Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sexual objectification of men

203 replies

DSM · 17/11/2011 12:14

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?

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 19/11/2011 10:29

eg the chippendales which is explicitely aimed at women

how many women get sexually aroused watching the chippendales dance? and how many think it's all really sill and funny? i am willing to guess the latter is more common - women aren't in the audience with their hands down their pants they're all laughing

these calendars with fireman etc how many are bought by women and how many by men? i don't know obviously but would put money on the market for these things not beign entirely female

i would say that due to the way society is set up there is very little idea of what women would find arousing and much less attempt to cater to it

SinicalSal · 19/11/2011 10:34

DSM Do you think that objectification is as bad for men as a group as it is for women as a group?
by 'as bad' I mean as widespread, and as damaging.

I think scale is a big part of the problem, myself, and would be interested to hear your view.

DSM · 19/11/2011 11:00

I feel like it is becoming more widespread, mote accepted - in reference to my example in the OP - very objectifying comments on this morning.

I've been reading through other threads on MN with a new outlook - in fact I just read one in the telly addicts section which descended into endless comment about X getting his top off, and do we get to see him shower.. I am finding it ever more increasing and I think it's hypocritical and not doing women any favours in the long run.

OP posts:
DontCallMeFrothyDragon · 19/11/2011 11:08

DSM, it isn't as bad for men.

Do we have men on page 3 yet?

Do we have women posting pictures of exploited male porn stars on their walls?

Do we see the highest paid female actors outearning the highest aid male actors by almost double?

Do men receive the same cat calls in the street as women?

Are men who aren't deemed as attractive for whatever reason ridiculed to the same extent women are in the media?

Does the media provide a running commentary on men's appearances, weight, any possible surgery?

And does it do so from a significantly female gaze?

No. Thought not...

SinicalSal · 19/11/2011 11:30

With the greatest respect, take it up with the Telly Addicts then! You're not going to get the feminists arguing in favour of objectification of anyone Smile I do agree, it's becoming more widespread against men, though still not at the level it is against women. It's propping up the status quo and confirming what many people still subconsciously believe (that women are for sex, fundamentally) but it's still rather transgressive when women do it against men. (Even though it's every bit as trite and banal really).

I think it's to do with the culture we have of being mad fer it, liberated, anything ANYTHING! but being a prudish Mary Whitehouse type figure, it feeds into the objectification of everyone. It's not liberated at all, it's sexuality being shoved into another box.

There's also a distinction to be made between finding someone attractive, and objectifying them.

JLK2 · 19/11/2011 11:37

On another forum I saw someone suggesting there should be a "hunkstation" TV channel aimed at women with men in pants writhing around seductively. I don't think it'd work tbh. And if it did, it'd be gay men that'd be the audience, not women.

SardineQueen · 19/11/2011 11:49

I was watching I'm a sleb last night (yes I know) and I noticed a couple of things. The first was that when the new woman came into the camp the man who described when she came in described her in terms of her physical appearance only. He said first he saw blonde hair, and then her breasts, and he was pleased. The second was two men talking and one was asked what his girlfriend was like, and he described her body and breasts. Neither mentioned anything whatsoever about what they were like, and I thought, that just doesn't happen the other way around. When women describe an attractive man they will mention his face, what he does (actor etc) and the body is part of a package. Especially if it is someone they know. If a woman asks anotehr woman what her boyfriend is like, if she just said, he's got a nice arse and a 6-pack the woman asking the question would be Confused and surprised. She would feel her question hadn't been answered. The other way around it is perfectly acceptable for a man to describe a woman and the totality of the description be what her bum and boobs are like. And that's a description.

Depressing really.

SardineQueen · 19/11/2011 11:50

The other odd thing was that the woman who entered the camp had pink hair. Yet the man looking at her perceived it as blonde. Because that tied in better with an image in his head? Or maybe my TV is up the spout Grin

DSM · 19/11/2011 12:02

I think it would be a little out of place to start a rant about sexually objectifyij men on a Telly Addicts thread.. Hence this thread.

