Your argument seems to be that if I treat my car badly, and don't maintain it properly, that I've objectified the car. What if I treat the car the opposite; wash and wax it, change the oil regularly, keep it clean, etc.? Have I still objectified it? — 3017amen

Yes. A car IS an object - it has no agency, so whether you treat it with care or not is not the issue. A woman, however is a human being, and so expects to be treated as someone who has a right to choose the way that she interacts with you. When you fail to do that, you objectify her.

I ask once again, how do we escape our world of material objects and associated judgments? — 3017amen

We escape the world of material objects and associated judgements by recognising agency where it exists. Aesthetic appreciation can be achieved without denying agency, without objectifying. Regardless of whether your focus has been guided by aesthetics to her breasts or you went there all on your own, those breasts are part of a whole person who deserves to be treated as such. That you know that, and simply choose to ignore, it is objectification.

Yes. A car IS an object - it has no agency, so whether you treat it with care or not is not the issue. A woman, however is a human being, and so expects to be treated as someone who has a right to choose the way that she interacts with you. When you fail to do that, you objectify her. — Possibility

The car has material agency, hence, so does the woman (and man).

We escape the world of material objects and associated judgements by recognising agency where it exists. — Possibility

But how do we escape material agencies?

Aesthetic appreciation can be achieved without denying agency, without objectifying. — Possibility

I would suggest rephrasing that to say 'without denying mental agency.'

That you know that, and simply choose to ignore, it is objectification. — Possibility

It's not that one is choosing to ignore it, it's that one is choosing to acknowledge both mental and material agency.

Possibility, this whole debate is based on a flawed outlook in the OP which unfortunately chose to frame it a certain way that makes the choice seem black or white. The assumption is that wearing a certain style of clothing warrants being seen as an object. Obviously there are many reasons for wearing the clothing. One of them could be to feel good wearing the clothing as to exemplify what the culture deems as attractive (and thus what one has enculturated as attractive). This of course blends into what makes one prefer anything at all.. It is preference- one likes that look.. one took one's own aesthetic choices, often enculturated from broader archetypes, blending it with one's individual tastes often based on those broader ideas. Or it could be a signal to others that one wants to present as aesthetically attractive or sexually attractive. None of this limits, overshadows, or denies any other aspects of that person's agency or being. I think most people recognize this, which is why I am trying to steer the conversation more towards things like "What makes someone or certain traits attractive in the first place?" which to me is fertile ground for philosophical ideas.

I was thinking about your comments on roles and culture.

I remember once walking behind a family on the beach and they had a young boy around the age of ten or twelve with them. Ahead of them were a couple of girls sunbathing topless. As he went past the boy could not stop looking, nothing would have stopped him.

The thing is if he had grown up with girls around him going topless he probably wouldn’t have looked twice at them. So just because they’re naked breasts doesn’t make it sexual. Which makes me think of my comments about the African women who embellish their bodies. Their breasts are exposed all the time, so I’m guessing they don’t have great meaning sexually in terms of looking. But the embellishments obviously does have some meaning in that sense.

If a young boy growing up around topless women took their appearance for granted then doesn’t it suggest that the appeal in looking isn’t learned or cultural. (Though it could be said it’s cultural by the environment he was raised in). But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference?

The boy sees the things that make the difference. Maybe this is part of the confusion for heterosexuals with homosexuals, they don’t understand not being drawn to difference.

The habits and so called cultural norms are sort of pasted on top of those perceptions and shock of the differences.

This has not turned out as well as my thoughts, but I hope the gist of it is there.

If a young boy growing up around topless women took their appearance for granted then doesn’t it suggest that the appeal in looking isn’t learned or cultural. (Though it could be said it’s cultural by the environment he was raised in). But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference? — Brett

This is consistent with Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion. By my understanding, information is ‘the difference that makes a difference’, and increasing our capacity to integrate information (awareness, connection and collaboration) in balance with limited energy resources and continual effort and attention requirements is what conceptualises our reality. We look because it’s different, and we strive to understand different, because it helps us to predict our interaction with reality.

Here’s a thought: what if, when a boy is caught staring with fascination at topless women, he is taught to make the association with the concept ‘female’ instead of simply ‘breasts’? Or he is not made to feel ashamed of this fascination with difference, but guided in his understanding that breasts are a normal aspect of being a woman?

