The absence of consent?
Hello everyone, Sean here. I am back and in the mood to explore the abscence of or at least blocker of consent: Objectification. Objectification can take many forms in our world. The names and words used to refer to another person changes the way we think about them and the way we treat them.
Nicknames, Pet Names, No Names
One of the most endearing and acceptable forms of this kind of behavior is the use of pet names and nicknames for our partners. This can range from positive and loving “Terms of Endearment” like Hubby, Darling, and Sweetheart, to a bit harsher with labels like “Ball and Chain”, Old Lady, or The Warden. Both the positive and the negative terms reduce a whole person to a role, a function or an idea.
In other words, nicknames and pet names should be considered carefully and consented to. It is also a good idea to keep many, if not all of these loving descriptions, as pillow talk in the most intimate of circumstances. This way they fulfill their function as terms of endearment and are given to and received by those who have agreed to them.
We all love a bit of objectivity, when we can get it. However, being objectified can be hurtful, harmful and a handful. We can experience objectification with both love objects and sex objects. We can also have an object; a goal to be achieved. None of these belong as a core of a HHIA relationship.
An object to love
A love object is one of two things either a person who we “invest” in emotionally and depend on to experience love, or a non-living thing that we fall in love with. Therefore the object, whether human or inanimate, is not a candidate for a healthy happy HHIA relationship. This has to do with the „love“ development and emotional focus without the consent and or participation of the other.
Essentially, the function of a projection of love onto another without the participation of the “love object”.
As an object love and emotional interaction is impossible. In this vein I am including more information about “love addiction” and “object sexuality” which are the two areas which while at odd are the most common placement/use of the term Love object.
Sex objects are a bit less abstract and a bit more visible in our society, cultures and here in the net.
And both fetishism and exclusion are often, but not exclusively racist, and prejudicial.
Again, reducing a person to attributes which we have decided are desirable, sexy and hot, or unattractive, unsexy and repulsive is a rejection of them as a whole person and a potential intimate loving whole partner.
Just a few examples include: Bad Girl, Sexy Beast, Sugar Daddy, Baby, Straight-Acting, Asian/Nubian/Arab-Princess, Fat, Femme, School Girl, Beefcake, Stud, Slut, and so on.
You can decide if any of these are offensive or attractive to you personally.
To project them on to a potential partner is to separate them from their humanity and divinity. It prevents you from experiencing their range of beauty and personality and prevents them from experiencing you as well.
Our object, more commonly known as our objective is a relationship, intimacy, and connection.
To this end and to be clear: people are not objects and objects are not people.
Thanks for your time and attention. I hope this has been helpful and given you something to think about. Everything we have explored is potentially harmful or hurtful if you are thinking or expressing these ideas about others without a conversation or consent from the other person.
We will look at some aspects of these ideas in partnership and playful, intimate situations in the next few blog lessons. I look forward to your thoughts and comments. Sean signing out. See you next time. More about me.