could have been hashed out a zillion times already. But anyway, am writing this here regardless so you are aware of yet another editors view on this (and as a bonus you get my reasoning behind my voting). Firstly page needs an image, it is dealing with a largely visual subject and thus clearly a visual image would go perfectly with it. To me obviously the Pamela Anderson image seems perfect, she is largely famous for better or worse mainly because of sexual objectification! And I voted for the first image, because it at least looks like a good example. Mathmo ^Talk 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about Pamela, she has done well marketing herself by virtue of here enlarged breast; thus this definition marginally applies “while de-emphasizing their existence as a living person”. We all know Pamela; her personality, personal experience, etc … not just her breast. Perhaps the difficulty in finding the appropriate image lies in the nature of the article itself. Imagine writing an article on Child Pornography, then including pictures of child porn as examples. Something just does not work with that. No doubt this article is not as extreme; but there is always going to be the perspective that treating women as objects is inappropriate; thus having a picture of woman as objects seems to introduce an element of hypocrisy. Who will go to the article, see the woman, and then click to examine the breast …. Ummmmm … honestly … well anyway. Perhaps I am reading more into this than is needed. Much luck with resolution of this impasse; much more challenging than I am accustomed to … article on evolution … insert picture of Darwin. Complements to DavidShankbone; his approach to resolution reflects highly on the Wikipedia community. No doubt a lawyer by trade? --Random Replicator 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Image:Pouring-water-for-wet-tshirt.jpg

I propose using this image to provide an example illustration of sexual objectification. Would anyone care to argue that this image does not depict an example of sexual objectification? Rklawton 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Does anyone object to using this image in the article? Rklawton 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of pictures best represent the concept?

How about this one?

Personal opinion here, my "2¢": I don't think that pictures simply celebrating and centering upon the beauty of women, be they classical paintings or recent photographs, face-portraits or full-body, clothed or nude, quite fit my own idea of "objectification"; it's all too clear that the subject is the living human being herself. However, when a woman is posed, even fully dressed or bikini-clad (no nudity at all) against a car, truck, or motorcycle, her beauty merely serving the goal of selling that vehicle, I see that as using her as an object, specifically as "stage dressing". It's almost a pun on the grammatical terms to say that if she's not the subject she's being treated as an object, but the difference is between having interest in the person herself versus her usefulness as a means to another end. I realize this view is at right angles to other opinions here, but I thought perhaps some of you might consider this alternative perspective. -- Ben 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The illustration immediately above this section provides an obvious example of sexual objectification. However, your idea illustrates the more insidious and widespread problem. My six year old isn't likely to see a wet t-shirt contest anytime soon. She is, however, exposed to television commercials. Therefore it's more likely to have an influence on her view of women in society. In short, I like your idea. I think the obvious illustration is useful specifically because it is cliché'. A subsequent illustration demonstrating your point, may then cause the reader to think more deeply about the matter. Rklawton 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! As for posting an example, the trick would be to find a public-domain or GFDLicensed copy of such an advertisement, since generally those are copyrighted. -- Ben 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a model caressing a car at a public car show? Rklawton 17:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If a person is looked at as not a full person, with a life, and a personality, and feelings, then that would be considered objectification.I myself strongly object(Bad pun,)the objectification of women. So, naturally, i'm against putting up a picture promoting it.Mayabasa (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed section about the Tom Leykis campaign.

I've removed the section on the Tom Leykis campaign criticizing negative portrayals of men in popular culture. The campaign as described in the article made no reference to the sexual objectification of men, only describing stereotypical portrayals of a gay man and men in general as, respectively, effeminate and stupid. "Objectify" is not synonymous with "stereotype" or "insult"; it means something specific, and neither of these cases qualify, even if Tom Leykis thinks that's what "objectify" means. grendel|khan 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. This article has suffered a lot from "drive by" editing by doctrinaire individuals (both feminist and men's rights activists) with an axe to grind about this or that manifestation of popular culture. This article should explain the larger context of sexual objectification, not serve as a laundry list of some individuals' pet hates around sexual imagery. Iamcuriousblue 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

There should some pics here but I think everyone is using the wrong approach. Wikipedia is not censored but that does not mean we have to use a sexually explicit pic. I think we should include a broad range of pics from history,tv, and modeling(including glamour). The wet t shirt pic should be used alogside the bratz dolls and some runway modeling to start things off. Thanks for the memoriesYVNP 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems as if some attention-starved, hipster "artist" decided to showcase his latest work on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV of a sentence in the article

"While radical feminists view mass media in what they claim is patriarchal society to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women."

