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 would call myself a feminist, but I think it's a shame that society has now turned the other way- it would be an outrage if men made such derogatory comments towards a woman, but now it is ok for women to say it about men?

Eh? No it isn't. I think that is the one thing this thread is unanimous on

Gawd (I've now headbutted right through the desk)

food unit maybe we do need a class.
objectification is far from clear cut, if a man or woman arouses another does that make them an object? or is that too simplistic?

i think if we had a debate on what makes something 'object' we would be busy for a while .

OrmIrian- I think you misunderstood me. I was asking the question in disbelief.

In what way has society turned the other way Jamie?

Here's one definition:

Sexual Objectification of a person/group of people includes:

(1) instrumentality (i.e- an objectified person is there to be used)
(2) denial of autonomy (the capacity to be ones own person)
(3) inertness (a thing, not a person)
(4) fungibility (i.e. interchangeable)
(5) violability (acceptable to violate)
(6) ownership (possessed/bought/sold - i.e.- slavery & prostitution)
(7) denial of subjectivity (feelings, perspective, desires)
(8) reduction to body (a sum of body parts)
(9) reduction to appearance
(10) silencing

(Nussbaum, 1995; Langton, 2009)

giyadas: Instead of it being acceptable in society for men to sexually objectify women, it now seems acceptable in society for women to sexually objectify men.

Okay. I think I need to backtrack a little - some of my comments have been misinterpreted - I think I've got a little annoyed and may have come across wrong.

I refer back to my OP - I don't feel comfortable with comments relating to the sexual objectification of anybody, regardless of sex. I find it demeaning and feel it has no place in polite society.

However, whilst I can absolutely understand why some people feel it isn't sexism as men are not classed as an oppressed minority, I argue that by allowing such comments to be accepted in popular culture, we are facilitating what is definitively sexism; the degradation of a person based on their appearance/sexual attractiveness.

This is something on which I would have hoped most people would agree.

It has been very interesting reading other people's thougts.

'instead of' doesnt really belong in that sentence. Also I think the only people who are happy with the objectification of men are the same who are fine with the objectification of women.
Just that the ante has been upped as per tethers explanation early on in the thread.

fungibility? you cant just make stuff up!

the degradation of a person based on their appearance/sexual attractiveness
I think that's an odd interpretation of the word sexism.

Sexism is the degradation/discrimination/etc of a person on the basis of their sex - i.e. - the genital configuration to which they were born, not their sexual attractiveness or lack of.

But it still is acceptable to objectify women. From lapdancing clubs, page 3, catcalling to programmes like Brainiac which for some reason, had women running round in bikinis for no reason. These are only a few examples. Objections to these things usually provokes a chorus of "it's just a laugh", "humourless feminists", "professionally offended" in fact anything which can be used to undermine the people who object.
The point raised earlier about how ubiquitous objectification of women is means that people stop seeing it but notice much more when it happens to men is very true. Either that or some people just care about men more, so when they're objectified it becomes something that matters, not just something that happens to women.

on a more serious note, of all those 10 points , which are very interesting, one person can be aroused by another person who they have never met, spoken to and probobly never will but still think of them as human, not just their appearence. and not be objectifing.

'However, whilst I can absolutely understand why some people feel it isn't sexism as men are not classed as an oppressed minority, I argue that by allowing such comments to be accepted in popular culture, we are facilitating what is definitively sexism; the degradation of a person based on their appearance/sexual attractiveness' - no one has said this no one on this thread has said that it is okay to objectify men.
What they have said is that it tends to impact less on the rest of the male population, and is less common. where as the objectification of women is still quite common and accepted in mainstream society.

fungibility? you cant just make stuff up! (Not my definition)

I hope you are not saying that in the Daily Mail columnist sense!

:)

The word 'fungibility' is a proper word.

It usually and most commonly used in financial markets to refer to a currency, commodity or asset that is mutually exchangable with another equivalent unit of the same currency, commodity or asset. For example, one £10 note can be exchanged for another even though they have a different serial number they are the same value.

It seems a good word to use in this context too in the sense that a 'body' is a mutually exchangeable commodity that can be exchanged for another equivalent body. The person who inhabits the body is irrelevant.

I think the objectification of men isn't simply a reversal of the objectification of women - they work in different ways. Eg it has a far-reaching effect on women's lives: glass ceiling, unable to go many places on our own after dark, pressure to conform to beauty ideals. So when women are objectified, men have the power.

But when men are 'objectified', they still have the power. Men's strip clubs are less stigmatised than women's, they don't reverse the male gaze. Shows like eg the Chippendales - I don't think they're exploited to the extent the average female pole dancer is. I haven't watched any of the examples mentioned above, but I would imagine most female tv presenters would probably go into 'squealing little girl' mode while the partially dressed man would be placed in a 'big strong man' position.

So basically they're 2 different things.

DSM, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You are addressing your argument to the wrong people, because as a group, feminists are the least likely to approve of the sexual objectification of men.

Despite your insistence that people on this thread are "justifying" s-o of men, every single person has disapproved of it. The fact that people have related it to the wider cultural context doesn't imply any justification of it whatsoever. Maybe you need to find a forum where women have posted such objectifying remarks and ask them why they do it, because no feminist worth her salt believes that any person should be reduced to a sexual object, regardless of gender.

Maybe as a knee jerk reaction women have at times turned the tables on men in a "can't beat them, join them" mentality. Considering that men in general have been slow to listen to feminists' complaints re objectification, this is a pragmatic and understandable approach, BUT any sustained rational thought will deliver you to the feminist point of view that the answer is not to win at the game yourself but to do away with the game itself.

You have implied that when objectification of women occurs there is a huge uproar, but that is to ignore the fact that objectification of women still occurs every single day and any uproars are usually ignored/laughed at/argued against. For every feminist that "uproars" there are a dozen backlashers pushing back and restoring the status quo so that whilst we may complain about sexual objectification of women it continues relentlessly..

All I have said is that I disagree with the argument that it isn't perceived as being as bad for men because they aren't classed as a sexual minority.

I completely agree with your sentiment that it should be wrong in every case, whether towards men or women.

Again - no one has said that DSM. Read the comments properly.

Wotmania - you aren't understanding what I am saying.

Read the posts by teatersend, Sinicalsal, morebeta, foodunit, mille... at the start of the thread for just a few examples.

I am agreeing with their statements. I am saying that what that have described - societies view that it isn't as harmful towards men - shouldn't be acceptable. I'm not suggeatig that they think it is acceptable!

I have already tried to explain (albeit apparently not very well) that I am not arguing with anyone here's view, just the basic view that somehow it isn't perceived as being as bad for men.

Not read whole thread (sorry) but one thing jumped out at me

"giyadas: Instead of it being acceptable in society for men to sexually objectify women, it now seems acceptable in society for women to sexually objectify men."

I would say that the initial (modern) images and things that objectified men in the way women were objectified, were aimed at a gay male market.

When I see images of men that are sexualised in a similar way to the way women are portrayed, I often think that the "look" is more for a male eye than a female one. Thinking aftershave adverts and things.

Of course none of this is a good thing - but I just wonder how many of the images we see around us that objectify men were made for women by women with a woman's eye in mind. IYSWIM.

So is it wholly that women have started to objectify men, or is at least some of this imagery due to more acceptance of homosexuality and chasing the "pink pound"?

When I think of images of men aimed at women all I come up with is boybands and they are aimed at pubescant girls - and of course their sole function is not to look pretty, they are bands primarily.