Skip to main content

View Diary: Sexual Objectification Is Not Your Sexuality (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I took from the context (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, rduran

    that the "shame culture" was in the form of pushback against rape culture -- that he imagines that there's an entire culture shaming people for engaging in "harmless" behavior that these shamers accuse of promoting rape culture.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:53:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The harmless behavior in this context (0+ / 0-)

      is the choice to offer yourself up for purely carnal enjoyment, and the choice to be excited by the offer or not.  The shaming, of course, are judgments passed on both parties for indulging themselves.  

      •  While that exists, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs

        that is not the subject of the diary; at least I think not. In the context in which you presented it, it struck me as an effort to cast those opposed to rape culture as puritans and scolds.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 07:33:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From the diary: (0+ / 0-)
          It's taking people and turning them into display stands to showcase a product. It’s about showing only one body part instead of the whole person. It’s photoshopping models until they are basically nothing more than a cheap cartoon to sell crap you don't need anyway. It's the attitude that people don't have the right to say "No" to sexual contact. It's the idea that some people are just pieces of meat to be picked up, humped, and then dumped.  It’s summing up a person in terms of body parts (e.g. “I don’t care if she won the Nobel Peace Prize, I just want to see her tits.” Or “Check out the ass on that hunk of man-meat! Whoot!”)
          It's difficult to read this paragraph without concluding that otherwise acceptable inclinations are being lumped in with that of the sexual batterers.  

          It's perfectly okay not to give two hoots about a willing partner's life achievements if all either one of you is looking for is a good diversion.  And there's nothing unhealthy or disrespectful at all about interacting with others on a purely physical wavelength.  But most importantly, it is puritan scolding to conflate a desire for nothing more than superficial sexual relationship with the rape culture.

          •  You're reading that excerpt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethtriggs

            in a manner inconsistent with its obvious intent. And the way you phrased it betrays that fact -- to wit: "If all either one of you is looking for is a good diversion." You're describing casual sex by mutual consent. You are NOT describing exploitive sex, where one partner but not the other is looking for a "[piece] of meat to be picked up, humped, and then dumped."

            It's also impossible to interact with others on a purely physical wavelength unless consent doesn't matter. Because communication about consent means, necessarily, a mental/emotional interaction that requires respect for the wishes of your partner, and recognition of their fundamental humanity. To not do that is exactly the mindset required to commit rape.

            Which is the opposite of the description in the diary, and the excerpted quote you provided by the diarist.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 07:53:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe I'm missing something (0+ / 0-)

              But I'm pretty sure I'm defending the mutual desire to "pick up a piece of meat, hump it and dump it."

              And I think you overly romanticize the degree of intimacy required to communicate consent.  I'd point to sex workers and adult entertainers as counterpoint.  Is "okay, let's get paid!" the mindset required to commit rape?

              •  Yes, you're pretty sure you're missing something (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sethtriggs

                because you're defending the mutual desire for casual sex, a fling, a one-night stand -- against someone who's not attacking it.

                Romanticize? Pssht. No. I've been around the block too many times to romanticize consent. (Though I've no experience with sex workers, which is even LESS romantic.) But you oversimplify human interaction. If the interaction were entirely physical and not and all emotional, there'd be no difference between that kind of sex and masturbation.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:15:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's the point (0+ / 0-)

                  It isn't different from masturbation for some people. There's plenty of variety in masturbation itself for that matter.   And that should be okay so long as consent is mutually exchanged.

                  •  "...so long as consent is mutually exchanged." (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sethtriggs

                    So why in the actual fuck are you going on about this since neither the diarist, nor I, have said anything contrary to that position?

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:27:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                      because the diary initially lumped in a rapist attitude with ones that are legitimately held by the people I just described.  Also, because I do disagree with you that consent requires some degree of mental/emotional interaction beyond "hey, let's fuck."

                      •  No, the diary did not. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sethtriggs

                        It expressly, clearly, strongly did not. That is entirely your projection onto the diary, and I'm starting to wonder why you're clinging to it so tenaciously.

