Sexual Objectification and the media
Part 3 of series
The relationship
between the body and sex is unambiguously portrayed in contemporary media.
Conforming to a thin body ideal is crucial to sexual attractiveness. Sexually
objectifying images of women can be regularly viewed across all types of media from
their music and the barrage of images available via the Internet to TV programs
and movies they watch and magazines they read.
Although
influences on self-objectification might include a variety of interpersonal,
social, cultural, and even biological factors, an aggressive purveyor of sexual
objectification is undoubtedly the mass media.
Women’s magazine
covers often place weight loss messages next to messages about one’s sex life,
implying weight loss will lead to a better sex life. They combine articles about
weight loss with tips to keep your marriage hot. Stay skinny articles linked
with ‘‘What Men Want Most’’ on their covers. Moreover, teen and women’s
magazines regularly feature articles on attracting the opposite sex
interspersed with advertisements for beauty care products and fashion
merchandise. Finally, in television shows popular with adolescents, the most
common sexual theme is that women are judged as romantic or sexual partners
based on their physical appearance.
Cultivation theory
purports that television teaches audiences to adopt certain ‘‘cultivated’’
views of the world around them, the current study predicts that sexually
objectifying media content can teach audiences to adopt a certain perspective
of the self, one that places primary importance on physical appearance
(Harrison & Fredrickson, 2003).
Extensive
research has demonstrated the negative results of female objectification in the
media. Depression, appearance anxiety, body shame, sexual dysfunction, and
eating disorders are only a few among the growing list of repercussions (Fredrickson
& Noll, 1997).
Kilbourne (2002)
pointed out that advertising is a 100 billion dollar a year industry. Each day
we are exposed to more than 2000 ads. Advertising can be one of the most
powerful sources of education in our society. Many women feel pressured to
conform to the beauty standards of our culture and are willing to go to great
lengths to manipulate and change their faces and bodies.
Kilbourne
suggests that women are conditioned to view their faces as masks and their
bodies as objects. Through the mass media, women discover that their bodies and
faces are in need of alteration, augmentation, and disguise.
In addition,
women are taught to internalize an observer’s perspective of their own bodies.
This phenomenon is called objectification (Fredrickson & Noll, 1997).
Advertisements
are loaded with objectified women, and only recently have the effects of
objectification been explored. However, the effects of the dismemberment of
women in advertising have been neglected.
Dismemberment
advertisements highlight one part of a woman’s body while ignoring all the
other parts of her body. Dismemberment ads portray women with missing appendages
or substitute appendages.
Kilbourne (2002)
suggested that the dismemberment of women is a monstrous problem in
advertising. Dismemberment ads focus on one part of the body, e.g., a woman’s
breasts. Typically, dismemberment ads employ female body parts for the purpose
of selling a product. Dismemberment ads promote the idea of separate entities.
These
ads overtly and covertly encourage a woman to view her body as many individual
pieces rather than a whole. Dismemberment ads leave many women feeling that
their entire body is spoiled on account of one less than perfect feature. If a
woman has less than satisfactory legs, then her potential for beauty is
spoiled.
In other words, if every body part is not
flawless, then the possibility for beauty is ruined. As previously mentioned,
girls and women are conditioned from a young age to view the body as a “work in
progress” or something in constant need of alteration. Instead of being
satisfied with their body as a whole, they concentrate on what separate
entities they lack. Many women compare their bodies and sexuality to the
eroticized images that are plastered on billboards and television and in
magazines and movies (Kilbourne, 2002).
Self-objectification
largely stems from what we see in advertisement. Publishers use magazines to
influence society's expectations for beauty, popularity, and fashion. A recent
cover of Cosmopolitan, shows the guide to perfection. The idea of
"perfection" is shown in the airbrushed model and "how to"
guides the magazine headlines. First off, the model on the cover is seen in a
red dress that shows that she has a very slim body and emphasizes her hourglass
figure. Unlike most women in society, this model has no blemishes, no fat on
her body, and has perfect hair. She is seen as flawless and perfect. These
types of models have always been the face of magazines like Cosmopolitan, and
will continue to be as long as they attract subscribers. The models are chosen
to set the standard of what beautiful and sexy is. It can be assumed that the
purpose of this magazine is to guide ordinary, average women into the ideal
women that they should be.
The headlines of
the top articles say a lot about the magazine as well. "15 Things All
Girls Need to Learn to Do" is one of the top stories that show the nature
of the magazine. The wording in the title is very demanding. The word
"need" shouts out to the audience as a demand; if they don't do these
certain things there will be repercussions. This idea of having to act in a
certain way or do certain things in order to be a girl shows how influential
the media can be on society. The readers of Cosmopolitan, for example, are
being told how to live their life without them realizing the demands given to
them. They see images and subconsciously think that in order for them to be
beautiful they need to act and look a certain way. The models are an example of
this perfection that should be achieved by all women.
The centerfold
syndrome is defined by five principal characteristics: voyeurism,
objectification, trophyism, the need for validation, and the fear of true
intimacy. Brooks mentioned several possible causes of the centerfold syndrome
such as biology, instinct, and survival of the fittest. However, it is
exceptionally interesting to note that of all the possibilities mentioned,
Brooks found the socio-cultural explanation to be the most probable.
Brooks claimed
that the centerfold syndrome is a product of the way in which men have been
taught to think about and experience relationships, intimacy, and sex. The
widespread sexualization of women in our culture easily lends itself to the
adoption of the Centerfold Syndrome.
