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.
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.