NationStates

Kobeanare wrote:

Galloism wrote:Or, perhaps men don't show their self-consciousness in the same way.

Or, perhaps men would have spoken for five minutes when not being objectified, and three minutes when being objectified, but we don't know because they capped talking time at two minutes.

Bottle wrote:

Rumbria wrote:Of course attraction is objectification. It's the fundamental reason that objectification is not always wrong, and the best example of how the term has been mutilated into a buzzword.

Close, but wrong.

The problem is that people (incorrectly) equate sexualization with objectification. This is, incidentally, another way you can tell that the OP of this thread is an anti-feminist troll. He's sniping at the many feminists who have discussed, at length, how objectification is harmful and how sexual relationships between men and women are especially poisoned by it. But he has, like so many others before him, mistakenly read this as an indictment of SEXUALIZATION.

The reality is that lots of objectification doesn't involve sexualization, and lots of sexualization doesn't involve objectification. Attraction doesn't necessarily require objectification; indeed, for many of us, objectification tends to be a bit of a boner-killer. Feminists have been discussing this for decades because, duh, feminists tend to think it would be nice if we could have heterosexual relationships without one or both of the participants being objectified.

If you like the idea of having sex with another person, an actual real person, then none of this should bother you. You should, indeed, be interested in learning more. But if you prefer the Doesn't Matter; Had Sex school of thought, you're probably going to be pissed at all the stupid thinking and talking you'll have to do in order to interact with your sex-receptacle as if it were a real live being.