Every time someone brings out a sexy ad with a half-naked model and starts complaining about objectification, I find that I have exactly two complaints.
Excessive airbrushing makes me angry. Fine, go ahead, tidy up the hair and get rid of acne. But it's completely unnecessary to photoshop a perfectly good body into a bobble-headed Barbie doll. American Apparel does very good business with a strict policy against photoshopping their ads. There's no reason any other company has to go overboard. But this is a topic for another day.
My other problem, and the one I'm going to discuss here, is that the half-naked person is almost always a woman.
I don't think that sexualization is demeaning or degrading. That belief is a very short step away from saying that sex is demeaning, which is bullshit. I do think that the objectification of women and women alone is responsible for a lot of problems.
I've heard some people say that equal objectification of men would just make the situation worse. Two wrongs don't make a right.
These people are wrong, and here's why.
Women are sexualized and objectified so much more than men because heterosexual male sexuality is the only sexuality that society acknowledges. This makes sense -- men have controlled the world for all of history, and so of course their sexuality is mainstream. There is nothing wrong with heterosexual male sexuality, but there is something wrong with a culture in which it is the only sexuality.
This is why society forgets that women like sex. We only have sex for expensive dinners and diamond rings and material gain. In this view, a promiscuous woman who doesn't care about these things much have something wrong with her. We have low self-esteem and daddy issues and obviously we are far too damaged and messed up to ever take home to Mom and Dad.
Girls making out is hot. Guys making out is gay.
Girls don't want sex, so it's our job to stop the boy from getting what he wants. And we all know boys only want one thing.
If we saw more half-naked male models plastered on the sides of buses and in the pages of magazines, we would have to acknowledge that men can be sex objects too. And if men are sex objects, then women (gasp!) must like sex.
Once society realizes this, a lot of sexual double standards will stop making sense. Furthermore, a society that can accept two kinds of sexuality is much more likely to accept two more kinds -- gay and lesbian.
If it's normal for women to enjoy sex, than "slut" stops being an insult. Women stop being forced into the role of gatekeeper, and teenage boys stop being treated as mindless hormone-controlled sex fiends. All in all this creates a society that is more respectful of both men and women.
Companies with equal opportunity objectification -- like these shopping bags -- should be applauded. Other companies should be encouraged to do the same thing. PETA uses naked men in some of their ads and should use them more often.
I will make two exceptions for places where equal objectification shouldn't really be expected.
The first is places that are very clearly catering to a certain demographic. Regardless of what you think of Hooters (and considering this website's audience, I doubt it's anything good) you can agree that their customers are almost entirely heterosexual males and they shouldn't be required to have sexy male waiters. (Although I might start eating there if they did.)
The second is individuals. Artists, writers, or anyone who makes art by themselves shouldn't be required to or castigated for failing to present a point of view that isn't their own. If they want to, they should go ahead and try, but arguing that an artist is sexist because he photographs a lot of naked women is ridiculous.
It's not the sexy pictures that are bad. It's the trend of only sexualizing women.
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. If you have links to any media that practices equal objectification I'd be interested in that as well.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Equal Objectification is Awesome.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11209
I agree completely and have been arguing for this for some time.
Another point is that objectification of women will never end, but mostly likely only become more commonplace in the future. That is the trend so-far. Male objectification is also on the rise and should continue to be.
When the 2 are close to equal (I acknowledge there are more lesbian/bi women then gay/bi men and women like looking at other women more then men like looking at men so I can understand if it isn't 100% equal) we will be able to make real progress on so many of the problems we have today related to sexism, etc. I look forward to it!
I don't know - it's just really hard for me to see the commodification of more bodies as a good thing. Reducing people to mere objects for our consumption seems like a negative trend.
I agree with you MOSTLY. I start to diverge around the Hooters argument. If Hooters started hiring "sexy male waiters" there would be the potential, on their end, for a wider customer base (as you pointed out yourself), and "equal opportunity objectification." Hypothetically, let's say advertisers, TV and movie execs, etc. take your advice. By excusing Hooters, or Spearmint Rhino (a strip club chain in southern California) or Playboy based on their business model, it could create a safe haven for sexism. It would give sexist het men a place to go where they could objectify the female without having to be all gay by also acknowleging the male. Not that these places wouldn't emerge, but allowing space for them in our experiment excuses the behavior.
