Re:XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to...
by demallien on Saturday July 09, 2011 @01:35AM
(#2745104)
It's not how I use the term, it's its definition - Humpty Dumpty aside, words have meaning!
So no, rejecting someone as a sexual partner is not sexual objectification, pretty much by definition.
Re:XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to...
by mentat on Saturday July 09, 2011 @01:29PM
(#2745922)
I'm not sure what your educational background is, but when you spend significant time working on literary subjects, you come to understand that definition is the trickiest part of any intellectual engagement. Your claim that your definition is the definition even though I've pointed out several issues with it. It's too bad you seem to be unwilling to take other perspectives.
I think this sort of boils down to a misunderstanding between those who want to be seen as more than physical characteristics and the desire not to have unwanted physical interaction. I think those are both valid desires. The unpleasant experiences both "sides" have had make this discussion difficult. A failure to recognize you as a person with desires that aren't in accordance with someone else's projection onto you is clearly very bad. I don't think rejection is at this same level of very bad action, but it is still substantially hurtful to many men. You could just say "so what" to that and I'm not saying it to imply an obligation to accept. I'm just saying that it hurts to be rejected. Hopefully that makes some sense.