|
TheCabal -> RE: Is it unethical to sexually objectify someone without them knowing it? (5/23/2011 4:05:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AAkasha
The comments have been interesting, especially when people assume genders and their answers are based on the gender....
But anyway - there's obviously a line to be drawn for a lot of people. And where it gets fuzzy, I think, is when person A can become sexually aroused by acts or things that are non sexual to an observer. That said, Person A could technically be "using" or "manipulating" someone for their sexual pleasure (maybe steering conversation, or steering actions, for example) and never be caught or be accountable for their actions.
If you switch it into a more common way person A may use person B for sexual gratification that is more OBVIOUS, it's something like "frotteurism" - but again, I suppose a man (or woman) could sexually arouse themselves by brushing against someone and if that person *never knew that it happened* is it still wrong? I think most people say absolutely. I have no knowledge of frotteurism and am not aware of the paraphillia enough to know if the person doing it only gets sexual gratification if there is risk they are getting caught and if the victim is unsuspecting. How is the guy who is brushing against a woman on a subway and getting an erection on purpose any different from the guy touching/feeling a woman's feet as a shoesalesman, getting an erection, and then later fantasizing about it?
When I look at my own fetishes, some of them are obscure, and germane enough that I don't think a man would suspect that a situation or conversation was *sexually arousing* to me unless I admitted this to him. Based on my own ethics, I find that if this is happening, I am obligated to inform the other person, or end the situation. If I were a man with a foot fetish, I would not work at a shoe store.
In the gay m/m fetish community, tickling is a pretty common theme, as well as men's feet and feet in socks/dirty socks. I see a lot of "amateur" video done by college aged men and I suspect that some of these men created these videos (for money or gifts) and may have had NO idea that these videos were done for *sexual arousal* purposes. Of course, there's no nudity, no genitals, and sometimes no face even shown - just bound ankles and tickling. Is that unethical, if done without telling the person that it was sexually driven?
Akasha
I wonder what you'd think of someone who took a job in a shoe store, and then developed (or discovered) the foot fetish while working there.
Of course, none of these concepts are black and white... which is why they make for such a good topic to discuss.
Still, if we're still talking about this in terms of ethical, I think the line is drawn where some form of harm befalls the person being objectified. Now, an argument could be made that 'harm' might extend to the objectified person person becoming upset at discovering what has been going on. But now we're in an even murkier area because different people are going to react very differently to finding out.
In general though - it is perfectly ethical for me to swing my fist... all the way up until it either comes in contact with someone else, or intentionally causes them distress. Of course, if I pump my fist in the air, without intending to do harm or actually doing harm, that's still going to bother some portion of the population... and in that case, I'd say the observer needs to get a life.
|
|
|
|
