What is sexual objectification? Under what circumstances (if any) might it be morally permissible?
Sexual objectification refers to the way in which a person sexually reduces another by treating them as a mere sex object (Halwani). Sexual objectification is rarely referred to as a benign topic, though throughout this evaluation, an enlightened, thou broad range of opinions are discussed emphasising the ambiguity of the term in relation to the morality of sexual objectification. Halwani’s definition only embraces ‘treatment’ and or the ‘behavioural’ aspects of sexual objectification, nevertheless Halwani recognises that the process by which someone is sexually objectified occurs most frequently throughout the following scenarios: During casual sex, as the parties desire nothing more than the others body party, essentially their sexual parts. When we look at naked pictures of people and become intrigued by their sexual aspects. Engaging in pornography, as the material already objectifies it’s actors as models (Halwani). Perving on a person’s bodily features such a “her booty” as he or she walks by. Catcalling, by reducing the person solely to their physical appearances and lastly, fantasising about someone, as it objectifies them solely on their physical appearances and can in turn symbolise men or women holistically (Halwani, 2010, pp 186). Allowing for a broader discussion in relation to when sexual objectification is morally permissible (if ever), idea’s constructed by Immanuel Kant, Martha Nussbaum and David Soble are broadly evaluated in order to construct when sexual objectification is permissible.
When a person is sexually objectified by another, ones dignity and humanity is reduced by handling them solely based on their phy...
... middle of paper ...
...ted in a marriage cannot be sexually objectified and treated in an impermissible way. Though contradictory of Kant’s views of sexual objectification, Nussbaum believes sexual objectification is permissible if it is done simultaneously, with a mutual respect and if the parties are of equal social status, eliminating any risks of feeling dehumanised or subordinate. Lastly, the concerns surrounding pornography and sexual objectification are exploited through Soble’s view, illustrating that when sexual objectification is put into context with pornography, it is morally wrong as it defeats the purpose of humanity by treating one solely as a sex object. All philosophical views provided have been disputed and or question, though through the opinions of these Philosophers we are provided with few circumstances where sexual objectification is morally permissible, and not.
Sexuality has often been confused with pornography. It has been trivialised as something that is a denigration and denial of true feeling by sensationalising genuine expressivism.
The word Pornography is defined as "writings, photographs, movies, etc., intended to arouse sexual excitement". With each year that passes pornography has been more and more accepted, it can be seen in books, magazines, cable television and most of all through the internet. Many religions go against it, but at the same time people know that there is a reason why people go into the business and accepted it an other people just like it. In this paper I will talk about pornography and how it is viewed by the four ethical standards (Utilitarian, Kant, Human Rights and Justice is Fairness).
Slade, Joseph W. Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2001. Print.
Szymanski, Dawn M., Lauren B. Moffitt, and Erika R. Carr. “Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory and Research.” APA, 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
Onora O'Neill's "Between Consenting Adults" is thought to be an expansion on the Kantian philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals in our lives. The essay stresses the importance of treating those not simply as a means to an end, but as an individual in and an individual of themselves; to do right by treating the person's end with respect. O'Neill uses the idea of individuals in sexual relationships to help illustrate her point.
In the documentary America the Beautiful directed and narrated by Darryl Roberts, the narrator states several central points and arguments. He makes a case for objectification of the female body, socialization of genders, and how culture plays a role in todays in society. When Darryl asked a teenage boy about how his perfect women should look, his answer was that she has to be “hot”, “attractive”, and have nice legs. This shows how males are objectifying the female body, because they do not care about the person’s emptions or feelings. Darryl was trying to state that men only see women as an object to gaze at, which makes them seen as sex objects.
...gument against pornography is claiming that intercourse is an act of rape, the argument immediately seems outlandish and almost laughable, and it surely seems that way to the average person. People see these examples of radical feminism and attribute those isolated incidents as representative of the entire feminist movement as a whole. Therefore through complexity, the feminist movement lost a substantial amount of its genuine credibility due to perceived extremist views on female sexuality. This, among many other incidents, seems to be the cause of this great reversal in female sexuality in our current day society. Instead of putting an end to pornography, it flourishes. Instead of bringing an end to female objectification, it is often nowadays encouraged. This reversal of feminist ideals is the main cause for the damage to female gender roles in the 21st century.
