The sexualization of the body, male and female

General Philosophy
41

I wouldn’t say it proves anything, but the actual dynamic that’s at play contradicts your emphasis on victimhood. People play the game because they want to win the prizes. The way you’re framing it makes it sound like everybody is forced to play along, which is clearly not the case.

Re-reading your post I understand you’re not making the argument I thought you were making, but that was never my principal objection.

But whatever - don’t let my coffee house truths get in the way of whatever it is you’re doing.

42

The problem is that it is hard (or even impossible) to make general statements about how ‘sexualization’ is regarding each gender. What is common, however, is to treat a person as an object of lust.

There are two problems here. First, you’re assuming that the ‘sexualized’ person actually wants to be ‘lusted after’ but this isn’t clearly always the case. Secondly, even in the cases in which it is the case, it doesn’t follow that this is a good for the one who wants to be lusted after. We can imagine a lot of cases in which people want for themselves what is harmful for them (for instance, if someone decides to take a dangerous illegal drug ‘for the first time’ we generally assume that it is a bad choice even if the choice was freely made). So, the fact that some people might willfully want to be lusted after doesn’t imply that this is something that it is good for them.

43

Thanks Frank!

No certainly not! You have ample opportunity to step out of that narly construct we call society!

I agree with that, but up to a point. I am not a sexoligist, though I must say I wish I were. There have been ample studies on objectification of the male and female body. Here is just one: * https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552283

(Disclaimer I did not read it, I just read the abstract). There is a lot of work done in the field. It is indeed common to treat someone as an object of lust. I am not arguing that that is problematic per se, it can be entirely wholesome between two (or more, whatever takes your fancy) people. What I am pointing towards is that the everyday views of male and female sexualization are overly simplistic.

It is problematic for me to react to this because this was not my quote. Tzeentch said this and I responded somehwat like you did. What we might question is your assertion that wanting to be lusted after is ‘bad for you’, or less strong ‘might be bad for you’. It might, or it might not be bad for the person but may perpetuate a power structure that is disadvantageous to some people. On the other hand, the position that it is bad seems to be quite common and I am skeptical about it actually. It seems to me to be moralistic and also inhibiting. What I think is a problematic role, both for men and women, are the ‘mixed signals’ embedded in many sexualized roles. One must be at the same time lascivious as well as modest and caring. One must be kind and caring but on the other hand hard as nails and competitive etc. Perhaps that is what bugs me most with many sexual roles. They make conflicting demands, causing insecurity, feelings of inadequacy and taken to its extreme feelings of resentment.

I would like to hear your thoughts though about why it may be inherently bad to be treated as a sexual object even with consent. It is a position Kant for instance would also take I think and so I think totally viable to explore.

44

One doesn’t have to leave society in order not to play this game. Stop being so dramatic.

There are some games in which societies enforce strict rules: law, finance, etc. - I’d be more open to this type of argument in those cases.

45

It’s a good analysis. I would have thought it fairly clear that feminism also concerns the emancipation of the male body, so I was at first slightly surprised that you thought it worth a topic. The responses show that I should not have been. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

46

Thanks, I’ll check. However, the fact that there is a lot of work that is done on this topic supports my thesis that it is at least hard to make generally valid statements. And to be honest, I acknowledge that I know too little to make meaningful things that can help us to arrive to ‘generally valid’ statements.

That said, I believe that the principle on how sexualization can be bad I was advancing is actually simple.

As I said, I find sexual attraction as simply natural per se. There is nothing wrong to find another person attractive or finding a satisfaction of being perceived as such. I’m not disputing this. What I’m saying is that, however, ‘sexualization’ becomes problematic if it means that a person is either seen as merely an object of sexual attraction or, even, that such an aspect of the person is seen as the most important feature of the person.

Perhaps, I didn’t help to clarify my own thoughts on this topic by referencing to extreme cases like sexual slavery. However, it is clear to me that if a person values others mostly (or even exclusively) on the basis of ‘sexual attractiveness’ this does have ethical consequences. I made an example - probably not so rare, sadly - of a boss that gives promotions or treats better employees that they deem to be more attractive than others. Converserly, a person that sees one’s ‘sexual attractiveness’ as the most importan features of oneself, might end up in engaging some behaviours that are degrading or end up in a sort of addiction. For instance, a person can become unhealthily obsessive about one’s own appearance.

47

I did not want to participate in this topic, but as the OP has thus far received no pushback on this, I must ask: How is ‘sexualization’ defined here?

