The effect of increasing sexualization of women in the media

[paulpablo]

I don't know if this thread topic is the same as what I'm about to talk about but I watched tv shows which I don't normally do but I was at a girls house who was watching them, and I quickly got fucking annoyed that every single show has excruciatingly good looking people in.

show about ghosts, the ghosts are like models, show about geeks, a lot of the geeks are like models, show about vampires, they're all like models, show about a beast, the beast is like a model. show about rock bands, they all look like models.
Hollyoaks a tv show in the uk is the worst example of this.

But obviously it works for them because it gets the ratings but yeh I agree that it causes body dis satisfaction, not from me because I don't even watch these shows and I like the way I look but because I've seen other studies done on this type of thing. I remember reading it in a book about psychology where it did studies on whole islands of people before and after television was introduced to their community and the levels of eating disorders.

[Gilgamesh]

What is inherently wrong about being portrayed as sexy? What is wrong with a woman displaying sex appeal? I'm not a fan of sexual repression.

[Esquilax]

What is inherently wrong about being portrayed as sexy? What is wrong with a woman displaying sex appeal? I'm not a fan of sexual repression.

Nothing, so long as there's a character behind it that's more than an irritating mishmash of stereotypes and cliches. That's the difference between sexy and sex object; there's effort put into sexy.

[Violet]

You barking at me isn't real communication. It's simply you patting yourself on the back for you perceived superiority. That isn't the way to share information or come to any sort of understanding of the other persons position.

Would you prefer I bark? I make for a rather good dog, if you ask me.

So sorry to have upset your sensibilities... would you prefer I also simply dismiss any and all arguments you made while telling you that you're not 'really communicating'?

I wasn't taught anything about feminism. I've had to come to my own conclusions. I am a college educated woman, perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Thanks! Here you demonstrate precisely the reason I don't wish to try to continue our conversation.

I also wasn't born on Earth: something we have in common! What a cool coincidence, right?

Who was forcing you to come to your own conclusions? Why do your conclusions look to be so much like other people's conclusions (so much so that you even use their arguments, and not yours, when pressed)?

I thought you said that you weren't taught anything about feminism, who had to come up with her own conclusions... and yet here you are: a college educated woman! Thanks!

Here you bring forward yet another dismissal of any conversation starting... you've been so awfully busy with not conversing: it's a wonder that you have time to make snappy condescension And I mean... I could go on not-talking to you forever, without ever becoming bored... or you could take the plunge, and maybe think about something for a change... and maybe make another think about something new for a change.

Maybe (<random insult so that you know it's actually an insult, something about doubts and existentialism (deep stuff, right?)>). But hey, we can't all fish for pants: someone's gotta weave the baskets!

---

Nothing, so long as there's a character behind it that's more than an irritating mishmash of stereotypes and cliches. That's the difference between sexy and sex object; there's effort put into sexy.

Sexy doesn't necessarily have to be an effort

Objects can have sexual value, though... 'sexy' is used to refer to an object with a high enough sexual value to capture one's interest, whereas 'sex object' is either an object that is solely/largely valued for its sexual value (overlap with sexy), or a (usually derogative) colloquialism for an personality-having object that's sexually available (often to the point where the object is depersonified), typically with the sexual value of the object holding the highest value when one is regarding such.

That... was a mouthful. Like a laffy taffy when you're sick!

[Dena]

What is inherently wrong about being portrayed as sexy? What is wrong with a woman displaying sex appeal? I'm not a fan of sexual repression.

Nothing at all!! That isn't at all what I've been talking about here. Portraying women as sexual beings and portraying them as body parts that exist solely for the satisfaction of men are two different things. The first one is accurate and healthy. The second is a dangerous distortion. The latter is really a form of sexual repression. It strips women of their own sexual identity, their own desires, their own right for sex and makes them silent inanimate objects.

So yeah, that's my point.

[Tonus]

Nothing, so long as there's a character behind it that's more than an irritating mishmash of stereotypes and cliches. That's the difference between sexy and sex object; there's effort put into sexy.

I'm guessing that a magazine cover is designed to elicit a visceral response. The only mood they're concerned with is whether it gets you in the mood to buy the issue. :p

[Doubting Thomas]

Showing tits on TV causes men to rape women, and more misogynist rapist-apology nonsense, tonight at 11.

That's actually what anti-porn advocates want you to think. Here in Kansas they tried to get a law passed where if there was a sex crime, other violent crime, or domestic disturbance, law enforcement officers would be required to note if any "pornography" were present. The problem is that "pornography" was defined in such loose terms that even a picture of classic paintings such as Botticelli's The Birth of Venus or a DVD of just about any Hollywood movie with a nude scene would be classified as pornography. The intent was to collect (and inflate) statistics on pornography found at crime scenes so that anti-porn advocates could point to these statistics and say "See? Wherever there's pornography there is crime!" Of course the statistics don't tell you if the "porn" has any at all relation to the crime or how much pornography is being viewed where crime isn't occurring. It's all about asserting correlation = causation.

Luckily the bill was defeated, which was actually surprising to me. But be real skeptical the next time you hear pornography/crime correlation statistics.

[Gilgamesh]

Nothing at all!! That isn't at all what I've been talking about here. Portraying women as sexual beings and portraying them as body parts that exist solely for the satisfaction of men are two different things. The first one is accurate and healthy. The second is a dangerous distortion. The latter is really a form of sexual repression. It strips women of their own sexual identity, their own desires, their own right for sex and makes them silent inanimate objects.

So yeah, that's my point.

How does one tell the difference? Is what constitutes the difference subjective?

Yeah, it's all bullshit.