The problem with introducing the words "what they claim" into the sentence is that it mars the NPOV of the article, and changes ther statement to introduce your own POV. The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view policy in wikipedia is not intended to make an article Neutral. It is intended (if you read it) that articles may have multiple points of view. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

The above sentence as it originally stood "While radical feminists view mass media in patriarchal society to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women."

The concern I have about that sentence is that it is not properly cited. Alhtough I am a feminist, I do not agree with the sentence. But, those are besides the point of NPOV. Some radical feminists do indeed believe what the sentence says. The sentence fairly and neutrally expresses their belief. Other perspectives are allowed in order to give the article balance and maintain NPOV. For instance, you could find a citation that said something like "Masculinists believe that society is not patriarchal, and that the objectification of women is caused by skewed perspectives of sexuality" (That is, of course an example, and not accurate as far as I know).

In summary, following NPOV does not mean making the article, or each sentence neutral, or preventing any POV from entering the article. It means allowing many POVs into the article.

Atom (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding "what they claim" changes the statement from POV (in implicit agreement with feminists who claim that all/most/some/etc societies are patriarchal) to NPOV (pointing out that some feminists claim that all/most/some/etc societies are patriarchal without agreeing or disagreeing with their claim). JCDenton2052 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually JC you should read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim over-using the "claim" is problematic. The sentence also has a further more fundamental problem - accuaracy. "Radical" feminists are not the only people who hold this position. Also this is yet another use of the term "radical feminist" that has nothing to do with Radical feminism or its philosophies / agendas and is being used instead to infer extremism - which is incorrect. Atomaton's points are accurate - especially regarding NPOV--Cailil ^talk 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Which word would you prefer to use in place of "claim" so as to not violate WP:NPOV? I didn't add the "radical" modifier and agree that it should be removed--plenty of liberal feminists claim that society is patriarchal. JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JC I did not mean to infer that you added "radical" here - there's an endemic problem across a number of articles (not just feminism related) where such modifiers are added (ie "extreme" nationalists, etc). Generally say / said is just as good as "claim" for the edits you want to make - the NPOV tutorial has a good summary of what phrases & nuances to avoid in order to keep NPOV rather than accidentally introduce POV--Cailil ^talk 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The concept of current existing cultures/societies being Patriarchal is pretty well ingrained. I'm sure a hundred references could be found for that. I realize that there are people with other perspectices. The purpose of the NPOV policy is not to limit the article to the popular, or most likely view. Inherent in feminism is the patriarchal nature of society, and pretty much all feminists take that for granted (like nearly everyone else.) I would wager to suggest that a number of masculinists also would support that position. So, two points arise: The sentence that exists (whomever placed it there) seems to try to make the point that Feminists consider the media controlled by patriarchal based cultures to be a cause of objectification, and that they consider pornography as being a cause of habituating people to objectification. Those are both interesting points, and probably are true (that many/some feminists believe those things and have that view.) We need a citation, otherwise it is just speculation/original research. Although there are other theories that may disagree with a feminist view, the article is about objectification, not feminism. The feminist POV that patriarchal media promotes objectification in this article is fine, if it can be cited. Alternative viewpoints, such as a masculinist, or other views are also fine in the article, if cited as well. Atom (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree Atomaton. I think gender studies will be the field in which there is a preponderance of work on sexual objectification but film studies, marxist theories and maybe even post-colonial studies also deal with the concept (albeit in different ways). And AFAIK Glen Sacks the father's rights activist occasionally hold a similar positions about the objectification of men in certain advertising campaigns--Cailil ^talk 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about removing the sentence, or waiting a bit longer for a citation to support it before removing it (assuming no is offered eventually? Atom (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Its better to remove the bias & keep the content. But there's no sourced content here - so I'd suggest removing and rewriting. a couple of sources that could be useful are Feminism and sexuality: a reader & The New Politics of Pornography, also a mention of Laura Mulvey's concept of the "male gaze" would be a good idea too--Cailil ^talk 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I wrote the initial sentence some time ago, and somebody else came along and added the "what they claim to be" part. I think that addition is rather slanted; the initial version simply claimed this as the view of radical feminists, not as uncontested fact. I'll note also that this article presenting more-or-less radical feminist views about sexual objectification as more or less uncontested sociological fact was a problem in earlier versions of this article, and I largely rewrote the article back in December 2006 to impart a more neutral point of view, specifically restating many of the points on sexual objectification as views of particular parties (such as radical feminists). I think due caution should be made not to go back to a version that presents these as uncontested ideas.