The thing is if he had grown up with girls around him going topless he probably wouldn’t have looked twice at them. So just because they’re naked breasts doesn’t make it sexual. Which makes me think of my comments about the African women who embellish their bodies. Their breasts are exposed all the time, so I’m guessing they don’t have great meaning sexually in terms of looking. But the embellishments obviously does have some meaning in that sense. — Brett

Yes, exactly.

But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference? — Brett

I did mention that perhaps it's because these body parts are the "other". But that gets diminished with exposure, as you are saying too, so if this was something seen again and again, it wouldn't matter. It's something usually taboo, known to be covered in adults, and even by then some cultural elements of its broader significance is still there. It's not about cultural aesthetics, but its significance. This is something known to be private that now is not. That is something that would shock people initially.

It's something usually taboo, known to be covered in adults, — schopenhauer1

Does there have to be a reason behind what is taboo that we understand? Can’t we just go with the idea that somehow parts of the body in different cultures become taboo. Though that word is so loaded I feel uncomfortable with it.

The boy seeing the bared breasts that were so radically different from him or his male friends then finds that they disappear behind clothing and are later revealed, but not completely, through the cut of clothing or type of clothing. There’s a powerful sense of curiosity sublimated there. He’s never going to forget that powerful sensation of difference that his culture diverts into something else. So his curiosity does become entangled with ideas of concealment and desire.

Here’s a thought: what if, when a boy is caught staring with fascination at topless women, he is taught to make the association with the concept ‘female’ instead of simply ‘breasts’? — Possibility

Because who wants a society that wants that sort of control over a person?

And without breasts the girls look no different from him or his friends.

Edit: just as an added complication; in the age of trans gender breasts no longer mean female.

Does there have to be a reason behind what is taboo that we understand? Can’t we just go with the idea that somehow parts of the body in different cultures become taboo. Though that word is so loaded I feel uncomfortable with it. — Brett

Yes, somehow they do. It's not hard why sex differences do.. If a culture wants sexual attraction to be a thing, then society can help this along by trying to make sex differences appear something that is mysterious, tantalizing, only revealing through its hidden nature. This is all by association, and thus becomes attached to endless male fascination, and then this becomes attached to more tropes, until its an echo chamber. And then you have whole social constructions around attractions, revealing, wanting someone to reveal, being tantalized by it, taken by it, attracted to it, etc.

The boy seeing the bared breasts that were so radically different from him or his male friends then finds that they disappear behind clothing and are later revealed, but not completely, through the cut of clothing or type of clothing. There’s a powerful sense of curiosity sublimated there. He’s never going to forget that powerful sensation of difference that his culture diverts into something else. So his curiosity does become entangled with ideas of concealment and desire. — Brett

Yes, so you get the point of its cultural construction.

I need to make myself more clear, or possibly I don’t have a point.

The boy sees the breasts and is stunned by the what is different from him and his friends. The breasts aren’t sexualised yet. But the sense of difference is powerful. That’s not cultural. But then entering puberty the breasts become sexualised and the hidden nature of them becomes the cultural context. Or the other way around. I don’t think culture creates a sexual direction or imperative, not on purpose anyway. It’s a combination of his initial interest, maybe the “other”, his first real experience of it, and the consequences of then being deprived of it through social mores.

Everything is an object. So why be happy or mad of being one?

If we all ignored your post how would you feel?

The boy sees the breasts and is stunned by the what is different from him and his friends. The breasts aren’t sexualised yet. But the sense of difference is powerful. That’s not cultural. But then entering puberty the breasts become sexualised and the hidden nature of them becomes the cultural context. Or the other way around. I don’t think culture creates a sexual direction or imperative, not on purpose anyway. It’s a combination of his initial interest, maybe the “other”, his first real experience of it, and the consequences of then being deprived of it through social mores. — Brett

No, I'm agreeing with you, that that might be more-or-less the narrative. My only difference is that I think culture indeed helps create direction/imperative and on purpose. The hiding/revealing, aspect could have been by design, just as the neck rings. It's just a more subtle version of it. Society needs there to be attraction for procreation perhaps. Attraction becomes its own trope. Attraction itself becomes its own mythology.. made into romantic odes, love stories, romance stories (and much cruder stuff...), caricatured in pop-psychology and pop-biology, etc. But functionally, attraction becomes a way for procreation to eventually occur..in other words, it may not be automatic like the animal, so it becomes pushed to the cultural/social level (and then re-envisioned as if it was automatic, giving it false attribution).

