# Women: Does objectification = degradation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677 "2014-12-08T18:04:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/61 "2014-12-09T15:11:02Z")
Plenty. As in a plentiful supply of food. If the price of that commodity is reduced, so is the price of virtue. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/62 "2014-12-09T15:13:17Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > "A number of evolutionary psychologists, such as David Buss, have conducted studies which tend to indicate that this pattern may still be present in the human species. Buss has shown, for instance, that women accord more importance to a man’s financial prospects and social status, preferring men who are rich and of high social standing, as well as men who are older than they are. Such men can make a greater parental investment and thus contribute to the success of their offspring. > > Men, for their part, prefer women who are younger than they are (age being an indicator of fertility). Men also accord greater importance to physical beauty (an indicator of health) and to body shape (they prefer women with a waist-to-hip ratio of less than 70%, another fertility indicator). > > Of course, the human cortex, that generator and assimilator of human culture, adds other criteria for choosing a partner. But these predispositions from our evolutionary heritage can often still be discerned in our behaviour." > [Tool Module: Sexual Selection and the Theory of Parental Investment](http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_bleu11.html) Such hypotheses from evo-psychologists are interesting, but without adequate testing, they remain hypotheses. ‘A, B, and C societies all have this trait about mating-partner choice’ indicates that there might be something connected about that trait, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate that it stems from our evolutionary heritage. Such hypotheses are [very difficult to test for](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology#Testability). > [@](#): > > I’m suggesting men aren’t capable of respecting non-virgins, virgins, other men, or their own mother’s as equals. This seems trivially easy to disprove – we just need one example. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/63 "2014-12-09T15:14:17Z")
> [@BOOM](#): > > Plenty. As in a plentiful supply of food. > > If the price of that commodity is reduced, so is the price of virtue. So then it’s not “nature”, because it can depend on societal factors – supply of food (or other resources), etc. ---
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/64 "2014-12-09T15:15:53Z")
eh? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/65 "2014-12-09T15:17:00Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > "A number of evolutionary psychologists, such as David Buss, have conducted studies which\*\* tend to indicate\*\* that this pattern **may still be present** in the human species. Buss has shown, for instance, that women accord more importance to a man’s financial prospects and social status, preferring men who are rich and of high social standing, as well as men who are older than they are. Such men can make a greater parental investment and thus contribute to the success of their offspring. > > Men, for their part, prefer women who are younger than they are (age being an indicator of fertility). Men also accord greater importance to physical beauty (an indicator of health) and to body shape (they prefer women with a waist-to-hip ratio of less than 70%, another fertility indicator). > > Of course, the human cortex, that generator and assimilator of human culture, adds other criteria for choosing a partner. But these predispositions from our evolutionary heritage can often still be discerned in our behaviour." > [Tool Module: Sexual Selection and the Theory of Parental Investment](http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_bleu11.html) In your own cite, there is an abundance of qualifications, concessions and conditionals. Even if biological forces drive preferences in partners in some ways, it doesn’t follow that it underlies an _inherent contempt for sexually active women_. We KNOW sexual/partner preferences are culturally mediated. Sexuality and sexual norms varies tremendously. There may be themes that show up again and again, but very few are universal, and variations between cultures are myriad. We also know that cultural attitudes can shift rapidly when the on-going imperatives that supported them disappears. > [@](#): > > I don’t disagree that we should strive for equality as much as possible, but do so with science in mind. It’s always important to remain realistic, and if some barriers to equality aren’t realistic then learn to cope with reality. > > I’m suggesting men aren’t capable of respecting non-virgins, virgins, other men, or their own mother’s as equals. No one is equal because everyone is different. Equality is a useful idea in some ways, but it’s clearly showing it’s shortcomings in this discussion. I’m suggesting that there may be some biological underpinnings to different cultural sexual standards between men and women that won’t ever be able to be fully resolved. Regardless, knowing the science behind them (if true) would only help us in trying to resolve them. I am not talking about “equality” in some broad, over arching sense. I am talking about shifting the cultural conception of sexual relations into one that does not see sex activities as inherently degrading. Study all the science you want, but in the meantime, I am going to teach my son that sex is a loving, beautiful thing between peers. You seem to be arguing that that is a lost cause, and he’ll never be able to look at a woman he has sex with as a peer, because the sex act itself will lessen her in his eyes. Cuz genes. I think that needs a lot more evidence than you’ve provided. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/66 "2014-12-09T15:18:09Z")
