Double standard or context distinction?

[Dancing David]

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)?

Loaded question today in lovely central Illinois it is freaking 95^oF and a dewpoint of 80^o, if you have not had the joy, it is so humid you just don't cool off.

Now many women will choose to wear tank tops, halters, tube tops and various bikini tops, just to be comfortable in the shade, I should say more comfortable.

They will also tend to wear very short shorts.

Why is that provocative?

 

[WildCat]

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

I had no idea an act was required in order to sexualize someone. I guess it depends on how you define "sexualize", and if the meaning is as ambiguous as it appears to be maybe the word shouldn't be used at all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

=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.

Sorry to hear that, as at some point, presuming that you have nice tits, someone ought to be able to find a nice and pleasant way to offer you a compliment.

Style and timing are, of course, the key.

 

[tesscaline]

I had no idea an act was required in order to sexualize someone. I guess it depends on how you define "sexualize", and if the meaning is as ambiguous as it appears to be maybe the word shouldn't be used at all.

Exactly.

 

[Alan]

The behaviour isn't necessary for it to be sexualisation, but behaviour is what makes it relevant.

 

[tesscaline]

The behaviour isn't necessary for it to be sexualisation, but behaviour is what makes it relevant.

Sorry, I don't see that as being the case. And I don't see anywhere in the definitions provided that dictates such a view.

In fact, I see the word (as defined) as something that is so dependent upon personal view and subjective interpretation as to be fairly useless when discussing behavior.

ETA: Useless except as a word to incite outrage, that is.

 

[Alan]

Of course it can be subjective. But there are still obvious clear cut examples of sexualisation.

Do you have a better word?

EDIT: In terms of unwanted sexualising behaviour, I suppose I define those as 'components of sexual harassment'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't understand why it's a difficult distinction to make.

How about an analogy? I generally like to be alone, and I'll sometimes go a day or two without leaving my house. That is distinct from someone else prohibiting me from leaving my house.

I think the confusion might be that the term "sexualized" is being used in an ambiguous way. Bookitty's post explains that important distinction--we're talking about unwelcome behavior.

 

[goodm0urning]

What does it mean to be sexualized, and why is it a bad thing?

If someone is sexually attracted to you, have you been sexualized?

Where is the line between sexual attraction (apparently good) and sexual objectification (apparently bad)?

Hypothetically, say two people are in an elevator. One feels uncomfortable being in there with the other, strictly by virtue of both of them being in there alone together. Is the second person responsible for the first person feeling creeped out?

So many questions!

 

[tesscaline]

Of course it can be subjective. But there are still obvious clear cut examples of sexualisation.

Do you have a better word?

EDIT: In terms of unwanted sexualising behaviour, I suppose I define those as 'components of sexual harassment'.

If you'd like to talk about sexual harassment, that's fine, but I see that as an entirely different subject, and you should start a new thread to do so.

And no, I don't have a better word. As I touched upon, I see "sexualization" as being a completely useless concept. It's simply too broad and too vague to have any meaning whatsoever to me.

I also don't have any problem, at all, with being viewed sexually. I don't see being viewed sexually as demeaning, or derogatory, at all, since I do enjoy sex, and want to have it regularly. What I do see as being demeaning or derogatory is when someone fails to see me as a person, with thoughts, and feelings, and wants, and needs, just as any other person might have -- when I am depersonalized/dehumanized/objectified. Viewing me sexually does not necessarily mean that I am being depersonalized/dehumanized/objectified. Just as being depersonalized/dehumanized/objectified does not necessarily mean that I'm being viewed sexually. The concepts are orthogonal. Trying to act as if the two are intrinsically related, and that "being sexualized" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean... Seriously, WHAT does that mean? "to give or acquire sexual associations" doesn't really mean anything. I could sexualize a carrot. Is that wrong? Come ON people) automatically means someone is discriminating against you, or thinking worse of you, or ignoring the fact that you're a person, is... Stupid.