But I agree, the initial fascination with the other, and especially an other that is concealed may be the foundation that is later refocused in other ways to make physical attraction a thing. I don't know. I'm also just theorizing. What I do know is, it may be too "just so" to say something like.. "It's just innate and natural". That just seems too case closed.

Society needs there to be attraction for procreation perhaps. — schopenhauer1

I think you might have a point there. The sexualising of the female has to be ramped up to contend with cultural changes, even straight out boredom with life which results in falling population numbers.

I read recently that more and more young men in China, into their thirties, are not having sex or showing interest in the opposite sex. The consequence is fewer families and falling population numbers. Maybe not a problem in China right now, but when it comes to supporting the older generation where are the numbers going to come from.

Edit: I’ve often thought that if women bend men into the shape they want then men will just lose interest in them.

Brett, if you ignored me I wouldn’t care. If everyone in the world ignored me I wouldn’t care. But if the Care Bears started ignoring me, I would stop taking care of myself.

The consequence is fewer families and falling population numbers. Maybe not a problem in China right now, but when it comes to supporting the older generation where are the numbers going to come from. — Brett

Well, now you are going into well-trodden areas of my core philosophy. I'm an antinatalist.. so the more we can catalyze less procreation, the better. One less person, is one less person who suffers and "deals with" life (with no consequences for the non-being that wasn't born). But this discussion is for another thread.

But generally speaking, yeah you might start seeing certain societies which start not valuing these long-held tropes and perhaps you do start seeing decline as people just don't care. The libido becomes less directed towards the things society wanted it directed towards to make the function that it intended occur.

This does sort of suggest that culture has a purpose that is beyond us. Which is kind of contradictory.

This does sort of suggest that culture has a purpose that is beyond us. Which is kind of contradictory. — Brett

It absolutely has a purpose beyond us. Institutions are often created from historical contingencies and then the cultures surrounding those institutions take on a "life of their own". Individuals take on the values of the institutions so that the institutions can operate. Even birth itself is a sort of ideology that the current society is good and should be replicated, literally, unto another individual who then, in turn, internalizes those values so as to get by, in the "ways of life" of a society.

It absolutely has a purpose beyond us. — schopenhauer1

So how much control over it should we expect? And how do we know what to jettison and what to build on?

There's that word "present" again. Present yourself appropriately if you wish to be judged as a "whole person" is the admonishment made. If you don't do so, well then expect to be considered something other than a whole whole person. You're just asking for that. — Ciceronianus the White

What word would you prefer I use? I’m simply stating that wishing, or rather expecting, to be perceived as something you do not appear to be is an unreasonable demand. Is that wrong in some way? The point is some women want to be treated like a piece of meat, and those women tend to dress a certain way so as to express that desire. Therefore, if you choose to dress in a similar way, you run the risk of being perceived in a similar way. And being perceived in a certain way increases the likelihood that you will be treated a certain way. Therefore, if you don’t want to be treated that way, you should dress in a way that distinguishes yourself from those who do.

So how much control over it should we expect? And how do we know what to jettison and what to build on? — Brett

We have very little control over it. Much of what we have now is historical contingency. We cannot change historical contingency. Marx, for example tried to find ways through revolution to steer historical contingency into determinism, but overshot the mark. There is nothing to keep. We enculturate and through our material circumstances are "free" to follow our contingent narrative. In this context, we are motivated out of little else by our own wills- survival, comfort/maintaining environment, boredom. Besides, this we get the contingencies of whatever various circumstances we must deal/suffer with.

Here’s a thought: what if, when a boy is caught staring with fascination at topless women, he is taught to make the association with the concept ‘female’ instead of simply ‘breasts’?
— Possibility

Because who wants a society that wants that sort of control over a person?

