I'm stepping out of character for a moment.

[Annata Cannata]

Jessi Danger

Annata Cannata

Using comic books (or general storytelling) as an example, I'd say that sexualization would be the the sex appeal of a character playing a part in the story line. Like a main character falling in love with another character or a character being a stripper or something. Objectification is more like a "Big Lipped Alligator Moment" where for some reason a character has to be flashing a near nude body constantly and do that weird pose that shows both boobs and butt cheeks (or when someone flat out traces a porn pic- thats what Spiderwoman looks like). This will most likely have nothing to do with the storyline, personality or the character's job (see Sonya Blade's primary outfit from MK9). The nude outfits and crazy poses might even hinder the character in real life. Its strange be cause you'll rarely see other characters react to it, theres never an actual explanation and no one brings it up again.

Well the problem here is Spiderwoman's a** drawing is a ....

1) A variant cover (Not the actual cover)

2) Theres depictions of the male Spiderman in the same pose that was released over a decade ago and nobody gave a s**t.

3) The comic artist Milo Menera (SP?) Is known for a more erotic and more "naked with paint on" art style.

4) The artist himself even stated that he draws people as if they are wearing body paint as it allows one to depict each individual muscle and contour on a body. Spiderman, Superman ect are all basically depicted naked and painted some color.... Spandex doesn't EVER fit that way.

5) Also Milo is a great artist with 45 years experience, a wonderful art style, and a lot of fans.... why hate on the art simply because the cause celebre now is being School Marms?

Seriously, her cheeks were way more spread out than Spiderman's. Also there was a lot more wrong with the picture than the obvious porn influence. Heres some corrections someone made for it, in case you haven't seen it. I haven't viewed the rest of his art, but this isn't very impressive.

[Jessi Danger]

Annata Cannata

Jessi Danger

Annata Cannata

Using comic books (or general storytelling) as an example, I'd say that sexualization would be the the sex appeal of a character playing a part in the story line. Like a main character falling in love with another character or a character being a stripper or something. Objectification is more like a "Big Lipped Alligator Moment" where for some reason a character has to be flashing a near nude body constantly and do that weird pose that shows both boobs and butt cheeks (or when someone flat out traces a porn pic- thats what Spiderwoman looks like). This will most likely have nothing to do with the storyline, personality or the character's job (see Sonya Blade's primary outfit from MK9). The nude outfits and crazy poses might even hinder the character in real life. Its strange be cause you'll rarely see other characters react to it, theres never an actual explanation and no one brings it up again.

Well the problem here is Spiderwoman's a** drawing is a ....

1) A variant cover (Not the actual cover)

2) Theres depictions of the male Spiderman in the same pose that was released over a decade ago and nobody gave a s**t.

3) The comic artist Milo Menera (SP?) Is known for a more erotic and more "naked with paint on" art style.

4) The artist himself even stated that he draws people as if they are wearing body paint as it allows one to depict each individual muscle and contour on a body. Spiderman, Superman ect are all basically depicted naked and painted some color.... Spandex doesn't EVER fit that way.

5) Also Milo is a great artist with 45 years experience, a wonderful art style, and a lot of fans.... why hate on the art simply because the cause celebre now is being School Marms?

Seriously, her cheeks were way more spread out than Spiderman's. Also there was a lot more wrong with the picture than the obvious porn influence. Heres some corrections someone made for it, in case you haven't seen it. I haven't viewed the rest of his art, but this isn't very impressive.

Well, nobody can exactly copy and paste the exact same a** over and over. It might not be impressive to you, but then again we are aren't expected to share your aesthetic taste. As for your link, again we are in a battle of aesthetic taste. This artists art style is fairly provocative as is. He draws basically characters naked with paint on them so he can show off as much body detail as possible because honestly spandex suites look really shitty.

To you this isn't impressive, to me it is very impressive. The pose, if it has any porn influence, then the one Spiderman is in 10 years ago must have the same ******** influence because its the same damn pose. Were was the schoolmarm brigade then?

[Hehekea]

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Amecha

this ******** image.

