The Difference Between Emphasis And Objectification

Watching athletes for the sake of appreciating their athleticism is rightly not regarded as a degrading thing by many people.  While the emphasis is on one particular aspect of the athletes, with that aspect being their physical performance within some sort of sports context, it is almost always understood that they are indeed people with far more to their personhood and existence than their ability to score points or set records.  A commercial that simply shows an athlete compete or a comment that praises someone's athletic skill would likely not be considered exploitative.  Few, if any, would say that these things seem dehumanizing, much less say that they attempt to reduce the athlete down to solely his or her physical ability.

Other similar examples could be provided, including education, public speaking, or humor.  Focusing on someone's ability to make others want to laugh is not usually interpreted as a denial of other characteristics of their existence, for instance.  Whenever sexuality is concerned, however, many people mistake an emphasis on sex appeal or sexual attraction for an objectifying thing.  In a sexual context (or sometimes even in a merely sensual one), someone who might easily recognize that an emphasis on a person's athleticism is not objectifying might overlook the fact that an emphasis on a person's body, sexuality, or sex appeal likewise does not objectify them.

A person who enjoys viewing the bodies of the opposite gender in sexual contexts or with sexual intent (the body is objectively nonsexual left to itself) is fairly likely to be characterized by the public as someone who objectifies the person they are admiring--at the very least, if the viewer is a male.  While a significant part of such a fallacious reaction is motivated by sexist stereotypes about men, a significant part of it also comes about due to a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of sexual appreciation, attraction, and behaviors.  There is a double standard not only when it comes to how men and women are perceived by the general public when they sexually appreciate someone of the opposite gender, but also when it comes to how an emphasis on sexuality and an emphasis on another aspect of a person are treated.

It is as if people expect someone in the process of sexually appreciating another person--whether by commenting on their perceived sexiness, entertaining unashamed sexual thoughts about them, or masturbating to memories or images of them--to be unable to acknowledge the full status of the person they have sexual thoughts about.  Men are more openly regarded in this way due to asinine and unjust stereotypes that are easily falsified by logic and even by basic social experiences, but it is not wholly uncommon for women to be treated with suspicion when they interact with men as well.  In short, recognizing or emphasizing someone's sex appeal is easily confused for objectification by the average unthinking American.

Society's inability to distinguish between an emphasis on a person's sexuality or sex appeal and the reduction of a person to just that aspect of them will continue to harm the sexual flourishing of its members, as its poisonous effects span everything from false guilt to avoidance of direct, casual interaction with the opposite gender.  Stupidity needs correction simply because it is stupidity, but it is rarely without grave ramifications for the individual or culture that embraces it.  Whenever sexuality is concerned, people are generally content to leave errors unaddressed because the subject matter is so personal and socially offensive, but fallacious approaches to sexuality demand correction nevertheless.