I pointed to you because you insisted to be on topic and my claim shows the core of the OP reasoning on this topic.
I have no idea
sure you don’t have 
In our JC moral totalitarism you should ban yourself from your own forum if you had any nothingness rules here.
Thank you for being a TPF Supporter, MCogito.
Access to sex has increased for everyone. The rising tide raised all ships in that regard, where the average man can have sex that only kings dreamed of in times past.
I really don’t agree with the correlation between sexualization generally and victimization generally. That is, I am opposed to victimization in all its forms, and even particularly sexual victimization, but the idea that we can’t consider one another sexual beings and be open about it without being guilty of exploitation and the like, that I don’t agree with.
Men and women express their sexual traits physically, emotionally, intellectually in all sorts of ways, and that I might be attracted to certain elements that are sexually driven isn’t something I need to repress so that I can otherwise look upon that person in a neutral way, devoid of any sexuality.
Human social interaction is incredibly complex and context drives proper social behavior, meaning how I respond to a woman in the workforce is different than in social contexts, which means there are absolutely instances where discrimination on the basis of sexuality is entirely inappropriate. In other instances, not, meaning it is appropriate to discriminate (meaning to make a decision based upon the sex of the person) and treat that person differently.
The intense focus upon sexual equality isn’t always reasonable. None of this is to suggest, however, that victims of abuse of any sort, particularly the sexual sort, should accept it as a normal part of life without remedy. I guess my balk is in immediate buy in to the idea that sexual differences be overlooked in all instances so as to build a perfectally equal (as opposed to equitable) society.
What is a “non-sexual being”, then? Yes, we would not exist without procreation. We as humans are “dominant” or the “apex predator” in the sense that one-on-one with tools or perhaps without we can end the life (cellular process) of any given organism. But take plants for example, they’ve been here long, long before us. And according to many reputable scientists may very well be here long after us. Same with one-celled organisms. They reproduce much more quickly, effectively having orgies every moment of every day, sure without the traditional “acknowledgement” of doing so, absolutely. But all things considered equal as far as means to an end, I ask again, do you mean a “sexual being” as having the intelligence to recognize reproduction and so constantly willing to have it, thus recognizing a state of not having it and so perhaps spawning what we consider “lust” for it when such a need is not satisfied?
I guess to simplify things: what specific threshold in your mind exists that a thing or being can cross where it becomes a “sexual being” from the basic one-celled organism to a human being? Is there one? Is a worm, blind and without a true brain “sexual” because it engages it in frequently? What about an ant because it does the same? Or is this quality reserved only to the “advanced” or “smart” animals such as birds and primates who can use tools and recognize self-awareness? Thanks in advance.
It is more general than that, but yes arguably one motivation behind slavery seems to be a belief that treating another person as a mere object for an end. Clearly, such a perspective devalues the value of the other.
So, I would say that those who see another person as merely an object of lust also devalue the other person.
Regarding those who choose voluntary such a condition for themselves, I cannot avoid to think that they do so out of a false belief. Yes, if there is no external cohercion we can say that this is a ‘free choice’ in the sense that is not externally determined. However, I cannot help but thibk that the case of people who act in a way that they reduce themselves as mere object of lust for others are just like those who decide to take drugs because they convince themselves that a momentary pleasure is better than risking long-term damage (note that I’m not considering the addicts here, but those who choose to take the drug for the first time).
Regarding what you say about the advantages of society… I mean, I can easily think situations in which it is better to decide against the benefits that society offers. For instance, if I lived in a society that gives the highest honours to those who participate in a genocide, it is rather obvious to me that the good moral choice is abstaining from such a practice. So just because something is popular it is not good to do.
Finally, your example of someone being gratified that people find him/her attractive doesn’t imply that that someone wants to reduce himself/herself as a mere object of lust. And, also, this gratification doesn’t imply that the person is ‘ok’ with being seen as a mere object of lust.
I wanted to add a point here:
I mean, there are more subtler forms of this. For instance, if in a company only people who are more attractive to a boss get a promotion irrespective of the competence, to me this means that the boss is discriminating.
