Woman’s body == sex, and related notes
Interesting post up at Uncool. This idea of a woman’s body as a signifier for sex is something I first discussed back in college, in my awesome Biology and Politics of Women’s Reproduction class. The professor had asked us to bring in magazine clippings of ads that use sex to sell their product. A lot of people brought in ads featuring scantily clad women. As we went around and each showed the ads we’d brought, the professor called these out and asked, “Why does this signify sex? This is a picture of a woman. Why do we understand the picture to represent sex?”
It was a real “a-ha!” moment for me.
I don’t think this is something nearly enough people consider, or that it even ever enters their mind as something that needs to be considered. There’s nothing to think about there, right? Sex sells… and we understand that even an image of a woman’s face or lips [can't find the photo I was looking for] means “sex.”
But, why? Talk about your deeply embedded cultural assumptions. We’ve got some unpacking to do. Because until we do that, there are a lot of other problems that will remained only partially dealt with at best, instead of getting to the root of the problem.
For example, Caroline says:
Now, to me, it seems reasonable to make a connection with street harassment (I’ve got a post in the drafts, will do very soon). Because naked women = sex, so to do ‘revealing’ clothes. Take, for example, the lady pictured (right, taken from Tom Paine’s blog). Sexy? Certainly this image would equate with sex in this society because 1) the jeans show clearly her figure and 2) there’s a lot of skin on display. Therefore, some men believe that sex is being ‘offered’ to them and whistling, leery looks, comments etc ensues. So, if women say, “No, I’m wearing these jeans because I like the way I look in them and they make me feel more confident and therefore happier, and it is not about attracting the attention of all the men on the street,” many will laugh and dismiss that as utter nonsense.
Why? Because, like we said, naked women = sex, and that attitude permits, in part, that sort of behaviour (obviously it’s by no means solely responsible). Blokes don’t want to wear their shirts in the summer because they’re too hot, whatever. Women want to wear short shorts or, say, cropped tops because…. what? They’re sexy? They’re trying to be sexy? Cos they’re after attention? Please. Some do, some don’t. Depends on the lass just as it depends on the lad.
I think the other thing at work in this example is entitlement, which as we know, is a big part of male privilege. Obviously it must be about the men, what else could it possibly be about? Surely she couldn’t have her own reasons for dressing a certain way, that’s inconceivable!
It’s really, really stupid. I mean when I really think about it, the utter stupidity just knocks me on my ass.
Unfortunately I see similar arguments coming from some feminists, and the fact that I know they’re not stupid at all points to just how entrenched this idea is. For example, in Caroline’s post she points to another incarnation of the ever-present hand-wringing discussion over why some women post naked photos online. It simply must have something to do with wanting male approval, right?
My reaction, again, can be summed up with this emoticon: :|
I think there is a discussion to be had over the relative lack of male bodies portrayed on some self-identified sex-positive sites; but getting hung up on the “women only do it for male attention” / “those sites are replicating existing power structures” argument will simply lead to a stalemate, preventing discussion of whatever the real issues are.
ETA: Also be sure to see Laura’s original post which Caroline was referencing. Meant to link it when I first wrote this post, sorry!
Being a man who has done his share of “male gazing” at scantily clad women, Amber, allow me to offer my nickel’s worth on this.
I’ not even going to guess what would motivate a woman to dress “sexy”…whether it is to make her feel comfortable in her own skin or whether it’s to attract male (or even female) attention or whether she gets some kind of personal thrill or even erotic rush from the positive attention gathered from dressing that way. I personally don’t buy, however, the conventional notion that dressing “sexily” is only a byproduct of the “patriarchial” cultural norms where women only serve the desires of men; that particular theory tends to dismiss entirely any agency in the women who decide to show themselves off.
To me, though, the focus shouldn’t really be on the woman for her choice of clothing; the real focus should be on the reaction of the MEN and their total lack of respect for the woman who dresses sexily. There is not a damn thing wrong with being sexually aroused at the sight of a beautiful naked or scantily clad woman; but at the fundamental least, men could be a bit less boorish and a lot more temperate in their behavior in public. Just because you see a decent looking woman walking down the street does NOT mean that she is yours to possess for sex or anything else; she is still a WOMAN worthy of your respect. Showing off your body is not and should not be assumed to be a direct invitation for sex by any means; and until she says “Yes” to you, you should always assume she means “NO” and move on. If you are that hurting to see naked women to suit your sexual fantasies, well, that’s why God and the Goddess invented porn. :-)
Anthony
Agreed. I don’t see what’s so difficult about appreciating what you see and keeping it to your damn self! I think mayeb that’s the entitlement thing… men approaching women, hollering at them, whatever, based on how they’re dressed. What is the deal!? (rhetorical question, I know)
Don’t you think much of this also derives from the fundamental assumption that women lack agency? I mean, if a female lacks agency, she can’t make the decision to dress like she wants for any reason other than to benefit someone else or because of someone else’s influence (i.e., men, in this case). Some people (i.e., Anthony above) can see and appreciate the agency of the individual and respect her choices as valid, regardless of the basis for them.
There are some corners of the feminist world (and I won’t even call myself a feminist any longer. Womanist, perhaps, but not feminist) who don’t see women as independent agents, so to the “not stupid” people you refer to this would just be another example of that in action.
What’s funny is I read Laura Woodhouse’s comment not so much as a complaint about too many women but not enough men on progressive sex sites. Belldame pointed out that some pro(gressive) sex sites are hosted by or for bi or lesbian women, where it would make sense that women would tend to appear a lot. But you’d think they’d be offset by pro- sites hosted by or for straight women and bi- or gay men.
