The sexualization of the body, male and female

[Tobias]

@Suny

… sports events don’t have sexual connotations

I beg to differ. The appearance of podium girls in current sports events as a continuation of the admiration of a noble lady in jousting tournaments has I think, a very clear sexual allusion. Otherwise a handshake would suffice. Which is actually happening by the way because the sexual connotation was not lost on the public and eventually on the organizers of the events because they are being changed now, a change I applaud of course.

My definition remains the same, the processes through which people get attributed sexual characteristics. I think the congratulatory kisses by podium girls is a process through which both the female podium people as well as the male winner get attributed sexual characteristics. One is the imposition of an attitude of reverence towards the strong other and on the male, but also the onlookers is the imposition of the role of conqueror. The message being 'if you want to be a real man, you have to excel at sports. It is less overtly sexual than a miss election, but it is sexual nonetheless. A clear indication is also that this never happens at say, an academic event where a sound presentation is given. It emerges in the context of competition and enforces the role of male dominance over female subordination. The imposition of such roles forms not only the imposition of a gender role but a sexualized gender role. Again, to avoid misunderstanding, that I think both roles imply sexualization, does not mean that I also think that this imposition is equal. The imposition of a passive role is far more restrictive than that of an active role which is to some extent restrictive (you are nothing when you do not win) but in many respects also permissive and in that sense more poblematic.

[Suny]

@Tobias

My definition remains the same, the processes through which people get attributed sexual characteristics

Then can you answer the questions I had?

[Frank]

@Tobias

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.

In a less patriarchal society, the active/passive thing is flexible. Whereas people in a Muslim society might find Marilyn Monroe disgusting because she’s sexually aggressive, people elsewhere aren’t bothered.

[Tobias]

@Suny

Then can you answer the questions I had?

What was the question, what the red herring was? I do not really feel like going back and forth over a definition. I find the content more interesting, but is there something in particular that is bothering you or that is preventing you from engaging with the topic? If so we might find a definition together that works. I am not very interested in combat, more in exploration.

I may have missed a question though, so if I did, would you mind reiterating it so we might explore it?

@Frank

In a less patriarchal society, the active/passive thing is flexible.

I agree, flexible and a question of autonomy.

@Frank

Whereas people in a Muslim society might find Marilyn Monroe disgusting because she’s sexually aggressive, people elsewhere aren’t bothered.

I didn’t really see that one coming because I find it quite one dimensional. As if ‘a muslim society’ exists… I lived in a =country where people predominantly adhered to the islamic faith, but I did not find the gender roles there, at least in the every day to be very different from those in Western Europe and the women I met there felt to me more sexually expressive in a less passive way. Of course that is my experience, I am not saying this is the case. I just find your mentioning of ‘Islamic societies’ and what people in them may think very presumptuous. Actually rather similar to what you reproach me for.

[Frank]

I find we’re pretty pervasively talking past one another. Best end it here.

[Suny]

@Tobias

what the red herring was?

What do you even think a red herring is?

I’ll recap. You are using the word ‘sexualization’ idiosyncratically. You gave a definition that doesn’t say anything at all, and I am asking for further clarification. You seem to have, for example, dropped ‘objectification’ from your definition, which shows that your use of the word has little to do with common usage. You haven’t shown why changing the word this way makes sense.

Again, I think you’re just confused, and if you simply talked about gender roles instead of ‘sexualization,’ your topic would make perfect sense, although it would perhaps be unoriginal, as everyone recognizes that both men and women have gender roles. I mean it’s obvious, you use the word ‘role’ everywhere.

[Tobias]

@Suny

Again, I think you’re just confused, and if you simply talked about gender roles instead of ‘sexualization,’ your topic would make perfect sense, although it would perhaps be unoriginal, as everyone recognizes that both men and women have gender roles. I mean it’s obvious, you use the word ‘role’ everywhere.