> [@BOOM](#): > > Sure, nurture can overcome nature - you can obv. talk about that with your actual or prospective partner. But the default is nature. This particular characteristic of many human societies is not “nature” (rather, it’s “nurture”), because it can depend on societal factors like resources, rather than something intrinsic to humanity. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/67 "2014-12-09T15:23:28Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is pornography (the kind aimed at straight males) inherently demeaning to women? That’s a very broad category. There is simple image porn, the “tasteful” posed porn that simply shows nude women. Then there is intercourse porn showing generally pleasing “making love”, which may involve oral or vaginal intercourse but is portrayed in a manner of mutual sharing. Then you start getting into the fetish divide. The internet has proliferated the sorting factor of porn. It is incredibly easy to find your special little niche interest porn. The flipside is that most mainstream porn is immediately tailored and marketed to fit niches. So, you get stuff marketed as “teen” and then it jumps immediately to “milf”. Similarly, there is a proliferation of more aggressive porn in mainstream categories. Not just oral and anal and facials, not just deepthroat, but hard deepthroat and gagging, ass-to-mouth, etc. There is a lot of porn that pushes degradation of women, from mild degradation via rough intercourse to harsh degradation and outright abuse - face slapping, gagging, hard anal, name calling, etc. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And, what about [the catcalling thing](http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/fox_news_host_offers_predictably_repellant_response_to_viral_catcalling_video/)? Catcalling is jerkish behavior. For instance, watching the video segment from that article where the show hosts are trying to argue that many of the catcalls were not offensive, they were compliments. Like, say, “I just saw a thousand dollars”? People aggressively complimenting and demanding gratitude for their “appreciation”? That’s not offensive? What a bunch of morons. The one guy tried to make the argument that these low-income guys treat the sidewalks as their “bar”, their social access for picking up women. Somehow he overlooks that many women would like to use the sidewalk as a sidewalk, not a social circle or dating website. > [@EdwinAmi](#): > > But I will leave this in the end to the king of the internet, Maddox. Read the article, and more importantly watch the whole video > [http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spiderwomans\_ass](http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=spiderwomans_ass) What immediately jumps out at me from that website is that it is going on and on trying to compare the position of Spiderwoman with Spiderman to show they are posed almost exactly the same so there shouldn’t be any controversy over that cover. Except Spiderman is wearing tights, while Spiderwoman is buck-ass naked. Hmmm. > [@MandaJo](#): > > What’s “bad” is thinking that a woman who has been fucked, especially a woman who has been fucked a lot, or been fucked by a lot of people, or been fucked by you in particular, is some how made less, that she’s given something up. It’s the idea that she has, at best, consented to being degraded to please others, or, at worse, acted to satisfy urges that are shameful for her to even have, let alone indulge. > > Boys (and girls) are also hit over the head with this mantra, as well: it’s why it’s bad to “objectify” women, because of the underlying assumption that anything you want to fuck, you think of as inferior. That’s what has to change. Yes, I’ve faced this attitude in myself. It’s an ongoing process. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > [http://www.victoriasfriends.com/statistics](http://www.victoriasfriends.com/statistics) > > This would lump prostitutes in with porn actress and strippers. Yes, sociologists do that because there is a lot of overlap and because of the similarities between them versus other jobs. > [@](#): > > Abuse while stripping: > > [http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/02/stripclubs\_acco.html](http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/02/stripclubs_acco.html) Very informative link. