Theories Of Sexual Objectification

1. INTRODUCTION:
My analysis on the current literature shows that scholars have examined sexualisation of culture from different perspectives but they seem to agree in general that this societal phenomenon has grown very complex. Therefore, scholars should consider the intersectional approach more often due to the approach’s abilities to recognise complex phenomena and to systematically analyse them.

Social forces influence our daily lives regardless of our awareness to them. This understanding illustrates the sociological imagination which challenges accepted beliefs and encourages questioning certain practises. Generally, society accepts what they are told about what it means to be a female. We rarely question practises that degrade females despite the blatant diminishing of women being frowned upon. The objectification of women can not be solely blamed on men as both genders contribute to the sexualization of women.

If you turn on the television or flip through a fashion magazine, it is very likely you will presented with many displays of hypersexualization of girls and women in advertising images and in media. There are many components to sexualization. It occurs, according to the American Psychological Association, when “a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics.” This person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy. “Sexualization” happens when a person is sexually objectified- that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than being seen as a person with their own independent actions and abilities to make decisions. Oftentimes, sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person without their knowing it or consent. Sometimes, researchers use the word “hypersexualization” to describe roughly the same idea. In the article, “Media’s Growing Sexualization of Women”, hypersexualization is defined as, “The act of making something extremely sexual and erotic.”

Sexual objection and non-sexual objectification were mainly measured in body exposure and body movements. The different areas of a woman’s body being displayed were used to operationalize the idea of sexual objectification. Similarly, camera angles such as panning down bodies and shots down shirts were tallied to create a solid definition of “sexualizing” for the purpose of this research. (see Appendix A and B)

As a result of many cultural factors, self-objectification has become a common trend for many women and girls. Self-objectification is defined by Caroline Heldman in her article as “…viewing one’s body as a sex object to be consumed by the male gaze” (52). Although there have been successes for the women’s movement, self-objectification has increased, in part, because of backlash against their progress. Not only is self-objectification a constant mental state for many women and girls, but it is reinforced by the powerful influences of popular culture, including advertisements, television shows, and films. These sources place added pressure on women to see themselves through the eyes of men, forcing them to be aware of their physical appearance

in Szymanski, Moffitt and Carr). This leads to the belief that women are sexually objectified, seeing as they are only seen as mere parts that are to be of use to men and their sexual desires.

Topics that really hit home for me were the rampant sexual objectification of women and our over dependence on technology, the new age addiction. Caroline Heldman brings into perspective the world of sexually objectifying women from music videos to TV advertisement and the clear line between objectification and empowerment. I think we are living in a very confused society, if we believe that women are empowering themselves when they are used as objects. We are sending a wrong message to the youth of our generation that it is ok to be objects and not be viewed for your intellect. Women are more that beautiful objects to be viewed for pleasure or eye candy (pop culture term), they should be viewed for their strength, love and kindness and help

Objectification theory, first proposed by Barbara Frederickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts in 1997, provided other psychologist with the framework for understanding experience women have through the context of sociocultural aspects that sexually objectifies the female body (Szymanski, Moffitt, & Carr, 2011, p. 6). Many references to the female body equate a woman’s worth with how well she fits within the socially ideal body type and how she functions sexually. Frederickson and Roberts (1997) presented the notion that women were sexually objectified and were seen as only valuable if they have a use to others. They also proposed that women’s body parts were seen as separate from their entire selves and viewed as the point of male desire. The objectification

The sexualization of young girls and women in society is a prevalent theme in mass media. Presently, the sexualization of females is commonly seen in various consumer items like clothes, dolls, and even in Disney movies, according to “The Sexualization of Girls Is Harmful” article. The author says that sexualization occurs when “a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior; a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness with being sexy; a person is sexually objectified- made into a thing for others’ sexual use; and sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person (AboutKidsHealth).” Furthermore, the author provides statistics on how girls are being sexualized by the products they see and use

Nussbaum believes that amongst the seven original features instrumentality is the most challenging. As it will be explained below, dissimilar to Mackinnon and Dworkin's view, Nussbaum-Langton account does not consider sexual objectification to be connected to gender roles. Nussbaum challenges the concept of sexual objectivity being an unavoidably negative phenomenon, contending for the opportunity of positive objectification. She argues that it is not ethically harmful as there are benevolent occurrences of it, and can be seen as pleasing features of the sexual life. (Nussbaum, 1995, 251). Nussbaum goes on to say that objectification is only a negative phenomenon when it takes residence in a setting where fairness, admiration, and consensus are absent. According to Nussbaum, that if every time someone is treated or simply seen by another as some sort of instrument, for some additional drive, individuals take it as the person in the query is straight away the objectified. She then goes on to state that in our everyday lives, we objectify almost all, this is including us

After examining multiple sources, the damaging effects on women that is influenced through media involves many different aspects as it includes body dissatisfaction and body shaming, mental disorders including eating disorders, depression, and low self-esteem, and impacts on sexuality based on how women are portrayed in media. It can be concluded that they hypothesis was correct in the sense that the media is influencing the sexualization of girls and causing these negative effects to occur.

1. American Psychological Association,Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf

The sexualization of girls is very common in the media. Examples of sexualization of girls in the media include: television programming, movies, the Internet, computer games, music videos and lyrics. Also magazines, the marketing of sexy clothing and products aimed at young girls (Sexualization 'harms' Young). The impact of sexualization of girls' identity development and

Human sexuality is a common phrase for all, and anything, pertaining to the feelings and behaviors of sex for the human race. Sexuality has been a topic that has been discussed and studied for as far back as 1000 years B.C. and is still being studied today. As the discussion of sexuality has progressed through history, theories have been created based on research and experiments that scholars have implemented, based on their own perceptions of human behavior. Out of the many theories that pose to explain sexual behavior, Sexuality Now explained ten that are seemed to be the most overlapped, and built off of theories. Of these theories, two that were discussed in the text were the behavioral and sociological theory. These two theories cover some of the basic ideas of what could possibly influence a person’s sexuality.

In her article she not only discusses how men and women are sexualized, but also how each gender is sexualized under different concepts; “Briefly, the feminine gender role model encourages women to please themselves. Implicit to this model is that in the process of pleasing them-selves, women will also please others (Barthel, 1994; Wolf, 1991). Conversely, the masculine gender role model emphasized power, whether in the boardroom, bedroom, or on the playing field” (Rohlinger p.1). Men and women are equally sexualized, however, the ways people construe that sexualization varies among whether one is viewing a male or female. From this view point Rohlinger discusses that even though men and women’s sexualization through advertisement may be regarded differently “…they have a similar social effect: the body becomes an object that is manipulated, disciplined, and viewed by others” (Rohlinger p.2).