The sexualization of the body, male and female

General Philosophy
1

Dear fellow forum thinkers on PF, I would like to present you with a thesis and I would like to hear your thoughts on it. The topic I am proposing is the sexualization of both the male and the female body.

When sexualization of the body is concerned, we generally tend to think of the sexualization of the female body. For good reason this kind of sexualization is viewed with suspicion. It is connected with exploitation, oppression and misogyny. My thesis here consists of two parts: One, both male and female bodies have to an equal extent been sexualized and two, the type of sexualization is different, where male bodies have been sexualized as active, female bodies have been sexualized as passive and this difference in roles permeates throughout todays culture.

Ad one. I consider it a mistake to think that female bodies have been sexualized and male bodies have not. I think both types of sexualization have been equally present and have both had pernicious effects. As is common though, we tend to take the male state of affairs as the norm and we examine the female state of affairs as something that deviates from the norm. In the case of sexualization it obscures the sexualization of male bodies. I contend that the male body has been sexualized early on in arts, literature but especially sports. Yes, sports is about competition usually among men, but in so doing, the body is sexualized to a strong extent. The winners are portrayed, but most importantly they receive their prize out of the hands of women. In jousting tournaments the winners were crowned by noble ladies and still the waning custom during cycling or racing is that the winner gets crowned by ladies usually with a couple of pecks on the cheek. This is not for nothing, it reinforces the winning body as a sexually desirable object.

Sports is both a military and sexual stylized competition, comparable to a beauty contest. The hero to aspire to, is also a sexualized male champion of beauty.
If we accept that part of my twofold thesis, we can turn to the second part. Even though the sexualization is similar of the male and female body, the type of sexualization differs a lot. From the workman’s clothes to the military attire, the male body is sexualized through a celebration of its activity. Male sexualization is about pride and conquest. The shiny armour, weaponry, musculature, it is a celebration of the ability to conquer the world, or nature, which are one and the same. Female sexualization on the other hand celebrates passivity in general. It is about hair that needs to be in shape, intricate clothing, untarnished beauty. These qualities emphasize passivity as in remaining in place, waiting, seducing but not in the form of subduing. In fact all sorts of activity would compromise this form of beauty.

Ad 2. So if one is true and male bodies have been sexualized to an equal extend and two is true, women are sexualized in a passive role and males in an active role, what conclusions may we draw? Are both forms equal or equally pernicious? This is a question I pose to you, but not without sharing some initial reflections. I think it is not. In chess it is generally considered better to be the active attacking party than the passively defending party. Why? The attacker can switch to a different target whereas the passive player has to react. The situation is not much different here. Female sexualization enforces a passive role, meaning a reactive role. Her moves will predicated on his. He (the male) has the upper hand in determining the start of the game. Certainly there is some advantage from being able to react, but essentially it is reactive and arguably more agency is granted to the one being able to start the game when he chooses.

This insight is not new, but it is generally considered only in the ambit of female sexualization. I argue it is not sexualization that is the culprit per se bit that make and female sexualization plays out differently. both. Both forms are pernicious, because it also forces some role onto men, a role they may not be willing to play. It is a tall order to have to live up to being active all the time. Men in this sense are victims of the entrenched historically grown sexualization of the body. However, they are still lesser victims. History allowed them more agency in granting them an active role. So while they are victims they are nonetheless harmed less. Am I on track or is there something seriously missing from my analysis? Of course there is, it is a forum post, but in any case we could discuss the matter more deeply and see where it takes us, deepening our insight into this topic together.
Thank you for reading through the post.

1 Like
2

This topic brings up a lot of possibilities. Historically, women have been cast in roles based on innocence, virginity, and purity. Is it possible those long held beliefs are still at play in the modern era?

Another possibility is whether or not the passive role is one without agency. For example, the idea that men don’t have as much sexual power as women because they supposedly want it more. In that sense women might be passive, but also gatekeepers.

The final thought this brought to mind is also whether women actually enjoy sexual attention less than men. It would seem that’s also been a common theme throughout history and also plays into the idea that men want sex more than women.

What are your thoughts on these possibilities?

3

While I agree that both genders can be victims of sexualizations, I believe that the problem has been worse for females because, after all, the stereotypical ‘attractiveness’ of a male combines both physical and non-physical traits (like, for instance, social status and so on), whereas the steretypical ‘attractiveness’ of a fame is usually most expressed in purely physical terms. Given that the ‘non-physical’ aspects of a person can be due to the character of that person, clearly the character is less relevant for the stereotypical ‘attractiveness’ of a female. For instance, a ‘competent’ male is more likely to be considered ‘attractive’ than a ‘competent’ female according to the stereotypical ‘criteria’.

