Sexual Objectification is Degrading Society

I'll begin by pointing out what seems to be obvious: Con has done absolutely nothing to explain why sexual objectification is beneficial for society. While I realize that this is not exactly his burden given the resolution, it would appear as if it has been a point that he tried to make in listing the various historical cultures in which sexual objectification played a uniquely important role, such as the ancient Egyptians making assumptions about which females were probably more fertile based on their attractiveness. Additionally, yes, it's true that Cleopatra used blatant sexuality to maintain her grip on the Egyptian throne. However, this proves absolutely nothing and certainly does not negate the resolution. All Con has managed to do is prove that one's sexuality was significant in the past. Further, I'd argue that while sexuality was relevant (ie. it determined one's position or influence on society), it doesn't prove that sexual objectification was positive or had any type of positive impact whatsoever. Similarly, Con has explained that his main thesis will be "I believe the effect of objectification is much more dependent upon the ideology that pervades the society of which it is within. " But. .. so what? Even if it's the ideology that's pervading society, that in no way means it doesn't degrade society. Sexual objectification regardless of its causes degrades society because of the effects it has. The effects of sexual objectification are what I will be discussing in this debate, and what will affirm the resolution: the effects of sexual objectification degrade society. Again, degrading means changing to a lower or less respected state. Let us remind the readers that sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities. This is done by speaking and thinking of people (we'll use women from here on out until otherwise mentioned) as only their bodies: either the whole body, or as fetishized body parts. When this happens, men desire women to be submissive [1] and therefore expect them to be submissive. In doing so, they neglect to utilize or value a woman's prowess in any other field besides sexuality and physical attractiveness. This can have devastating effects insofar as oppressing women (not giving them equal or realistic opportunities to succeed), thereby also restricting the masses from experiencing the probable positive effect of a woman's success on society (ergo missing out on a great leader such as Queen Elizabeth I, or Oprah's entertainment and charitable contributions, etc. ). If women like these were ignored for their other qualities or contributions besides their looks, then they never would have gotten anywhere. Queen Elizabeth I isn't exactly known to be history's most good looking woman (especially as she aged) and certainly we all remember Oprah from the 80s pre-diet and in the midst of the big hair era. Yet these women have impacted society in a great way because we valued characteristics and traits that were positive ASIDE from physical appeal. Meanwhile, let us look at the value of what basing appreciation based on physical attractiveness gets us in the modern day. If Bill Clinton or FDR had married women based on their physical attractiveness over other qualities (like for example, the man who chose to marry Anna Nicole Smith) then the world would have missed out on Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton. Now liberal and Hitlery jokes aside, these women have obviously made drastic positive impacts on society (ie. empowering women) and their sexual prowess was irrelevant. Meanwhile, what contributions has AN Smith made to society? Sure, she's fun to laugh at but she hasn't done anything significantly positive that has made a long-lasting and powerful influence on society. The only "advantage" Volkov had mentioned regarding valuing a woman for her looks was helping to determine fertility in the past; however, one's looks is no longer necessary to determine who is and isn't fertile (technology now tells us). So, while I have proved that sexual objectification can and does negatively impact society (thus already affirming the resolution), you'll notice that Con hasn't mentioned any positive uses of doing so. The only one I can think of is help advertising, but again this is circular: provoking people to value something based on sex does not help or benefit society in a big way. Yes, it might be biological - and yes, sex is relevant and important in society. However, our society can value, appreciate and enjoy sex openly without having to sexually objectify people. In other words, if Sarah Palin was a competent leader (this is a hypothetical example lol) and you wanted to fantasize about her when she became president - then that would be natural and acceptable. However to dismiss or automatically accept her as a candidate simply BECAUSE she was an attractive female (electing her into office based on her sexuality) then that would not be acceptable or appropriate. I hope I am making this distinction clear for my opponent and the audience. And while we're on the subject of sex, let me clarify that I agree with one of my favorite modern philosophers - Martha Nussbaum - that what renders objectification benign is the right sort of relationship between the participants; symmetry, mutuality, and intimacy render objectification less troubling [2]. For instance, if I am having sex with Vi and I want her to spank me and make me her daddy, it isn't necessarily immoral or wrong for her to do so because we mutually agree to adapt that mentality to fulfill a sexual need or desire for a given sexcapade. It does not negatively impact our relationship, society, etc. However if Vi and I had chosen each other as romantic partners simply based on our sexual desires, it would have a negative effect. Yes, we have evolved physiological responses such at sexual attraction, arousal, feelings on infatuation, and love that act as mechanisms to promote pair bonding and procreation and thus continuation of the species. However studies show that relationships based on sex or sexual attraction alone have a much less chance of both longevity and fulfillment [3]. In conclusion, sexual objectification is degrading to society because it values a frivolous (on balance, unhelpful) value over others that can be of more positive use on the individual and society. Basing relationships on physical attractiveness or sexuality negates the other important qualities the individual possesses, and discourages the celebration or improvement of said traits. If we use sexual objectification to make important decisions, the bias will not help or improve society in any way let alone on balance. We will essentially dumb down society and instill values that cause self-loathing (ie. promoting an unrealistic sense of beauty like the fashion industry does). However, there is nothing paradoxical or wrong about consenting to objectification in a sexual context (within a mutual relationship or agreement, ie. casual sex encounter). So, our biological and sexual needs can be fulfilled and even celebrated without having to forfeit maturity, civility, intelligence, morality or class. Thanks, Volkov, and good luck in the next round. [1] . http://www.britannica.com... [2] . http://philpapers.org... [3] . http://www.dataguru.org...