Marcus Williams thinks it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s sexiness without objectifying her, even when you appreciate it out loud.
Growing up Catholic, I was taught that the only good sex was sex between married people who were open to the possibility of procreation. (See Section 12 of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae if you think it was just my parish or parents getting the theology wrong.) Any sex or sexual desire that did not fit that purpose was a sin. Although my parents were more liberal than the church on most matters, that liberalism was did not extend to teaching me to embrace my sexuality as a positive thing for anything other than marriage and having kids. Most sex and sexual thoughts were things to feel guilty about.
One of the most mortifying experiences of my early teens was my dad walking in on me masturbating one day (in my own bedroom, without knocking) and adding shame to embarrassment, he took me for a drive, not long after, where he popped in a cassette with some guy lecturing about “Sexual Solitaire.” I don’t remember anything the lecturer said, but the clear message was that I should feel guilty about masturbating or wanting to masturbate.
I started doubting my faith in my late teens and abandoned it altogether by my early 20’s (for reasons having nothing to do with the Church’s teachings about sex). It took me a long time to shed most of my guilt about having sexual feelings, much less expressing them, even if only using my own body. Besides the Church’s influence, I was saddled with a strong fear of violating someone else with unwanted advances, due to having my own boundaries violated at the age of 13. It was with some difficulty that I learned to have a sexual thought without feeling guilty about it, and greater difficulty to express any thought out loud that wasn’t strictly platonic.
When I wrote “From Librarian to Eye Candy in 20 Seconds”, it was without a shred of guilt. In that story, I described a woman I found very attractive and sexy, but did little to express that fact other than invent a private nickname that initially stayed between me and my dad, and made her laugh while she was wearing a bikini. Not only did I avoid breaking any of the guidelines suggested in “You Can Get Laid Without Being a Jerk,” I didn’t even try to get laid.
It was disconcerting, then, to read comments about the “eye candy” piece that characterized me a woman-objectifying jerk. What had I done or written that I should feel guilty about?
♦◊♦
Erin wrote:
It seems a little de-evolved for GMP standards. Yada yada yada…”men like to oggle women, lets joke about how men in bed with their wives and gfs think about other women , aren’t men so wonderful because of it, i’m a guy, isn’t it cute when I call women “eye candy” and talk about little anadotes about how I objectfy women, aww shucks”, it’s the same tired old speach that the media sells day in and day out about men.
That yada yadas the most important part, as yada yadas are wont to do. If the yada yada’d part was included in the paraphrase, it would include that I’d said, “It’s bad to…” That leaves me in agreement with Erin, that it’s not cute or OK to joke in bed with wives and girlfriends about ogling other women.
I think Erin took offense at my use of the phrase “eye candy”, and though no one specifically mentioned the risque etymology of “20 Seconds” as being offensive, I suspect those two phrases in particular triggered some of the comments about objectifying women. If my regard for Tanya or other women went no further than such phrases, I’d have something to feel guilty about. I never treated Tanya like all she had going for her was being beautiful, but from a distance, there was nothing else to know about her. I can’t notice beauty, and then think, “OK, I’m going to ignore that while I acquaint myself with the whole person, and then I’ll let beauty back into the equation.”
I’ve outgrown the guilt that says just thinking about a woman in a sexy way is a bad thing. I never had to outgrow a belief that women are only good for sex because I never believed that in the first place. When a man thinks a woman is sexy, that does not render him blind and insensitive to her many other qualities, so the more important test for objectifying behavior is how he acts (or chooses not to) around a woman he thinks is sexy.
Perhaps some readers were reading between the lines and assuming I left out details they’d object to, so let me point out some of the things I didn’t do to Tanya:
- I never thought of her or treated her as merely an object for my gratification.
- I did not corner her, chase her, or stalk her.
- When circumstances brought us close enough together to engage her in conversation, I made her laugh. Those circumstances were not manipulated, because I had no idea she’d be chaperoning that snorkeling tour until I showed up for it.
- When I finally made a playful, lightly flirtatious comment about her appearance, she was wearing a bikini. We were also in an open space with many other people around.
- I did not ignore any signs of discomfort, and would have stopped my occasional comments and sneaking underwater glances if I had.
- I never copped a feel or otherwise touched her while trying to pretend it was an accident.
- I did not go up to her like a drooling idiot to tell her she was a hot piece of eye candy that I’d nicknamed “20 Seconds.”
- I didn’t cross any potentially creepy age-difference lines. She was less then 10 years younger than me, and well past “barely legal.”
- I never propositioned her for sex.
In sum, I did not treat her like a sex object. I found her pretty and even attractive, but being too shy to try to get to know her better, I enjoyed her from a distance without demeaning or disrespecting her.
