Sexual objectification of men

[DSM]

Maybe not feminism, but not sure where else to post..

Am I alone in being uncomfortable with the sexual objectification of men? Was just watching this morning where holly willoughby was interviewing some young chaps from the new twilight film.

Commments such as 'within the first minute you had your top off and I though 'oh yes, there it is'' and 'we've all been waiting a long time to see your sex scene'. There were many references to their bodies, their beauty and the fact they get naked, all met with 'phwoarr' type comments.

I felt like the men were being objectified, and if it had been a man making those comments to a woman on daytime tv, all hell would break loose.

Why is it accepted from female-male? Surely in the interest of equality this kind of behaviour shouldn't be acceptable to/from either sex?

Am I over reacting?

I dislike the sexual objectification of men but I don't think it's the same. I would probably be more vehement in my objection to it if it were backed up by a constant drip-feed of imagery and messages telling boys that their whole identity was connected to their looks.

When Action Man comes with twenty different outfits and the assurance that they will make him look "hot" then I'll start worrying.

As a rule, I think feminists are the least likely to sexually objectify men. Because obviously we're, like, awesome

Also, what OrmIrian said, objectification of either sex is just stupid, because it's just plain tacky and superficial.

It's generally accepted because

a) women can't rape men, so it's not as threatening

b) men aren't operating in a culture of being constantly told that the most important thing about them, is the way they look

c) what tethersend said - it's just another way of justifying objectification of women and then pretending that because it happens occasionally on the X factor to men, boys are subjected to the same amount of sexual harassment as girls are, they're bieng raped or sexually assaulted at the rate of 1 in 4, they're being denied promotions because they're not sexy enough/ too sexy, they're being made to feel afraid or embarrassed on the streets by women calling at them from cars... oh wait, that's not happening to men, is it?

It is as tacky and revolting as when it happens to women, but it is not as harmful to men as a group, because men as a group aren't asked to justify why Frankie on the X Factor is such a knob in the way women are a group are asked to justify Jordan being a knob. Frankie is not perceived as a representative of a large group of men, he is just perceived as Frankie, whereas Jordan is perceived as a representative of a large group of women and we are constantly being told to account for her.

And the sort of women who enjoy it, are generally not feminists as they are responding with a "sauce for the goose" reaction, rather than an analytical political one. Which is one approach to dealing with the constant sexism to which women are subjected, but I would argue that it's not a feminist approach.

Have any of the arguments on this thread been of interest to you DSM?

ER - that's a really good post :)

Everyone that has argued that it is not acceptable, everyone that has not tried to excuse the behaviour as acceptable because it's 'worse for women'.

Those interest me, as I agree with them.

I find it really very off when people are justifying sexually objectifying men, purely because it's worse for women? Surely if men see women making such comments they are more likely to think it acceptable to make the same sort back, therefore facilitating sexism?

Sexism is sexism, regardless of which sex it is directed toward. It should not be accepted in any form, regardless of history.

Those interest me, as I agree with them.

Are you only interested in arguments you agree with then? Not keen on having your ideas challenged at all?

A dislike of sexual objectification always comes down to pure selfishness on my part - how does it make me feel. And it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I work with men. Almost entirely. Always have, probably always will. Which is fine as long as the atmosphere in the workplace is largely asexual. We are all co-workers, my sex and theirs is irrelevant. If people were leering at a Pirelli calendar in the office the atmosphere would change and I would feel uncomfortable and at a disadvantage. Ditto if it was a naked male calendar. And that isn't because I am a prude. I might well be, I don't much care, but it's because sexuality changes the work place from a gender-neutral space to one in which I am 'different', in some way standing outside the main group.

And I think that is probably true of a lot of women in all kinds of environments.

Have you read where people say WHY it's worse for women, context, history etc?

What do you think of those viewpoints?

Yes, we all agree all objectification is wrong, and no one is trying to JUSTIFY it being done to men.

Hellsbells - bloody hell, no I am not in the least bit interested in considering changing my moral stance on what I find unacceptable sexist behaviour. I actually find it appalling that people are trying to argue that sexual objectification is worse for women simply due to the oppression women suffered (and still do).

This does not make it okay to do it back.

Yes of course I am aware of the history Sinical, thanks, and if you read this thread you'll see many comments relating to it 'not being as bad when women do it to men'.

Sexism is not okay. I don't care who it is directed toward.

DSM you don't sound as if you have read the thread at all.

I haven't read one post that justifies "objectifying men back"

But you are insisting that it's wrong.

No one's arguing with you about that

They are broadening the debate to include references to the social context in which this objectification happens. But you're not interested in that, so I don't think you're going to learn very much. Keep calm and carry on.

"Sinical - IMO it isn't right to sexually objectify men simply based on their looks, and I am not comfortable with the thought process that it's not as bad because men haven't had the same history as women.

Much like it's not more acceptable to be racist toward a white person because they haven't had the same history as black people.