It is odd to me to talk about sports competitions or military attire to show the sexualization of men, and even stranger to mention “podium” girls while doing so without paying any attention to the elephant in the room. But this may be due to my unfamiliarity with the subject, so I ask merely to be enlightened.

Even accepting this, it is not clear why I should believe, as one of the theses states, that both men and women have been sexualized to an equal extent. And what exactly is “passive/active sexualization”? This distinction is not one I can easily apply to common definitions of sexualization.

The active/passive distinction in the broader subject of traditional gender roles makes sense to me but I fear this is tangential to the concept of sexualization.

48

It really makes me wonder if that’s what we’re doing right now. For example, are we seeing more harm for women because we’re still conditioned to think of women as innocent and pure? If so, maybe witnessing the sexualization of that symbol of innocence feels like witnessing its destruction, which makes the harm seem greater.

Then we also have to consider whether men are perceived as being harmed less because their role is to appear strong and stoic. That expectation prevents men from expressing the depth of the harm they might experience. And that lack of visibility could make the harm to women seem even more pronounced simply by contrast.

At least that’s where this line of thought led me.

49

(Hi, this is my first post. I do a lot of yapping so I don’t expect anyone to read this. If you do, thanks for taking time to read it!)

This is quite an interesting thought you have here Tobias. There are definitely a lot of sociological aspects that play a part when it comes to the sexualization of males and females. When it comes to the difference between the two, I do agree with you that the difference between male sexualization and female sexualization differs with female often being associated with passivity and the opposite for males (generally speaking of course). However, I do think that the sexualization of females is linked to things such as sex, reproduction, and lust, while the sexualization of males is often linked to idolatry. When I read your thoughts about male sexualization, I immediately thought of sports and bodybuilding. I know the term “sexualization” is often seen from a perspective of the opposite gender, however, I don’t think that’s necessary. When it comes to bodybuilding, we see a lot of young folks looking up to some of the greats and idolizing their bodies; which is a form of sexualization. We also see a lot of this in media as well. For example, when we look at modern movies such as Marvel, we see that men are sexualized through a rigorous workouts where their bodies are shown to be a product of their work. For females on the other hand, they are often sexualized by their sex appeal. We see a lot of this in media as well. The term the “male gaze” comes from a sociological theory where women are objectified through a male heterosexual gaze. We also see this a lot in movies, going back to Marvel, in the first Iron-Man movie we see Black Widow portrayed in a sexually appealing way that mainly appeals to the male gaze.

I think the term “victim” isn’t the best way to describe it, I believe it to be much more complex.

50

Hi Sunny, you are right in asking for definitions and further explanation. I think sexualization is defined as something like this: The process through which people get attributed sexual characteristics. This process can happen to a person, but also to classes of people I would say. My post considers the sexualization of men and women as categories of people. I discussed sports and podium girls in the context of the sexualization of male bodies. One of my theses is that men have been sexualized as well, although less overt then women have perhaps. The attention though to male competition in sports is I think of a sexual nature, categories such as virility, strength, fitness and the capacity to ‘perform’ are celebrated. It is perhaps less overt than the sexualization of women but I think it is there. You are right of course to call out my use of ‘equally’, I do not know if the extent is equal. It also depends on what one means with ‘equally’ here. What I meant was that it is ‘also’ a form of sexualization.

Passive and active sexualization… I did not intend to consider the process of sexualization as ‘active’ or ‘passive’, but wished to point out that when sexualization occurs, the active role is primarily given to men. Men are predominantly portrayed as ‘active’ and women as ‘passive’. I do not think this distinction is uncommon in studies of sexuality. Perhaps not it also comes off as less tangential. I think it is rather crucial. Actually I do not think sexualization per se is bad. It depends on who of course and how, but considering men and women as sexual beings is not a problem in general I would say. Ascribing roles of activity and passivity is problematic I would say, certainly for women but also for men. I wonder what you consider ‘the elephant in the room’, I did not get that part. Perhaps I am pretty blind, but it would help me if you pointed it out.

I do not think so. I also do not think women are only sexualized as pure and innocent, also as seductive and insatiable. The figures of the succubus and the siren come to mind.

I do think that the ‘harm to men’ or at least pressure to conform is underestimated often and therefore under represented and under investigated. I agree with that. One of the problematic aspects of it is indeed that men are prevented from expressing the extent of pressure they feel. I see some pretty pathological reactions from it among men.

Thanks for your post Lime! Actually @Lime your post comes very close to what I am getting at and victim is indeed not the right word as Tzeentch also pointed out. I also think it is more complex. The question is exactly this: when we do consider the sexualization of men as we do the sexualization of women, where do they differ, is that difference a blessing or a curse, are their current countermovements, do we have to think of sexualization differently, is there something like ‘the female gaze’ etc.

