Why is the patriarchy so god-damned afraid of female sexuality?

[AxlRosesLeatherTrousers]

I was reading about the Olympic volleyball matches that took place yesterday. As we all know all the female volleyball teams wear skimpy bikinis to play in. The article (to my shame in the DM ) was banging on about the voyeurism from the crowds and there was a Benny Hill theme etc. I thought well it's all in good fun and if the men have something to ogle surely the women do too. Scrolled down to see the men volleyball players in sleeveless vests and shorts to the knee. So obviously the female volleyball players don't need to wear bikinis in order to play properly as the male players have more than double the clothing on than the women do. So it it purely for voyeurism. Which I would actually be fine with if it went both ways.

I mean if men get something to ogle at every bloody corner they turn on (billboards, magazines, page 3 etc), why the hell shouldn't women get the same? I want to see bloody Ryan Gosling or Ryan Renyolds in the buff on a massive billboard in the same way Eva Herzigova was with the "Hello Boys" Wonderbra adverts.

I just don't understand why they're so bloody afraid of female sexuality? We're all human and honestly men and women probably think about sex for roughly the same amount of time on any given day despite what the media would have you think! The uproar over the 50 Shades books (which I haven't read btw). OMG "Mummy Porn" FFS! Men look at how many bloody female naked bodies on any given day, yet if women read I mean READ not look at an erotic novel there is an uproar, it's actual news. I mean hello, half the population are women, it's not news to us. I've read my fair share of erotic fiction, why should that be a shock? Why are only men allowed to be sexual in any kind of way? I mean of course women should look sexual and available at all times but to actually have sexual thoughts OMG lets put it on the news.

I remember when I was a teenager having a conversation with my then boyfriend (cheating wanker), my best friend and her then boyfriend (also a cheating wanker) about masturbation. Of course both lads were all yeah do it several times a day. My best friend then flat out denied she'd ever done it (yeah right girl who you kidding), I said hell yeah I did. The bloody skitting and abuse I got off both lads was then unbelievable. I went on a massive feminist rant and told my boyfriend that I'd had to do it even more since being with him as he was shite in bed. We didn't last long after that anyway.

But my point being why do women have to deny their sexuality, desires etc just because (certain) men can't handle it? I know any man worth his salt is not intimidated by female sexuality and is turned on by it rather than running away from it. Are all the wankers who are intimidated by it just sexist arseholes anyway? Or do they just fall hook line and sinker for everything the patriarchy feeds them?

This is only a response to part of what you're saying ... but I think one reason might be that although straight women like attractive men (yeah, duh, I share your amusement at the way society seems shocked at this! ), lots of us probably don't like to 'ogle' them. I know for me, because I've grown up seeing women's bodies as the thing you're 'meant' to stare at, I don't really like the idea of stuff like male naked centrefolds in magazines because I don't like the process. Does that make any sense?

Do you mean beach volleyball? I saw some of it yesterday with one team wearing leggings.

There actually used to be a rule that your bikini had to be a certain amount of smallness (if you know what I mean) the top to the bottom at the thigh had to be 4" or less. But they have brought in different rules because a lot of people were put off playing.

Anyway if you want to admire the male figure in sport stick the Aussie rules football on - and it's a good game too.

If you are referring to advertising/marketing, then companies will use anything that sells. If Ryan Gosling or whoever would increase sales of soap powder or underwear, then they would use it. They don't use it so therefore it mustn't work. It isn't about the fear of female sexuality, it's about the best way to get you to part with your money.

If we go back to the beach volleyball thing, this has already been covered on here. The women participants have the choice of bikinis or shorts and t-shirt. What they wear is up to them, so I don't see what your problem is with it.

I think that's poor logic, namechange, if you'll forgive me. Companies don't magically know what sells before they try it - that is why adverts sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. So to say 'they don't use it therefore it mustn't work' is a fallacy.

I would also observe that it is much, much more complex an issue than whether or not straight women like naked men, or straight men like naked women. A quick glance at youtube proves that most of us like cute kittens. Yet cute kittens do not make up 90% of adverts. Why? Because we don't (currently) see cute kittens and think 'ooh, what's being sold here?', whereas we've all grown up knowing that images of naked women are used to sell things. It comes to be a chain of associations.

I think that you are over thinking it all and reading far too much into it.

LRD, I know next to nothing about the advertising industry, except that their sole purpose is to make us want to buy stuff. You might well be right, I could be way off the mark, but sexuality is a fundamental part of human nature and has been used for all sorts of marketing campaigns. I am thinking of Becks in his undies, or Hollister bags with topless men, or Nick Kamen in the laundrette, or countless perfume/aftershave ads. I guess it sells some stuff, but not everything.

It would be interesting if there are any people in here who work in the industry, to get an insider's view, as to what works where. I still think the OP is way off the mark though. Nobody is afraid of women's sexuality, at least in secular societies.

LRD's right, it's faulty logic to think X doesn't do Y therefore Y must be pointless. You have to find out why X doesn't do Y. And part of the reason is that the ad industry is still very sexist - look at the proportion of men and women in senior jobs, the number of people in part-time roles, look at that twat who thought 'career women make bad mothers' was a great ad and got paid by someone to do it, FFS.

Oh, I was commenting on the logic rather than the industry, namechange. It would be interesting to know more about the industry, you're right.

edam - that's a good point. Also, I guess, men hold far more of the world's wealth, might that have an impact? I heard there's meant to be a correlation between the 'pink pound' and use of sexy men in adverts for male grooming (though where I picked that idea up I cannot remember!)

