Sexual Objectification

[Ilaria]

I find this whole discussion very fascinating. First of all I admit that I'm a "newbie", I've only recently decided to identify myself as a feminist, even though there are still a few points I'm really confused about, such as objectification, self-objectification and whether it is possible and/or should be accepted by a potential feminist society. That said, just keep in mind that there are still many feminist inputs that I don't know about so please correct me if I say anything arguably wrong. On the other side, I'm glad to see that these topics are still strongly debated, therefore I understand I must come to my own conclusion without waiting for someone to give me the final answer.
(Also, please consider that I'm not a native English speaker :P)
So far, this is my opinion on the topic: in a world dominated by the media, it's nearly impossible that body images in ads are not highly sexualized, whether it is a male body or a female body we're taking into consideration. That is for consumerist purposes, because what companies are trying to do is sell a product and make it more desirable. We don't ask ourselves about the desires and feelings of half-naked models in ads, because they're just trying to awaken our sexual desire and subconsciously link it to the shown product . Now this process can very well happen toward both men and women, depending on the audience that is intended to be addressed and the brand that is being sold. (http://static.gay.tv/625X0/www/gay/tv... , https://nichilismomonamour.files.word... : why is the second image more upsetting than the first one?).
This kind of objectification is inevitable. To me the problem is that it happens systematically toward women, and less toward men: we see men portrayed in many different ways in publicity, whereas we know only one kind of woman in advertisement.
The amount of sexual objectification toward women in the media should be reduced, but not completely removed, because in a liberal society explicit sexual images should not be banned and we should not limit one's aspiration to be a model if that is what they want to do with their lives and bodies. That is not self-objectification, because models see themselves as full human beings and they do what they do as a result of their own desires and aspirations, not anyone else's. They could have chosen another job if they wanted to. Kim K decided to post a half-naked picture because she masters social media and she knows how to resonate with her Instagram pictures and be shared and make a bunch of money: she's a smart business woman who exposes her body as a result of her own choice. Also she probably enjoys her own body the way it is, even though it is not stereotypically skinny, and to me that is a positive body confidence message.
Now of course the amount of female objectification in media is the result of a wider issue of women's objectification in real life and through history, which is a broader structure of prejudices. This takes form from a female stereotype as a weak, submissive, condescending sexual object made for men's pleasure and incapable of personal desires rather than an active sexual appetite, which results in society forcing them to not chase after boys, but to be chased after, and to cover up their body because of how sexualized their knees and legs and breasts are. Now this seems to me like a whole other subject, linked to the first one but definately not the same thing. We all agree that sexual objectification "in real life" is a monster we should all fight, but as for sexual objectification in the media I'm not so sure. That is just a result of a consumerist society, and that's not what we're debating.
I hope I made myself clear. I probably did many mistakes though, sorry about that ><

[James]

Ilaria wrote: "Now this process can very well happen toward both men and women, depending on the audience that is intended to be addressed and the brand that is being sold. (http://static.gay.tv/625X0/www/gay/tv... , https://nichilismomonamour.files.word... : why is the second image more upsetting than the first one?)..."

Good post and welcome.

For me i dont find either ad upsetting however i would agree there does tend to be a double standard with society in how people generally approach both ads. I see this mainly in negative reactions from women more so than men. It reminds me a bit of when the sequel to Magic Mike came out and i started reading comments about the film from women who were objectifying the men and being by definition sexist.

But no one really bats an eye when that happens and i never saw any feminists coming out and calling out these women for their comments which i found interesting. Personally i would agree with you though that these are things used to excite people into purchasing or viewing their product but often times when it comes to women in ads it is often criticized for being sexist despite the company trying to sell a product using sexuality. I forget the model's name but she was dragged through the ringer for doing an ad regarding hamburgers.

The kind of venom sent at her for doing that ad was really unacceptable in my opinion.