                        That you're also clearly, distinctly, and overtly misrepresenting what I said only furthers that wonder. Any seeking of consent requires a non-physical interation, full stop, which means you cannot have consensual sex which is purely physical as you wrongly claimed.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:49:40 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Again (0+ / 0-)
                          It's taking people and turning them into display stands to showcase a product. It’s about showing only one body part instead of the whole person. It’s photoshopping models until they are basically nothing more than a cheap cartoon to sell crap you don't need anyway. It's the attitude that people don't have the right to say "No" to sexual contact. It's the idea that some people are just pieces of meat to be picked up, humped, and then dumped.  It’s summing up a person in terms of body parts (e.g. “I don’t care if she won the Nobel Peace Prize, I just want to see her tits.” Or “Check out the ass on that hunk of man-meat! Whoot!”)
                          You have six sentences there which express perfectly legitimate attitudes.  You have one sentence there that describes the view of a rapist, or a sexual batterer at the very least.  Show me I'm wrong.

                          Unless you're defining physical interaction in a way differently than I am, in which "physical" is just another way of saying "carnal," then I have no idea why you assert some other interaction is necessary to request and give consent.  Can you be more specific?

                          •  "You have six sentences there which express (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sethtriggs

                            perfectly legitimate attitides."

                            Aaaand there we are at the center of the shrubbery maze -- and the takeaway is that you don't get it. You don't understand what is meant by rape culture. You don't understand objectification. And you don't understand existing in a culture that bombards us with these attitudes in ways we don't even see much of the time and what that does to us.

                            So that's that, then.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:07:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then we clearly aren't in agreement (0+ / 0-)

                            Because the only way those six attitudes contribute to the rape culture is through their condemnation by scolds on both sides.  

                          •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sethtriggs

                            You're completely wrong. Because you don't get it; you lack some of the relevant information and perspectives to get it.

                            I ask you to take some time to read and learn about rape culture, male privilege, and their interactions with sexuality, and perhaps solicit the diarist and some others to provide you with some resources, but I have my doubts you'll agree to do so. However, who knows. Maybe in the days to come, you might give it a whirl, and do so.

                            Either way, I think we've exhausted the utility of this exchange.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 12:25:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know if I'm entirely right (0+ / 0-)

                            but I do know that there's no point in continuing a discussion with someone who prefers to pack up their marbles and go home rather than explain themselves.  And generally, if you want someone to do homework, it helps if you at least outline what precisely you want them to research.

                          •  There's nothing more to explain. (0+ / 0-)

                            You've rejected all explanations provided and cling to your misconceptions. I recognize futility when I see it, and I've given you a brief outline of topics to learn about (rape culture, male privilege, their interactions with sexuality), which of course you don't recognize. Futility.

                            Have a nice evening.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 05:23:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't get to just make things up (0+ / 0-)

                            You started this tangent spoiling for a fight.  You were apparently disappointed when  you didn't get to have one, so you tried to start another.  And when presented with facts, you threw your hands up and declared your opponent just didn't get whatever point you hadn't even bothered to make.

                            So no, you haven't explained a damned thing.  It's obvious you never intended to. And with that, good evening.

                      •  From what I gather in the diary... (0+ / 0-)

                        That sort of assault dynamic is yet another consequence of objectification. In a number of cultures, it presents itself as "This is [whatever type of person that has to submit to sex no matter their feelings], I need to get off, I'm going to grab this person and they're going to like it or lump it." It is actually a very common thing.

                        That's actually also where sex and adult entertainment workers get objectified and from time to time abused. People just doing their job but sustaining unwanted gropes and harassment because they have 'cute bodies' and "hey I get to see your parts as a course of your job. Well you should submit to being fondled by me too."

                        •  Adult entertainers and sex workers (0+ / 0-)

                          are certainly more vulnerable to harassment and abuse than their peers.  My point is that there is a difference between "I want to see you naked" and "I want to see you naked and if you don't accede then I'm going to heap such and such abuse upon you."

                          Of those seven depictions of objectification the diarist chose to make her point, only one belongs in that second category.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site