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?

DSM you are not reading the thread carefully enough. You asked why it's generally accepted. My post began "it's generally accepted because". That doesn't imply that I accept it or think it's a Good Thing. Please stop being determined to find that there is a general acceptance of this among posters here, that there is out in the wider world.

All sorts of things are generally accepted in RL, which feminists on this board get told we're loons because we don't accept it.

Oh I missed the "context is irrelevant" statement!

DSM can you point out one single post that says it is all right in context?

If you can point to where someone has said that it's OK, then that person might be able to explain why that isn't actually what they said. I get the feeling that you're having some difficulty understanding the arguments, or even that you don't actually want to understand the arguments because you've got a very fixed idea in your head that feminists are a horrid bunch of man-haters who want to be as nasty to men as some of them are to women. And if you are approaching and reading every post with that in mind, you're likely to get the wrong end fo the stick.

Jesus - I am a feminist! What an odd comment to make

I do object to sexually objectifying either sex. And whilst I can see te argument that some have made that it's not as bad when directed towards men for various reasons, I can't see the justification in it being acceptable.

I find it really sad that as a society we can allow discriminatory and degrading behaviour. And when I said 'context is irrelevent' I was making the point that sexist remarks shouldn't need to be contextualised, they should just be inherently unaccepted. And yes, while women do suffer it more than men, I don't think that gives right to dismiss remarks towards men as less important, less damaging, or less sexist.

when a man is objectified sexually it is degrading, but not discrimatory.

(Unless, of course on the basis of race, class, age, etc)

I don't think anyone has disagreed with you that objectification is a Bad Thing and unacceptable. So what was your point again? Cos it's all starting to sound a bit 'what about the menz'...

I did have a conversation with someone once (in rl) who GENUINELY thought that feminism meant doing all the bad stuff men have done to women back to them

I'm sorry if its a silly question, but thats not where you are coming from, is it DSM?

I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing now., what responses you were expecting/hoping for, your point etc...

I can't add much to the excellent posts by Food, Eleanor, Hand and others citing how context is crucial and DSM, if you are denying that that wider context has bearing on privilege and oppression in society, then imho, you follow a rather unusual version of feminism.

Having said that, elsewhere I have seen folks insist they oppose racism, yet berate those who don't give equal time to challenging racial prejudice against white people as they do the (bigger, more prevalent, higher negative impact, etc.) racism targeting non-white people.

I get the feeling DSM that you are itching for someone to justify sexual objectification of men. You haven't got it, so you're having to make the best you can of those comments stating that because of the social, economic and political context, the impact of sexism while unacceptable, is different depending on who the target is.

I don't think it's that you don't get that. For reasons known only to you, I don't think you WANT to get that.

DSM you still haven't told us which posts you feel are justifying objectification of men.

I get the impression DSM that you are reading a different thread to the rest of us.....
'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' - I haven't read a single post trying to justify it. some posters have pointed out that it is much vanishingly rarer for men to be objectified than women and so possibly has less of an impact on men generally but no one has said it's okay.

i'm in the minority in this thread clearly, but i dont think a sexualised image of either sex is nessesarily a bad thing/reduces them to nothing but their beauty and sex appeal/objectifies them ETC.
if an image 'titilates' well, thats really ok by me what harm is really done? and i would vote for a society where sex is out in the open, even glamourised than some of the repressive societys that are present on this planet.

if an image is abusive thats something else of course.

i dont think sexual abuse/peadofillia/rape are more common than 100 years ago, just more reported. in some conservative central asian countries many think child abuse is the scurge of the west and their liberal attitudes. of course child abuse is as previlant there as here , it's just hushed up more there.

but thats the thing with sexuality, no matter how much you try to control/repress/police it it's allways there bubbleing under the surface.

runs for cover.....

There's no need to get defensive when asked if you're a feminist, we get all views on here. It's just for clarification.

When men get objectified it's degrading and offensive to the individual person, and possibly those around them, but it's not an issue on a societal level (yet?) and doesn't affect the way men as a group are viewed and treated. Whereas for women there is an impact on both the individual and the larger society.
Neither are acceptable, obviously, but they're not the same.

I agree with chairmanmieow that a sexualised image of a man or a woman doesn't necessarily reduce them to only a sexual being. Of course that's true.

I think the OP is talking about those that do though.

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread but I have just come out of a meeting and thought 'well Nigel is as tasty as ever'. Have I just objectified him? I think so but I am not sure quite what the solution is.

picture of Nigel perhaps?

Nope minto because you kept it to yourself. If you had said 'Phwoar, look at the arse on that!" I think it could have been called objectifying

@thechairmanmeaow
I don't think its an either/or thing about sex and sexuality here. If you think along that axis you're back to the whore/madonna dichotomy - or western colonial superiority/backwards foreigners dichotomy... Two outdated ideas that make sexist, exploitative w*nkers like Hugh Hefner stroll around as though they are doing women and the world some sort of favour while they make themselves fabulously rich.

The point is about sexual objectification contributing to womens oppression within a patriarchal (now capitalist rather than religious) system - quite different from actual sexuality.

So as long as I dont say to the heterosexual men in the room, nig is a tasty piece of 'man meat' its ok to think it.... Well that's good

Arghhhh! I think we need to have a class on understanding objectification. This thread has gone back to the "well I agree that 1+1=2" stage, when in order to 'get' it you need to be able to pan out to comprehend a slightly more complex equation!

Everyone else in the meeting is male and married... Off to find a picture for my own enjoyment.....

What foodunit said.

If we lived in a total perfect human society where there was no sexual oppression, no body-facism, no child abuse, and where everyone was always respectful of each other's rights at all times, there wouldn't be a problem with sexuality being given free reign. But as we are actually fairly flawed creatures that is never going to happen.

And 'glanourised' sexuality is only ever going to mean that involving the beautiful and probably young.

I do find it quite depressing when people give their genitals the moral veto:

This seems wrong, and that seems right, but this gets me off, therefore I'll stick with that opinion and defend it.