What is sexual objectification in dating?

[kaylan]

Im sure many of us have at one time or another, viewed someone in a totally sexual nature. That is to say, youve met someone you were attracted to physical, whom youd have a fling with, but you couldnt see yourself dating. I present 2 questions:

1. Does seeing someone as merely a fling mean you are sexually objectifying them? (Id say yes)

 

2. If you agree that you are sexually objectifying them, would this be sexist? Even if you dont view every person of that gender in the same fashion. (Id say no because you are viewing the PERSON as a sexual object and not [an] entire gender )

 

For those of us who has ever had flings, I think we realize that sometimes someone is attractive but not compatible with you enough to forge a relationship.

 

I ask all this because I just had a long discussion with a friend of mine who decided to brand me as a sexist because I view some women in a solely sexual nature. I told her straight up that Id say I sexually objectify THOSE women and that when I meet women I put them into columns; Friends, Fling, Possible Relationship, or Someone I dont want to know.

 

She took objection to me putting people into categories. But I told her the reality is that everyone does it. After you get to know someone, you decide how youd move forward with them, and they tend to fall into one of those columns.

 

She then went on to bring up times Ive called women a bitch, slut, or whore...all the while forgetting the times Ive called myself or other men that. Nvm the fact that shes called me a skank or whore before. But because of my male privlege, apparently I cant call women any pejoratives, or ill be branded a sexist. Even if I call men the same names.

 

What gives? Id say many of us who have ever had a fling have sexually objectified someone...but it wouldnt make them sexist. And its not sexist to call someone a skank or slut if youre applying it to both genders. But of course my friend wouldnt acknowledge her confirmation bias and how she cant remember me calling guys out of name.

 

Discuss.

[dasein]

1. Depends on the arrangement and the other person's stated desires. If both parties are seeking a purely sexual experience (fling), I don't think "objectifying" is the right term to describe that. It's just two people wanting only sex from each other, not dehumanizing at all, the opposite in fact, both giving what the other wants.

 

If one person wants only sex and the other wants a full relationship, and both parties are aware of the variance in desire, and both remain honest, who is objectifying whom? Why must it always be the person who desires sex who is engaging in dehumanizing behavior? Wouldn't devaluing another's stated desire for sex only in favor of one's own broader agenda also qualify as objectification? If not, why not?

 

If both parties are aware of the variance, and one of the parties lies or pretends to be onboard with whatever, but is secretly using the other for their own agenda, and has no intention of following through with meeting the others' desires, maybe that could be considered objectifying.

 

I guess IMO, objectification must accompany some level of dishonesty or insincerity to be a valid characterization.

 

2. Of course not sexist, whatever "sexist" means in this context.

 

You can probably tell where I'm going with this, and not going to spoil your thread right out of the gate, don't worry.

 

Will just leave it at beating around the bush a little, and see what others say, with the statement of opinion that I dislike the terms "objectification," and "sexist." They have highly slanted, specific uses, generally -manipulative- uses, and also very pronounced double standards attached to their use. Other words accomplish the task those words seek to more accurately without the inherent slant.

[dasein]

One other thing I wanted to add. "Objectification" is one of those mental illness words like "narcissism," that has a specific meaning relating to a sociopathic condition of being incapable of feeling empathy for human beings as humans, but rather viewing them as mere objects. That this is the origin of a word that is overused as a pejorative against certain attitudes simply adds to its slant factor.

[verhrzn]

Look at the root word in objectifying; "object." If you see someone in a purely sexual way... as in you don't see them as a person, with feelings, or thoughts, or wishes/hopes/dreams, but merely as something to further your own pleasure.... that is reducing them from a complex human to a sexual object. Thus, it is the very definition of "objectifying."

 

I've said this multiple times before, but here it is again: humans are both profoundly saintly and deeply demonic. Sometimes the things that pop into people's heads are twisted and weird. Sexual objectifying is, I think, a thing humans do.... just like we all occasionally have fantasies of beating to a bloody pulp the guy who cut us off in traffic.

