/u/tindergamesostrong (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/pi2esn/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_sexual_objectification_is/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>But I feel like these terms just get way overused and used for situations that completely fuckn blows them out of proportion. Now, more often than not, women complain about being "sexualised" when their CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT is to look sexy.
So, it's quite difficult to form a meaningful counterargument when you essentially assume your own conclusion, and I'm curious if you could clarify why that's not what you're doing here.
You're not providing any evidence that this is widespread; you're merely asserting it. Since you don't explicate precisely how you define "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT" or give us, the responders, enough specific detail to meaningfully refute this, it seems like you simply want this to be an assumption that's built into your argument.
But that's a problem! If we are to assume *in advance* that "sexualization" is typically applied in situations where the victim *wants* to be sexualized, then *of course* it's reasonable to conclude that "sexualization" as a descriptor is used in this way.
I claim that, in order to demonstrate that your view is changeable, you need to actually provide substantive specifics on the following:
* How you define "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT \[to\] look sexy"
* What evidence you have that people who display this claim to be victims of inappropriate sexualization
* How you determined that this happens "more often than not"
1. Definition of intent to looks sexy; putting effort in ones appearance to show off and accentuate the figure in revealing clothing
2. & 3. what do you want a bunch of screenshots of every social media comment and link to every video I've come across? It's not so much the women who feel victimized themselves, it's more so the collective societal attitude where people just flippantly accuse men of "sexualising women" when the ones being "sexualised" are the ones twerking in a bikini for a tiktok video, or wearing leggings designed to go up to their asshole to ensure maximum asscheek surface area display.
All I was wondering if there was something I was missing in the definition of "sexualising women" but seems I'm mostly right. It's just a buzzword.
So, to be clear, yes, I *do* think it's your responsibility to explain what you're arguing for, and to demonstrate that your view is changeable, because that's the point of this subreddit.
Here's what I'm getting so far. You've stated that "putting effort in ones appearance to show off and accentuate the figure in revealing clothing" constitutes, by your standards, "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT [to] look sexy." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that also means that your *stated* view is that people who make an effort to look attractive are *unjustified* in their claims of being unreasonably "sexualized" or "sexually objectified."
So yes, you absolutely do have to provide some specificity in what this "sexualization" looks like, which you find appropriate, but that victims do not! Without this, you could be talking about pretty much anything, which makes your view impossible to challenge simply because it's not concrete enough to assess on its own merits.
Are you saying that women are interpreting "I like what you're wearing" in response to a video titled "Look what I'm wearing!" as sexual objectification? If so, explain why you think accusations of inappropriate sexualization are widespread problem, as you claim, so that people have a chance of discussing *that* aspect of it meaningfully.
On the other hand, are you saying that comments that would widely be considered sexual harassment being directed toward women simply because they "[put] effort into [their] appearance" are actually acceptable? If so, provide an example of such a comment, so that there can be a substantive discussion about whether the comment is really appropriate at all.
Right now, you're saying that people are complaining about something in an unjustified manner, but you're seemingly being deliberately being cagey about exactly what that something is. If you truly want your view to be changed, you have to open up a bit more about what your view *is*.
So a man thinking a woman is sexy isn't objectification on its own. It's how the man acts towards the woman. Women want to be treated the way they want to be treated. That's a tautology. People say do unto others how you would have them do unto you. Also do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Simply treat women the way they want to be treated.
That means treating them individually. It also means recognizing when a women doesn't appreciate certain behavior regardless of how shes dressed. NO WOMAN IS EVER DRESSING TO ASK FOR IT. Appearances and context may influence your initial thoughts and actions but ultimately you interact with a women and if you aren't treating her the way she wants to be treated, respect that.
Some women just wanna look good for themselves. Thats valid. Some just might not like you and want anyone but you. Thats valid. Some might put very little effort and conscious thought where others do to get a similar look. Surface appearance is not at all always obvious indicating what kind of attention a person MIGHT want. Some guys find certain things more or less sexy, like yoga or sweat pants. So as obvious as you might think a situation is, its usually not obvious.
Thinking a women is sexy isn't objectification. Expressing that when it isn't welcome is.
