One of the things it says is that millions and millions of people watched the Royal wedding, a fair proportion of whom were heterosexual men uninterested in the Queen’s choice of attire or the Bishop of London’s sermon.

I’m not saying there aren’t sensible points which can be made about this episode, and the amplifying, self-reinforcing role played by the mass media and social networks, but I’m wary of obsessing about ‘our culture’ and ignoring the underlying biological mechanism here. If you can point me towards a culture anywhere, any time where heterosexual men haven’t ogled attractive women, I’ll eat Princess Beatrice’s hat.

“It is this process of objectification”

Objectification of the female figure is part of what makes us human, dumbolt. The very existence of breasts for example. Our primate cousins all have the same milk glands, suckle their young (as of course do all mammals) but humans are the only ones with prominent breasts. They exist purely and solely to be objectified.

Much the same can be said of the shape of women’s hips.

“How can we expect gender equality to be achieved in an environment like this?”

We can’t among humans then can we?

Alternatively, we could simply note the sad fact that some parts of human physiology are there for the very person of objectification and get on with creating as much equality as we can.

@ 1

If you can point me towards a culture anywhere, any time where heterosexual men haven’t ogled attractive women, I’ll eat Princess Beatrice’s hat.

Isn’t this a rather hollow statement? I mean, what’s so big about offering to eat a pretzel? I’ve eaten dozens of them – with beer od course.

@2

“They [women's breasts] exist purely and solely to be objectified”

No. They exist purely & solely to (as you pointed out yourself) feed babies. Anything else (dubious evolutionary pyschological theories etc) is secondary.

“Much the same can be said of the shape of women’s hips.”

Yeah, nothing to do with that whole child-birth thing…

Jeesus Tim. You’ve got smarts when it comes to economics even though you’re generally wrong, at least you’re wrong in a correct manner. This is just base ignorance & small-minded sexism, sorry.

In the case of papers like the Daily Mail – and, sadly, over two million a day like the Daily Dacre enough to pay good money for it – it is just another way of keeping sales up.

The Mail had been preparing Pippa Middleton for this role from 2009. It didn’t just happen at the wedding, as I noted in this blogpost:

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2011/05/its-daily-pippa.html

and they’ve been following her since, most notably very closely and creepily around Madrid.

What does the objectification of Pippa Middleton say about our culture?

Nothing good.

“How can we expect gender equality to be achieved in an environment like this?”

Just out of curiosity, what is your utopia?

Do you seek an end to all objectification of women, or “equality” in that objectification? Would porn be okay if it featured men and women in equal (and opposite) roles?

How should men express their sexuality? How should women express theirs?

Is it wrong for me to compliment my partner on her fabulous arse? Is it wrong when she makes an identical comment about mine? It is wrong that I feel happy when she does so?

@7

If you can’t tell the difference between you complimenting your partner and you “complimenting” Ms Middleton then you probably have problems… and may end up like this unfortunate car-owner http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386280/Pippa-Middleton-derriere-Motorist-paid-price-admitting-preferred-Pippas-figure.html

@8 – “If you can’t tell the difference between you complimenting your partner and you “complimenting” Ms Middleton then you probably have problems…”

Thanks for that. I didn’t watch the wedding, nor do I care about Ms Middleton. I was referring to the original assertion that:

“… no matter what one wears, the objectification still takes place… What you wear isn’t that important, what’s more significant is the fact you’re a woman.”

Is there a difference between an identically-worded comment, just because mine is directed at a woman whilst hers is directed at a man? Am I engaging in a “process of objectification, commodification and dehumanisation” – if so, what is she doing?

The Speccie called it vulgarity, I tend to agree.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6955258/against-vulgarity.thtml

A good post from Dalrymple.

Leftie blog outraged after hetrosexual men and lesbian ladies expressed sexual interest in sexy looking lass at a wedding.

@9

No – the point is that there’s a huge difference between appreciating the sexuality of your partner & saying “phwoar, nice arse” at/to/about a total stranger. It’s not rocket science.

@12

Lesbian ladies? Funnily enough 100% of articles I’ve read surrounding Ms Middleton’s appearance at the wedding have been written from a straight-man viewpoint. Correct me if I’m wrong.

@13 – “… the point is that there’s a huge difference between appreciating the sexuality of your partner & saying “phwoar, nice arse” at/to/about a total stranger. It’s not rocket science.”

But what *is* the difference? Where is the line drawn between “appreciating the sexuality of your partner” (or the reverse) and engaging in a “process of objectification, commodification and dehumanisation” – and who draws that line?

I can appreciate the point of the article, and I’m not seriously suggesting that there’s no difference whatsoever, but again – what is the ideal?

Is it permitted to say “phwoar, nice arse [/body part of choice]” at a total stranger if they are an actor / actress in an adult film? What if it’s not specifically an “adult” film? What if it’s a racy MTV video? Is it more or less acceptable to direct such comments at a woman than a man? Why?

I am absolutely passionately *for* gender equality; what I want to try to understand is the author’s conception of what that means.

