Objectification (sexual, etc.)

[Marcus]

These guys routinely want to know "stats" (data involving height, weight and various details about genitalia, etc.). And that's fine, I suppose, but these venues tend to be saturated exclusively in the language of bodies, body parts and sexual acts -- with little mention of … well, of anything else.

I think it's fantastic; it's something I've always admired about the way at least some portion of the gay male community functions. They break down the pretense of making small talk, and get straight to the point. They don't make any apologies for having purely sexual interests (why should they?), and figured out constructive platforms to find one another.

The fact that they can openly display what they want and don't want, to skip some of the necessary embarrassing missteps, just makes me want to hi-five the whole damned community. I see this as something they should flaunt around town and path themselves on the back for.

 

[River]

They don't make any apologies for having purely sexual interests (why should they?), and figured out constructive platforms to find one another.

I don't know what "purely sexual interests" are. More specifically, I cannot blithely segregate sexual feeling or sexual acts from all of that which for some is peskily tainting "purely sexual interests".

For me, sexual activity is inevitably and unavoidably bound together with … well, everything else which makes up my humanity -- feelings, cares, fears, desires … but especially with intimacy (when intimacy is not being employed as a euphemism for "purely sexual interests."

There is a potentially useful analogy which comes to mind. In the field of massage and bodywork there is growing recognition that "when you touch the body you are touching the soul." Here, I use the word soul as roughly synonymous with "psyche," and I am not treating psyche as synonymous with "brain," nor leaving the sacred dimension of psyche out. Nor am I adopting a traditional religious frame for "soul". I'm especially not using soul to refer to some ostensibly immaterial or otherworldly magical fairy dust. And I'm fully aware of the fact that in our current dominant culture people simply don't talk the way I am, nor think or feel the way I do.

I had a wonderful dream last night in which I met a new friend, a young woman, with whom I communed in mutual movement and touch (but not sex)…; we danced together and we touched some. The soul dimension of our intimate communion was SO satisfying because we mutually recognized one another's embodiment as soulful.

I worry that our current dominant culture is literally losing its soul.

But I have no problem with expressing preferences about body types, or even the shape and size of genitals. What causes us to lose our soul in sex is when we fail to see one another as ensouled, or as soulful beings. This may sound like a throwback to superstition and pre-scientific nonsense, of course. But I don't reject the knowledge of science. I simply frame it in a world which is rich in poetry, soul, psyche … soulfulness. In the world in which I live, bodies are not merely mechanical hunks of meaningless meat or chemicals. And yet I subscribe to evolutionary biology for human origins, not myths such as those found in Genesis.

There is, in fact, another world, but it is to be found in this very world.

The soul is real, alive and everywhere present for those with eyes to see it, hands and skin to touch it, a heart with which to feel it. But "it" is not an ideal word. There is nowhere where it ain't. We are swimming in … um... not "it".

 

[River]

I believe this objectification is a part of capitalism and pinkwashing very relevant struggles and replacing them with glibness and shiny products.

We are experiencing the rise of narcissism and the decay of capitalism. We deal with people as if they are really commodities. No wonder objectification is there.

Yes, the ever increasing reduction of the human imagination into the thoughts and feelings most conducive to totalitarian capitalism and neoliberalism certainly seems to be a major driver to the increasingly rampant desacralization which is objectification of humans.

I find it strange that I've been almost forced by circumstance to repeat words like "sacred" and "desacralization" (and "soul") so often these days, as a secularist and a naturalist. But there seem to be few words so nearly apt as these. But few people these days know how to unpack these old words in the new wine skin in which I serve them up here. Which really freaks me out, honestly!

 

[dingedheart]

As a bi man, I've been often rather astonished at how little discussion one can find, or participate in, anywhere, about sexual objectification in the gay/bi/queer male milieu. One can find plenty -- from feminists and feminism -- about this problem in the het milieu. In the gay/bi/queer male milieu objectification of persons not only tends (it seems to me) to be regarded as "normal" for that milieu, but quite expectedly so. "That's just they way men/guys are" we are generally encouraged to believe.

In modern capitalist industrial 'cultures' (societies) the objectivization of of persons is more and more accepted as "normal," generally. Those who have a problem with it are regarded as the "abnormal ones" consequentially. Our problem with such objectification is held in suspicion, as if we had some kind of mental or emotional disorder.

Do I exaggerate? I wish I were. I really do. But in my experience the objectification of persons is becoming -- rather rapidly -- culturally normalized while its alternatives are becoming regarded as a silly relic of a forgone epoch.

Question: could the gay/ bi / queer culture be an example of the chicken and egg theory. I remember probably 20 yrs ago getting caught up inside the Chicago pride parade route and back then it was all about sexual objectification. I have no idea what those parades are like today but back then it was be as outrageous and naked as you can be without have the cops involved. I’m sure the cops were told to leave the participants alone. Anyway my point is if the culture is that was that back then it’s being taught and perpetuated. It’s like fraternity hazing. It doesn’t change til someone dies....or people stop joining.