[MeerderWörter]

Indigo,

you seem to like writing long answers:)

I didn't know that about the mammals, so, thanks for that.

"this is how it's done in nature" is, well, just incorrect, as you already pointed out. It's one of the reasons why I'm a feminist. Because I love diversity, I live diversity and I think I can proudly say that I'm a feminist. And remember, we've all got this thanks to evolution. There are many different good points in why "this is how it's done in nature" is wrong. We just pointed out a few.

In English, there are at least two words, so you can specify body and social role, if there's confusion. In German we only have one word for both, and have to add another word if we want to talk about gender. (Due to that, there are many people who simply can't believe that gender and sex don't go hand in hand.)

And Indigo, I definitely should start that habit. I think in these terms, but I don't speak using them.

[MeerderWörter]

James wrote: "Ilaria wrote: "Now this process can very well happen toward both men and women, depending on the audience that is intended to be addressed and the brand that is being sold. (http://static.gay.tv/62..."

It is one strategy of ads to produce anger in the consumer so as to longer remember it. Kind of an anti-advertisment, and since we can't forget things that annoy or offend us.

I must say that I think the first one irritates me more since I really hate the pun, and I can't stand watching men in underwear. (I don't know why, I just can't.)

[Aly]

I don't believe that, if someone else post a kim k nude without her permition then it is sexual objetification because she doesn't have control about her body and how it is exposed to the world, she posting a nude is she taking control over her body. A woman can't objetify herself , society can . And people telling other people to cover themselves and be embarrased about their bodies is objetification and people telling other people to "show more skin" is objetification. People wearing "modest" clothes or "tight, exposed" clothes isn't objetification, is a personal choice

[MeerderWörter]

I definitely agree with both of you, Emma and Aly. It's about choices, that's what it's all about.

[Tim]

Aly wrote: "I don't believe that, if someone else post a kim k nude without her permition then it is sexual objetification because she doesn't have control about her body and how it is exposed to the world, sh..."

Hear hear on the first part! I'm sick of society loving leaked photos but being outraged when someone consensually participated in a naked photo shoot. It just feels like closet rape culture; if she has consent it's revolting, if she doesn't everybody loves it. "Revenge porn" is another thing I want to see dead and buried. The term in and of itself is vile. It sends the message that something is being avenged and that the person to whom it is done deserves it. Again, no closet rape apology to be found here or anything. This also happens to be right on par with punishing adulterers by parading them naked through the streets (historically, this has been done almost exclusively to women). No one deserves that, at least not unless they committed serious crimes against humanity and/or contributed to them (and that's still a huge "maybe" even so). Furthermore, since we constantly draw the distinction between sex and rape based on whether or not there was consent, and between prostitution and sex slavery, I say it's high and about time we apply the same reasoning to porn. If it isn't consensually published it ought not to be considered porn. I think this blog does a perfect number on it and gives some nice suggestions for other words to call it.

https://stavvers.wordpress.com/2015/1...

I disagree, however, with the notion that women cannot or do not objectify themselves; a lot of them do and have done throughout history, usually inadvertently, because subtle oppression tends to be the most efficient, if not in general, then at least nowadays. I think the following article does a fine job at explaining it.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/167897...

[Aglaea]

Sara wrote: "Again, I feel that there are comments being made on this discussion board that are pretty outright aggressive and unkind and pretty openly directed at specific speakers - if you are as open minded as you say about people needing to "mind their own business" than that also goes towards minding your own business about someone who has different opinions than you, rather than belittling them and basically saying they're wrong (and a silent "I'm right") about an issue and ending the discussion there.

The point of discussion is to hear everyone's thoughts on a particular matter and to have open discussion about it. If people feel differently than you, you can make your case but in a way that isn't basically calling them "repulsive.""

I never call a person repulsive (please don't put words in my mouth), but people's behaviour certainly can be repulsive. Sorry if you don't agree with me when stating that I do find it repulsive to try to restrict the life of others by openly criticising their choice of lifestyle (see numerous comments by me on page 1.)