That hurt my soul.
I need a white mage.

[Project 429]

Amecha

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

[Project 429]

Also, where are you all getting these definitions? Seriously.

[Hehekea]

Project 429

Amecha

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

[Project 429]

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

So hand models are objectified, too?

[Hehekea]

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

So hand models are objectified, too?

No. I'm not sure if your purposely trying to find a flaw in the idea of objectification or you actually can't connect the dots, although I can see this train of thought happening somewhat naturally but no, hand models are not objectified under normal circumstances. The major difference with this is whats being sold or shown is ON the hand, not the hand itself.
Hand models are selling rings, showing off nail polish, etc. Just like women who model clothing are showing off the thing they're selling, clothes. You aren't buying the woman's hand, you're buying whats on it.
With the double boob psvita ad, the point was they were selling you a toy, an object that is "JUST LIKE HAVING BOOBIES ON BOTH SIDES" because breasts are obviously TOYS regardless of being attached to a human being with free will. Because a PSVita doesn't have the ability to give you consent to play with it.
With models they are selling you something, clothes/rings/nail polish/jewelry/etc. Not the woman with the product. She has nothing to do with the product.
With both the PSVita ad and any ad of a woman wearing clothes the woman isn't supposed to be seen as a unique individual person, so it can be seen as objectification however, the major difference with it is that with a normal model she is supposed to be a stand in for the buyer to show off how attractive/whatever they're going to look. With objectified models they are there to be seen as a parallel to the product being sold, thus making them an object.

[Project 429]

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

So hand models are objectified, too?

No. I'm not sure if your purposely trying to find a flaw in the idea of objectification or you actually can't connect the dots, although I can see this train of thought happening somewhat naturally but no, hand models are not objectified under normal circumstances. The major difference with this is whats being sold or shown is ON the hand, not the hand itself.
Hand models are selling rings, showing off nail polish, etc. Just like women who model clothing are showing off the thing they're selling, clothes. You aren't buying the woman's hand, you're buying whats on it.
With the double boob psvita ad, the point was they were selling you a toy, an object that is "JUST LIKE HAVING BOOBIES ON BOTH SIDES" because breasts are obviously TOYS regardless of being attached to a human being with free will. Because a PSVita doesn't have the ability to give you consent to play with it.
With models they are selling you something, clothes/rings/nail polish/jewelry/etc. Not the woman with the product. She has nothing to do with the product.
With both the PSVita ad and any ad of a woman wearing clothes the woman isn't supposed to be seen as a unique individual person, so it can be seen as objectification however, the major difference with it is that with a normal model she is supposed to be a stand in for the buyer to show off how attractive/whatever they're going to look. With objectified models they are there to be seen as a parallel to the product being sold, thus making them an object.

-.-

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas. That is called critical thought. The ideas that stand up to the strenuous examination are the ones worth keeping and the ones that do not are the ones that are discarded. I would defend any idea I have now indefinitely if the person asking the questions was acknowledging the responses.

You're still not being very clear to me, by the way. Is objectification a relationship between the product and the consumer or the individual and the product? Is the advertising company doing the objectifying or is the consumer? Is objectification a direct action or can you objectivity through implication alone? Are all instances of not seeing someone as a unique person objectification?

I really, really want some academia on this. I've been asking for academia for days and I've gotten nothing which is making the entire concept increasingly dubious to me.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

So hand models are objectified, too?

No. I'm not sure if your purposely trying to find a flaw in the idea of objectification or you actually can't connect the dots, although I can see this train of thought happening somewhat naturally but no, hand models are not objectified under normal circumstances. The major difference with this is whats being sold or shown is ON the hand, not the hand itself.
Hand models are selling rings, showing off nail polish, etc. Just like women who model clothing are showing off the thing they're selling, clothes. You aren't buying the woman's hand, you're buying whats on it.
With the double boob psvita ad, the point was they were selling you a toy, an object that is "JUST LIKE HAVING BOOBIES ON BOTH SIDES" because breasts are obviously TOYS regardless of being attached to a human being with free will. Because a PSVita doesn't have the ability to give you consent to play with it.
With models they are selling you something, clothes/rings/nail polish/jewelry/etc. Not the woman with the product. She has nothing to do with the product.
With both the PSVita ad and any ad of a woman wearing clothes the woman isn't supposed to be seen as a unique individual person, so it can be seen as objectification however, the major difference with it is that with a normal model she is supposed to be a stand in for the buyer to show off how attractive/whatever they're going to look. With objectified models they are there to be seen as a parallel to the product being sold, thus making them an object.

