Search the Community

this is an excerpt from my blog i've been sitting on for a while preface: i will be using the terms “man” and “woman” in a general sense, though i understand that there are some exceptions, just like a horse by definition has 4 legs, but sometimes they are born with 3, however that doesn’t make that animal not-a-horse. so please, contain your exceptions until the end. theory: the use of the word “objectification” (labeling) is a woman’s way of saying she feels uncomfortable in the face of the fact that a man is sexually attracted to her, or another woman. but instead of being honest about her own discomfort, she uses the term “objectification” to turn the blame on the man. just like how a priest uses the term “sin” to turn the blame on other people when his prophecies and predictions don’t come true. the words “sin” and “objectification” are nearly identical in practice because neither are rationally defined by an external method, and instead are used to absorb anything that the user feels uncomfortable in response to, and then masquerades this as a universally applicable concept, not a personal preference. there is, of course, nothing wrong with being uncomfortable. i encourage everyone to speak up about things that make them uncomfortable, with the understanding that your discomfort does not generate an obligation in other people to cater to it. what is wrong, however, is lying. claims of objectification are dishonest, because objectification is not defined by any objective standard, just like pejoratives. since there are no objective standards for detecting objectification, any claims of objectification are dishonest because no proof is possible until there are objective and testable hypothesis for determining the presence of objectification. for a better explanation of why it is a lie, see my article about the dishonesty of pejoratives. so if claims of objectification are dishonest, what is the incentive for their use? here is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis: benefits: 1. causes man to feel moral dilemma over being attracted to a woman, thus pausing his pursuit. if he is a good man, he will take a while to process this moral dilemma, or he may disregard the claim, because he does not know what is meant by objectification. 2. woman eliminates what she believes to be the source of her discomfort in the short term. 3. woman discovers a short-term degree of power to mitigate the amount of attention she receives. costs: 1. a good man will continue to be confused about whether or not his own attraction is objectification or not, possibly causing long-term harm to other romantic investments. 2. man associates the confusion with the woman, instead of the foggy concept of objectification. 3. the woman drives away good men who can detect this strategy. after this strategy is foiled, she must either invest in a new social group or a new strategy for mitigating male attention. what are your thoughs? do you have anything to add or correct?