Of course, very much so, but luckily I have you to point this out to me. I have given multiple clarifications. If it is still unclear I apologize. I have an inkling though you do not want to engage with the substance of the thread, preferring to quibble over form and definition. Fine, but uninteresting to me.

I might be wrong and you do like to discuss the topic at hand. If that is the case, what definition would you like? I will go first and I will try to formulate a definition to the best of my abilities, including obhectification, because I do think is a core part of sexualization. I propose something like this: “The process by which a person, group of persons, or the activities of a person or group, are primarily evaluated, either implicitly or explicitly in terms of their sexual appeal, involving degrees of objectification, understood as the imposition of certain roles, frames and perceived qualities of a person or group of persons”.

The implicit / explicit is important for me, as my point is exactly that sexualization is understood in too simple terms, namely as the openly sexual. I think though sex is far more pervasive in society, understanding that is I think, important to understand various social dynamics which impose roles on people. Again, that is not to say that the roles imposed are ‘equal’. Objectifcation is important to me too. You raised the point that an ‘active object’ is oxymoronic. I do not think so. A soldier might well be considered an active object. He or she is active is as far as he or she wields power and actively shapes its world, it is an object though in that he or she is used for a certain purpose by others not having a say in that purpose.

I gave such definitions because you ask for them and I do think definitions are important, because we need to know whether we are talking about the same thing. Reproaching someone because the definitions used are ‘idiosyncratic’ is disingenuous though because the point may be to show or to investigate whether existing definitions are adequate. I think that is more or less the point of philosophy.

[Suny]

So you recognize you’re not talking about sexualization?

@Tobias

I have an inkling though you do not want to engage with the substance of the thread, preferring to quibble over form and definition.

I would say we are discussing the substance, but maybe not how you wanted to. It would have been interesting if it was about sexualization. But as it’s simply about gender roles, your theses are accepted by almost everyone; society imposes roles on both men and women, men have active roles and women passive roles. I don’t think it’s true people generally only consider women here but it would be true for the concept of sexualization.

@Tobias

The process by which a person, group of persons, or the activities of a person or group, are primarily evaluated, either implicitly or explicitly in terms of their sexual appeal, involving degrees of objectification, understood as the imposition of certain roles, frames and perceived qualities of a person or group of persons”

Is it objectification that is understood as “the imposition of certain roles…”? That’s not what it usually means.

In your opening post, you talk about sports, workman’s clothes, and military attire. Would you say that for all of those, and sports even outside of interactions with podium girls, men are implicitly evaluated in terms of their sexual appeal? If yes, why?

@Tobias

A soldier might well be considered an active object. He or she is active is as far as he or she wields power and actively shapes its world, it is an object though in that he or she is used for a certain purpose by others not having a say in that purpose.

Fair, I had another idea of “active” in mind but my interpretation was simply flawed.

@Tobias

Reproaching someone because the definitions used are ‘idiosyncratic’ is disingenuous though because the point may be to show or to investigate whether existing definitions are adequate

Well you never did do that. And I am not merely reproaching the fact that the word is used idiosyncratically but that it is not clear how you are using the word.

[SkepticalSas]

Men seemingly wanting more sexual action or attention is more extrinsically mediated I believe. Often times people fall at least partially, into the stereotype of our own gender. Since the social image of a woman has always been of innocence, virginity and purity as you established. Due to this, and also the passive position of women the aversion to losing their virginity is justified. This has an effect of making it seem like men want more sexual attention.

Whether or not, it is the primary cause is totally dependent on the social context. Or there is a complete possibility for my bias to blind myself.
PS : I am also a beginner, I am open-minded as all philosophers should, but please go easy on me if my text isn’t formal enough.

[AmadeusD]

Some interesting comments.

