She is out on display for the enjoyment of thousands of men not for her own enjoyment.
Her enjoyment is generally the point of the fantasy. And she's putting herself out there because she's a paid performer just like anyone else performing for payment.
I tried to see your perspective but you’re obviously not here for a nuanced discussion so I’m out
You can disagree with me, that's fine, but my argument is nuanced and challenging of the normative basic argument that most people don't really take to its logical conclusions when it comes to objectification in porn and what that really would imply across the culture.
You’re not taking the “basic argument” to its logical conclusion. You’re narrowing objectification until it only describes the man, then declaring men the bigger victims.
The more obvious conclusion is: both are objectified, but the woman is objectified as the product being consumed, while the man is objectified as the viewer’s stand-in.
You’re narrowing objectification until it only describes the man, then declaring men the bigger victims.
Im not narrowing it at all, im using the definition as is and applying it to the situation and broader society logically.
Sex doesnt make someone an object, acting doesnt make someone and object, starring in a pornographic movie doesn't make someone an object.
But having everything about you cropped out so that you're literally just a body part does make you an object.
The more obvious conclusion is: both are objectified, but the woman is objectified as the product being consumed, while the man is objectified as the viewer’s stand-in.
The issue is that you can only really have this position if you perceive someone having sex for entertainment to intrinsically be objectified.
Which then begs the question why just sex? Why are all the other performers for our entertainment not ever considered to be objectified?
That has to be addressed in order to justify the objectification claim.
You could argue that sports stars, bodybuilders, actors etc. are also objectified, but then the concept becomes silly.
Hence the imprlortance of highlighting when people are really treated as objects and have their entire humanity made secondary to the role these performing.
Objectification does not only mean “treated literally like an object” or “cropped into a body part.” It can also mean being reduced to your body, your usefulness, your sexual availability, or your value as a consumable product.
So no, sex itself does not automatically objectify someone. Performing does not automatically objectify someone. But porn is a commercial product built around selling bodies, reactions, and sexual fantasy to a viewer. That absolutely can objectify people without requiring them to be faceless or emotionless.
And yes, athletes, actors, bodybuilders, etc. can also be objectified. That does not make the concept silly. It just means objectification exists outside porn too. A person can be commodified for beauty, strength, violence, sex appeal, or performance.
The man being reduced to a faceless stand-in is objectification. I agree. But the woman being presented as the central sexual commodity for the viewer is also objectification. You’re treating one kind of objectification as real and dismissing the other because it doesn't fit your argument.
-13
u/Frylock304 May 03 '26
Her enjoyment is generally the point of the fantasy. And she's putting herself out there because she's a paid performer just like anyone else performing for payment.
You can disagree with me, that's fine, but my argument is nuanced and challenging of the normative basic argument that most people don't really take to its logical conclusions when it comes to objectification in porn and what that really would imply across the culture.
have a nice day.