|
Lets suppose I were to grant the point that 'i'd tap that' and other associated phrases sexually objectify women to precisely the same extent as advertising,music videos, etc. I don't see the huge revelation here. It's a necessity of language. In order to express sexual desire about something you have to objectify the something which is the object of your desires.
Perhaps another example is in order, take the sentence: "I would run a mile." In it, you dimensionally objectify the distance you are going to run. You have to in order to make sense, or at least to give the sentence some meaning. - "I would run." is (arguably) meaningless.
I think many people skip these steps and intuit straight to the conclusion, that in order to stop sexually objectifying women (or anything else), we have to stop commenting about anything sexual, in any meaningful way. If you take the proverbial group of frat boys and one of them says 'I'm horny' it isn't a real conversation starter, they're all horny. Not that this in any ways is an attempt to claim the ends justify the means, just one problem that presents itself.
This would present another, much bigger problem in that, how then does one make a sexual advance toward a woman, if you cannot objectify her? Even if you wanted to make the argument that welcomed objectification is acceptable while unwelcome objectification is not, how then is one to determine if an advance is welcome or unwelcome before it is made? It would seem that the argument some of you are trying to make, when carried out to it's full extent, makes the pursuit of a mate impossible.
__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.
|