Sexual Objectification is Degrading Society

Thanks, Volkov. I'll begin by citing Con's goals: to prove that sexual objectification is a prevalent, important, and neutral part of society and culture - one that helps shape and move society. To clarify, I'm not denying that sexual objectification is prevalent (widespread) and that it shapes society. But there are plenty of things that are prevalent in society and that shape society, but aren't positive such as crime. Just because slavery, for instance, was important in shaping a culture and fueling an economy doesn't mean that it didn't degrade society. Similarly, sexual objectification runs rampant but that doesn't mean that it is positive or non-harmful (degrading). So, first off my opponent brings up the argument that sexual objectification is rooted in biology. In his own words, "if it is a biologically driven thing, inherently apart of our species and therefore our culture, how can it be a negative?" I do believe that he lost this argument with that statement. There is a plethora of evidence that proves things like prejudice are "hard wired into the human brain" but that doesn't mean that (a) being prejudice is not harmful or (b) that it can't be rectified. Social psychologist Steven Neuberg says: "People sometimes assume that because we say prejudice has evolved roots we are saying that specific prejudices can't be changed. That's simply not the case... What we think and feel and how we behave is typically the result of complex interactions between biological tendencies and learning experiences. Evolution may have prepared our minds to be prejudiced, but our environment influences the specific targets of those prejudices and how we act on them" [1]. Similarly, we as animals may be prone to first see people in a sexualized manner; however, to take it a step further to the point of objectification (speaking or thinking of people as ONLY sexualized objects - as the definition implies) is beneath us. That is not a visceral, biological function but rather a conditioned one. Since it is culturally permissible and even promoted, people do not see it as a negative thing when in fact it is. The second point Con makes is again mentioning Cleopatra and noting how women sometimes use their sexual prowess against men to gain or keep power. My answer here is the same as it was in the last round: just because women are equally as guilty of men at manipulating sexual objectification to their benefit does NOT mean that it is right. Cleopatra may have used her sexuality to gain and maintain power, but is sexuality all that is relevant or important regarding a leader? No. When a person is asked about qualities they want in a leader, the typical responses include honesty, integrity, dedication, etc. [2]. Nowhere is attractiveness deemed a necessary or even necessarily positive quality. So again, while our first instinct may be to note someone for how they look, to value someone solely based on their looks would be to degrade society's positive values. Once again we can look to Sarah Palin, for instance, and note that just because she's an attractive woman does not necessarily mean that we should make decisions (such as voting) on that basis alone. Next my opponent makes the claim that sexual objectification has benefited personal relationships, political culture, and society at-large. Regarding personal relationships, Con writes, "while it is important to create a meaningful connection with someone you love on a personality and intellectual level, it is also equally important to have sexual attraction and, yes, objectification." This statement right here completely contradicts itself. Yes, it's important to be sexually attracted to your partner; however, once again objectification according to Con's definition is the viewing of people SOLELY as *de-personalized objects of desire* instead of as individuals with complex personalities. Anyone would agree that attraction is important, but by Con noting that a "meaningful connection" on a personality and intellectual level is equally important, he rejects the idea of sexual objectification. In trying to explain how sexual objectification has helped politics, Volkov provides one example of a random Kentucky man expressing sympathy for Clinton (regarding the Lewinsky scandal) but who doesn't like Bush and Obama. With all due respect, this does absolutely nothing to prove my opponent's point. I know plenty of people who like Clinton and dislike Bush and Obama, and sexual objectification has nothing to do with it. Actually, sexual objectification has nothing to do with this entire argument. I've already shown how objectifying a female politician, for instance, means making political decisions based on her attractiveness... which can obviously have detrimental effects on society. Meanwhile, my opponent has proven that some Americans were blase about Clinton's rendezvous with his intern, but just because people still approved of him as a president doesn't mean that sexually objectifying people in general does not degrade society. Finally, Con claims that sexual objectification benefits society on the basis that it has an impact on art and aesthetics (which is in fact all his link to the book says). I have already agreed that regarding people as sex objects is prevalent in society, and since art is a reflection of society (or at least an individual) then obviously this is going to be the case. However I completely reject the idea that somehow because China is dominated by tradition and traditional roles that it somehow makes it morally superior to the West which has adopted a more progressive social structure. Additionally, I disagree with my opponent's view on gender and how objectification is merely part of a broader ideology. In fact it is the objectification which shapes the degrading ideology. Gender schemas are hypothesis about sex differences that affect our expectations of men and women, our evaluation of their work and their performance as professionals. Men are consistently overrated while women are underrated. Fact. Further, prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes define what people ought to be like, and deviants from those norms are often punished by society. For instance, women in leadership roles tend to deviate from the prescriptive stereotypes that have historically affected women (ie. hyperfeminine) yet they are punished for it - ie. Hillary Clinton was trying to appear 'softer' because of negative stereotyping [3]. The result is women caring about these frivilous things which again mean nothing in terms of contributing to society - such as the values of integrity, honesty, vision, dedication, etc. would. At best, they fulfill a minute sexual fantasy if you're lucky. Is that on balance comparable to doing great things that the other qualities would achieve? Con believes objectification is neutral and can have both positive and negative effects. However in acknowledging that it can have negative effects that degrade society, you're affirming the resolution. Objectification is not a neutral dependent on ideology. Objectification is an ideology itself; it's the choice and application of ignoring any other quality aside from sexuality in judgment of another. Yes, it can be useful in certain situations, but yes, most often it DOES degrade society. The resolution does not imply that sexual objectification does not have its place, but rather that it does in fact degrade society - perhaps even more than it helps. Resolution affirmed. Thanks, Volkov! [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [2] http://www.hrworld.com... [3] http://books.google.com...