"Objectivization," fantasies and the future of Playboy
Brian Sorgatz
bsorgatz@hotmail.com
Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:55:12 -0700
Peggy has grown tired of the Playmates-versus-celebrities debate, and I
don't blame her. But I think that the objectification question deserves
some more attention, so I'm keeping it going.
Steve Sloca wrote:
>I used the term "objectivization" because it has a well-recognized
>meaning in the debates over Playboy and pornography in the popular
>press, in psychological literature and on college campuses where such
>issues are studied. And, I think that is exactly what men do when
>they construct a sexual fantasy about a celebrity or Playmate without
>thinking of her as a real person with needs and concerns of her own,
>but simply as a hot body to bounce in bed.
By this definition, I *never* objectify PLAYBOY models. For me, the thrill
of seeing them nude lies in the fact that they have *chosen* to pose nude.
(Oh, the audacity!) If I stop thinking of them as persons with free will, I
get bored.
>However, unlike the Andrea
>Dworkin brand of feminists, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong
>with such objectivization in the context of fantasy.
Fair enough, but this means that you can't claim moral superiority for your
personal tastes in erotica on the grounds that they objectify women less
than those of other men. (In earlier posts, I sensed that you were doing
this.) You must make your case in purely aesthetic terms.
Point of usage: I don't believe that "objectivization" is a real word. I
think the word is "objectification."
Brian Sorgatz