I think it a real shame we’re seeing the total dismissing of men’s objectification, and sexual disadvantage(sexual meaning based-on-sex, not a disadvantage to accessing sexual activity - men can shut the f up there). Men suffer more violence, more systemic disadvantages and more overall historical harm than women, by a huge, huge unignorable margin. There is also the reality, that as a distinct, and obvious result of being the male in a heterosexual relationship, IPV is initiated on men more than the other way around, even in bi-directional violence. Because “men can take it”.
For non-IPV violence, that a sect of men are the perpetrators only takes the objectors so far. Read more if you like, but be wary of toxic feminism making the discussion difficult (I am a feminist. Anything toxic sucks. No need to make assummptions).

That said, it seems the case to me that ignoring hte sexualisation of men ignores 50% of the conversation. Any attempt to reduce the question of sexualization among humans to only sexualisation of women (or children, as one might also be activated to speak on) will never result in a reasonable, progressive discussion.
Men are objectified. Men are sexualised. Constantly. All the time. In most aspects of life. But we do not suffer harm as an intrinsic result. So much is, as i see it, inarguable.

All this to say, it’s disappointing to see that in a conversation about the entire species, and our most important activity - we are willing to simply ignore half of the conversation lest we say something uncomfortable.

I prefer to acknowledge the uncomfortable disparity in harm, and speak about the op: Sexualisation of the body male and female.

In my pretty varied experience, sexualisation of either body boils down to these tenets:

Males: Be conceptually dangerous, but controlled (i.e safe).
Females: Be conceptually safe, but liberated (i.e dangerous).

No wonder no one can get it right.

[Tobias]

@Suny

I would say we are discussing the substance, but maybe not how you wanted to. It would have been interesting if it was about sexualization. But as it’s simply about gender roles, your theses are accepted by almost everyone; society imposes roles on both men and women, men have active roles and women passive roles. I don’t think it’s true people generally only consider women here but it would be true for the concept of sexualization.

Yes, sexualization is only theorized on as the sexualisation of women, not of men. I think that needs to change to understand the imposition of gender norms better. That is my point. That is not to say that the sexualization of women should not be researched or is somehow less of a topic. I’d like to enrich, not take anything away.

@Suny

In your opening post, you talk about sports, workman’s clothes, and military attire. Would you say that for all of those, and sports even outside of interactions with podium girls, men are implicitly evaluated in terms of their sexual appeal? If yes, why?

Yes, I think so. Just a few examples, the proverbial ‘quarter-back’ as the most popular guy in school. The stories departing from the rough looking, strong and at times ugly man being with a beautiful woman, beauty and the beast. The ancient Greek immortal love couple Ares and Aphrodite, the God of war (but only war as martial prowess, not strategy, that would be the Goddess Athena). A plethora of cheap porn movies beginning with the ‘handyman’ doing a job in the house of a very suddenly willing lady, the list goes on as far as I am concerned. In those the link is more overt, but my point is that it is also implicitly, from the first time boys do sports in school to the elaborate uniforms that aim to project power. Such power is not only there as a practical indication of what a person gets done, but also to signal that he (in this case) should be admired, also sexually.

@Suny

And I am not merely reproaching the fact that the word is used idiosyncratically but that it is not clear how you are using the word.

I will try to be as clear as possible. I do have to ask for some charity. I pay attention to what I write, but I do not have the time to research and write an elaborate theoretical framework. Nor would such be read by the way.

@SkepticalSas

Whether or not, it is the primary cause is totally dependent on the social context.

Formality is not a problem, no need to write formally. I will ask for clarification though. You write ‘the primary cause’, the primary cause of what? It is not very clear to me which question you like to answer with the post.

@AmadeusD

Males: Be conceptually dangerous, but controlled (i.e safe).
Females: Be conceptually safe, but liberated (i.e dangerous).

I think that is quite true, although I am not certain what you mean with ‘conceptually dangerous’. There are of course dangerous men. I also think that the overemphasis on the male body and its ‘weaponization’, understood as ‘turned into a weapon’, through sports fitness, war, makes many men in fact dangerous. That is part of why I would like to investigate it. More philosophically, I see the paradox as well, but I wonder if the norms on both are not actually contradictory instead of just paradoxical. I also wonder if those norms fluctuate. In a society in which safety becomes the norm, containment becomes more accepted. If your scheme is correct, there will be more restrictions because both men (their conceptually dangerous side) and women (their liberated side) will become more constrained. What do you think will be the consequences of that, and is that true, or not? Love to hear your and Suny’s and everyone else’s thoughts.

