UK captains of industry have charity night where they sexually assault young female 'hostesses'

[kabbes]

But this presumes that the problem is the objectification rather than the bad behaviour. Isn't that essentially prudishness? What's wrong with objectification in and of itself?

For some it might tip them into becoming some sort of abusive arsehole but that's no reason to do away with the objectification.

Some people can't handle their beer, no reason to return to prohibition.

It's also stepping all over the people who don't mind being objectified and are having a wail of a time travelling the world while doing so.

I don’t think you understand what objectification is. Objectification IS bad behaviour. It’s a dehumanising process that turns a person into an object to be used and consumed.

The fact that women are seen as objects that exist just for gratification purposes (and these “grid girls” literally are there for no other reason than to be physically gratifying) is directly responsible for this objectification process. It endorses and celebrates it.

 

[bemused]

No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).

Isn't this an empty distinction? Don't fashion houses prescribe what these women should look like, pressure them into altering their bodies to fit their requirements, manipulate their images and essentially treat them like cattle?

I personally think the fashion industry is more toxic than paying women to stand in front of cars.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).

But attractive people are used in glossy magazines to sell lots of things. Perfume, watches, cars, all sorts - the models don't need to be there, do they?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't see this difference at all. The models are still selected based on their looks, it's arguable as to whether the clothes look better on them but there's certainly a lot of objectification going on in the modelling world.

There are other jobs, backing dancers, girl bands, acting...at what point are these people objectified? Once they're good looking enough? Once we decide their job requires no talent or has no other purpose than objectification?

Why is it wrong to objectify people?

Objectifying people beyond the most basic of needs (hello are you a bus driver driving the bus i need to get) is to reduce them to functional parts of your ego and so useable and binnable as your needs dictate. It's a horrible way to live your life and to treat people. It's juvenile and its shit. Grow up.

 

[no-no]

I don’t think you understand what objectification is. Objectification IS bad behaviour. It’s a dehumanising process that turns a person into an object to be used and consumed.

The fact that women are seen as objects that exist just for gratification purposes (and these “grid girls” literally are there for no other reason than to be physically gratifying) is directly responsible for this objectification process. It endorses and celebrates it.

How can something that occurs inside someone's mind be bad behaviour? The vast majority of women and men manage to objectify the people they find sexually attractive without groping anyone.

 

[mojo pixy]

If someone wants to pay me then yeah why not?

as long as you're also happy to take the constant lecherous looks and attempts to fuck you, hands on your arse and being treated as nothing better than a decoration. Bet you've never had days and days of that in all your life, have you? You might think you wouldn't mind; I suggest you think again.

 

[no-no]

Objectifying people beyond the most basic of needs (hello are you a bus driver driving the bus i need to get) is to reduce them to functional parts of your ego and so useable and binnable as your needs dictate. It's a horrible way to live your life and to treat people. It's juvenile and its shit. Grow up.

Why are they usable and binnable? I don't see where the jump from that person is sexy to that person is worthless comes in.

 

[butchersapron]

Why are they usable and binnable? I don't see where the jump from that person is sexy to that person is worthless comes in.

Because they're objects.

 

[Spymaster]

No. Models are there to show off clothes; grid 'girls' are there as pure decoration. It's a big difference (not that the fashion industry doesn't need to change, too, of course e.g. size 0).

There are plenty of instances outside of the fashion industry where women are levered into adverts irrelevantly. Much advertising has traditionally been targeted at men and of course all men want to look at attractive women all the time don't we? I find it rather annoyingly low-brow that some marketers think I'd be better disposed to their product, service, or sport, because they've adorned it with half naked females. It's patronising bollocks to blokes as well.

 

[no-no]

as long as you're also happy to take the constant lecherous looks and attempts to fuck you, hands on your arse and being treated as nothing better than a decoration. Bet you've never had days and days of that in all your life, have you? You might think you wouldn't mind; I suggest you think again.

and yet the women are pissed off about losing their jobs.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why are they usable and binnable? I don't see where the jump from that person is sexy to that person is worthless comes in.

there are none so blind as those that will not see

 

[mojo pixy]

and yet the women are pissed off about losing their jobs.

Everyone is always pissed off when they lose a job ffs. These women will get other work, they're models. It's hardly a dying trade.

What about the other bit, would you mind

the constant lecherous looks and attempts to fuck you, hands on your arse and being treated as nothing better than a decoration.

 

[no-no]

Because they're objects.

and so it follows that they're worthless? I don't think it does.

 

[Spymaster]

Nobody has banned grid girls.

I think they have.

Formula 1: 'Grid girls' will not be used at races this season

 

[no-no]

Everyone is always pissed off when they lose a job ffs. These women will get other work, they're models. It's hardly a dying trade.

jobs that you would levy the same accusations at no doubt.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

and yet the women are pissed off about losing their jobs.

I bet the black and white minstrels weren’t cock-a-hoop about losing their gig either.

 

[mojo pixy]

jobs that you would levy the same accusations at no doubt.

Putting thoughts in my head and words in my mouth? Try putting them in your own.

 

[butchersapron]

and so it follows that they're worthless? I don't think it does.

It follows that they are potentially worthless once you've got your worth from them - and on a much larger social scale. People as means rather than as ends in themsleves - basic stuff this.

 

[mojo pixy]

I bet the black and white minstrels weren’t cock-a-hoop about losing their gig either.

I heard the death of the Atlantic slave trade was extremely unpopular in some quarters.

 

[no-no]

I bet the black and white minstrels weren’t cock-a-hoop about losing their gig either.

These aren't black and white minstrels.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

These aren't black and white minstrels.

They’re not caricatures?

 

[no-no]

It follows that they are potentially worthless once you've got your worth from them - and on much larger social scale. People as means - basic stuff this.

Potentially worthless, but potentially not. Why does that follow? You're saying it follows does but I don't see why.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I heard the death of the Atlantic slave trade was extremely unpopular in some quarters.

Oh come on. These "grid girls" are earning a lot of money and travelling the world. They're not being forced to do anything.

 

[no-no]

They’re not caricatures?

What?! They're real people.

 

[butchersapron]

Potentially worthless, but potentially not. Why does that follow? You're saying it follows does but I don't see why.

Wow, potentially not worthless. What a nice way to view people and life.

If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen. You asked what's wrong with objectifying people.

 

[Athos]

I don't see this difference at all. The models are still selected based on their looks, it's arguable as to whether the clothes look better on them but there's certainly a lot of objectification going on in the modelling world.

There are other jobs, backing dancers, girl bands, acting...at what point are these people objectified? Once they're good looking enough? Once we decide their job requires no talent or has no other purpose than objectification?

Why is it wrong to objectify people?

Yes, of course models are selected on their looks (it's an aesthetic industry), but their sole purpose isn't just to be lusted after by men; their main role is to demonstrate the clothes. I think that's quite different from grid girls (though, as I've said, the fashion industry is far from blameless).

It's wrong to objectify people because it creates a culture in which some people are treated as less than human - as commodities, to be consumed.

 

[butchersapron]

What?! They're real people.

No they're not. They are objects.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

What?! They're real people.

Yes their tits are just naturally pushed up into a cleavage.

 

[no-no]

Wow, potentially not worthless. What a nice way to view people and life.

If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen. You asked what's wrong with objectifying people.

This isn't true is it?

"If you don't objectify them then this shit doesn't happen."

I objectify people, pretty sure most people on these boards do if they're honest. It doesn't follow that shit will happen at all.

 

[no-no]

Yes their tits are just naturally pushed up into a cleavage.

Because women don't wear push up bras when they're not being paid do they?