 

[Marcus]

I cannot blithely segregate sexual feeling or sexual acts from all of that which for some is peskily tainting "purely sexual interests".

Sounds like you've got your thing all figured out. Rock on with your bad self.

I think it's awesome that people are bold enough to live their lives and flip a bird to people who judge them and try to drag them down into some kind of political slap fight. That is the daring expression that makes the world beautiful and gives it soul.

 

[ElMango]

There is a potentially useful analogy which comes to mind. In the field of massage and bodywork there is growing recognition that "when you touch the body you are touching the soul." .

As a massage therapist, I can say science has proven that deep tissue massage creates an emotional release in people. You are literally connecting to peoples emotions through their bodies.
I have had clients have a strong emotional trauma release on my table. The body-mind connection is real, science says so, and it is strong.

So it is absolutely fair to say that many people would find having their minds discounted for not having a long enough penis or big enough boobs at the very least insulting. Being discounted automatically would suck.

I also believe that, due to the pervasive sexualization, and objectification of people; as well as having online dating (speed dating, from home!), that we, as a society, have become way more picky and not in a good way. Having a preference is one thing; I prefer to have dates be taller than me (I'm 4'11 so it isn't hard), but I wouldn't automatically discount someone shorter or the same height as me. B is much more thicc than I honestly usually am attracted to. I usually go from a string bean rather than a bear. But, I got to know him an LOW AND BEHOLD I found him very attractive.
In t he end, no one can force you to find someone sexually attractive, but being so blunt about it feels at best tacky and honestly, a little less aware of how society affects our preferences. As well as verry limiting on our life experiences.

 

[FallenAngelina]

I worry that our current dominant culture is literally losing its soul.

You only cut yourself off from the joy of it all when you worry about the perceived dominant culture. If you want to have soulful, sexual exchanges then have them. Who gives a fig what other people are doing? Your experience of sex (or poetic cuddling or whatever you like) is always going to be what you draw to yourself, no matter what other people are up to. I have participated in a good number of sex parties during which I experienced a great deal of soulful connection. Bisexual men openly adoring other men, included. It's liberating and refreshing to experience actual sex-positivity, which includes freedom from the usual political fears and perceived constraints handed out by both conservatives and liberals. Soulful, poetic, sexual connection happens when we are open to it - and worrying about the so-called dominant culture is not being open. Looking for evidence of our fears is not being open. Blaming the wider culture for our frustrations is not being open, despite claims that we are. Go beyond whatever you perceive others to be limiting for you and you will find it.

 

[River]

You only cut yourself off from the joy of it all when you worry about the perceived dominant culture. If you want to have soulful, sexual exchanges then have them. Who gives a fig what other people are doing? Your experience of sex (or poetic cuddling or whatever you like) is always going to be what you draw to yourself, no matter what other people are up to. I have participated in a good number of sex parties during which I experienced a great deal of soulful connection. Bisexual men openly adoring other men, included. It's liberating and refreshing to experience actual sex-positivity, which includes freedom from the usual political fears and perceived constraints handed out by both conservatives and liberals. Soulful, poetic, sexual connection happens when we are open to it - and worrying about the so-called dominant culture is not being open. Looking for evidence of our fears is not being open. Blaming the wider culture for our frustrations is not being open, despite claims that we are. Go beyond whatever you perceive others to be limiting for you and you will find it.

Thing is, F.A., I've been open and available.

The so-called "law of attraction" is just so much magical thinking. In scientific terms, I've run the experiments and gotten my results. People are not the way they are because of how I am. They are the way they are because of how they are.

I "ran my experiments" with an open mind and heart. Maybe things are different where you live than they way they are where I live. But things really simply are the way they are around here. It has nothing to do with me, any more than weather or climate is a reflection of my thoughts or beliefs.

 

[River]

PS -

F.A.,

My thoughts and concerns about the larger society are not all about me, by the way. As a very serious student of human ecology, ecological design and related topics and fields (I write on these topics), I have naturally developed a habit of thinking of everything in socio-cultural terms. We as individuals simply are, for the most part, a product of our enculturation -- at least to a very large extent. What is possible and not possible for us, and what is likely to happen or not in our lives, will be largely decided by what's going in in the society in which we are embedded.

I can believe in and wish for magical rainbow flying unicorns all day long and never actually find a living, breathing example of one. If I do find one -- and if especially if it is pooping Skittles, I'll prolly check myself in for psychiatric evaluation.

 

[ref2018]

If you don't like how it is where you live, then move. Science experiments need to be repeated in various settings, with various researchers and subjects in order for the results to be considered valid and reliable anyway. Start packing up, professor. You got your work cut out.