Calil – you mention sources, and I actually put together a "Further Reading" list at the end of the article which would be useful as sources on this topic. In particular, I think Evangelina Papadaki's article gives a historic overview of the development of the concept and would be very useful as a source. (I haven't had access to the full article, unfortunately, because my source for downloading journal articles puts a one-year block on that particular journal. The article should become available to me this August or September, however, and at that point, I'll give it a read and incorporate it as a source. Please note that at least one of the two sources you've mentioned (Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader, which I have, BTW) is biased toward a very hard-line radical feminist view and should not be taken as representative of all feminism.

Also, my understanding of the idea of "male gaze" is that it is clearly related to the idea of sexual objectification, but that there are some differences, as sexual objectification theory largely came up within feminism, especially radical feminism, whereas the idea of "gaze" was developed within postmodernism and postmodern feminism. There is some divergence there because radical feminist and postmodernist ideas on power are rather different. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I also want to note that an ongoing problem with edits to this article is that they give undue weight to ostensible MRA/masculist views on sexual objectification. I see very little evidence that they reflect anything more than the views of the editor and a few carefully chosen sources. I seriously doubt that the "Men's Rights" movement has made a substantial contribution to ideas on sexual objectification, either as theory or as popularly understood, nor do I see much evidence that sexual objectification is a major concern in most MRA literature. Hence, I don't think that MRA views should be a major part of this article. (This is not to say that non-feminist ideas on the subject aren't important – I think Alan Soble in particular has published a great deal of work debating feminist ideas on sexual objectification and his work deserves due mention in this article.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version makes the POV and ambiguous claim that some nebulous society is patriarchal. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, it needs to make clear which society is claimed to be patriarchal and who is making the claim. Many liberal and radical feminists make the claim that all society is patriarchal, so it should be easy to source it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Objectification of Men section needs more and better sources, but the Objectification of Women section is three and a half times larger than it, so I don't think any WP:UNDUE claim could be valid. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about that section, actually – it seems to me like a lot of rather questionable material has been added to other sections. This statement, which I think only represents the views of a small number of people, was placed right in the article introduction:

Some feminists and non-feminists, however, argue that increased sexual freedom for women and gay men has led to an increase of the sexual objectification of men.

In reality, there are few if any feminists who would argue that "sexual freedom" has led to an increase in the sexual objectification of men. And as for the social conservatives who are most upset about sexual freedom for women and gay men in particular usually don't use sexual objectification as one of their arguments. Its a dodgy statement and I think its questionable whether its 1) accurate, and 2) should have such a prominent place in the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I think that is questionable too. Maybe we need to give the article a good edit? If we remove the statements that seem really questionable, and put fact tags on the ambiguous stuff and look for some references available on things that look solid, but someone might debate, sans citations? Atom (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that statement Iamcuriousblue - if I remember right there was a bit of edit warring from IPs to keep it in--Cailil ^talk 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statement

The following statement is based on some questionable sources:

Research has suggested that the psychological effects of objectification on men are similar to those of women, leading to negative body image among men, as well as fears of inadequate sexual performance, leading to increased use of drugs like Viagra.

One source is a popular psychology article on the web about the "Adonis Complex" that has no reference to scientific literature. Is this a condition or phenomenon that is actually recognized in the psychological literature, and if so, is it well-accepted or is it controversial? Further sources are needed. The other three sources I consider to be dubious, in particular "Sexual 'Liberation' is Illuminati Subversion", which clearly falls into WP:FRINGE by any reasonable standard. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not reassured that the latter article you mention is dealt with in more detail in E. Michael Jones' 650 page book, "Libido Dominandi" Sexual Liberation and Political Control."? :-} Yeah, that page has to fall under Fringe, though that's just a guideline. I suspect there is real research on the subject, though. Шизомби (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"1 in 6 women are rape survivors" I have doubts about that figure. SO many females are, in my opinion, addle-minded simpletons and easily influenced via propaganda or trend following. Some daffy dames seem to consider a male looking at them as a form of rape. Obbop (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge: Objectification theory into Sexual objectification