So, while I used an extreme example in my previous posts (sexual slavery), there are indeed other forms of behaviour in which ‘sexaulisation’ can be a moral problem. Another example would be, for instance, not being able to have the same opportunities in a job because, for instance, one refuses to dress in a way that pleases to those who have a higher positon. Literal physical cohercion is of course an extreme example but there are also subtler forms of cohercion that might or might not be illegal.
Hello Quellcrist, below I will respond to your topics.
I think definately women are still cast in the role of innocence, vriginity and purity. I also feel that this has historical roots, but it would be interesting to research whether this historical portrayal is not a rather victorian recast of supposedly historical framing. In other words, I wonder if our idea of how women were historically portrayed is correct.
Your question is a good one though I do not know whether that has to do with women ‘wanting it less’. The gatekeeper role might also have to do with ideals of virginity and what not, meaning women have more to lose and therefore becoming more careful. What agency a passive role might provide is an interesting exploration. One may be that it provides more license to explore emotions such as fear, anxiety and uncertainty. Such familiarity may be an asset in a world which is increasingly characterized with those terms. There is a lot of room here though.
I don’t think women are less sexual then men. That is not something I researched though, but I find it very unlikely. It also does not interest me much as that is basically a question for biologists not philosophers or social scientists.
Well yes, but the question would for me be in what kind of objects are the two genders turned and are those objects equal, but different, or is one superior to another? If it is the latter should anything be done, or does the way of the world amend itself.
I find the use of the word ‘victim’ questionable, because the sexualization (at least in western societies) goes two ways: the observer who lusts, and the object who wants to be lusted after .
Notice how you portray the two sides as equal but for the second category you presuppose a state of mind. That is to me already rather telling.
That seems to me a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. Any evolutionary explanation might be true, but it is also circular as hell and hence not informative since it basically always legitimizes the status quo. That said, I agree with your caution to not use terms like ‘victim’ easily. There is also nothing wrong with ‘being sexual’ of course. It is the power dynamic I find interesting, but I also feel that this dynamic has not been sufficiently thought through.
It is an interesting suggestion, though I wonder if it is true. I belief sexual attitudes among the lower and higher classes are both more permissive than among the middle class. In any case I would never advocate ‘less sexuality’, but perhaps I and we should have been more precise with our terminology. I mean with sexualization the imposition of sexual roles, not the fact that we are desiring, embodied beings. If anything, sexualization restricts certain forms of sexuality even though it advocates others.
Not to be offensive but that sounds like something out of some victorian era self help book. Why are our tendencies shameful and why would sex not be the most wise thing to do, are two easily leveled retorts.
Ahh ok, and because people happen to have legs and run, there cannot be athletics? Off but I see, it is natural and not social. Great that MCogito has figured this all out.
Ohh dear… “Here however, a frothing fool with hands outstretched sprang at him and blocked his path. But this was the fool people called ‘Zarathustra’s ape’, for he had learned something of him of the composition and syntax of language and perhaps also liked to borrow from his store of wisdom.” Thus Spoke Zarathustra, part four chapter 7, On passing by.
Hmmm, I do not think I would agree with this. Sexual objectification in the form of beauty standards or in the form pf peer pressure to go to the gym or what not, may all be oppressive. To oppress one does not need a lock or key necessarily.
Well, your argument can be easily turned upside down. You consider everything that is not coerced in any physical sense to be ‘voluntary’. Theorists of power have long since refuted this position. See for instance Lukes’ dimensions of power.
This only works if you invoke a kind of duality between sexuality and reason. In fact, if you would posit a kind of disembodied reason. I know many a philosopher has tried to find something like that, but to no avail. This dualism is currently not very strongly supported either in philosophy or science.
This is interesting sure, but then my question would be, how does it play out. Do we need repression of something to attenuate our fear of death? I would ask you the question whether your flight into disembodied reason is not exactly such a repressive urge. It may give you the certainty of something true, meaningful and lasting, even though our bodies might not.
Posting late at night is never to be faulted. Do also not take my comments as a way to kick you from the thread. I think there is more to think through, that is all. 
