“But Don’t You Like To Be Objectified Sometimes?”
March 14th, 2006People who ask this question obviously don’t understand what is meant by the term “sexual objectification”. No, I don’t want to be objectified, not ever. Not by random people on the street, not by an intimate partner.
“Why?”
By definition, what is an object? An object is something inert to be manipulated by others. An object exists only for the purposes it was made and can only passively fulfil that purpose through its use by an active party. A grammatical object is the part of a sentence which indicates what is being manipulated by the subject; linguistically, an object has things done to it but does nothing on its own.
In more concrete terms, what are objects? Objects are items that exist outside of ourselves which we put to specific uses. A banana is an object. It’s a plant which has been domesticated so that its only purpose is to be consumed by human beings. The plant can no longer reproduce without human intervention, so its natural biological purpose has been subverted and it no longer has a real function outside of the uses humans design for it. When we plant grass in our yards to look nice, this is an object. The only real purpose of grass is to grow and spread, but we add cultural baggage, assumptions about class and aesthetics which we attach not only to our lawns but to their color and health, their maintanance, their growth. A car is an object; it is for transportation. A stove is an object; it is for cooking. Food is an object; it is to be cooked, it is to be eaten. A baseball is an object; it is to be thrown within the specific context of certain games.
Objects are things.
A woman is not an object.
Let me ammend that: people are not objects.
Women do not exist solely to be sexually manipulated, used, abused. When a woman is objectified she is made into a passive thing — she is not an individual with thoughts and ideas, with ambitions and goals and principles. She is simply something to be used for the pleasure of the one who objectifies her. And do things have feelings? Does anyone care what an object thinks or wants? In a very real way, objectification is dehumanization. Dehumanizing a subject, making them into an object, allows for their feelings and thoughts to be completely disregarded. Does consent matter when dealing with a thing rather than a person? Does anything matter but the pleasure and whims of the user, the abuser?
Other people are made into objects, too. It’s not just women who are made into objects in order to fulfil the fantasties of others; parents make their children into objects, too, assuming that the child’s only purpose is to live up to their expectations, to do as the parents would like the child to do. Politicians and advertizers make people into objects: we are a passive audience for them to manipulate, to do what they want us to do for their benefit and not for our own — we are a means to an end and we are not human when we do this. We are objects to be used and manipulated and then discarded when our usefulness is through.
So not all objectification is sexual. None of it is good, beneficial, or in any way desirable. I am a person, not an object. I take particular exception, however, to being made into a sexual object. My sexuality — the firing of neurons in my brain, the combination of feelings and sensations moving along my nerves, my body, my breasts, my vulva — does not exist for the pleasure of anyone but me. This is not to say that I’m selfish, that I would take pleasure from another while denying them pleasure from my body, my sex — it is to say that if I find it pleasurable to give pleasure to a particular person, that is my business. It is nothing that can be taken without my express will, my explicit consent. My body does not exist specifically for the visual or physical stimulation of others, especially those to whom I do not give permission to use me in this way.
“Don’t we all like to be objectified sometimes?”
No. I don’t. I don’t enjoy being made into a passive object to be manipulated. I don’t enjoy being made into something less-than-human. I don’t enjoy being ignored and overlooked as the individual that I am and instead made into something else against my own will.
Do I enjoy being found attractive? Yes, of course. Everyone does. But too often these two phenomona are conflated and confused. Being objectified, being verbally or sexually abused, is often said to merely be the same thing as attraction. It’s a compliment, it’s an honor to be harrassed on the street. Being a desireable object is confused with being a desireable human being. Being made into a thing to be used, which exists solely for the purpose of this use and is judged only on its usefulness, is not the same as being found attractive at all.
When a person finds another person attractive, that other person is still human. They are an active participant in all interactions. No one can have a relationship with an object; relationships are a dynamic, mutual process on the part of all involved. Relationships are an active process. In the dynamic of objectification, only one party retains active personal agency.
