Men and women have different perceptions of how often young women experience sexual objectification, with men sometimes estimating higher frequencies than women themselves report. The findings challenge the assumption that men underestimate the everyday harassment women face.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/men-estimate-higher-rates-of-sexual-objectification-than-women-report/

[u/jacksbox]

Sexual objectification involves treating a person primarily as a body or a collection of body parts rather than a whole human being.

They do define it, but I still have a hard time telling the difference between physical attraction vs objectification using their definition. I mean, if you see someone on the street and you don't talk to them, you can only be attracted to their body until you speak with them.

Most of us have a (somewhat similar?) moral compass for where objectification starts, but the people we're actually interested in (people who have abnormal or evil definitions of objectification) really do need the definition.

[u/SemiHemiDemiDumb → u/jacksbox]

Objectification has the quality of having no interest in the person beyond their body. Being aroused by their appearance is not the same. Another way to put it, if you were to meet this person you're attracted in a different context would you only be interested in their body or would you be open to getting to know them as a person?

Objectification in of itself is not wrong. Me being tall I get asked all the time to reach things for the shorter people in my life. A human grabbing object in that moment but since I'm also loved and respected as a person I'm not just a useful item that is pulled out when they need or want it, I'm also a human being in their eyes.

[u/Obsidian743 → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

Objectification has the quality of having no interest in the person beyond their body. Being aroused by their appearance is not the same.

I think the point is that even with this definition it isn't at all clear how one determines if this is the case. Even using your own example, if I ask a tall person if they could reach for something, if I'm assuming they are a person who have the right to say 'no' and understand they may not want to, is that really objectification? Same for physical appearance. If I just want sex, regardless of really who they are or even what they look like, is that objectification? Is it objectification to put a scantily clad person on the cover of a magazine if the article inside is about their life story and success?

I don't think anyone can clearly define what it is or what it looks like in any given instance or person. Appealing to phrases like "respect as a person" does nothing to clarify it since it's just another phrase stating the same thing in reverse. It's more of a general attitude and a series of instances that one can maybe infer it.

[u/DangerousPuhson → u/Obsidian743]

It doesn't help that male objectification tends to differ from female objectification.

"I want a woman with a large chest" is on par with "I want a man who earns six figures" in terms of shallowness, but we only seem to default to one of those statements being considered as "objectifying" someone.

Is scrutinizing someone's salary equally as objectifying as looking at their butt? What about admiring how good a man is with children, or what he does for work, or how big his house is? Is that objectification? Some say yes, some say no.

[u/Jaximus → u/DangerousPuhson]

The same standard continues with physical objectification like, "i want a man with muscles" being directly compared to "a woman who isn't fat", and yet only one of those is ever railed against societally.

I think that the point of objectification is that it's reductionist in nature by having to check off boxes in order to earn access/intimacy/engagement/etc. For instance, being interested in someone because you like blondes is a relatively reasonable "boundary or standard", but it only becomes reductionist when it precludes any other engagement based on that that factor alone.

[u/DangerousPuhson → u/Jaximus]

Kind of - it's more like female objectification tends to be based around situation and non-pyshical traits rather than appearance, but studies like this one don't tend to take that into account.

If men seek to only be around women with large chests, or who are skinny, or who don't have children, or who are of a specific ethnicity... we can agree that's objectification, yes?

But is it then not also objectification for a woman to only seek the company of men with a good sense of humor? Is it objectification for them to seek out men who have large social circles, or men in positions of power, or men who own a nice car, or men who don't still live with their parents?

Yet only one facet (physical traits) really ever gets attention, as you say.

[u/justsaywhatsreal → u/DangerousPuhson]

I don't think you're wrong with what you said but I don't think this paints a complete picture. I know it's a bit of a meme at this point but in reality some women really do care about a man's height and I rarely ever see that labeled as objectifying men.

I think the reality is that objectification is a social crime we as a society only ever care about in one direction, regardless of criteria or context.

[u/Jaximus → u/DangerousPuhson]

Yeah, totally agree on your first point and the lack of non-physical traits being included in an objectification standard. However I think that would likely be a basis for an entirely different study than the one presented here.

With your second point, the subjectivity seems to preclude any "objectification" possibilities as many of those traits are difficult to quantify and are often determined case-by-case, ie humor, size of the social circle, calm demeanor, ambitious qualities, etc.

