On Objectification

The other night, I was thinking about border collies, as one does. They're such cool dogs. I love their energy, their coat pattern, and I really love their intelligence. There's only one thing that I don't necessarily love about border collies, and that's their size. See, for me, when I'm thinking about a partner, I want a dog that can kill me. Not that I'm looking for a partner right now, I have my guy who I love, and he's plenty hot himself. But no harm in thinking every now and then, right? Anyway, I was on the internet looking for big border collies when the American Kennel Club came in with the save. They showed me a dog breed called the "beauceron". The description of the beauceron as described by the AKC is as such: 

"The Beauceron is imposing and powerful, but also remarkably smart, spirited, and a versatile herder. Imagine a Border Collie's brain in a 100-pound body. They are especially beloved by women as a dashing but sensitive companion and protector.
Beaucerons are muscular, rugged, and large, standing as high as 27.5 inches at the shoulder, and yet graceful and in all ways balanced. Their dark black coats feature handsome squirrel-red accents, including the red feet that give the breed its French nickname Bas-Rouge ('red stockings'). They're also seen in a black-gray-tan coat. The long head is well chiseled, and the dark brown eyes project expression breed fanciers describe as frank and confident. They're not for novice owners, who might end up being owned by their dominant dog instead of the other way around. That said, well-trained and socialized Beaucerons are levelheaded watchdogs and guardians, especially good with the young, the small, and the defenseless."

That certainly sounded pretty good. I mean, not only are they apparently really smart, and bigger, but also they sound very attractive in general. And the pictures certainly helped! I mean, just look at this dog. WOW. The "beau" in beauceron sure wasn't wrong (that's a joke for the French speakers out there! Who would have guessed a culture so into aesthetic could make such a beautiful dog!). Anyway, I ended up doing some more research on the breed after that. I watched a video from a YouTube channel called Dogumentary TV about a beauceron named Xerxes. He's a gorgeous guy that's done both dog shows as well as a lot of farm work, and it shows. He's strong, smart, and has looks that kill. Basically the dream cowboy from all those western movies. I was in love. Listening to his owner talk about how great he is with other dogs, and how great he is as a companion, I could imagine my own life with Xerxes. Or, with a dog similar to him. 

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of the word "Objectify" is to "Treat a person as an object or thing."

Let's do a fun game. Let's go over the last three paragraphs and look at how many times I objectified someone. To start with, I was objectifying border collies. If not the concept of them, then of the one in particular that I know that I was using as a stand in for the idea of border collies. I wasn't thinking about him in particular, I was just enjoying the concept of his traits, and therefore objectifying him. I also spoke about how I want a dog that can kill me. That's once again considering traits over personality. Then I went on to objectify my partner by calling him hot without other context, as well as potentially did it again by comparing him against other dogs without his permission. I then took a break so the American Kennel Club could objectify the hell out of beaucerons, selling them on their traits and their attractiveness like this was some kind of advertisement. Before finally, I bring it back home by confirming their objectification, and then objectifying French people by homogenizing them. Then, I went on to objectify a specific dog by finding him attractive, and imagining a life with him, even though I don't actually know him. 

Or at least, that's how awful about objectification I was according to the way some people use the word objectification.

It's all a little bit up in the air as to what exactly does or doesn't count.

My point with this is, I think objectification in the way that it's used on the internet is really really really stupid. 

In the zoo community, there's a running discussion around the objectification of animals, and what is and isn't allowed. To some, making a knot joke is objectifying dogs because you're only focused on the one part of them. To some, seeing a picture of an attractive dog and replying "wow, hot!" is objectifying dogs because you're sexualizing a dog without their consent. You, dear reader, may even be someone that feels like those things are objectifying and inappropriate. But let me have a second to attack that point a little bit. 

Is it wrong to find someone attractive? I mean, say that you go into a Starbucks and there's a guy at the cash that's just perfect. Exactly your type, kind, made you laugh while you were paying the bill. If you get your drink and leave the store and you say to yourself "oh my god he was hottttt" have you then objectified that guy? If we're applying the standards of the internet, the answer to that question is a yes. But I think the real answer should be "not really, but honestly who cares?" 

What if you go home and you're feeling a little frisky and so you imagine that guy taking you on a date and you hold hands and kiss and maybe go a little further. You'll have to use your imagination this is a PG-13 magazine. And maybe while imagining that, you decide to use your body to simulate the experience. Have you once again objectified him? What if you think about him, but then find that weird, and so instead think of someone else but they heavily resemble him, except this fictional man works at Second Cup instead? Have you violated his personhood? 

To me, this is all such a stupid question. I tend to be someone that's pretty set in my moral consistency. I've infamously been a defender of the idea that thought crimes aren't real crimes. And likewise, I don't think you can objectify the idea of someone. If you're a creep to someone in real life, that's one thing, but I don't think what you do in your bedroom is anyone else's business, regardless of if the intangible concept of them is in there with you. 

And I would extend that same concept to dogs, or to any animals really. If you're walking down the street and you see a really beautiful dog, or if you're scrolling through Twitter and someone's posted a shot of their dog looking dashing, I don't think you should be held at any moral fault for enjoying that. 

And like, if jokes about genitals are objectifying, then lock me up because I've made plenty of dick and balls and vagina and boob jokes in my life and I don't think that's evil. When a bachelorette party orders a cake shaped like a penis, I wouldn't say that they're objectifying men, no more than I'd say a zoo who makes cookie cookies is objectifying animals. If you make a tweet saying how you find guys with glasses really hot, that's the same level of objectification as saying that you find dogs wearing boots hot. There's no difference. 

I think a lot of this oversensitivity in the zoo community as it comes to objectification comes down to our desire to protect animals. And that's a good thing! I think protecting animals is a great goal. I'm sure most people have at least had a run in with someone where at the end you've thought to yourself "Wow I hope they don't have an animal at home", and I think that's something we have embedded way too deep in our heads so that any stance even close to that becomes morally wrong even when it's something that's fully acceptable in human attracted folks as well.

I don't even think full on adult content is objectifying in a capacity in which it should be seen as morally problematic. Don't get me wrong, there can for sure be problems with porn, and there are problems with things that are out there. But why would a picture of a horse from behind be any more conceptually objectifying than a picture of a horse from the front? Does a picture being tailored to be more explicit make it more morally wrong? Only if you believe that sexuality is a morally wrong thing. You can try and argue that animals don't consent to sexual pictures being taken of them, but they don't consent to any photos being taken of them actually. Drawing a line there is both harmful and pointless. And, given the lack of shame that most animals tend to have around sex and sexuality, I think if anything the assumption should be that they'd be down for you to take and share a picture like that. 

I don't mean for this article to come off like I'm saying people should objectify animals. What I'm saying is that our current internet definition of objectification is stupid, and too many people try to weaponize the word in situations where it doesn't make sense. People should NOT be treating the animals in their lives like objects. That's wrong, full stop. But, we also shouldn't be so eager to morally police ourselves that we drive wedges in the community either.

There are so many real problems to tackle, both in and outside the zoo community. Just let people say they find knots hot. It's not that big of a deal. And they're right.



Article written by Tarro (May 2026)

Find them at https://twitter.com/hereforthezoo 

Questions, comments or concerns? Check out our Matrix server! https://join.zooey.pub