There is something to be said for the desire to submit, the desire to be passive, in a sexual or romantic dynamic. Some people feel more comfortable in dominant or submissive relationship roles. But this is still an active, consensual decision, and that is the distinction. In my relationships with my family, I enjoy caring for and taking care of others, I enjoy cooking and don’t mind cleaning because it makes everyone’s life more livable. If a young sibling is ill I will nelgect my own desires, my own plans for the day, in order to ensure that they are comfortable and all right. I would be absolutely the same if I were in a romantic relationship, because this is my personality and it is what gives me pleasure. I do not do this simply because it’s expected of me (it’s not), but because it is the role I am most comfortable expressing. This submission to the needs and desires of other people is an expression of love. If this submission is forced, rather than an active expression of the person in question’s authentic personality and desires, as it often is, that relationship is abusive.
A real relationship allows for everyone involved to act however they like, to fill whatever role they like. Objectification does not. Objectification forces a role and a purpose onto the object which, even on theoretical occasion that this role and purpose might conicide with how that particular person expresses themselves, still limits that person’s ability to be anything outside of that narrow set of expectations. It is still wrong, and it is always wrong.
I posit that no, nobody ever really likes to be objectified. When people ask that question, or when people say that they like a little objectification now and then, I think it’s clear what they actually mean is that they enjoy being found attractive, they enjoy attention. These are perfectly valid wants and desires. But I am not willing to accept that anyone on Earth actually wants, of their own free will, to lose any and all freedom to define themselves or to have any real agency in their own lives. Powerlessness as a fantasy or a kink is not the same as actual powerlessness, as actual slavery and bondage. No one who actually cares about the subject would think to conflate the two while describing submission in those terms, and the fact is that being made into an object is very real powerlessness, is very real bondage to another person’s desires at the expense of one’s own.
Objectification is a forced loss of self.
No one has any right to ever, under any circumstances, inflict this on another person.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 am
I agree with your stance that no one deserves this kind of treatement. But I would disagree with whether it’s expected or not. As long as men continue to treate women as objects, you will be made into one. Because it’s not yourself who is making you into an object, you have no choice in the matter to be objectified, therefore your role or any woman’s role in life is pre-defined. Expectations, from our parents, to our husbands. You are expected to do those things in which you describe. I propose to you, to change those things for a day. Do not subject yourself to your own will, and experience the power struggle that occurs should you not do those things you feel are “not expected” of you.
You will then see, that you are required. Because no one else will do it. That is not a choice. That is you, me, and every woman out there being objectified.
To conflate that definition is wrong. That is where we need to fight to change opinions and belief structures to treate women, and others as people. Instead of manipulative subjects.
LT
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:34 am
Clearly, as I noted in a different entry, yes, it’s important to note the social pressures involved and, yes, no choice is made in a vacuum. But you don’t know my situation, upbringing, or home life. I’m not trying to be defensive here as so much wondering exact what you’re trying to say and feeling that you really missed my point.
You do not know my home life and you do not know my upbringing. I’m sorry your own have been so unfortunate, since those were never the messages I was given by my parents.
My entire point with that small part of the essay is that being nurturing or submissive is not an invitation to be dehumanized. These are choices and modes of expression which need to be valued and respected, and whenever the subject of objectification comes up, people will point to them and say, “But it’s okay because women actually like it!” Which is flawed because they have nothing to do with one another, and because it’s not true.
You’ve also pretty much just rehashed the argument that makes people believe all feminists hate housewives. Surely, that choice is not made in a vacuum, and surely, there’s pressure, but is it not a valid choice? Would you propose that women stop having children if they desire them since it’s “expected” of them? This works for things like body hair because that ONLY affects the individual in question, and because the expectations are presumptive and flawed. (Presumption: women must always look beautiful and perfect. Presumption: all women want to look beautiful all the time for all men. Flaw: cosmetics and shaving are bad for the skin. Flaw: it consumes half a woman’s life in time and money over something stupid and small.) Whether or not to care for others is NOT a neutral decision by social standards, nor should it be; it should be the ideal. For everyone, men and women.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:11 am
I agree with Loosely Twisted. I think if you were to stop living out your chosen role for a day, you would most likely lose some of the approval of the people with whom you live. For a sociological perspective on this, have you read Wifework by Susan Maushart? It was very eye-opening for me.
