Finding someone attractive is not necessarily sexual in nature and is not objectification whatsoever, but viewing someone as ONLY their sexuality (or their athleticism or their money or their intelligence) is objectifying and very dehumanizing, as it ignores the other dimensions to the person's humanity. Focusing on or deeply admiring one aspect of someone's humanity--whether their intelligence, physical beauty, emotions, athletic capability, humor, sexuality, or anything else--is not at all identical to reducing them to just one of their many attributes and parts. Clothing and the human body can't cause anyone to objectify someone else. Claiming so is as insanely pathetic as believing that playing a difficult video game can cause someone to murder another person in a volatile fury. People possess volitional control of their actions and motivations, no matter the situation or context. Actually, I discovered an entire fallacy devoted to the belief that a person is responsible for the actions and attitudes of other people: the internal control fallacy. It's factually and rationally incorrect to blame someone's sins or behavior on another person, not to mention morally flawed.
Christians should be the first people to acknowledge and praise every aspect of being human, but throughout history they have systematically oppressed various facets of that. They have demonized sexuality and sexual desire and confused so many people with their distortions of it and their false categorizations and doctrines. They have shunned reason and rationality for fear that they might threaten their Christian positions and have tried to transform Christianity into some mystical experience that it is not. They have told people to suppress emotions because emotional expression allegedly results in instability and may "cause" someone to go astray (I am definitely not innocent of this one). Now, none of these represents the entire church at all times or locations in history, but it can be very difficult to find a person or group that correctly understands all of these components of humanity at one simultaneous time. The church does not hold a wonderful record when it comes to genuinely appreciating and supporting every dimension of human nature. Objectification comes when someone reduces a person to only one part of their humanity, but true respect for others comes when someone does not try to ignore any of these parts but instead properly views all of them.
Someone's clothing or body can't make another person objectify them. This proposition needs to be eradicated from the Christian and secular intellect for its non-conformity to reality and its severe rational and moral flaws, yet I still find Christians who insist otherwise. The absurdities voiced on the issue must end.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
Is "Objectification" a sin or a crime?
ReplyDeleteForgot to ask this:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your definition of Objectification?
Objectification is certainly a sin but there are few if any ways to demonstrate to a court that it has occurred. Objectification, like malice, isn't a crime in the legal sense but can certainly motivate someone to commit a punishable crime.
Delete"Finding someone attractive is not necessarily sexual in nature and is not objectification whatsoever, but viewing someone as ONLY their sexuality (or their athleticism or their money or their IQ) is objectifying and very dehumanizing, as it ignores the other dimensions to the person's humanity."
I think this sufficiently establishes the definition of objectification. If you need or want more clarification or elaboration, comment again and let me know.