A new study by University of Buffalo sociologists suggests the answer is yes, indeed. This may be well-tread territory, but we think we need to go there anyway. One reason is what we call the "tyranny of the shoulds."
The study, entitled "Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone", will be published in the September issue of the journal Sexuality & Culture. The researchers, Erin Hatton, Ph.D., and Mary Nell Trautner, Ph.D., analyzed covers of Rolling Stone magazine over the past three decades and found that "sexualized representations of both women and men increased, and hypersexualized images of women (but not men) skyrocketed." They chose Rolling Stone, in particular, because of its long lifespan and because its covers have featured a broad mix of pop culture icons -- from celebrities to politicians -- of both genders. According to the University of Buffalo News Center, here's what they had to say about their findings:
"In the 2000s," Hatton says, "there were 10 times more hypersexualized images of women than men, and 11 times more non-sexualized images of men than of women.""What we conclude from this is that popular media outlets such as Rolling Stone are not depicting women as sexy musicians or actors; they are depicting women musicians and actors as ready and available for sex. This is problematic," Hatton says, "because it indicates a decisive narrowing of media representations of women.
"We don't necessarily think it's problematic for women to be portrayed as 'sexy.' But we do think it is problematic when nearly all images of women depict them not simply as 'sexy women' but as passive objects for someone else's sexual pleasure."
In their study, the authors cite a large body of research that has shown a link between sexualized portrayals of women and violence against them, as well as garden-variety sexual harrassment and, in some men, neanderthal attitudes toward women. They reference studies showing that media images of impossibly perfect and hypersexy women also increase the rates of eating disorders and body dissatisfaction and that such images are also linked to an increase in teen sex. Finally -- cruel blow -- the authors reference a number of studies that have linked hypersexy images to decreased sexual satisfaction among women as well as men. Scary, right?
Sure, those may be worst-case scenarios. But at the very least, there's this: When we are bombarded by increasingly sexualized images peeking out at us from every newstand and/or iPad, another bullet point goes onto the "should" list. You know what we mean: There are the big bad societal shoulds, of course, and there are also the shoulds you hear in your best friends' voices, your mom's, your significant other's. TV and magazines remind us we should be thinner and happier -- and apparently, smoking hot as well.
We may call every bit of it out as unholy nonsense, but still, is there a part of us, deep inside, that believes that this is what it means to be a woman today? To Have It All?
Back in the day, the archetype for the woman who "had it all" was exemplified by the ad campaign for Enjoli, which billed itself as the "eight-hour perfume for the 24-hour woman." The classic seventies-era television commercial featured a woman who morphed from housewife to businesswoman to sex kitten wife, all the while singing: "I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never, ever let you forget you're a man, cause I'm a woman."
An impossibly ridiculous role model, from any number of aspects. But let's look at just one thing. She was pictured in a bathrobe, a business suit, and finally -- as the sexy chick -- in a high-necked evening gown that exposed nothing but her arms. We can't help wondering what, if anything, she'd be wearing if that ad were made today.
Follow Barbara & Shannon Kelley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@undecidedbook
Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs ranks sex with air, water, food, sleep, excretion, etc. but there are plenty of monks and nuns and other celibates who will tell you that they feel perfectly healthy without it.
I don't share their ranking of sex as relatively unimportant -- it's pretty darn important to me -- but it's not more important than, for example, my safety from killer STD's, or the health of my family, or my personal freedom, or my honor, etc.
I'd rather have sex-for-one than bombard everyone around me with a lot of whining about how I neeeeeeeeeeeeed porn to live. Sheesh.
I think perhaps men are brainwashed into thinking that somehow, if they are not bombarded with opportunities for sexual release and sexual images, they'll wither and die. Not true! You can have a perfectly healthy life without being surrounded by pornographic images and naked nymphs every minute of the day.
Really. It's OK. You'll live.
I call B.S.! Why can't a "sexy woman" be sexy simply because it gives HER pleasure? They're assuming that women get no joy whatsoever by being sexually appealing to others, which is nonsense! I've known many women who very much enjoy feeling and acting "sexy". This report must have been written by someone who's got some issues of (her?) own.
