Well, take a look at the marble statues of ancient Greece and the videography of today. Now tell me your answer.

Is pig pork??

"He treats objects like women, man!"
- The Dude

Well said.

I can't disagree with your concluding statement at all. Although, I do not accept the argument that arousal is learned, at least fully, based on the scant (no pun intended) evidence regarding equatorial cultures. There are studies showing, symmetry for example, span all cultures in "attractiveness". I'm sure I can identify more elements of innate attractiveness, and evidence this exists in infants, but I can't get after this until later. I don't think it takes away from your argument about the inappropriateness of objectifying humans in normal practice.
I would take an Ian Anderson position on hot waitresses, perfume models, Daisy Duke or Daniel Craig wrt humor and social media. This is not the same.

"Prager is wrong when he identifies which body parts are "naturally" arousing."

Please cite the psychological studies you think support such a position. ALL the ones I've seen about men specifically state the opposite.

"And arousal is not objectification."

I think this is where you use a definition different than the rest of us - including Prager. Again, see point eight.

"As for the link between economic liberation and sexual liberation, it is all human action."

I think you're trying way too hard to over-simplify things. Every different portion of the economic market relies on different factors. No serious economist attempts to treat the automobile market the same way they treat the market for eggs (no pun intended).

I would suggest that you cite the psychological studies you think back your case for learned attraction, however, as all the ones I have seen lean heavily towards it being an innate trait. What you are citing in Tibetans is not a denial of sexual attraction to breasts by men, but rather desensitization. What should be noted, however, is that the attraction doesn't go away simply because of the desensitization - it shifted to another area of the body.

"I have heard that the French think that Americans suffer from breast fixations."

That's probably because Europeans face the same desensitization you cite in the Tibetans. Their television advertising for soap almost exclusively features naked women showering - and they show everything. There are lingerie ads at bus stops and perfume ads in public places showing people in blatantly suggestive poses. And the postcards can be very X-rated. If one were to look at the difference in the two cultures, again, it comes down to desensitization: for men in France, a boob is ho-hum. American men aren't constantly bombarded by the same stimuli as the French men - there is still some mystery and excitement.

It's very much like the high created by drugs. At first, it only takes a little bit. Then desensitization starts to take hold and the addict starts requiring more and more of the drug to get the same effect. The brain is a vast and complicated chemical machine, but the studies about addiction and pleasure-center stimulation are pretty thorough.

"it is not acceptable here and now to treat other people as objects."

Again, people are a sub-set of the larger inclusive group known as objects. Should people be recognized and treated as people - a smaller set of the larger general classification known as objects? Absolutely. But you are falling prey to the very feminism Prager is pointing out by denying that men and women often look at each other based on the prospects of amorous activity. The very hook-up culture that has stormed America in the past 20 years is evidence that many people are objectifying the opposite sex. What makes these hook-ups of lesser quality than those of marriage falls exactly to the point you do have correct: that people shouldn't stop at the objectification and should explore the other attributes of their partner.

After re-reading my post a third time I can see how a quick read through might be misinterpreted to be argumentative instead of expounding on an agreed idea. I should have started with "Agreed,"... ;)

I would argue just the opposite. Objectification happens when one can only see (either by limited information or selective ignorance) a limited set of features or characteristics about something else - such as in this case gender. Until someone gets to know someone else, they have no idea whether that other person is honest or a thief, hard-working or a slacker, a Communist or an Objectivist. Physical features, however, are very easy to pick out - even from a distance - so establishing someone's sexual compatibility is an almost knee-jerk response. And psychologists have done studies that show that men can innately determine the gender of a face with astounding accuracy because a section of the brain tied to sexuality recognizes a feminine face vs a masculine one. They've even studies to determine the perfect figure of a woman (http://www.scienceofrelationships.com....

I think what you are confusing and overlooking to the point of absurdity is that Prager is not arguing at stopping at objectification and sexual exploitation. His point is that feminism attempts to confuse the natural (i.e. innate) attractions of men toward women by telling both men and women that these attractions are bad. Both men and women have a sexual drive they want to use, so they look for potential ways to engage that drive. That starts by identifying potential partners. It doesn't say it has to stop there - with people viewing each other solely as objects - but that it shouldn't be ignored either.

Yes, some of it is learned, however there is certainly a portion that is nature. Early human females wanted a physically strong man to protect them. That has now turned more into financial success instead of muscles. Is that objectifying for the purpose of self preservation? Bigger point than whether it is learned or nature is that women do it too. It is not just men. The liberal agenda is the one portraying women as a weaker human, by their insistence that women need special treatment and help overcoming objectification. Nobody is offering to help men overcome women objectifying them for their pocketbook or muscles?

