empowered expression or objectification?

[mkgal1]

Here is one female that believes that objectification is NOT empowering, and I think she does a great job of defining what objectification actually *is*:

Being A Sex Object Is Empowering. Oh, Wait, No It’s Not. Here’s Why.

If the dynamic you're meaning is the objectification......she listed ways that both men and women can affect change (around 9:05 into the video). Women can stop comparing and competing and stop seeking attention for their bodies (difficult to know what another person's motives are, so this is from a personal standpoint only).......men can speak out against objectification and be supportive allies.

Like anything....a person is either for something or against it (a part of the problem or a part of the solution).

 

[Hetta]

Perhaps there's a difference between entertainers claiming they are empowered by wearing so little, because we can always just not look. However, on a plane, the travelers don't really have a choice. I am about to take a vacation overseas and I don't want to see the usual warnings given by women in bikinis. I mean, what is that supposed to do? Make the plane safer because, hey, it must be okay if women are wearing bikinis? I don't have to look at Miley et al, but I am forced to watch the safety video.

 

[Hetta]

Perhaps my post about Cyrus was missed. I said it was a poor example and then gave other better examples. But in reality, even those are not enough. The article lost my interest when it started in the first paragraph saying that there is nothing morally wrong with a woman who "owns" her sexuality and sleeps around. On this forum, we are Christians. This should bother us.

I can only control me. Not other women. It would bother me that a woman was forced to have sex, but not that she chose to have sex. That's her right as an adult (presumably) and none of my business.

There absolutely is a double standard. Women want men to take us seriously, to stop exploiting women sexually, etc. yet we flaunt our stuff in front of them on our own volition, then get mad when bikini-clad women are in a commercial about airline safety. Different people having different perspectives is not helping "feminism" as a movement when feminism is not united in their goal. And if I, a feminist, can get confused about these issues, think how much more a man would - how are people to know what's the difference between one person's "perspective" that a certain thing is just empowerment and real exploitation? There is no distinction.

Again, nobody can control other women. I don't do any flaunting, but neither do I wear a burqa. And lol, people aren't going to have the same perspective - ever. If people are confused then I guess they're confused.

 

[mkgal1]

In giving this a bit more thought.....I think the problem is conflating "being objectified" and "being found desirable". That overlaps the man's issue of conflating "lust" with "healthy desire". There is a distinction there.

Seeing a woman on the beach wearing a bikini isn't "objectifying" a woman.....but placing a woman in a safety video *is*.

 

[DZoolander]

Gotta admit - the fact that you would summarily dismiss an entire piece of work that was made up of a myriad of different points simply because you disagreed with one of the stances the author takes - kinda surprises me.

 

[ValleyGal]

Seeing a woman on the beach wearing a bikini isn't "objectifying" a woman.....but placing a woman in a safety video *is*.

These women were not "placed" there. They were there of their own volition. So either they were there advancing their career, taking control of their own sexuality, flaunting their stuff, or (and) contributing to the idea that women are "objectified."

 

[ValleyGal]

Gotta admit - the fact that you would summarily dismiss an entire piece of work that was made up of a myriad of different points simply because you disagreed with one of the stances the author takes - kinda surprises me.

Who said it was all dismissed, based on one or two points?

 

[DZoolander]

The article lost my interest when it started in the first paragraph saying that there is nothing morally wrong with a woman who "owns" her sexuality and sleeps around.

"?"

 

[Hetta]

The article lost my interest when it started in the first paragraph saying that there is nothing morally wrong with a woman who "owns" her sexuality and sleeps around.

The article says: women who are sexually active, who have a healthy sex life and who unabashedly enjoy sex are still good people.

Nothing about 'sleeping around'.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I agree, having an active sex life and enjoying sex is not the same thing as "sleeping around." You can have an active sex life with your husband, and let's hope you enjoy it.

I think the empowerment angle is coming from the perspective of those who see rape victims blamed for not wearing enough clothes. I don't care if she's wearing a g-string, that still doesn't give a man the right to take her against her will. No matter how she's dressed, anything that happens after the word "no" is at the very least sexual harassment, at the most rape. So the argument is, telling a woman she must dress like a nun so men don't lust after her is putting responsibility for a man's thoughts and actions on her, instead of on him where it belongs.

On the other hand, I hate it when I'm trying to be careful about what I eat, and some doofus deliberately gets right in my face with something delicious, taunting me with, "Mmmmm. This is sooooo gooooood. Don't you wish you could have some?" No, that wouldn't give me the right to grab it out of their hands and wolf it down, but still, isn't that taunting wrong too?

