General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK [View all]You are conflating object-relations as a psychological theory of childhood development with the Feminist theory of objectification and are coming up logically short.
If I have successfully navigated those early stages of development with little trauma, I am capable as a human being of seeing other human beings as both objects in relationship with me and subjects in relationship with me as an objects of their self-awareness. In other words, a true I-thou relationship. We are always both subject and object in any relationship be it interpersonal or professional. So yes, the fireman analogy still stands. For me, as a subject, suffering from a fire, the fireman is both an object, the one who I expect to put out the fire, and another subject, a human being who has chosen out of compassion to risk his or her life to protect me and my belongings from fire.
An eye-level adult relationship recognizes that each person has agency and also has their own teleology. We may choose to play certain roles with each other from boss and employee to husband and husband. But if at any time, we remove the 'subject' and only use language that denotes the 'object' then we have failed to have healthy and mature adult relationships, sexual or otherwise.
To say that a woman such as Kate Upton has no agency is the height of logical hypocrisy as you are the one seeing her solely as the object. She has agency. She has chosen to do the work that she wants to do even if you and I both agree that we would not want to do it or that it is an appeal to sexual titillation. To say she does this only because of some perverted warping of Stockholm Syndrome or solely to appeal to men equally deprives of her agency and frankly is arrogant mind-reading.
My rejection of Feminist philosophy stems in a major way from the choice of language which psychologically sends a double message. Equality is what all are seeking in truth especially here on a 'progressive' political forum. However, to say that any woman who disagrees with Feminist Objectification theory is not a 'feminist' is to reduce a single woman (the subject) to a monolithic 'those women' (an object.) To say that any man who finds a woman sexually appealing is therefore a part of a 'rape culture' and is incapable of not knowing that he is 'objectifying' a woman by appreciating her looks is to objectify in and of itself. You have reduced a man or several men to mere objects who lack agency.
Worst of all, the very vocal proponents of this flawed theory end up playing out an adult/child stage of object relations theory instead. They project their own fears, rages, and loss of agency on to others and then pretend that they can protect, shame, scold, etc. other adults as if they were children lacking agency. Further proof of this is the immediate and very predictable response when someone, really anyone, disagrees and logically argues why with them. They immediately flip into a shamed and wounded child role and invariably state that no one has the right to tell them to sit down and STFU.
A true loss of agency is a form of slavery. It is a raping of the mind and/or body by another. That is true Narcissistic objectification. This person or these people are my objects to do so as I see fit. A perverted stunting of that childhood development such that the worst of these are locked into the perpetual 'parent' role assuming that all others are 'children' whom they can either do so as they please or are protecting them from themselves. In this regards, as was previously pointed out in another reply, the use of Kant's moralistic objectification philosophy by Feminist theorists is sadly little different than a fundamentalist Christian protecting adults from the horrors of human sexuality and sin.
Humanity has been doing this since time immemorial and will continue to do so as long as humans walk on this planet. Good men and women will fight against this generation after generation sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing. But we do not do so by using language that locks us and others into perpetual adult and child roles where as adults that is true objectification. We must instead approach all relationships from an eye to eye level where we recognize both the subject and object nature inherent in every relationship. We must also truly allow for agency only fighting against if that agency does in fact harm and impinge upon the agency of others. And finally, we must allow other adults with agency to fulfill their desires as they so choose again as long as they do no harm and do not impinge upon the agency of others. The give and take of this with large populations is the very nature of politics and human government.
Real rape is vastly different than two consenting adults having violent simulated 'rape' sex, filming it, and sharing it with others with similar tastes. Real objectification is keeping a young abused adolescent boy or girl strung out on heroin and prostituted to sociopathic individuals not an adult woman posing for the swimsuit issue of Sport Illustrated and having both men and women admire the beauty of her body and the surroundings. To conflate the two is just immature thinking and stunted psychological development.