SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
The Sexualization of YA characters
date
newest »
newest »
I can't say if you are getting more conservative or not, but children (actual children, not just fictional ones) have been sexualized in media for some time. You probably already know this, but either way, being more upset because it's the actress playing Katniss seems slightly odd.
I feel bad for Jennifer Lawrence that such a dreadful picture of her has hit the news stands.And as far as sexualization goes, maybe I too cynical but, I've seen far worse. Hell, my actually sixteen year sister dresses far more provocatively.
Kate wrote: "I feel bad for Jennifer Lawrence that such a dreadful picture of her has hit the news stands.And as far as sexualization goes, maybe I too cynical but, I've seen far worse. Hell, my actually sixt..."
LOL your comment made me laugh. So true on both accounts.
It shows the actress who plays Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) dressed provocatively. I am ok with the actress flaunting her stuff, but not when she is representing a fictional sixteen-year-old character.I disagree with you on this front. Jennifer Lawrence is 21 years old appearing in Glamor, a magazine targeted to adult females. She appears with a bow. Her appearing with a bow does not sexualize the character she played, it's just a reference to the last movie she was in. (And bows are very popular with adult women and is a growing sport.) The girls who can't separate the role from the actor or realize they are different ages aren't old enough to be reading Glamor in the first place.
She is an actress playing a role, she is not "representing" anything, she's not a spokesperson. That role should not define her or hem her in for life. Are we going to tell Daniel Radcliffe what roles he can play in the future because he played Harry Potter in 7 movies? He's done nude scenes in other projects while still making Harry Potter movies.
Lara Amber wrote: "Her appearing with a bow does not sexualize the character she played, it's just a reference to the last movie she was in. (And bows are very popular with adult women and is a growing sport.) The girls who can't separate the role from the actor or realize they are different ages aren't old enough to be reading Glamor in the first place."But surely they're old enough to see the cover in the supermarket.
The bow clearly is meant to connect the image to the character, not to appeal to the portion of Glamour-readers who are also bow enthusiasts.
That said, I agree with you that it's totally ok for Jennifer Lawrence or Daniel Radcliffe to use sexuality to make art, sell magazines, or do any number of other things.
But I also agree with the original poster that using the bow to connect this image to the character is a bit unseemly.
Ummmm, so it's ok for her to play a teenage character that kills other teens - for sport - ...but not ok for her to show that she is a sexual being? That's a little one-sided. So, violence is OK but sex = problem?
MrsJoseph wrote: "Ummmm, so it's ok for her to play a teenage character that kills other teens - for sport - ...but not ok for her to show that she is a sexual being? That's a little one-sided. So, violence is OK but sex = problem? "
It's funny that you mention this, as it's an issue that was raised in a review for the current YA dystopian book I'm reading - Divergent.
There's also a lot of violence in that book, but the 'romance' is kept to hand holding a little bit of kissing.
Even the movie rating system seems to be skewed in the way that shows how inured we've become to violence, but how uptight we still are about sex.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Ummmm, so it's ok for her to play a teenage character that kills other teens - for sport - ...but not ok for her to show that she is a sexual being? That's a little one-sided. So, violence is OK but sex = problem"
A classic American double-standard! Makes little sense, but it's pretty firmly a part of movie and TV ratings.
Jeff wrote: "A classic American double-standard! Makes little sense, but it's pretty firmly a part of movie and TV ratings. "But you are playing to - and agreeing with - that double standard.
MrsJoseph wrote: "But you are playing to - and agreeing with - that double standard."Please don't put words in my mouth. I've criticized the presence of the bow. I haven't said anything about my feelings on violence.
So no, I'm not.
So what are you feelings on violence?
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "So what are you feelings on violence?"For.
Chris wrote: "± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "So what are you feelings on violence?"For."
^
I'm also pro-sex. Just saying.
But for real. Most teenagers are having sex. On the other hand, most teenagers are not killing other teenagers. The only reason I see for avoiding the sexualization of teenagers is the old pervy dudes out there who get off on young teens. But Jennifer Lawrence is not a young teen, despite playing a 16 year old in a movie. The bow ties her back to the movie... But I don't see how that makes it inappropriate for her to show her sexual side. She's herself, not the character she portrays. Just my POV.