And without breasts the girls look no different from him or his friends. — Brett

I think you misunderstand me - I’m not saying to not refer to ‘breasts’ at all, but too often in teachable situations such as these, no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. This promotes a conceptual distinction between ‘breasts’ as objects and ‘woman’ as agent. Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? This is not an accusation - it’s a genuine question.

So to follow these thoughts about culture to where they appear to direct us; for men to change their perception of women, to refuse to look at them in terms of anatomy and desire, is to create an environment of modified and moderate interest and consequently a fall in population numbers, which would seem contrary to our nature. Unless we have entered a new phase of our evolution (which would suit you).

Possibility suggests we raise boys with the idea that breasts mean female, as in who she really is instead of someone just desirable. I don’t think that’s even possible. I think nature would find a way around it. I think women may forget that there are other things that attract us to them: hair, smiles, jawline, eyes, clothes, the way they walk, talk and laugh. We can see this from a distance, which is where it begins.

If mens’ attitudes are encultured then so too must womens’. But then the argument goes that our culture is patriarchal and favours men over women and consequently women are objectified to suit the purposes of men. But what is the purpose of men? If it was not to seek women and form relationships that produced offspring there would be no purpose to anything else.

So men stare at women and for a reason. Women, by choice or enculturation, respond. Both by varying numbers and degrees. These are the brute facts.

In the end we can change it because some women feel it objectifies all women and we find that to be not just morally wrong but a poor environment for forming long term successful relationships. But we don’t know if it will contribute to forming better relationships or stifle them.

too often in teachable situations such as these, no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. — Possibility

It was a teachable situation for the boy, just not one you understand. He was confronted with the difference between the girls and himself. It wasn’t a sexual moment but an existential moment for himself.

Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? — Possibility

I don’t know if you have brothers but many of us are raised by our mothers and fathers to respect women, just as we were raised not to chose violence as a way of resolving differences. Anyway you’re making the assumption that the young boy at the beach is objectifying the girls. Why assume that? It’s possible that it opens him up to the world and the differences in that world that’s an essential part of his development.

Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? This is not an accusation - it’s a genuine question. — Possibility

Well you’ve jumped from the boy to me so I am regarding it as an accusation. First of all you’ve made an assumption about the boy that suits you so that you can then challenge my “freedom” to objectify the female body, which is your second assumption.

no reference is made to the woman herself, of which the breasts are an inseparable part. — Possibility

My next door neighbour has been separated from her breasts. My wife has been separated from her womb. A woman's a woman for aye that. The surgeon who operated on my wife, (and all surgeons do this surely?) objectified her. It is a deliberate process of obscuring the body except for the 'part' one has to cut. Before and afterwards, she was a wonderfully warm human being, but for the operation she was a calculating butcher.

Alas for anyone who performs sex as if they were performing surgery.

Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? — Possibility

Possibility!

You have to curb your appetite for dichotomizing. Remember that human's have both mental and material agency. You seem fixated on the mental, as if there is no aesthetic phenomenon to provide for not only the appreciation of same, but to provide for the proper volition. If your daughter wanted to marry a guy with missing teeth, who was 400 lbs., had bad hygiene, but was a doctor, kind, and considerate, what kind of dilemma would that present? You are forced to consider both features of human existence.

The heathy view, in your quoted scenario, would be to teach the child the value of both aesthetic beauty, along with the existential and social implications, including the ethical and intellectual considerations (i.e., Aristotle's theory of human nature) not to mention revelations applicable to cognitive science, human needs and motivations.

Instead, you seem hung-up on the stereotypical definition of objectification. That seems to only serve as a divisive political narrative between the sexes, as apposed to a glass half-full higher reaches of human nature approach. In other words, is your approach to admonish the child and make him/her feel embarrassed or in some way repressive about their appreciation of material agency?

Possibility suggests we raise boys with the idea that breasts mean female, as in who she really is instead of someone just desirable. I don’t think that’s even possible. I think nature would find a way around it. I think women may forget that there are other things that attract us to them: hair, smiles, jawline, eyes, clothes, the way they walk, talk and laugh. We can see this from a distance, which is where it begins. — Brett

So we are again back to nature in the debate of nature vs. nurture. And I was so happy on keeping it nurture :lol: . I focused on the revealing/concealing aspect of clothing because that's what the OP focused on. So now we are down to inextricable things, reasons lost to the mists of time.. tastes, preferences, appeal, etc. It's like music or art sometimes, you don't know why but something might make you drawn to it, excited by it, fascinated by it, etc. But I'll try to make the case that part of the mystery is still based on context of how one grew up, what one links these aesthetic apprehensions to from previous environment (probably in formative years), etc. It's more of a constructive narrative based on context of one's life experiences, the broader culture, historical contingency and the intertwining of all three. I think there is still an aspect of "other" here going on, for why it is often directed at a particular sex at all. The facial features have nuanced differences that can be perceived and weighed against societal and personal historical significances (retrospectively calling it a "preference" or "attraction").

