[ 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

[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".