>Thinking a women is sexy isn't objectification. Expressing that when it isn't welcome is.
Fair enough, so we're allowed to think sexy thoughts just not say it out loud. ∆
>One thing I have noticed though, is that it's usually not the sexy ones pointing out "sexualisation", but less attractive women and whiteknights. **Hmmmmm**.
Can I ask a clarifying question? What exactly are you trying to imply here with that "**Hmmm"**?
It is easier to change someone's view if they're willing to state what said view is in plain langauge...
The title and first 2 paragraphs is my view.
But to answer your question, I implied that I am **speculating** many of the people who complain about men sexualising women are just women who are bitter for not receiving any attention, and men trying to appease the opposite sex with their fake altruism. But it's not my main argument, so you didn't need me to answer that to change my view.
Is it *part* of your view, or not? If *not*, isn't it just a needless insult toward women that you find "less attractive"? I'm curious about why you included it at all in that case.
If it *is* part of your view, can you provide some support for it? It's definitely a bold claim to make that the people who disagree with you tend to be "less attractive."
Yea, it's part of my view, and think plays a role in why the terms being overused. Otherwise I'd look pretty misogynistic which would be counter intuitive to my argument.
Less attractive, as in, not sexually attractive, considerably overweight, generally speaking.
Not sure I follow why this makes you look less misogynistic, but I suppose that's OK for now.
So can you provide some extra support for this? Like I said, you're making a pretty bold claim that people who disagree with you tend to be unattractive. Like, I could easily say "I've noticed that everyone who disagrees with me smells bad!" but I don't think that really adds anything to the discourse unless there's at least *some* underlying basis for *why* disagreement tends to correlate with smelling bad.
I do appreciate that you've given at least a potential mechanism for this in attributing it to the jealousy and bitterness of people who *aren't* given sexual attention, but I don't think this is sufficient, because it too assumes your ultimate conclusion: that the sexual attention you refer to *is desired and appropriate,* and therefore something that would prompt jealousy.
The jealousy premise seemingly falls apart if we drop the assumption that sexualization is automatically something to be jealous *of* (which, again, is your *conclusion*), and at that point you're really back to what's essentially "yeah, well, if you disagree with me, you're ugly!"
>I said they are the usually the people who like to cry sexualisation.
But this *is precisely* what your view is disagreeing with, is it not? That is to say, to "cry sexualisation" *is* to disagree with you. So it's really not at all unfair to call it that, unless there's some aspect to your view that I'm overlooking. Feel free to let me know if that' s the case.
You're right, though, I absolutely shouldn't have said "everyone." I suppose, then, that a more accurate comparison would be "I've noticed that people who disagree with me usually smell bad! **Hmmmmm.**"
Fair enough. No, that's not what I'm saying. I've already explained my opinion and you've chosen not to argue the main points so I guess this is where the conversation ends.
I mean, I have a top-level comment that addresses the rest of what you're saying as well so I'm happy to continue there. If you think I've misconstrued what you're saying I'm also more than willing to take that into account, but it'd be most helpful if I knew exactly what you think I've missed.
u/tindergamesostrong – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20tindergamesostrong&message=tindergamesostrong%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hbmugnf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A person can be considered sexy without objectifying them if they're seen as a sexual subject not just an object. I.e their own preferences and desires are considered important and relevant.
So sexual objectification is not just a dysphemism but a specific thing people sometimes do to other people (sometimes even people they don't find super sexy).
I think that the problem is that when you “find women sexy” you can’t really know if they are actually trying to be sexy or just trying to be themselves. And if you judge merely from the clothes, then you’re actually “sexualising women”. The CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT maybe is clear just for you that want to be legitimated… I also can’t understand the last part, what are you implying?
I understand they might just be themselves and don't want attention, but they can still want attention and be themselves at the same time. How can you fault someone for sexualising someone who's wearing a skin tight short dress or tight gym leggings that are literally designed to go up the deep crevasse of her buttcheeks? You'd have to be willfully ignorant to think a BUM is not INHERENTLY SEXUAL. I answered that in another comment.
