[ SECRET POST #3329 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3329 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[herpymcderp]

Uhhhhh.... what moral imperative not to sexualize? That sounds like some fucked up shit if you think being moral means not seeing other people as sex objects. We are all basically wired to have sexual desires and incorporate other people into them*. Saying you can't see another person as sexy seems like some self flagellation.

Sexualize away, just don't behave in a way that makes people uncomfortable, and don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because you find a person sexy that they cease to have any other value or personhood. If you're capable of doing that I don't really see the problem.



*the extent to which this is a personal concern is as individual as a fingerprint, of course- not to preclude asexuals

[(Anonymous)]

seeing other people as sex objects is inherently immoral. I know you're a man and will have a problem hearing this, but you are describing objectification. This is a bad thing.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

Except for the attacking him for being a guy thing. that'snot what we need more of.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree.

Treating other people as sex objects is inherently immoral. See people however you like, so long as you don't act upon those thoughts in a way that makes them uncomfortable.

[(Anonymous)]

Like, how racism is fine as long as you only think "I hate niggers" instead of going out and murdering black people? Oh, wait, no that still makes you a morally valueless person.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, no, it's more like the difference between thinking "oh hey, that guy's black" and going up to a guy and going "LOL UR BLACK DO U HAVE A BIG COCK OH ALSO PLZ RAP FOR MY ENTERTAINMENT"

[(Anonymous)]

I agree thinking that doesn't make you a good person. But again, it does not hurt real people if you do nothing to act upon those thoughts or make life worse for those people.

To use your metaphor, I'm someone who doesn't have a problem until your moral value starts going into negatives i.e. you start acting upon your isms.

[herpymcderp]

Read the whole comment. I'm not. Objectification is when you stop seeing a person as a complex being and only as an object for sex.

I'm specifically saying don't do that. I'm specifically saying that wanting to see something in a sexual light isn't bad as long as you realize that's not the only component to the thing you sexualize.

If nothing in the world was ever sexualized, we wouldn't have... half of fashion, art, music... Women would probably have breasts that were still like chimpanzees and other primates (ie. flat unless lactating). We might not have hair on our heads or faces (according to some theories of sexual selection).

It is not a bad thing, and my masculinity has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[grausam]

but we see other people as objects, aka as a specific function all the time?
professionally we see people all the time as their job function.

if you acknowledge that they have other values and personhood (like he said) there's nothing immoral about "using" people.

exploitation and power imbalance are the problems.

[(Anonymous)]

Sex objects =/= sexy people.

Seeing someone as a person who has many qualities, including sexiness, is not the same thing as seeing someone as a thing that has no qualities except sexiness.

[blitzwing]

seeing other people as sex objects is inherently immoral

I'd like to see you prove that.

[diet_poison]

That sounds like some fucked up shit if you think being moral means not seeing other people as sex objects

But that's exactly what it means when you take away a person's personhood while finding them attractive. Objectification = bad. Finding someone sexy = not bad

[herpymcderp]

That's the exact opposite of my comment.

When I say sex object here I mean it in the evolutionary sense, where you're responding to a certain stimulus that triggers a behavioural response (in this case, a sexual one). This in and of itself is not a bad thing... it's just an animal thing. For the portion of the population who experience sexual attraction, it's probably even an inescapable thing.

My point is it's perfectly possible to see a person as a potential source of sex without reducing them to only a source of sex. We might not always do that (and that's when our sexualizing of people becomes objectification, which is where the problem arises), but it's not wrong to respond to a person in a brightly colored costume who's triggering all those rat-brain behavioural responses with "Oh my, I could maybe want to have sex with that."

Thinking that that's wrong is pretty puritanical, and we all know how well that usually works out for the psyche.

[diet_poison]

Ok, maybe it's different with people you usually talk to, but in my experience "sex object" literally means reducing someone to only a source of sex...so when you said "it's not wrong to see people as sex objects", that's what people thought you meant. All that other stuff you're talking about it just part of sexual attraction and response and it's not objectifying.

[herpymcderp]

Well, I mean, the objectification is the immediate rat brain response to sexy. We go "WOW SEX THING".

That doesn't mean in the next seconds... minutes... however long, the higher brain doesn't come in and go, "Oh by the way that sex thing is also a person with dreams and goals and aspirations and they might not include you, so you should probably consider treating them as such."

The initial reaction is not the problem, the lack of the second one is.

[diet_poison]

We go "WOW SEX THING".

We do? I don't really. Maybe this has personal variance.

Also you're kind of contradicting yourself. Like before you said "it's not immoral to sexually objectify people", then elsewhere in the thread you're saying "but it IS immoral, that's what I actually meant!" and now you're moving goalposts by saying "well what I MEANT was that it is okay but only for a few seconds/minutes, after that it's immoral".

btw I totally think it's possible to go "wow, sexy" without objectifying someone. However that particular reaction might be actually pretty similar and we're having a semantics argument. I'm not really sure. I don't think it's inherently objectifying to look at someone, feel attraction, and go "damn".