At the same time, of course, one can also say that even in the case of males the ‘physical’ qualities are quite important.

That said, the problem behind all of this is that ‘sexualization’ or rather ‘objectification’ is a problem for both groups. The problem is that an excess of ‘sexualization’ turns people into objects which is indeed also an ethical problem.

4

I find the use of the word ‘victim’ questionable, because the sexualization (at least in western societies) goes two ways: the observer who lusts, and the object who wants to be lusted after.

5

In an important sense, in this situation both are victims of a delusion. The former is under the false convinction that the other can be regarded as an object of lust. The latter is under the false convinction that it is ‘good’ to be regarded as an object of lust.

Then, of course, there are those situations in which the person that is lusted after wouldn’t want to be lusted after…

6

Feel free to elaborate in what important sense that might be, because as far as I can see there’s nothing delusional or false about it. This is how large parts of humanity have behaved for millenia, for reasons which are perfectly logical from an evolutionary standpoint.

Being physically attractive means you find a mate more easily, get preferential treatment, etc. - you can even make a career out of it.

And what of it when one is lusted after?

Let’s say I’m an attractive man and I catch a lady’s suggestive glance. Did something terrible just happen to me?

7

The problem occurs when one reduce oneself and/or others as mere objects of lust or take attractiveness to be the most important aspect of oneself or others.

I’m not saying that sexual desire or attractiveness are bad things. However, I would say that people have been and are reduced to mere objects of lust. That is the delusion.

8

If bodies were not sexualized, we would not be here to natter on about it. Because we are embodied beings (made out of meat) sex is a given. It seems to me obvious enough that men and women have dissimilar sexual needs. Some of the differences are evolutionary, some of the differences are social. Different needs and capacities (how many children a man can father vs. how many children a woman can bear) may seem unfair. Ask Mother Nature about it. Social roles are changeable, but achieving big change can be a long hard slog.

In an industrialized, capitalist society where wealth is very disproportionately distributed, sexual freedom (all sorts of things, really) will also be very unevenly available. The opportunities to fully enjoy sexuality are restricted by class, or the money that people in a given class have (or don’t have, in the case of working class people).

It doesn’t seem to be the case that wealthy men and women are finding it difficult to express their sexual desires, however conventional or peculiar they might be. Because their lives are constrained by poverty (or the proximity of poverty) working class people cannot risk very much to express their sexual desires.

I would like to see more people “singing the body electric” – accepting and expressing their sexuality openly and considerately.

What would it mean to be, or have, “less sexualized bodies”? It’s not an attractive prospect from a human perspective.

1 Like
9

I don’t see what’s delusional about it. Sure, I’d agree there are more enlightened ways of viewing the world, but that is ultimately just my personal view. It has little to do with the other side being delusional.

Many people like to objectify and be objectified.

What does this “being reduced to a mere object of lust” look like in practice? And what is so bad about it? Did the lady in my example do this horrible thing to me?

10

An extreme example would be sexual slavery: enslaving someone for sexual gratification or voluntarily becoming a slave for such a puropose. I would hope that in both cases it is clear that there is an offense of the dignity of the person and it is also, I would say, delusional because such behaviours rest on the idea that it is possible to think of people in those terms.

As I said, this is not of course the same of finding another person attractive or valuing one’s own physical beauty. However, the problem is: where is the cut-off in which sexualization becomes a wrongdoing?
I would say in whatever situations the attractiveness is seen as the most fundamental aspect of person. So, inner motivations are quite important here. If I didcriminate people on the basis of their attractiveness, it becomes clear that I find physical attractiveness the most important thing I value in a person. Not as bad as sexual slavery, but it is wrong for I would say for similar reason

11

I’m reminded of an old quote.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
— Abraham Maslow

Yes, per common understanding, we are beings who would not be alive were it not for the overwhelming drive to reproduce and create more of ourselves, that much is absolutely true. Therefore, this world is populated by a large majority of those who sought sexual and various other physical exploits above all else. Absolutely. We—all of us—are the direct result of this lack of discernment and higher understanding. But what of it?

A physical object or being, is but a physical object or being. We see our own desires in that which can be used to fulfill them.