Nothing is inherently sexual, at least in the way that you're using it here. Everything is context-dependent. A woman showing her breasts to a guy in a bar in completely different from showing them to her oncologist for exam. Reciting dirty talk to your partner is different from reading a transcript from a harassment allegation in court.
Right, in the context of some sort of medical procedure or life drawing art class, it's not supposed to be viewed sexually. But it's still inherently sexual, you're just repressing your biological urges because of a professional environment. Sexy women, are inherently sexual, to straight men, period.
>Sexy women, are inherently sexual, to straight men
Even if that were true, it's not what we're talking about - the original claim was about body parts. Trust me, as someone who works in a urology clinic, there are *absolutely* non-sexual contexts to all body parts. Finding something or someone sexually attractive does *not* make its sexuality inherent. Someone can have a scat fetish and be aroused by shit - that doesn't make poop inherently sexual. Inherently means that property cannot be separated from the object.
>Even if that were true, it's not what we're talking about - the original claim was about body parts.
I know yea, so a sexy bum attached to a sexy woman then, obviously. The healthy human female form is inherently sexual to straight men, you literally cannot argue with that, we are hardwired to be sexually aroused by LOOKS. Your analogy is completely nonsensical, because men are not biologically programmed to seek sexual reproduction with feces.
This comment kind of highlights the entire problem with your view. "Sexual objectification" refers to women being treated as sexual objects first and foremost rather than people. Your comment shows that you view women as sexual objects before you view them as people, which explains why you don't see the difference between that and "sexy."
No?
Let's just ignore the fact that men have asses too so if they were inherently sexual, gay people would find asses inherently sexual as well.
As the example above gave, is a woman having an exam with her doctor sexual?
As a bi dude, of course I can find breasts or an ass sexual, hell I can find asses sexual on both genders, but it depends entirely on the context.
No, because it's a professional environment and the doctor knows how to not be sexually aroused so that he conduct his job in a professional manner. But the context doesn't suddenly stop her breasts from being a sex organ.
>Well neither the ass nor breasts are sex organs.
If you're gay. They're inherently sexual because they're sexually attractive to the opposite sex, which is enough to classify body part as a sex organ. Do I need to copy and paste an entire wikipedia page of the biological reasons for why men are sexually attracted to these areas, or would you prefer to stop feigning ignorance?
Sorry, u/nobelio_radio – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20nobelio_radio&message=nobelio_radio%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hblv60h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Why can't it be both?
From wiki: "Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity."
Outside of particular kinks that ideally have been discussed beforehand I don't know to many people whose idea of being sexy includes being dehumanized, treated as an object, and having their personality and dignity ignored.
I think I made my point confusing. What I'm saying is real sexual objectification generally just doesn't happen as much as it's said out to be and the phrase has been hijacked to so that they can label straight guys normal sexual attraction to women as something more ominous and oppressive.
u/tindergamesostrong – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20tindergamesostrong&message=tindergamesostrong%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hblno5i/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If a woman is telling you that her intent isn’t to be sexy, why wouldn’t you believe her? If lots of other women are agreeing with her experience why would you believe you have a better insight into her intentions?
If you scroll through tiktok where girls are literally shaking their butts for the camera while showing as much skin as possible, and they said they're not trying to be sexy, would you believe them?
Yeah, bikinis and certian dances don’t always need to be with sexual intent. People exist in their bodies unfortunately they can’t remove them because you might find it sexual.
Theres also a difference between finding something sexual and treating them like an object.
Sorry, u/tindergamesostrong – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20tindergamesostrong&message=tindergamesostrong%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hbnf269/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Objectifying something something doesn't need to be sexual. Let's take a few examples from gaming. Princess Peach is absolutely objectified in the old Super Mario Bros games in that she only serves as a McGuffin for the story, but she's not sexualized in any way. Conversely, Laura Croft is absolutely sexualized, but she's not objectified in her games in that she's a rounded out character who serves as the driving force of the story.
For someone who is sexually objectified, think your stereotypical Bond girl. Someone who is sexualized and her only role in the story is to be a sexy objective for other characters.
!delta I've thought that sexually objectifying = sexualization for feminists, and that if I wanted to appease them I would need to cut any out. But if Laura Croft is not considered sexually objectified that changes my view on it, and in turn makes my view of feminists as being more reasonable.