[AmadeusD]

@Tobias

I also think that the overemphasis on the male body and its ‘weaponization’, understood as ‘turned into a weapon’, through sports fitness, war, makes many men in fact dangerous.

To answer the opening query, I’ll take you to this part of your post.

I think this is exactly it. You may not know these men, but Conor McGregor is an example of a dangerous man who does not have impulse control sorted. He is just dangerous. Conceptually (as a fighter, Irish, muscled etc…) dangerous, and actually dangerous.
Stipe Miocic is one of hte best heavyweight MMA fighters of all time - making millions. But he remained a volunteer fight-figher throughout his career. He’s a family man. He lives in Ohio or something and just keeps his head down. That’s a conceptually dangerous man who, if you know him to any degree beyond passing, is “safe”.

This borders on a Peterson quote:
“A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control.”

I think there’s a lot in that specific wee line.

@Tobias

I wonder if the norms on both are not actually contradictory instead of just paradoxical.(plus following comments)

Hmm. I’m unsure they are contradictory. My wife understands that 98% of men have no chance of harming her without a firearm is she’s near me. I am dangerous, but safe. She has been shocked at the way i’ve dealt with intrusive men in the past. She knows I’m safe, even if she’s shocked.

For her part, she is soft, caring, relatively quiet, slow to anger, slow to react (in an impulsive sense) etc… She is incredibly safe. But I am aware she will do whatever the fuck she wants to do with her body, mind and spirit (within some safety parameters to do with our children). She is liberated, and I have to accept that sometimes she will reveal or do things that shock me, within that framework. But I know she’s safe, even if i’m shocked.

Perhaps I’m not groking your questions about constraint. Neither of these systems seems to be constrained by anything more than the chosen ratio of (in my case) aggression/control I wish to enact (or, alcohol). Simiarly, my wife doesn’t seem constrained by anything but her current, in the moment, self-image and it’s weight when pit against her want to be free.

[Suny]

@Tobias

I think that needs to change to understand the imposition of gender norms better.

The imposition of gender norms has little to do with sexualization and is already understood as concerning both genders.

@Tobias

Such power is not only there as a practical indication of what a person gets done, but also to signal that he (in this case) should be admired, also sexually.

I don’t understand the examples here. Why would what you listed tell me that we implicitly evaluate men in terms of their sexual appeal?

The ‘quarterback’ is popular because he is athletic, and maybe athletic men are attractive, but it doesn’t follow that sports athletes are evaluated by sexual appeal. The nerd is unattractive; are video game players evaluated by sexual appeal?

There are probably even more porn movies about step-siblings; are we evaluating step-siblings in terms of sexual appeal?

It seems that the mere fact that strength (or whatever else) is correlated with attractiveness makes it so that any activity where the goal is to display strength or be stronger is sexualization. Is that the case? Is there anything merely ‘correlated’ with attractiveness that isn’t sexualization?

[AmadeusD]

@Suny

it doesn’t follow that sports athletes are evaluated by sexual appeal.

No, that one we can glean from advertising and watching social media comments. While I don’t recommend doing either of those things (i.e watching advertising, reading internet comments generally) you’ll see that overt, perverted comments about male athletes are as common or more common (for legal reasons) than the same about female athletes. I agree it doesn’t follow from the idea that a strong, athletic man is sexually attractive, but I do fail to see how one could miss the clear connection.

@Suny

The nerd is unattractive; are video game players evaluated by sexual appeal?

Often, yes. The idea of the gamer is explicitly seen as a sexually undesirable one in various demographics (i.e young women of several kinds).