-.-

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas. That is called critical thought. The ideas that stand up to the strenuous examination are the ones worth keeping and the ones that do not are the ones that are discarded. I would defend any idea I have now indefinitely if the person asking the questions was acknowledging the responses.

You're still not being very clear to me, by the way. Is objectification a relationship between the product and the consumer or the individual and the product? Is the advertising company doing the objectifying or is the consumer? Is objectification a direct action or can you objectivity through implication alone? Are all instances of not seeing someone as a unique person objectification?

I really, really want some academia on this. I've been asking for academia for days and I've gotten nothing which is making the entire concept increasingly dubious to me.

Objectification involves the reduction of a person to something which is only for achieving a specific goal (e.g. giving someone sexual pleasure). Hand models are not often objectified because displays of hand are often impersonal. To see a hand on screen or a page doesn't, usually, suggest there is an individual or group of people who only exist to fill one specific task.

There isn't a clear relationship which defines all instances of objectification. In all contexts that you mention, objectification may occur. Or, in all those context, it may not occur. It is always down to the particular relationship between a person, how they view themselves and how they area viewed by others. Sometimes, in any of those context, objectification may both occur and not occur.

Let's say, for example, that I admire how attractive my partner is. Is this objectification? Well, it depends what I am doing and thinking. Do I consider this a role my partner is meant to play? Do I consider this as a measure of my success? Do I just want to respect my partner for what they are? If the answer is only the last one, then the answer would be no, for I have not thought of my partner as some object which exists to give me something. On the other hand, if the answer one of both of the first two, even if the third one is also true, I am engaged in objectification of partner.

Now let's say I am talking about my partner with my friends and mention how attractive they are. Is this objectification? Well, that depends on why I am talking about it with my friends and how they respond. If I am a speaking about how attractive my partner is to gain social currency, I am objectifying them. If I am speaking about how attractive my partner is to, with my friends, share the sexual satisfaction that having an attractive partner has, I am objectifying them. The only way I can describer how attractive my partner is, without objectifying them, is if I am giving a description so they are respected and recognised for the person they are and should be.

This is not the whole picture though. Even if my motivations avoid objectification, it does not necessarily mean my statements will. My friends listening to my description of my partner will respond in a particular way. While I might have avoided thinking my partner as an object, it doesn't necessarily mean my friends won't. As a result of me giving my description, my friends might objectify my partner as either a measure of my success and/or a well of sexual pleasure. Even if I to not objectify my partner in motivation, my statement might well do so due to how other respond to it. To spot when objectification is present, someone cannot not simply look at how any one individual responds to a situation. They have to examine how someone related to others and how others relate to them.

Project 429

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas.

Your question doesn't make sense with respect to that context. Whether or not hand models are objectified is not a critical examination of sexual objectification at all. Just because, for example, the presentation of hands in advertising is rarely sexualised and objectifies a person or group, it says nothing about whether the identification of sexual objectification in other advertising is accurate. Amecha is correct in pulling you up on ignoring objectification.

The only way something which is rarely involves objectification of someone (e.g. hand models) could act to point out a flaw in an argument about objectification is if you assume the instances of advertising cited for objectification are the same as those involving hand models. Such an argument completely ignores the advertising cited as objectifying.

To actually make a coherent critical argument in that vein, you would have to examine the instances of advertising claimed to be objectifying and the argue they were not (i.e. they were like most instances of hand models), rather than just assume one form of advertising was the same as another.

