Home › Outlander Costuming Discussion Forums › General Outlander Discussion › On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry) › Reply To: On the Objectification of Sam, et al. PART II (added per the request of Terry)
Please note that upthread you wrote you were sorry to bring up DG because some fans can’t hear anything against her. But you keep circling back to this point and trying to hide it in different language and it is clear that you do hold her responsible for the behavior of some people. You say it many many times. You want the thread to stay on the topic of objectification but you keep returning to this point. This is what I mean about you not accepting that others disagree with this.
You have a point. I should have stuck to what I believe in and I didn’t because I didn’t want to offend anyone. That was wrong on my part. By the way I am not the only one referencing her behaviors which are a very legitimate part of the topic of objectification.I think Anastasia in her posts makes the point better than I did.
As to your comment that I don’t accept disagreement. I have more than once agreed to disagree with others on this. Does that mean that when I believe that someone as misinterpreted something I have said that I am not allowed to try to clarify what I said? I am supposed to say “we agreed to disagree so I can’t say anything anymore ?” I don’t quite understand how that helps for understanding of each other and for opening up new ideas. That applies to both parties to a discussion by the way.
Just because “someone who is idolized” says that “a celebrity” has a fine backside doesn’t mean I’m going to say the same to “a celebrity” on Twitter or to his face, and it doesn’t mean I will start saying it to strangers on the street. As Connie says, you are making a big leap in logic.
You may not, but others are following that example and in significant numbers.
It’s not always black-and-white. What some people say to one another is fine as long as both parties consent and know when there is joking. On Twitter, there is no consent for SH because the fans don’t know him on a personal level. That’s why it is not okay there.
I agree that it’s not okay on Twitter. Where we differ, is that I don’t believe it’s okay for anyone to do on Twitter not just for fans. Twitter is a public venue not a private one and I don’t believe that public objectification is ok no matter who is doing it even if the parties involved have a personal relationship. How they interact in private is their own business and I have no interest in that.
Your definition of objectification seems to be strident. If you mean that all anyone can see about SH is his backside, then it’s wrong. If you can see his other fine qualities, such as his humor and willingness to interact with fans and his acting skills and take that all into account and appreciate his body at the same time, I don’t see the problem. He’s more than a fine backside. But it’s okay to note that he has one.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. Why is my definition of objectification strident? My definition is pretty simple – it’s the treatment of a person as an object rather than as a living, breathing, feeling human being.
I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else appreciating both the mental and physical aspects of someone at all. It is the public expression of some of those appreciations in an inappropriate manner that bothers me. I don’t believe I am alone in that.
I’m really not sure where this is all going and I’m not sure why I seem to bother you so much, but my beliefs are my beliefs and just as you don’t think others should be made to change theirs for me (which I happen to agree with) I don’t think I should have to change mine because they bother you.