One of the wonderful effects of what we're talking about could (hopefully) be an acknowledgement of homosexuality alongside hetero. Like you pointed out, girls=hot, guys=gay. But if we were more accustomed to seeing the male body, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal for men to acknowledge attraction to it. Giving places like Hooters an ideological pass undermines that part of the fight.
I don't really agree with you. It's just that I don't think the answer to sexism is more objectification of men. Seems to me that's merely adding to the pain and suffering in the world and seriously undermining feminist attempts at dialogue, sharing, etc. something about your argument seems not quite right and I'll come back to that later on, ok?
you also write:
If it's normal for women to enjoy sex, than "slut" stops being an insult. Women stop being forced into the role of gatekeeper, and teenage boys stop being treated as mindless hormone-controlled sex fiends. All in all this creates a society that is more respectful of both men and women.'
it is here that I do know what I object to exactly :) Here, as elsewhere, I can't help thinking what kinds of exclusionary mechanisms come into play when some women (or men, for that matter), in your ideal world, are just not into sex very much. Or, when your definition of normal female/male sexuality starts to acquire regulating and controlling aspects (which any definition of normalcy is very likely to do).
I don't know, but I do not think that the feminist cause will benefit from more objectification and yet other standards of female sexual 'normalcy'.
Ziggy, I agree with this
"I can't help thinking what kinds of exclusionary mechanisms come into play when some women (or men, for that matter), in your ideal world, are just not into sex very much."
And I think it is already a problem. While I agree that society is still unwilling to accept female sexuality in a lot of ways, I believe it is less ready to accept asexuality of women or men. The answer is a move away from pervasive sexualization. Like the original poster, I don't believe that sexualization is wrong, but I do believe its ubiquity and...worship is. Sex should be treated as a part of life, not as the best part or as all of it.
What I think the original poster gets wrong is that our culture does expect women to like sex, but to somehow pretend we don't or to restrain ourselves from it. Traditional male idealism of the "virgin whore" paradox is very common. It's when a women REALLY doesn't like sex or value it so highly, especially within an acceptable context like marriage that she considered a prude or a liar. I think that it must be much, much worse for men in the same position.
Indeed. I would think that a woman who "doesn't want sex" is thereby threatening masculinity. But, a woman who "takes" or pursues sex is doing just the same thing.
If only we could learn to buy/sell things based on the quality of the product and not the appearance of the person in the picture with it! Buy perfume because you like the way it smells, not because you want to roll about half naked in a field. Buy beer because you like the taste (or because it's the cheapest, whatever floats your boat), not because you think magic blonde, busty twins are going to pop out from behind the bar and go home with you.
While on the topic of advertising, I have to say, this Christmas I absolutely HATED the commercials from WalMart or whatever that promised if I bought a new television or video game system, my family would suddenly start spending more time together. And the slogan "Chase what matters?" So all that matters are my material goods? UGH.
Sorry. /soapbox.
I agree with the idea that we could develop other ways to sell products and ideas besides sex. Nothing wrong with it, but it does seem like there's a lot of pressure on both women and men to be sexually available and receptive all the bloody time or believe they are abnormal otherwise.
That's because it's still a male dominated society, and whether we like it or not most males are thinking about sex and wanting to look at it, do it, etc. pretty much all the time.
And in all fairness I have a very high sex drive too and I think about sex all the time too, but I know that my drive is above average for females, or at least that's the impression I get from this site.
I have a very strong sex drive too, and know a lot of other women who do also. This leads me to suspect that the whole women-don't-like-sex thing is a social construct of our particular culture. And if you look at other cultures and time-periods, you'll find a lot of variation in claims about women's sex drives, so this supports the claim that it's a social construct.
Oh, women are supposed to want sex, all right. We're supposed to want it when men want it and how men want it, but we're never, ever supposed to want it for ourselves. Clearer now?
Um, I guess I was never really unclear about this. Of course being interested in sex on a male timeframe and according to male preferences will be a part of the social construction of female sexuality in a patriarchal culture. And the fact that many women are not like this, but are made to feel like there's something wrong with them because of it, supports the social construction theory.
