Sex Object Test

[oldbadger]

I was curious to see whether my hypothesis that the "you're too fat and terrible in bed" magazines are less profitable than mags catering more psychologically healthy women. I found this:

Ahem, number 3. I will deny that we are naturally inclined to objectify ourselves until the end of time, but I would never say we don't tend to nest.

...just shows you how different our cultures are..... and you can see how many of these will be into glamour, attractiveness etc...

(I expected 'Hello' to be up there, which is a young women's mag and well over 50% of the front covers feature either Wills and Kate, Kate fashion or Kate + brats...... obviously like nothing you would find over your side.)

Here is the top ten of UK mags at this time ...

Top 10
Title
Est. RSV 2014
Newsstand Single Copy 2014
Newstrade single copy year-on-year change
Category
1 TV Choice £18.0 1,303,011 1.6% TV Listings
2 What's on TV £27.9 1,033,376 -4.4% TV Listings
3 Take a Break £29.8 651,162 -8.8% Women's weeklies
4 Radio Times £46.2 513,583 -11.0% TV Listings
5 Slimming World Magazine £5.2* 431,647 5.7% Health & parenting
6 New! £15.6* 320,165 -16.4% Women's weeklies
7 Closer £22.7 303,251 -11.1% Women's weeklies
8 Glamour £7.2 300,007 -4.9% Women's monthlies
9 Chat £13.5 295,450 -6.5% Women's weeklies
10 Woman's Weekly £12.2 265,657 -2.9% Women's weeklies
Click here to see the full top 100 list

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't yet know what 'male gaze' is. Honest.
I'm more interested in what women want. And looking at UK women's mags, female editors are concentrating a fair % of the content on looking sexually attractive, etc..... and those front covers are advertising content which is all about being sexier!

Alceste posted a picture of a woman lying down in jeans, and mentioned that it was posture that signalled the sexual message. Nearly all the fashion pics in our women's mags are using exactly that sexual message in a % of their pics.

Obviously blokes like to see women, and to hang a bird on a bike in a motorcycle mag will attract more attention, which may then divert to product and increase sales = more ad contracts = more jobs + better share returns blah blah.... But I think that I have shown that female execs will also use sexual objectivity (interest!) to sell..... or they will be out of a job!

Random thought:
I dislike seeing scantily clad women on motorcycles.
Even though I know they're not going to ride in such a state, it's worse than looking
ridiculous.....it makes me think of skin grafts & broken bones. I'd rather not do that.

 

[dawny0826]

For me, since I often joke about sleeping my way to the top, it isn't so much about whether or not to flaunt what our mama's gave us. It's recognizing the world we live in and how we play a part in it as agents for change, as revolutionary acts, as working the system as it is (and understanding limits imposed), or eating the **** sandwich until we're ticked off enough to walk away for a little bit.

One thing I've learned about how others perceive feminist rhetoric about sexual objectification is that we're whining about dudes thinking we're hot, whining about dudes who don't think we're hot, and then whining that life isn't fair. That's the perception folks get when listening to feminist criticism of the current mindset of advertising and sexual objectification. The message gets scrambled from social commentary to just one big ice-cream-binge-fest from crying about why don't boys like us that much.

It's that scrambling of the message that I'm most interested in digging into. There are a few folks here and there think that women are supposed to offer up to men their bodies for sale because the assumption is present that that's just how men are. That women are here for men's pleasure. Period. And it's that kind of acceptance of what "is" that scrambles the intent of advertising into assumptions of the purpose of women's bodies.

It's a radical notion to say that I'm not here for a man's viewing pleasure. I'm not telling men NOT to like what they see. But I AM saying that my existence as a human being doesn't serve that purpose.

So, yes. I dance. I support women who go into sex work. I identify myself as a sex-positive feminist. And I think sexual objectification in advertising is detrimental to the push toward gender equality.

The Male Gaze being assumed as the default reality is what's at play here.

How is sexual objectifaction via advertising more detrimental than projections made through sex work? Her body is used as a vessel for a sexual service.

Mind you, I don't take issue w/ women who go into such fields. I support a woman's decision to make empowered decisions for her own life.

But, I struggle to reconcile how such choices improve gender equality.

The kicker is that there are women who project themselves as ignorant attention whores and then do whine about how men do this, that and the other. How can we overcome the mindset and actions of WOMEN and how their actions are detrimental to gender equality. In order to change what we see through advertising for the better - women must not participate as well, right?