[Hehekea]

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Sexualization is showing the lead actress in a movie in a pointlessly sexual outfit just to make her look sexual on the billboard for the movie.
Objectification is using a picture of her a** only as a billboard for the movie she's staring in, completely cutting out her face or any indication of the human behind the oh so glorious a**.

The first makes her overly sexual for no reason, the second makes her a decapitated a** for the sole purpose of being an a**, aka, an object.

This is hands down the best example I can give for objectification: this ******** image.
It isn't about a woman with a face or a name. It is entirely about her breasts and the fact that they are there to be played with and only to be played with as a displaced object. It implies that there is no woman attached to those breasts with free will. There is no woman to say no, I don't wish to be touched. Only a toy in which you can pick up and play with at your beck and call. She is a toy, and object.

So it's impossible to objectify something without being sexual?

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

So hand models are objectified, too?

No. I'm not sure if your purposely trying to find a flaw in the idea of objectification or you actually can't connect the dots, although I can see this train of thought happening somewhat naturally but no, hand models are not objectified under normal circumstances. The major difference with this is whats being sold or shown is ON the hand, not the hand itself.
Hand models are selling rings, showing off nail polish, etc. Just like women who model clothing are showing off the thing they're selling, clothes. You aren't buying the woman's hand, you're buying whats on it.
With the double boob psvita ad, the point was they were selling you a toy, an object that is "JUST LIKE HAVING BOOBIES ON BOTH SIDES" because breasts are obviously TOYS regardless of being attached to a human being with free will. Because a PSVita doesn't have the ability to give you consent to play with it.
With models they are selling you something, clothes/rings/nail polish/jewelry/etc. Not the woman with the product. She has nothing to do with the product.
With both the PSVita ad and any ad of a woman wearing clothes the woman isn't supposed to be seen as a unique individual person, so it can be seen as objectification however, the major difference with it is that with a normal model she is supposed to be a stand in for the buyer to show off how attractive/whatever they're going to look. With objectified models they are there to be seen as a parallel to the product being sold, thus making them an object.

-.-

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas. That is called critical thought. The ideas that stand up to the strenuous examination are the ones worth keeping and the ones that do not are the ones that are discarded. I would defend any idea I have now indefinitely if the person asking the questions was acknowledging the responses.

You're still not being very clear to me, by the way. Is objectification a relationship between the product and the consumer or the individual and the product? Is the advertising company doing the objectifying or is the consumer? Is objectification a direct action or can you objectivity through implication alone? Are all instances of not seeing someone as a unique person objectification?

I really, really want some academia on this. I've been asking for academia for days and I've gotten nothing which is making the entire concept increasingly dubious to me.

It seemed more like a mental gymnastic rather than intentionally looking for flaws, but like I said, I can also see how this train of thought could happen. I just tend to give up on debating when reasonable flaws turn into being forced to explain things as though I'm explaining it to a three year old. (Ending up in a childish "but why" "because I said so" argument.) So that was just me being on guard about that cause I'd rather not waste my time doing that.

As for objectification, its something media does that by viewing it you get pulled into. Its more I would say a relationship between the product and the consumer because the way the advertisement or what have you presents the human body forces the viewer to see the woman/man as a product. The consumer isn't purposely objectifying the human, but in a way being forced to view it that way by the way its presented. Even if you know to see past it. And no, not all instances of not seeing someone as a unique person counts as objectification.

There is artistic nude which the entire point of it is to remove the individual from the image, your not supposed to be looking at a man/woman with a face, name, ideas, thoughts, your supposed to be viewing this persons body as an artistic representation of the human body with no other clutter. I couldn't really say this is objectification because the person depicted in the image isn't being turned into an object. The point of objectification is to turn the human shown into an object in which you would enact your will onto. Instances of using parts of the human body for ads is fine in and of itself, but once the human body is the product in which you are trying to buy, or comparing the human body to the product you are reducing the human who has said body parts to nothing but an object. That human is nothing but that one part of his or her body that is desired, they are wanted merely for that one piece of their body and the rest of them is optional.