“No. They exist purely & solely to (as you pointed out yourself) feed babies.”

No, that’s what milk glands and nipples are for. And those we share with our primate cousins. Breasts, qua breasts, are not necessary for this function of feeding babies. Yet humans have them. Must be some reason other than feeding babies, right?

That men do ogle them, that women do display/emphasise through dress etc gives us a hint as to what they are for.

“Yeah, nothing to do with that whole child-birth thing…”

No, the shape of a woman’s hips is determined more by the subcutaneous fat not by the pelvic girdle. Yes, there are bone differences, but these are relatively trivial in giving the form that we actually see.

“How can we expect gender equality to be achieved in an environment like this?”

It’s a nice rhetorical question, since our old friend ‘common sense’ suggests that women are less likely to be treated as equals in an environment in which their sexual objectification and commodification is culturally accepted. I’d be curious to know what evidence there is to back this up, though, because it’s far from obvious that there’s actually a negative correlation between the degree of equality enjoyed by women within a society and the cultural acceptability within that society of the sort of objectification you’re talking about – porn, media focus on physical attractiveness etc. If anything don’t the more ‘repressed’ societies (in which such things are taboo) tend also to be the more repressive societies (in which women have a lower status than men)?

@15 “Is it more or less acceptable to direct such comments at a woman than a man?”

Well men don’t have to deal with constant low level sexism like women do, so the context is important here.

Royal pundit Nikki Hollis said: “It’s quite an acheivement to stand out as the most perfect arse at an event attended by Prince Philip, George Osborne and Ben Fogle.”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/britain-overjoyed-by-union-of-buttocks-201105033766/

Some even go so far as to claim Prince ‘do you still throw spears at each other’ Philip has had a bit of buttock work done?
http://www.realself.com/files/IMG_0806-20391.JPG

Who is Pippa Middleton?

@19 – Whoa, first point highly amusing, second point most off-putting!

Gotta love the google ads on this page:

Her Royal Hotness?kogan.co.uk
Check out Pippa Middleton in FullHD Quality viewing for less at Kogan
Girdles & SuspendersBouxAvenue.com/Girdles
Light Control Girdles for the Perfect Fit. Free Delivery Over £50
Royal Wedding Coin £4.95www.londonmintoffice.org/wedding
William & Catherine Wedding coin With 24ct gold – strictly limited!

“What you wear isn’t that important, what’s more significant is the fact you’re a woman. The Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, News of the World and Daily Mirror all published pictures showing the Kate and Pippa Middleton holidaying on a yacht.”

Well, newspapers do show pictures of attractive men with their shirts off, and for obvious reasons so do celebrity-stalking magazines like Heat. It happens far more often with women, of course, but it’s not a one-way street.

I’d start with the obvious: people find other people sexually attractive, and that creates a market. The fact that there are far more smutty (if you like) pictures of women than men out there is likely down to two factors: first, men seem to be more focused on sex than women, and second, men apparently find visual stimuli more arousing than women do, while women get more out of verbal stimuli. Most video porn is aimed at men, most erotic fiction is aimed at women.

I’m not at all convinced by the assumption made by the leading question asked in this article’s title: that commenting on a woman’s attractiveness amounts to turning her into an object. I too would like to know what the author’s utopia would look like, because it sounds suspiciously like a place where sexuality is treated as a dirty little secret, undoing hundreds of years of social progress.

What I do dislike, in relation to this story, is the way that people pay the media to follow famous people around to a level that constitutes harrassment, whether to get pictures of them in their underwear or to pry into their private lives.

@23 – “I too would like to know what the author’s utopia would look like, because it sounds suspiciously like a place where sexuality is treated as a dirty little secret, undoing hundreds of years of social progress.”

Exactly! Thank you…

The Anti-Porn Men website (linked above) has some interesting content, but much of it appears to be puritanical in tone – it is not at all clear what role (if any?) sex and sexuality would play in the absence of all that is declaimed.

Liberal only when I agree with you.

What is the point here?

What it shows is that The Daily Mail and the Daily torygrapgh (which are always sermonising about moral family values) are read by a bunch of letching dirty old men.

No change there then.

I should point out that it is perfectly possible to objectify the body of a member of the opposite (or even same) sex whilst also respecting them as a person and for their mind.

@ 27 George W Potter

“I should point out that it is perfectly possible to objectify the body of a member of the opposite (or even same) sex whilst also respecting them as a person and for their mind.”

If I’m right about what you mean by “objectify” there (I think most who use the term would say that objectification by definition meant a lack of respect), then I agree.

The problem with the whole “objectification” thing is that it assumes that finding someone sexually attractive (or voicing that feeling, or looking at pictures to get that feeling) automatically means that you must see them ONLY as a sexual being and believe that their mind and personality are irrelevant. There’s a big logical gap in that argument, and it remains unfilled.

Sexiness is one asset among many, such as strength and intelligence. If paying someone to pose attractively in papers is treating them as a sex object, then paying someone to lift heavy objects is treating them as a muscles object, and paying someone to do your accounting is treating them as a good-with-numbers object.

