Chag sameach.

Middle – ok, whatever you say.

It’s not a question of being for or against every image. It’s a question of holding fast to the principles you advocated in the first place. You don’t want to have women objectified but then approve of ads that do just that.

I was not saying that if you WANT to fuck that CEO it’s objectification, but if you look at her as a sex object because of her dress (as you have implied is inevitable).

That is not what I said or implied.

It’s not looking at a sexy woman and thinking about sex. It’s divorcing her sexuality from her humanity. That objectification.

Precisely. Where did I say that I do that with your hypothetical CEO?

That’s the problem here, on teh one hand you say that if i present myself as a whole person I will be seen as such, but on the other hand you imply that the moment a woman displays any aspect of her sexuality, she is wanting to be objectified.

That is definitively NOT what I said. Sitting in front of a pro photographer for a photo session that your publicist will distribute and making sure that your breast is clearly visible is NOT “the moment a woman displays any aspect of her sexuality.” Why misrepresent the intent of the woman being photographed?

People want to be attractive to others and for some that means wearing tight or revealing clothes. Nowhere do I imply that this makes women who do so into objects or people who want to be objectified. For someone who is complaining about the other party not hearing you, I would say that you’re pretty hard of hearing yourself. At least I provide you with quotes of your own words.

So how does a woman achieve total personhood walking down the street? How does a woman achieve this perfect, precarious balance?

What a silly question. Talk about strawmen?! You posit that I say things I didn’t say and then proclaim that there’s a problem which doesn’t exist.

I know, I know, you don’t perceive yourself as a victim.

Laya expects simple men to be as holy as the ministering angels (Malachai Hasharet):

To first watch and look at a woman selling themselves and exposing themselves sexually but to completely uproot viewing such a woman sexually as an object to satiate his desire.

Laya would demand that a hungry person after a fast day walk by a bakery with a big sign “fresh danishes” that has the delicious aroma of fresh chocolate danishes to not view that as an object that would satiate his hunger.

TM says that people are people – not the ministering angels.

well, we’re all always in evolution, but it is hard to understand a person’s position if
a) it does not fall directly along party lines
and/or
b) you assume to understand it too early on, and don’t allow yourself to hear what the person is actually saying.

You said You want them to be beautiful, to be perceived as beautiful, but also to be respected for who they are while not being perceived as a mere sexual object

You are pretty much right. Be it beauty or sexuality, appreciation is great, as long as respect for their being a human is always there first and foremost.

I didn’t back off the position. Two things may overlap in places, but that does NOT mean they are equal. There are Arabs who are terrorists, and there are terrorists who are arabs, but not all arabs are terrorists, nor are all terrorists arabs. Therefore Arab cannot be the same thing as terrorist.

I can be mindful of the effect the media has, but not be against absolutely every image of women’s sexuality. That shouldn’t be a contradiction. I know it would be easier if I was a hard lined radical on this issue, but I’m not.

I was not saying that if you WANT to fuck that CEO it’s objectification, but if you look at her as a sex object because of her dress (as you have implied is inevitable).

It’s not looking at a sexy woman and thinking about sex. It’s divorcing her sexuality from her humanity. That objectification.

(to be clear: “Objectification refers to the way in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a human being.” – Wikipedia.)

That’s the problem here, on teh one hand you say that if i present myself as a whole person I will be seen as such, but on the other hand you imply that the moment a woman displays any aspect of her sexuality, she is wanting to be objectified. So how does a woman achieve total personhood walking down the street? How does a woman achieve this perfect, precarious balance?

You made your definition of sexual object clear (somebody lots of people find sexually desirable) but then beck pedel when I ask if that would then apply to me.

But whatever, we’re talking over each other, everything I say is personally offesive to you, and clearly this is going nowhere. I have said everything I have to say. If you are hell bent on not hearing it, then I am the insane one to continue.

I should have known better than to get into it when early on in the dialogue you threw out a classic, classic straw man argument (comment 17). Coming from that place, I should have known honest dialogue was impossible . I apologize for letting it go on this long. (post script. and I will delete the comment I made the comment to ofri for closure)

Pesach semach to you and yours.

No, busy. Also, a little tired of your ongoing personal attacks and hostility – despite your hollow denials.

I am also beginning to think that you are still working out some of your ideas – which is absolutely fine, except that as you work through them, you keep talking to others as if they are idiots.

For example, in one comment you’re all about the challenges of women’s self image because of the impact of media, and the next minute you’re all for something like AA ads because they show zits while you ignore the obvious sexuality in the ads which may be just another form of pressure on women to behave a certain way. What if women don’t want to have a pouty, sexy, come-hither look while they wear underwear and lie in bed with the covers off? Isn’t that a typical AA ad? Won’t that contribute to women’s poor self image and bombardment by the media, causing severe emotional hardship and confusion? Won’t her boyfriend wonder why those AA t-shirts aren’t making her have that after-sex doe-y look in her eyes? Nope, AA ads are something that Laya enjoys; they don’t trouble Laya.

You wrote, “I am against seeing women not as sex-symbols but as sex-objects, and the notion of commodity and ownership that generally follows.”