You might say using an image like this isn't objectification because the woman's legs aren't whats being sold, nor are they being compared to whats being sold, but in this case the legs are obviously being used as objects, specifically table legs so I don't really think I'd need to explain why using a human body part as an object is objectification.

Edit: What The Willow Of Darkness said. They are much better at stating their point than I am.

[Project 429]

The Willow Of Darkness

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

Amecha

Objectification tends to naturally come with sexualization from what I've noticed, but its not impossible. Imagine the same PSVita ad but instead of breasts its feet for some god damn reason, that's not necessarily sexualization unless its meant only for people with a foot fetish. So no, objectification doesn't always have to include sexualization but it almost always will because when humans are objectified it always breaks down to "how can I use this sexually?".

So hand models are objectified, too?

No. I'm not sure if your purposely trying to find a flaw in the idea of objectification or you actually can't connect the dots, although I can see this train of thought happening somewhat naturally but no, hand models are not objectified under normal circumstances. The major difference with this is whats being sold or shown is ON the hand, not the hand itself.
Hand models are selling rings, showing off nail polish, etc. Just like women who model clothing are showing off the thing they're selling, clothes. You aren't buying the woman's hand, you're buying whats on it.
With the double boob psvita ad, the point was they were selling you a toy, an object that is "JUST LIKE HAVING BOOBIES ON BOTH SIDES" because breasts are obviously TOYS regardless of being attached to a human being with free will. Because a PSVita doesn't have the ability to give you consent to play with it.
With models they are selling you something, clothes/rings/nail polish/jewelry/etc. Not the woman with the product. She has nothing to do with the product.
With both the PSVita ad and any ad of a woman wearing clothes the woman isn't supposed to be seen as a unique individual person, so it can be seen as objectification however, the major difference with it is that with a normal model she is supposed to be a stand in for the buyer to show off how attractive/whatever they're going to look. With objectified models they are there to be seen as a parallel to the product being sold, thus making them an object.

-.-

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas. That is called critical thought. The ideas that stand up to the strenuous examination are the ones worth keeping and the ones that do not are the ones that are discarded. I would defend any idea I have now indefinitely if the person asking the questions was acknowledging the responses.

You're still not being very clear to me, by the way. Is objectification a relationship between the product and the consumer or the individual and the product? Is the advertising company doing the objectifying or is the consumer? Is objectification a direct action or can you objectivity through implication alone? Are all instances of not seeing someone as a unique person objectification?

I really, really want some academia on this. I've been asking for academia for days and I've gotten nothing which is making the entire concept increasingly dubious to me.

Objectification involves the reduction of a person to something which is only for achieving a specific goal (e.g. giving someone sexual pleasure). Hand models are not often objectified because displays of hand are often impersonal. To see a hand on screen or a page doesn't, usually, suggest there is an individual or group of people who only exist to fill one specific task.

There isn't a clear relationship which defines all instances of objectification. In all contexts that you mention, objectification may occur. Or, in all those context, it may not occur. It is always down to the particular relationship between a person, how they view themselves and how they area viewed by others. Sometimes, in any of those context, objectification may both occur and not occur.

Let's say, for example, that I admire how attractive my partner is. Is this objectification? Well, it depends what I am doing and thinking. Do I consider this a role my partner is meant to play? Do I consider this as a measure of my success? Do I just want to respect my partner for what they are? If the answer is only the last one, then the answer would be no, for I have not thought of my partner as some object which exists to give me something. On the other hand, if the answer one of both of the first two, even if the third one is also true, I am engaged in objectification of partner.

Now let's say I am talking about my partner with my friends and mention how attractive they are. Is this objectification? Well, that depends on why I am talking about it with my friends and how they respond. If I am a speaking about how attractive my partner is to gain social currency, I am objectifying them. If I am speaking about how attractive my partner is to, with my friends, share the sexual satisfaction that having an attractive partner has, I am objectifying them. The only way I can describer how attractive my partner is, without objectifying them, is if I am giving a description so they are respected and recognised for the person they are and should be.