A recent article on Objectification theory has been added to Wikipedia. As a standalone article its problematic on a couple levels, and I am therefore proposing to merge it into this one. a) One could argue that "objectification theory" basically represents feminists ideas on sexual objectification applied to social sciences, and is therefore a specialized topic related within the larger topic of sexual objectification. However, as it stands, I'm not so sure the new article really covers that subject as a fully standalone topic. And, b) as it stands, this article strikes me as something of a POV fork from the "Sexual objectification" article, basically taking feminist ideas on sexual objectification, a contested idea and perspective, and presenting these as proven, scientific fact. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that the new article needs work to cover its topic, it is really a psychology topic, not a sexuality topic. And although there may be a great deal of overlap in the content of the respective articles, these should be kept distinct, as they appeal to different readers. Most-especially, sexual objectification does not cover all forms of objectification, and is not its necessary consequence. Merging the articles could trigger objections from fetishists, for instance. -- BukakiKid (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Objectification theory is an area of psychology in which feminist views on sexual objectification are applied to psychological theory. (Note that there is already a WP article on the more general phenomenon of objectification and I'm not proposing a merger there.) Some of the foundational research on the subject acknowledges that they use prior feminist theory as a starting point. The two are clearly related. I think what is problematic about the other article is that it basically retreads the same subject matter as this article rather than focusing more narrowly on psychological research around objectification theory. Hence, much of the content of that article really belongs in this one. It is also problematic in that the breakaway article uses much more POV language concerning views about sexual objectification (stating feminist views on objectification as agreed-upon fact) than this article does. Hence, it crosses the line into POV fork in that regard. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of sexual objectification

The definition of 'sexual objectification' is unclear, subjective and hypocritical.

1. Unclear: " ...regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards the person's sexual pleasure." So I understand that treating another person as an instrument (object) towards the person's sexual pleasure - without merely - is not 'sexual objectification'.

2. Subjective: Can somebody drive the line objectively between using a person merely as an instrument (object) towards the person's sexual pleasure and just using him as an instrument (object) towards the person's sexual pleasure?

3. Hypocritical: Although in feminist publications the formal emphasis is usually on the second term, 'Objectification', up to the point that in a lot of occasions the - 'sexual'- term is omitted altogether but inferred so that 'objectification of women' is almost exclusively used to mean 'sexual objectification of women', the real emphasis is actually on the first term - 'sexual'. Saying that a woman is 'sexually objectified' is nothing more than simply pointing to the fact that she is presented in a way that usually stimulates sexual desire in men. The term 'objectified' is then intentionally added and stressed in order to underline that this situation supposedly dehumanizes her.

Well stated. This article is a mess. It's not even mentioned that within academia, the term is almost universally dismissed as meaningless. This is a ideological stance, whose empirical claims have been thoroughly debunked, that started with second wave feminism. I even had to remove one of the opening sentences which blatantly erroneously attributed this concept as an important one in the philosophy of sex. Worse yet, the cited sources was an obvious distortion of the philosophers position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to know what the IP removed, so that they can assess if the IP's removal is correct, see here. The IP removed the line that "The idea of sexual objectification has also been an important area of discussion and debate in the area of sexual ethics and the philosophy of sex." And the IP was wrong for that removal. There was no "obvious distortion" or any distortion by including that line and having it sourced to Alan Soble. For a similar Alan Soble source, see this Alan Soble, Nicholas P. Power The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings source, from Rowman & Littlefield, 2008, pages 337-340. Also, the IP is wrong that "the term [sexual objectification] is almost universally dismissed as meaningless," and I guarantee that the IP cannot produce a single WP:Reliable source backing that claim. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't wrong, and if you had even bothered to read the section on objectification you'd see that Dr. Soble, whom I know personally, states the exact opposite of what is claimed. It was an obvious distortion, as I stated, because Dr. Soble states in Pornography, Sex, and Feminism, that objectification is an appropriate ontological status. By the way, if you had bothered to actually read the book, you'd also know that Dr. Soble is actually one of the chief critics of term. One of the positions he's widely know for is his direct attack is Kantian objectification, which all but destroys the popular lay person use of sexual objectification.