@Suny

Is that the case?

There is an explicit connection between feats of strength and sexual access. This (although, strength isn’t always the go) is common among sexually dimorphic animals - think peacocking.

@Suny

Is there anything merely ‘correlated’ with attractiveness that isn’t sexualization?

Symmetry, height, skin tone, skin quality, eye size/brightness (subjective as heck) among many, many others. Collectively, they can become a sexual idea of a person. But these correlations are not, themselves, sexually activating as best I can tell.

[Tobias]

@Suny

The imposition of gender norms has little to do with sexualization and is already understood as concerning both genders.

It is hard to discuss with you since it is exactly that presupposition I am targeting. I think that that is not true.

@Suny

The nerd is unattractive; are video game players evaluated by sexual appeal?

Yes, they are also evaluated by their sex appeal. You are actually a shining example of that. “The nerd is unattractive”. You are not saying most nerds are unattractive. That is because being a nerd is equated with being unattractive and you combine that label with video gamers, reinforcing the stereotype of unattractive gamers. After all gamers are our favourite ‘neck beards’ right? In any case I would caution against putting ‘gaming’ on your dating app profile as a man.

@Suny

There are probably even more porn movies about step-siblings; are we evaluating step-siblings in terms of sexual appeal?

Most of those play with a taboo I gather. Normtransgression is sexualized, yes. Highly condemned of course by everyday society, but it is exactly that which I like to question. Next to overt social norms, there are implicit norms, called ‘subterranean norms’(Matza). I think those involving sex are the most tenacious subterranean norms.

@Suny

It seems that the mere fact that strength (or whatever else) is correlated with attractiveness makes it so that any activity where the goal is to display streength or be stronger is sexualization.

@Suny

Is there anything merely ‘correlated’ with attractiveness that isn’t sexualization?

Sexualization is context dependent, as stated before. Strength is not always sexual, say, in a medical exam.

I think that in many shows of strength there is an aspect of sexualization certainly. It affirms implicit rankings of desirability. Why would that be so problematic or abhorrent to you?

@AmadeusD

This borders on a Peterson quote:
“A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control.”

I think there’s a lot in that specific wee line.

Well, I think Peterson is quite essentialistic and in my reasoning I tend to be less so. I grant that material differences go some way and the ‘dangerous but self controlled’ line seems to reinforce a type of discipline we have indeed enforced on men. I am not much on board with that train of thought, I think it has doen a lot of harm in fact. It is a creed of all militaristic societies.

@AmadeusD

Perhaps I’m not groking your questions about constraint. Neither of these systems seems to be constrained by anything more than the chosen ratio of (in my case) aggression/control I wish to enact (or, alcohol).

I think that both the “dangerous but self controlled” line and the “demure but free spirited” line impose a heavy but not often articulated discipline and demand to conform. I think here sex (but this remark is more directed at Suny) is the carrot that makes this discipline work, especially for men. Be like this and get the girls. Women on the other hand are taught that they have to choose very carefully because their sexuality is not for simple enjoyment but should be traded. I think both are actually pernicious.

[Suny]

@AmadeusD

you’ll see that overt, perverted comments about male athletes are as common or more common (for legal reasons) than the same about female athletes.

That’s a good example (although I have no idea how true it is) but I don’t think that’s what Tobias is talking about. The perverted comments would be pretty explicit.

But you bring some good points, and this makes me realize I think we need to be more specific about who is doing the sexualization and when it is happening.

@AmadeusD

There is an explicit connection between feats of strength and sexual access.

What do you mean by that?

[AmadeusD]

@Tobias

It is a creed of all militaristic societies.

I cannot understand this at all. The line only relates to the fact that a man (whoever - it does not need to be a male) must be self-reliant, and protect those who cannot be. I see nothing militaristic, harmful or anything else in this. It seems a patent truism of getting on in life.