♦◊♦
Another commenter, “R” wrote:
Ugh, this was pretty disappointing actually. I didn’t expect to read it on the Good Men Project! It doesn’t sound much different from a writer in Maxim congratulating himself on being subtle and classy when really he’s doing all the same objectifying but just a bit more inside his head than other dudes. While keeping it inside your head does do a favor to all the women (and men) who don’t have to hear it expressed, that benefit is kind of mitigated by eventually reading it online anyway.
In retrospect, I guess I shouldn’t have hung out in the lobby calling her “20 Seconds” to everyone within earshot and published my story in the daily shipboard bulletin after the snorkel tour so everyone would know how hot I thought she looked in a bikini. Oh wait—I didn’t do any of that.
“R” also wrote:
The article did NOT really describe you treating this woman as anything “more than” someone you thought was pretty. The story is built around you contemplating how hot she probably was underneath her professional “disguise,” and agonizing about how to convey your opinion to her. I wonder why it was so important that she know your opinion about her appearance, anyhow?
I was a guest on a cruise ship who thought a crew member was pretty, even in her uniform. (She wasn’t the only one.) Noticing beauty or sexiness is not a conscious act—it’s inevitable. What I do about that impression is not inevitable, and in Tanya’s case, I did what I usually do: kept it to myself. There was no agonizing over how to convey my opinion to her, nor any assumption that it was important that she know. When luck put me on a tour with her in a bikini, I made her laugh. Knock me for wanting her to think I was funny if you like, but if anything was important to me, as evidenced by how we interacted, it was that I not be perceived as just a guy telling her she was hot.
My first joke was about the tattoo in the small of her back, but it’s not like I spied it while she was leaning down in her regular work uniform and went out of my way to point it out. I also joked about stingrays, other passengers, and whatever came to mind, so there was “more than” me commenting on her appearance. She encouraged this interaction by laughing and making jokes of her own, which only made her more attractive. I won’t lie—I enjoyed being close to a beautiful woman in a bikini. But, at no point did I treat her as nothing more than a hot body, either in my head, or out loud.
If Tanya was to stumble onto this article and be embarrassed or insulted by it, I would feel bad and apologize, but I’m reasonably confident that’s not going to happen. I didn’t include personally identifying information and several years have passed since our encounter.
♦◊♦
There are so many feminist themes and causes that I agree with and support, but the most alienating theme I run into is that men (and therefore, me) are jerks for wanting sex. It’s not all feminists who say that, but it feels like any time I see a discussion about a man acknowledging or expressing his sexuality, there will be voices in that discussion calling him a jerk for it. No level of sexual desire is safe from criticism, because just thinking about a woman in a sexy way is enough to objectify her and deny every other quality that she might possess. It’s best not to do anything with those thoughts, but even then, don’t admit to having them, because that’s objectifying, too.
Sexual thoughts: bad.
Sexual talk (or writing): admitting you’re bad.
Actual sex: good men don’t go there, or want to.
It’s almost enough to make me yearn for the sex-is-fun liberalism of the Catholic church.
—Photo by Stephen Sheffield
About Marcus Williams
In talking about objectification, almost all of the discussion has been about looks. I wonder if it’s the same or different to objectify someone based on other “superficial” attributes: voice, accent, scent, etc. Or, are those things deeper and more fundamental than appearance somehow?
I’m thinking that a great piece for the GMP would be from the point of view of a blind man. When a man who is attracted to women but can’t see women makes his way through the world, does he objectify women to the same degree that sighted men do? Or, is he more able to experience the “deeper” side because he can’t judge based on appearance?
Now *those* are some thoughtful ideas.
I know we all respond to a lot of subconscious cues from people such as tone of voice, facial expression, body language, scent, etc. and those things influence our idea of sexual attraction. And it’s hard to say to what extent some of those other things come into play because the visual thing is so overwhelmingly emphasized. But you’re probably right – if everyone was blind, they’d probably fixate on other equally superficial stuff.
And yes, that would feel like objectification if people fixated on it as much as they do about looks. I think that’s the main point: plenty of women don’t begrudge a guy for finding a woman attractive, but it’s more about the *weight* they put on it. If someone said to me “You have a sexy voice,” I wouldn’t find that offensive at all. But if I was just trying to get to know them and they kept coming back to the subject of how sexy my voice is through the whole conversation, and not really paying attention to what I said, that’s when it becomes objectification. Does that make sense?
A friend of mine dated a blind guy for awhile, and he did seem to be more open and attentive toward people in general, not being able to judge them on appearance. And his taste in women was different from most guys’, seemingly. He did have things he was attracted to like voice and scent and touch, but I don’t remember that he seemed really focused on those things – he was really a good listener and I think most women felt respected by him whether he was sexually attracted to them or not. I’ve met a few sighted guys who are that way too.