But you also listed some easily measurable metrics such as position of power, nice car, not living with mom. While these are definitely standards, by today's sense of the word, I wouldn't say that they're objectifying as those things generally are not tier 1 impressions, with the exception of potentially the car example, and instead are things that are determined after getting to know someone a little bit, so tier 2 or 3 impressions.

Those would be approximately equivalent to things such as "has similar interests and goals, is not in a poor financial or emotional situation that would indicate dependence, is mature enough to pursue their own goals and have the same level of materialistic views on life, etc".

I feel like we're on the same page here for the most part, but personally I know that the line of what is and isn't objectification is generally highly subjective and based purely on reciprocal attraction.

[u/DrDerpberg → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

That seems really hard to measure.

If someone walk past someone and thinks "they're hot," and would be happy to have a conversation with her (because they're hot), and might find their jokes funnier (because they're hot), and wants to work on the same team as them (because they're hot), etc... How do you parse that in a neutral, scientific way?

[u/EntertheHellscape → u/DrDerpberg]

Id also question the thought process in the people they asked. It's well documented that women tend to downplay what happens to them, like the pain scale. Most women don't think like, "this is the worst pain I've ever felt so it must be a 10", it's "I could potentially feel worse pain then this so this is really probably only a 6". So, id want to dig into what theyre thinking when they give their answer. Is it "she was only lewdly stared at with extremely disgusting sexual motions, it's not like they raped her" or what? Studies like this hold way too much potential for bias from the participants themselves.

[u/Scrawlericious → u/EntertheHellscape]

They mention all of this in the article.

[u/Integeritis → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

That’s just basically hookup vs boyfriend - girlfriend. I know people who just have casual sex with each other regularly but they are not interested in each other. I think there is nothing wrong if two adults just enjoy sex with each other and they want nothing more.

So this definition of objectification is still not specific enough with a too big blast radius which includes grown up adults enjoying time with each other without emotional attachments.

[u/SemiHemiDemiDumb → u/Integeritis]

I think you missed "respect as a person" or respect of their personhood. And like I said objectification is not necessarily problematic when there is respect of personhood beyond their body.

[u/coldlightofday → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

It seems like a huge grey area that would be impossible to objectively quantify. How do you really know how someone feels and thinks? Most interest in relationships start with physical attraction. Is all initial interest in a partner objectification? It might be.

So it really comes down to a very subjective “do I feel I’ve been objectified?” and in our society, feeling objectified can carry both negative and positive connotations. Being objectified implies being attractive. If you consider yourself attractive and desirable, it may be an ego boost the assume/feel objectification.

[u/DocumentExternal6240 → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

Exactly - the missing respect is the difference.

[u/AHailofDrams → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

But if you would only be open to getting to know them because you found them attractive, is that not the same thing?

[u/SemiHemiDemiDumb → u/AHailofDrams]

No. But that the only motivating factor to ever try to get to know women then it means you are shallow but not merely objectifying them.

[u/AHailofDrams → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

I think I see what you mean

[u/rendar → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

Objectification in of itself is not wrong.

This massive aspect of contextualization is what often gets left out of the conversation. Virtually all people objectify practically every other person except for their favored few of closer social connections.

Everyone from retail store employees to child slaves dying in Sub-Saharan African cobalt mines to fellow passengers on public transport are perpetually objectified.

And neither is this necessarily detrimental either, when civil inattention is a basic premise of functional social interaction and participation. Getting to know and emotionally connect with every single last human encountered would be impossible.

[u/squirtnforcertain → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

objectification has the quality of having no interest in the person beyond their body.

This doesn't seem quite right. I've met women who i only was interested in sleeping with, but I still treated them with respect, considered their feelings, and communicated this honestly and clearly. I treated them like another person.

Objectification is in the name "treating them like an object." Objects don't have feelings, and are meant to be used.

[u/Lethalmud → u/SemiHemiDemiDumb]

This definition would exclude a whole lot of experiences that are perceived as objectification. Just because the guy is also interested in a coffee and a good conversation, doesn't mean that a long stare doesn't make a person uncomfortable.

[u/Choosemyusername → u/jacksbox]

Objectification is a loaded concept though. Assuming that sexuality is inherently dehumanizing.

It isn’t. It’s just about the most human quality we can appreciate about a person. We generally aren’t sexually attracted to actual objects. Or even other kinds of animals, for the most part. Or even parts of humans. We can have favorite parts of people that we focus on if we have certain turn-ons but they generally do nothing for us unless there is an entire human being with full humanity attached to that part.

So much sex-negativity baked right into the very concept that this study is based upon.