@23

“I too would like to know what the author’s utopia would look like, because it sounds suspiciously like a place where sexuality is treated as a dirty little secret, undoing hundreds of years of social progress.”

I disagree. If you go back hundreds of years we don’t get sexuality treated as a dirty little secret but rather mainstream and acceptable attitudes were more objectificationist (to use terrible English) than they are today. Roads called Gropecunt Lane, for example, left nothing to the imagination of a 15th/16th century citizen.

While I don’t want to put words to what the OP is driving at, I’d rather have a culture myself where women didn’t feel objectified and Pippa Middleton’s shape/bum wasn’t headline news. That isn’t undoing social progress made by putting people in control of their own sexuality, that’s carrying forward the same progress to its desireable end, ie a more equal society with fewer hang-ups about sex etc.

“ie a more equal society with fewer hang-ups about sex etc.”

Rather my point. A society in which “Whoa! Nice Tits!” or buns, or abs, hair, figure, beard, legs, ankles……all of the various signals that humans do in fact seem to like about the opposite (or same…I was rather amused to hear that big tits and solid thighs on women are more appreciated among the lesbian community than they are among the male hetero) sex are taken to be what they are. Entirely subjective objectifications.

And then we go on to the important parts of human sexuality, like will you respect me in the morning, would you like to raise my children, what in buggery am I going to think of you in 30 years time?

@ 28 Chaise

“The problem with the whole “objectification” thing is that it assumes that finding someone sexually attractive (or voicing that feeling, or looking at pictures to get that feeling) automatically means that you must see them ONLY as a sexual being and believe that their mind and personality are irrelevant. There’s a big logical gap in that argument, and it remains unfilled.”

This looks right to me.

Nobody worries that media fascination with Wayne Rooney’s foot involves an unacceptable objectification of Wayne Rooney, a reduction of Wayne Rooney into a mere assemblage of body parts the sole purpose of which is to fulfill male fantasies inspired by reading one too many Roy of the Rovers strips.

@31

That’s because footballers are already nearly wholly dehumanised by virtue of their “profession” and the insanity surrounding it. The very fact that, say, Rooney can go from being the second coming of Christ one week to worse than Hitler the next should tell you that.
IMO it’s an issue, but a side one from the point of the OP because men do not suffer from the gender imbalance like women do.

29. Mr S. Pill – “While I don’t want to put words to what the OP is driving at, I’d rather have a culture myself where women didn’t feel objectified and Pippa Middleton’s shape/bum wasn’t headline news. That isn’t undoing social progress made by putting people in control of their own sexuality, that’s carrying forward the same progress to its desireable end, ie a more equal society with fewer hang-ups about sex etc.”

The only way to make sure women didn’t feel objectified and Pippa’s arse isn’t headline news is to return to a more puritanical past where such subjects were taboo in front of the wives and servants. The fewer hang-ups we have about sex, the more we are going to comment on PM’s rear. Putting people in control of their own sexuality is a harder issue because clearly many men have been put in control of their own sexual feelings towards PM. But PM herself has lost control over that. But then she never had it. Heterosexual men are always going to think she looked nice in that dress. The only question is whether society is Victorian enough to prevent them saying so in front of the children.

There’s a matter of basic politeness here. There’s no stopping people – oh, okay, us – reflecting on the, er, aesthetic worth of another person’s form but there’s no real need to advertise one’s lust in the media’s equivalent of a frenzied crotch chop.

From Dalrymple’s piece…

Just when you think that their childish lavatorialism can descend no further, along come their future Queen’s sister’s buttocks to prove you wrong. No feeling for the person to whom the buttocks belong (if ownership is quite the relationship one has to one’s buttocks), no sense of national or personal dignity restrains them. The British are a nation of playground sniggerers who insist, in the name of freedom of expression, that their sniggers not only be heard but broadcast. They are like children who think excretion the best joke in the world and who are in the process of discovering sex.

I think I’m with Chaise on this. I’m basically sceptical of the whole psychology of ‘objectification’. It seems to assume that the true version of human sexuality is one where we’re all blissfully unconcerned about physical appearances, and are atrtacted to people purely on the basis of their characters and intellectual attributes. But because of the wickedness of our culture we’ve all been conned into focussing on bums and boobs. Needless to say, I think that’s nonsense.

At the same time, there are definitely legitimate criticisms to be made of the paparazzo-culture of the gutter press. I also think it is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether anyone’s bottom has any place on the front page of supposedly serious-minded newspapers.

Why blame honest porn and erotica for the behaviour of sleezy lurid and hypocritical newspapers like the daily mail?

@33 – “The only way to make sure women didn’t feel objectified and Pippa’s arse isn’t headline news is to return to a more puritanical past where such subjects were taboo in front of the wives and servants.”

What – when women were the legal property of their husbands? When women were denied the vote? When a woman’s place was in the home?

“There’s a matter of basic politeness here”

Of course there is, but when you are dealing with the rabid right wing hypocrites at the Daily Mail or the tory graph, so politeness goes out of the window. Family vaules is for the plebs, the good old tory voter can ogle with glee.