If mens’ attitudes are encultured then so too must womens’. But then the argument goes that our culture is patriarchal and favours men over women and consequently women are objectified to suit the purposes of men. But what is the purpose of men? If it was not to seek women and form relationships that produced offspring there would be no purpose to anything else.

So men stare at women and for a reason. Women, by choice or enculturation, respond. Both by varying numbers and degrees. These are the brute facts.

In the end we can change it because some women feel it objectifies all women and we find that to be not just morally wrong but a poor environment for forming long term successful relationships. But we don’t know if it will contribute to forming better relationships or stifle them. — Brett

Yes, this is possibly the crux of the issue. This is a two-way street. The significance of the revealing clothes is usually not cut-off from the significance of the response from the revealing clothes. They are inextricably intertwined and tied to cultural tropes. So if you think a trope is pernicious, or unnecessary, then to make it go away, the significance has to go away. If men stopped staring and responding to it, then it loses significance. Most likely then the only reasons to wear it is comfort or some other reason, and the women would stop putting significance on it too. It has stopped becoming a signifier. Perhaps all aspects of the revealing/concealing game would be diminished and then society would have to find other ways to promote attraction for the unfortunate effect of procreation.

Perhaps all aspects of the revealing/concealing game would be diminished and then society would have to find other ways to promote attraction for the unfortunate effect of procreation. — schopenhauer1

And we would end up right back where we are now. The new qualities of attractiveness, for lack of a better phrase, would just be objectified again. It seems that if attractiveness is promoted at all, or attended to by males, females will feel objectified, no?

It seems that if attractiveness is promoted at all, or attended to by males, females will feel objectified, no? — Pinprick

It is probably from both sides. One feels the need to stare, gaze. The other feels the need to be gazed perhaps. As others have said, the problem only lies when one goes out of the boundaries into diminishing the other's agency or not recognizing it, etc. So I think the word "objectified" is just an odd choice of word. If it means assigning no agency to someone who is clearly a thinking person, why would one do that? If it means find something attractive then, that seems the wrong way to apply that term. I guess the point is that some people can't get past how attractive they find someone, which is not the problem of the attractive person. But, as I said as a culture the whole attractiveness thing can be diminished all together.

It was a teachable situation for the boy, just not one you understand. He was confronted with the difference between the girls and himself. It wasn’t a sexual moment but an existential moment for himself. — Brett

I understand this, and I never said it was a sexual moment. My point (very poorly made, I admit) was that, even before it becomes sexual, the word concepts associated with experiences of a woman exposing her breasts rarely acknowledge female agency. While the ‘difference’ the boy notices between himself and these women on the beach is innocent in itself - and I am in no way suggesting that the boy is objectifying at this stage - it is often the word concepts from adults around him in relation to incidents such as these that contribute to later objectification.

I don’t know if you have brothers but many of us are raised by our mothers and fathers to respect women, just as we were raised not to chose violence as a way of resolving differences. Anyway you’re making the assumption that the young boy at the beach is objectifying the girls. Why assume that? It’s possible that it opens him up to the world and the differences in that world that’s an essential part of his development. — Brett

I do have a brother - with four younger sisters and five years in a private boys’ school he was raised to be protective of girls, but not specifically to ‘respect’ women as having agency. It was a distinction that he (and I, as the closest to him in age) needed to deal with over the years. But we don’t need to go there.

I’m not assuming the young boy is objectifying the girls - you’re making that connection on your own. I have no issues with the boys looking - that’s a normal curiosity about the world. I’m suggesting that objectification starts to be constructed into how young boys and girls conceptualise these experiences, unless we are conscious of what words and concepts are spoken in association with them.