Men are not the
only ones who have adopted this harmful attitude towards relationships,
intimacy, and sex. Women can just as easily adopt a negative self-image and
attitude, perpetuating the negative stereotypes about women, sexuality,
intimacy, and relationships (Brooks, 1995).
The problem is
not that media is showing these objectifying images; the problem is that people
see those images and then start to see themselves as nothing other than a sex-object.
She adds that there wouldn't be a problem if society knew to separate what they
see from how they see themselves. Having your self-esteem based only your
physical appearance rather than your intelligence or personality is the
underlining problem. People need to see themselves as human beings and not
objects. If they believe that all they are is an object and act like an object,
the result is that society will see them as the object that they are
portraying.
Change can happen
if people can try to make the conscious decision every day to promote
themselves as a human with thoughts and feelings rather than an object to be
used. The way society can start to "dis-objectify" itself is to look
behind the images you are seeing and trying to see the underlining story of the
person in the image.
The Sexy Lie February 9, 2014 by Caroline Heldman:
Heldman doesn't
just describe to her audience what sexual objectification is but she also gives
her plan of action to provide knowledge on the topic and hopefully fix it. Heldman
splits up her solutions into two categories, personal and political action
plans. Heldman's personal plan of action is also split into girl and boy action
plans. The girl action plan included, "stop consuming damaging materials,
stop competing with other women, and stop seeking attention for your
body".
The boy action
plan included, "be a supportive ally, don't evaluate girls/women based on
appearance, and speak out against objectification". Both of these action
plans are ones that can be done on an individual basis and by any age. This is
important because this speech is aimed at youth in the country and they need to
be able to have the option to make a difference. If the action plan they are
given isn't possible for them to do, it will only lead to discouragement.
Heldman also
includes a political action to help aid in change. This action plan
includes,"boycott objectifying media, contact media producers, produce
your own media, and new media activism".
An excerpt from her show:
“Good afternoon. Are we having a transformative afternoon so
far? Let’s hear it. Well, I am here today to talk about a lie, in specific, a
sexy lie. I know there are lots of lies. Some of them are sexy, some of them
are very unsexy.
I’d like to talk about specifically about the lie or the
idea that being a sex object is empowering. I’d like to convince you that it is
not empowering, first, by talking about what’s sexual objectification is, and
then moving on to theoretical and data driven analysis of why it’s damaging.
Lastly, provide you a plan of action, so that you can both navigate
objectification culture, and change objectification culture. Let’s jump right
in.
What is sexual objectification? It’s the process of
representing or treating a person like a sex object, one that serves another
sexual pleasure. What’s so interesting about sexual objectification is we used
to have a vocabulary for it.
In the 60’s and 70’s, we were concerned about sexual
objectification and its harm on girls and women. In the 80’s, 90’s, and today,
we’ve actually been relatively quiet when it comes to public discourse. Even
though our sexual objectification culture is more amplified, we see more
images, and 96% of them are female of sexually objectified bodies. We don’t
have a vocabulary to talk about it. In fact, young people I think have even
mostly lost the ability to identify it.
--
New objectification culture has emerged in the past 10
years, and it’s marked by two things. One is an increase in the number of
sexually objectifying ads in television, movies, videogames, music videos,
magazines, and other mediums. The second advertising component is that the
images have become more extreme, more hyper sexualized.
Why are we experiencing this now? It can really be boiled
down to technology. New technology has increased the sheer number of images
that you are exposed to everyday. In the 70’s, we saw about 500 ads a day. Now,
we see about 5,000 ads a day.
Children, those ages 8 to 18, are spending an average of
eight hours a day hooked up to devices where advertisers can reach them. What
do advertisers do? They cut through the clutter with increased emphasis on
violence, hyper violence, and hyper sexualized.
--
How is this not empowering? I want to make an appeal first
to logic. When we’re talking about sex objects, we’re talking about
dichotomies. In Western thinking, we think of black and white, yes/no, two
opposing categories. When we’re thinking about sex objects, we’re thinking
about the object subject dichotomy. Subjects act, objects are acted upon.
Even if you become the perfect object, the perfect sex
object, you are perfectly subordinate because that position will always be
acted on; so there’s not power in being a sex object when you think about it
logically. Beyond that, this idea that sex sells, I like to challenge that
directly because the fact is if sex sold, most women are heterosexual and we
are sexual beings, so why wouldn’t we see half naked men everywhere in
advertising.
I would like to propose that something else is being sold
here. To men, they’re being sold this idea constantly that they are sexual
subjects. They are in the driver’s seat. It makes them feel powerful to see
images of objectified women everywhere.
--
Also, sexual dysfunction. This idea that sex sells, isn’t it
strange that if you think of yourself as a sex object, and we’re raised in a
society that raises little girls to view their bodies as projects to work on
and be sex objects that it actually gets in the way of good sex?
What tends to happen is that women who are high
self-objectifies actually engage in what’s called Spectatoring Drink-Sex Act.
Instead of being involved and engaged in the pleasure and what’s happening, you
tend to view yourself from a third-party perspective, a spectators perspective
where you’re worried about rolls of fat hanging out, what that leg looks like.
Again, it gets in the way of sexual pleasure.
If there’s anything I can pitch to you about why you don’t
want to live in a culture that sexually objectifies, it diminishes your sexual
pleasure.
--
First, Sociological Images, a blog run by Dr. Lisa Wade;
worked with students to pull Abercrombie and Fitch’s padded bras or padded
swimsuits for toddlers. They ran a campaign where they blogged about it. It got
some press coverage. There were some petitions, and they pulled the product
nationally from their stores.
--