By the way, I would watch out if I was Pippa. The scum media want another Diana, and Kate is off limits now seeing as what happened to her husbands mother. Would not look too good if the media killed off both William’s mother and his wife.

So Pippa is available, and semi detached from the mighty Wurlitzer Royal circus. Good luck trying to tame that.

Thanks for this post Matt, you are absolutely right, it’s incredible that this ‘story’ has been carried by major news outlets. It’s lazy and desperate. The sort of rubbish you see in Heat magazine.

And we have no hope of gender inequality in an environment like this. My view is that we can blame the gibberish peddled by psuedo-science books like ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ for some of this. People seem to think that the objectification is ‘natural’ and inevitable. Fancy that eh? How convenient.

A recent book ‘Delusions of Gender’ dispels all the myths many people hold dear about men and women. Brilliant reading.

So, thanks Matt for writing about this. Ignore your critics. You are brave and you are right!

I knew social engineering would never bring them to orgasm.

Biological engineering is the next big thing- stop objectification of women.

Bromide with the fluoride.

Ignore your critics…

Never the most productive attitude to take.

“Never the most productive attitude to take”.

Are you sure? I would say it is sometimes the most productive attitude to take. It depends. In this case I would say it is very productive. Matt should notice his critics but ignore their protests. He is speaking against the status quo so needs to remain confident which isn’t easy when everyone else either colludes with the common views or has a vested interest in maintaining it.

I agree. Pipa Middleton has a great butt. I am not sure if it is treasonous to upstage the future Queen of England on her wedding day with your butt is it? Off with her head maybe? I was at a wedding myself at the weekend trying not to stare at girls too young for me in very sexy dresses. What can you do? That must be what such dresses are designed for and you are supposed to feel guilty about looking. I agree. Inglish culture is a bit fucked up like that.

That men do ogle them, that women do display/emphasise through dress etc gives us a hint as to what they are for.

Is Tim Worstall thick or is this bit meant to be a joke?

44. Sunny Hundal – “Is Tim Worstall thick or is this bit meant to be a joke?”

I am curious, why do you think that what he said is not 100% true and accurate?

Pippa Middleton did not pick out a dress at random. Nor do most women. They dress for effect by and large. We can debate about what that effect might be in any individual case, but on the whole, there is a clear purpose – to enhance their sexual attraction to the opposite sex. This is not something we learn, it is hard wired in our genes. Women, on the whole, all over the world know what to enhance and what to hide. The details may vary, but the broad intent is universal. Breasts exist because they attract men. Otherwise we would not have them. I don’t know how pretending that we are not attracted to a nice example of the same is going to change that.

But I do agree that we should be more gentlemanly, dare I say Middle Class, and not comment so crudely on them. Alas for the death of Edwardian mores!

How can we expect gender equality to be achieved in an environment like this?

We can’t.

@45 If you believe the middle class are less crude than the working class, I’ve a bridge to sell you.

47. Cylux – “If you believe the middle class are less crude than the working class, I’ve a bridge to sell you.”

Great! I have always wanted to own a bridge. I am not sure they are less crude. I would say the working class tends to be more honest. Perhaps open is a better word. It is certainly true in my experience that the Working Classes are more likely to be open about racism for instance. But that doesn’t mean the Middle Classes are less racist. They just know what not to say in public. So too with PM’s rear.

Worstall is one hell of a real creep. Vile, vile little man.

@ Charlottle Pell

“People seem to think that the objectification is ‘natural’ and inevitable. Fancy that eh? How convenient. ”

Be fair. It’s at least highly plausible that men’s fascination with certain ‘body parts’ is (largely) the product of evolutionary pressures rather than (largely) the product of cultural pressures. It’s not as if that idea is so stupid (given what we know about sexual selection) that you could only believe it if you found it convenient to believe it…

“A recent book ‘Delusions of Gender’ dispels all the myths many people hold dear about men and women. Brilliant reading.”

…still, thanks for the tip. Some highly plausible beliefs are still wrong, and it’s good to know they are being challenged by bona fide scientists and not just by postmodern, lit-crit ‘gender’ experts.

I have to say, though, that even if nurture trumps nature in all sorts of areas – maths ability, ‘multitasking’ ability, etc etc – you’d expect the ‘sexuality’ stuff to be among the most hardwired. Otherwise aren’t we back to the (surely discredited?) view that LGBT people are made, not born, and so that ‘the parents are to blame’, they can be ‘cured’ by therapy, etc.?

49. none of your business – “Worstall is one hell of a real creep. Vile, vile little man.”

What has Tim Worstall said that threatens your world view so badly?

50. G.O. – “Be fair. It’s at least highly plausible that men’s fascination with certain ‘body parts’ is (largely) the product of evolutionary pressures rather than (largely) the product of cultural pressures.”

What do you mean highly plausible? It would be frankly incredulous if it was any other way. We know, all over the world, people have surprisingly similar views on certain body parts. It is not as if there are people who don’t care about breasts and are focused on ankles – as nice as a well turned ankle might be.