You can insult me again by telling me I don’t understand you (or anything), but I have to guess that that you mean that you want women to appear as sex symbols but not as sex objects. You want them to be beautiful, to be perceived as beautiful, but also to be respected for who they are while not being perceived as a mere sexual object.

When told that there is no difference between the two, you back off a little and acknowledge that, “A sex symbol CAN BE a sex object, or a person, a whole person with talents and abilities that go beyond that. Their sexuality is one key part in a total human being” but completely ignore the obvious point which is that even if their sexuality is one part of who they are, if it is the part which they emphasize – as it would be with any person who makes it a point to intentionally present themselves through the media as a sexual human being, thus “sex symbol” – it is going to affect how they will be perceived, which is as sexual human beings. They will be objectified.

I mean, I don’t know who the woman in the picture is, but I do know she’s in AA underwear and looks really sultry and sexy. I know you want me to adore her for her profoundly modest sensibilities, charm, intellect, good breeding, lovely manners, strong connection to Judaism and potential for being America’s next female astronaut – in other words, according to your definition, see her as a whole human, a “sex symbol” – not as just another female hawking underwear, or a woman suggesting she’s just had sex and wants me to know it. You want me to see her as a person, not view her and her body as commodities. Right? I should think of her as a potential student, doctor, mother, pilot, or heck, perhaps a Starbucks barrista. When I see that image, since it has zits and she looks real, I shouldn’t think to myself that it’s about sex and she’s being commoditized. Heaven forbid.

Of course, Dov Charney thinks otherwise…which is why that ad and photo exist in the first place.

You wrote: “Women’s images in the media are part of the discussion because you cannot ignore the correlation between objectification of women in the media and objectification of women in real life. A man can deny that women internalize these images, but he would be wrong.”

But then you defend AA ads. Confused?

Don’t be. After all, I’m sure you are being sincere and who would even think of questioning your sincerity?

On to your supposed trump where you want me, at the risk of exposing my supposed insincerity (can you believe you actually wrote that?) to view actresses who pose for professional photographers with their breasts half exposed as something other than women who commoditize themselves, while also meeting sexy female CEOs and not want to fuck them. Wow, what a load I suddenly have to bear. Gosh, I hope I’m not insincere! If I see a sexy CEO wearing a flattering outfit and I actually want to sleep with her, then I am insincere and consider her as a non-equal. I’m also like the Haredim.

Hmmm, are you saying that I would never want to sleep with an equal or superior? If I would, then this undermines your silly point, right? Or do you think that just desiring a woman makes her unequal? If you think that, consider the disadvantage of the poor male businessperson who can’t get me interested at all, no matter how tight his shirt.

I meet professional women often enough that sometimes I do see them in tight fitting outfits. I treat them respectfully, never ask them to sleep with me, and stick to the business at hand. That doesn’t mean that sometimes I don’t think about the fact that they are or aren’t attractive to me, but my focus is on the business at hand, as is theirs. Their physical presence is part of who they are and that is a far cry than seeking to “fuck” the woman because her clothes are tight.

But we were not talking about women in meetings, or people who desire you, Laya. We were talking about objectification of women through media. If I hadn’t known who they were, chances are that upon seeing the Hayek or Johannsen photos above, I would have viewed them as women who want me to see them as sex objects, not anything else. Salma Hayek could have shown less cleavage but she wanted to be exposed. Ms. Johansen could have tucked the exposed breast in but she didn’t. Madonna has spent her career crawling and dancing on a stage suggestively. You’d like people to view them as something other than women making themselves into a commodity. Uh huh. I’m sure Madonna would quickly disabuse you of that notion. She’s selling sex. So are the others.

Now you’ve tried to bring this to a personal level, where instead of viewing a picture of Salma, or Madonna on a stage, or an exposed nipple in the middle of a football game, I now have to look at Carly Fiorina, or the girl next door and tell you whether I, if I see them dressed sexily, would view them as something other than a sexual commodity.

Of course.

Period.

Amazing, isn’t it? So the answer is that if you present yourself as a whole human being, you will be perceived as such, even if “a lot of men want to fuck you.” If you present yourself as solely or primarily a sexual being, then you will be viewed as such.

Oh, and as for the Haredim and their Orthodox supporters who want to separate the women from the men at the Western Wall? They are very different from me.

I hope that as you enjoy this Pesach and as you think about slavery and freedom at the seder, you also consider freedom of the mind from perceived victimization and the resulting anger. You have so much ahead of you and so many opportunities that it’s a shame if you were to be handicapped by a sense that society is placing limitations upon you. Even where limitations exist, there are usually other paths that can be taken.

What if I am a CEO of a major company, attractive, and wear well cut garments that display my figure flatteringly. A lot of men want to fuck me. Am I really but a sex object?

I can understand why it’s difficult to answer; It begins to erode the sincerity of your previously held assertion that all women are truly equal in your eyes (or did you not mean the attractive ones?) not to mention your indignation that Haredim can’t seem to look at an attractive women without objectifying her, because that’s what I kinda here you fellas here saying as well. Maybe you have more in common with Haredim than you think!

In any case, have a Pesach Sameach. May freedom from slavery, sexual objectification, and endless arguments reign.