This ties directly into the comment made in the video by the speaker. She stated that women should not utilize their bodies for attention. Women too have a responsibility to unscramble the messaging out there. How we project ourselves and the choices we make matters as much as the misrepresentations of feminist rhetoric.

 

[Alceste]

Personal value? My God.... personal value encompasses many facets! But surely it is reasonable to accept that most women (and men!) do take an interest in trying to be attractive in some ways? I would never deny it. The 'snatched' mags (one of which, as you said, was a blokes' mag) showed that interest in real terms.

But that wasn't the point! My point was that Pro Female Execs drive those mags, and if they drove adverts then they would be prepared to use sexual attraction (either gender) to sell, market and promote. Ergo, let's balance this out.....


No! Male Gaze faint is not female reader's tenet...... sexual attraction is their INTEREST!


Do you buy mags?
Mrs B: No
Why not?
Mrs B: They're a waste of money.
But when Mrs B was younger she did. I remember. It's not bad, or wrong, or silly..... it's what a massive % of men and women want to do, and young men are taking a MASSIVE interest in their appearance, personal hygiene, physical appearance.... but we're not attacking women for that.... they just take an interest in their sexual attractiveness as well.


Of course they..... just like men.


As above.... agreed. How does this all point to objectification of one sex? It's simply about (sometimes) using sexual INTEREST in adverts..... where is the evil in that?


Yes...... I can. Absolutely. Women (and men) want ..... security.... warmth..... food..... see? And they mostly like and take INTEREST in being sexually attractive.......


Not a very big one, but most men and women are INTERESTED in it, which is why advert execs take notice of it.


You're off subject imo. The subject is sexual objectification, which is rapidly being washed out by simple proof that both men and women (lots of them) take interest in sexual attractiveness, which is why Female Editors run mags just like the few I snatched as examples. And which shows that female execs would also be prepared to (actually do) use sexual INTEREST in some ads.

I have suggested from the beginning that the use of sexual INTEREST in ads is not as dreadful as proposed, and that female execs would use it where best suited. I have shown that already.

This has been demonstrated, surely?

Here's the thing you're not getting. There is a difference between what men find sexually attractive in a woman, and what genuinely makes women feel sexy. As in, confident, capable, and beautiful, not "intellectually aware that men might want to sleep with them because they've got their baps out".

There's a similar disparity between what women find sexy in a man and what makes them feel sexy. For example, when a man creates a mental image of a sexually attractive man, he thinks of Conan the Barbarian, whereas a woman thinks of Johnny Depp in Chocolat.

So, in women's magazines we see pictures of women as they see themselves, as per your example. In men's magazines, we see pictures of women as men see them, also as per your example. I'm sure you can see that there is a difference between the GQ cover (male editors) you posted and all the other examples in your post (female editors).

 

[Alceste]

How is sexual objectifaction via advertising more detrimental than projections made through sex work? Her body is used as a vessel for a sexual service.

Mind you, I don't take issue w/ women who go into such fields. I support a woman's decision to make empowered decisions for her own life.

But, I struggle to reconcile how such choices improve gender equality.

The kicker is that there are women who project themselves as ignorant attention whores and then do whine about how men do this, that and the other. How can we overcome the mindset and actions of WOMEN and how their actions are detrimental to gender equality. In order to change what we see through advertising for the better - women must not participate as well, right?

This ties directly into the comment made in the video by the speaker. She stated that women should not utilize their bodies for attention. Women too have a responsibility to unscramble the messaging out there. How we project ourselves and the choices we make matters as much as the misrepresentations of feminist rhetoric.

It's not either / or. We don't have to decide whether men or women are to blame for a detrimental status quo, or whose job it is to fix the problem. We can simply acknowledge the fact that there is a problem and work together to fix it. Or work alone to at least fix whatever damage the ubiquitous objectification of women in our culture has done to our own minds, male and female.

And it just so happens that social criticism is a reasonably effective strategy for reaching out to people of any and every gender and planting a seed.

 

[dawny0826]

It's not either / or. We don't have to decide whether men or women are to blame for a detrimental status quo, or whose job it is to fix the problem. We can simply acknowledge the fact that there is a problem and work together to fix it. Or work alone to at least fix whatever damage the ubiquitous objectification of women in our culture has done to our own minds, male and female.

And it just so happens that social criticism is a reasonably effective strategy for reaching out to people of any and every gender and planting a seed.