“I have to say, though, that even if nurture trumps nature in all sorts of areas – maths ability, ‘multitasking’ ability, etc etc – you’d expect the ‘sexuality’ stuff to be among the most hardwired.”

Indeed. And it would almost certainly have to be hard wired or we would not be here. Sex serves a specific evolutionary function. It would be utterly bizarre if it had not evolved under the pressure of that function.

“Otherwise aren’t we back to the (surely discredited?) view that LGBT people are made, not born, and so that ‘the parents are to blame’, they can be ‘cured’ by therapy, etc.?”

Except everyone, especially on the Left, tends to hold two different views simultaneously. Homosexuality is hard wired – not their choice. But gender is not hard wired. That is a choice. There is no consistency here.

I am not too sure about what it says about our ‘culture’ as such, but it does tell us a great deal about the ‘Left’. Is it possible that we spend too much analysis on things that matter not a jot and ignore the bigger picture?

Here is something that may have escaped everyone else’s notice. Pippa Middleton has a great arse, lets see if we can get past that?

On the same day we saw the rich and famous strut their stuff. If we want to bring the sexual politics into it we saw millions of women swoon at the rich and powerful men on show. Perhaps we could discuss why money and power is so much of an aphrodisiac? Perhaps if women found that less of a turn-on, perhaps we would have a better society? You know, less materialistic? Perhaps if the ‘bad boy’ wasn’t so fascinating to women we would have a less violent society? Just saying. However none of that is really worth a debate because it goes central to our human sexuality, which is fair enough. No way am I seriously going to blame women for the fact that greedy, violent men at seen as the pinnacle of our culture. I do wonder though why this never discussed?

So when Brad Pitt and George Clooney et al are replaced by average looking men with average incomes and ‘nice’ personalities then you can talk about how the fact that a fascination with semi royalty with great figures is helping to bring down our culture.

There was plenty of symbolism on show at the Royal wedding, from the ostentatious show of wealth, the militaristic edge to our culture, the fact that some of the most disgusting regimes on the planet popped up and even the Royal family in general and millions of other things, but a nice bum in a fetching outfit? Come on guys, don’t sweat the small stuff.

“Except everyone, especially on the Left, tends to hold two different views simultaneously. “

Be fair. Some think that homosexuality is a product of environment/upbringing, some of genes, some of chemical/hormonal effects during pregnancy which can affect the expression of the genes.

I’m pretty agnostic – though I can’t see how a ‘gay gene’ confers any advantages in reproduction.

You can easily see the advantages in reproduction conferred by the appreciation of a nubile young woman though.

Aren’t you a creationist, Laban?

@53 Because any behaviour has to be taken into account from the perspective of the whole species, not individuals within that species. Using evolutionary arguments as to why objectification of women is okay because it helps reproduction, can very easily lead to “why raping women without condoms is okay because it helps reproduction”, quite why so many seem to think it’s a worthy avenue of argument escapes me.

Evolution is an is not an ought. Sentience gave us the ability to transcend primal evolutionary urges, shall we perhaps use it eh?

Surely, what we are discussing here is commodification rather than objectification. although it requires the latter to do the former. The media are using Kate and Pippa Middleton to sell their wares, and it’s quite easy as the royal family are already one of the largest selling commodities. Photos and articles about the posterior of Kate is really an extention of that,

“Evolution is an is not an ought. Sentience gave us the ability to transcend primal evolutionary urges, shall we perhaps use it eh?”

Gnothi seauton, eh?

Some of those primary urges are powerful stuff and we are beginning to understand more about them, though I must admit some scepticism for the experimental psychologists who do not add the caveat, “In American undergraduates” to their conclusions.

I would say that if the OP is a true representaion of the media then we have some crap media, but that’s hardly news. If the OP is saying we’re naughty for liking the looks of other people’s bits, then really, get over it.

@ 39

“People seem to think that the objectification is ‘natural’ and inevitable. Fancy that eh? How convenient.”

Natural? As opposed to what? Brewed in a laboratory?

You should try to engage with what “critics” say instead of just making childish ad homs. “How convenient” indeed. One big point you’re missing – presumably because it’s inconvenient to you – is that many people on this thread don’t actually agree with the concept of objectification at all. You can’t call something “inevitable” when you don’t accept that it’s a valid concept.

Anti-Porn Men? Could be the Anti-Fun Police. Or the Fetish of Feminists Club for Boys. Listen, you don’t want to be anti-porn, you want it fully legalised and regulated, as that may reduce exploitation from unscrupulous producers, directors and performers. If you are still anti-porn after this is set up, insist that Eric Pickles is shown advising on sexual health at a random point during the porno. Only then will masturbation lose its fun…

@ 44

“Is Tim Worstall thick or is this bit meant to be a joke?”

You too? Look, if you can point out flaws in his argument, do so. Just calling him stupid achieves sweet FA, aside from creating the impression that you can’t actually defend what you believe in.

It seems to say, mostly, that people often find other people attractive.