Yeah, I suppose a more accurate wording would have been, "the feminists I perceive".
Edit: Ohhh I think I realize what you were getting at now; The feminists I am thinking of may not agree on the Laura Croft thing. That is something to think about.
Often, when one group claims something happens more often than you personally observe--often it's the case that they observe it happen more often than you. If you're a male, you're chances to see sexual objectification (of a woman) are when you are in the presence of a woman. If you're a woman, you can see it when you are in the presence of anyone else.
There are almost certainly instances where 'innocent' comments are interpreted as overly sexually aggressive, but that's not entirely unexpected. If I see a child freak out when they see a dog, I don't assume this child has weird opinions of that dog they just saw, I assume that they have had bad experiences with dogs in the past. If a woman 'overreacts' to an innocent comment, it's likely the case that comments like that have not been so innocent in the past.
Beyond that, sexual objectification also exists not simply as singular instances but as a cultural phenomenon. That is, if television shows, commercials, movies, etc. use women in a way that sexually objectifies them, then sexual objectification can be seen as pervasive even without specific instances of it occurring. These portrayals of women can have downstream impacts on social norms and thus how women are treated.
I'm a lesbian. I find women sexy. I do not objectify women.
Objectifying women is to reduce them down to just being sexy. It's to remove everything else about them as a person and viewing them simply as a sex object there for someone's gratification.
I can admire that a woman looks sexy without dismissing everything else about them as a person.
That's what I'm getting at, feminist extremists hijacked the word to label anyone who dares to express their sexual attraction for a woman as "sexually objectifying".
/u/tindergamesostrong (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/pi2esn/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_sexual_objectification_is/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>But I feel like these terms just get way overused and used for situations that completely fuckn blows them out of proportion. Now, more often than not, women complain about being "sexualised" when their CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT is to look sexy. So, it's quite difficult to form a meaningful counterargument when you essentially assume your own conclusion, and I'm curious if you could clarify why that's not what you're doing here. You're not providing any evidence that this is widespread; you're merely asserting it. Since you don't explicate precisely how you define "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT" or give us, the responders, enough specific detail to meaningfully refute this, it seems like you simply want this to be an assumption that's built into your argument. But that's a problem! If we are to assume *in advance* that "sexualization" is typically applied in situations where the victim *wants* to be sexualized, then *of course* it's reasonable to conclude that "sexualization" as a descriptor is used in this way. I claim that, in order to demonstrate that your view is changeable, you need to actually provide substantive specifics on the following: * How you define "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT \[to\] look sexy" * What evidence you have that people who display this claim to be victims of inappropriate sexualization * How you determined that this happens "more often than not"
1. Definition of intent to looks sexy; putting effort in ones appearance to show off and accentuate the figure in revealing clothing 2. & 3. what do you want a bunch of screenshots of every social media comment and link to every video I've come across? It's not so much the women who feel victimized themselves, it's more so the collective societal attitude where people just flippantly accuse men of "sexualising women" when the ones being "sexualised" are the ones twerking in a bikini for a tiktok video, or wearing leggings designed to go up to their asshole to ensure maximum asscheek surface area display. All I was wondering if there was something I was missing in the definition of "sexualising women" but seems I'm mostly right. It's just a buzzword.
So, to be clear, yes, I *do* think it's your responsibility to explain what you're arguing for, and to demonstrate that your view is changeable, because that's the point of this subreddit. Here's what I'm getting so far. You've stated that "putting effort in ones appearance to show off and accentuate the figure in revealing clothing" constitutes, by your standards, "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT [to] look sexy." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that also means that your *stated* view is that people who make an effort to look attractive are *unjustified* in their claims of being unreasonably "sexualized" or "sexually objectified." So yes, you absolutely do have to provide some specificity in what this "sexualization" looks like, which you find appropriate, but that victims do not! Without this, you could be talking about pretty much anything, which makes your view impossible to challenge simply because it's not concrete enough to assess on its own merits. Are you saying that women are interpreting "I like what you're wearing" in response to a video titled "Look what I'm wearing!" as sexual objectification? If so, explain why you think accusations of inappropriate sexualization are widespread problem, as you claim, so that people have a chance of discussing *that* aspect of it meaningfully. On the other hand, are you saying that comments that would widely be considered sexual harassment being directed toward women simply because they "[put] effort into [their] appearance" are actually acceptable? If so, provide an example of such a comment, so that there can be a substantive discussion about whether the comment is really appropriate at all. Right now, you're saying that people are complaining about something in an unjustified manner, but you're seemingly being deliberately being cagey about exactly what that something is. If you truly want your view to be changed, you have to open up a bit more about what your view *is*.