@Tobias

I think here sex (but this remark is more directed at Suny) is the carrot that makes this discipline work

I think it’s possible you’re not really getting the point of that quote, and my surrounding comments. Suffice to say there is nothing related to sex inherent in that line, beyond males being the protectors because they are inherently better at it. Nothing about imposition arises imo.

Neither of your posits following make any sense to me, in this light. It feels as if you’re trying to shoehorn sexual politics into something that has to do with basic human behaviour (i.e what do we find sexy, what sexual characteristics are unique in each sex etc…). The political dimension, I think, is something else. But i would also almost wholesale reject your thesis there too, so who knows if its worht delineating lol.

@Suny

we need to be more specific about who is doing the sexualization and when it is happening.

I certainly agree here. But do bear in mind, as we go, i have no problem with sexualisation. Ithink its a great aspect of human interaction. That’s why control is required.

@Suny

What do you mean by that?

It’s hard to know exactly what you want here. I shall try to give two reasons I think make that claim work:

Evolution requires that the genetic best has the most sex. This is a direct indicator of being genetically preferable, in a world of predators and having to move heavy shit like your game.

Culturally, feats of strength indicate many things such as status, resource acquisition etc.. But one thing it indicates, to a female, is that you are physically capable of giving them satisfaction. We could then talk about hte more directly cultural aspects like status, but I think for now, these two suffice.

Strong men tend to get more sex (and in the past, this was essentially definitionally true - currently, it’s just hte case that most women enjoy seeing men do difficult physical shit. It makes them horny).

Sex difference in attractiveness perceptions of strong and weak male walkers...

Women's Preferences for Strong Men Under Perceived Harsh Versus Safe...

[Suny]

@Tobias

Sexualization is context dependent

You can’t just add that as an asterisk to your definition. If I define “murder” as “killing of a person” and someone points out we don’t find self-defense kills as murder, it’s not so much that murder is “context dependent”; it’s that my definition isn’t precise enough.

Anyway, as I noted in my reply to AmadeusD, I think I haven’t been clear about who is doing the sexualization. Perhaps when we have “sports athletes are sexualized”, you are thinking about a group of people actually sexualizing them and I am thinking about a group of people not sexualizing them. In the nerd example, does that mean that the average person watching esports is sexualizing the players when watching?

@Tobias

It affirms implicit rankings of desirability

This is too broad. Hand washing affirms an implicit ranking that people who wash their hands are more desirable than people who don’t. But you aren’t sexualizing yourself when you wash your hands, are you?

[AmadeusD]

@Suny

Hand washing affirms an implicit ranking that people who wash their hands are more desirable than people who don’t.

I thnk you’re making a fairly fundamental error here in this analogy.
In yours ,there are two options: those who wash their hands, and those who don’t. There is an implicit preference for the former - so maybe it fails there too, but in any case… The former (i.e strength) is on a spectrum, which is relative to A. the person assessing the man, and B. the rest of hte spectrum. We’re not all Eddie Hall, but i can tell you I outdo the vast majority of random men when it comes to strength. So, Eddie Hall’s wife probably wouldn’t look twice at me. But plenty do. With hand-washing, it’s just a or b - there’s no real decision being made.

When it comes to desirability, that’s also a spectrum so there’s a formal match between the method of selection and strength as the variable being selected. No so with hand washing.

[Suny]

@AmadeusD

It’s hard to know exactly what you want here

It was not clear how you were replying to my question. I said stronger men are more attractive, sure; there is a correlation/link between sexual aspects and strength, but to me, this isn’t enough to say that when the average person watches men in sports competition, they are implicitly sexualizing the men. As far as I understand it, you are just saying that stronger men are more attractive; I don’t disagree.

@AmadeusD

With hand-washing, it’s just a or b - there’s no real decision being made.

I mean, you can have a spectrum of “cleanness of your hands” or “how much do you wash your hands”. So it’s not really about being a spectrum, but even if it wasn’t a spectrum, you can still have a ranking. You can meaningfully talk about a ranking with only 2 options.