Chris wrote: "± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "So what are you feelings on violence?"For."
And Sex?
For.
Lots of actors appear on magazine covers, carrying some prop or other from their latest movie. I don't think it's all that odd. And she could hardly have appeared on the cover of Glamour without looking, well, glamorous and sexy and all that.
Sonia wrote: "Lots of actors appear on magazine covers, carrying some prop or other from their latest movie. I don't think it's all that odd. And she could hardly have appeared on the cover of Glamour without lo..."I agree. She's an actress.
Plus - as Dawn said - let's not forget what real teens are doing.
So I give you 17 y/o Courtney Stodden: http://cdn.thegloss.com/files/2011/12...
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "So what are you feelings on violence?"I'd prefer my arguments be engaged on their merits rather than through examination of whether those views are consistent with my views on anything else.
If you disagree with my statement that the bow was "unseemly," I'm happy to go back and forth on that. Heck, I'm not so stuck on this one, you could well change my mind! But speculating on inconsistency with other views I may hold is not going to do so.
Heh. Ok then.As to it being unseemly... I think any marketing campaign that deals with actors is trying to cash in on their connection with whatever they're famous for.
The big deal about Daniel Radcliffe doing Equis, after all, was because he "is Harry Potter" and not because he's Daniel Radcliffe.
And, it was also a selling point.
If anything, I would say one reason why they would almost have to use the bow for the Glamour shot is because her face isn't as recognizable. (At least it's not to me - I wouldn't have had any idea who she was.)
I also agree with Sonia that "she could hardly have appeared on the cover of Glamour without looking, well, glamorous and sexy and all that."
I also sort of take issue with the complaints that because Katniss's strength comes from inside she can't be sexy. Why does it have to be an either/or thing? Why can't a woman be strong and intelligent and compassionate and still be sexy?
On the other hand, I get tired of the action babe thing, so I won't pretend I don't get tired of it sometimes, and it can go either way for me.
But, in this instance, I guess I don't see that this picture necessarily reduces her "to a pair of perky breasts in a skintight jumpsuit". I mean, doesn't that kind of statement just further the notion that pretty girls can't be smart/strong/etc?
For me it goes back to the whole "real women have curves" thing, in retaliation to the stick-thing models. Are skinny girls not real women anymore?
***
Aside from all that, when I saw the title of this thread, before I read the thread or the article, my first thought was that someone was complaining that there's sexiness in YA books and my first through was "yeah, 'cause teenagers don't have sex".
It is clearly appalling that popular YA heroines are sexualized in this manner.But it is also inevitable. The marketplace in our country has long sought to capture buyers by any legal means necessary. I don't personally read Glamour magazine; but it has always seemed to me to be published as primarily a vehicle for the clothing, make-up, and related products industries to indoctrinate its customers, and potential customers. The methods used are typically the manipulated self-images of their assumed buying demographics. This usually results in less-than-healthy personalities in their consumer base. In this case, that base is clearly young girls being prepared to buy more "fashion products".
This is not good news. This is pathological and predatory behavior. But this behavior has been in place for most of the past century. The tobacco industry succeeded in addicting generations of people by the use of advertising campaigns targeting the young. Older folks, like myself, will remember how Virginia Slims used newly feminist self-images of women in the seventies to peddle their carcinogenic wares. Advertisements for tobacco products are now strictly regulated.
"Fashion" products pose a more difficult challenge. But the psychological damage being done is, some feel, no less pandemic.
The culprit here is our national advertising industry.
I think my own psychological damage arrives from reading all these internet arguments...
Chris wrote: "I think my own psychological damage arrives from reading all these internet arguments..."Come now. I'm sure your damage goes back well beyond that. ;P
Mosca wrote: "It is clearly appalling that popular YA heroines are sexualized in this manner.But it is also inevitable. The marketplace in our country has long sought to capture buyers by any legal means neces..."
Strangely enough...while I do have a major issue with our media and advertising...I am not surprised at the sexualization of young men & women. Our biology dictates this. It is only in recent times as our life expectancy has grown longer due to scientific advancements that teenagers are "kids."
My great-grandmother was married and a mother by the age of 13. This was standard practice because - for most of human existence - life spans were short.
