General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK [View all]Deep13
(39,154 posts)Everything humans do is part of human nature and everything we do, including thoughts and beliefs, is natural for us. The need to control populations (which in pre-modern times meant to promote its growth) and to control the descent of wealth has made us a species preoccupied with sexual morals and ethics.
Many societies, including this one, are or have been patriarchal. Why? Men are bigger with proportionally more upper-body strength. Men can plow longer and harder than women, chop more wood, and, most importantly, fight other men. So, norms naturalized in pre-historic times are hard to shake off in modernity. There is, of course, one huge, glaring exception to the power a patriarchy can exert: only women can create the next generation of humans. Whatever else a patriarch can do, he cannot make a person. So, for patriarchy to rule, it must control women's bodies. One way it does that is with enforced modesty, a practice that women internalize as normal and virtuous for their gender.
The Abrahamic religions in particular have made this naturalized modesty into an art form. For men, honor means loyalty, courage, honesty, and self-control. For women, it means one thing: chastity except in the confines of marriage. That is obviously a form of masculine social control for the most primitive instinct of all: making sure one's own genetic material is reproduced rather than that of a rival. Part of that control is enforced modesty: making sure one's own wife or daughter is not unusually attractive to men. A head of a family may not be able to control the other men in the village, but he can control those who live in his house. So, the rules require modesty and any violation is not merely an offense against the patriarch, but a sin against the very masculine God.
So, when we complain that showing a lot of skin is objectifying, I can see the argument for it, but I can also see the argument that it liberates from traditional rules designed to ensure patriarchal control. Aren't we just using an undressed model for her body rather than her mind or character? Sure we are. But how is that different from any other job on earth? As one who rejects the Christian/Cartesian mind (or soul) vs. body dichotomy, I see it as a purely artificial distinction. Our character, morals, rationality etc. are all generated from our brains and are largely the result of a carefully regulated cocktail of hormones washing over it. Our brains and those chemicals are bodily, not supernatural. So if a man notices one woman's legs for their appearance, but another's for her ability to wait tables, it's exploitative either way. A construction worker is only used for his body, so what is the difference?
The real danger with the culture of sexual exploitation is that men will come to think of women as existing for their sexual gratification, or even worse, women will naturalize that expectation and perform accordingly. The problem with that is that men and women will see women as valuable only because of their sex appeal and will discount their value as humans. While commercial culture bears most of the responsibility for this, we men also have to learn to control our expectations and to understand that sexuality is only one part of any human's composition and not the only or perhaps even the chief reason others are valuable in our lives and society.