Is it any wonder women are sexually objectified when so many celebrities volunteer to be?

[Notsosure1]

I’ve posted about this topic before , but after seeing two pop up shortly after scrolling, I am staggered by the number of articles that pop up on yahoo news that have headlines ‘celebrating’ (objectifying) female celebrities, young and old - here’s the first two of many -

‘Sabrina Carpenter is completely naked in new magazine cover, posing in nothing but thigh high socks’ (Cosmopolitan)

‘Stacey Solomon is the ultimate Bond girl in slinky swimsuit as she holidays without Joe Swash’
(Hello)

We’re trying to teach the younger generation of girls not to accept being viewed simply as sexual objects but there’s an abundance of mainstream female celebrities doing just that and are being cheered on for doing it. Talk about mixed messages. Yeah to body confidence and positivity, of course you can be viewed as sexy as well as intelligent, kind, independent etc. but I can’t believe there are still so many of these out there with such sleazy titles. There are a few focussing on men (I presume) but way down in number by comparison.

Am I over-reacting?

There’s lots of things I wouldn’t do for free, whats wrong with that. Saying that I will sunbathe topless, the naked body really doesn’t bother me.
Nobody is offering to pay Ed Sheeran naked photo shoots because there’s not a market for it, I’m out of touch with who’s really popular today but I should imagine 90s Robbie Williams, Beckham or today Harry Styles would all have been offered shoots like this.

Nobody is offering to pay Ed Sheeran naked photo shoots because there’s not a market for it

Erm, why do you think that is...

Attractiveness, like I said people like 90s Robbie Williams or Beckham will have been offered the same shoot.

Choicy choicy “feminism” will always benefit men in the long run. And it’s thanks to the rise of that kind of “feminism” that we are where we are now.

It’s about creating a world where it simply wouldn’t occur to a woman, just as it doesn’t to a man, to do this kind of thing. That we would look back and realise that things have changed for the better. That’s not where we are now. This album cover and photo shoot demonstrate that very clearly.

I have never - and I thank God for this - seen either pose in the way Carpenter is doing in Rolling Stone

Well you’re right when you say there’s not a market for it. The market is very much for pretty, eager to please, and be desired by all and sundry, young women.

And if they ‘would have’ been offered, these men didn’t take the offers up did they!

Anyone would think there wasn't a market for attractive men...

Yes there’s a market for attractive men but please tell me the male equivalent of Sabrina Carpenter, cavorting about in scanty clothing with their arse hanging out?

Apart from Sam Smith 😁

I can't remember the last time I saw an attractive man being dragged towards someone's crotch by his hair

No idea, I don't keep up with pop culture but it's often a surprise when people dismiss women and girl's hormones. Young teenage girls weren't screaming at the Beatles just because they liked the music. There's also a huge gay market for attractive, sexualised men.

Stacey Solomon looks lovely in the couple of photos I've just seen.

I dont think Sabrina Carpenter needed to try and be so outrageous. She is talented and beautiful without it.

Well, that’s an interesting point. Magazines aimed at gay men often feature half dressed men.
Magazine aimed at women and girls tend not to, even if their readership is mainly heterosexual women and girls.

So this level of sexualisation and nudity is being driven by men, perhaps?

When it comes to female singers….it seems to be that if the music is sh1te they just take a few more clothes off.
Dusty never even had to show a leg!

How do we know this is Sabrina’s choice? She’s a former Disney child star who is used to being told what to do. We all know the music industry is run by toxic males and history tells us that many young female stars have been used up and thrown away once they pass their sell by date.

The revolting photo on her new album cover just reminds me of the things Sean Combs is currently in court for.

If she really is in control of her own image then she should have read the room.

Excellent post

I always found women's magazines were predominantly aimed at making yourself more attractive: make up, bath products, hair, clothes and diets. Pushing you to spend money and fulfil your role as an adornment. Some focused on taking down other women and others were quite sexual but that didn't include male nudes.

Of course this level of sexuality is driven by men: stripping, selling sex and simulating sex acts aren't being done for women. Women are packaged and sold as a product. Look at women in film. A huge percentage of roles are supporting men and you're finished at 35 because you're no longer considered fuckable.

