• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Double standard or context distinction?

gnome

Penultimate Amazing
gnome
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
14,862
I thought this was a good enough question to warrant its own thread without being tied down to real people or events--as it comes up more often than just the particular incident causing trouble lately.

Is it a double standard to allow oneself to be "sexualized" in one context (such as appearing in a provocative calendar), but then to object to being "sexualized" in another (such as becoming a target of sexual advances at times when one would rather be noticed for one's intellectual contributions)?

Lest I be accused of singling out any one individual, let me point out that there are twelve months in a year, and other instances where many more people may find themselves at the center of this question. Some are more famous than others--the question even has relevance to how Mythbusters' Kari Byron is portrayed, for example.

It may have come up before, but it seems a good time to tackle it again in a general sense.

For my own part, I would like to live in a world where such calendars are possible, but where people also feel they receive due respect personally. It's the connections between point A and B that interest me here.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Is it a double standard to allow oneself to be "sexualized" in one context (such as appearing in a provocative calendar), but then to object to being "sexualized" in another (such as becoming a target of sexual advances at times when one would rather be noticed for one's intellectual contributions)?
Click to expand...

No.

Consider the distinction between using one's sexuality for some purpose on the one hand, and being treated as having no other value aside from being a target for sexual urges on the other. One is typically objectionable and the other is not. It isn't difficult to understand which is which.
 
In the generic it will always depend on the context. That said the person might not be the best messenger especially if they where say out at a bar until 4 am and all that went down is say a person asking them up to their room for a non alcoholic drink of some sort maybe even a hot beverage and when the request was turned down they let it go and did nothing further. Its also another thing when the person feels they are being "sexualized" when they are a 5 at best and in the past have acted like they are at least a 8.
 
TheJim, I think those details are a little too specific to be relevant to what I was hoping to reach for here.
 
kbm99 said:
No.

Consider the distinction between using one's sexuality for some purpose on the one hand, and being treated as having no other value aside from being a target for sexual urges on the other. One is typically objectionable and the other is not. It isn't difficult to understand which is which.
Click to expand...

I kind of like this way of seeing it.
 
gnome said:
TheJim, I think those details are a little too specific to be relevant to what I was hoping to reach for here.
Click to expand...

Your right and I don't like my first response anyways giving it more thought.

I am not sure if its a double standard but it is disingenuous given the type of situations that we are talking about. Its like when Jessica Simpson made her career off her looks and than when she her career was doing state fairs and she put on some pounds did the whole its not fair its about my looks tour with doing covers without makeup and such. I could understand it more if you took the time out to explain yes in the past I used looks/sex to get ahead but to ignore the past and expect everyone else to is asking a lot. Its asking to take the good of what you did without being willing to take the downside of the behavior.
 
picture.php


GOING DOWN?​
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Is it a double standard to allow oneself to be "sexualized" in one context (such as appearing in a provocative calendar), but then to object to being "sexualized" in another (such as becoming a target of sexual advances at times when one would rather be noticed for one's intellectual contributions)?
Click to expand...

No. If I flirt with a man once, it does not mean I have to flirt with any other man I meet in future. If I let a Person K hit on me, does not mean I have to let Person J hit on me or enjoy being hit on by Person J, Q, R. If I sleep with Person X once, does not mean I have to sleep with Person X at any other time in future, or their friend Person Y. If I wore a bikini to the beach, it does not mean someone has the right to spy into my house when I'm getting dressed.
 
If it's another human being looking at you, you will be sexualized one way or another.

We're pretty much hard-wired for it, and it's unlikely our species could have evolved otherwise.
 
WildCat said:
If it's another human being looking at you, you will be sexualized one way or another.

We're pretty much hard-wired for it, and it's unlikely our species could have evolved otherwise.
Click to expand...

What goes on in people's heads is their business. What they think is not important. How they act is.

Someone could be thinking that they want to rape me, murder me slowly, eat the tender bits and bury the rest in the desert. As long as I am never made aware of that, if they give no hint of it and if they never, ever, ever even remotely act on that thought, it's really none of my business. I don't care.

But if they say "Nice tits, I'd like to serve them with some fava beans." or "Hey, you wanna get into my windowless van?" then I have a problem with it.
 
Being comfortable being sexual in contexts you are comfortable being sexual in does not mean you have to be comfortable with being sexualised in other situations.
 
bookitty said:
What goes on in people's heads is their business. What they think is not important. How they act is.

Someone could be thinking that they want to rape me, murder me slowly, eat the tender bits and bury the rest in the desert. As long as I am never made aware of that, if they give no hint of it and if they never, ever, ever even remotely act on that thought, it's really none of my business. I don't care.

But if they say "Nice tits, I'd like to serve them with some fava beans." or "Hey, you wanna get into my windowless van?" then I have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

I have some free candy for you.
 
Can someone please define "sexualize"? Because, I'm sorry, but the way that word is being thrown around, I don't think I (or anyone else who's been posting on these subjects) know it means anymore.
 
For purposes of this thread, I will say that it is treating someone or allowing oneself to be treated in a manner that highlights sexuality over other traits. Does that work?
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Some are more famous than others--the question even has relevance to how Mythbusters' Kari Byron is portrayed, for example.
Click to expand...

Don't drag Kari into this, i enjoy her image on Tues, Thurs, and Sat., sometimes on Sunday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom