Quote:
Originally posted by boodytay
No, it's not really okay for humans, regardless of sex, to objectify themselves imo. We are not objects. We are living organisms with minds and emotions. Sexual desire is just one of these many emotions. When we overemphasize it, we start looking more like animals/objects (things that don't have minds/have very small mental ability) who cannot control their sexual instincts and are in constant need of performing/talking about/thinking of any thing sex-related.
When artists overtly sexualize their images, I see their stans using the "She's a sexual person and she's just expressing it" excuse. Please. There's nothing called "she's a sexual person". All human beings are born sexual (i.e. with sexual desires), so is saying "she's a sexual person" supposed to imply that she's a special case and it's okay for her to rid her image of any emotions and characteristics besides sex? 'Cause she's not.
|
Objectifying yourself doesn't literally turn you into an object though. Wearing something risque and shaking your ass doesn't make you less intelligent. The fact that you inherently assume "being sexual = having very small mental ability" is just weird to me. Being "a sexual person" doesn't mean you have no other qualities. Just because someone is an "artistic person" doesn't mean they have no interests besides art. It seems to me like as soon as someone is overtly sexual, you think that's the only thing they can have going for them.
There is definitely such a thing as a "sexual person." I'm far more sexually liberal than the average person. It's not a lie for me to say "I'm a sexual person." But I'm still a lot more than that. Implying that we're all the same sexually or all have the same desires sexually is just wrong.
She really has the best Twitter acct. 