I'm absolutely not trying to get the feminists arguing in favour of objectification of men!!! Quite the opposite. Do you not understand my posts? Might be my fault, I am probably not explaining my position well.

My problem is that it's becoming more widespread against men, though while still not at the level it is against women, surely the emphasis should be on the whole thing stopping altogether, rather than women 'joining in'.

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 19/11/2011 12:07

Well feminists are certainly keen on stopping sexual objectification whether it's men women or children

SardineQueen · 19/11/2011 12:09

Thinking about it it's in the media and society rather than at a basic human individual level.

I'm not going to get outraged at a teenaged girl thinking some boy band person has a nice bum or a teenaged boy thinking a female soap star has lovely legs or anything like that.

SardineQueen · 19/11/2011 12:10

But then I guess that's the difference between attraction and objectification.

Sorry thinking out loud.

mumwithdice · 19/11/2011 12:11

There is an emphasis on stopping all of this within feminism. The problem is that when any of us say anything about how objectification harms everyone, we get shouted down with cries of "humourless feminist."

mumwithdice · 19/11/2011 12:12

Damn it, there should be an edit function on MN. Came over from livejournal and italics are done as above there.

OrmIrian · 19/11/2011 12:13

Re. Men being the real audience for objectification of men, the only Chippendale merchandise I have ever seen in daily use is a coffee mug owned by a gay man. Most women I know find it too cheesy for words.

WoTmania · 19/11/2011 13:28

But they are saying it doesn't affect men as badly as a group, rather than on an individual level.

FoodUnit · 19/11/2011 14:52

I know this could be sticking a spanner in the works, just as the thread is calming down, but I think we have a problem of vagueness of terms and the wrong questions being asked:

To get anywhere we need to know from the OP (as others are asking)

  1. What is meant by 'bad' and what is meant by 'men' in the phrase "as bad for men" i.e.- does 'bad' mean oppressive? hurtful? contributing towards a lower status? inappropriate? etc? Does 'men' mean men as a group? men as individuals? I think if the OP really clarified this, then we could all get somewhere and put this to rest...

But I sense the vagueness comes from here (which could open up a new can of worms):
2) I intuitively think the OP is coming from but (because of the all to common and unquestioning acceptance of the 'invisible perpetrator/agent' syndrome - a key component in the victim-blaming necessary for upholding the status quo) didn't articulate is this question:
Is it as empowering/validating/ego-boosting for a woman to objectify men in a sadistic, callous or indifferent manor as it is for the way men (male/partriarchal culture) do(es) it to women (or other men as people touched on earlier in the thread)? i.e.- to ask the question in a way that shines a spotlight on the 'agent' rather than the 'object''. "Is it as reprehensible for women to objectify people as it is a reprehensible for men to objectify people?

My potentially worm-can opening response to that would be:

When women as individuals or a group humiliate, degrade and mock a male through sexual objectification, they do not have the supportive framework of an entire culture and history to back up and validate them. So the sadism expressed can not be as deeply satisfying, or broadly validating as it is for men when they do it to women. Fo women, such sadism will feel pretty hollow. A bit like the hollowness of calling white people 'honkey' in response to being called a n**r.

However, of course, being mean is being mean - so you could say the urge to be mean is always equally reprehensible, irrespective of how much sadistic satisfaction the perpetrator gets from it..... But....

WoTmania · 19/11/2011 19:16

good points and questions FoodUnit

EleanorRathbone · 20/11/2011 09:42

Great post Foodunit

messyisthenewtidy · 20/11/2011 10:11

I think part of the reason the media ostensibly sexually objectifies men is because it has more shock value. Female characters parading their sexual appetite and treating men badly is seen as funny because it is seen as unusual and more eye-opening but a man doing the same is seen as sleazy and typical. I think it gives a skewed version of real life because in reality you only need to walk past a magazine rack/ look at sexual violence stats to to see which gender is more affected by sexual objectification.

Because feminism has brought attention to the sexual objectification of women, the media has to tread carefully when it comes to officially condoning it, but continues it relentlessly anyway (because to not do so would be to risk profits) - sexual objectification of women is "hidden in plain sight" so to speak. That's why you get the schizophrenic attitude of women's magazines that give you articles about accepting your own body shape whilst at the time endlessly plugging beauty products.