I think BenSix’s contribution is correct. It simply comes down to politeness and the lack thereof. Pippa M looked gorgeous at that wedding, but to make a compliment of this, you have to phrase the statement with some care, unless you wish to appear an oaf.

The press and the MSM are dumbed down and prurient. The division between public and private has been blurred almost to non-existence (e.g. through Facebook and mobile phones in public places), Old-fashioned conventions about politeness have been trampled down by the changes in our society since the 1960s. The worst sin now is hypocrisy; saying one thing in public and saying or doing something else in private. So now, in public people say what in the past they’d only say in private, and others find their private words and deeds dragged into the public to condemn them. With the former, we’e become more less polite, with the latter we’ve lost a great measure of privacy.

@ S Pill

Pill, thanks for a thoughtful response. Obviously we don’t feel the same way on this issue, but it’s good that we can discuss it like adults instead of the mudslinging going on up the thread.

“I disagree. If you go back hundreds of years we don’t get sexuality treated as a dirty little secret but rather mainstream and acceptable attitudes were more objectificationist (to use terrible English) than they are today. Roads called Gropecunt Lane, for example, left nothing to the imagination of a 15th/16th century citizen.”

I was pushing it with “hundreds of years”. I should have said “a hundred or so”. But the point remains that we’ve relatively recently emerged from being a culture that had an obsessively, irrationally negative attitude towards sex, and that the OP apparently wants this oppressive state of affairs to return.

I don’t think men should be blamed for being attracted to women, nor for voicing that attraction within the bounds of courtesy, any more than I think it was right that we used to make pariahs out of women who had sex outside of marriage. For the record, I also think this is one issue where people on the left tend to go oddly reactionary.

“While I don’t want to put words to what the OP is driving at, I’d rather have a culture myself where women didn’t feel objectified and Pippa Middleton’s shape/bum wasn’t headline news. That isn’t undoing social progress made by putting people in control of their own sexuality, that’s carrying forward the same progress to its desireable end, ie a more equal society with fewer hang-ups about sex etc.”

I think the OP is the one with the hangups about sex.

I do agree that it would be better if we didn’t think it was ok to harrass women. I’d like society to evolve to a place where it was seen as grossly impolite to tell a woman she was sexy unless you had good reason to believe that she’d see that as a compliment, not harrassment.

Whether women shouldn’t “feel objectified” is another thing. It’s very like you not having a right not to be offended. There are people out there who think that men being attracted to women is objectification in and of itself. To prevent them from feeling objectified, we’d pretty much have to outlaw sex and the discussion of sex.

I’m a straight male, and that means that I find many women attractive. If someone is offended by that, I think that’s their problem, not mine. Again: it’s the reactionaries who have the hang-ups.

@ BenSix

“There’s a matter of basic politeness here. There’s no stopping people – oh, okay, us – reflecting on the, er, aesthetic worth of another person’s form but there’s no real need to advertise one’s lust in the media’s equivalent of a frenzied crotch chop. ”

Agree with that. The media’s approach to PM was tacky, and worse than that, invasive. They had no way of knowing whether she would feel distraught at seeing the headlines.

But if that teaches us a lesson about our society, it’s not the one the OP wants us to learn. It’s more that we’re a voyeuristic lot who don’t treat one another with enough courtesy. Sexuality is not the issue – I’d feel the same if the headlines were all taking the piss out of her fashion sense.

@64 Oh I don’t know, what do you think would have been the collective reaction to say Pippa going on the couch on This Morning to say how horrible all the attention was, and that she thought it was degrading?

Do you think the main reaction would have been along the lines of, “oh sorry, didn’t mean to upset you.” followed by lots of newspaper apologies.

Or “What an ungrateful bitch! You can’t even compliment a bird on her looks without her calling the politically correct brigade on you! The sour-faced trout!” followed by lots of newspaper vindictive harassment.

@ 65 Cylux

And if they’d said she dressed badly, and she complained, they’d have accused her of whining and being up herself.

Sexuality is obviously involved in this story, but it’s the media’s lack of respect for human beings that’s the problem, not the fact than people are attracted to each other.

@66

not the fact than people are attracted to each other

Luckily that isn’t what the OP was complaining about.

@ 67 Cylux

True. The OP is complaining that we have many pictures of women looking sexy and drawing wild-eyed conclusions from that fact. Hence the title, and stuff like this:

“When you spend a significant time (either in terms of amount or ‘intensity’) with images of women presented as essentially a composite of various body-parts that each have their use to a masculine figure, it shouldn’t be a shock that many porn users see women and instantly judge them as ‘carriers of body-parts’ imaginatively seeing these body-parts being used by themselves or another male figure.”

The post is unclear as to where he gets the data to back up this claim.

Arse fetish is not without consequences?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389686/Nice-e-Dominique-Strauss-Khans-words-Air-France-hostess-moments-hauled-plane.html

Presumably, the point of an anti-porn campaign is to use force to prevent other people who watch it from doing so?

So we’re dealing with unredeemed fascists.