I understand and agree, but, you haven't answered my questions.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have a partial solution: Don't buy products whose ads or themes offend one.

Been doing that for over a decade, now.

It's not helping.

 

[Alceste]

I understand and agree, but, you haven't answered my questions.

Sure I did. Social criticism is how we can influence other women, as well as men, and everyone else in between. It doesn't have to be dry and academic either. Literature, film, music and art can be even more effective. (And dance, right Heather?)That song "you don't have to try" is by a woman, for women. Nothing like a catchy melody for getting people thinking about your counter-culture message.

[youtube]GXoZLPSw8U8[/youtube]
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GXoZLPSw8U8

 

[Riverwolf]

To input my two cents, I suspect that the key to the answer lies in the exageration of assumed societal effects from incorrectly applied extrapolation from individual effects. In other words, there is no doubt that direct sexual objectification of an individual would tend to have deleterious psychological effects on that person, and this can probably be quite clearly observed and shown. However, like many areas and subjects, people then have a tendency to expand this effect from this individual level to the societal level, particularly when such a conclusion coincides with prevailing social views.

As I've said before, I think repeated social exposure to sexual objectification is probably psychologically unhealthy. However, I think it's overall effect on the population is over-rated, and that people often have a hard time separating the effects of concentrated, individual instances from the effects on a population.

A population is a collection of individuals, and exposure to sexual objectification, in particular, is something that happens to the population.

Honestly, I think the concept that the individual is an entity that has existence wholly separate from societal context is not only overrated, it's nonsensical. I see for myself the effects on society that are talked about; if anything, they're underrated, not overrated.

 

[Riverwolf]

"More so than men", old friend. Key to understanding that paragraph. Yes, there are also unrealistic portrayals of male beauty in the media, but "more so" for women.

Every time I go to the store, 9 out of 10 magazines with people on the cover that I see feature sexualized women.

 

[Riverwolf]

None of my nieces have love handles, nor wear substantial (and usually no) amounts of makeup. Regardless, this has little to do with my description of my nieces, their environment, and behaviors which paints your extreme dichomotic "choice" as either false or hyperbolic.

Perhaps, then, your nieces are the exception.

 

[Riverwolf]

Here is an example of objectification, but with a model of average appearance.

And now, I'm reminded of this:

[youtube]UFhgW6bnz6Q[/youtube]

^_^

 

[Revoltingest]

Been doing that for over a decade, now.
It's not helping.

It does help (albeit in a small way since we're just individuals),
but the results just don't have the alternative for comparison.
It's a bit like voting.

 

[Riverwolf]

For me, since I often joke about sleeping my way to the top, it isn't so much about whether or not to flaunt what our mama's gave us. It's recognizing the world we live in and how we play a part in it as agents for change, as revolutionary acts, as working the system as it is (and understanding limits imposed), or eating the **** sandwich until we're ticked off enough to walk away for a little bit.

One thing I've learned about how others perceive feminist rhetoric about sexual objectification is that we're whining about dudes thinking we're hot, whining about dudes who don't think we're hot, and then whining that life isn't fair. That's the perception folks get when listening to feminist criticism of the current mindset of advertising and sexual objectification. The message gets scrambled from social commentary to just one big ice-cream-binge-fest from crying about why don't boys like us that much.

It's that scrambling of the message that I'm most interested in digging into. There are a few folks here and there think that women are supposed to offer up to men their bodies for sale because the assumption is present that that's just how men are. That women are here for men's pleasure. Period. And it's that kind of acceptance of what "is" that scrambles the intent of advertising into assumptions of the purpose of women's bodies.

It's a radical notion to say that I'm not here for a man's viewing pleasure. I'm not telling men NOT to like what they see. But I AM saying that my existence as a human being doesn't serve that purpose.

So, yes. I dance. I support women who go into sex work. I identify myself as a sex-positive feminist. And I think sexual objectification in advertising is detrimental to the push toward gender equality.

The Male Gaze being assumed as the default reality is what's at play here.

There's a very real difference between "sexy" and "sexualized."

Extremely simplistically, sexualization involves over-emphasizing the sex parts of the body, and under-emphasizing everything else. By contrast, sexiness doesn't even have to include sex parts; one of the sexiest videos I've ever seen on youtube is RocketJump's Pot Smasher.

[youtube]dXmMQJMFL_I[/youtube]

No male gaze here.