 

[Hetta]

On the other hand, I hate it when I'm trying to be careful about what I eat, and some doofus deliberately gets right in my face with something delicious, taunting me with, "Mmmmm. This is sooooo gooooood. Don't you wish you could have some?" No, that wouldn't give me the right to grab it out of their hands and wolf it down, but still, isn't that taunting wrong too?

It depends on whether you consider it 'taunting' for a woman to dress as she wishes to dress for herself.

Waving fries in front of a hungry person who you know is trying not to eat is a mean and unkind behavior.

Are women 'fries'? Are all men 'hungry'? When we talk about men in those terms, imo, we debase them. IME, they are better than that.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I have encountered women who do have that attitude. They talk about enjoying getting a man worked up, and then seeing the disappointment in their faces when they know it's not going to be fulfilled. One former cheerleader was interviewed for an article I can't link because of terms she used, but she admitted that at her high school, cheerleading routines were deliberately choreographed with the high kicks, and the mid-air splits, to stimulate as much as possible. I'd say that's about analogous to waving fries in a dieter's face.

 

[DZoolander]

This type of discussion is the reason I made a decision as a kid to not let sexual issues be my focus. All this conjecture about what hypothetical men might think - because "you know how men are" is crazy making stuff...IMHO.

 

[Hetta]

I have encountered women who do have that attitude. They talk about enjoying getting a man worked up, and then seeing the disappointment in their faces when they know it's not going to be fulfilled. One former cheerleader was interviewed for an article I can't link because of terms she used, but she admitted that at her high school, cheerleading routines were deliberately choreographed with the high kicks, and the mid-air splits, to stimulate as much as possible. I'd say that's about analogous to waving fries in a dieter's face.

That's one person.

One person does not make a gender, nor even a majority of a gender, any more than a peeping tom makes a gender.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

That's one person.

One person does not make a gender, nor even a majority of a gender, any more than a peeping tom makes a gender.

Well, you know, I'm left-handed. I can talk about left-handed women without it being implied I'm saying all women are left-handed, right?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

This type of discussion is the reason I made a decision as a kid to not let sexual issues be my focus. All this conjecture about what hypothetical men might think - because "you know how men are" is crazy making stuff...IMHO.

My husband feels the same. His chief trigger is hearing, "Men are all alike." Oh, how he hates that one.

And here I am doing the same thing in reverse, but it has been my experience, a lot of women do tend to generalize men. If I talk to another woman about some minor thing my husband does that annoys me, whether it's a friend or a mental health professional, chances are great that I'm going to hear, "Oh, well, he's a guy. What do you expect?" Or, "That's men for you." Sometimes this will be followed with a similar story about "Here's what MINE does that annoys me," turning it into a let's-complain-about-those-men session, when what I really wanted was help understanding what my husband, individually, might be thinking or feeling. He has alexithymia, so most of the time I can't simply ask him. He won't know the words to tell me.

 

[Hetta]

So the answer to some women generalizing men's behavior is to generalize women's behavior?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

OK, this is getting just a touch irritating. It could be me, or it could be others too, I don't know, but I'll say this as politely as I can.

Life Stages, including Married Couples is a no-debate area. If we want debate, we are told right there in the summary of Life Stages to go to Theology or Society. Here, all points of view are valid, even if they don't agree with our own. The goal here is not to defeat others and beat them down, but simply to discuss our points of view. We don't have to keep picking at other people's words to show where they're wrong and we're right. Let's not have that, please.

There. I said it. Not as a Mod, but as a member.

 

[Inkachu]

Air New Zealand has used bikini-clad models from Sports Illustrated to make a safety video for their airline. There is a lot of push-back, saying they are objectifying women.

Miley Cyrus twerks all over tv in nearly no clothes to speak of, and she is called an "empowered woman" who is expressing her sexuality.

Not that I'd like to see either, I would prefer a bikini-clad model providing safety tips over watching this "empowerment" any day. But I can't help but wonder, what's with the double-standard?

Because people have their heads up their arses and have no concept of consistency or logic. Especially when it comes to the ebil wimmenz.

 

[ValleyGal]

Because people have their heads up their arses and have no concept of consistency or logic. Especially when it comes to the ebil wimmenz.

LOL! Thanks for lightening it up a little. This did not go the direction I was hoping and actually considered asking to shut it down.....