Say I want to build a house. I see a piece of rebar. I will envision it as a tool that may perhaps aid me in my pursuit. Now, say instead I am angry and furious at another for his perceived misdeeds, real or imagined, and I may instead envision that very same tool as a weapon in which to enact my revenge.

Point being. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t everything? :thinking:

We can in fact rise above our frivolous and shameful human tendencies to produce a society and world that is beyond the imagination of even our most wisest and kindest ancestors. If we would only seek and believe in the power that lies within.

12

There is no “sexualization”: the human body is not “sexualized”, it is sexual. From there, any idea about sexual difference can arise. The passive/active ideas are naturally induced ideas that appear almost as soon as babies open their eyes to men and women. It is not social, as your “sexualization” concept seems to be.

1 Like
13

There is no such thing as the “sexualization” of the body; rather, as Nietzsche perfectly diagnosed, what we are witnessing is the animalization of thought.

Humans are herd primates: they remain 100% submissive to the dominant alpha animal of their group, except that for humains animals are replaced by ideas.

These ideas relate to human identity, and in the modern West, they obsessively revolve around sex and race differences.

Animalization simply means you only belong to the herd if you manifest ideas that are submissive to the current consensus of “the Good.”

If you dare to manifest insubordinate ideas, you are immediately rejected as an “evil” person.

This Occidental “Good” was defined once and for all by the Judeo-Christian messianic tradition (the core of Nietzsche’s slave morality): you are only considered “Good” if you proclaim that there should be no differences—the last shall be first, the first shall be last, there should be no master and no slave, no male and no female, etc. blah-blah, etc.

Your post—like any possible post attempting to “deconstruct” (i.e. judeochristianize i.e. equalize i.e. nothinessize) sex and race—manifests nothing but a total, unthinking submission to this Occidental herd mentality.

14

I’m having difficulty in working out how your post is responding to the topic.

This appears to be building towards some kind of negative valuation of sexuality, or perhaps to a claim that people value sex too highly. But then you seem to make the point that any kind of valuation is just a projection of desires:

Then in the last paragraph, you return to your theme:

What are the “frivolous and shameful human tendencies”? Sex? Or the projection of our desires into norms, judgements, and values? If you mean the former, this is a common enough sentiment in religion and philosophy. But maybe the very idea that sex is frivolous and shameful is part of the problem, eh?

Anyway, what’s the argument? Something like this?

  1. We are the product of physical drives
  2. The establishment of values is just the projection of our desires
  3. But if we rise above our physical drives we can establish better values and thereby produce a better society

But since this argument is suffused with its own value-laden judgements, how is it not self-undermining? In other words, you cannot attack your opponent with an appeal to the relativism of values while helping yourself to moral vocabulary and judgements, without self-contradiciton.

And how does it relate to sexualization, anyway?

15

Your argument against ‘sexualization’ is an argument against slavery, then?

‘Sexualization’ or ‘sexual objectification’ in western society hardly involves any coercion, and when it does, it already is illegal and universally frowned upon, so I fail to spot the relevance.

What you seem to be taking issue with then is people’s ways of voluntarily associating with each other, and thus this seems to turn into a “I know what’s best for other people” type of argument.

If you don’t like the games that society is playing, don’t play along. No one is forcing you.

But of course, not playing the game also means not winning the prizes associated with them, and that’s, I estimate, what arguments against ‘sexualization’ are actually about.

16

Anything that has an ability to override reason and rationale should be identified as such. Particularly something that is consistently the overwhelming cause of human strife and suffering. The “jilted ex-lover” or “crime or passion”, etc.

Crimes committed by former romantic partners often escalate after a breakup, commonly including stalking (28%), physical assault (17%), and sexual assault (11%). These acts constitute intimate partner violence (IPV), frequently involving harassment, property damage, coercive control, and homicide, which accounts for nearly half of all female homicides in the U.S.
— National Institute of Health

No one kills a fellow human being in rage because he or she really liked what they had to say.

Somewhat. But allow me to explain. My contention is with Point 2.

It goes back to what has a tendency to override reason and rationale without having anything of substance to human society intrinsically. This is blind following of primal impulse. That is what I consider the root of all false establishment of what we think are values. Unwilling (or in some cases willful) enslavement and allegiance to the part of the brain that blindly “wants” without cause versus the part that “plans” and concerns and develops long-term consequence.

I suppose without knowing our vices, what we are susceptible to (things that may not be inherently bad in and of them-self but have a high chance of leading one on an unchangeable path toward an inescapable life his hypothetical “other self” that would have avoided would do anything to have prevented), we are at the mercy of them forevermore. And this is what can destroy not just lives but entire societies. Lack of discernment and discipline. Qualities that remain largely favored and generally cast in a positive light by most philosophers, I would assume?