And for the record, pages 337-340 in The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings, are written by Raja Halwani, not Alan Soble. It's his essay, Virtue Ethics, Casual Sex, and Objectification.

You either lied about the source, or just have no idea what you're talking about, clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you were/are wrong. And your feminist-hating bias is showing through. I have read the book (both books), and I am familiar with Alan Soble's writings. I even linked to his Wikipedia article above, which clearly relays more about him. That Soble "is actually one of the chief critics of term" makes it no less justified to have that source support the following line you removed: "The idea of sexual objectification has also been an important area of discussion and debate in the area of sexual ethics and the philosophy of sex." Soble is a part of that debate. And for you to state "I even had to remove one of the opening sentences which blatantly erroneously attributed this concept as an important one in the philosophy of sex." misses the point entirely. You clearly fail to see how it misses the point. No matter, however, because that sentence can be supported by various other WP:Reliable sources (feminist sources or otherwise). And as for The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings, I called it an Alan Soble source because he is one of the editors of the book, as is seen here and here (whether a reprint or otherwise). I never stated that Soble wrote that entry. People can read; they can clearly see that pages 337-340 are written by Raja Halwani. You either think that I can't read or that I pointed people to those pages without seeing that page 337 begins by showing who the author of those pages is, or that I thought that people wouldn't notice who the author of those pages is. You clearly misinterpret a lot of things, and I doubt that you know Soble. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not, and nor am I hating anything or showing bias. Just dealing with lay people who think their ideas and opinions are what form the facts. Soble actually states it's not important, it's as he famously says "illusory chauvinism". The attribution to Soble, which actually noted pages in someone's else's essay is obviously an incorrect citation. That was just ridiculous. I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm dealing with someone not familiar with the subject matter at all who can't even lie about a source notation. This is a great example why Wiki is viewed so poorly in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand by everything I've stated above. And I definitely think that you are the layperson out of the two of us. It's extremely rare that I lie. It's also, as many Wikipedians can attest to, extremely rare that I am unfamiliar with a sexual topic. Sexual objectification is one of the sexual topics I know quite well (and I mean the literature on it). Where does Soble state that sexual objectification has not been "an important area of discussion and debate in the area of sexual ethics and the philosophy of sex"? Where does any WP:Reliable source support your claim that "the term [sexual objectification] is almost universally dismissed as meaningless"? And let's not act like feminism does not play a big part "in the area of sexual ethics and the philosophy of sex." If a person calls something unimportant, that does not mean that the person is stating that topic has not been heavily debated, or has not been heavily debated beyond a certain field. That Soble and other sources discuss sexual objectification the way that they do shows that the topic has been heavily debated "in the area of sexual ethics and the philosophy of sex." It certainly is not "almost universally dismissed as meaningless" by the American Psychological Association and various other health sources. And again, I did not attribute the The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings pages that I cited above to the words of Soble. I can direct you to different Wikipedia discussions where I similarly call a source a [so and so source] because of the editor(s) of the book. But "nice" assumption that I'm just a layperson and have no academic credentials, including on the topic of sexual objectification, a topic that is noted and commonly accepted by health professionals. I would point you to people, including to certain WP:Med editors, who can confirm that you are wrong in that assumption. But, as seen with your discussion with Iamcuriousblue, you seem to think that anyone who significantly disagrees with you on this topic is unfamiliar with the topic. And, like my user page states, I keep mention of my qualifications off Wikipedia and attempt to edit it like the anonymous Wikipedia editor that I am. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, you were/are wrong. And your feminist-hating bias is showing through." Dr. Soble can be reached directly at ags38@drexel.edu. 108.25.112.234 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of a literal distinction between sexual "objectification" and sexual "attraction".

People that regard this topic constantly presume that sexual "attractiveness" seamlessly correlates with sexual "objectification". I felt the need to delineate that feminism has/does make a distinction between sexual "objectification", sexual "attraction"... and additionally has/does associate such conclusions with an abstract form of slut-shaming.

Objectification only occurs when the individual in question is solely regarded/portrayed as NOTHING more than a pulchritudinous object, not when merely harnessing the trait of sexual attraction, in addition to other defining elements of their humanity. The main proponent of ridicule regarding this suggestion is that sexual attraction is a component of humanity, therefore unconscious sexual objectification (to a certain extent) is unavoidable.

