"Objectification": Science, or Junk Science?

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Worth adding that, I most certainly do believe that some people use "objectification" as a label for

certain behaviors or attitudes. They do!

That's a far cry from it being something like a solid scientific concept, or a ... what is it? "well-understood cognitive process" (sure, if there's one thing science understands well, it's cognition, right? )

Some people categorize some music as "hair metal". That doesn't mean that "hair metal" is a rock-solid piece of scientific theory.

It's a label, conveniently used for certain attitudes or sexual expressions that some have decided rather arbitrarily are "problematic" or for lack of a better word, "bad".

It's like other labels slapped on phenomena- the phenomena are there, but the categorization is arbitrary. To act like it's some ironclad fact; is ridiculous. And not helped by the so-called "science' desperately peddled to validate this nonsense, that men see sexy women like they see toasters (but, really, who doesn't want to have sex with a toaster? C'mon.) or they don't recognize what they are upside down or whateverthefuck.

This thread spells it all out pretty well- there's no there, there.

People are sexually attracted, sometimes to people they don't even know, sometimes on the basis of superficial visual characteristics like, oh, appearance. Shocking! New! Development! Not!

Most of what is passed off as "objectification" could either be more accurately labeled (to my mind) "superficial sexual attraction" or maybe bad advertising.