Incidentally, this is one of the huge issues I have with mainstream porn. The way female sexuality is constructed is ridiculous and very harmful, in my (somewhat unpopular) view.
I hate how naked=sexuality. I don't think ads represent men's sexuality, I think that it sort of redefines men's sexuality. So I don't think that ads with naked men is going to represent woman's sexuality, it's going to redefine it.
Not looking forward to the day when naked abs should give me a lady-boner.
And the existing ads only represent a very narrow version of female sexuality that's pretty inauthentic in my view. If faking it for the male gaze is all that female sexuality amounts to, then why would any woman ever be sexual? Obviously because they've been taught by their culture to only value themselves as a sexual being in this super narrow male-gaze-oriented way. Depressing.
But "lady-boner" made me giggle, so at least that helps me deal with the depression.
I think one of the reasons to wish for objectification of men, as a man, is that while taken too far it can definitely suck, some level of objectification can be a boost. Being desired or someone to be sought after can be a nice feeling, and it is one that men don't really experience because they aren't objectified. Like Sarah hints at above though, the objectification might not look like what we expect because women might not respond to the same form of objectifying messaging.
But I don't think that being desired and being objectified are the same thing.
True, I probably should not have kept the term, but it is used fairly loosely in the main post (and frankly, overused in general). On the other hand, if a guy stares (eyes full of lust/desire) at a woman, it is often considered objectification. I think many guys would be happy to have random women gaze at them and drool (figuratively). Admittedly such an action of objectification doesn't carry the same weight as it does in reverse since men are much more likely to stalk or sexually assault.
I think guys would like it at first until they started getting starred at when they're at work or walking down the street when they're dressed conservatively. Or by women 20 years older than them...
The problem with objectification is you don't get to choose when someone else is making you an object of affection. It's one thing to be in a bar or at a party when you're dressed sexy and someone is checking you out. It's another thing when you're at work, talking to boss or coworker and you realize you're being looked up an down even though you're dressed conservatively. For me, and most women I talk to, it feels like you're not being respected or taken seriously. I think even men would get sick of this after awhile.
I don't think that sexualization is demeaning or degrading. That belief is a very short step away from saying that sex is demeaning, which is bullshit.
I'm not sure how this follows. Being sexualized is being reduced to your sexuality, being portrayed as interesting only as a sex object, etc. What does this have to do with consensual, reciprocal sex where each partner sees the other as more than just a tool to get them off?
There is nothing wrong with heterosexual male sexuality
I think there's a lot wrong with the way our culture constructs male heterosexual sexuality. The script that men are taught to follow inherently portrays women as conquests, and objects to be acquired. This is perfectly illustrated by the fact that when a man goes out to the bar and hooks up with a woman he's "scored" or "hit that" while she's just passively allowed him to "hit that," making her a slut. Then there's the centrality of the male gaze... Yeah, I have a lot of problems with the way our culture constructs hetero male sexuality.
But beyond these two points, I think that objectification of anyone is problematic. Reducing an autonomous being to no more than an object for your consumption is problematic no matter who's doing it to whom. It amounts to treating somebody as merely a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves. That doesn't mean I think we can't treat people as a means to an end. If we couldn't do this then we couldn't have sex, hire people, learn from someone, etc. But treating them as an end in themselves also involves respecting them as a person with their own goals, desires, interests, life projects, etc. And that's what gets left out when we objectify someone.
I just thought of this so tell me what you think.
When we talk about objectifying in situations like this, it's because there is only the physical aspect of a person available for consideration. But really, that's partially out of necessity, because the whole situation means that you have to pick a person for a purely visual representation, typically in a purely visual context. There's no time for deeper meaning when you're selling something in 30 seconds, or just with a picture. So we can distinguish between saying that person X is only valuable for their appearance, and saying that person X is only valuable for their appearance in this context because that's the only value that that context allows for any person. Saying that a person has value based on their physicality doesn't imply that they have no other value, and needn't imply anything deeper as long as people realize what is happening in context. So basically, the more educated and progressive everyone is, the less of an issue this becomes. Which I suppose isn't adding much that we don't already know.