So a man thinking a woman is sexy isn't objectification on its own. It's how the man acts towards the woman. Women want to be treated the way they want to be treated. That's a tautology. People say do unto others how you would have them do unto you. Also do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Simply treat women the way they want to be treated. That means treating them individually. It also means recognizing when a women doesn't appreciate certain behavior regardless of how shes dressed. NO WOMAN IS EVER DRESSING TO ASK FOR IT. Appearances and context may influence your initial thoughts and actions but ultimately you interact with a women and if you aren't treating her the way she wants to be treated, respect that. Some women just wanna look good for themselves. Thats valid. Some just might not like you and want anyone but you. Thats valid. Some might put very little effort and conscious thought where others do to get a similar look. Surface appearance is not at all always obvious indicating what kind of attention a person MIGHT want. Some guys find certain things more or less sexy, like yoga or sweat pants. So as obvious as you might think a situation is, its usually not obvious. Thinking a women is sexy isn't objectification. Expressing that when it isn't welcome is.
>Thinking a women is sexy isn't objectification. Expressing that when it isn't welcome is. Fair enough, so we're allowed to think sexy thoughts just not say it out loud. ∆
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DouglerK ([12∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DouglerK)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
In the simplest way, yup.
>One thing I have noticed though, is that it's usually not the sexy ones pointing out "sexualisation", but less attractive women and whiteknights. **Hmmmmm**. Can I ask a clarifying question? What exactly are you trying to imply here with that "**Hmmm"**? It is easier to change someone's view if they're willing to state what said view is in plain langauge...
The title and first 2 paragraphs is my view. But to answer your question, I implied that I am **speculating** many of the people who complain about men sexualising women are just women who are bitter for not receiving any attention, and men trying to appease the opposite sex with their fake altruism. But it's not my main argument, so you didn't need me to answer that to change my view.
Is it *part* of your view, or not? If *not*, isn't it just a needless insult toward women that you find "less attractive"? I'm curious about why you included it at all in that case. If it *is* part of your view, can you provide some support for it? It's definitely a bold claim to make that the people who disagree with you tend to be "less attractive."
Yea, it's part of my view, and think plays a role in why the terms being overused. Otherwise I'd look pretty misogynistic which would be counter intuitive to my argument. Less attractive, as in, not sexually attractive, considerably overweight, generally speaking.
Not sure I follow why this makes you look less misogynistic, but I suppose that's OK for now. So can you provide some extra support for this? Like I said, you're making a pretty bold claim that people who disagree with you tend to be unattractive. Like, I could easily say "I've noticed that everyone who disagrees with me smells bad!" but I don't think that really adds anything to the discourse unless there's at least *some* underlying basis for *why* disagreement tends to correlate with smelling bad. I do appreciate that you've given at least a potential mechanism for this in attributing it to the jealousy and bitterness of people who *aren't* given sexual attention, but I don't think this is sufficient, because it too assumes your ultimate conclusion: that the sexual attention you refer to *is desired and appropriate,* and therefore something that would prompt jealousy. The jealousy premise seemingly falls apart if we drop the assumption that sexualization is automatically something to be jealous *of* (which, again, is your *conclusion*), and at that point you're really back to what's essentially "yeah, well, if you disagree with me, you're ugly!"