Thought so.

70
I shoudn’t worry, porn is big business, it won’t be banned.

@ 70 pagar

From glancing at their “about” page, their actual aims – rather than views – are not all that clear. I got this from it though:

“What we are
- Pro-sex. One of the reasons why we are anti-porn is because we are pro-sex. Porn is not sex, but in fact can play a very restrictive and damaging role in peoples sex lives and the forming of people’s sexuality.
- A source and platform for people who wish to speak about and explore anti-porn arguments and views.

What we are not
- Anti-sex. One of the reasons why we are anti-porn is because we are pro-sex. Porn is not sex, but in fact can play a very restrictive and damaging role in people’s sex lives and the forming of people’s sexuality.
- A place to debate with organised or committed pro-porn activists.”

In other words, they’re not anti-sex because they’ve redefined “sex” to exclude anything they dislike, and they’re a place to explore an issue as long as you agree with the person who runs the site. So it’s designed to encourage propaganda and discourage equal debate. Wonderful stuff.

@72 To be fair if you copy porn actors you will indeed be having very shit sex.

[71] “The annual number of hardcore video rentals in the US has risen from 79m in 1985 to 759m in 2001. Hardcore pornography in the shape of videos, the internet, live sex acts and cable television is now estimated to generate around $10bn, roughly the same amount as Hollywood’s US box office receipts.
Americans spend more money at strip clubs than at Broadway, regional theatres and orchestra performances combined. The industry has mushroomed since the 70s, when a federal study found that it was worth little more than $10m”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/02/usa.duncancampbell1

One reason, perhaps to explain why Americans have not obsessed over PM’s quivering buttocks in quite the same way as typical male-Mail readers?

@ 73

Well, yes.

@70 Do you see fascism everywhere?

@70 Do you see fascism everywhere?

I thought everybody posting on this site did……

Is it that we should be concerned with the objectification of women in out culture or should we be looking to why it gets such attention?

As has been pointed out many times here men like looking at women; heck women like looking at men. The reason it gets so much attention is that the press is still dominated by men and the media is still mostly aimed at men. If it weren’t would we instead have a front-page story on the tightness of Beckham’s trousers?

Look at equivalent magazines aimed at the female market and it’s the same stories and pictures as the tabloids just rotated 180 degrees.

As such anything aimed the men to try and stop this also has to include the women.

@78 The difference is that Beckham is famous for his footballing skill, and thanks to his profession has a physically toned body. Now if women’s mags featured say the brother of one of the stars of corrie, for example, and were going “Phwoor, look at the buns on him! What an arse he’s got!” and girls were setting up facebook approval groups of his one physical feature, then you might have a point. In fact women’s mags are far more likely to include pictures of women for condemnation of their cellulite or other physical “failings” than they are of moderately attractive men with tenuous connections to fame.

Although given that so many people either don’t know what objectification actually is, or outright reject it’s existence, I don’t know why I’m even bothering.

What a load of cobblers.

The girl has a nice arse. Can’t expect men not to notice that.

@ 79 Cylux

“Although given that so many people either don’t know what objectification actually is, or outright reject it’s existence, I don’t know why I’m even bothering.”

How cruel of them not to unquestioningly accept your premise.

@81 It’s not so much cruel as akin to play chess with pigeons.
But if people want to frame things in a simplistic men-attracted-to-women-and-that’s-all-that’s-going-on terms, so be it.

@ Cylux

Oh, I see. People who disagree with you are stupid. Well done. I wish I shared your intellect, so I could come up with devastating points like that.

@83 Well it’s not like you were in any rush to address the block of text above my flippant comment @79 now is it?

@ 84 Cylux

“Well it’s not like you were in any rush to address the block of text above my flippant comment @79 now is it?”

Unlike your flippant comment, the block of text above it wasn’t highly annoying. But fair enough:

“The difference is that Beckham is famous for his footballing skill, and thanks to his profession has a physically toned body. Now if women’s mags featured say the brother of one of the stars of corrie, for example, and were going “Phwoor, look at the buns on him! What an arse he’s got!” and girls were setting up facebook approval groups of his one physical feature, then you might have a point.”

Yes, Beckham is not famous because of his attractiveness. Why does that ameliorate the negatives (as perceived by you) of people remarking on his attractiveness, or enjoying pictures of him in his pants? Do you think people are defined by their primary professions?

“In fact women’s mags are far more likely to include pictures of women for condemnation of their cellulite or other physical “failings” than they are of moderately attractive men with tenuous connections to fame. ”

True, and it’s not a wonderful phenomenon. But I’m not sure how relevant it is to whether or not the kind of behaviour described in the OP is “objectification” (if indeed that was the point you were making).

@85 Objectification is defined by any of the following factors being present:

Instrumentality – if the thing is treated as a tool for one’s own purposes;
Denial of autonomy – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency or self-determination;
Inertness – if the thing is treated as if lacking in agency;
Ownership – if the thing is treated as if owned by another;
Fungibility – if the thing is treated as if interchangeable;
Violability – if the thing is treated as if permissible to damage or destroy;
Denial of subjectivity – if the thing is treated as if there is no need to show concern for the ‘object’s’ feelings and experiences.