Plus I never bought the categorical imperative.
I've thought about this a lot too. It's true that visual advertising only works with images, so the physical appearance of a person will be central. But that doesn't account for the radically different way men are portrayed in advertising. Men are almost always portrayed as being active, of doing something interesting, serious, or powerful, even if they're also physically attractive. This is not the case for women. This web essay illustrates this brilliantly. Women are generally in passive poses, or acting silly and frivolous. They are presented as objects for the gaze rather than agents who are doing something while incidentally being attractive. Because of this difference men are not mere eye candy, but something more, while women remain passive objects for the consumption of the male gaze.
And about the categorical imperative... I am not a huge fan of Kant, but lately the second formulation is more appealing to me after teaching it repeatedly in contemporary moral issues and other applied ethics courses. I think it's nice in the way it clarifies the problem with objectifying women, exploiting third world workers, etc. It especially applies nicely to the exploitive labor practices problem. Paying somebody just enough money to keep them alive so they can keep working for you is basically viewing them as a tool to accomplish your goals. It denies the fact that they are autonomous beings with other interests outside of producing your goods. This provides a nice way to differentiate between exploitive and non-exploitive labor practices (if you believe there is such a thing), and between reciprocal, healthy relationships between people and unhealthy, objectifying relationships.
The first poster, Honeybee, mentioned this:
and women like looking at other women more then men like looking at men so I can understand if it isn't 100% equal)
This does seem to be general gist, and there are even very heterosexual women who tell me they prefer to look at a sexy woman over a sexy man any day.
I'm all for having pictures of sexy men in the media, which I feel will allow men to show a different facet of their sexuality (ie. how do men...act sexy?), but how do you overcome the hurdle of "women are pretty, men are just lumpy, hairy and ugly"? When insults begin with "She looks a little Man-nish", it doesn't exactly portray men (in general) as being beautiful in the first place.
Even if you give a picture of a toned, well-built naked man to a woman, sure, they might drool, but a fair few of them would also go "Eewwwwwwww. Nasty". Many women have also expressed their opinion to me how women are more interesting to look at because of curves, while men are just .... straight and how men have "nothing much to look at". Some have even said "men look better with their clothes on". You'd be hard-pressed to find heterosexual men who would wrinkle their nose in disgust at a picture of a naked woman, even if she is not "the ideal".
This could be because as a society, we're so used to seeing women as "the beautiful sex" (and hence, they are the objectified ones and appear in media more often, earn much more money as supermodels than their male counterparts, etc). While this means that women's bodies are always scrutinized, the flip effect is that men never get told how beautiful they are....and aside from a few men who make their looks their living or are celebrities, how often does the ordinary guy get compliments on his look?
I highly doubt that showing more naked men in the media will be met with a perfect standing ovation by heterosexual women everywhere. And I highly doubt that the big advertisers everywhere will rush to include naked men in their advertising to women. Sure, some women may thing "great!", but how confident are we that those women are the majority, instead of the exception? Do we assume that all women out there would be happy to see naked men in the media? Or do we assume that some of them might go "No thanks." and this might be a sizeable amount of women.
It just seems a bit too unrealistic that by doing this alone we can get rid of double-standards that have plague us for quite some time.
The degree of aversion to the naked male body in our society strikes me as near pathological. I'm sure that this is due to some extent to fear of the unfamilar and homosexual panic.
I'm all for having pictures of sexy men in the media, which I feel will allow men to show a different facet of their sexuality (ie. how do men...act sexy?), but how do you overcome the hurdle of "women are pretty, men are just lumpy, hairy and ugly"? When insults begin with "She looks a little Man-nish", it doesn't exactly portray men (in general) as being beautiful in the first place.
You overcome it by showing pictures of men who aren't lumpy, hairy and ugly? This argument about women being naturally 'prettier' just kills me - women are as flawed and diverse and human as guys are, and to act like the women you see draped across billboards are an accurate representation of the generic female form is laughable. People think naked women are prettier because on the mass-level we are only exposed to pretty naked women. Female nudity is presented as beautiful, whereas naked men are more commonly presented as humorous.