September 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
[...] 1. Why is liking to cook a gendered behavior and why is it unfeminist to take care of my house? Because, really, these are practical life skills and something that needs to be done by someone. This isn’t abstract theory. I’d be lying if I claimed there was no pressure whatsoever to take care of my house, but when I’m the only one with the free time to do it and I don’t actually mind, and if my siblings do their chores also and the boys do as much if not more housework than the girls, what exactly is the problem? Christ. You’d think wanting to eat decent home-cooked food or not wanting the kitchen to be buried in dirty dishes was some sort of crime against feminism. (And I’m not even supportive of so-called “choice feminism”!) I mean…really, people, it’s just something that needs to be taken care of, preferably by someone who doesn’t mind taking care of it. [...]
October 8th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Why is it difficult to understand that for some, housework is nothing more than relaxing?
I like to fold laundry. I like to wash dishes. It’s repetative, and therefore relaxes me.
How does this mean that I’m asking to do ONLY those things?
October 31st, 2006 at 11:18 am
[...] Someday, I ought to write something about the various, competing definitions of objectification. In the meantime, when I archived that rant yesterday, I’d meant to link to earlbecke’s post on feminism and objectification. It’s a view I disagree with, in part, which is probably because I’m too influenced by Marxist theory and pragmatism to agree entirely. But, it’s still a good read. [...]
November 1st, 2006 at 4:26 am
Yes, I DO LIKE to be objectified sometimes!
By my boyfriend, in my room, in my bed!It is mutual!Sometimes he’s my toy and I’m his! And I won’t allow someone to come and say that he’s mistreating me. In the end, after sex/love, I get to hear and say lovely caring words before I go to sleep.And it feels right, so if I like to submit to him and let him use me (and I choose to LET him!) and that makes me happy, then it’s ok. Dialogue people!If a man loves you he won’t do anything you don’t want to because he repects you.That makes all the difference.
Of course in past I’ve been to bad relationships where even being kissed when I didn’t feel like it would feel like an abuse to me! Because I didnt love him, because I didnt want to be with him! How many women go out to have dinner with someone they don’t like just because they feel they must accept a flattering invitation? that’s abuse! That’s a woman being abused not doing anything to avoid that!
People, sex it’s not a rational thing, it’s in the field of feelings,of touch, of some wildness, so dont bring your feminist misconceptions to bed. One should do whatever they feel like, as long as no one gets hurt, or feels bad about it. If you have someone who loves you and cares for you, if you have a good husband you shouldn’t bring all the universal feminist problems in to your relationship.Because you don’t have them! That would be, ultimatly, a desrespect towards your partner because you’ll be saying that all men are the same by comparing him to an abuser (just as any other women abuser all along history!). So if you had the luck to find a good man don’t ruin that by radical feminist speech. NOTE: NOT EVERY MAN DESRESPECT WOMEN!NOT EVERY MAN ARE ABUSERS! If in your case he is one, you should re-think your relationship.And an abuser it’s not someone who slaps in in the butt while having sex, it’s someone who doesn’t love you, who doesn’t care!And you sure deserve one that does.This is valid for men and women being neglected!
November 1st, 2006 at 7:48 am
Uh, Ines, with all due respect…I don’t think you understood the point of my post. I don’t think being found attractive = abuse or anything like that. I never said that having a loving consensual relationship meant your boyfriend was mistreating you. (In fact, I talk about how submission, sexual and otherwise, isn’t the same as objectification at all.) I don’t think all men disrespect women. (Although certainly a lot of them do, otherwise there’d be no need for feminism. But I try not to let those people into my life.) I also find it interesting that you assume that if I write about how I don’t like to be objectified, I must be in an abusive (hetero) relationship? Since I’m single, and mostly I like girls…
No, I just don’t like random people on the street assuming I exist for their visual/sexual pleasure. Because I don’t. (I don’t exist purely for the sexual pleasure of people I’m actually sleeping with, either, but let’s not even go there right now.) I am a person and I am a sexual being but I’m more than that, too. I don’t think it’s possible for a person to treat me like an equal and objectify me at the same time. I do think it’s possible for someone to be attracted to me and treat me like a human being, but I think they’re different. Attraction can coexist with respect.