The nature of this discussion board also happens to be such that if a particular person says something, when another replies, it's convenient to quote them to show in which specific context said reply is being written. If you perceive it as hostile, I'm really sorry.

A neutral question for you: is it more kind to allow others to humiliate and criticise others than to stand up and speak in favour of letting people live how they choose? Because I'm doing the latter across this board.

Notice that I'm taking no side, but I'm constantly speaking in favour of the right to religion or lack thereof, the right to clothe oneself a lot or a little, the right to work or stay at home, and so on. Is this offensive, hostile, unkind?

The written word can read in a very hostile manner, if you choose to read with such a voice in your head, but usually I'm quite neutral when writing, I just prefer not to beat around the bush, but speak frankly and to the point. It's more efficient that way, but call it a personal preference if you wish. Unfortunately I can't step into your head to adjust the level of aggression or neutrality in your head, though, the way something was intended. The reason for my long absence was precisely this, too, because I got sick of having my words twisted and words put in my mouth.

[Aglaea]

I want to add something to my previous comment, because how I was framed really bothers me.

What I'm saying is be quiet to those who feel the constant need to comment and criticise on others, including their size, sexual choices (labelled by the moral police as promiscuity), breastfeeding choices, and numerous other examples. This behaviour is repulsive, and I will never think otherwise.

Why? Because there are two groups:

1. Those, who want to choose for themselves how to live their lives.

2. Those, who want to choose for themselves how to live their lives AND decide how others should live their lives too.
This should happen through regulating breastfeeding, shaming for body size, shaming for sexual choices, shaming for clothing choices, hating for being part of LGBT..., hating for having the "wrong" skin colour (did anyone read why the horrible Milo blabla was banned from Twitter yet? that's the kind of awful people I'm talking about), and numerous other creative solutions for letting others know that there's only One True Path. Yes, I'm radical in that I demand all lifestyles should live alongside each other - and I'm freaking PROUD to be so. This includes demanding that others just shut up about their endless criticism when they notice someone else has chosen Another True Path (god forbid, right?).

It might be shocking to hear, but I do claim that this world would look much, much better if group 1. was in a permanent majority, with group 2. in a diminshing minority. Aren't I horrible for getting a bit fired up about this.

[Aly]

Tim wrote: "Aly wrote: "I don't believe that, if someone else post a kim k nude without her permition then it is sexual objetification because she doesn't have control about her body and how it is exposed to t..."

I think the same with the unconsent porn . As for sexual objetification you have very good arguments , maybe womans are told so freeking mutch that their bodies are objects that they believe it. And the industry push a lot of artist to act like objects for popularity . And womans are the first ones to told other womans they are dressing slutty

[Tim]

Aly wrote: "Tim wrote: "Aly wrote: "I don't believe that, if someone else post a kim k nude without her permition then it is sexual objetification because she doesn't have control about her body and how it is ..."

Indeed they are; men nowadays tend to be over the moon upon seeing a woman in revealing clothing whereas women tend to be more aggravated, at least the ones I know (and believe you me I know many). The same seems to go for promiscuity (i.e. actually being sexualy active). Nonetheless, these men who are happy about it could very well potentially still be worse misogynists than these women who are not so happy about it. After several years of being on the internet I've found that sometimes people can support women's choices for misognystic reasons. I'm sure many MRAs support the existence of sex work, pornography in particular, because it benefits men. Sure, not all men enjoy it, maybe even not all MRAs, but I think it's undeniable a lot of men do, or in any case that most of the people who do watch it (frequently) are male. Anyway, on the other hand, I'm also quite certain the Amish and the mormons are appaled by sex work of all sorts and if they are feminists, then I must be Emma Watson.

The question at hand now becomes: is one of the two more misognystic about things, or are they two respective sides to the same misogynistic coin? BUT if the latter is the case, then it is only logical to ask: are these women who get aggravated at promiscuity and/or revealing clothing and these men who are all for it, not two sides to the same misogynistic coin as well?