Men haven't had a movement to challenge the negative aspects of male gender stereotyping because in the past they haven't needed it. And if they did they would surely have to admit that sexual objectification of women still operates to a much higher level.

Personally it would be nice if it all went away. It's so tiring all of it....

sakura · 20/11/2011 13:50

ooh, I read something interesting in Sheila Jeffreys' Anti-Climax the other day which I thought was spot on.

[disclaimer: women are just as visual as men. Ask any handsome man. Handsome men know women are visual creatures. It's the nerdy, geeky men who try to say "men are more visual; women prefer status". That's because the political system of patriarchy gives men economic power over women, which gives the geeky men reproductive opportunities that they would never normally have, because they can offer women material wealth and security.]

Moving on. Jeffreys mentioned that women just don't get turned on by the objectification of men in the same way. ANd I've noticed this myself. I can appreciate a nice face, Johnny Depp, but I know nothing about him, don'T know if he smells nice (pheronomones!) etc.. so I'm not going to waste my time thinking too much about him.

BUt men most certainly are turned on by the objectification of women. This is because nakedness i.e objectification represents a person's low status in society. A staple of porn is the men fully clothed, often in status clothes such as suits, next to naked or scantily clad women. Good examples are that Shameless ad campaign for Suit Supply last year , or even in classical art, The Picnic.

Anyway, women are taught from an early age to eroticize powerful men, and men are taught to eroticize women's vulnerability (this is why men like high heels and corsets etc. Anything that makes a woman look feeble).

So what turns men on, basically, is women's low status in society. WOmen's economic vulnerability, and their reproductive vulnerability, and the fact they'Re forced to interact with men in the workplace to keep their jobs (and the roof over their heads), or the fact that the best economic option for many women is the sex industry. All of this manufactured vulnerability gives men hard ons

It seems that for men objectification is a huge part of their sexuality.

Anyway, SHeila Jeffreys says that this is because heterosexual relations, especially sex, are based on the eroticization of power difference. You see this most clearly in SM. All sex, but especially in the BDSM world, exists in a context where there are real, tangible economic, political and social power differences between men and women: . They judicial system favours men. Male violence propes the entire system up. We live in a sadosociety where all heterosexual men are "tops" basically. And all women are automatically bottoms, by default of their femaleness.

It seems to me that most men are acutely aware of this power disparity, but that most women are in denial about it.

Back to the point! When a man is scantily clad for the camera, or even just posing seductively, the fact he is behaving that way that automatically lowers his status. Because a powerful person would never need to behave in such a manner. A truly powerful person would not be pouting to the camera or fluffing their feathers. IT's the sign of subordination, so when a man does it, or behaves like that, at a subconscious level, the woman associates that man with a low status.

molly3478 · 20/11/2011 14:02

Srdinequee - When speaking with anyone I know if anyone asks about anyones bf/gf I never hear anyone mention their job on first question. If you ask what he is like its meant to be answered hair coloured, thinks like nice eyes/ass and shape of physique.

Think its an age/area thing but who cares what job he does that is irrelevant in the description to most people. I think it must be different in areas with lots of professionals/fancy jobs but here you would describe the person just as you have described.

Additionally the way most women I know are talking about Mark Wright on fb/rl at the moment it is like they are a bunch of sexually frustrated wild animals. I think its just human nature

molly3478 · 20/11/2011 14:14

Sakura - thats where I think all women are different same as men. I watch programmes for a bit of titallition as such such as carl gallagher in shameless always getting half naked, and showering himself down with the hose etc. It doesnt mean I dont view him as a person but it is a turn on for me and many other women. I can think of loads of examples of men doing this in main stream programs as sex sells for either gender.

EleanorRathbone · 20/11/2011 16:15

Sakura you're a fucking genius.

And lookee here y'all

messyisthenewtidy · 20/11/2011 21:04

Just seconding ER's rapture, that makes a lot of sense Sakura.

Swipe left for the next trending thread