I see (all) of your points, but it's not just the advertising industry I'm talking about, it's the attitude of society in general towards female sexuality. For example the reaction in the media to women reading the 50 Shades books. As if erotic fiction is something new and wow women have finally found their desire.

If women's sexuality was viewed as equal to men's and not something that is completely abnormal then we would have far more choices for women in say the advertising industry. Give me a choice between a housewife selling me soap powder and half naked buff male model selling me soap powder who the hell would I choose? Yet for some reason advertising execs and the media seem to think I as a female would like to see the little 50's housewife in the advert rather than the buff male model. Men have rather a lot of choice between female nakedness selling them their products, none of the advertising execs stick a half naked buff male model in their Lynx adverts so why on earth do they think a half naked woman is going to sell me women's deodrant?

Not seen Lynx ads but half naked buff men selling deodorant isn't rare.

At the risk of going off into an advertising industry tangent, I reaaly don't think that an industry where the sole aim is to sell stuff would allow it's politics to trump profit. I am sure that most ad execs are men, and that many of them might be sexist. However, does anyone think that they might eschew a potentially-successful campaign simply because they would rather demean women? That, to me, is strange logic. Bill Hicks was on the right lines;

I think one of the reasons that sexy male nudes might not be such a successful selling ploy is that a lot of women would feel a bit embarrassed to be so blatantly ogling men and reducing them to sexual objects.

Men on the other hand havent been taught to be embarrassed about their sexual desires. In fact their desires are constantly pandered to and encouraged, accepted as a normal part of manhood. Fine for them, great for capitalism, but not so great for those of us who have to put up with the effects of it.

I don't think politics is necessarily the reason, though? It could also be conditioning, or not having thought outside the box? Or responding to their awareness of their audience's conditioning/politics.

Even when female sexual desire is portrayed the women still have to be hot. The trope of an ugly/slobby male ogling after hot chicks is seen everywhere (Howard in BBT prime example - gets gorgeous bernadette). But you'll rarely find a sexually aggressive female that doesn't also have to be gorgeous or at least highly groomed.

The new Lynx ad is an example.

It's so fucking boring. I want to see an ugly/average looking woman wearing regular t shirt jeans, acting like a goof ball, having all the laughs and devising ways to get laid. And get the hot bloke.

Good point messy. And when women are shown being sexually aggressive or having fun, there's a lot of disapproval. Personally I think Kim Cattrall is attractive, but loads of people were really nasty about her character in SATC, where she has a great time getting lots of sexy younger men.

i am female, and i am sexual, but i would NOT want to see male beach volleyball players in speedos.
i also do not find chippendales sexy. i don't know whether that's my conditioning or not but i find it a real turn-off and i guess i'm not alone.

Miranda? As in Miranda Hart?

LRD, who was nasty about Kim Catrall? Do men even watch that programme? Genuine question, I have never seen it.

I can't remember journalists' names now, but I remember blokes commenting at the time, namechange (people I know, I mean).

And yes, I would imagine of the millions of viewers of SATC, some were men!

namechange - I don't think they think about it in such depth. It's the culture of advertising. Let's not forget this is the industry that gave us the lovely acronym '2CinaK' for soap powder ads where one rather dim housewife is told by another dim housewife all about the benefits of Brand X over Brand Y. Stands for 'two cunts in a kitchen'. Tells you everything you need to know about the attitudes to women in that industry.

My DF was pretty scathing about KC and the whole of SATC at the time.

I'll take Miranda and raise you Barney HIMYM, Howard BBT, David Spade from RE! Added to which Miranda is after 1 man and not surrounded by hordes of hot men willing to go to bed with her and who she treats like dirt by devising ways to brush them off the day after. Which actually demonstrates my point perfectly.

But actually I'm not saying that we need more Kim Cattrells and for women to start objectifying men on the same scale. That's not the answer. What I'm saying is we need less Joeys and for men to stop objectifying women on the scale that they do.

And no, there's nothing wrong with men finding women's bodies attractive. It's about the scale of it and the effect that scale has.

Mad Men, the highly successful sitcom about an ad agency set in the 60s with very sexist attitudes towards women counts far more women amongst its fans, than men. 50 shades which is about BDSM is of course a hit amongst women.

There is a thriving market even amongst women for sexist marketing.

You can say it is due to social conditioning. But if it works, what impetus is there for the media to change?

I thought Mad Men was quite feminist in how it highlighted the sexism of the 60s and that was why it was so popular. I mean the story arcs of the female characters reflect the burgeoning feminism of the day.

As for 50 shades, not read it, but yes it does seem a bit bamboozling!

Well, isn't that the point? There isn't ATM a huge impetus for the media to change, unless society changes. And that could happen for all sorts of reasons, including people like us discussing stuff and changing our minds about things.

I don't follow why it's surprising women would watch sexist TV - why would women be less likely to than men? Mad men is aimed at women isn't it?

Exactly LRD. It isn't surprising that women have internalized the sexism, after all it's pretty prevalent.

Also, beggars can't be choosers. Even those shows that do have female centred plots subscribe to a ton of sexist myths. When there are so few well-written female characters you have to take what you can get basically.

It's a bit unfortunate for me that I don't like gore as most of the stronger complex female characters seem to be detectives on very macabre crime shows!