I’ve got to think about the rest of this for a bit. Ironically I had planned a Thursday photo post along the same “whatever can you mean?” lines before seeing this photo.
I really don’t have my ducks in a row on this but here are some random thoughts: My concern is that the perfectly valid point that sexiness is in the eye of the beholder also butts up against the tendency for really, truly non-sexual fashions (say, the service dress code at Hooters or the wardrobes chosen for models in advertising or the make-up, shoes, and costumes professional strippers wear ) to first be *strongly signified* by society as “sexy” and second to mimic authentic sexual arousal.
That kind of sexualization (pushing sexual signifiers onto non-sexual individuals or circumstances) at least makes it legitimate to question the *source* of such fashion decisions, if not the social requirements to appear in them even when the intention is not to indicate sexual interest.
—
Oh, and by the way, I got a total brainstorm about Woodhouse’s question about why so many women and so few men. (For myriad reasons straight women don’t much mind images of other women. But for one primary reason straight men *really* shy away from anything with dedicated images of other men.)
Thought provoking post, Amber. Seriously! As in “provoking of thought.” I don’t think it’s exactly as simply to unsort as you say, but I agree with you that it’s *nowhere* as simple to sort out as others claim.
Take care,
figleaf
Re: straight men shying away from anything showing images of other men – I think this is yet another symptom/manifestation of the gender stereotypes, sexism, and other entrenched bullshit that feminism seeks to change. If masculinity weren’t so defined by shit like “I ain’t gay or nothin’!!!” then it wouldn’t be an issue. If I can look at images of other women – even overtly sexual images – and have a neutral reaction (which I guess is no reaction!) or appreciate a particular feature of the image, then it’s not unreasonable to expect men to be able to do the same and not have a damn heart attack about it.
On Laura’s original post, a guy left this comment:
Although I think his assertion that equality is achieved through equal-opportunity objectification is a little off (and don’t get me started on my issues with that word and how there isn’t a common definition of it), I do think he has a very valid point in the part I made bold above.
Excellent post, Amber!
seriously.
my ex could never seem to understand that when I wore certain things it was because I liked them. Because I was comfortable and cool and happy, not that it had anything to do with offering myself up to some man (or The Male Gaze).
[...] original post at Uncool and Amber Rhea’s excellent post today have me thinking about desire, sexuality, the body, and of course power dynamics. (read [...]
Hmmm….funny that you mention the idea of “equal oppurtunity objectification”, Amber.
My basic view on sexual objectification is basically the one that Nina Hartley put forth in one of her classic essays defending herself as a pro-sex feminist porn starlet some 10 years ago:
– Nina Hartley: “In The Flesh: A Porn Star’s Journey”; from Whores and Other Feminists (ed. Jill Nagle, 1987) cited here)
In my view, then, being a subject of sexual attraction and desire is no big deal as long as the person being subjected is treated as a human being, and if (s)he fully shares and accepts such attraction.
It also depends on the venue and situation on what can be acceptable. It’s one thing to openly catcall a sexually assertive woman in the context of a strip bar or an adult movie theater or watching a porn flick in the privacy of your home; it’s quite another thing to harass an unwilling woman on a public street with “C’mon, baby, show those tits!!” Even, if she does like wearing sexy clothing because it feels good to her, that doesn’t translate into an instant tryst in the alley.
Besides that..it’s not quite like anyone’s going to control The Male Gaze; men (at least those not gay or totally asexual) are going to always be sexually attracted in some way to a woman dressed (or undressed) scantily.or sexily. (And let’s not forget women and their leering gaze, either.)
And it’s not as if the men with the bodybuilder bodies or the athletes don’t attract their own leers and stares, no???
Anthony
Anthony, thank you for posting that quote from Nina. I had completely forgotten about that.
And while I’m in catch-up mode (since I’ve been off line for a while):
On the subject of men avoiding images of male eroticism: I chalk that up to the usual combination of erotophobia and homophobia; especially the fear that somehow if you admit to getting aroused by the image of a buffed, rocked-up man with a decent package, you are one step remove from TEH GHEY….and therefore somehow rejecting women or otherwise deviating from the sexual norm of “one woman, one family, one purpose” ideology of traditional sexual mores.
Being someone who is generally straight in his sexual tastes (I like women way too much); I do readily admit to getting more than a bit turned on by at least some gay male sex imagery and media. That in no way erases my usual lusts for women, whether it does put me in the “bisexual” category remains to be seen. I think that it’s more the explicit sexual imagery of men and their erections and their expression of joy in their lusts that turns me on the most, though the physical attraction certainly helps. The images of men in less sexual poses would not attract me at all, other than the normal extent of respect for a handsome face or a decently maintained body.
Perhaps it’s the people who have been taught to be more repressed about sexuality as a whole and who aren’t exposed as much to positive explicit imagery of men and women engaging in consensual and mutually pleasuring sex who are the ones more likely to be the most boorish and inmature at responding to more sexually assertive men and women. Just my theory.
Anthony
Agreed. And to me, this is not objectification, by definition. Objectification would be NOT treated as a human being.
This is why it bugs me so much that people use the word “objectification” to mean very different things. How can we really tackle the issues when we’re using the same words but understanding them to mean different things?
Will finish catching up on the latest comments here in a bit. Gotta get to work putting together the carnival for tomorrow!