 

[ElMango]

If you don't like how it is where you live, then move. Science experiments need to be repeated in various settings, with various researchers and subjects in order for the results to be considered valid and reliable anyway. Start packing up, professor. You got your work cut out.

But it is fairly well known that objectification happens in almost every society; so like...where to?

I've experienced being objectified and it sucks; I've still had successful relationships. That doesn't make the objectification I experienced null and void.

 

[ref2018]

But it is fairly well known that objectification happens in almost every society; so like...where to?

IDK... It could begin with wherever Fallen Angelina lives.

It isn't about proving that "objectification occurs everywhere", it's about proving/disproving that *only* objectification occurs *everywhere*. It's all part of the scientific experiment that River is conducting. I'm just over here observing the process, sort of like an IRB, except I'm not internal and I'm not a board. I want to make sure the results of the experiment are meaningful so they can be peer-reviewed and published someday, properly. There has been far too little research conducted in this area, and I'm glad that someone is finally giving it the attention it deserves, studying it in such a systematic and thorough way. Although, I'm afraid that my degree is in the physical sciences, not the social sciences, so YMMV.

 

[ElMango]

IDK... It could begin with wherever Fallen Angelina lives.

It isn't about proving that "objectification occurs everywhere", it's about proving/disproving that *only* objectification occurs *everywhere*. It's all part of the scientific experiment that River is conducting. I'm just over here observing the process, sort of like an IRB, except I'm not internal and I'm not a board. I want to make sure the results of the experiment are meaningful so they can be peer-reviewed and published someday, properly. There has been far too little research conducted in this area, and I'm glad that someone is finally giving it the attention it deserves, studying it in such a systematic and thorough way. Although, I'm afraid that my degree is in the physical sciences, not the social sciences, so YMMV.

Ohhhh! Sorry for the confusion on my part! That makes sense now.

 

[Martinus]

No idea how this works for other people. But when I see an attractive person I like to look at the body of this person, like an object of beauty. This does not mean I can't respect the person for who he or she is but most of the time I just don't know this person and have no means of meeting them.
When I meet someone who I think of as beautiful it can be I don't like this person for who he /she is.
When I meet some one I don't think of as especially beautiful and I meet this person. Im might like him /her very much and get romantic feelings for him /her.

Attraction in a romantic way for me is more a thing of the mind than of the body.

Still in the first meeting you always judge some ones appearance.
This also happens in professional settings I think.

Its quite normal to look and speak about people as objects think about people like the plumber the baker the nurse the doctor you not talking about the person but about the thing he she does.

Its a problem when people are being treated as an object. As we have seen in history slavery concentration camps and as we still see now a days In violence against minorities violence against women etc.

 

[FallenAngelina]

What is possible and not possible for us, and what is likely to happen or not in our lives, will be largely decided by what's going in in the society in which we are embedded.

If you're happy with your dating and sexual life, then just stay with this way of thinking. If you're not, well, change is always available to you. Your choice. For myself, life is what I make it, not the other way round. Beside which, if your assertion were true, precious few among us would have opted for polyamory.

 

[River]

IDK... It could begin with wherever Fallen Angelina lives.

It isn't about proving that "objectification occurs everywhere", it's about proving/disproving that *only* objectification occurs *everywhere*. It's all part of the scientific experiment that River is conducting. I'm just over here observing the process, sort of like an IRB, except I'm not internal and I'm not a board. I want to make sure the results of the experiment are meaningful so they can be peer-reviewed and published someday, properly. There has been far too little research conducted in this area, and I'm glad that someone is finally giving it the attention it deserves, studying it in such a systematic and thorough way. Although, I'm afraid that my degree is in the physical sciences, not the social sciences, so YMMV.

It should probably be obvious from what I said that I was not literally running a scientific experiment on objectification. I was simply using the concept "science" to differentiate my general way of understanding human experience, thus contrasting my approach with F.A.'s approach. F.A. has said (now years ago) in the forum that she likes to hear from her friend, Abraham Hicks on matters of causation in human lives.

Who is Abraham Hicks? Widipedia says, "According to Esther and Jerry Hicks, "Abraham" consists of a group of entities which are "interpreted" by Esther Hicks. Abraham have described themselves as "a group consciousness from the non-physical dimension". They have also said, "We are that which you are. You are the leading edge of that which we are. We are that which is at the heart of all religions." Abraham has said through Esther that, whenever one feels moments of great love, exhilaration, or pure joy, that is the energy of source and that is who Abraham is."

Abraham talks endlessly about the so-called "law of attraction," and F.A. is a true believer in this L.O.A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought)

The LOA is a supernaturalist viewpoint. When I said I am more likely to think scientifically about such matters, I basically said I tend to understand the world in naturalistic terms. I hope the distinction is well understood here, even though it may be a bit vague and uncertain in some of its minute particulars and details. Naturalists like me are not interested in supernaturalist explanations about causation.

