Friday morning a Miss California Pageant official confirmed previous reports that controversial contestant Carrie Prejean received free breast implants, organized and paid for by the pageant, weeks before the Miss USA competition.

I’m tempted to say that gawkers have the absolute right to objectify this freakish woman. Not only does she intentionally enhance her chest into a superstimulus, but she entered a contest that essentially demands that contestants be objectified as part of the competition.

I agree that it’s boorish and potentially immoral to objectify most woman. I’d make an exception for Miss California. If someone followed her around and stared at her as a pure sex object, I’d conclude that she begged for it.

My take on ‘objectification’ is not predominantly sexual - it is simply that the person thus objectified is considered, in every regard, to be nothing more than an ‘object’ - for use, vilification, ridicule, desire, adoration, whatever.

Fans often objectify the target of their fandom - sometimes to the extent that they are disappointed and reviled by the actual person, rather thanj their object.

Objectification is also at the root of stereotyping - which can be a useful ‘broad brush’ approach at understanding complex interpersonal dynamics (using the ‘correct’ or appropriate sterotypes) but more often is used to vilify or demonize (the sterotypical “criminal illegal immigrant” stealing the sterotypical “good old joe’s” livlihood)

Regardless: whenever we ‘objectify’ a person, we reduce them to the level of caricature - and caricatures are seldom flattering.

Just my $0.02

First, I don’t think topless guys is applicable as the correlation to topless women. I think you’d have to have the boys going bottom-less. Our breasts are useful in two ways - maternally, for both feeding and cuddling, or as errogenous zones. Boys’ chests are . . . chests. Yes, I realize their nipples are also errogenous zones, but on a much ::ahem:: smaller scale. Penises, on the other hand, are either sexual parts, or elimination parts. So they, too, serve more than one function. And certain elimination would be simpler without pants, so why should society get to determine that baring a penis is ALWAYS a sex expression?

I’m not personally advocating the non-wearing of pants in public, I’m just sayin’ -

As for objectification, I agree with you, Erika. I guess when I hear the word, I don’t assume objectification = seeing someone as a sexual being. I assume objectification = seeing someone ONLY as a sexual being. I don’t want to be objectified because there is more to me than that - but no, I don’t really want people to miss that part of me entirely, either.

Being a sexual being is part of being alive, part of being connected, part of being human. I just don’t want to ONLY be seen as that, nor do I want someone assuming that my sexual side is there for their titillation, unless I am obviously presenting myself to them that way. I guess in other words, *I* want to decide when someone else is allowed to “objectify” me. If I don’t give them permission, they better not.

And of course, the discussion then becomes how that permission is granted. If I walk around topless, in this culture where the norm is to cover breasts even if ever-so-slightly, am I granting permission for any man or woman with eyes to ogle and objectify my breasts? Simply by violating social norms, have I sent out an invitation? Even if my only intent was to cool off on a hot day?

Hmmmm . . . .

Women really didn’t say anything. There were two exceptions: a gaggle of sorority-looking gals in dresses walked by the pack, and one said, “I think one of them was a girl!”; another said, “What smells? Oh, but I totally support you guys.”

I don’t know how to interpret these comments. Did these women really have trouble telling that my friends were female? Did the second woman really ’support’ whatever was going on? Mostly women met this display of ta-tas with a hundred yard stare, no acknowledgment, no comment.

As for objectification: I don’t know where to draw the line or how to identify objectification, so I’m going to witlessly dodge that discussion. But I would like to call into the question the notion that “objectification”- the act of seeing someone in a primarily sexual light- is always bad. My radical friends would argue that objectification is horrible and dehumanizing, but I disagree.

Perhaps my view comes from a steady diet of Dan Savage-style sex-positive commentary, but I think most sexual people want others to see them in a sexual manner in certain contexts. The only problem, if there is one, is that women need to start openly objectifying men more, or that some men need to make their form of objectification a little less crass.

For example, there is an oft-cited exception to the feminist assumption that objectification=bad. That exception is people with noticeable disabilities. Those people, it is claimed, often find it dehumanizing to not be seen as complete people with sexuality and sexual appeal. I couldn’t find much info on this, but there is a discussion here.

I suppose the problem with the discussion of objectification lies in the fact that the term can mean both A) seeing a person as a sexual being; and B)seeing a person as a sex-object. I’d venture most people see their sexuality as an integral part of their identity, even their humanity, and hyper-sensitive attempts to cleanse the world of sexuality harms everyone.

Ultimately I think this is what the Tit-ical Mass should be about. People should have the ability to express themselves, their bodies and their sexuality, instead of having society determine that a baring of the breast is always a sexual expression. A topless guy can be totally sexy, or it can just be some dude playing sports on a hot day- yet we allow for both possibilities by not throwing a curtain over the guy.

At what point do you consider the behaviour became “objectifying”? The answer at first seems obvious but I am curious.

Also, where you identified the gender of the “antagonists” it appeared to be uniquely male. What reactions did you receive from females?

And because we seem to be both a puritanical and a “lookist” society, I’m not sure how we reconcile our needs to cover up AND ogle. Quite the dilemma, that.

But as we all know, money is only a proxy for sex. Money = power, influence, prestige, success, glamor, attractiveness (unless all those young hot things really are attracted to those older people).

Let’s not abolish sex! Let’s abolish stupidity and prurience. (but I promise to keep my pants on)

I agree that some kind of sign or banner would change the reaction. But isn’t it sad that in order to go topless, women need a reason? I think that the sign might unintentionally create a social barrier- it’s OK for these women to be topless, but only when they are in a group and represent a cause. The nudity is made special just as before.

And to clarify, I don’t have any problem with men or women loving breasts. They command attention to be sure. I just wish we could treat bare boobs the way we treat a short skirt- respectful, quiet admiration. We all check people out, but most of us try to be discrete. Unfortunately I think my radical friends would prefer a world with no such sexual impulses at all, which seems silly.

In our culture, because we’ve been conditioned to expect breasts to be concealed, these men operated under the (incorrect) assumption that these particular breasts had been unveiled for their enjoyment, that the women were intentionally trying to “turn them on.” Um, no. I can see, culturally, why they made such an assumption, but that does not make it right. And yes, it would have been nice if men embarrassed by the oafs would have spoken up, but I’m guessing part of their reticence came from not knowing the motive behind the nudity. When someone takes an “in your face” approach to something, others get nervous, uncertain about how to respond. Had they been carrying signs explaining their “movement,” perhaps someone might have spoken up. Not sure, just thinking out loud, so to speak.