By contrast, last night, I was looking for videos on youtube about tribal people, because that's a topic that interests me. Virtually every single video that came back that actually seemed to be about what I want, had thumbnails almost exclusively of topless women (one of them even had a circle around a woman's breasts). Speaking as a heterosexual male, I wasn't turned on by the images at all; I was seriously annoyed. It's as if what that movie producer from Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong said on the subject still holds true today, almost a century after the movie's time period: "In my experience, the only reason people go to these films [about tropical islands] is to observe the undraped form of the native girls."

 

[Riverwolf]

It does help (albeit in a small way since we're just individuals),
but the results just don't have the alternative for comparison.
It's a bit like voting.

Any help I, as an individual, might provide by not buying things I don't like is basically nill. It's not a bit like voting, it's exactly like voting. The main currency for politicians is votes, just as the currency for business is profits. Refusing to vote at all, or only exclusively voting for politicians I agree with on every level will ultimately have absolutely no effect on the outcome of an election unless it just so happens that the one I'm voting for is one of the two practically-only-existent ones.

Telling us to "just don't buy it" is, therefore, worthless advice. Chances are that we're already not buying them, and if we are, it's because we feel that there's still something of value in the product. I suppose that is one difference between buying something and voting in an election; elections, at least in the US, are presented as battles to be won, with a single winner standing astride hundreds of losers(no silver medal here; get the gold or get nothing); buying things... aren't, at least for consumers. I can still enjoy a product that was so unprofitable that it caused, or nearly caused, the company that made it to go under.

Of course, when we buy things, we're often not actually buying the product; we're buying the commercial. Far too often, these things are in conflict. (The biggest example of how damaging this is for all parties involved that immediately comes to mind doesn't involve sexualization, but is an example of a product's entire marketing campaign being one big case of false advertising: the "game" Aliens: Colonial Marines... if you're wondering, no, I didn't buy it.)

Furthermore, if there are no alternative results for comparison, that's just yet another reason the advice is useless.

 

[Revoltingest]

Telling us to "just don't buy it" is, therefore, worthless advice.

It isn't worthless....it's just insufficient.
Other measures are available, eg, airing complaints.

 

[Riverwolf]

It isn't worthless....it's just insufficient.
Other measures are available, eg, airing complaints.

It may not have been your intention, but more often than not, when I see the "just don't buy it" answer, there's a second veiled statement in it: "stop complaining."

Besides, yes, it's insufficient: to the point of being completely worthless. Whether we as individuals choose to buy things has no real effect. When talking about multi-billion dollar companies and products, individual consumers are about as significant as any one grain of sand on a beach.

IOW, don't tell individuals to not buy things; if anything, indirectly tell large groups of people to not buy such things by organizing a mass boycott. THAT does things.

 

[Revoltingest]

....there's a second veiled statement in it: "stop complaining."
Besides, yes, it's insufficient: to the point of being completely worthless. Whether we as individuals choose to buy things has no real effect. When talking about multi-billion dollar companies and products, individual consumers are about as significant as any one grain of sand on a beach.
IOW, don't tell individuals to not buy things; if anything, indirectly tell large groups of people to not buy such things by organizing a mass boycott. THAT does things.

Dang, that's harsh.
Oh, well....worthless suggestions beat the incessant complaining & sloganeering which dominate this thread.

 

[Alceste]

It may not have been your intention, but more often than not, when I see the "just don't buy it" answer, there's a second veiled statement in it: "stop complaining."

Besides, yes, it's insufficient: to the point of being completely worthless. Whether we as individuals choose to buy things has no real effect. When talking about multi-billion dollar companies and products, individual consumers are about as significant as any one grain of sand on a beach.

IOW, don't tell individuals to not buy things; if anything, indirectly tell large groups of people to not buy such things by organizing a mass boycott. THAT does things.

Exactly. The clients I worked for didn't bother trying to serve or analyze web traffic that never arrived. But one single complaint about a lack of racial diversity in our stock photos was immediately acted upon and permanently changed our approach.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dang, that's harsh.

I don't really feel much sympathy for scam artists trying to pass whiskey as a cure for alcoholism.

Oh, well....worthless suggestions beat the incessant complaining & sloganeering which dominate this thread.

Hardly.

At least the incessant complaining is something that needs to be complained about incessantly. It actually does things, such as helping to provide context and words for things we may otherwise have real trouble expressing.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "sloganeering"; I haven't seen any mnemonic slogans around.