Thank heavens American feminists leafing through dusty back issues of Rolling Stone magazine have scientifically proven that men aren’t being ‘sexualised’ the way that women are.
Otherwise I would have got entirely the wrong idea watching this ad and the way the camera gropes Nadal in the grimy lift.
just wonder if, contrary to generalizations that went around at one time about women dressing for other women if liberated [heterosexual] women don’t sexualize themselves to attract men who are desirable sexual partners. Like gay men, or straight meterosexual men do.
The issue of the sexualization of women is somehow predicated on the belief that heterosexual women try to attract for a man to care for them as women has become a myth since as they have become liberated they want to take care of themselves but do want sexual mates. Only lesbians for the most part, or women tied to an old fashioned idea of feminine roles would object to the sexualization of women. My observation of lesbians is that they seem to be generally less tied to appearances. It’s very unfair in a world where women are often realized to think that they are necessarily not liberated. That preliberation/lesbian argument becomes mote.
I think that liberated women, like gay men, or straight men want the attention that sexual allure provides (even minus the sex).
Mark W does raise an important point about the kind of cover a ‘rock’ mag is likely to have – let alone one as long in the tooth as Rolling Stone.
But it’s also worth mentioning that since Blondie and Madonna, female peformers have a) ‘sexualised’ THEMSELVES and b) There have been A LOT MORE OF THEM. In fact, they now dominate: e.g. the ‘hypersexualised’ Gaga.
But perhaps the best part of this ‘scientific study’ is that they use ‘parted lips’ as a criteria for ‘sexualisation’. In other words, they’re applying self-serving stereotypical conventions about FEMALE sexiness to women AND men in a supposed attempt to objectively measure how ‘sexualised’ both sexes are or are not.
But as Oh Tarzie suggests, it’s not really worth refuting this kind of feminist baloney. The clue is in the dreadful word ‘sexualised’. It’s really only ever used by feminists – and their puritan allies – to describe the objectification of women by (evil) men.
I can’t believe there is a group of people so unutterably stupid and lazy as to make a sweeping statement about the objectification of women based on looking at copies of one magazine. Mark Walsh points out only the most obvious problem with this approach.
But then, we’re talking about American feminists here, and when your go-to argument is ‘Shut Up’ and most people obey, it tends to have a stupefying effect.
Mark (W), you write “Fashion seems to be a different arena. Female fashion models are mainly structured like coat hangers, and rarely appeal to the sexual eye which is female”.
correct. unless you live in Milano and -too little the city for its fashion-related aura- men look at the female models on the tramway with desire. I always wonder why. maybe this men would like to fuck fashion itself, personified. voodoo.
The most evident observation that can be made of the comparative degree of sexualization of women of the covers of Rolling Stone and the Armani and similar ads is that the intent of the portrayals is entirely different.
Whereas female rock stars invariably promote a sexualized inmage of themselves, Men don’t.
Fashion seems to be a different arena. Female fashion models are mainly structured like coat hangers, and rarely appeal to the sexual eye which is female.
On the other hand, the fashion ads are geared to appeal to a sexualized male eye, which it seems is or has become geared to a body which is desirable. Unlike female fashion sales, just gear to a “look” male sales go to the brand that presumably makes someone appear physically verile & youthful. This inhabits a metroseual atmosphere which may not have a consideration for sexual choice, only identification.