It's confusing to explain exactly what I mean, but I feel this distinction needs to be more fully delineated in the article, respectably amidst the other theories.User:LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as abstract form of slut-shaming as there is no such concept as an abstraction of a normative action.

No, that would be dehumanization. Objectification is in fact an ontological status which applies to any and all individuals. This has been thoroughly examined and detailed within philosophy. I'm not sure why so many think they can make up their own facts.

not when merely harnessing the trait of sexual attraction, in addition to other defining elements of their humanity. The main proponent of ridicule regarding this suggestion is that sexual attraction is a component of humanity, therefore unconscious sexual objectification (to a certain extent) is unavoidable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk • contribs)

Over-dependence on Feminist sources for citation.

Not to say their arguments are less valid, or to even presume more sources on the subject are available; but I would prefer to see this article have a wider array of sources from a more diverse number of ideological viewpoints and fields of study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalashaska824 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, and will find more neutral sources when I have time. I feel if we are to continue to rely upon a large number of feminist sources, we need to allow MRA/MHRA/masculist sources to be used, rather than immediately deleting them for absolutely no reason.

I also feel there is undue weight given to the objectification of women compared with men, and given some free time, I will dig up some scholarly articles that back up the fact that men are objectified by women at a fairly similar rate to women objectified by men. 173.57.43.90 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has high feminist bias and is sexist in its approach of the subject. It may be best to approach the subject of sexual objectification from a non-sexual perspective. 86.157.131.106 (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course it relies heavily on feminist sources: it's a plank of a socio-political philosophy, feminism. Sexual objectification is largely dismissed out of hand within the fields of philosophy, sociology and psychology. Objects aren't sexual. You can't sexually objectify a subjective individual, as most in the relevant fields have been attempting to explain to lay people for a few decades now. This is why fields such as psychology use the phrase dehumanization, which has a coherent, well established definition which noticeably differs then the thoroughly debunked ideology of sexual objectification within what is now third wave feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And the proof for your claims is where? The topic of sexual objectification does not only exist in feminism; an abundance of WP:Reliable sources easily found on Google Books and on Google Scholar show that to be the case. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

These links prove what exactly? These are all links to feminist or feminist-derived scholarship. "Sexual objectification" is by and large a product of feminism and feminist-derived social science (notably "objectification theory" studies), and should be named as such. Its existence outside this framework is questionable. The concept of "sexual objectification" should be treated like surplus value, as a concept of great importance to a particular approach to a particular social theory or ideology, but not a framework or concept that's universally accepted across the social sciences. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Those links are not "all links to feminist or feminist-derived scholarship." Well, unless one wants to state that all of the sources, including the health sources, that speak of sexual objectification are feminist sources. Feminism is a broad term, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that's still feminist-inspired research - a raw Google Scholar search simply isn't going to supply that kind of context. If you read the article and follow the citations back concerning the concept of sexual objectification, that would be readily apparent. "Objectification theory" is an ideologically feminist derived piece of social theory and should be approached as such. Just as a similar search of economics literature could turn up scores of references to "surplus value". That does not mean that surplus value stopped being a specifically Marxist concept and is now universally accepted among economists. Ditto for "sexual objectification" and "objectification theory" vis-a-vis feminism.

I take issue with many of the specifics of 108.25.112.234's arguments, but I think his basic point is a valid one. "Sexual objectification" is an ideological concept, not some piece of social theory that there's any large-scale consensus around. And it's certainly valid that Wikipedia should cover this in detail - one need only look at all the WP articles on Marxist theory. But the point is, there's a big difference between the way specific ideological theories are to be treated versus something like, say, evolutionary theory that's broadly accepted within the sciences. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The thinkers themselves, that's who. MacKinnon and Dworkin all but invented the conception of sexual objectification, based on Kant's, Lectures on Ethics. They took work that was 200 years old, tweaked it, considerably, and in short invented a new concept. Yes, this view is largely dismissed outside of feminism and heavily feminist influenced areas of inquiry. The basis for this view, Kantian objectification, had been ALREADY been near universally dismissed. Are you not even aware of the objectification irony? A source of bad jokes at philosophical gatherings? The post-modernists, who viciously attacked Kant's position, leaving, literally, only a handful of radical second wave feminists to form a highly contradictory model based on Kant? The Kantian sex problem, that third wave feminism not only doubled down on, but magnified by denying the necessary underlying Kantian metaphysics? This isn't new or surprising. No offense, but have you just not studied much philosophy? Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy might be a good place for you to start. In particular, note how sexual objectification is quite clearly listed as an element of feminist philosophy. It, literally, doesn't even have a separate entry. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk)