We treat them as kids now - as so they now act - but our biology says something completely different.
And please, let's not forget the irony that Katniss is a killer of other young teens. For a TV show. I feel it is rather funny that we are more concerned that "a 16 y/o" is sexualized but are showing no concern that "a 16 y/o killed multiple other young people."
True enough.I'll change that to,
I think my own psychological damage continues from reading all these internet arguments.
Chris wrote: "True enough.I'll change that to,
I think my own psychological damage continues from reading all these internet arguments."
lol
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "I also sort of take issue with the complaints that because Katniss's strength comes from inside she can't be sexy. Why does it have to be an either/or thing? Why can't a woman be strong and intelligent and compassionate and still be sexy?"
Totally agree with this. QFT.
MrsJoseph wrote: "And please, let's not forget the irony that Katniss is a killer of other young teens. For a TV show. I feel it is rather funny that we are more concerned that "a 16 y/o" is sexualized but are showing no concern that "a 16 y/o killed multiple other young people." "To argue the other side of the coin... I do think it's fair to say that the situation presented in the Hunger Games isn't being portrayed as a good thing. It's more a social commentary, I think, on how very bad it is that we are so inured to violence (and also about how crazy reality TV is) - amongst other things.
Whereas the Glamour article is definitely portraying glamour as good.
That said...
It's kind of ironic that, in a way, one thing which will draw the audience to the movie may very well be the cool action scenes.
I mean, one of my complaints about the book was that I felt is sort of glossed over the social commentary and focused on the action. I can't see the movie doing this any less. Obviously from the reactions we've seen from some people (i.e. assholes being upset that Rue is black), they're not exactly taking the whole message of the fact that social injustice is bad, mm'kay.
It seems a little ironic to me that this thread is arguing about sexuality when it seems to me that the objectionable aspect of the books and now the movies isn't sex at all. It's portraying a society that pits teenagers against each other to the death. I find that disturbing and more than a little gratuitous. I read the first book, didn't think it was that good, and haven't read the rest.But what's the point of being appalled at Katniss' premature sexuality when she's forced into participating in a game that requires her to kill other kids?
± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "And please, let's not forget the irony that Katniss is a killer of other young teens. For a TV show. I feel it is rather funny that we are more concerned that "a 16 y/o" is sexual..."Maybe it's just my area. One gym has a new program: "Train like a Tribute."
It's been a couple of years since I've read the book, but I don't remember Katniss even being sexual. And I'd say that the point of the thing was that the violence was objectionable. It certainly wasn't saying that it's a "good thing". And this topic is more to do with Jennifer Lawrence seeming provocative on a magazine cover than anything in the actual story.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Maybe it's just my area. One gym has a new program: "Train like a Tribute." "That's what I mean about the irony.
In the book it's definitely presented as "A Very Bad Thing".
But in our world it's the action (i.e. violence) that's being glorified.
We are Pandem.
I hadn't seen the Glamour cover, so thanks for sharing Elle and beginning this discussion. But I have read all three books, saw the movie last Saturday, and was very pleased by it, but movie tickets cost $4 out in the boonies where I live. I was suprised to see Jennifer Lawrence on the cover of two magazines at the grocery store checkout: on one she was dressed as Katniss and on the cover of the other she was dressed to go to a movie premiere. The movie she made before this one "Winter's Bone" is one of those that critics love, but pretty much only critics have seen it.Mrs Joseph wrote: "And please, let's not forget the irony that Katniss is a killer of other young teens. For a TV show."
Because her government requires it of her and 23 other young people every year. Also that the entire population of Panem is required to watch the children killing each other. I disagree Colleen that the social commentary is glossed over.
Julia wrote: "Because her government requires it of her and 23 other young people every year. Also that the entire population of Panem is required to watch the children killing each other. I disagree Colleen that the social commentary is glossed over."I understand why she's killing...I just find it ironic that people are more concerned with her sexuality than murder.
Before this thread the only controversy I was aware of around HG is as Colleen put it: "assholes being upset that Rue is black."But it's the actress' sexuality, not the character's. And selling actress' sexuality is something Hollywood has been doing since the beginning. Though the character has to play up her 'romance' to continue to get the support of viewers...
http://ellelapraim.com/glamours-sexua...