I can only assume you didn’t read any of my post at all, or you completely misread it. Your response pretty much baffles me. I’m not sure I should even post it because I don’t know that it constitutes a good-faith effort at dialogue. But you don’t read like a troll to me at first glance, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:34 am
[...] 5. BUT BUT BUT BUT… “But objectification isn’t always bad!” (@ Definition) “But it’s just a game / movie / comic / harmless entertainment!” (@ Shrub) “But it’s just a joke!” (@ Stormcloud) “But men are ALSO objectified!” (@ Like Scratches In The Sand) “But feminism has already achieved equality!” (@ Shrub again) [...]
March 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I don’t think you have to be a feminist to support this view! It should be accepted and incorporated in a Human Rights act! Women cannot be objectified or considered to be inferior by males, judged only by their appearences!
I have recently started to wear hijab or the scarf, which covers a woman’s hair. Many people think this is oppressive or forced on women who submit or are submissive…but this far from the truth, especially in my situation! I chose to wear the hijab despite the negative views from males in my life…I wanted to be judged on personality and character rather than my appearence…and thankfully, this is what I have been judged on!
I’ve had some negative comments…but at the end of the day…I cannot be objectified or seen as a playtoy! People have to accept that I have my views..and I will not be silenced!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Interesting definition.
According to this, a great deal of pornography is not objectifying. (Think about it.) Interesting analysis.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:02 am
I think I understand what you say and I agree with most of it. But I’d like to give a hypothetical example to illustrate where I think your definition fails. I am walking down the street and a woman I don’t know is walking towards me. She has attractive breasts. We pass each other by and go our separate ways. I’ll probably never see her again. Now I knew nothing about her character or personality but I did notice her breasts. I didn’t deliberately inflict anything on her by noticing her breasts, but I might get momentarily aroused. Now if my reaction to that woman falls into your definition of objectification then I think your definition is unworkable because the very word objectification implies a deliberate act. I can’t help my instinctive reaction. It’s a Y chromosome thing - a product of natural selection. It comes with the deep voice and the facial hair.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Nathanael: Actually, I don’t think all porn is inherently objectifying and I’m not anti-porn. A lot of my writing could be considered pornographic. I’m cool with porn that isn’t racist/misogynistic/degrading — not much of that in the mainstream porn industry, though.
Plastic Druid: I’m queer. I like breasts, too. Arguments about the Y chromosome fail to hold any water with me.
But I don’t think your example is necessarily objectifying — as I said, one of the big issues with discussing objectification is when people insist that being attracted to someone automatically equals objectification. Passing someone attractive or with attractive features on the street, not knowing more about them…sure, it happens, it’s often innocent, and unavoidable. I think it’s normal. But where it becomes a problem is when (to give some examples from my life) a man sees a woman he likes while they’re both walking on their way somewhere and he a) feel entitled to her time/attention, b) yells or honks at her from his car c) follows her around trying harassing her to try to get her number/ask her out/whatever. I don’t think your example is objectifying, necessarily, because you’re still acknowledging that it’s another person with their own life who doesn’t exist just for you, and I don’t mind that kind of attention. It’s the guys who assume I only exist for their pleasure, that I couldn’t possibly have anything else going on in my life other than what is convenient for them. Does that make sense?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Yeah, PlasticDruid, why would it be a problem if you don’t say anything? That’s just attraction; you’re not intruding on that person’s sense of safety or acting entitled to her by yelling stupid shit or creeping her out. My female friends and I are always noticing guys around town or in restaurants or whatever, but we have the decency to wait until they’re out of earshot to say anything, because we know they’re human and don’t want to make them feel irritated or uncomfortable. (And, what we say when they’re out of earshot isn’t even nearly as disgusting or hurtful as the things that men say to our faces all the time.) It’s human to notice other people, but it crosses a line when you say things that you’re not sure are welcome (or that you’re sure _aren’t_ welcome, which is actually the case with most street harassers — they know they’re not going to get a number, they just want to exert power over a class of people they despise). Just because you think something doesn’t mean you have to say it — we all have self-control, and most street harassing morons have jobs. I don’t suppose they go around blurting out their inner monologues all day at work, so why the hell can’t they keep it to themselves when they’re out and about?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:58 am
earlbecke: Yes, that makes sense - I think Pink got it spot on in the song “U & Ur Hand”. As for the ‘Y chromosome’ comment, you’re quite right to pick me up on that. I should have left it at ‘instinctive reaction’, which is something we both have regardless of gender.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am
[...] earlbecke (Definition): But don’t you like to be objectified sometimes? Persona non grata (☀☁☂☃☠☠☠☠): Objectified does not equal Idealized [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Actually sometimes I do like to be objectified. I know this isn’t PC but I like my boyfriend to use me as a sex object, to use my body to get off without worrying that he has to make me come (because usually guys who have to make women come are just on an ego trip trying to prove that they’re desirable to women), to take me sexually when he wants to. Those things turn me on.
