Sexual Objectification is Degrading Society

I thank Lwerd for her prompt and well-versed response. I'll begin the second round by addressing my opponent's argument, and then move on to exploring deeper the biological benefits of sexual objectification, and then explain a little further why the negatives - and positives - of objectification on a societal level are dependent upon the ideology of the society and culture. As my opponent duly noted, the resolution stated does not give me the burden of proving positives of sexual objectification. Instead, my burden is to prove how sexual objectification does not degrade society - and while giving positives is the most obvious argument, I prefer to go with the idea that objectification is indeed *neutral*. Instead of simply listing negatives and positives, my goal is to show that sexual objectification is a prevalent, important, and neutral part of society and culture, but one that helps shape and move society - an engine, if you will - similar to what economics, politics and religion do. My opponent begins these rebuttals with one about sexual objectification driving "... men desire women to be submissive and therefore expect them to be submissive." While I cannot dispute this entirely, I can through some doubt upon it as a viable argument, by pointing out that submissiveness/nurturing in females, as well as aggressiveness/strength in males, or commonly called "gender roles," is not a simple social construct, but may indeed be biologically fine-tuned in humans - also known as the "Nature vs. Nurture" argument[1][2]. And while this in no way excuses flagrant abuse in gender roles, it does create a biologically-relevant argument about the neutrality of objectification in this matter, for if it is a biologically driven thing, inherently apart of our species and therefore our culture, how can it be a negative? The second point my opponent makes - about famous women making their mark through sheer personality and prowess, instead of from sexual objectification - is a little easier to handle. Just because Elizabeth I and Oprah weren't objectified and made it, doesn't mean women like Cleopatra, noted for her use of objectification as a benefit for her power in the round before, or Catherine the Great of Russia, a woman who also had a claim to fame the same way[3], are somehow negatives in history. The third point, which will cover more broadly what my opponent has said, is that essentially, sexual objectification has not positively benefitted either personal relationships, political culture, or society at-large. I disagree with all instances, and here is why: 1. Personal relationships; 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. While it may seem counter-productive to any real relationship, there has been studies down that indicate sexual objectification within personal relationships is *positively associated* with sexual satisfaction[4]. 2. Political culture; as I noted with Cleopatra and Catherine, there is definitely a big place for sexual objectification in politics. And while Hilary might not be the best looking Sec. of State, lets note that Bill Clinton was nearly impeached on the basis of his sexual objectification of Monica Lewinsky, and yet among popular opinion polls, most sympathized with him[5]. From testimony told to me by a Kentucky man, he respected Clinton because he was a regular guy who liked his girls, but hated Obama and Bush for being 'tards. I mean, if sexual objectification really had that bad of an impact, it hasn't shown up yet. 3. Society at-large; one of *my* favourite authors, Camille Paglia, stated that "Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species." Though I can't quote directly from her book, Sexual Personae (damn you Google books!), she goes on to talk about how objectification is related to human concepts of arts and design - ideas that can be backed up by studies[6] and multitudes of other books on the subject[7] - for better, or for worse. Its clear, however, that objectification has a major impact on society at-large. I could also go into detail about how throughout history, objectification was a huge focus of art, literature, as well as modern advertising, etc., but I think I've made my point. And now, for the second part of my argument: To repeat a quote: "Gender... becomes a social construction when it is treated as an unchanging, fixed difference and then used to deny opportunity and equality to women." That quote truly embodies my main argument - ideology is a main factor in deciding the positive and negative actions of any societal engine, whether it is economics, religion - or sexual objectification. I base this conclusion on what I've seen occur, and what seems to fit into place. Allow me to explain: One of the main ways Western society differs from the Far Eastern cultures, like China, is because of a general trend of liberalism that started in the 1700's and has continuously marched forward, from America to Europe. Compare this to China, where even to this day, traditionalism is the dominate theme[8]. Traditional roles, traditional politics, traditional attitudes, traditional control - China is a society essentially in static, with little progression, or want of progression, among its population. So, when we look at objectification and gender roles in light of the differences between these societies, what do we see? In Western liberal culture, women are granted a lot more freedoms by law and by personal standards - not perfect freedom, as there is still a lot of discrimination, but indeed quite a lot in comparison to other cultures - yet sexual objectification is a fact of life, as we can see with shows about creating models[9] or InsertNameHere's beer commercial. To make a point, models are willfully using sexual objectification to make money, and as Cleopatra did, to get power - and empowerment, whatever way you do it, is generally considered a positive. Yet, despite all this, women enjoy all rights that men enjoy, and in general Western Society has trended away from making gender roles and objectification a social construct, to put it in the context of the beginning quote. In China, its quite different. In popular opinion, women still fit into the traditional view - women are subservient, women are expected to please others before themselves, women are expected to center themselves on the home, women are expected to perform the brunt of manual labour and take most of the blame for things[10] - essentially, women are viewed as objects and tools, worthy only if they actually conform. Women also used to be expected to bear many children, but that changed when the One Child Policy was installed out of the necessity for curbing China's growth, and what has happened is possibly the biggest affront to women imaginable - baby girls were thrown out in the dumpster, because in Chinese culture, having a female child is worse than having a male child[11]. Once again in the context of the beginning quote - gender *is* a social construct because of the traditionalism of this society. In light of this example, I put forward the idea that objectification, gender roles, and the whole shebang - they're predicated on the ideology of a society, rocking forward from negative to positive to irrelevant, instead of being a negative in and of itself. We can see that objectification is a biological and normal function of an individual (and therefore society), and that the effect of it depends on how traditionalism, progressivism, or other ideologies construe it. And if this is true - that ideology creates the negatives - how can objectification by itself degrade a society, if it is an inherent, neutral, fact of it? Thanks to Lwerd for the debate, and I look forward to Round 3! Sources in comments.