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/68 "2014-12-09T16:22:50Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > In your own cite, there is an abundance of qualifications, concessions and conditionals. Even if biological forces drive preferences in partners in some ways, it doesn’t follow that it underlies an _inherent contempt for sexually active women_. We KNOW sexual/partner preferences are culturally mediated. Sexuality and sexual norms varies tremendously. There may be themes that show up again and again, but very few are universal, and variations between cultures are myriad. Science is, by definition, tentative. I’ll admit there isn’t a very substantial amount of evidence supporting the claim. It still appears to be the best theory for how mates are generally selected. Regardless, it’s observable by behavior that men and women generally have different sexual drives and motivations for sex. Attitudes will naturally follow this. Why do you think women are the ones typically reporting that they feel used after meaningless sex? Do you attribute that completely to slut-shaming? If biological forces drive preferences in the way I’m claiming then it would reasonably follow that violating said preferences would cause an inherent biological moral reaction (disgust). This disgust would probably work it’s way into the culture at large. Even in more progressive societies like America you see these attitudes. How many societies treat men and women the same when it comes to sex? > [@](#): > > We also know that cultural attitudes can shift rapidly when the on-going imperatives that supported them disappears. The alleged on-going imperative would never disappear in this case so I’m not sure why that’s relevant. > [@](#): > > I am not talking about “equality” in some broad, over arching sense. I am talking about shifting the cultural conception of sexual relations into one that does not see sex activities as inherently degrading. Study all the science you want, but in the meantime, I am going to teach my son that sex is a loving, beautiful thing between peers. You seem to be arguing that that is a lost cause, and he’ll never be able to look at a woman he has sex with as a peer, because the sex act itself will lessen her in his eyes. Cuz genes. I think that needs a lot more evidence than you’ve provided. I never said that sex will degrade a woman in the eyes of her man. It’s that the act would degrade her as a mate in the eyes of **other** men; Which it does culturally, and, I’m alleging, biologically. I usually don’t make emotional arguments since they’re nothing but rhetoric, but in this case I’ll make an exception. I argue to base our understanding around science so we can love women as they are instead of what we wish they were. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/69 "2014-12-09T16:31:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Such hypotheses from evo-psychologists are interesting, but without adequate testing, they remain hypotheses. ‘A, B, and C societies all have this trait about mating-partner choice’ indicates that there might be something connected about that trait, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate that it stems from our evolutionary heritage. Such hypotheses are [very difficult to test for](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology#Testability). What you call a hypothesis evolutionary biologists call a theory. “I’m suggesting men aren’t capable of respecting non-virgins, virgins, other men, or their own mother’s as equals.” > [@](#): > > This seems trivially easy to disprove – we just need one example. Then provide one. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/70 "2014-12-09T17:10:17Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > What you call a hypothesis evolutionary biologists call a theory. Cite? And I was talking about evolutionary psychologists (as I thought you were), not evolutionary biologists. > [@](#): > > “I’m suggesting men aren’t capable of respecting non-virgins, virgins, other men, or their own mother’s as equals.” > > Then provide one. Me, my brother, my dad, my cousins, many friends, etc. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/71 "2014-12-09T20:00:43Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Science is, by definition, **tentative**. I’ll \*\*admit there isn’t a very substantial amount of evidence \*\*supporting the claim. It still appears to be the best theory for how mates are generally selected. Regardless, it’s observable by behavior that men and women generally have different sexual drives and motivations for sex. Attitudes will naturally follow this. Why do you think women are the ones typically reporting that they feel used after meaningless sex? Do you attribute that completely to slut-shaming? > > **If** biological forces drive preferences in the way I’m claiming then\*\* it would reasonably follow \*\*that violating said preferences would cause an inherent biological moral reaction (disgust). This disgust \*\*would probably work \*\*it’s way into the culture at large. Even in more progressive societies like America you see these attitudes. How many societies treat men and women the same when it comes to sex? Listen to yourself. I’ve bolded all the places where either you admit their isn’t sufficient evidence, or where you are making an inductive claim. If any of those connections aren’t correct, the whole thing falls. If this is current “best theory” for why some men/societies feel disgust towards sexually active women, I’d say we have no theory at all. There’s certainly nothing that demands there be an immutable biological underpinning to that reaction. > [@](#): > > The alleged on-going imperative would never disappear in this