Thanks for making me a “nobody” in your eyes. Yet another reason I’m not and never will be a ‘feminist’.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Lissa: I have the feeling you didn’t actually read what I wrote:
Yeah. That was in there. I know some people equate the two, but I take great lengths to try to separate sexual submission from objectification. That is NOT what I mean when I use the term and that is why I wrote a few paragraphs to clarify that fact.
I know this isn’t PC but I like my boyfriend to use me as a sex object, to use my body to get off without worrying that he has to make me come (because usually guys who have to make women come are just on an ego trip trying to prove that they’re desirable to women), to take me sexually when he wants to. Those things turn me on.
You know what? Those things turn me on too. I’m all about pleasing the other person, to the point where getting off isn’t really that important to me. I’m kinky and submissive. It turns my crank.
But if someone who I wasn’t in a trusting, loving relationship with tried to do those things to me, I’d be horrified. (And that goes beyond objectification — that would be rape.) If I were in a relationship and I had not confessed I was into those things and my partner tried to do that, I’d be horrified at their lack of regard for me, and that would be the end of that.
And I still think that being “used” by your partner because you enjoy it is entirely different from being masturbatory fodder for random dudes on the street against your will, from being catcalled and leered at, or from being sexually harassed, which are the things I am objecting to here. (And, again, in case it actually needed clarification, and I suspect it might — flirting with someone who seems interested is totally different from all of these things, and I’m down with that. I’m a shameless flirt, I’ll admit it. I’m not objecting to that.)
Yet another reason I’m not and never will be a ‘feminist’.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:40 am
That was a very thoughtful and insightful piece, and one with which I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Disagreeing in particular, I feel that politicians and advertisers are getting a bad rap here — seeing someone as a person and “manipulating” them in that way do not seem to me to be at all incompatible.
Just a thought — what are your thoughts on what people on the autistic spectrum should do about their sexuality? After all, as I understand it at least, the autistic mindset is really the ultimate in objectification.
Also, on a somewhat related note, what are your thoughts on good faith errors resulting from differences in judgement, resulting in turn from lack of social understanding? There are many people out there who haven’t progressed (for whatever reason, including, I suspect, the above) to the understanding that catcalls, harrassment, etc. are not acceptable ways of dealing with others. To be sure, this kind of behaviour feels objectifying to the recipient, but I’m not convinced it is always so to the originator. I say this because I was a little thrown by Anne’s comments about “creeping people out” and “saying things you’re not sure are welcome” — no matter how well you know someone platonically, revealing an attraction to them is never _sure_ to be welcome, and if I decide to approach someone, I can certainly be _seen_ as “creepy” no matter how innocent my intentions. In my experience, there is often a disconnect between the subjective experience of the originator and the subjective experience of the recipient in this regard. Maybe it’s just social awkwardness on my part, though.
Finally, to clarify your point to Plastic Druid: you are OK with someone taking pleasure from the sight of your body (”innocently”, that is) as long as they realize that you are a person also, and treat you as such? That seems to make sense to me. Is it accurate?