And I think it is fair to say as mortal beings whose number of days alive are uncertain, sexual desire or “sexualization” (whether intentional or “done simply for the sake of it” or deeper and unconscious) is one of the strongest factors that overpower reason and rationale in favor of emotional and impulse. This overpowering leads to actions one would otherwise not commit. Actions that can not only end the life of others as well as the person committing them, but cause true and measurable, often irreversible damage to society and human civilization writ-large.

At the end of the day it’s just my opinion. An opinion I know is shared by many and perhaps can in fact be justified by scientific if not anecdotal “common sense.”

To circle back, sex is unconsciously interlinked with fear of death. What could be more powerful to a mortal being than creation of life itself, which cannot occur without sex. Hence sexualization. Take it as an opinionated musing or a rational and in-depth analysis of what it means to be human in regards to the matter of human sexuality and projection of said nature. I consider my post to constitute both. Apologies if it was not.

17

I very much disagree with your opinions, but I don’t want to get into it, as this topic is not the place for it.

The problem is that you do not, in fact, engage directly with the topic. You have merely gestured towards sexualization as just another unremarkable expression of sexual desire. But the OP is very specific, not at all about such generalities as you are interested in. The result is that your response is not only off-topic, but also manages to be dismissive at the same time.

That said, others may find it interesting, so carry on.

But as a reminder, the core of @Tobias’s OP is the thesis that, although male and female sexualization are both bad, they are not equally bad:

This is the specific claim that responses should engage with. Or as others are doing, disputing the claim that sexualization is bad at all.

18

Tobias: Men in this sense are victims of the entrenched historically grown sexualization of the body. However, they are still lesser victims.

@Jamal : this is typical Judeo-Christian submissive zombie-thinking : women are more victim than men in “sexualization” : typical victim-seeking Judeo-Christian reasonning : see it ?

19

I have no idea. But maybe instead of just applying a label you could draw the connection and make the argument. I only intervened to address @Jackal’s comment, not to address the OP substantively, so there isn’t much point in directing things towards me.

20

This is absolutely correct. Depending on your belief this is simply “what evolution decided” or in other words, how the cards happened to have been dealt. It’s the Iron Law of the world we live in. With the exception of the Anglerfish and some species of spiders, the male is generally, on average, physically larger and/or stronger.

That said, there are large and “devout” “communities” who place this strength elsewhere. Sexual fetishists who take substantial pride or “value” in the idea of a domineering female.

This in my opinion suggests that—while it is strongly correlated with physical circumstance (“reality” as it applies to us)—it ultimately remains a cultural or ideological dogma. I do believe, again, for whatever reason, the female human prefers (on average) to be a nurturer and the male human prefers (again, on average) to be a provider, protector, or fighter. Naturally, per law of nature, the uninformed mind “forces” one into a (what some might suggest is a false) dichotomy of strong versus weak. This is rooted in biology. A being that likely survived learned to fear (what we mis-attribute as “respect”) a being that was larger than it. At least to avoid such to fight another day. These are the roots of our world. At least, our understanding of it. Do you not agree?

Who knows. Maybe one day we’ll discover a planet or even a land somewhere on this one where evolution happened to pull what we would consider a “Joker’s card” and women are the dominant sex who control societies and, only through countless efforts of the smaller, more easily oppressed male, finally offered men’s rights as an act of merciful concession. We’ll never know. Not really. :slightly_smiling_face:

Still, your assessment is perfectly in line with the world we live in. I’m reminded of something I heard once that also seems to be perfectly in line with the world we live in. Censored of course for sake of basic decency:

“[male genitalia] is the largest non-commodity on Earth. There’s simply too much supply and not enough willing buyers. Whereas, [female genitalia] is prized exponentially beyond it’s supply.”

Sort of crude perhaps, when read under the wrong mindset, but certainly backed up by criminal and other forms of statistics. Basically, for whatever reason, men seem to be more physically tempted by the female form than the opposite. Perhaps this is mental and quasi-cultural, perhaps it is ingrained physical biology, or, like I suspect, perhaps I just got unlucky and born in the wrong place. :laughing:

I hope I only contributed to your thread and with any luck the understanding or at least mild intellectual amusement of those who will read it. I apologise if not. I typically only post late at night when my mind, wanders, shall we say.