case so I’m not sure why that’s relevant. It’s relevant because it demonstrates that a lot of the things that appeared to be inevitable parts of society–and therefore, potentially biological in nature–have turned out to be quite mutable. Look at childbearing: you’d think the desire to reproduce would certainly be something immutable and selected for, but over and over again we’ve seen that people adapt their family size to what suits their society (huge families in farms; mid-sized in nomadic situations; delayed, small, and some times not at all in urbanized environments). It’s not enough that you can construct a just-so story for why The Man Condemned The Slut. You’ve got to show there’s a particular reason why this is an immutable biological imperative. In the meantime, I’m going to raise my son to think of women, and think of myself, as more complex than that. > [@](#): > > I never said that sex will degrade a woman in the eyes of her man. It’s that the act would degrade her as a mate in the eyes of **other** men; Which it does culturally, and, I’m alleging, biologically. Actually, in most traditional culture, sex degrades a woman in the eyes of her partner. It inherently justifies the sex if she’s not a wife–“It’s okay to have sex with her, because she’s a slut/whore”. In the case of the spouse, it becomes a concession, a terrible, humiliating experience that she “allows” out of love or obligation. What do you think it’s like to “lie back and think of England”? I usually don’t make emotional arguments since they’re nothing but rhetoric, but in this case I’ll make an exception. > [@](#): > > I argue to base our understanding around science so we can love women as they are instead of what we wish they were. 🙂 I have no idea what this means. ---
**Author:** ![GrumpyBunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bc8723/32.png) [@GrumpyBunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrumpyBunny)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/72 "2014-12-09T22:32:20Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > It’s not possible to respect a woman and think about fucking her, because fucking is disrespectful. > > This paradigm is arguably shifting, but it’s not gone. I tend to feel like there’s still plenty of men (and women, but that’s less germane here) who believe it absolutely, and a greater mass of people who mostly reject it but have still internalized it to some degree. As long as that attitude persists, focusing on a women as an object to be fucked will be problematic–because it’s a focus on that which makes her less than a man. Wait, what? So does this point of view ever consider that many women like fucking and certainly see some men as “sex objects” (here, “sex object” = “wow, I’d go to bed with him in a New York minute!”). ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/73 "2014-12-09T23:09:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Cite? And I was talking about evolutionary psychologists (as I thought you were), not evolutionary biologists. Here you can find a history of the theory along with scientists who have submitted findings supporting it. [http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/57.full#ref-8](http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/57.full#ref-8) I was using the term as an umbrella which included evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists which is technically incorrect. They cannot be considered two completely separate fields ,however, due to Evolutionary Psychology being based on biological principles. It’s a hybrid science between Psychology and Biology. > [@](#): > > Me, my brother, my dad, my cousins, many friends, etc. If you’ll look back at my post you’ll see how that example doesn’t qualify since none of those people are the same as you, therefore, you can’t treat them as equal to you. Equal implies the same and they are all distinct people from you. The idea of equality is based on fairness and respect, but in reality things don’t always translate perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/74 "2014-12-09T23:18:45Z")
> [@BOOM](#): > > Plenty. As in a plentiful supply of food. > > If the price of that commodity is reduced, so is the price of virtue. You are actually pretty close. Agriculture. We see remarkable sameness is sexual controls in agricultural societies. And agricultural societies are so widespread that it’s easy to think their organization must be human nature. But non-agricultural societies (or farming societies with unusual circumstances) show much more variety. And this is pretty clear in our own society, where changes in sexual mores have a nearly perfect correspondence to the shift away from agriculture. IMHO, it’s about inheritance. Inheriting land can be a life-or-death thing in a farming community. But inheritance just isn’t that important elsewhere for most people. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/75 "2014-12-09T23:31:23Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Equal implies the same and they are all distinct people from you. The idea of equality is based on fairness and respect, but in reality things don’t always translate perfectly. In this context, equal means “a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality” – the same status/quality, not the same people. