objectification

[TheDeSade]

A recent conversation led me to do some thinking and a bit of research which, of course, led to more questions. My first question goes out to both Doms and subs. Without going to the dictionary or google, what is your definition of objectification as it relates to BDSM activities?

[thir]

A recent conversation led me to do some thinking and a bit of research which, of course, led to more questions. My first question goes out to both Doms and subs. Without going to the dictionary or google, what is your definition of objectification as it relates to BDSM activities?

I understand the world as meaning being treating as a thing, rather as a person. Something that is fun to play with - very hot, in fact - but which should never become real, IMO.

[Kuve {Sett}]

to "objective" something is to treat it like an object rather than as a person, in the scene you see that in many ways. One, o course, is the "human furniture" scenario where the sub takes the role of a foot stool or chair, or in a less extreme situation where they are reduced to animal or slave status and withing the scenario are considered less than human and are without rights or worth as people. As long as it's done with consent and for the mutual pleasure of everyone involved there's nothing wrong with it.

[leo9]

When I was younger and learning through fantasy what turned me on, I loved the idea of someone - me or my "prisoners" - being used as furniture. I still love it as a fantasy - there's a classic bondage artist called Benson who draws it excellently, and a guy called Gord (www.houseofgord.com) who specialises in making it happen for real - but most of the time, in real life it's only fun for a few minutes.

But there are situations where it works wonderfully for me. When I had visiting slaves regularly, one of the high points was to strap a specially made tray across a kneeling sub's shoulders, so it made him into a table I could eat my lunch off while he sucked me. I probably still have some pictures somewhere I could dig out of my files if people ask nicely :)

More generally, calling a sub things like "slut" or "fucktoy" is a form of objectification, telling hir sie only exists for you as a sex plaything. And yes, while most subs want or even need to be objectified at that level, it can be hurtful for people who have a background of not being treated as a real person.

[DevilMask]

Deconstruction of a person making them into a living item that can be fashioned however one wishes. All elements of them as a person is taken away, stripped and removed so they are left nothing than a piece of property. You do not even see them as a person or give them reconization as such they become nothing more than another tool for you to use however you wish, any protest or dismay to be silenced by removing their ability to speak via tape or other restraining devices that can leave their mouth open if one desires it. Some might make them into an ashtray or even toilet in that way. Such things have been done before by quite a few.

It goes without saying the person is viewed as an instrument or living art piece if one wants to go that way. Sure one can use them as a chair, a table, that basic kind of thing. Make their body into your next painting or picture and have them placed somewhere, why not if those are your things.

Mentally it can also making them into nothing more than a play thing, a common slut, a fuck toy, something to be used at ones leisure and pleasure. You come to view them in a way that might not be as a beloved person, a girlfriend, a wife, or even a typical pet or slave but something else entirely. There are different levels to such things depending on what you use them for, how you treat them, what your consider them to be. It can be as complicated or as easy as one makes it really.

They exist for your happiness, your pleasure. Their own isn’t an issue, it’s not even considered. They live for yours only, exist only. They are a thing. Only what you get and achieve counts. You can break them down in so many ways, tear apart what is and remake them into something else entirely akin to creating art out of wood or molding an item from clay. Nothing matters but creating what you want the person to be. They were born, they lived......but you truly create and make who they are, what they are.

There can be so many answers for this wonderful question and exquisite answers in the end.

[cookiecat]

i like what DevilsMask said: "deconstruction of a person."

in it's truest sense, objectification is harsh. being used as an object with no consideration for my feelings is hot for a day or even a weekend, but in the end, that level of putting "me" away can't be maintained. we don't live in such an insular world.

in the world i live in where i still have to go to work, be a daughter/sister/friend, where i volunteer, make decisions - where i still have to interact in my vanilla world, objectification becomes a way to combine the "deconsruction" of my past, preconceived notions of how things should be and how he wants me to be.

at times, being an object is a way to define - at it's basest - who i am to Him. a few of you said it above - a fucktoy, His slut, his footstool. there are times i need to come home, put away the stress of the day and just be a hole. perhaps a hole who cooks dinner, too.

[TheDeSade]

thank you all for your input. as soon as i have time to digest these replies with my own thoughts, i will have more questions

[TheDeSade]

Having had a chance to digest some of your remarks, I have a few more questions. Everyone seems to agree that objectification is the reduction of a person to a commodity. A commodity being something that is a "marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs." Marketable indicates that the item has value. Produced indicates that it is the end result of a systematic plan put into action. Value implies that the thing has worth. With this in mind, how do you then reconcile the concept of "are without rights or worth", If, by the very definition, any object that you own, purchase, or create, has value be it perceived or real?

In another vein, I to like the concept of "deconstruction". However, it to raises certain questions for me. Where does the line exist in the objectification that separates reality from fantasy. To Dominants this question. You obviously chose your submissive based on a set of values or criteria that made her or him attractive to you in some fashion. Some portion of this was the personality portion of that persons makeup. If part of your objectification, or deconstruction, the the modification of this personality portion, at what point do you change the very thing that made this person attractive to you.

Submissives. At what point do such fundamental changes go over the line into hard limit areas? How do you judge?

[thir]

Value implies that the thing has worth. With this in mind, how do you then reconcile the concept of "are without rights or worth", If, by the very definition, any object that you own, purchase, or create, has value be it perceived or real?

It may have some worth to you - the owner - but not as a person have worth. Meaning, when it stops having worth - being old, sick or just getting boring - you rid yourself of it without any thoughts on how the 'thing' feels about it.

Where does the line exist in the objectification that separates reality from fantasy.

In that when it comes to it, you do not really see the person as a thing.

You obviously chose your submissive based on a set of values or criteria that made her or him attractive to you in some fashion. Some portion of this was the personality portion of that persons makeup. If part of your objectification, or deconstruction, the the modification of this personality portion, at what point do you change the very thing that made this person attractive to you.

It is not uncommon also in vanilla relationships to fall in love with some traits in the other person, only to set about to change them. I think it possible for some Dom(mes) to find conquering a person interesting, then, when they are, they loose interest.

Submissives. At what point do such fundamental changes go over the line into hard limit areas? How do you judge?

When the Dom(me) truly does not take the interests of the sub into account, but is only focused on his or her own gratification.