If you skip to 4min 20 and 8min 40 you’ll see men have most definitely been sold on there good looks. I was about 13 when I first watched this. And no I’ve not seen a photo of Robbie Williams, naked, dog lead. He did pose naked for magazines though, Take That’s first video had them arses out covered in jelly. It’s not for everyone but there’s always been a market for this.. Aimed at girls as well as boys, it’s not for everyone but there’s clearly a market and aslong as people are like Sabrina Carpenter are making these decisions for themselves then fine by me.

I agree completely.

We pretend and do faux naiveté when it comes to differences between men and women. But men and women ARE different. Male humans have an inbuilt drive to impregnate as many females as possible to carry on their genes. Women do not have this innate drive. Yes of course we're now civilised people, we're not cavemen anymore.

But in biological terms, men are the "Hunters" when it comes to sex. So sex with benefits or whatever the hell you're supposed to call it, "fuck buddies" I suppose, will likely suit a male : they're tapping into their raw instincts without having to remember their societal courtesy that we've been teaching them for decades now. (?going backwards aren't we)

And women are designed to "bond" with a male during and after mating so that they'll stick around for their offspring. Hence we're "choosier" (or supposed to be when it comes to sex, as instincts wise, we want the best sperm fertilising our eggs ). So...my whole point being : "fuck buddies" stuff Is designed for males. We're all mammals at the end of the day, and the female instinct will be to form an attachment. Hence will end up hurt (whether they admit to it out loud or not )

It's convenient to pretend these raw biological instincts have been eradicated by the education and civilisation of society - but that would be extremely naive and a tad ignorant too.

In conclusion: we've gone backwards

This isn’t about being attractive, this is about overt female (performative) sexualising of their music image, when men rarely go down that route. We never saw Paul McCartney in a g string rolling around the floor suggestively. I don’t think gay men sexualising themselves for other men is much different really is it, it’s all for the men.

There are, and have been, many attractive and successful women in music who have not needed to cavort about simulating sex almost nude, to be considered attractive and successful.

You have your reasons for defending it and I have mine for being against it. As is, of course, both our rights.

And there’s a lot of truth in ‘men want sex to feel loved and women need to feel loved to have sex. Obviously not in every case but there is a huge amount of proof in that just on MN.

Oh not you again. You were one of the bullies on the previous thread. Do not comment on my posts just to pick up where you left off and leave me alone.

Just for the others on this thread: this person tried to drag up my past (which includes low self esteem, many mistakes when I turned to alcohol, I no longer drink for the record) and attempted to get people to do advanced searches on me to Shame me.

Like a previous poster: I did indeed live for the male gaze and allowed men to use me and sought validation through sex , shamefully. I'm now a reformed "pearl clutcher" if you want to call it that.

I did think it was a strange and unnecessary response to your post.

@SquashedMallow You're leaving out socialisation which is a huge part of sexuality. Some cultures have practices that completely revolve around controlling women's sexuality. FGM, loose clothes, face coverings, so called honour based violence, shaming are all strategies to control. A family's honour can be tied up in the 'purity' of women.

We have the virgin/whore dichotomy where women are divided into good and bad. Bad women enjoy sex. Bad women are slut shamed and blamed for rape and sexual assault. Women's sexual desires are rarely accounted for. In some communities you're not supposed to mention sex at all.

Feminism helped women regain control over their sexuality but that was soon made palatable and repackaged for the patriarchy. Now you have hypersexualised women talking about feeling 'empowered' as they make money for male executives and feed into male fantasies.

Thankyou. This poster had a real axe to grind with me on the FWB thread. Her posts became sinister, trying to use passive aggressive 'tit bits' of information I'd previously given about myself on a thread where I was giving advice to someone on living sober. It was very creepy and sinister as I say.

This person will pick up where she left off and state that I called the previous OP a "wank bucket" I can assure you I did not. Just like on here, I was demonstrating how men perceive women who are (in my mind) victim to these arrangements, Like I used "collection of holes" earlier up thread. It does not imply in any way shape or form that I am labelling women those things. Just to put that one to bed before that person 'starts' again.

Great points. So, I guess in conclusion we've made no progress really, it's just packaged differently....