Sexual+Objectification

Jenna Hennig

Sexual Objectification

**What is Sexual Objectification?** Objectification, as defined by Merriam-Webster (2011), is “treating as an object or causing to have objective reality.” Sexual objectification, therefore, can be defined as treating a person, whether male or female, as an object; however, frequently, sexual objectification stems from one specific body part – usually sexual in nature – to represent the whole person. While both males and females are subjected to sexual objectification, the majority of examples and accounts are that of females. American feminist Catharine MacKinnon has further proved this notion writing, “All women live in sexual objectification the way fish live in water” (Soble, 2002). A compelling feminist, MacKinnon initially recognized this metaphor through watching pornographic videos and seeing the way the actors and viewers responded to the woman being filmed. MacKinnon, for one, embraced this idea of sexual objectification and saw it as gratification for women. (Soble, 2002). MacKinnon had a powerful interpretation of sexual objectification; however, there is a large group of people – both men and women – who would argue against her. Regardless of the gender of the subject, sexual objectification is extremely prevalent in many aspects of today’s society.

**Sexual Objectification in the Media** Today’s society is ever changing, and for outlets like the media, this means constant improvements to maintain ratings and to sell products. One of the easiest ways to maintain ratings and sell products is through sexuality. Sex sells. A 2001 – 2002 survey found that “sexual content appeared in 64% of all television programs. “ (Parents Television Council, 2011). This increase in sexual content has had a dramatic impact on sexual objectification. Advertisers, television producers, and others involved with media production have acknowledged this sexually driven stimulus and are now, more than ever, dehumanizing models through sexual objectification.

One of the most common places to see such objectification is in advertisements. MacKinnon comments on the portrayal of women in advertisements “dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities” (Soble, 2002). While some advertisements do show a woman’s entire body, a majority of advertisements that fall into “sexual objectification” only showcase one or possibly a few parts of the female physique. Body parts frequently used are legs, breasts, and the butt – all of which draw the most attention from consumers.

An example of this dehumanization can be found in the Francesco Biasa Handbags advertisement, in which a woman’s legs represent the legs of a table. The woman’s legs are long and slender, with high heels enhancing their femininity and sexuality. By quite literally turning a woman’s legs into an inanimate object for the sole purpose of selling a product, Francesco Biasa Handbags demonstrates a frequent objectification in the world of advertising.

In Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women (2000), Jean Kilbourne analyzes the objectification of women through various print advertisements and commercials. Kilbourne furthers MacKinnon’s comments of the portrayal of women saying, “[Sexual objectification] is the most dehumanizing … not only is she a thing, but just one part of that thing is focused on” (Kilbourne, 1999). This can be said for the Francesco Biasa Handbags advertisement as well as other advertisements of the same nature. **Sexual Objectification: A Double Standard?** Sexual objectification of men is prevalent in today’s society, however, not at the same frequency or intensity as compared to women. More interesting is the idea of a double standard in terms of sexual objectification. Michelle Castillo, a Time NewsFeed reporter, explored some of the (overlooked) differences between men and women through her comparison of two //Vanity Fair// covers.

Both Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus have appeared on the cover of this popular magazine. Both Bieber and Cyrus’ spreads were tastefully filmed – with a sprinkle of sexuality, and yet Cyrus was the only one who received any backlash for the photographs. Castillo explores this discrepancy claiming, “Our society is outraged at the mere suggestion that a girl may be desired, yet is willing to say that the intentions are innocent when it comes to the opposite gender. It’s a double standard…” (Castillo, 2011).

Castillo’s article simply brings the double standard of sexuality to light. “…Where women who are not depicted as chaste and pure are labeled as promiscuous, while men… as a mischievous flirt” (Castillo, 2011). This double standard demonstrates the social inequalities that exist between men and women and also lays a foundation to the repercussions that occur as a result of them.

**Repercussions of Sexual Objectification** Kilbourne’s film //Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women// (2000) looked at the effects of sexual objectification on self-esteem and body images of women. Kilbourne found that women’s insecurities about their “imperfect” bodies could be directly traced back to sexual objectification. Advertisements have set the standard for the most desirable women, a body image that only a miniscule percent of the female population can attain. Nevertheless, young girls and women alike strive to attain these ideal, yet unrealistic body images. The rate of eating disorders has dramatically increased with such advertisements (and their prevalence), for said women hope to attain the enviable female physique portrayed in the media.

Along with the negative body images and eating disorders related to sexual objectification, new studies have found that sexual objectification of women hinders some cognitive ability. Psychologists Robin Gay and Emanuele Castano of the New School for Social Research found that “[Sexual objectification] is likely to increase cognitive load, with a resulting decrease in the availability of cognitive resources for the tasks the individual engages in” (Jacobs, 2010). With this study, not only are women being degraded by a man’s wandering eye, but also their ability to perform cognitive tasks is compromised.

As demonstrated through studies, it is evident that sexual objectification has negative connotations – ranging from eating disorders to a hindrance of cognitive ability. It is important to recognize and understand these repercussions in hopes of using them as a driving force to end sexual objectification.

**References** Castillo, Michelle (2011, January 4). Does Justin Bieber Get Away With Sexual Objectification Because He’s a Boy? //TIME NewsFeed//. Retrieved from http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/04/does-justin-bieber-get-away-with-sexual-objectification-because-hes-a-boy/

Jacobs, Tom (2010, April 10). New Discoveries Suggest That Sexual Objectification is More Damaging to Women than you Might Think. //AlterNet//. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146396/new_discoveries_suggest_that_sexual_objectification_is_more_damaging_to_women_than_you_might_think

Kilbourne, Jean (1999). Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women. //Media Education Foundation//. Retrieved from http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412#

“Objectification”. (2011). //Webster’s Dictionary Online.// Retrieved from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectification

Parent Television Council (2011). Facts and TV Statistics. //Parents Television Council//. Retrieved from http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp

Soble, Alan (2002). //The Philosophy of Sex, Contemporary Readings//. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=-arJDCunTwEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+philosophy+of+sex&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=ZsSiTbPEKNScgQfszZTaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=fals