108.25.112.234 - Not sure what you're talking about here when you're referring to "third wave feminism". That implies that sexual objectification wasn't important in second-wave feminism. If anything, it was more important - second-wave feminism large tore itself apart over controversies around sexual objectification in the infamous 70s-80s "Feminist Sex Wars". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Feminists Sex Wars aren't an example of the importance of the concept of sexual objectification within Second Wave Feminism. First of all, it wasn't even a predominant platform issue in that debate. Second, the fact that a philosophical debate, a heated one at that, is an example of precisely the opposite. Sexual objectification was so important to Second Wave Feminism that there was a heated debate regarding its existence? Of course that's not the case, quite obviously. Sexual objectification was a concept that arose from radical feminists at the time who were using it to underpin their arguments against pro-sex feminists at the time. The radical feminists argued for the disutility of pornography, with sexual objectification being a philosophical mechanism attempting to demonstrate the cause of the disutility. It really played no significant part in the BDSM issue because claiming using handcuffs during sex is an example of sexual objectification, whereas using massage oil is not, was so blatantly arbitrary, and fallacious, that only the particularly philosophically deficient thought the claim made any sense. The normative differences used to further refine the category, BDSM, aren't particularly relevant to the larger category of pornography, of course. Prostitution, also, was argued on the grounds of utilitarianism, but of course the grounding for that argument was socio-economic, not any sort of ontological position regarding objectivity or subjectivity. On this issue we again see the application of Marxist ideology as a formative conceptual framework for Second Wave feminism.

Of the 'big three' issues during this philosophical fight, the principle in question here factored into one of them (the second being clearly a derivative with no significant independent impact), as a secondary philosophical mechanism acting as a basis for a utilitarianist claim. The concept floundered until the growth of the impact of dehumanization within psychology and sociology started focusing more attention on what was to become what we now call Gender Studies and/or Women's Studies. Sexual objectification as a concept didn't grow in prominence until the early development of Third Wave feminism, precisely because unlike Second Wave feminism, it was an important tenet of the general philosophical approach: postmodernism and the great deal of value placed on subjectivity. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk)

I really beg to differ with your history and timeline here. Sexual objectification as a concept in feminism goes back to the early to mid 70s (see the John Berger and Leah LeMonchek references in "Further Reading") and the issues around pornography, etc were simply issues around "sexual objectification" writ large, as were related issues around BDSM and sexual practices. Sexual objectification plays a huge role and Catherine MacKinnon's theories, and she's pretty far from a third-wave feminist.

If you're going to continue to discuss this, might I suggest you make an effort to learn Wikipedia's threading format and actually sign your posts (four tildes creates a signature). Your comments are very hard to follow because of the haphazard way of formatting them. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rule's on WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, etc. (That goes for everybody on all sides of the issue, actually.) Statements in Wikipedia must come from citation of verifiable sources and neutral treatment of differing opinions, not one's personal take on an issue. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(Note: I rethreaded this discussion and added attribution to unsigned statements, hopefully correctly. Hoping the discussion can actually be followable now.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

108.25.112.234 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry about formatting stuff, I'm not good with this sort of thing.

Did you mean Leah LeMoncheck? Please, you don't need to point me to reading materials, especially considering you don't seem to know the names of these people. I'm a professional philosopher. LeMoncheck was a co-author of one book published in '84 or '85. Wasn't she in junior high school and high school in the 1970's? John Berger, by the way, didn't write about sexual objectification. I don't know why you think he did.  ??? I know precisely what Catherine had written. You seem to be unaware that she was one of the two (the other being Dworkin of course) main radical feminists I was speaking about. She didn't even publish her first book until 1979. I'm sorry, but you really need to stop trying to wing this as you go. These are subjects within philosophy and it's no different than any other field, be it geology or biochemistry: you really can't wing it on the fly when dealing with people in the field. You might want to start with, you know, reading the entries on these people. If you did, you'd see what I stated was quite accurate.

