SophiaSophia
Inactive Cam Model
AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Do you think that sexual objectification is real?
- Thread starter Guy
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
paige_orion
Cam Model
- Nov 13, 2013
- 2,733
- 19,314
- 213
- Twitter Username
- @paige_orion
- Tumblr Username
- paigexorion
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/studio/74335/Goddess-Paige
I think we see examples of sexual objectification all of the time.
In articles, I often see women whose names are ommitted in the headline. They are "so-and-so's GF", "so-and-so's Wife". For example, I remember the Forbe's article about Tsisti Masiyiwa, a woman from Zimbabwe who does incredible work to give back to her community, helping to create several charity organizations that have helped many lives. But what was the article called? "The Millionaire's Wife Who Feeds 40,000 Children". She didn't even earn her own NAME in the title of the article, even though it is devoted to the hard work she has put in to help her community. In one simple sentence, she loses her own agency, her own name, and becomes just an extension of her husband. Just a prop.
Seeing examples of objectification so commonplace, it would be absurd to think that sexual objectification doesn't exist. It's just a different facet of the whole system. We see it all of the time in our work. I mean, many of us are lucky that we can interact with our customers and allow them glimpses into our selves, which helps humanize us and portray us as whole people. So even if we are the targets of sexual desire, we aren't treated as objects, solely for the pleasure of the customers before us. There's a vast difference between being seen as a sexual person with their own thoughts and desires, fears and flaws - and being a sexual object.
But for every person who does view sex-workers as whole people, there is another who doesn't. That's why you'll often see dudes on camsites get so demanding. "Show me your tits," without even a hello. Refusing to take no for an answer. If you speak up having an opinion on anything, it doesn't matter because you're just a "whore" or a "slut" - sexual objects don't have opinions, right? You're just there to help men cum. At least, that's the attitude I see every single day.
As sex-workers, we at least have the option to make money off of our own objectification. But not every person who is objectified gets a choice. Like the girls who get harassed just walking to the store, gripping their carkeys in their fist like a knife. Their feelings don't matter, the fact that they feel unsafe doesn't matter - they're just there to be gazed upon, to receive the wolf-whistles and "Hey baby"s by men who don't see them as anything but a pretty girl, who feel entitled to harass a perfect stranger.
(I know that men get sexually objectified as well, don't get me wrong. I'm using female sexual objectification examples because that is what I have experiences with, but I am not implying that men aren't sexually objectified as well, because that also happens often).
In articles, I often see women whose names are ommitted in the headline. They are "so-and-so's GF", "so-and-so's Wife". For example, I remember the Forbe's article about Tsisti Masiyiwa, a woman from Zimbabwe who does incredible work to give back to her community, helping to create several charity organizations that have helped many lives. But what was the article called? "The Millionaire's Wife Who Feeds 40,000 Children". She didn't even earn her own NAME in the title of the article, even though it is devoted to the hard work she has put in to help her community. In one simple sentence, she loses her own agency, her own name, and becomes just an extension of her husband. Just a prop.
Seeing examples of objectification so commonplace, it would be absurd to think that sexual objectification doesn't exist. It's just a different facet of the whole system. We see it all of the time in our work. I mean, many of us are lucky that we can interact with our customers and allow them glimpses into our selves, which helps humanize us and portray us as whole people. So even if we are the targets of sexual desire, we aren't treated as objects, solely for the pleasure of the customers before us. There's a vast difference between being seen as a sexual person with their own thoughts and desires, fears and flaws - and being a sexual object.
But for every person who does view sex-workers as whole people, there is another who doesn't. That's why you'll often see dudes on camsites get so demanding. "Show me your tits," without even a hello. Refusing to take no for an answer. If you speak up having an opinion on anything, it doesn't matter because you're just a "whore" or a "slut" - sexual objects don't have opinions, right? You're just there to help men cum. At least, that's the attitude I see every single day.