51

What’s a “sexual characteristic”? For example, is strength a sexual characteristic? If yes, why?

If I see a woman on the street and remark to myself that she doesn’t seem very strong, is that sexualization?

I think it is uncommon in studies of sexualization. One problem, perhaps, is that one big aspect of sexualization, as commonly understood, is “objectification”: viewing people as things for others’ use. But this doesn’t bode well with this active/passive view. How could viewing someone for what they do or are able to accomplish be considered objectification or even sexualization? The idea of an “active object” seems almost oxymoronic.

Maybe you don’t intend to talk about sexualization as commonly understood, but the broader subject of gender roles.

If one intended to show that men and women are sexualized to an equal extent by presenting an area where men are sexualized unlike women, it would be ridiculous to talk about sports in such a way as podium girls are a prime example of sexualization in sports. That’s what I meant by the elephant in the room.

52

I’ve not read the entire thread, so apologies if this has been covered, but, at risk of rustling more feathers than usual, I have some very specific experience that speaks to what I glean from the OP:

I am part of several “kink” communities including ones of lifestyle - my experience of women sexually, despite being married, is various (as is my wife’s). Women in these communities are, by and large, extremely empowered sexually. Do you know what the single most common core principle of “liberated” female sexuality seems to be?

Submission. It seems, genuinely, that sexualisation is what females want. The problem is that males don’t quite understand what submission is. They think it’s permission. It isn’t. Submission is on terms and conditions which must be upheld for consent to be considered ongoing. But in a situation where safety can be assumed (for many, this means public, security-protected venues with plenty of witnesses to any goings-on and several “buddy system” type things in place. In those scenarios the tendency to simply present ones holes for use is pretty damn common.

There is an obviously rebuttal to this: Conditioning through male behaviour/male gaze. I take that point. But I do not take that you can unilaterally remove agency or psychological robustness from females who have gone through hell and back to fine themselves free and at peace under an aggressive (albeit, restrained) male. I have much, much more discomfort with trying to argue that the women who tell me these things are either wrong about what they want, or lack the agency to understand that somehow they’re being duped.

There are technical aspects to “sexual characteristics” These can either relate to sex, the state (i.e chromosomes, genes and physical structures) or externalities to those - strength correlation (i.e avg rage), tendencies toward psychological states (anxiety for females, aggression for males) and several other more obvious things like child-bearing hips, strong, broad shoulders, having a penis or vagina (or something in between).

I think the point hte OP makes is apt: Men tend to be attractive for reasons other than physicality (not that this doesn’t do 100% of the lifting in some cases…). Women tend to be considered attractive for physical reasons. These are just averages and tendancies. Seems obvious.

The sexualisation of both in sports is rife, and I have no problem with it. I don’t get calling victim on this one, except in cases like the volleyball team who were fined for shorts, even though they are sanctioned. A prime example. But then, UFC, boxing and most combat sports overtly trade on sexual tension and evolutionary manipulation in that sense. I’m unsure what this says about hte sports, but I think it indicates a tendency. Not a bias or a morally judge-able situation.

53

These can either relate to sex, the state (i.e chromosomes, genes and physical structures) or externalities to those

Aren’t a lot of things “externalities of chromosome or genes”? If I attribute “tallness” to someone, am I sexualizing them? If yes, why would we want such a broad definition?

I think the point hte OP makes is apt: Men tend to be attractive for reasons other than physicality (not that this doesn’t do 100% of the lifting in some cases…). Women tend to be considered attractive for physical reasons. These are just averages and tendancies. Seems obvious.

What perhaps isn’t obvious is what does that have to do with OP’s point. Why do you think this is OP’s point?

54

No, that wasn’t the suggestion. These are sexual characteristics (and in this case, on average. Not tout court).

It is a direct comment on the core thesis that women are overtly sexualised in ways men are not, and that this victimizes them to a higher degree. This runs in line with several clarifications in the thread (which I have now read).

55

Well, sexualization is context dependent. A remark like, ‘you have some very firm equipment right there’ might be very sexual in one context and not at all in another. An embrace might have a sexual connotation, but it might not. What you are presenting is a red herring.

Yes, I think it is uncommon too and that is why I am arguing that male sexualization is important and that precisely making someone into an ‘active object’ may be a type of sexualization too, if the objectification has a sexual context. Your view, and that of many, is indeed that an ‘active object’ is oxymoronic and therefore sexualization is only present when a passive role is foisted on a subject.

