hmm yeah i’ve a bit of trouble with the whole concept of “objectifying” because what does that really mean?
in my view, people are always both objects and subjects at the same time. it’s like people have a body and a mind at the same time, because only having 1 of the 2 would be pointless.
I think you might be taking the term a bit too literally. When people say objectifying, they don’t mean acknowledging or sexualizing their body. They mean reducing a person to just their body or sexual function, as if their mind, feelings, and autonomy don’t matter.
It’s when the body is treated as all there is. Think of the 1950s and '60s, women were often seen as existing primarily for reproduction or male pleasure, not as full people with their own goals, thoughts, or boundaries.
Sex positivity, by contrast, says: bodies are great, sex is great, but the other person remains a subject, someone with consent, desires, and dignity of their own. You can appreciate the body without erasing the person.
huh i think that’s a good explanation actually. i’ve had similar thoughts myself but didn’t have the words for it so i called it “sexism II” (which you call “sex positivity”) to differentiate it from “sexism I” (sexism). It might be silly but i didn’t know how else to express myself.
I also think that it’s noteworthy that the “reduction to a function” is something that happened to basically everyone in 1960, not just to women. Men were just as much “reduced” to being the “breadwinner”, which is a function as well. I think that’s not talked about as much because men don’t tend to talk about “being reduced to a function” as much. Some kind of “society forbids to complain” or sth.
Good point. I recently went to see a stand up comedian. And while the rest of the audience was laughing I remained silent. I was focused on what exactly is the meaning of what the comedian was saying.
3 … 2 … 1 … before it causes a shitstorm about sexualizing women
Honestly I find Lemmy to be generally sex positive as long as you don’t objectify.
hmm yeah i’ve a bit of trouble with the whole concept of “objectifying” because what does that really mean?
in my view, people are always both objects and subjects at the same time. it’s like people have a body and a mind at the same time, because only having 1 of the 2 would be pointless.
I think you might be taking the term a bit too literally. When people say objectifying, they don’t mean acknowledging or sexualizing their body. They mean reducing a person to just their body or sexual function, as if their mind, feelings, and autonomy don’t matter.
It’s when the body is treated as all there is. Think of the 1950s and '60s, women were often seen as existing primarily for reproduction or male pleasure, not as full people with their own goals, thoughts, or boundaries.
Sex positivity, by contrast, says: bodies are great, sex is great, but the other person remains a subject, someone with consent, desires, and dignity of their own. You can appreciate the body without erasing the person.
huh i think that’s a good explanation actually. i’ve had similar thoughts myself but didn’t have the words for it so i called it “sexism II” (which you call “sex positivity”) to differentiate it from “sexism I” (sexism). It might be silly but i didn’t know how else to express myself.
I also think that it’s noteworthy that the “reduction to a function” is something that happened to basically everyone in 1960, not just to women. Men were just as much “reduced” to being the “breadwinner”, which is a function as well. I think that’s not talked about as much because men don’t tend to talk about “being reduced to a function” as much. Some kind of “society forbids to complain” or sth.
*objectifying
People that lead miserable empty lives can never grasp that something is just a joke
ehh, i tend to think that there’s meaning in a lot of jokes
Good point. I recently went to see a stand up comedian. And while the rest of the audience was laughing I remained silent. I was focused on what exactly is the meaning of what the comedian was saying.