Thursday, January 26, 2017

Comment on neogaf nonsense post about sexual objectification.

No, sexually objectification is different from mere sexualization. I would have no problem with sexualization, but that's not what this is. This is objectification. Learn the difference.-Veelk source link

Sad people talking about sexualized imagery being objectifying.  Whatever that means.  Objectification, is merely a word predominantly used by feminists to basically look down upon attractive sexually provocative women. 

Here's the thing, tell most any man he can have a photoreal doll that he can do whatever he wants with it, but there won't be anybody inside, or a real human partner that will truly feel everything shared, and most anyone will choose a real partner.    Feminist know this, men don't want objects, generally, they want partners.  And many want highly attractive partners.   They don't view them as objects, though in the future they will have objects with all the physical properties of real females, irregardless of that future the reality is that most men tend to want partners and view those of the opposite sex as partners, not objects without feelings.

There is nothing wrong with sexualization in media, and those who claim it's 'objectifying' are only using hateful speech towards attractive women, labeling them as sex objects, probably out of envy.

In this particular post, they link to a pathetic article regarding consent on being viewed in a sexual manner, and the ridiculous notion of active consent(yes can I do this, yes can I do that), something that most people laugh at as it ruins the move and breaks the flow of real human sexual interaction.   In reality there's implied consent or active dissent.   Asking every five minutes if you can continue with a sexual interaction, and asking at each step of the way if you can proceed is sadly retarded, it's just what it is.   If someone doesn't like what's happening they can give verbal and physical signs to stop, easy as that.

Now as to the idea of consenting to be viewed some way, and not being viewed in the way you like it, somehow being wrong.  Well that's venturing into thought crime.  I can watch and think sexually of whoever whenever, and I can draw, model, etc such individuals in whatever way I choose in the privacy of my home with my own private property.   There is nothing wrong with the free use of one's mind and properties when it does not infringe on others rights.   The idea that you have ownership of your likeness, and say if someone else has a similar likeness*(say a twin) you can restrict their actions to suit your whims, is wrong.   For legal purposes you do own the use of your likeness in public displays and public works, but private use of your likeness is fair use, and does not in any way infringe on your rights.       The number of possible human faces is finite, given enough time and resources, a person devoid of any contact with the real world, will be able to generate all human faces past present and future without ever having looked at you personally.     Art can occur and an artist can generate a similar face even without ever having looked at you.

Obviously due to social etiquete, social manners, it is not appropriate to stare or do any awkward and inappropriate action in public that would cause discomfort to others.   That's just behaving appropriate according to social rules.   Some societies might exist where it is disrespectful to not stare, say at those with higher social standing or during a certain social event or ritual, others even taking a glance might be disrespectful.

Now as pertain fictional characters, these characters are the creation of the author of the work, if the author says they consent and can consent, they within the fictional world have the mental faculties and desire to consent as defined by the author, no ifs ands or buts.    Whether you want to view the characters as avatars of the author or not is up to you, but the characters can consent to anything being done to them within a fictional work.   Also the portrayal of injustice and nonconsent, is within artistic right, if a person wants to depict slavery, war, torture, rape with fictional characters they should be free to do so.   Those who do not like such products, well they don't have to buy such products.   

There is nothing objectifying about portraying a character in a sexual way, if the character is meant to be a nonconscious machine then it is objectifying.   But again representation of nonconscious humanoids is not wrong in any way, so such objectification is not wrong, and these nonconscious humanoids are something that will be available in the future, nothing wrong with portraying a very desirable future product.

At most one could say that women are being portrayed in a manner that suggests they're open to sexual advances, as they seem to be portrayed in a "come hither" manner in some media.   Again no one is forcing them to do this, and in the case of fiction it involves no one, so in the end this is merely a physical sign of consent to sexual advances, something that does happen in the real world albeit less obviously usually.    There is nothing wrong with a woman exhibiting receptivity to sexual advances in images or video, even if such appearance was generated artificially solely for the purpose of promoting some product.   Again, being portrayed as open to sexual advances does not make a person an object.

1 comment: