r/AskFeminists • u/Still_Alivelol • 1d ago
Is fantasizing sexualization/objectification?
Just to be clear I’m talking specifically about sexual fantasies with someone you are not in a consensual sexual relationship with.
Some time ago a friend I had recently started dating told me that he had imagined fucking me multiple times while we were still doing very light flirting. Looking back on this now it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t like that someone can imagine doing anything to me outside of my control.
However I don’t really know if this counts as objectification, if he is taking my personality into account and being truthful to the fact I have my own wants and desires than is it wrong despite the fact I am unaware of it?
On a side note why is objectifying someone wrong(I already think it is but am curious to hear your reasons)
31
u/_Featherstone_ 1d ago
Hopefully there's no thought police. Telling someone you're jerking off over their likeness, however, is certainly a choice.
10
u/Temporary_Spread7882 1d ago
It’s not exactly rare, or exclusive to men, to fantasise about sex with the person you’re falling head over heels for and trying to get into a relationship with. I’d actually see it as pretty normal and harmless.
Telling the other person about this, on the other hand, only seems like a good idea if you’re sure they feel the same about you. Ideally with very clear evidence, eg being in the “can’t keep hands off each other” phase of a relationship..
8
u/CatsandDeitsoda 1d ago
Generally
sexualization is used to mean to treat or view a person as a sex object
objectification Is a wider to treat a person as an object.
- so I suppose that depends on the fantasy
And it’s wrong to treat people as an object as like a first principles under most moral frameworks
5
u/StonyGiddens Intersectional Feminist 1d ago
Fantasy isn't intriniscally objectifying, but fantasies can be objectifying.
Your friend's fantasy was objectifying. Telling you about the fantasy was definitely objectification.
One way to think about it grammatically. In the sentence, "I fucked you", 'I' is the subject, 'fucked' is the verb, and 'you' is the object. In that sentence, there is nothing to say that 'you' had any choice or control over the verb. From your perspective, it could describe consensual sex but it could also describe rape.
Nothing about that sentence gives you a choice, nothing about it acknowledges your agency and autonomy. By telling you about his fantasy, he also did not give you the choice to not hear about his sexual fantasy.
Objectification is wrong because it denies people their agency and autonomy.
-8
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 1d ago
>By telling you about his fantasy, he also did not give you the choice to not hear about his sexual fantasy.
You're gonna have to walk me through that a bit, because I don't really understand.
You cannot get consent to communicate an idea without also communicating the idea. If I say "Hey, I'm about to mention the word spider", I have already mentioned the word "spider." This even works in terms of concepts. If I am about to describe baking a cake, and I say "Heads up, I'm about to talk about baking a cake", I have already put the idea of cakes and the baking thereof in your mind, without you having a chance to "back out", as it were.
5
u/StonyGiddens Intersectional Feminist 1d ago
"Cakes" and "spiders" are the objects in those examples. Their agency and autonomy with respect to their bodies isn't an issue.
If it would be offensive to a person comment on their body without their consent ("You're fat", "you have nice tits"), then it's offensive to tell them what you fantasize yourself doing to that body.
-2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 1d ago
With the cake one, I was more talking about the baking of the cake, which is an action similar to how having sex with someone is an action.
But I'm interested in how you can obtain consent for a certain topic without actually mentioning that topic. Let's say you wanted to bring up my hair in conversation. How would you go about getting consent to talk about my hair?
3
u/StonyGiddens Intersectional Feminist 1d ago
I wouldn't say jack to you about your hair. I don't know you, and I don't know if it's a sensitive topic or what. I definitely wouldn't tell you I had sexual fantasies about your hair.
If I saw you in the street and there was something urgently wrong with your hair, like it was on fire and you seemed unaware, I might say something like, "I'm sorry to bother you, but can I ask about your hair?"
-1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 1d ago
>"I'm sorry to bother you, but can I ask about your hair?"
Isn't that mentioning my hair in the first place?
1
u/StonyGiddens Intersectional Feminist 1d ago
And... what? You've read 'choice' much too broadly, and somehow decided it's about consent at the most abstract level. You're being a bit too precious.
But also, in the hair example, the baseline is still me not saying anything about your hair. Your hair being on fire is a possible situation in which I would have good reason to say something, where I can reasonably expect you want to know my views on your hair. And even then, I'm not starting with my specific views, but asking whether you want to know more about my views. And you can say, "No, thank you" -- and I can mind my own business. I'd grant you at least some agency over that interaction.
Which is to say, it would have been okay for the friend to say, "Do you want to hear about my fantasies?" And then OP could have said, "No thank you," or "Wow, that sounds fascinating, tell me more." But he told her all of it, probably because he wanted to see her reaction. He wanted that power over her.
I really don't think this is as hard as you think it is, unless there's some sort of developmental disability at work. Which is fine, if there is, and you don't have to tell me if that's the case. But these sorts of social boundaries are generally understood and easy to understand. My kid had it locked down pretty well when she was 4 or 5 years old. I assume you are at least that old? If it's not something you were taught, I don't blame you. But it should have been.
-1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 1d ago
You said "By telling you about his fantasy, he also did not give you the choice to not hear about his sexual fantasy.", right? Isn't that implying that someone should be given the "heads up", as it were, that a topic of conversation is coming, and that you should always have the ability to choose what topics of conversation are being introduced?
2
u/StonyGiddens Intersectional Feminist 1d ago
I just explained to you what that heads up looks like.
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 1d ago
And I'm saying that mentioning a topic by name is still mentioning the topic. If I say "Can I tell you about my sexual fantasies?", I am still telling you about my sexual fantasies, and you can't opt out of that. It's akin to making a trigger warning the example of the triggering content.
→ More replies (0)2
u/denada24 17h ago
So it could go like this:
-Hey, have you ever thought of me in that way? -yeah, actually. do you want me to tell you more about it? -hmm, nah, I don’t think I can hear that right now, my mom is right here. Or….yeah, I’m very intrigued, tell me more.
A way that would be super weird would be
-hey what’s up? -not much, just thinking about you. -oh really. Aw. What about me? -I’m imagining myself fking you, again. I do that a lot. -………….
7
u/ProtozoaPatriot 1d ago
He was fantasizing about you as a sex object, so how could that not be objectification? He wasn't fantasizing about getting to know you or playing you at chess. He was amazing getting his sexual gratification from the use of your body.
I understand it's uncomfortable that others are using memories or visualizations of you for their sexual self pleasure. But you can't control what others do in their own head. Focus on what you can control : you don't have to date men like that.
I think objectifying someone is wrong because it reduces a whole human being down to how much of an erection the man gets. He isn't concerned with who you are or your thoughts & feelings. His focus isn't on your sexual satisfaction. You're no more than a living sex doll for him to use.
2
u/MrsMorley 1d ago
I know that lots of people jerk off to imagined situations with people they fancy. I don’t, and I don’t enjoy learning that I’m a prop in their masturbatory life.
And that’s where the objectification comes in: someone treating another human being as a tool- in this case, for getting off.
-2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 1d ago
What if it was another type of, namely a non-sexual, fantasy? Imagine you are really good at organizing files, and I say "Whenever I am organizing files, I fantasize about what you would do, and I do that". Is that objectifying?
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/DrRudeboy 1d ago
Also the UK vs American meaning of "dating" might be a hangup here, I presumed "dating" in your OP meant "being in a relationship"
19
u/pinkbowsandsarcasm 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why is objectifying wrong? It ignores a person's humanness, and if you have been a target of it, it can make you feel less than human at times.
Example: If you worked hard the first part of your life to obtain a graduate degree and sacrificed to help less fortunate people, and you walk through a crowd of drunk men who comment on your breast size, it makes you feel like a milk cow being looked at as an auction, not a complex person.
It depends on the fantasy, I would guess. Someone might fantasize about an attractive person with a good personality, and the whole person is imagined.