LF,
I think you have a good workable distinction about where attraction ends and objectification begins – when it becomes the only subject and the other person just can’t get past it and after spending time together he/she has not come any closer to noticing anything else about you. When the first thing remains the only thing, you might say.
I wonder if maybe a blind guy experiences a less sexualized world than a sighted guy because there’s less ‘bombardment’ by visual input. No billboards, magazine covers, suggestive clothing, etc.
Then again, maybe it’s just as sexual a life, just with other heightened senses. Maybe when you can’t see, you notice more what the lyrics to all those pop songs are really about, or you notice things in a woman’s voice that sighted men don’t pick up on. Cynical me, I suspect visually impaired men are just better at multitasking – listening to her while he’s fantasizing about her naked. (Or maybe his listening is just another form of staring, perhaps.)
I’d tend to agree with you about a blind guy getting less bombardment by visual input. That’s a pretty big deal I think. And again, it’s not so much sexualization itself that is a “problem,” it’s the particular *kind* of sexualization we have in modern culture. Everyone is portrayed as being in a sexually heightened and available state ALL THE TIME. Not to mention a “perfected” state thanks to airbrushing and makeup and plastic surgery. Everyone’s entitled to a “perfect” person, who’s always ready for action, any time they want. I can’t help but think a blind person couldn’t possibly be suffering *quite* so much from that particular addiction, despite the fact that a lot of pop songs and so on also glorify the instant gratification culture.
I know that this particular blind guy was really listening and not just “staring” – because he did it with everyone he talked to, men and women, and he always remembered lots of little details that most people wouldn’t, and responded in ways that let you know he was paying attention. I think that’s a good skill to have whether you’re trying to get laid or not. As for whether he could listen to a woman and fantasize about her naked at the same time – probably.
But if a woman feels cared about by a guy who is responsive to her and a good listener and he’s also fantasizing about her naked, I don’t see a problem there. 
A couple of things:
1) “almost all of the discussion has been about looks” – Not really; it sounds this way primarily because he has to go into so much detail defending himself, but this is primarily because of what OTHER people criticize him about, which is his noticing the looks… this says more about THEIR hangups than his.
2) you brought up “same or different” in terms of objectifying someone; you mentioned “superficial” qualities and asked how a blind person’s experience of not seeing relates to the situation. I think it IS different, but you are looking in the wrong place for the distinction. The blind man can “objectify” someone on just as “superficial” of qualities, like voice or accent. Just because one can’t “see” doesn’t mean they can’t “objectify,” and who is to say what qualities are really that much deeper than others. Some people who think they are “really deep, man!” can be really shallow. The problem is, I think, with the word “objectifying” in itself. It implies a… stability about it, a constant state. The difference here is not in dept but in breadth – and the unit of measurement is time. What he does point out is that there simply wasn’t time to get to know her before noticing the looks – this doesn’t mean that more “depth” isn’t there, merely that it’s impossible to put noticing beauty on hold until all the other factors about the person is known. The thing is, what he doesn’t emphasize, is that after you get to start knowing someone, the change in what you perceive to be “beauty” can drastically chance. Fortunately she was pleasant and relatively well put together in most ways so they had a pleasant exchange and life moved on. There wasn’t that much depth to notice but he treated her with respect anyway because he realizes that there must be more depth to her than what he’s been able to get to know in that short a time. The thing is that if you “objectify” someone, at any moment, even after knowing them for a while, you don’t take into account that they can change. This always evolving nature of change and growth that we all experience throughout life further adds credibility to his argument though: you not only can’t put noticing beauty on hold until you “know more” but even with time you will never know the entire “breadth” of what makes a person “beautiful.” Putting one in front or behind the other isn’t the issue here… we can admire beauty from the first moment we see it and we can change our perception on an ongoing basis based on what that individual says/does, but what is wrong, I believe, is to simply “objectify” anybody who is in a constant state of evolution because, well, unlike objects, people do change.
A joke about the Rules of Attraction:
A kid and his favorite Uncle are walking home from school. The kid asked “Uncle Bob I like this Girl, how do I get her to notice me”
-Well Kiddo, approaching a young lady is like driving a car…You don’t wanna just crash into her by being all flashy, Rude & show-offy..
You want to respect her personal space.
So What-cha do is try your best to be a courteous driver. Observing all her traffic signals, Staying in your lain and before you Know it, She’ll will stop and tell you What a Great Driver you are and ask U if they could come along for the ride!
Kid responds- Uncle Bob You’re a Virgin aren’t cha?