This is not the whole picture though. Even if my motivations avoid objectification, it does not necessarily mean my statements will. My friends listening to my description of my partner will respond in a particular way. While I might have avoided thinking my partner as an object, it doesn't necessarily mean my friends won't. As a result of me giving my description, my friends might objectify my partner as either a measure of my success and/or a well of sexual pleasure. Even if I to not objectify my partner in motivation, my statement might well do so due to how other respond to it. To spot when objectification is present, someone cannot not simply look at how any one individual responds to a situation. They have to examine how someone related to others and how others relate to them.

Project 429

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas.

Your question doesn't make sense with respect to that context. Whether or not hand models are objectified is not a critical examination of sexual objectification at all. Just because, for example, the presentation of hands in advertising is rarely sexualised and objectifies a person or group, it says nothing about whether the identification of sexual objectification in other advertising is accurate. Amecha is correct in pulling you up on ignoring objectification.

The only way something which is rarely involves objectification of someone (e.g. hand models) could act to point out a flaw in an argument about objectification is if you assume the instances of advertising cited for objectification are the same as those involving hand models. Such an argument completely ignores the advertising cited as objectifying.

To actually make a coherent critical argument in that vein, you would have to examine the instances of advertising claimed to be objectifying and the argue they were not (i.e. they were like most instances of hand models), rather than just assume one form of advertising was the same as another.

Not that this isn't the best post in the thread so far, but I asked about hand models purposefully to detach the sexuality from the concept of objectification. I intentionally avoided the more obvious example - fashion models or cosmo-esque modeling which is woman on woman objectification. And to make a pre-emptive attack against what I think your counter-argument might be : homely models would not sell product directed toward women. The same applies for men, too.

I'm not trying to scuttle the idea. I'm trying to understand -- quite clearly what it is and what it isn't. The scuttling comes after and in another thread or on another day.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

Project 429

The Willow Of Darkness

Project 429

Amecha

Project 429

So hand models are objectified, too?

No. I'm not sure if your purposely trying to find a flaw in the idea of objectification or you actually can't connect the dots, although I can see this train of thought happening somewhat naturally but no, hand models are not objectified under normal circumstances. The major difference with this is whats being sold or shown is ON the hand, not the hand itself.
Hand models are selling rings, showing off nail polish, etc. Just like women who model clothing are showing off the thing they're selling, clothes. You aren't buying the woman's hand, you're buying whats on it.
With the double boob psvita ad, the point was they were selling you a toy, an object that is "JUST LIKE HAVING BOOBIES ON BOTH SIDES" because breasts are obviously TOYS regardless of being attached to a human being with free will. Because a PSVita doesn't have the ability to give you consent to play with it.
With models they are selling you something, clothes/rings/nail polish/jewelry/etc. Not the woman with the product. She has nothing to do with the product.
With both the PSVita ad and any ad of a woman wearing clothes the woman isn't supposed to be seen as a unique individual person, so it can be seen as objectification however, the major difference with it is that with a normal model she is supposed to be a stand in for the buyer to show off how attractive/whatever they're going to look. With objectified models they are there to be seen as a parallel to the product being sold, thus making them an object.

-.-

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas. That is called critical thought. The ideas that stand up to the strenuous examination are the ones worth keeping and the ones that do not are the ones that are discarded. I would defend any idea I have now indefinitely if the person asking the questions was acknowledging the responses.

You're still not being very clear to me, by the way. Is objectification a relationship between the product and the consumer or the individual and the product? Is the advertising company doing the objectifying or is the consumer? Is objectification a direct action or can you objectivity through implication alone? Are all instances of not seeing someone as a unique person objectification?

I really, really want some academia on this. I've been asking for academia for days and I've gotten nothing which is making the entire concept increasingly dubious to me.

Objectification involves the reduction of a person to something which is only for achieving a specific goal (e.g. giving someone sexual pleasure). Hand models are not often objectified because displays of hand are often impersonal. To see a hand on screen or a page doesn't, usually, suggest there is an individual or group of people who only exist to fill one specific task.