“There must be integrity between body and life. You must not do with your body what you’re not willing to do with your whole life” (Keller). Keller is directly talking about our individual sexual morality and how or how not it should be perceived in a social context. Most people think sexual dilemmas of it in a broader spectrum, not directly related to one’s morality, by saying “this act isn’t right” where others may simply say “why not”. Yet, what justifies an act for one person and condemns it for another? More importantly on what grounds do they condone their actions? Sexual morality can be described as: a communal and personal benchmarks for which we model are social relationships, as it pertains to all and every segment of engaging in sexual activities. This is not a limitless definition; it ranges from contact with one’s self or another, the context in which the act was preformed, and in some cases the place where it was performed. It can even be as controversial as what type of physical contact is considered sexual. All these guidelines must be met by our own standards to justify the sexual acts we partake in.
In today’s culture, sex has become a topic that is vastly open and common. The dynamic of sex has been continuously growing over the past years and now most people are open to casual dating, hooking up, friends with benefit and more. As culture of sex is rapidly changing, we must stop and consider the implications and the moral aspect of sexual openness that’s so common today. Philosopher Immanuel Kant has written about sexual impulse and the implications of it in his work: Duties Toward Body with Respect to Sexual Impulse. This essay will discuss the main arguments of Kant’s article and the explanation of why would morality of sex argument only is effective in view of God.
When an individual is sexually objectified, they are treated like an object that exists only for the pleasure of others and objectification theory asserts that women are uniquely subject to these types of experiences, especially in Western culture. Self-objectification (SO) leads the individual to create a third person perspective in their minds that they use to compare their physical selves to and in turn causes them to see themselves as an object instead of a whole person. SO also creates a form of self-consciousness, causing a habitual and vigilant self-monitoring of outward appearance. There are many cognitive and emotional consequences of SO. Among these consequences are increased body shame, increased appearance anxiety, and a decreased ability to reach high states of motivation.
Milstein, Susan A. Taking Sides Clashing Views in Human Sexuality. Ed. William J. Taverner and Ryan W. McKee. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
It has been said that “Society has always defined for us what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, what a man should be like and what a woman should be like, and these traditional definitions of gender roles have limited and even harmed individuals”. The theme of sexual politics comes to mind for this quote. One can define sexual politics as the relationship of the sexes, male and female regarding power. Society’s definition of this can limit an individual in their gender role and restrain a person to not be themselves.
When women’s desires are less worthy of concern or not worthy of concern at all, it becomes evident that the hookup culture promotes women being used as a tool or a means to an end for male satisfaction. According to the Kantian moral theory, the culture is immoral because the woman is no longer being respected. The ambiguity of the hookup culture couple with societal effects of inegalitarian porn, according to Eaton’s “A Sensible Anti-Porn Feminist” and power imbalances in the sexes creates a culture that fosters rape. Women are placed in predicaments where they have to give in to pushy, coercive behavior by men who want to go further than the women intends to. Even if a woman feels liberated by participating in the hookup culture, that doesn’t mean she wants to go all the way, with every partner, every time. The objectification of women and rape are two serious and harmful effects of the hookup culture.
The issues of sexual ethics in relation to morality and perversion have been addressed in depth by each of the gentleman at this table. Sexual activity as described by Solomon and Nagle is comprised of a moral standard and ‘naturalness’ aspect. So, in claiming an act is perverted we must first examine it through a moral framework and understand how this interacts with the ‘naturalness’ of a particular act. Solomon makes the distinction as follows “Perversion is an insidious concept…To describe an activity as perverse is not yet a full blown moral condemnation, for it need not entail that one ought not to indulge in such activities.” Along with the examination of the nature of an act, there must be clear justification as to why sexual acts deserve special separate ethical principles. The question arises: does an act simply due to its sexual nature deserve a separate form of moral inquisition than other acts that occur in nature? In this essay I shall argue that perversion and immorality are not mutually exclusive. By this I mean that a sexual act that is, by my definition, immoral must also be perverted. It is also my contention that if an act is perverted we must also define it as immoral. This second part of the argument is contrary to what many of you have claimed. At the outset of this paper I would also like to state my support of Thomas Nagel’s argument holding that the connection between sex and reproduction has no bearing on sexual perversion. (Nagel 105)
16.)Utt, Jamie. "Navigating The Difference Between The Appreciation of Beauty and Sexual Objectification." Everyday Feminism 18 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. .