Ohhh, but if my post comes off as making that claim I apologize. I think we certainly can be sexual, open and non-exploitative. Even in the most D/s relationships there can be equality, openness and simply joy. I also agree the topic is in fact terribly complex and that equality in this sense is also a terribly complex term. I think in sexuality one might well objectify the other, while the other objectifies you. It may even be the greatest gift. I do not think it should be overlooked at all. What I wonder and perhaps worry about is the ‘translation’ and hegemonization of certain sexual roles. It is not ‘power-play’, I am worried about, it is its opposite, the ossification of certain structures and the role of sexualisation in it. I am as much against those that argue for the eradication of all difference as I am against those that claim any absolute and ‘natural’ difference. Both are I feel sides of the same pernicious coin.
You usually discount my commie pinko claims, so I expected you would do so again. In this case, however, I think your objection is justified. At least in industrialized, secularized societies, sexual opportunity is abundant. You can’t always get what you want, but if you try, you can usually get a reasonable approximation.
“To circle back, sex is unconsciously interlinked with fear of death.”
For decades I’ve failed to make sense of Freud’s ideas about eros and Thanatos. Eros I get – that part is quite understandable, as are some other ideas of Freud. But Thanatos? Not so much.
I disagree.
“Oppressive”, “victim”, etc. - these are all the wrong words to use.
If you don’t like the games society is playing, don’t play them. But as I noted earlier, that also means you don’t get to win the prizes associated with them, and that is of course what people object to.
They don’t want to play the game (chase beauty standards) but they do want to win the prize (be considered attractive in the eyes of society at large).
So a significant part of this supposed “oppression” is taking place in the “victim’s” own mind, as a result of their own wants and desires.
This is a typical psychological dynamic of projection.
I partly agree with you but mostly because these words reduce too much complexity, not because there cannot be victims or oppression is the social construction of sexual roles.
Your account is overly voluntaristic. One cannot stop to play societal games because we are social beings. The prize is not being considered attractive or not, all kinds of honors and awards are bestowed on those that play ‘society’s games’ well, social approval, access to better jobs, better partners and what not. Those are not prizes but living conditions.
The problem with the account is that it presupposes some state of affairs as ‘natural’ and presumes ‘society’s games’ do not change. They do though, all the time and that benefits certain groups and lifestyles over others. I think there is insight to be gained in unravelling the game instead of simply accepting it as a given, but you are welcome not to play along of course.
It’s true both sexes have been pigeon-holed. Per Biblical scholar Dale Martin, the reason for the condemnation of homosexuality in Abrahamic religions was that since one of the men would be in a passive role, it was seen as a violation of the natural order.
However, the real problem with objectification of women is that their personhood is ignored. A human is entirely reduced to a biological role. This really doesn’t happen to men in a patriarchal society where the personhood of male citizens is codified.
Victims of what? Their desire for the game’s prizes without having to play the game?
Or are they victims of the fact that other people have preferences? (Gee, how dare they!)
And, ironically, whose preferences are we talking about here? The fashion industry is almost exclusively ran by women and gay men. A same sort of dynamic is probably also visible in the ‘gym bro’ culture, where it’s all straight men.
Why?
Because even though the other sex (men in particular) are often painted as the “culprits” who maliciously designed these beauty standards, what is actually happening is that they are mechanisms of competition within the own sex.
Generally speaking only a small fraction of the population is considered to be highly attractive, and the rest gets by just fine. It has nothing to do with living conditions.
But yes, being considered attractive has prizes. I already eluded to that. If you want those prizes, you’ll have to play the game. Luckily, it’s not the only game in town.
No. Actually you are claiming there is a process of “sexualization”, in which things like attractiveness are more important now than they were during some time in the past - a so far unsupported assertion.
I’m pointing towards things like historical trends, evolutionary logic and psychology to point out this is not the case.
This is the “death drive theory” that people subconsciously or otherwise act toward reaching a state of nonexistence and non-life (death)? Yeah, it seems a bit more of his outlandish theories. Why would the average, healthy person want to die outside of perpetual harsh life circumstance? Especially considering the hedonic treadmill, that I believe is an evolutionary mechanism that works in tandem with the “will to survive” (or the capitalized “Will to life” concept).
