• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Objectifying women immoral?

Is it immoral to objectify women?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 11 61.1%
  • I objectify myself all the time.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18

Etoner

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
77
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is it immoral to objectify women?

Is it immoral to see them mostly for their physical qualities?
 
Hot girls in bars never seem to mind it as long as the free drinks keep coming :party:kitty::2party:
 
What else are we supposed to see from across the room? The operative word being "see".
 
Is it immoral to objectify women?

Is it immoral to see them mostly for their physical qualities?
--------------

Nah....I think most men and women are attracted to physical beauty.
I guess, if one couldn't see beyond the physical beauty, to the content of one's character, that could be called immoral.
Maybe shallow is a better descriptor
.
 
Last edited:
Is it immoral to objectify women?

Is it immoral to see them mostly for their physical qualities?

Dunno, but I do think it's immoral when feminazi's try to make me THINK it is immoral. ;)
 
Honey, go make me a sandwich and then slip into something sheer while I think about this.
 
From Terry Pratchet's Discworld series:


Reverend Oats: It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”

Granny Weatherwax: “Nope.”

Reverend Oats: “Pardon?”

Granny Weatherwax: “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”

Reverend Oats: “It’s a lot more complicated than that—”

Granny Weatherwax: “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they are getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

Reverend Oats: “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”

Granny Weatherwax: “But they starts with thinking about people as things . . .”
 
People are objects, but that is not all they are.

It is immoral when physical attributes are the only qualities perceived, and the woman or women are not treated respectfully as a result. Many feminists in the past felt that objectifying women was a tendency that derived solely from our cultural influences. It is wise to understand how our culture, the media, and advertising in particular, shape our thoughts and behavior. More people should try it. However, I feel that many of the early feminists failed to recognize the instinctual aspects of male sexuality, and also its positive aspects. We do not need to be ashamed or afraid of our instincts, or even our cultural influences, we just need to understand them and moderate their influence so as perceive things more accurately and treat others fairly. Fortunately most feminists now have a more realistic worldview.
 
Last edited:
Dunno, but I do think it's immoral when feminazi's try to make me THINK it is immoral. ;)

If you don't know whether it is immoral, perhaps it is. So why object to someone pointing that out?
 
Is it immoral to objectify women?

Is it immoral to see them mostly for their physical qualities?

Eh... I'm gonna say it depends.

I don't believe in thought crime. Actions and feelings are different.

And there is certainly a way to be a superficial person and still be reasonably ethical: seek out women who view you in a similarly superficial way, be honest, and keep things nice and light. In fact, I think such a person would be much happier for doing this, than trying to have a relationship with a woman who expects the intellectual and emotional to be a serious part of the relationship. Everybody wins.

One also has to accept that they do not have a right to push their superficial views onto other people, and try to tell them how they should define themselves.

You can define your own relationships however you like, but a random woman walking down the street is not obligated to accept your superficial view, and you should expect to be put in your place for attempting to force her to do so.
 
It's part of human nature to look but if all you're attracted to is looks, then you might be what's called "shallow".

Also, I find it childish and dumb if you can't get beyond the beginning stages of a romance.
 
There is a distinction between focusing in on someone's looks (sexualizing), and objectifying (dehumanizing) them. The second, I would argue, is immoral no matter whom you do it to.
 
The "objectification" of women (or men, for that matter) is perfectly natural in most regards. After all, physical attractiveness in both males and females is often an indicator of genetic superiority where breeding potential is concerned.

Why would anyone be expected to be immediately drawn to anything else?

It becomes immoral when one categorically refuses to acknowledge that there is anything to a given individual beyond mere physical attractiveness, and uses them as such.
 
Last edited:
If you don't know whether it is immoral, perhaps it is. So why object to someone pointing that out?

(Sigh) It was a joke...not meant to be taken seriously. Must I put "JK" after every such comment? Geez :(
 
There is a distinction between focusing in on someone's looks (sexualizing), and objectifying (dehumanizing) them. The second, I would argue, is immoral no matter whom you do it to.

Exactly.

What's interesting about the OP to me is that the question is about women only. :roll:
 
If it's wrong, women are just as guilty, if not more so of doing it than men are.

Hair, make-up, clothing, fashion, shoes, ear-rings, belly piercings, diets..... the list goes on forever.
 
Sexual attraction is hard wired into us. It would be foolish to suggest we shouldn't objectify others when it comes to the response they elicit physically. As to responding ONLY to looks, however, one negates the person, as they are reduced to being little more than a sex object.

Are there men so shallow they see women only as sex objects? Sure. Are there women so shallow they allow it? Sure. Do these people tend to find each other? Sure again.

Meanwhile, the complex, interesting and creative people are free to find each other.
 
There is a distinction between focusing in on someone's looks (sexualizing), and objectifying (dehumanizing) them. The second, I would argue, is immoral no matter whom you do it to.

How do you distinguish?
 
Is it immoral to objectify women?

Is it immoral to see them mostly for their physical qualities?

Immoral? No.

To everything there are two sides. If one chooses to objectify, and the other objects, then walk away.
If they accept it, they have nothing to complain about.
 
(Sigh) It was a joke...not meant to be taken seriously. Must I put "JK" after every such comment? Geez :(

I considered that, but wasn't sure, too many stupid people here. Sorry, I hate to be too serious.
 
Depends on who the woman is and who she is to you. The problem with the cultural objectification of women isn't treating them as objects, but as treating them as objects with only one purpose.
 
Poll lacks obligatory "Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man."
 
I considered that, but wasn't sure, too many stupid people here. Sorry, I hate to be too serious.

I don't think most of the people who post here are stupid. I do think this post is, though.
 
I considered that, but wasn't sure, too many stupid people here. Sorry, I hate to be too serious.

Thats okay. Just for future reference, when I am being serious I tend to sound pompous and condescending.....that should help! LOL ;)
 
Idolatry is evil, worse when it includes dehumanization.
 
Back
Top Bottom