However, I think we are overcoming the taboo against sexual male nudity, albeit slowly. There are a lot more semi-nude and/or sexualised men on display on my high-street now than there would have been ten or even five years ago.
Even if you give a picture of a toned, well-built naked man to a woman, sure, they might drool, but a fair few of them would also go "Eewwwwwwww. Nasty". Many women have also expressed their opinion to me how women are more interesting to look at because of curves, while men are just .... straight and how men have "nothing much to look at". Some have even said "men look better with their clothes on".
To be fair, I have encountered this attitude in straight women before, but usually in very young women, or other women who seem uncomfortable with sexuality in general. I think that "Ewwwwwwww. Nasty" is a rather obvious indicator of immaturity, personally. Also, while I accept that there are some women who obviously do prefer the female form, arguing that women are more beautiful because they have curves has always struck me as parrotting the party-line, to be honest. Women tend to express this opinion in front of men as a way of ingratiating themselves. It's not the kind of thing I ever hear in a frank women-only discussion with my heterosexual peers.
I think that part of the problem is the way that the naked male body is perceived to be more overtly sexual than the female. We are so used to seeing nude or semi-nude women all over the place that in some instances they are seen as decoration rather than a naked human body. I think the women who dislike seeing naked men in the media are likely to be ones who dislike being confronted by any overt sexual content. However, a lifetime of naked women cropping up in all sorts of non-sexual situations has rather dulled our sense of surprise. If a woman thought "Ewwwwww, nasty!" Everytime she saw a naked woman she wouldn't be able to leave the house.
I highly doubt that showing more naked men in the media will be met with a perfect standing ovation by heterosexual women everywhere. And I highly doubt that the big advertisers everywhere will rush to include naked men in their advertising to women. Sure, some women may thing "great!", but how confident are we that those women are the majority, instead of the exception? Do we assume that all women out there would be happy to see naked men in the media? Or do we assume that some of them might go "No thanks." and this might be a sizeable amount of women.
Is anything ever met with a perfect standing ovation? Nonetheless, I think that the scenario described is more or less what is actually happening. Lately, I seem to be encountering more and more acknowledgement of the female gaze, and I personally find it very satisfying. Unfortunately, I think that this increase in male-centred sexual imagery is part of an increase in sexual-objectification in general, which makes me uneasy. I think we could all do with a break from the constant use of sex in advertising - give us some time to sort out the difference between objectifiying and desiring.
I think a lot of that is caused by socialization.
Here's a great article on the subject:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/lifeandstyle/lifematters/women-better-than-men-at-controlling-their-lust/2009/01/01/1230681717881.html
Women who will look at a photo of an attractive naked man and say "ewwww, nasty" seem like they have to be kind of immature. If it's not their kettle of fish they could find a better way to say so. A heterosexual woman who is grossed out by the male body clearly has some thinking to do. Either she's not actually heterosexual or she's really out of touch with her sexuality.
People do see women as "the beautiful sex" and it's because we're so used to only ever seeing women sexualized. I don't think our society could reach equal objectification overnight, and if it did I think the reaction might be mixed. If the process happens slowly and gives people more time to get used to it, the (sexist) idea of women as the only beautiful sex would be eroded, which is kind of the point.
I believe that to some extent, women, especially younger women, act grossed out or uncomfortable with deceptions of male sexuality because they're uncomfortable with their own sexuality, or because they know society expects them to not be turned on, so they won't reveal it to other people. If I was made to believe that images of attractive, shirtless men are "gay" or "homoerotic," than I would be uncomfortable admitting I enjoy them as a straight female. And there is a subtle but widespread cultural belief that the male body as a sex object is purely homosexual in nature.
Secondly, the "women are pretty because they have curves" argument drives me insane on so many levels, but especially because the male body does have curves and points of interests and lots to look at. One of my favorite features on men is the shoulder and upper arm area. In general, even non muscular men have more prominent muscles than females in those regions. And muscles look soft and curved, as well as varied and interesting. I don't understand how people can make that argument seriously. The human body of a typical person for both both genders is comprised almost entirely of "curves" and not straight angles. I feel like I'm ranting but GOD that claim makes me wanna shake people.