There isn't a clear relationship which defines all instances of objectification. In all contexts that you mention, objectification may occur. Or, in all those context, it may not occur. It is always down to the particular relationship between a person, how they view themselves and how they area viewed by others. Sometimes, in any of those context, objectification may both occur and not occur.

Let's say, for example, that I admire how attractive my partner is. Is this objectification? Well, it depends what I am doing and thinking. Do I consider this a role my partner is meant to play? Do I consider this as a measure of my success? Do I just want to respect my partner for what they are? If the answer is only the last one, then the answer would be no, for I have not thought of my partner as some object which exists to give me something. On the other hand, if the answer one of both of the first two, even if the third one is also true, I am engaged in objectification of partner.

Now let's say I am talking about my partner with my friends and mention how attractive they are. Is this objectification? Well, that depends on why I am talking about it with my friends and how they respond. If I am a speaking about how attractive my partner is to gain social currency, I am objectifying them. If I am speaking about how attractive my partner is to, with my friends, share the sexual satisfaction that having an attractive partner has, I am objectifying them. The only way I can describer how attractive my partner is, without objectifying them, is if I am giving a description so they are respected and recognised for the person they are and should be.

This is not the whole picture though. Even if my motivations avoid objectification, it does not necessarily mean my statements will. My friends listening to my description of my partner will respond in a particular way. While I might have avoided thinking my partner as an object, it doesn't necessarily mean my friends won't. As a result of me giving my description, my friends might objectify my partner as either a measure of my success and/or a well of sexual pleasure. Even if I to not objectify my partner in motivation, my statement might well do so due to how other respond to it. To spot when objectification is present, someone cannot not simply look at how any one individual responds to a situation. They have to examine how someone related to others and how others relate to them.

Project 429

You're supposed to intentionally look for flaws in ideas.

Your question doesn't make sense with respect to that context. Whether or not hand models are objectified is not a critical examination of sexual objectification at all. Just because, for example, the presentation of hands in advertising is rarely sexualised and objectifies a person or group, it says nothing about whether the identification of sexual objectification in other advertising is accurate. Amecha is correct in pulling you up on ignoring objectification.

The only way something which is rarely involves objectification of someone (e.g. hand models) could act to point out a flaw in an argument about objectification is if you assume the instances of advertising cited for objectification are the same as those involving hand models. Such an argument completely ignores the advertising cited as objectifying.

To actually make a coherent critical argument in that vein, you would have to examine the instances of advertising claimed to be objectifying and the argue they were not (i.e. they were like most instances of hand models), rather than just assume one form of advertising was the same as another.

Not that this isn't the best post in the thread so far, but I asked about hand models purposefully to detach the sexuality from the concept of objectification. I intentionally avoided the more obvious example - fashion models or cosmo-esque modeling which is woman on woman objectification. And to make a pre-emptive attack against what I think your counter-argument might be : homely models would not sell product directed toward women. The same applies for men, too.

I'm not trying to scuttle the idea. I'm trying to understand -- quite clearly what it is and what it isn't. The scuttling comes after and in another thread or on another day.

The discintion between objectification and sexuality is what one side you were talking about in the OP was trying to do. They were trying to point a difference between sexual objectification and some displays sexuality. The anti-booty party was trying to say that, by opposing this instance of sexual objectification, they weren't necessarily against women displaying sexuality, just against women being displayed as sexual objects.

Detaching sexuality will miss the point here, for it won't deal with the issue of concern. In the OP, the point of concern is whether a sexual display (Spiderwoman's arse) is objectification, not what constitutes objectification sans anything sexual. To try an identify objectification sans sexuality will never be able to describe either what constitutes objectification within sexual displays. It won't ever point out what makes a given instance of a sexual display objectification (and how other sexual displays avoid being objectification).

As for other forms of objectification you mention, it would not matter if the sold or not. Who and how much such images sell has no relevance to the presence or absence of objectification in that instance. A magazine, for example, could present homely models (I wouldn't be surprised if their was a niche publication which did exactly that) as a pinnacle of beauty and it would still be objectification, no matter how large their market was.