And for the record, no, bookitty's post does not highlight the issue with "sexualization". Bookitty's post highlights the issue with people acting in a way that does not respect another person's feelings, or social mores. That such a thing needs to be turned into a subject of sex -- just because it might make reference on the surface to a sexual act or genitalia -- is something that I really can't see as anything but a hyper-reaction.

Inappropriate touching is inappropriate. Period. Inappropriate language is inappropriate. Period. It does not matter if the language is sexual or not, it does not matter if the touching is sexual or not. That people put more value on the sexual aspect of it than the inappropriateness speaks volumes -- not about the touching or the language, but about themselves, their insecurities, and how they view the world.

And when they expand that "inappropriateness" to apply to any and all situations and people, instead of just saying "hey, I don't like that, please don't do that to me" I find it even more telling. They may not appreciate being invited back to someone's room for coffee at 4am in a hotel elevator by someone of the opposite sex, but other people are perfectly fine with it. That they assume that no one is fine with it, and that it's "sexualizing" for it to happen... Is bigoted.

So. To speak to the OP: No. It's not a double standard. Whether or not it is appropriate to do, however, depends upon the circumstance, the context, and the persons involved.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

I don't think politely asking someone (even a stranger) if they'd like to have sex is sexually objectifying them. I do think posing for a racy calendar and engaging in lots of heavy flirting (her posting history) is sexually objectifying yourself.

I also think she's kinda cute, but due to her lack of competition in nerd circles she's treated like a MUCH hotter woman, and I see plenty of evidence of her reveling in it.

 

[Alan]

I think we agree, then. I don't think that it is bad to be sexual and never meant to suggest that all sexualisation is bad. It's just bad to make other people feel uncomfortable.

 

[tesscaline]

I think we agree, then. I don't think that it is bad to be sexual and never meant to suggest that all sexualisation is bad. It's just bad to make other people feel uncomfortable.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought being sexual was bad, or that all sexualization is bad. If my post came across as being directed specifically at you, or characterizing your views that way, I apologize as it was not my intent in the slightest.

This whole thing just has me shocked and appalled at the "skeptical community" for there total and utter lack of rationality on the subject, and I suspect a bit of that seeped into my post.

 

[dirtywick]

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)?

People are judged in the totality of what others know about them. If you pose for calendars, it's a part of the package that is the perception of you. To expect people to only acknowledge parts of the totality when you want them to is foolish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the difference lies in choosing to be sexualized, and having someone else choose for you ..

Couldn't this be applied in any number of scenarios ?

Kind of sort of but....

Not in all circumstances. Wearing sexy clothes is not an invitation to rape. I think we all agree on that count. But using sex to promote yourself then having a fan hit on you? Ehh, kind of hypocritical to complain about that if all that happened was a verbal invitation and nothing more.

 

[Travis]

I don't know if this serves as a definitive answer to the thread but this is how I read the OP.

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.

 

[Darat]

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.

I agree with this and also the use of the "objectified", I've become more confused as the days have gone on as to what the words are meant to mean!

 

[Alan]

Definitions are readily available, I would think!

Objectification is treating somebody like they are not a person (like they don't have feelings, etc) and sexualisation is attaching a sexual context to somebody.

It is not to say that sexualising somebody is always bad. It's only if you act on this and they don't like it.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

It apparently is. From my point of view being on an erotic calendar is the situation where one has no value other than sexuality/eroticism, whereas getting proposed for sex is certainly not the situation where the woman/man/whatever is always objectified as ONLY being a sex object.

but see the elevator thread, where a lot of people jumped from "he proposed her" to "he is creepy" , "he objectify her " etc...

 

[Aepervius]

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.

From the (shortened) "I like you, wanna go into my room" to the above, there is quite a JUMP and a full spectrum of situation. Proposing somebody in a lift in the night, is in no way shape or form, akin to what you cited, and more to the more soft version.

being comfortable with one's sexuality also means being comfortable with saying "no" with a smile in the above cited lift situation, and not making a tantrum on it.