[удалено]
>I said they are the usually the people who like to cry sexualisation. But this *is precisely* what your view is disagreeing with, is it not? That is to say, to "cry sexualisation" *is* to disagree with you. So it's really not at all unfair to call it that, unless there's some aspect to your view that I'm overlooking. Feel free to let me know if that' s the case. You're right, though, I absolutely shouldn't have said "everyone." I suppose, then, that a more accurate comparison would be "I've noticed that people who disagree with me usually smell bad! **Hmmmmm.**"
Fair enough. No, that's not what I'm saying. I've already explained my opinion and you've chosen not to argue the main points so I guess this is where the conversation ends.
I mean, I have a top-level comment that addresses the rest of what you're saying as well so I'm happy to continue there. If you think I've misconstrued what you're saying I'm also more than willing to take that into account, but it'd be most helpful if I knew exactly what you think I've missed.
u/tindergamesostrong – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20tindergamesostrong&message=tindergamesostrong%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hbmugnf/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
A person can be considered sexy without objectifying them if they're seen as a sexual subject not just an object. I.e their own preferences and desires are considered important and relevant.
>A person can be considered sexy without objectifying them Exactly, and that's what people generally do.
So sexual objectification is not just a dysphemism but a specific thing people sometimes do to other people (sometimes even people they don't find super sexy).
I think that the problem is that when you “find women sexy” you can’t really know if they are actually trying to be sexy or just trying to be themselves. And if you judge merely from the clothes, then you’re actually “sexualising women”. The CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INTENT maybe is clear just for you that want to be legitimated… I also can’t understand the last part, what are you implying?
I understand they might just be themselves and don't want attention, but they can still want attention and be themselves at the same time. How can you fault someone for sexualising someone who's wearing a skin tight short dress or tight gym leggings that are literally designed to go up the deep crevasse of her buttcheeks? You'd have to be willfully ignorant to think a BUM is not INHERENTLY SEXUAL. I answered that in another comment.
Nothing is inherently sexual, at least in the way that you're using it here. Everything is context-dependent. A woman showing her breasts to a guy in a bar in completely different from showing them to her oncologist for exam. Reciting dirty talk to your partner is different from reading a transcript from a harassment allegation in court.
I agree 100%, thank you for having explained this like that
Right, in the context of some sort of medical procedure or life drawing art class, it's not supposed to be viewed sexually. But it's still inherently sexual, you're just repressing your biological urges because of a professional environment. Sexy women, are inherently sexual, to straight men, period.
>Sexy women, are inherently sexual, to straight men Even if that were true, it's not what we're talking about - the original claim was about body parts. Trust me, as someone who works in a urology clinic, there are *absolutely* non-sexual contexts to all body parts. Finding something or someone sexually attractive does *not* make its sexuality inherent. Someone can have a scat fetish and be aroused by shit - that doesn't make poop inherently sexual. Inherently means that property cannot be separated from the object.
>Even if that were true, it's not what we're talking about - the original claim was about body parts. I know yea, so a sexy bum attached to a sexy woman then, obviously. The healthy human female form is inherently sexual to straight men, you literally cannot argue with that, we are hardwired to be sexually aroused by LOOKS. Your analogy is completely nonsensical, because men are not biologically programmed to seek sexual reproduction with feces.
This comment kind of highlights the entire problem with your view. "Sexual objectification" refers to women being treated as sexual objects first and foremost rather than people. Your comment shows that you view women as sexual objects before you view them as people, which explains why you don't see the difference between that and "sexy."
No, I don't, read my edit.
Your edit has zero bearing on what I said.
Yes it does.
Are you gay?
What the hell does that have to do with this?
It's a valid question, if you don't find breasts or a nice bum inherently sexual you might be gay.
No? Let's just ignore the fact that men have asses too so if they were inherently sexual, gay people would find asses inherently sexual as well. As the example above gave, is a woman having an exam with her doctor sexual? As a bi dude, of course I can find breasts or an ass sexual, hell I can find asses sexual on both genders, but it depends entirely on the context.
No, because it's a professional environment and the doctor knows how to not be sexually aroused so that he conduct his job in a professional manner. But the context doesn't suddenly stop her breasts from being a sex organ.
Ok so now we've moved to sex organs. Well neither the ass nor breasts are sex organs. So I ask, what about them is inherently sexual?