In this context @AmadeusD 's example is instructive. If sexualization only occurs on the passive body and only involves objectification and the loss of agency, than the practice Amadeus describes is deeply suspicious. Women presenting themselves as object can then only be understood as a practice of ‘false consciousness’, mistakenly internalizing a role. Amadeus though describes it also as liberating. How can that be? Well because sexualization is performed in both ways and bound to strict rules set by and abided by by both parties. The point of these games, here the game metaphor is more apt I think, is that both the aggressive partner and the passive one are objectified and sexualized, allowing also the passive person to use the other or others if it so happens as objects of gratification. Such practices are actually only understandable when sexualization into an active role is possible. Indeed, @Suny you are right to point out that is not common, but that is exactly the view I take issue with because the everyday view presents an overly simplistic view of sexualization.

Now, if we translate that insight more broadly the question becomes what that implies. Within the lifestyles described by Amadeus this may well come down to equality and liberation. In society at large though the system of rules is less clear cut. We can only establish those rules though, rules in which both genders can enjoy whatever role they please, when we have an understanding of on how sexualization works, as a social dynamic.

For instance, is switching roles possible in life or are there still restrictions that keep the classic division intact. If so, which ones? If we try to think through these social rules with an overly simplistic account of sexualization in mind we will fail. One question we would also have to ask is whether also in the setting described by Amadeus, a certain division of roles is the norm, or whether these roles can be reversed. Who writes the rules, in the end, the active or the passive party or is this a product of co-creation and so on.

56

I find your views to be offensive. Women have suffered significantly from sexual objectification from small everyday slights, to being blamed for their own physical and sexual abuse, to limitations on how fully they can engage their own society.

How exactly have you suffered from sexual objectification? Who was doing it? Your female boss? A group of homosexuals? Honestly, you’re just positing this without attaching any real world significance.

57

I fully agree with that. I also find the violence perpetrated on women in our and in many other societies utterly reprehensible. I also do not equate the suffering of women with that of men, if men have suffered at all. I just wish to understand sexual dynamics.

I have not suffered from sexual objectification. I am fortunate that I did not. I know others, men (when they were young) as well as women, who did. What I do not see is how trying to understand a certain situation or social dynamic would be somehow a misrecognition of the harm that has been inflicted.

I find any violence against women highly objectionable. I do think violence (all violence and especially against people who have been marginalized) should and can be condemned and hopefully punished on an individual level, while the origins of violence can be investigated on a social level. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.

1 Like
58

What form did this sexual objectification take?

I’m not a Jew. If I claim that my experiences with victimization allow me to understand how a Jew feels about the Holocaust, I’m

  1. mistaken, because I have no familiarity with the dimensions of anti-Semitism

  2. down-playing the Holocaust by suggesting it’s on par with the minor scrapes and bruises I’ve experienced.

It’s best for me to avoid generalizations. Avoid comparing one group’s suffering with that of another’s. Instead of complaining that X isn’t being given enough recognition, I should focus on being specific about what X is.

59

That is rather private I am afraid. I find you asking the question also a bit rude.

I am not claiming that my experiences with victimization allow me to understand anything. Why do you think I was inferring that? You asked me “how exactly have you suffered from objectification…” I simply gave you an honest answer. I am no expert by experience, but neither do I think you need to be to investigate a topic.

I am not comparing suffering, nor do I ask for recognition of male suffering or something like that, that is not my point at all. My considerations are not normative, perhaps that is what you think I am doing, but it is not what I am doing.
In fact I am doing what you like me to do, namely be as specific as possible about what X is, in this case sexualization.
I would like to understand certain social phenomena and in order to understand them I think it is important to understand how sexualization works and how the imposition of active and passive roles work. I empathically think the imposition of such roles is not ‘equal’, I think the imposition of passive roles does far more harm than the imposition of active roles. The imposition of active roles also often gives a license to do harm, which is very pernicious.

Instead of going into such judgements though I would like to understand the mechanisms behind them operate. You might not find it a worthwhile question and you may believe we should focus on actual harm. That is a totally fair position, but it is not what I am interested in here. Certainly I am not taking a position that views the harm done to men (if there is at all, though I think that to some degree there is) with the harm done to women, which far, far surpasses the harm to men in any case. If my posts come off as downplaying harm done to women, I apologize that is not at all my intention.

60

How is it a red herring? I am trying to use the definition you provided. Now you are talking about “sexual connotation”, but sports events don’t have sexual connotations. So what definition are you working with?