People are wondering if there is indeed a general preference by both sexes toward female images. Maybe. But the extent to which any preference relates to innate sexuality is unclear. Some people think that female sexuality is more fluid, meaning that women as well as men are generally accepting of female imagery, including nudity. But others suggest that these preferences might be related to something completely unrelated to sex. For example there might be some hardwiring left over from when we were babies to pay more visual attention to females because that's where the next meal was coming from; or in the case of toddlers in gatherer societies (where we all came from long ago), following mom or auntie or big sis (thus forcing you to keep your eye on the female folk) was important to not getting left behind. And certainly cultural conditioning can plant the seed and reinforce preferences as well.
Now, I too am uncomfortable with the "fighting fire with fire" solution of equal objectification. For one thing I don't think it's wise to leave something so important (sexual equality) to individuals whose primary motive is profit. In fact this is how we got to a point where women can be paid for serving coffee topless yet fined and harassed for topless sunbathing in a park. ABSURD!
Secondly, men *in general* have not proved to be particularly empathetic when faced with some of the same media hardships that women have traditionally dealt with. For example, more and more men are complaining about men on TV being depicted as bumbling fools and clueless fathers. Instead of recognizing a common goal, the trend is to blame feminism for this new era of equal opportunity buffoonery in the media.
I do agree with the other posters that change is happening, albeit slowly. I would hope though that change also means that we can at least step back from the constant barrage of sexualized imagery especially since we can't seem to agree on how to nurture authentic sexuality in our young people. And if people do feel the need to use sex to send a message, can we swap out some of those lone images of women for gay and straight couples?
Sexuality seem like something that is so deeply influenced and shaped by cultural forces that I can't even begin to wrap my head around a phrase like "innate sexuality." And I've heard the theory that female sexuality is more fluid, but it seems pretty suspicious to me. It seems more likely that women are socialized to be empathetic, nurturing, pleasing to whomever they're with, etc, and this leads them to be more accepting of female imagery. That and the fact that being a lesbian does not carry the same kind of stigma as being gay, so women aren't taught from childhood to be homophobic like men are.
I don't think it's wise to leave something so important (sexual equality) to individuals whose primary motive is profit.
I couldn't have said it better.
See, I have a totally different point of view. Stop making sexuality about objectification, and half naked pictures would disappear for everybody.
Boggles the mind, I know.
The other thing is that half naked pictures of men, even fully clothed pictures of men, are not like pictures of women. Men are posed more assertively, whereas women are posed more passively and more decoratively. Men are more often shown standing, whereas women are more often shown reclining. The half naked pictures of men that exist extol the same male-defined sexuality that the pictures of women do. More of them will not change the balance of power. More of them will not eliminate power as the underlying definition of sexuality.
Men are posed more assertively, whereas women are posed more passively and more decoratively. Men are more often shown standing, whereas women are more often shown reclining.
Exactly. This web essay illustrates this perfectly.
My view on the whole issue is that objectification is inherently negative in its definition, and that encouraging any kind of objectification in an attempt to reach equilibrium is counter-productive.
I agree with the last post claiming that male sexuality is often demonstrated with assertiveness and power in comparison to the passive sex-object roles women play (apart from when playing the stigmatised role of the sexually powerful woman), but also wish to draw attention to the fact that many objectified men are also ridiculed in the media, often finding themselves in roles with similar, if not equal, levels of degradation.
The common references to male impotence, lack of sexual stamina, premature ejaculation, insufficient penis size and the ever potent 'humorous inability to adhere to female standards of sexual desirability', are all very demeaning and give many men with completely normal sexual potence very distinct complexes.
Based on these trends, i personally can see absolutely no benefit from allowing trends of objectification to continue. I see sexuality outside of the context of love, trust and companionship to be almost unanimous with objectification of various degrees of intensity, and consider all objectification to be a deplorable concept that we should endeavour to weed out of our psyches.
But i could be wrong.
"I see sexuality outside of the context of love, trust and companionship to be almost unanimous with objectification of various degrees of intensity"
Are you saying that casual sex is objectification and therefore bad? That doesn't really make sense.
In effect yes, but i did say albeit with 'varying degrees of intensity'.