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/76 "2014-12-09T23:39:14Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > Listen to yourself. I’ve bolded all the places where either you admit their isn’t sufficient evidence, or where you are making an inductive claim. You also emboldened the part where I stated science is tentative itself which is pretty ironic since it goes towards proving my point. Psychology, even is humans, is still tentative in a lot of areas. We don’t know what causes a lot of mental disorders like depression, but we still operate under the assumption that it exists. What method, aside from science, do you suggest we operate with? > [@](#): > > If any of those connections aren’t correct, the whole thing falls. If this is current “best theory” for why some men/societies feel disgust towards sexually active women, I’d say we have no theory at all. There’s certainly nothing that demands there be an immutable biological underpinning to that reaction. That logic is completely flawed since even a weaker theory is still a scientific model of how the world works. There is no magic point in which it becomes reality. It is the best we’ve got aside from just \*\*hoping \*\*everything ends up being equal between the sexes. > [@](#): > > It’s relevant because it demonstrates that a lot of the things that appeared to be inevitable parts of society–and therefore, potentially biological in nature–have turned out to be quite mutable. Look at childbearing: you’d think the desire to reproduce would certainly be something immutable and selected for, but over and over again we’ve seen that people adapt their family size to what suits their society (huge families in farms; mid-sized in nomadic situations; delayed, small, and some times not at all in urbanized environments). No, we see society try and control that desire to reproduce (like China’s One Child Policy). We also see fathers run out on their children just to make more all throughout society (some communities more than others). You’ve shown nothing that’s mutable; Only controllable. > [@](#): > > It’s not enough that you can construct a just-so story for why The Man Condemned The Slut. You’ve got to show there’s a particular reason why this is an immutable biological imperative. In the meantime, I’m going to raise my son to think of women, and think of myself, as more complex than that. Thank you for crediting me with constructing it, but I’m not actually a scientist that ever contributed to the theory. What you teach your children is your business, but what method do you suggest we run society with other than science? > [@](#): > > Actually, in most traditional culture, sex degrades a woman in the eyes of her partner. It inherently justifies the sex if she’s not a wife–“It’s okay to have sex with her, because she’s a slut/whore”. In the case of the spouse, it becomes a concession, a terrible, humiliating experience that she “allows” out of love or obligation. What do you think it’s like to “lie back and think of England”? My theory doesn’t explain every single attitude in society. Limit the discussion to what I am claiming it affects. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/77 "2014-12-09T23:52:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In this context, equal means “a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality” – the same status/quality, not the same people. You would need to be the same person in order to be treated with exactly the same status/quality since these things are still value judgments. You can strive for something like equality under the law, but with social status and quality; Complete equality is unattainable since we all have different personalities, motivations, and drives that value separate things. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/78 "2014-12-10T00:19:57Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > … > Yes, sociologists do that because there is a lot of overlap and because of the similarities between them versus other jobs. Yeah, the Brain Glutton specifically excluded prostitutes in the statement I was responding to. So in the interest of honesty - Sociologists tend to lump “sex industry workers” together. > [@](#): > > Very informative link. Yep. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/79 "2014-12-10T00:31:49Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > You would need to be the same person in order to be treated with exactly the same status/quality since these things are still value judgments. You can strive for something like equality under the law, but with social status and quality; Complete equality is unattainable since we all have different personalities, motivations, and drives that value separate things. No point in arguing about these semantics. Most people understand what “equal” means in the context of comparing people or comparing groups of people. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677/80 "2014-12-10T00:41:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No point in arguing about these semantics. Most people understand what “equal” means in the context of comparing people or comparing groups of people. It’s not semantics. I’m telling you how that concept cannot be achieved. You can strive for it, but never actually reach it. . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-does-objectification-degradation/706677.md?page=5)