I really, really like F.A., who I find to be generally a very kind, warm, intelligent person. We only seem to clash when it comes to her supernaturalism (magical thinking) and her subscription to supernatural beings in the far away invisible realm in which Abraham dictates His Divine Vision through His spokesperson, Esther.

I believe it is wrong and dangerous to subscribe to magical thinking, especially of the kind advanced by this Invisible Sky Being named Abraham. It turns otherwise adult humans into little fairy godchildren who believe their very thoughts cause the weather and other natural phenomenon.

If you don't quite know what I mean, obviously, you are not in The Vortex.: https://youtu.be/1-4TqHp2BnE

Here Abraham is basically saying that the supernatural (your vibration) creates the natural world as it is. https://youtu.be/oOPCBmAz74A … but first you have to strap crystals to your skull and really, really believe while clicking your heels together and saying "There is no place like home".

More on Abraham: https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/ten-reasons-i-no-longer-trust-esther-hicks-and-abraham

https://youtu.be/NxBXlbUYbSI (You can't make this stuff up!)


Okay, enough already.

I love F.A. It is only in this supernaturalistic nonsense that we seem to differ at all!

 

[River]

Question: could the gay/ bi / queer culture be an example of the chicken and egg theory. I remember probably 20 yrs ago getting caught up inside the Chicago pride parade route and back then it was all about sexual objectification. I have no idea what those parades are like today but back then it was be as outrageous and naked as you can be without have the cops involved. I’m sure the cops were told to leave the participants alone. Anyway my point is if the culture is that was that back then it’s being taught and perpetuated. It’s like fraternity hazing. It doesn’t change til someone dies....or people stop joining.

I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg. An evolutionary biologist would probably explain that they co-emerged together as parts of a singular process in something kindred to co-evolution. LOL. (I giggle 'cause co-evolution usually is evoked to describe different species in evolutionary process together.)

I do know why the chicken crossed the road, however. She crossed the road to reclaim the eggs which were stolen from her nest. (Duh!)

One only has to explore the intricate history of gay folks prior to Stonewall to begin to grasp how intensively shame has been involved in the experience and development of gay people prior to Stonewall. Shame remains a problem for a LOT of gay folks, too. And so it is not such a wonder that when a class of people who have formed a human identity around shame and shaming about their sexual orientation would want to flaunt it with rainbows and naked sparklers and glitter in broad daylight as a way of undoing the black magic perpetrated against them for centuries. Happily, I don't need the sparklers or glitter. But I can relate. It's just not my thing.

 

[FallenAngelina]

I'm not sure why you devolved into all of that, River, but suffice to say that you take no issue with what I actually wrote.

 

[River]

I'm not sure why you devolved into all of that, River, but suffice to say that you take no issue with what I actually wrote.

I do take issue with what you actually wrote.

If you're happy with your dating and sexual life, then just stay with this way of thinking. If you're not, well, change is always available to you. Your choice. For myself, life is what I make it, not the other way round. Beside which, if your assertion were true, precious few among us would have opted for polyamory.

You're saying that I get to choose the kind of society I'm living in, whereas I say the kind of society I'm living in is a product of a historical process which I can influence to some extent, but that extent is made somewhat small on account of my being only one person a world with about 7.66 billion people, a nation with about 325.72 million, etc.

So I'm not a passive and irrelevant, discrete observer. I do have influence on historical events and processes. But I don't have a magical wand I can wave which can alter -- just for me -- the world in which I dwell. It really is the way it really is. And it really can change if many of us change our minds and perceptions -- and actions. But it won't change simply for me because I think or feel differently about it.

You may have heard the phrase "spiritual bypassing". It is something which applies not only to individuals but also to whole societies. When large numbers of people employ the methods of spiritual bypassing they do so as a collective influence in which the actors influence others to adopt the very same approach to life. This rightly worries me.

 

[River]

PS -

In other words, if in fact we create our own realities / worlds with our thoughts and feelings (as the "Law of Attraction and Abraham Hicks has it) then there is no valid reason for social and historical knowledge or "intervention" or "engagement". All of that would be irrelevant and absurd. The individual would be the "creator of their own reality" through thoughts and feelings (and/or 'vibrations').

But if the Law of Attraction isn't really how things work, and things actually work in the naturalistic way I propose (by complex historical processes and systems which we can know and understand -- to some extent), then we're actually responsible for not only our own lives but also the lives of others -- human and otherwise, into the deep future. The seeds we plant today are the harvest we will reap in the future, in other words. Not just for ourselves personally but for future generations of Earth inhabitants.

So it's rather important that we get this correct and don't simply adopt a belief on account of "it feels good".