And why is casual sex so laudable anyway?
Surely sex is far too powerful an act to be so easily reduced to status of 'casual' without some psychological and emotional consequences, obviously again with some varying degrees of intensity.
I don't think there's anything wrong with casual sex.
Saying that casual sex is objectification betrays a deep misunderstanding of sexuality. If two people want to have sex with each other and they don't want to have a relationship, there's nothing wrong with that.
I am curious as to what exactly i am 'deeply misunderstanding' about sexuality.
I will, at this point, reiterate my previous statement:
"Surely sex is far too powerful an act to be so easily reduced to status of 'casual' without some psychological and emotional consequences..."
I do refute the idea that 'no-strings-attached' sex is in some way positive. With no relationship in mind, it is psychologically akin to masturbation- the involvement of another person in that equation reduces them to masturbatory object or accessory. This is objectification.
How many times does casual sex actually occur between two people with mutual respect for each other? 9 times out of 10 the situation involves one person desperate to get their end off with something that fits into their idea of aesthetic acceptability.
This is obviously my personal opinion on the matter, but i have heard few arguments that can convince me personally that casual sex is anything other than counter-productive for achieving sexual equality and mutual respect between the sexes.
You're thinking of sex as a commodity. You're treating sex as something one person gives to another. That's not how it works. Sex is an exchange between two people. You give your partner pleasure, and your partner returns the favor.
If casual sex is basically masturbation using another person, and both people involved are doing the exact same thing, I don't think you can argue that it's unfair to either of them. If they're both attempting to pleasure each other, I don't think it's fair to call it "masturbation."
Do you have any actual statistics or just made-up numbers?
Nothing of your response seems to counter anything that i've written.
All of which i've said has been a personal opinion on the matter. My use of numbers in my argument is not an attempt to validate my theories, merely an illustration of the trends i see around me and observe. I theorise based purely on what i see as logical, not what i read in opinion polls.
Seeing sex as a series of exchanged favours is something i find thoroughly depressing and i am sure many people would object to that perception also.
However, despite our differences here, i can sense a difference of opinion that would require extreme turnarounds in our core beliefs to concede and agree on something, so i would rather leave it at that, because i am quite bored of arguing with people on forums- particularly forums populated purely by people with the same basic principles such as this one.
There's all kinds of things we "exchange". What makes sex so different? IT is just an act, after all.
Sex cannot be a 'casual' act- it is a very potent expression. A very raw and powerful act that should not be treated lightly. It is used all around us to control, objectify and humiliate us, turning us into an incredibly fucked up species. To say that sex in its purest form- actual coitus between two people- is an inert, harmless exchange is to grossly underestimate its potency.
Aside from my own personal distaste for the idea of sex without mutual respect and love, I truly believe that our culture's casual attitudes towards sex does little more than enhance the levels of sexism and inter-sexual segregation.
Equal objectification is not awesome.
I do not believe that by putting men in our shitty role - regarding sexuality - will make ANYTHING more "equal". There are too aspects that drive me crazy about the exploitation of womens nudity/sexuality/body in all sorts of industries.
1: The problem is not the belief that ONLY womens sexuality sells, BUT the belief that ONLY sex sells. I know putting a really gorgeous perfectly airbrushed woman next to a can of tuna might turn the tuna can into a more attractive product.. but I mean come on marketing people and creative directors! get a little creative! there are other ways to sell!
2: I as a woman feel so much pressure, because it seems like all I can give is sex, and be perfect, and work on my cellulite, and lose weight, and the stupid media confronts us with these women everyday - women whom we/I will never look like, to whom men are attracted, and Im not only talking about them being pretty and airbrushed, Im talking about their attitude and behavior in TV shows, commercials, etc...
What i am going to say might sound really gender-inappropriate, but I hope you do not miss my point: The role of women in the media is changing . Yes. From housewives we have know emancipated and turned into sluts.
So I think now the message being sent is even a worse one, cuz now our only "weapon" seems to be our sexuality, the only thing we are taken into account for. That is the problem you get, when the media repetitively portrays you in only ONE way - a sex symbol.
And trust me, I would not like men to be in our situation either..
Perhaps you need to turn off your television. ;)