It is a commonly held belief that it is very natural for men to look at other women with a degree of sexual interest despite their involvement in a monogamous relationship. This activity is often rationalized as “just being a guy” or some other cliché statement. I do not know if this practice is common among all humans, but it appears to be a significant part of the modern male socialization process. You are a man, you look at women who you think are attractive, and this is perfectly acceptable because it is an inherent part of your male nature.
I must admit a degree of guilt in this practice, and I too cite socialization as the root cause of this behavior. But having found myself in a committed relationship with my wife, my perspective has shifted slightly. I know from discussing the issue with her that my wife finds this behavior both hurtful and personally offensive. I feel that it is only appropriate to respond to this by making a conscious and concerted effort to refrain from “scanning the field”, so to speak.
This is challenging at times, as it has been a very natural behavior for some time, but I find that not only is it an action that can be corrected with relative ease, but that I feel a degree of satisfaction that I am able to not only act, but also to think in an ethical and moral way. Many would call this behavior uptight, ridiculous, or even “whipped.” The common cultural defense is that men who engage in this habit are “just looking” and not truly harming anyone. But is that defense valid?
In my own particular case, the answer to such a question is obvious. I am aware that my wife is hurt by this behavior. In addition, I find it personally dissatisfying to objectify other women, and I am confident that they might also feel that way if they were fully aware of the situation. There is no apparent beneficiary to such behavior, at least in my own situation, so a utilitarian assessment would suggest that it is not ethical for me to eyeball other women. But what of the defense that such behavior is harmless, that ogling or fantasizing about women is acceptable because it exists only in thought and not in action.
This too is a fallacy. If I only think about killing someone, or imagine killing them, but don’t actually complete the act of killing them, are my thoughts and fantasies morally acceptable because they are not actions? This is clearly absurd, and this line of reasoning eliminates the rationalization that it is morally acceptable to think about women as sexual objects while one is in a committed relationship because this action occurs in thought only. But what of the unattached male? Is he justified in his objectifying since he does not have to worry about the hurt caused to his significant other?
Again, the answer is no. Such actions are hurtful to those who are objectified, whether they are aware of the practice or not. In addition, thoughts develop into attitudes, and over time an attitude of objectifying women leads to a laundry list of potential victims of the accompanying behaviors. Thus, there is a strong utilitarian argument against this practice. Finally, when we think about ethics it is important to remember the importance of our intent as well as our actions.
The Buddha spoke of right thought as a key component to one’s enlightenment, and the idea that thought can be moral or immoral is significant to many Western thinkers as well. While I must concede that the thought of objectifying females is a degree below the act of doing so, it is unethical nonetheless, and the morally righteous person should make an effort to act appropriately in word, deed, and thought.
About the Author
Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman University. He currently lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan with his wife Laura, his son Brandon, and two cats.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Cristina // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:29 am
Dear Mr Weber,
If you find other women attractive, isnt it more honest to look at them, rather than pretend they are not there?
Dont you feel that these self-imposed moral obligations, once they are felt so, consitute a limit to freedom?
If you didnt think them attractive, you would not look at them in the first place. And that is a fact.
I think the secret is to be so happy with our partner, to value our relationship so much that we ought not even acknowledge the existence of other attractive women. Or, more realistically, look at other other attractive women, acknowledge their attractiveness and nonetheless not be interested in them. That, for me, is real love. Not to limit ourselves, not to impose rules and limits, but to feel free to admit that the person that we love is really the only one that matters.
Kind regards
Cristina
2 Donny // Nov 12, 2009 at 10:12 am
Well, you have too many answers, it is none of your business what other people look at or what goes on in their heads, and …that just for starters…:: ))
but you are right, it makes it very difficult for women to look at men if the men are always looking at them ; ))
3 Elijah Weber // Nov 13, 2009 at 10:06 am
I’ll try to reply to both of these comments at the same time. First, I’m not talking about imposing rules on this sort of thing, I’m talking about what’s really the right thing to do. As a side note, we have all sorts of rules that limit our freedom, and that doesn’t automatically make them a bad thing. But the important question, I think, is whether one should limit this sort of behavior in themselves, out of respect for the harm inflicted upon their partner, or even the possible harm it might inflict. I’m not talking about what it means to love someone, I’m talking about what sorts of people we ought to be, and whether one can be a good person and still “check out” members of the opposite sex.
4 Ryan // Feb 20, 2010 at 9:55 am
I also have felt guilty about “scanning the field” and make a conscious effort not to look sideways at gorgeous women (especially when my wife is next to me). However, in speaking with my wife about it, she has no such feelings of insecurity about her appearance or my fidelity. In fact she finds beauty in the female form and often asks if I think someone is pretty, not in a “compliment me” kind of way, but as a simple and honest admiration of beauty. The objectification of women is certainly a danger, but when we can’t even look at people and admire their beauty, something is surely amiss.
5 Monika // Mar 26, 2010 at 9:08 am
Hi Elijah; I appreicate your thoughts on this. I persoanlly am wired very much like your wife, and even though I am pretty secure, it makes me severly uncomfortable when my SO objectifies others or looks a lot. It pervades my idea of our intimacy, I think. I also detest being oogled by men, even shouted things at. Today a woman cannot even take a run outdoors and not feel violated in this manner. I realize not all women respond or perceive these episodes of objectification as *I* do, but they are very real to some people, and permeate into a deep place in our being. Persaonlly, I would love to erect a law that men cannot speak lewdly to women or shout, etc. It is no different than sexual harrassment in the workplace, yet I cant enjoy the outdoors without bracing (at times) when the next man decides to say things. Its disrepctful to the aura of peace I am trying to orchestrate in my life, and it is my persoanl space being invaded, yet on another level.
6 Monika // Mar 26, 2010 at 9:10 am
In addition, I am curious whether your wife is a Type 4 on the Enneagram
as I am:
http://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test.php
I’ve found it to be the most comprehensive of any such ‘tests’…it makes more sense.
Leave a Comment