As sex-workers, we at least have the option to make money off of our own objectification. But not every person who is objectified gets a choice. Like the girls who get harassed just walking to the store, gripping their carkeys in their fist like a knife. Their feelings don't matter, the fact that they feel unsafe doesn't matter - they're just there to be gazed upon, to receive the wolf-whistles and "Hey baby"s by men who don't see them as anything but a pretty girl, who feel entitled to harass a perfect stranger.
(I know that men get sexually objectified as well, don't get me wrong. I'm using female sexual objectification examples because that is what I have experiences with, but I am not implying that men aren't sexually objectified as well, because that also happens often).
- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
I think it is relatively easy to do if you have been trained, conditioned to see sexual objectification.
She didn't even earn her own NAME in the title of the article, even though it is devoted to the hard work she has put in to help her community.
therefore
In one simple sentence, she loses her own agency, her own name, and becomes just an extension of her husband. Just a prop.
What a stupefyingly idiotic notion! Is she still a wealthy philanthropist doing good in her community? Yes.
Does she still have agency? Yes.
Her own name? Yes.
Is she a mere extension of her husband? That is between her and her husband.
So where has this objectification actually occurred? In between your ears, that is where.
Millionaire. Wife. Two words here. So the Millionaire has been objectified too, according to your (ahem) logic. He has lost his agency, his name, and become just an extension of his wife. Just a mere economic supporter.
I think it is just as stupid to claim the millionaire was somehow objectified as it is to claim the wife was.
@Goddess Vera
Allow me then to address some of your comments from a more practical approach:
As far as hedonism is concerned - it is undoubtedly a philosophical approach to a certain way of life. One could debate the etymology of the word until the cows came home, but there can be little doubt that it is, and has been historically associated with open sexuality. It dictates that the pursuit of pleasure occurs without the desire for commitment or the requirement for love being attached. I will admit that there is a disconnect in terms of male and female hedonism and equality, but I'm not sure if the outcome(s) of the free love of the 60's, the disco era of the 70's, or the modern day Miley Cyrus approach has contributed anything positive for society in that regard.(abortion, AIDS/STD's, etc.)
All I will say about love and lust is that almost every modern day psychologist/psychiatrist have come to agree that they are very much separate and distinct. Why? Because you can have one without the other. Lust is pretty much defined as having a very strong sexual desire for someone that revolves around fantasy and the objectification of the other person. With love, objectification ceases to exist in the sense being discussed in this thread. A favorite quote of mine is "With love, you want to know everything; with lust, you talk about nothing."
I do not have any issues with this statement, and you are correct. But, I submit that in today's society, there is a growing backlash against the thought that this is solely a female issue. If one is to talk about equality, then it needs to be an all inclusive, across the board discussion complete with the outcomes of what people are practicing, versus what's actually happening.
Allow me then to address some of your comments from a more practical approach:
As far as hedonism is concerned - it is undoubtedly a philosophical approach to a certain way of life. One could debate the etymology of the word until the cows came home, but there can be little doubt that it is, and has been historically associated with open sexuality. It dictates that the pursuit of pleasure occurs without the desire for commitment or the requirement for love being attached. I will admit that there is a disconnect in terms of male and female hedonism and equality, but I'm not sure if the outcome(s) of the free love of the 60's, the disco era of the 70's, or the modern day Miley Cyrus approach has contributed anything positive for society in that regard.(abortion, AIDS/STD's, etc.)
All I will say about love and lust is that almost every modern day psychologist/psychiatrist have come to agree that they are very much separate and distinct. Why? Because you can have one without the other. Lust is pretty much defined as having a very strong sexual desire for someone that revolves around fantasy and the objectification of the other person. With love, objectification ceases to exist in the sense being discussed in this thread. A favorite quote of mine is "With love, you want to know everything; with lust, you talk about nothing."
I do not have any issues with this statement, and you are correct. But, I submit that in today's society, there is a growing backlash against the thought that this is solely a female issue. If one is to talk about equality, then it needs to be an all inclusive, across the board discussion complete with the outcomes of what people are practicing, versus what's actually happening.
- Status
