quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

I really don't know what the big deal is about objectification and I don't understand why people seem so intent in denying the suggestion.

sex=objectification=identification - if that wasn't the truth then we would all have neat matching avatars.  Or we wouldn't have photographs at all.  Even our (generic) names objectify us.

Wyld wouldn't be cross legged and serene in cuffs.
We wouldn't have a statue of a couple.
Jeff wouldn't have his image portraying his relationship with his wife.
Andalusite wouldn't have her image in the grip of another.
Peg wouldn't have that gorgeous, exposed Vallejo sketch.

They are objectifcations of the presence that they portray.  There is nothing degrading or negative about such objectification.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbcurious
I agree with what you say and in the manner in which you view objectification there is no negative element. The manner in which the Op is using it is to devalue that which is being objectified. Because objectification is one of my kinks, I take exception to his negative connotation.

quote:

If anything I might be too easy on the sadist, and too harsh on 'normal people'. Also, maybe I miss the essential relationship between the two, how normal and sadomasochistic sex exist as two sides of the same (arguably 'fucked-up') coin

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

I really don't know what the big deal is about objectification and I don't understand why people seem so intent in denying the suggestion.

sex=objectification=identification - if that wasn't the truth then we would all have neat matching avatars.  Or we wouldn't have photographs at all.  Even our (generic) names objectify us.

Wyld wouldn't be cross legged and serene in cuffs.
We wouldn't have a statue of a couple.
Jeff wouldn't have his image portraying his relationship with his wife.
Andalusite wouldn't have her image in the grip of another.
Peg wouldn't have that gorgeous, exposed Vallejo sketch.

They are objectifcations of the presence that they portray.  There is nothing degrading or negative about such objectification.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbcurious

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

I really don't know what the big deal is about objectification and I don't understand why people seem so intent in denying the suggestion.

sex=objectification=identification - if that wasn't the truth then we would all have neat matching avatars.  Or we wouldn't have photographs at all.  Even our (generic) names objectify us.

Wyld wouldn't be cross legged and serene in cuffs.
We wouldn't have a statue of a couple.
Jeff wouldn't have his image portraying his relationship with his wife.
Andalusite wouldn't have her image in the grip of another.
Peg wouldn't have that gorgeous, exposed Vallejo sketch.

They are objectifcations of the presence that they portray.  There is nothing degrading or negative about such objectification.

the.dark.

I agree with what you say and in the manner in which you view objectification there is no negative element. The manner in which the Op is using it is to devalue that which is being objectified. Because objectification is one of my kinks, I take exception to his negative connotation.

quote:


Might it be a simple case of misunderstanding the dynamics of SM?  For example, I doubt that there few (I never say never) people who, whilst talking about slaves in this or similar environments envisage american black slavery or roman concubines when discussing bdsm slavery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc
Jeff wouldn't have his image portraying his relationship with his wife.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8
Why the same word then?

I know this is a hard question; I don't necessarily have a complete answer.

quote:

It's definitely worth delving into, though.

Maybe it's a strange convergence of sorts. Maybe it's not.

But something's there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards the person's sexual pleasure. Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with insufficient regard for a person's personality.[1][2]
To my knowledge, this does not happen in my sexual relations with Carol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

quote:

ORIGINAL: jbcurious
I agree with what you say and in the manner in which you view objectification there is no negative element. The manner in which the Op is using it is to devalue that which is being objectified. Because objectification is one of my kinks, I take exception to his negative connotation.

Hi jb - hope you are well!
Might it be a simple case of misunderstanding the dynamics of SM?  For example, I doubt that there few (I never say never) people who, whilst talking about slaves in this or similar environments envisage american black slavery or roman concubines when discussing bdsm slavery.

But less can be said for sadism and masochism.  That old mental illness version is still the core view of what a sadist actual is within this or similar environments.

The OP himself posted

quote:

If anything I might be too easy on the sadist, and too harsh on 'normal people'. Also, maybe I miss the essential relationship between the two, how normal and sadomasochistic sex exist as two sides of the same (arguably 'fucked-up') coin

It's almost as though there is a sense of no understanding that sadists feel, love, care and that all non sadists can and in fact do have all these emotions/feelings, which isn't true.
Whilst sadism can focus on the 'object' that doesn't mean that the object is unlovable.  It doesn't mean that the sadist doesn't have any feelings or indeed empathy and there is a certain assertion that sadism is inherently selfish - which might lead one to assume that masochism is not?  Or that it is also selfish and that so called non SM is inherently selfless.  And again, we know that isn't entirely the whole truth.

I am expecting jb, that you pretty much get what I am saying - but I'm just swishing out there anyhoo... rambling thoughts an all that...

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: pegbundy

Ok Silence, let me get this straight. By rejecting your basic premise that sex=objectification, I am distancing myself from reality? Have I read this diatribe correctly? This is certainly good to know. Thank you for your astute diagnosis.

be well

By simplifying this analysis, and the dynamics of reality, I suppose it's easier to dismiss what you don't like.

Notice the double edge-- oh, Silence, your writing is too complicated, simplify it so I can say it's too simple and dismiss it on hand.