Well, just thought I’d throw that out there. What do you think? Thanks again for your writing.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Oops, I deleted my original thanks that I referred to at the end. So, here it is: Thank you.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Autochron - I’ve seen your comment and will try to reply to it, but I’m pretty busy!
July 10th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Not a problem. If you ever have the time, I’d love to hear what you have to say.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I agree. Sometimes I wonder if I sexually objectified my last girlfriend and if that is the reason for the breakup. I remember trying to write a semi-sexual email to her when I was away and asking her to complete the paragraph. But ultimately, I can’t think something like that would objectify her, considering I also expressed wanting to dress up and go out for a night on the town when I got back in the same email.
I think I make excuses here: 2 weeks after the breakup, in response to me politely telling her that it was too soon to be friends, and that I needed time and space to heal FOR me, not BECAUSE OF her, and that friendship would only be possible after several months of separation if I could look at her with no pain, bitterness, anger, attraction, or desire. Her response, “I understand. Let me know when you are down for a friends with benefits relationship.”
I was outraged. I felt objectified. I felt used. Considering I was already essentially a rebound, I felt like I was an inanimate object to her. I felt abused, used, belittled, devalued, degraded, denigrated, etc. I wish I had expressed my anger using those words, but instead chose “when you broke up with me you broke up with my cock. I remember when we first started dating, how we would be making out in a public park, our hands grazing each other and my lips running over parts of your body…you told me you wouldn’t want to fuck me, you’d want to make love to me. Friends with benefits is fucking. We both know I deserve more than that. I’m not going to whore myself out to you one week or one year from now.”
Ok, in hindsight that wasn’t the best way to handle the conflict, but I was incapable of being rational at that point in time. Her response was “I was just joking.”
Of course, that was either a lie because I crassly rejected her, or she was trying to hurt my feelings because I wouldn’t be her friend right away. I’ll never know. I expressed anger over her response, telling her she had no right to joke with my emotions, that FWB 2 weeks after she dumped me was mean, malignant, and cruel, and she was incredibly selfish for asking it of me. I received no response.
The last words of the first woman who told me she love me (I am 27, a late bloomer because I struggled with anxiety and depression from childhood abuse), were “I was just joking” because I crassly turned down her request to use me for sex when I was hurt and vulnerable. It’s taken me a good 6 months and I’m now ready to date, but I expect another 6 before I’ll be ready for a relationship. I felt completely used, like I was a disposable object.
I only wish I knew her real intention, if it was to try to hurt me, or if she was serious. Either way, she treated me coldly as an inanimate object; joking to hurt my feelings was objectifying too, because it is saying “I joking with your emotions and I don’t care”. What is shocking is that it wasn’t like we were hanging out and one thing led to another, that happens post breakup, but for the dumper to email the dumpee when they have specifically said “leave me alone so I can heal; I’d love to be friends but not now” and ask to be fuck buddies…that is so far over the line. Oh well, the good news is I have gotten laid twice BECAUSE of the story. But it felt so dirty, because there was no intimacy. I never felt dirty before about sex of any sort.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
The issue, as always, is consent - simple agency. The rest of this is throwing other biases around.
There are people - likely many more than you might imagine - who love to be objectified, some with the extreme goal of being temporarily made an egoless thing and entering a satori-like space. Apparently very gratifying though I confess I’ve never been there. Those people consent to be objectified (sometimes in a sexual context, sometimes not). In order to be able to do that many of them have created an entire subculture with codes of consent - and metaconsent. If you do want people to have and use free will, you have to admit their right to decide when they don’t want to be the one to decide.
Basically, free will is a can of worms.
Personally I have a lot of trouble objectifying people even in a pure fantasy context, but I also know that people are in fact flesh and blood objects with systems of thought and belief within. But I tend to fall into the trap of reifying inanimates and abstractions, which is too far the other way. It’s a spectrum between agent and object and the difficult truth is that you and everyone else are in a dynamic equilibrium somewhere along it during every interaction with the world around you - and the point of equilibrium moves. And that can become unsettling when you depend too strongly on ideals.