[Aglaea]

For some reason, after reading Tim's comment on men being over the moon, I'm thinking of Qandeel Baloch, who was "honour" killed (how can anyone put those two words together, they are as far from each other on the spectrum of kindness as is possible?) by her own brother, to the great sorrow of both her parents:
Qandeel Baloch: 'She was a girl just like you'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36...

Each time she posted some new provocative thing online, people went en masse to ogle, then start the abuse. What the hell? If you hate it SO MUCH, why bother seeking it out to voluntarily become offended? This is what I detest in the so-called moral police. They think they are so much better than others, until they put the hate gear on, and enter the most disgusting abuse you can imagine. Who is the horrible one in the end?

[Tim]

Aglaea wrote: "For some reason, after reading Tim's comment on men being over the moon, I'm thinking of Qandeel Baloch, who was "honour" killed (how can anyone put those two words together, they are as far from e..."

Whilst I by no means mean to banalise Qandeel's murder, I still think such instances are discrepant with most contemporary men in the West, whereas Qandeel's brother (if indeed he did kill her) was very clearly acting out of ancient/medieval values. I also failed to mention that both the men as well as the women I was referring to were supposed to be people the woman in question (who is promiscuous and/or wears revealing clothing) doesn't know or isn't all that close to; a brother is something quite other. Still, I hadn't read up on her murder up until now, or I certainly would have brought it up. I apologise for the misstep.

EDIT: *such mentalities are discrepant...

[Aglaea]

Tim wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "For some reason, after reading Tim's comment on men being over the moon, I'm thinking of Qandeel Baloch, who was "honour" killed (how can anyone put those two words together, they ar..."

Oh he did kill her. I've read numerous articles on BBC by now on the topic, since they have similar topics down at the bottom of a post in the app, which makes them easy to find. He not only strangled her to death after having sedated her somehow, but he also made sure to sedate his parents (stuff put in their evening milk) so they wouldn't hear her. The poor mother found her in the morning. In this case the authorities acted quickly so the family wouldn't have time to pardon the criminal (which they wouldn't anyway because the father wants his son shot), which otherwise is frequently the case in honour killings there. Qandeel had feared for her life and had requested protection from some organisation, but they didn't care.

There is an article in which four female Pakistani journalists tell of their own experiences of abuse, threats of acid attacks and death threats, only because they dare to expose injustice.

And in an African country, Senegal I think, they are treating daughters, who just got their first period, with devirginisation at aso-called hyena aka sex worker. Girls interviewed claimed they didn't like have sex with old paedophile men.

Why is it always women who get the brunt of blame? Why not rape boys too in the name of propriety? Why do we never hear of men as victims of acid attacks? Why are men never honour killed? Because men obviously are fault-free and so they are allowed to correct everyone else who can't seem to find a way to behave. Ugh.

ETA And how about the Aussie 30+ yo who travelled to the US to have sex with a five-yo boy? He is white, male and perfectly normal...

My point is that we always are perfect and everyone else is at fault, wrong and broken and shameful.

[Silvia]

I agree with you Aglaea, yet feeling that men are neeeveeeer the victims might be a little over the top. I feel that the media is more to blame since they simply don't cover these stories for whatever reason they might have, or don't give them the proper spotlight. Honor killing may also subject men, specially homosexuals, and pedophiles have always had it easy for some reason; I live in a country where locals, illegal miners and tourists enjoy the company or underaged prostitutes in the jungle area, but not even the government cares.

I understand your point and agree with you entirely, but polarising men and women is far from how this should really be. I feel as if corruption and the media played a role in all of this as well, and tried to hide men's weakness or fault vs the normalisation of women as victims.

[Aglaea]

You're right, I should have been more specific. I meant in the context of sexual objectification and 'purity'. There I feel women are much closer monitored still.