I think that it's the IP who is winging it. As for your links question, Iamcuriousblue, I replied above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You're correct that I misidentified the LeMoncheck book as the one from the 1970s - it was the Elizabeth Eames book that I was thinking of. John Berger most certainly did write about sexual objectification, and is frequently cited in that regard. (Albeit, his book is largely a transcription of his television program Ways of Seeing, which has an episode on the topic. Nevertheless, the book is widely cited in literature on sexual objectification.) Anyway, the point is that the concept of "sex object" and "sexual objectification" were well established in second-wave feminism prior even to Dworkin and MacKinnon. Your point that this is somehow a "third-wave" concept is entirely off-base. Understanding the idea of sexual objectification as a specifically feminist concept? There I agree with you. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really not winging this material. Berger did not "most certainly did write about sexual objectification" and is not " frequently cited in that regard". That's an over-statement of the highest magnitude. He is, without question, not widely cited in the literature, not even close. Sex object starts to get worked out in second wave feminism, absolutely. Sexual objectification was absolutely not well established in second wave feminism. Perhaps you might want to bother giving the introductory material in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a quick looking over. What you're stating can be fairly quickly, and easily be refuted by widely available resources. MacKinnon and Dworkin became quite well known for their break through use of Kant in coining sexual objectification. My statements aren't off-base, they can be verified quite easily via appropriate sources.

Question on the Subject of dignity

"Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object, without regard to their personality or dignity."

I wonder how an interaction between two consenting subjects who have equal rights, neither of whom sees their own dignity as being disregarded, can be identified by a third party as being detrimental to the dignity of either of the involved parties. Isn't "human dignity related to human agency, the ability of humans to choose their own actions"?(from the article on dignity- section about Kant)

To put it in more concrete terms, let's take for example the business relationship between an erotic model and a modelling agency: if both parties feel that the model's dignity is being held in sufficiently high regard, how can anyone say that he/she is being objectified? Isn't that up to the people involved to decide?

and if dignity is not something that each person defines for themselves, how do we discern the validity of claims of objectification coming from different sets of moral standarts? i.e. one may argue that, according to their moral framework, any interaction between all people objectifies all parties involved, since the existance of regard for another person's personality or dignity cannot be empirically proven. Or, in a more realistic example, religious extremist may claim that any interaction between people of opposite gender qualifies as objectification. --UnvertrÄglich (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)-unvertrÄglich--87.152.50.208 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What you're highlighting is called the Kantian Sex Problem. You're, quite correctly, identifying contradictions within Kant's, Lectures on Ethics, that Kant was never able to rectify. Basically, outside of feminism, no one even attempts to 'solve' what is a well established series of contradictions. Thinkers such as Soble do an outstanding job of demonstrating precisely why the attempt has long since been abandoned, and not just by analytic philosophers but also by continental philosophers. Nussbaum, surely, provides the best argument but even she falls significantly short. What you're identifying is just a fatal flaw to a philosophical concept that has been all but completely abandoned outside a very specific philosophical ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

reference coorections? (K. Barry)

Hello, juste a small note: for the first referenace (Barry, K., Female Sexual Slavery.) the date of publishing seems not be correct here: it is-following my findings- 1984 and not 1994; I note it here on the diss.page, because as a newcomer at wiki, I have some doubts how to change it correctly...thanks. --Lunour (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

But which?

I changed "Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class" to "...reducing women to what they refer to as the oppressed "sex class".

Wtmitchell reverted saying: "Does the cited supporting source really say "oppressed", or is this WP:OR?"

I'm not quite sure how to respond as this is basically just a matter of logic. There are 2 sexes therefore 2 sex classes, the previous edit implied women are a sex class... basically, "what about teh menz?". I added oppressed to specify which one. Without it, its like saying "They claim women are a sex". Bridenh (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of sexual objectification of women on a wine menu

Re this revert re the caption in this article for this image, which describes the image as "An example of sexual objectification of women on a wine menu"; WP:OR says that original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." It does not appear to me that the image reaches or implies states a conclusion of sexual objectification regarding the female pictured. Rather, it seems to me that suggestion of such a conclusion in the caption is based on an inference drawn by the caption writer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)