Is this argument valid?

[ArmyDad]

We have a teenage dd and a ds who is a couple of years younger. Ever since she has been in that adolescent phase she has had posters on her wall, all normal stuff but mainly of one of the twilight actors who in the poster is topless. So far no problems, as far as I'm concerned this is, as I said normal teenage stuff.

DS on the other hand has always had footie posters until recently when he put up a poster of a glamour model, not topless just in a bikini. DW has taken it off of his wall saying it is sexist and objectifies women. When DS pointed out that this is unfair as his sister has a couple of topless blokes on her wall DW's argument was that as he was an actor and DS likes the films it is different i.e. he is on the wall essentially advertising the film.

So is it valid or does this seem a little unfair on DS?

I think your son is right

If he can't have scantily clad women your daughter shouldn't be allowed scantily clad men.

I have to disagree with the 'rounded character' nonsense. That would be believable if the poster in the girls room was clothed, but it isn't. She's not interested in the character, she's interested in the chest, otherwise it wouldn't be a topless poster.

I think making this different between the sexes is bullshit, personally, the two situations are exactly the same.

If the topless man poster is all about the story and the character, then the DW won't mind making her dd change it to one that doesn't feature a topless man, and the dd won't mind being asked to remove it either as it clearly won't make any difference.

If you are asking your dd to remove her poster too, then it's fine for your DW to have removed the picture of the woman in a bikini. If not, then it's double standards and its incredibly unfair on your ds.

Ofc it's different, there's no such thing as sexism against men. Teenage boys can and do objectify women, a teenage girl cannot objectify a grown man.

A poster of a topless male actor does not say anything about your son's place in the world. A poster of a woman in a bikini does say something about your daughter's place in the world. How can you not get that?

If it was about displaying posters of people they fancy it would be unfair. But it's about more than that.

Objectification is not about sexual attraction and it's not just about body image either. Girls cannot objectify men.

Ofc it's different, there's no such thing as sexism against men

Absolute rubbish.

Just like the 'white people can't be victims of racism'.

Hmmmmm I'd hate it but he has a point so I think the topless actor would have to go too.

But then as the athena poster above points out, where is the line?

More productive would be to make it clear to him that you disapprove and there will be a line drawn at nudity and WHY you disapprove, how objectifying it is and that girls with half a mind of their own will think he's a pervy scummer with poor taste if they see it

Rinabean, that is absolute tripe.

There is no difference. Same rule for both. It's not advertising the film, it's advertising the 'hunk' in the film. Both are about objectification, both are wrong.

This is a perfect example of the inequality that is accepted in the world. Many women see the objectification of women abhorrent, far less consider the objectification of men to be abhorrent.

No such thing as sexism against men

So I imagined all those "my DDs keyworker is male he must be a peedo right?" threads?

The Chippendales never existed?

I imagined that male actors in half the films these days have no talent but are getting prettier?

Total tosh

ob·jec·ti·fy

? degrade to the status of a mere object.

I am sure thousands of women looked at David Beckham in his underwear and thought about how good he was at football and praised him for inspiring kids out from behind their consoles and out into the fresh air doing sports.

Agree with your ds.

I think your DS has a point.

But your DW has sort of got a point as well, although her argument is a bit bollocks.

Objectification of either sex is wrong in general; but it's not really men who suffer for it in every day life, is it? It's women.

There are of course times when men suffer from sexism - but they're really only a tiny percentage of the times women suffer from sexism. Still wrong on both counts, but it's pretty much a daily occurrence for many women, in all walks of life; and probably not the case for nearly all men.

What is the harm in either of the posters, your wife is being ridiculous.
I have four sons and have never seen any harm of them having pictures of (generally) attractive women on their walls, how they view women generally is down to the way they have been brought up. By removing his poster you are implying that by looking at glamour models he is likely to grow up to have an undesirable attitude to women.

Ask DS if he knows the name of the woman and what she does? If not it's up for the wrong reasons! X

There's a structural difference between the treatment of women and men in society and this extends to the visual. Women have been demeaned and objectified for centuries, treated as possessions or children. There's a tradition of seeing them as passive objects of the male gaze, rather than subjects. The same is not true for men. This is why it is different. You might enjoy Laura Mulvey's classic essay on the subject, 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema'.

Not right to remove one not the other.

So long as DS doesn't put up one of those awful soft porn pictures with the womans hands in the top of her knickers.

I think they should both be allowed any posters they like.

I don't think objectifying men at the same time as telling them not to do it to women is going to do women any favours with regards to the sexism they face.

how they view women generally is down to the way they have been brought up.
Yes, that's why they have posters on their walls.

Horacce, Miranda Kerr is not a glamour model. She is a fashion model of standard fashion model proportions who sometimes models underwear. She also runs an organic skin care business, which may be neither here nor there, but she isn't a glamour model and became a fashion model in the usual way.

I think OP it is where you draw the line. I would not allow a poster of a glamour model even if she was fully clothed in a 19th century deep sea divers outfit, because I consider glamour models to be part of the sex industry and the sex industry objectifies women. If it is a photo of a fashion model, singer or actress in a bikini, that is fine unless there is something hyper sexualised about the shot.