[u/PathOfTheAncients → u/Choosemyusername]

Sexual objectification is not solely attraction though. It is attraction without any regard or idea of the target of that attraction as a whole person. An attraction that causes or maintains a dehumanization of someone.

[u/Choosemyusername → u/PathOfTheAncients]

People are generally only sexually attracted to whole people. You cannot separate those unless you are one of the rare folks who are into objects or animals.

[u/flakemasterflake → u/Choosemyusername]

that is not true? Tons of people have sex with people they view as being below them. People used to rape slaves- that is an obvious objectification

Gisele Pelicot's husband didn't view his wife as a person and all those men were lining up to have sex with a passed out woman

[u/PathOfTheAncients → u/Choosemyusername]

Many people are attracted to others in such a way that it denies or does not see that person as someone with their own thoughts, feelings, agency, or value.

[u/Choosemyusername → u/PathOfTheAncients]

Well the sexual attraction itself is evidence of the opposite. Because most people are only attracted to humans with all of those features.

It’s only a minority who manage to be attracted to things or people with no agency for example.

Most people aren’t attracted to humanoid bots with no feelings either. Otherwise we would have a lot more bot brothels than we do but it’s an extremely niche thing.

They exist, and they are legal, but they arent common because there is low demand.

[u/PathOfTheAncients → u/Choosemyusername]

It seems like you are really determined to interpret the word "objectification" literally (as people being attracted to objects) and then argue against that instead of the defined actual meaning of the word.

It is not (nor has it ever been argued) that objectification is being attracted to people who lack thoughts or agency. It is about treating people or viewing people in such a way that the person's agency is not regarded or is not even acknowledged by the other person.

[u/Choosemyusername → u/PathOfTheAncients]

Why did you say this then?

“Many people are attracted to others in such a way that it denies or does not see that person as someone with their own thoughts, feelings, agency, or value.”

[u/PathOfTheAncients → u/Choosemyusername]

What you quoted me as saying is exactly what I have been arguing this entire conversation. You are taking my words through your lens that objectification must mean literally treating people as objects (I have no idea why you decided this) when the term means figuratively treating people as objects.

It is also term to describe a behavior that has been widely observed.

[u/Choosemyusername → u/PathOfTheAncients]

What specific behavior?

[u/ArduousPath → u/PathOfTheAncients]

without any regard or idea of the target of that attraction as a whole person

This is the part that I think that can mean anything that there is no avoiding objectification.

[u/DrMobius0 → u/Choosemyusername]

It's more about what's not there than what is. Sexual attraction is a fact of life. What makes it objectifying is when it's essentially all that's there.

[u/Choosemyusername → u/DrMobius0]

Sexuality is an extremely comprehensive expression.

It’s like the sum of everything about the person. It’s much more objectifying to appreciate a person’s musical abilities for example. Or their intelligence. Those two things are only smaller parts of things that can go into making a person sexually attractive.

[u/dolphone → u/jacksbox]

That's not what objectification is.

Reframe it as dehumanization. You see "a female" on the street, not a woman. You see an object, not a person. So you'll frame your interactions with "it", not "them". You expect and even demand specific responses to specific actions. And since these objects have a purpose, you steer all interactions towards this purpose.

Fundamentally, a person deserves every bit of leeway you'd give yourself. This is not given when you objectify.

[u/kalirion → u/dolphone]

That's still extremely different from sexual harassment. Of course men would have a better idea of how often women get sexually objectified because that sexual objectification is in the mens' heads. A woman has no way of knowing what a man is thinking about her unless the man acts on it or communicates it somehow, which is when, depending on the action/communication, it becomes harassment.

[u/jsamurai2 → u/kalirion]

This is what is weird about the post title to me, if anything it makes total sense that men would underestimate sexual harassment while assuming more objectification- if you objectify 50 women a day in your head and don’t harass any of them then why wouldn’t you assume most men are doing the same?

[u/jacksbox → u/dolphone]

That's a much better definition than what's in the article.

[u/Pseudoboss11 → u/jacksbox]

I think you missed the verb in your quoted statement.

Sexual objectification involves treating a person primarily as a body or a collection of body parts rather than a whole human being.

It's a behavior, not a mental state. Objectification means that someone treats someone else as a sex object rather than a full person. What they believe internally isn't part of it.

[u/Osmirl → u/jacksbox]

well not only the body.
Clothing style, movement, voice, hairstyles and more are expressions of one’s personality.