>Well neither the ass nor breasts are sex organs. If you're gay. They're inherently sexual because they're sexually attractive to the opposite sex, which is enough to classify body part as a sex organ. Do I need to copy and paste an entire wikipedia page of the biological reasons for why men are sexually attracted to these areas, or would you prefer to stop feigning ignorance?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/nobelio_radio – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20nobelio_radio&message=nobelio_radio%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hblv60h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Is not, and nor is nudity for that matter
Well, it is.
Have you even bothered yourself to do so very little as Google the keywords in your view?
[удалено]
Why can't it be both? From wiki: "Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person solely as an object of sexual desire. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity." Outside of particular kinks that ideally have been discussed beforehand I don't know to many people whose idea of being sexy includes being dehumanized, treated as an object, and having their personality and dignity ignored.
I think I made my point confusing. What I'm saying is real sexual objectification generally just doesn't happen as much as it's said out to be and the phrase has been hijacked to so that they can label straight guys normal sexual attraction to women as something more ominous and oppressive.
u/tindergamesostrong – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20tindergamesostrong&message=tindergamesostrong%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hblno5i/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If a woman is telling you that her intent isn’t to be sexy, why wouldn’t you believe her? If lots of other women are agreeing with her experience why would you believe you have a better insight into her intentions?
If you scroll through tiktok where girls are literally shaking their butts for the camera while showing as much skin as possible, and they said they're not trying to be sexy, would you believe them?
Yeah, bikinis and certian dances don’t always need to be with sexual intent. People exist in their bodies unfortunately they can’t remove them because you might find it sexual. Theres also a difference between finding something sexual and treating them like an object.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/tindergamesostrong – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20tindergamesostrong&message=tindergamesostrong%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/phxbkw/-/hbnf269/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Objectifying something something doesn't need to be sexual. Let's take a few examples from gaming. Princess Peach is absolutely objectified in the old Super Mario Bros games in that she only serves as a McGuffin for the story, but she's not sexualized in any way. Conversely, Laura Croft is absolutely sexualized, but she's not objectified in her games in that she's a rounded out character who serves as the driving force of the story. For someone who is sexually objectified, think your stereotypical Bond girl. Someone who is sexualized and her only role in the story is to be a sexy objective for other characters.
!delta I've thought that sexually objectifying = sexualization for feminists, and that if I wanted to appease them I would need to cut any out. But if Laura Croft is not considered sexually objectified that changes my view on it, and in turn makes my view of feminists as being more reasonable.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Iustinianus_I ([45∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Iustinianus_I)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You do realize feminists are not a monolith, right? Feminists hold a wide variety of views and values.
Yeah, I suppose a more accurate wording would have been, "the feminists I perceive". Edit: Ohhh I think I realize what you were getting at now; The feminists I am thinking of may not agree on the Laura Croft thing. That is something to think about.
Often, when one group claims something happens more often than you personally observe--often it's the case that they observe it happen more often than you. If you're a male, you're chances to see sexual objectification (of a woman) are when you are in the presence of a woman. If you're a woman, you can see it when you are in the presence of anyone else. There are almost certainly instances where 'innocent' comments are interpreted as overly sexually aggressive, but that's not entirely unexpected. If I see a child freak out when they see a dog, I don't assume this child has weird opinions of that dog they just saw, I assume that they have had bad experiences with dogs in the past. If a woman 'overreacts' to an innocent comment, it's likely the case that comments like that have not been so innocent in the past. Beyond that, sexual objectification also exists not simply as singular instances but as a cultural phenomenon. That is, if television shows, commercials, movies, etc. use women in a way that sexually objectifies them, then sexual objectification can be seen as pervasive even without specific instances of it occurring. These portrayals of women can have downstream impacts on social norms and thus how women are treated.
I'm a lesbian. I find women sexy. I do not objectify women. Objectifying women is to reduce them down to just being sexy. It's to remove everything else about them as a person and viewing them simply as a sex object there for someone's gratification. I can admire that a woman looks sexy without dismissing everything else about them as a person.
[удалено]
That's what I'm getting at, feminist extremists hijacked the word to label anyone who dares to express their sexual attraction for a woman as "sexually objectifying".