 

There is nothing wrong with having thoughts in which you sexually objectify someone. But, when those thoughts extend to words, behaviors, actions, that's when sexual objectification goes from being a natural part of being human to being wrong/sexist/predatory/etc.

 

Have there been people I viewed in purely a sexual nature? In my head, yes. But as is the decent human thing to do, I have not TREATED them that way. I have had conversations with them, cared about them as more than just a squishy bag of sexy organs.

 

Ironically, in treating a sexual object as a person, they then become a person and cease to be just a sexual object.

 

As to you calling both men and women sluts.... well, that's nice, but you're ignoring social context. You may call both men and women sluts, but in Western society, men are still glorified for getting sex (thus the obsession with losing one's virginity you see on random Internet boards) whereas women are villified. You can't remove the context from your words. Words have meanings and implications. When you call a man a "slut," your audience understands it a certain way (for men, 'slut' does not necessarily carry a negative connotation.) But when you call a woman a 'slut,' you inevitably call to mind the cultural baggage of woman + sex = BAD.

 

Your friend may indeed be rather hypocritical, but that doesn't mean her point is entirely moot. If you're going to brandish around certain loaded terms, you need to fully understand the weapon you are carrying.

 

The more I came to understand the history, the baggage, and the implications behind words like "slut" and "whore," the less I used them. I never call other women sluts, though I did in my high school days.

 

Sit down and really really think about what you're saying and conveying when you call a man a slut, and when you call a woman a slut. Why are you using the word "slut" at all, instead of a different word, a different phrase? What meaning are you trying to get across? The "why" of the term "slut" is where cultural customs and privilege really start to show.

[kaylan]

^With a fling, I recognize the person has feelings and thoughts. However I dont really care about their feelings or thoughts past that night we have together. And as long as Im upfront with them about my intentions, I know I wont have to feel bad about doing anything detrimental to their feelings.

 

I wont treat a girl like a bag of dirt, but there are some girls Ive wanted to have sex with and that be that. Ill be a nice guy and all of that, but I wont want them to be more than someone I have sexy times with. This is just for those rare times where Ive had flings with someone I didnt know too well.

 

PS - btw, I used slut to reference someone who sleeps around rather indiscriminately, male or female. I find both to be dirty. Im not one to give props to a guy who sleeps around. Especially since most guys Ive known who have slept around, tend to have really unsafe and dirty sexual histories.

Edited November 2, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

My answers to this are similar to yours. I don't think there's anything wrong with the sexual objectification done in the first case (flings) as long as it is mutual and honest. It's not my cup of tea, but it can be others', and I respect that.

[yongyong]

Especially when guys are at a bar, we use binary code.

 

0: bang

1: don't bang

[MrCastle]

There are a lot of terms thrown around out there to make people feel guilty of their lifestyle.

 

I date multiple women at a time. I don't lie to them about it. They are aware I'm multi-dating. If they're looking for a relationship I point them to the exit. I don't lie, I don't lead them on. I promise them a fun, passionate short term experience. Anything other than that, they have to look elsewhere. I have protected sex every single time. I don't objectify women or disrespect them in any way. I love women. Plural. Women, not woman. Which is why I want to date around. I'm young, I want to have my (honest and safe) fun.

 

There are some people out there that aren't going to connect with you on any level beyond the physical. Just because I choose to enjoy just the physical with said people doesn't mean I don't respect them or objectify them.

[sweetkiwi]

you don't need to have profound respect and love for every person you have sex with. Thats just strange for most people. I have done this with guys i'm sure. Maybe some of my ex's would've been better off just as a fling. Instead of dragging out the relationship part for too long.

 

As long as both parties are in it for fun i don't see the problem. I am a woman and i have been used this way before. It hurts. Really bad. If they had been honest and said- listen i just really want to have sex with you. I could've acted accordingly.

 

As for seeing someone only in a sexual way, i do not think it is sexist, and i do not think it is objectification unless it s done to nearly all members of that sex.

 

I want to **** adrian brody. And johnny depp. I don't want to marry them or have weekends in aspen with them. I want to be tied up and have them do very bad things to my body. But i'm not sexist. I'm merely an honest person.