When Beckham et al is pictured shirtless jogging round a football field none of those is actually present. When pictured in his pants for the purposes of selling underwear and perfumes, then yeah, though steveb nails that one at 56.

In this instance we have a focus on Pippa Middleton’s arse, not so much Pippa herself, her arse – we have an appreciation group called “Pippa Middleton Ass Appreciation Society” and t-shirts with “If only Pippa were a Stripper”, and one of a silhouetted women in heels bending over with the text “I’d like to be in the Middleton of that!” Now just from those examples in the OP I get Fungibility, Ownership, Denial of autonomy, Inertness and Denial of subjectivity, even when using his almost-naked body to sell things Beckham gets more respect than Pippa did while fully clothed.

Putting that to one side however, Beckham is a world famous football star, Pippa Middleton is Kate Middleton’s sister, what animus lies behind the spectacle of the fame her rear has garnered? Would we have seen similar activity from women over Kate’s brother’s chiseled pecs? Washboard abs? Tight buns? Would women have rushed to set up a facebook group admiring the bulge in his trousers for a bit of harmless fun?
I don’t think they would have.
But men certainly did for Pippa, why?
If women aren’t regarded as sexual objects bereft of feelings, why did a significant number of men think it acceptable to metaphorically reduce Pippa to a set of buttocks while publicly rubbing their trousers and making chimp noises?

“what animus lies behind the spectacle of the fame her rear has garnered?”

Animus? Are you actually human?

Admiration, commentary, applause for, male not quite possibly polite, “worr” for, possibly even scumbag you’re not a Gentleman for mentioning what you internally think.

But Animus?

“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animus

strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude”

You what you idiot?

@87 Yes Tim, because every women thinks being reduced to an arse by the national press and randomers on facebook, while doing nothing more than wearing a full length dress to a wedding is something to be appreciated and regarded as a good thing.

@87 Here’s a good thought experiment for you Tim if your still struggling:
A woman walks past a building site, one of the workmen shouts out to her “Oi, Luv! You’ve got a cracking set of tits!”

Now, what do you think motivated the workman to do so?:
a) His appreciation and desire toward the women’s breasts.
b) His appreciation and desire toward the woman’s breasts, combined with a complete lack of respect and regard toward the woman as a person.

She’s got a nice arse; I don’t see what the problem is. I’m sure she’s happy about her nice arse too.

A woman walks past a building site, one of the workmen shouts out to her “Oi, Luv! You’ve got a cracking set of tits!”

Does the ‘building site’ play any role in this story, or is it just your prejudice that male manual worker = sexist bastard?

Note to self: complimenting women on their bodies = bad. Insulting men because of their job = good.

@91 Given that I actually am a male manual worker I think you’d best shove your faux concern up yer arse.

@86

When Beckham et al is pictured shirtless jogging round a football field none of those is actually present.

Yup no women going “Get a load of that body”.

While I agree that such magazines do concentrate on printing pictures of other women “for condemnation of their cellulite or other physical “failings”” I think it must be pointed out that the same occurs for men – pictures of Jack Nicholson or Arnold Schwarzenegger with guts on display.

As such my question was – does the prevalence of male objectification of women stem from a male psychology or from the domination of men within the mainstream media?

@ Cylux

“Objectification is defined by any of the following factors being present:”

All of said factors being determined principally in the eye of the beholder (you or I, not the person looking at Middleton/Beckham). For example, any picture without an empathetic caption could be said to “deny the subjectivity” of the subject… but I bet you reserve that claim for pictures of people in their undies.

“When Beckham et al is pictured shirtless jogging round a football field none of those is actually present. When pictured in his pants for the purposes of selling underwear and perfumes, then yeah, though steveb nails that one at 56.”

What steveb @56 says makes no distinction between Middleton and Beckham.

“Even when using his almost-naked body to sell things Beckham gets more respect than Pippa did while fully clothed. ”

Only because you think football skills are worthy of respect but attractiveness isn’t. Or do you have an objective respectometer to back up this claim? It’s empty, it comes out as “I don’t like people talking about other people being attractive, so I’ve labelled it as ‘disrespect’ to make it sound bad”.

“Would women have rushed to set up a facebook group admiring the bulge in his trousers for a bit of harmless fun?
I don’t think they would have.”

I saw a Facebook group once dedicated to the naked chest of one of the guys from Twilight. Your rather shallow and old-fashioned stereotypes of gender are inaccurate, I’m afraid.

“But men certainly did for Pippa, why?”

Because she’s attractive. That’s not oversimplification, because the answer doesn’t actually have to be complicated.

93
I agree with most of what you say, men’s appreciation of female body parts is being manipulated for commercial gain. But I doubt if the two Middleton sisters would have attracted any attention without their association with the royal family.
I have a hunch that, even if women dominated the media, we would be seeing the commercialization of the same images, maybe the comments would be a tad more subtle.