I'm not saying that men who treat women no better than a receptacle for their seed is a positive thing. It is disgusting. That is why we have laws to protect women from rape and abuse. A woman (in America anyway) has free choice to associate herself with any man or men she chooses. If she wants to be around men who treat her like a blow up doll, then she will reap what she sows. By acting like she needs to be protected, you are telling her that she cannot make it without your help. That is calling her weak.

I have been around for seventy years. I agree with you but being socially acceptable or not is irrelevant. Always has been that way and always will be. I could give lots of examples of this but do not feel like doing that much typing.

It is learned behavior. It may be an easy generalization that we all want to get our way. How we achieve that is learned. That some people use sexuality as a social tool is obvious. The question here, though, is whether that is acceptable.

I agree that the question at hand is where people naturally objectify each other based on sexual attraction. As I pointed out, those cues are cultural. Prager is wrong when he identifies which body parts are "naturally" arousing. And arousal is not objectification. Objectification is de-humanizing. That is all it ever was or can be.

As for the link between economic liberation and sexual liberation, it is all human action. If you do not perceive the connections in different expressions of individual freedom of action, my powers of persuasion might be too limited to explain it all in a few paragraphs.

I am sure that good-looking people do have social advantages. Regardless of the specific cultural standards, if you meet or exceed them, you win. in our society, tall men get hired to be sales managers. That statistical fact does not justify the discrimination against short women for the same opportunities. All that should matter is the sales numbers. You and I should be on common ground for all of that.

That said, though, just as one counter-example, in an earlier time, if a machinist applied for a job the foreman was most interested in seeing the tools in the box that the applicant made for himself. That was the standard, not how good-looking he was. He might be; and it might give an advantage. But if he did not pass muster, good looks would not make up for a lack of machinery knowledge.

Again, I think that you and I are on the same page there. Where we disconnect is over the word "object." Responding physically to someone is not the same thing as de-humanizing them. That is what Dennis Prager is advocating.

And he is not ignorant. I believe that he understands full well what he is saying.

That is all fine and mirrors the relationship that my wife and I have enjoyed these past 38 years. But the question is objectification not attraction or arousal.

And Prager is wrong about what causes arousal or attraction. We do know from worldwide studies that most people prefer symmetrical features in others. Beyond that, what constitutes a sexual cue varies by culture. As I said below, Tibetan women often go bare-breasted but everyone wears boots. So, the men have foot fetishes. I have heard that the French think that Americans suffer from breast fixations.

Regardless of the turn-ons around the globe, it is not acceptable here and now to treat other people as objects.

Objectification is de-humanization. We train soldiers to kill by teaching them to attack objects that resemble people. We degrade the enemy as "Krauts" or "camel-jockeys." That is not at all the same thing as responding positively to someone else who is physically attractive. And that can mean psychologically attractive, regardless of physical attributes.

It is quite clear in Objectivist psychology, that when we respond to physical good looks, we are making an aesthetic judgment. The person might turn out to be completely unlikeable in every other aspect. That judgement comes later. The first impression is one thing. Moral evaluation is another.

But that is not the same thing as objectification.

And Dennis Prager is wrong when he says that it is "natural" to be aroused by the sight of a leg, breast, or abdomen. We learn that. As I said below https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... in equatorial cultures where clothing is scant or merely decorative - men and women are naked except for a necklace or bracelet - other cues lead to sexual arousal.

I misread your statement. You did say "people" and I just accepted that you meant "men." The problem that I have, though, is about the objectification. Everyone does not see everyone else as a sex object.

Sexual attraction is not objectification. Dennis Prager is arguing for the de-humanization of other people. If it were anyone else, I might excuse his not knowing what he is saying, but Dennis Prager is smart enough to know what words mean.

Gender roles are learned behavior. They vary across cultures. Moreover, it is not "natural" to objectify other people. We learn that, also.

Only the pretty ones!

Men have a natural tendency to look at women sexually... and women have a natural tendency to look at men sexually. Women aren't asexual beings, and both sexes produce and respond to pheromones: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id...

Fivedollargold volunteers to conduct an experiment. He needs 40 women of various sizes, ages, interests, educational background, &c. Send dosier, including head shot and full body photo, to him c/o Galt's Gulch. Also include measurements, so that, if selected, clothing outfits can be prepared.

Initially I misread your statement. Having reread it I have to say we are in agreement. Sorry, consequence of doing 3 things at once.

Objectification is done by the time a percept is formed due to having passed through older parts of the brain for which sexual attributes were important for reproduction. The rational brain then can decides what is important for a certain context or just to run with it with respect to one's beliefs. If it bothers one, then go for a religion that tries to cover a body to the extent that the old brain has to make percepts from other atributes for sexual purposes.

Macho or weakling. Successful provider or worthless failure. Give a nice guy a chance or only date a "hunk". Women often judge men the same way men judge women. It is not a one sided coin, it is nature.