I understand what you're saying here but I did not get that from her post. I think the key is in how they are portrayed, passive vs. empowered takes on quite a different tone in images. Its not so much the sexiness, or the right to enjoy being sexy, but the constant bombardment of what she calls 'impossibly perfect' 'hyper-sexualized images that are not realistic at all but influence men's and women's perceptions.
No feminist I know objects to women's sexuality or sexual expression per se. They object to things like: being treated like an object/thing rather than an chooser/doer, being sexually abused (rape, incest, etc.), being treated like you have no sexual value (tossed on the ash heap) as soon as you pass the "nymph" stage of life (yes, women in their 50's, 60's and beyond do love to do the deed); being enslaved for your sexuality (human trafficking, abusive pimps), etc.
All these straw-woman arguments against feminism are not based on REAL feminism; they're based on the back-lash's stereotyping of feminism.
The abstract theories concerning men's objectification of women are really a backlash against men who really don't want to put up with some women's crap to get off. He has objectified his sexual impulse chose to treat it like a problem that needs solving instead of some women's romantic fantasy.
When women do this we see them as sexually powerful. She can have her toys, and or men to use in any way that pleases her. Men on the other hand have to be told by feminist women what forms of stimulation are permitted and what attitude towards their own sexuality were acceptable. If a man wants a women just for sex he is a objectifying, but if a women wants the same she is empowered.
The hypocrisy and double standards are obvious. Some women are just using feminism to make men do what the want them to do and it's not about equality or oppression. Let people be free to live as equals and we can work all this out as human beings instead of genders.
Why do people feel they need to aspire to embody what the images portray? Why can't they just enjoy them and move on with their life? This is tantamount to being upset about portrayals of athletes, fictional or real, achieving things impossible to the average person. So what if it is impossible/unrealistic/inauthentic? We deal with impossible concepts that extend way outside the bounds of reality every day (movies, stories, abstract concepts, etc.) and we're fine. But when it comes to sex, everybody breaks down and has some kind of fit about it. Why does that happen?
If people weren't so hung up about sex, our media would be much more willing to show off body types of all kinds and more realistic portrayals of sexuality in addition to the unrealistic ones. It is not the media causing the perceived sexual objectification, it's society's terrible relationship with sexuality causing people to interpret portrayals of it so negatively. The problem will not be fixed by changing and censoring images floating around in our media.
--------------------------------
And the women musicians are being kidnapped and forcibly made to dress and pose sexy for the covers of magazines?
Let's be honest, they do it intentionally because sex and controversy sell.
I don't think women are being "pornified", but those who are, are so because they choose to be.
Yet time and again all the women I know continue to purchase the Magazines, TV Shows, and Products that promote this type of Body-Image....
This is called the FREE MARKET, kids....
you 'Vote' with your credit card every time you make a purchase....
.
Competition is actually inefficient. The modus operandi of any captialist organism is to eliminate the competition. Many are quite successful. That's why popular culture is affected by binaries in Big Brands:
Coke vs Pepsi
Att vs Verizon
Mac vs PC
Oh wait! We actually have FIVE whole media companies that own virtually every TV station, cable channel, record company, movie studio, newspaper, magazine, book publisher, ISP, advertising agency, PR firm, etc.
Yeah. There's so much competition out there...
It seems to me that articles like this often compare apples and oranges.
Articles like this assume that the moral/ethical/cultural equivalent of men being socialized to see women as 'sex objects', is women viewing men as 'sex objects'. It isn't; it's women being socialized to view men as *success* objects. The equivalent of a woman thinking, 'he only loves me for my body' and 'he'll only love me as long as I look young' are 'she only loves me for my money,' and 'she'll only love me as long as I have a good salary.' Despite the gains of the women's movement, this theme stubbornly persists in our culture and others. Go ahead and put the question to the men you know.
Once we make this shift in perspective, we are able to see the evidence of trouble all around, not just insofar as the image of women is concerned. And we can also see that both men and women are being socialized in ways the inhibit them from making more self-determining life choices.
The question isn't whether women are being "pornified" by the media, it's why are women pornifying themselves these days?
Is it worth it?