I believe in equality and don't think it's appropriate"

DSM - I cant really relate to your thoughts on this subject, it is (alongside your mention of racism) too complex a subject, imo, to be meaningfully discussed without the context of the fact we are living in a patriarchal society (just as i dont think you can discuss racism against white people in any meaningful way without looking at the imbalance of power in favour white people).

But I would like to thank you for starting this thread in this section because there have been some great replies with fantastic insight which I have really enjoyed reading

Hmm, I love hearing opposing arguments because they make me think and help clarify my own position. I'm certainly interested in them, whether I agree with them or not. You stating you're only interested in posts that you already agree with suggests you're rather closed minded, as does the army of straw men you've erected here...

I hope this thread doesnt get heated, because I'm sure DSM wouldn't have wanted that when she posted.

Peace and love, peace and love...

No no JV, perish the thought.

"I actually find it appalling that people are trying to argue that sexual objectification is worse for women simply due to the oppression women suffered (and still do)." Why do you think it isn't worse for women? Why do you not think that the systematic objectification women are subjected to everyday is very different to the occasional objectification of the odd man you are talking about? Why do you not think there is a difference of scale and therefore result on the sexes?

"This does not make it okay to do it back." No-one has said this. You for some reason seem to insist that they have. Why is that?

In fact why have you posted this here? Especially in light of "I am not in the least bit interested in considering changing my moral stance on what I find unacceptable sexist behaviour"

I agree with you OP.

I don't get the Chippendales thing either. Can you imagine if it was the other way round and your husband went to an evening with a load of women stripping off in the same manner under the guise of "harmless entertainment".

Er, an awful lot of men do. Not noticed the spread and increased 'acceptability' of lapdancing clubs etc? Much seedier than the Chippendales too (who are basically a novelty act) and based on a completely different power dynamic.

Some examples from the thread:

Seeing a man objectified is shocking and memorable because it is not the norm - hence the OP wrote here. Although it is tacky and degrades the individual males being objectified, its not as though men as a whole are being degraded as a sex class by it.

Whilst its undesirable, taken in the context of the whole of society it will only cause the most minor damage if it causes any at all. So whilst I wouldn't condone it I don't see it as a big issue.

I dislike the sexual objectification of men but I don't think it's the same.

And Eleanorrathbones entire post which begins 'it's generally accepted because..'

I am, of course, interested in other people's opinions. Hence the thread. However, I am just a little shocked that there is genuine attempt at argument to justify comments and remarks aimed at men, based on context. Surely the context is irrelevant? Surely, as women, we should take the moral high ground and rather than subject men to the same behaviour we strive so hard to eradicate from our own existence, we should oppose all comments of a sexist nature?

I am glad there are a lot of posts on this thread that have said they feel uncomfortable when hearing comments directed at men of this nature. Whilst I am more than interested in hearing why people don't feel it is wrong, I do (based on my own morals) object to statements aimed at convincing me that it is somehow acceptable, in context.

Arf just a little bit at the paucity of strip clubs for men to attend!

Context is irrelevant? Jesus.

I thought onepost was joking?

None of those examples condone the objectification of men, DSM so I can't really see your point. They just point out the differences between objectifying men and women i.e. the power dynamic at play.

If the sexes were seen and considered equal by society then I would agree with your premise than the objectification of both sexes has exactly the same, negative effect. However, they aren't so it doesn't have the same effect.

Oh. Er, yeah, she might well have been - I think the OP's bizarre statements knocked my irony detector off balance.

Threads like this always remind me what a massive investment so many people have, in pretending that sexism does't exist anymore and that we are all operating on a level playing field.

I very much doubt that one single Chippendale has been trafficked or raped. I very much doubt that any of them suffer PTSD as a result of their work. I very much doubt that any of them suffered sexual abuse as children. Whereas women who work in the sex industry, are massively likely to have suffered all those things.

But hey, if you want to pretend that we're all equal now, that rape doesn't exist, that sexism doesn't exist and that women get judged more on their looks than men do, go ahead, if you're happy that way. Anyone who is interested in exploring the reality of inequality in our society, will carry on doing so and won't agree with you, but we're all adults here and can agree to disagree, can't we.

Having trouble posting re DDs.
This thread makes it clear that some education is needed as to what sexism actually is :(

Objectification must be contextualised within the wider stereotyping/denegration of a group in order to say that it qualifies as the product of an "ism". The objectification must also reflect the power relationships that already exist.

Basically, because men aren't oppressed as a group in this way, when, if at all they are being objectified, it is usually racist - i.e.- porn totally reflects the racist stereotyping I'm referring to here. When Frankie from the X Factor is having his sexuality exploited, its on the basis of age: Older execs are taking advantage of his youth.

It doesn't make sense to call the objectification of men 'sexist' - since it does not reference any wider stereotyping of men.

When it happens with thinly veiled hostility from women, they are not being 'sexist' - they are actually 'scapegoating' the individual man concerned - for the sexism that limits women's lives in all other spheres.

Is that clear?