The objectification of women

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I wonder what, exactly, does "objectification" mean. If it means treating another human being like an object, man or woman, then it's wrong.

I can't define it, but I can give an example. I was watching a show last night where there was some objectification going on. In filming, there is often a shot that will establish a scene, like the outside of a house, before the camera appears inside that house to see what the characters are doing.

In this show last night, the scene being established was a club, and to establish the scene, the camera panned along with the chest of a skimpily dressed woman as she went into a club. We never saw her face, but her bouncing chest filled the screen for several seconds before the camera ended up pointing at the characters sitting around a table.

As a guy, I have to admit that I enjoyed the shot, but the woman was clearly objectified. She had no lines. No face. Probably no credit. I'm sure the "actress" was paid in some way for her work, so she was probably happy to be doing the shot, but she was clearly nothing more than an object.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by glatt

the woman was clearly objectified. She had no lines. No face. Probably no credit. I'm sure the "actress" was paid in some way for her work

If she was an "extra" or just a woman who happened to be on the street when they were filming, she probably wasn't identified or paid. You have to get into permissions and model releases when a person is identifiable. If they're not identifiable, then use of images of them without permission or compensation is fair game. (We're not talking news coverage here.. there are exceptions for that.) This is why when they have news stories about how fat Americans are becoming, you'll often see stock footage of some fat person walking down the street, shot shoulders-down and from behind.

[Trilby]

SteveDallas: I objetify you. In every way.

[SteveDallas]

Including my grammar Nazism?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by glatt

In this show last night, the scene being established was a club, and to establish the scene, the camera panned along with the chest of a skimpily dressed woman as she went into a club. We never saw her face, but her bouncing chest filled the screen for several seconds before the camera ended up pointing at the characters sitting around a table.

To me, the questionable part of that is not how the individual actress was regarded (or not,) but rather what a nice rack of scantily-clad boobs is supposed to convey about this club. That the club is hip? Trashy? I think objectification depends somewhat on whether there were other cues about the club that might be linked to boobs.

[Griff]

I know objectification when I see it.


How 'bout some pics?

[TheMercenary]

Porn is good. That is all. Carry on.

[DanaC]

Nowt wrong with porn (other than the tendency of some brands of it to utilise unwilling, or desperate actors). Far more damaging than the most rampant porn, is the trend in television, movies and magazines, towards anonymous, 'perfect' young women with unthreatening features and fake tits. The drop in age of what is considered most sexy, from womanly to girlish, combined with the seemingly earlier sexualisation of girls (toddlers wearing T-Shirts with the caption 'future porn star', glammed up six year olds flirting with adults for entertainment, boyfriend-girlfriend themes in young children's tv etc) combined with the saturation of the public domain with idealised, sexualised images of young women. This stuff is far more dangerous than mere porn. Overt sexual expression is a healthy development for society imo, far better for us to be able to explore our sexuality than hide it under a cloak of 'decency'. The argument against 'rape' or violently themed porn, even, loses some of its power when you realise many of the people who enjoy that sort of thing are women.

[monster]

It's not so much the forgetting that the boobe etc belong to a woman, but forgetting that a woman is a type of person with feelings, opinions, intelligence etc. Fine to admire the boobs, but make sure your form of admiration is appreciated by the human behind them. If the human chooses to display them covered with cum, appreciate away....

[DanaC]

Well put, Monster

[Shawnee123]

I was just thinking: nicely put on both Dana and monster's posts.

[Trilby]

And I was just thinking nicely put on Dana's, monster's AND Shawnee's posts!

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by monster

It's not so much the forgetting that the boobe etc belong to a woman, but forgetting that a woman is a type of person with feelings, opinions, intelligence etc. Fine to admire the boobs, but make sure your form of admiration is appreciated by the human behind them. If the human chooses to display them covered with cum, appreciate away....

...who just happens to be getting paid for flashing her tits.

[Aliantha]

What I mean is, would it be objectification if it were her hand you could see? Or perhaps her face?

I think the objectification comes from ones own perception of how you process what you're seeing. We all spend so much time listening to society and doing what's expected of us that we don't stop to think about how it's ok to admire something just because it's there. We don't stop to see the beauty of things. We only stop to think about how we can add some negative connotation to things...like a set of beautiful breasts. I'm not explaining what I mean very well, so I'm sorry for that, but I hope someone will get it. If not, that's ok too.

[Undertoad]

"Trust me, ladies, if you knew even for a second how we men really look at you,... you would never stop slapping us."
-- the very excellent comedian Larry Miller