Objectification's being a part of sex only reflects objectification's being a part of reality more generally. Are you really going to argue that objectification isn't a huge part of modern reality? The fact of the matter is that you have no idea where the clothes you wear, the food you eat, etc., was made and by whom. These people for you have been objectified -- they don't exist as people for you, even though they are essential for your existence. This is fairly clear cut; this is review. The only point I'm adding is that I cannot see a way that the predominance of objectified relationships in everyday reality would not affect everyday sexual reality. I cannot with an intellectual conscience maintain this fantasy of separation, especially in BDSM relationships, where the magic word 'slave' is taken quite directly from the most objectified form of human labor.

If you want to engage intellectually, explain to me why the same word is used. This is the elephant in the room for your perspective. For mine, it's simply another part.

The key point I need to reemphasize, I guess, is that objectification as I see it isn't generally good or bad, but potentially swings both ways.

I should maybe change all the references to objectification to some other word or construct, like 'body over mind' or something, to avoid all the knee-jerk reactions?

It's not ridiculous to say that all thought involves a type of objectification, this arbitrary violence of saying this is this and that is that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pegbundy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: pegbundy

Ok Silence, let me get this straight. By rejecting your basic premise that sex=objectification, I am distancing myself from reality? Have I read this diatribe correctly? This is certainly good to know. Thank you for your astute diagnosis.

be well

By simplifying this analysis, and the dynamics of reality, I suppose it's easier to dismiss what you don't like.

Notice the double edge-- oh, Silence, your writing is too complicated, simplify it so I can say it's too simple and dismiss it on hand.

Objectification's being a part of sex only reflects objectification's being a part of reality more generally. Are you really going to argue that objectification isn't a huge part of modern reality? The fact of the matter is that you have no idea where the clothes you wear, the food you eat, etc., was made and by whom. These people for you have been objectified -- they don't exist as people for you, even though they are essential for your existence. This is fairly clear cut; this is review. The only point I'm adding is that I cannot see a way that the predominance of objectified relationships in everyday reality would not affect everyday sexual reality. I cannot with an intellectual conscience maintain this fantasy of separation, especially in BDSM relationships, where the magic word 'slave' is taken quite directly from the most objectified form of human labor.

If you want to engage intellectually, explain to me why the same word is used. This is the elephant in the room for your perspective. For mine, it's simply another part.

The key point I need to reemphasize, I guess, is that objectification as I see it isn't generally good or bad, but potentially swings both ways.

I should maybe change all the references to objectification to some other word or construct, like 'body over mind' or something, to avoid all the knee-jerk reactions?

It's not ridiculous to say that all thought involves a type of objectification, this arbitrary violence of saying this is this and that is that.

I believe that I earlier acknowledged your rewrite, your attempt to simplify your writing so that us dullards could comprehend what it is that you are trying to convey.

I cannot address the points on sadism as I am not a sadist. I cannot address the use of the world slave as I do not identify as such. I can only respond to your assertion that sex necessarily equates to objectification. This seems to me fundamental to your argument, and I refute it. In my experience, sex (be it "normal" or bdsm) simplifies to an exchange of energies rather than a reduction to use of an object. And so it seems your entire argument rings false in my ears.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCdc

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards the person's sexual pleasure. Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with insufficient regard for a person's personality.[1][2]
To my knowledge, this does not happen in my sexual relations with Carol.

It's arguable (in a discussion kinda way, not in a you are wrong kinda way!)
Your portrait is sexual, whether you did so consciously or not.  Carol is leaning forward, her back is arched - her neck is elongated(sp?) and this is a classic way for photographers (cheat tip number 1) to make a person look tall - giving the impression that there is no weakness so creates the impression of strength and dignity - even free will to an extent if you want me to get all psychie.
Shes either on her knees, or you are on a box and she is directed towards your groin.  Her attention is obviously on your face but her subservience places her at a sexual crossroads (hark at me all freudian).  She is defining herself via the image as lowered to you.  She is a person, but framed in a statuesque way which makes her an object.  If objectification is a commodity, that means she has worth and belongs to something or someone - which in this frame, is you - hence the lead.  It 'leads' us(generic) to the connection - almost like an umbilical cord.

quote:

Objectification is the process by which an abstract concept is treated as if it is a concrete thing or physical object. In this sense the term is synonym to reification.
In this sense, you are correct. The photo takes an abstract slice of our marriage and brings it down to a physical thing (the photo). Given the above definition, I would assume that is a function of all art.

 
Most art objectifies something... I hesitate to say 'all' only because I cannot claim to have seen every piece ever created and I don't like to be generalistic.  But the images people use here on CM?  I, without a doubt, would say it objectifies.

the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

RCdc, I think that leadership (Jeff) meant that he doesn't objectify Carol while they are having sex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

I disagree that objectification is automatically a part of sex or masturbation. I suppose it can be, for some people, but that isn't my approach to sexual things. That's part of why I'm not the slightest bit drawn to casual sex - I need connection and emotional closeness. Oh, and often my brain is shut down if I play hard - I get so caught up in sensations and so subspacey that I can barely say "no" or my own name, much less think anything intellectual!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
Most likely, the reason that most people use "slave" is because they feel it is erotic, or they want to express that they are owned and possessed down to their core, that they feel they have no choice or free will of their own...