Perhaps things were a bit different in the 1850s when he was growing up. War and especially death may have been a bit more common that it is now. You’ve never seen youth or the mentally stunted when warned of death or imprisonment to careless and harmful actions you tend to hear the classic “I don’t care” response. We as humans do very dumb things sometimes without ever caring about the consequences to ourselves and let alone others. So, perhaps it’s not completely out of left-field? 
I think it’s possible his concern is something along the lines of, unless you are fortunate enough to have been born into wealth or privilege, these “games” as you call them are often far from unequivocally optional. At least, if you hope to live even an average dignified life, especially if you seek to provide for a family. Exercise isn’t necessarily always the vain exhibition of building visual strength or becoming a formidable combatant, it’s often linked to simply being healthy. Similar to how fashion and makeup isn’t necessarily always a vain exhibition made to command attention and affection. Sure, that last example usually is, but, perhaps others have their own reasons they decline to share.
You tend to need to be likeable and fit in, or at the very least not be exceedingly odd, disagreeable, or disruptive lest one become ostracized. In the animal kingdom, most animals that become ostracized do not survive for very long.
And anyhow, one might challenge how you frame what human society and culture has been doing since the beginning of time as a “game”, as if it were merely something setup on a whim by an independent third party or is otherwise an artificial pastime not rooted in biological reality. Men compete. Women compete. We are beings of infinite ego in a world of finite resources. This is simply the reality of the world in which we live, is it not?
Man, you are cheating. You deliberately cherry-pick only the parts of my answers that suit your narrative, and when you can’t argue, you resort to insults:
I stated that there is no “sexualization” process, but that the body inherently is sexual. You isolated that single point to accuse me of naturalizing sexuality, conveniently ignoring the entire section where I explicitly explained that sexual identity consists of ideas forming early in a baby’s developing mind.
I unveiled the Judeo-Christian victimhood logic at the very core of your argument. Your only response to this structural critique was to insult me, calling me a foolish “Nietzsche’s monkey.”
This exact pattern of intellectual dishonesty has already been pointed out by other members here who have wasted their time trying to engage seriously with your premise.
The topic is sexualization, though, and playing that game seems entirely optional to me. Average people with average looks do just fine getting jobs and starting families.
Societies get up to all sorts of silly, unimportant nonsense, most of which I don’t take particularly seriously, hence the term ‘game’.
When their silly nonsense directly interferes with people’s ability to live a normal dignified life, of course I am forced to take it seriously, but in the case of this supposed ‘sexualization’ I just don’t see it.
Huh no. It is not a game and there are no prizes. Living in society and playing a game of chess are different things, apples, pears.
And that proves what exactly?
I do not think they are designed in some boardroom or another, I am not claiming that. There may certainly be competition involved. That is at least an attempt at understanding what is happening. Though it sheds no light on the differences between these roles. It also sheds no light on the agency within active and passive roles. But hey, it is a beginning.
Of course it does because if sexual roles of activity and passivity are translated into social settings it closes of certain active roles for humans cast in passive roles.
I am claiming this:
I have not made any references to some past in which such standards were less important, though I think that, like all standards, they evolve. That is not controversial by any means though. If anything the casting of male bodies in an active role and female bodies in a passive one goes back to Aristotle, so no, I am in no way inferring that this is something new.
No you are apparently arguing against a position I do not hold. I am not arguing that somehow this is a new situation, though the phenomena through which the role dynamic occurs are sometimes new (simply because of new practices and institutions, but also social trends). I am also not asking which biological processes have caused the difference in sexualization. It might all be very interesting but I am not a biologist and find your ‘explanation’ circular and therefore uninteresting. What I am arguing is that sexualization is a co-creative dynamic in which both genders get assigned certain roles prescribing certain behavior and that the attention to female sexualization (which is lens through which sexualization is mostly researched) is one sided. The sexualization of male bodies plays an equal part. This one sidedness causes an overemphasis on female objectification, ignoring male objectification. While that is true, the roles in which they are cast are not equal. There is a difference being cast in an active role and in a passive one. What are those differences, how do they play out, can we witness them in other social fields, those are interesting questions for me. You are offering only some half understood biology and psychology. Half understood because if you were truly knowledgeable about psychology and evolutionary theory you would offer some novel perspective instead of offering the usual coffee house truths that basically everybody knows.
I don’t think male objectification is a thing.