Good point, Anonymous Male. It’s also difficult to draw the line between recognizing beauty, being honest about sexuality, and objectifying people. It’s something all genders need to work on identifying. Both men and women go into fits when the other gender tries to describe what turns them on. Sometimes it’s legitimate anger, such as when certain traits are overblown by the media–whether it’s the photoshopped magazine or exaggerated video game girl standard, or or some one dimensional prince in a Disney movie or douchey romantic comedy hero. Other times, it’s just silly–such as when women get offended if a guy mentions that he enjoys looking at breasts or enjoying sexy women, or a guy demonizes all women because he blames stereotypes about jerks and money for his own lack of sexual appeal.
Sorry for the weird grammar in that last sentence…I think I started typing the it in one way, and then changed my mind. <..>
All excellent points.
As a woman, I feel like sometimes being defensive toward being objectified can get in the way of either a relationship or even just a conversation with an overall good guy. I mean, my boyfriend tells me I’m sexy/he likes my ass, etc. all the time. But I know he respects my intelligence. We have intellectual conversations all the time, and he really appreciates that I am a good student and have stuff going for me in my school/career life. For me, though, I am used to being recognized for my intelligence. I have always been the “smart one”- I was the valedictorian of my high school. While it’s never good to be objectified on the whole in a relationship, once in a while I like to be appreciated for a whole different side of me. In my current relationship I get to be the “hot girl” once in a while, but afterwards have a conversation about the work I’m doing in my lab or the article one of us read in the newspaper. Nothing wrong with that.
These is a great article. I always felt bad for thinking about women in a sexual way until about a couple days ago until I realized that there’s really no fundamental disconnect between men and women. We both enjoy sex and sexy things and it’s not wrong for either a man or a woman to feel that way. So long as you are respectful of your partner and mindful of their enjoyment as well as yours and their boundaries, there is no reason to feel bad. And I don’t feel bad even after engaging in sexual activity, whereas I used to feel bad for just thinking about it before. It took an actual encounter for me to realize she was having just as much (actually more) fun than I was having.
I have been noticing a lot of comments, not only in this particular article, but in others that have comments about the male writers here objectifying women. I am starting to think that either women are misunderstanding men discussing their attractiveness about another women or misunderstand what objectifying means.
Also, a compliment is sometimes just a compliment. We compliment music, art, and movies as beautiful, so why not each other? I have had many different people compliment my attractiveness. I can usually tell who is objectifying me, while others are genuinely stating I’m attractive without other intentions. Usually actions and non-verbal cues allow me to decipher between the two. I can even tell with my boyfriend the intentions of when he tells me I am attractive in non-intimacy situations and when in intimate situations.
This was one part of the article that really caught my eye:
“I can’t notice beauty, and then think, “OK, I’m going to ignore that while I acquaint myself with the whole person, and then I’ll let beauty back into the equation.””
I personally think it is ridiculous that men feel guilty for finding another woman attractive, when being a woman myself I find many men attractive also. I do understand where it comes from and why. Easy examples are the comments made in his other article and other articles on this site by women. Must men be required to explain our attractiveness towards other each and every time? I personally do not think that a man should have a disclaimer at the end of each article when describing a woman’s beauty.
Amen to that. I can be captivated for a while by a woman’s beauty but I still would like to get to know her, hope that we have similar interests or can get along great at least. I recently photographed a very beautiful model and I found myself first taken back by her beauty but then the intrigue about HER kicked in, during the shoot we talked and I got to know her more and I was very impressed (all the while I was learning new techniques, etc as I am a photography student). What really stood out was how nice she was, absolutely wonderful attitude, quite intelligent and had a very positive energy.
Now most of these thoughts were in my mind and chances are she probably didn’t realize I thought all of that from knowing her for a few hours in that photoshoot, reason I say it is because it’d be great for women to realize that quite a lot of men I believe think similar stuff, but they may also be shy and not say it. Just because we notice a woman’s beauty doesn’t mean we notice other qualities she has, I actually admire her beauty, her great personality and her overall positive energy…not one or the other alone!
I really have to applaud this article. I think there are many men that have, for some reason or another, developed this idea that respect somehow excludes sexual attraction or desire, or makes it shameful. It’s a idea that doesn’t really stand to reason, but can readily hide in preconceived or unexamined thoughts.
Certainly, when we express these desires, we need to be respectful, and consider the current context / situation. But the neither the attraction nor expressing it is inherently a bad thing.
And while I appreciate that women have to deal with disrespectful and unwanted advances, the men that are making those advances aren’t the same men that are thinking about these issues. It serves no-one to preach to us how we shouldn’t act like them , just because we will listen and they will not.
This isn’t something men have developed, it is something which are imprinted on men by society.First by puritanical and victorian ideals and later added on by feminists discourse on objectification.
It is fair to not expect and not tolerate disrespectful advances. Unless humankind develops mindreading I’d say that it’s not fair to not tolerate some unwanted advances. It should be needless to say, but if a clear (and preferably somewhat polite) turn-down is not respected then it has turned into a disrespectful advance.
tl:dr unwated=/=disrespectful