The Girls and The Boys
In music videos, I see sexuality so much more in videos of women than of men. Are men just more interested in seeing sexual figures than women are?
Not gay, just trying to be girl magnets. It works.
I own a Backstreet Boys CD. They were pretty sexual, and they had raving teenage fangirls swooning over them. I think one aspect of the whole boy band trend was creating sexual male bands in the same trend of how women tend to be sexualized, only in their own masculine way. And I think it demonstrated that highly sexualized men can sell.
I have a friend who objected to a specific hip-hop group because, although they were far from the gangsta rap tradition, they did some songs he felt were contributing to the oversexualization of women.
It's gotten me thinking about that issue. I've always been pretty sensitive to it, but I've come to realize that sometimes I'm oversensitive to it. I tend not to notice the sexualization of men, because it's more subtle. Men are usually not scantily clad, or if they are, it's not so unusual. When you see a shirtless muscled guy, it's as much the "buff manly" image as it is sexualized.
In the case of oversensitive, I used to think very little of Lara Croft, because of all the exaggerated sexualization of her, but I eventually came to realize that it was more important that she was powerful. It made me think about similar male characters, and how sexual appeal and exaggerated sexual potency is a common and strong trait in heroes. It's a question of what defines them as heroic: Lara Croft is heroic because she's badass, not because she's sexually appealing.
Ciara looks pretty badass too, but her bra is showing. Is that bad?
I've decided to pay more attention to male sexualization in the media. Men or media containing men obviously trying to exploit sexual appeal, especially when that's the central image, as it was for the Backstreet Boys. I also want to pay more attention to the broader situation of gender roles, not just sexuality, but any other images that men are obligated to fulfill.
One thought I had specific to the sexuality of women and masculinity of men in hip hop was the idea of power -- men exploiting physical prowess and their distinctive gender traits, women in turn exploiting their ability to bring men to their knees. It's like the idea of women being more subtle and men being more direct, each is fulfilling a power role, but it's non-symmetrical. One is defined in its distinguishing factors and independent power, the other is defined in its ability to neutralize the first one.
But if this analysis is correct, is that demeaning to women, or just reality? Maybe our insistence on an independent form of power in gender roles is a patriarchal bias in itself? But if that's true, then what about Lara Croft? Is she a false pursuit of masculine power? I don't think so. This kind of question isn't one where there's one right answer for everyone to find, it's a question of what society can agree on.
If sexualization of women over and above men is justified on the grounds that it's natural, then that undercuts the fundamental feminist argument here. That a woman shouldn't be required to use her sexuality to succeed. And if you think about it, that's like saying that men shouldn't be required to use their masculinity to succeed. It's pretty obvious. I think the overwhelming concern here is that, even if this sexualization of women is natural, it's clear from popular culture's excesses that we don't need to instruct young women to be more sexual, and young men to be more masculine.
Supposing the images in the media exist because that's how power roles tend to fall together when they aren't consciously planned, would that really say anything useful about how we should be behaving? I tend to be very suspicious of conflating the idea of what's natural with what's proper.
I wanted to cap this off with a third image depicting Britney Spears or Madonna in some especially egregious photo, but then I realized that "especially egregious" for them would be "too crude to publish" for me.
Not gay, just trying to be girl magnets. It works.
I own a Backstreet Boys CD. They were pretty sexual, and they had raving teenage fangirls swooning over them. I think one aspect of the whole boy band trend was creating sexual male bands in the same trend of how women tend to be sexualized, only in their own masculine way. And I think it demonstrated that highly sexualized men can sell.
I have a friend who objected to a specific hip-hop group because, although they were far from the gangsta rap tradition, they did some songs he felt were contributing to the oversexualization of women.
It's gotten me thinking about that issue. I've always been pretty sensitive to it, but I've come to realize that sometimes I'm oversensitive to it. I tend not to notice the sexualization of men, because it's more subtle. Men are usually not scantily clad, or if they are, it's not so unusual. When you see a shirtless muscled guy, it's as much the "buff manly" image as it is sexualized.
In the case of oversensitive, I used to think very little of Lara Croft, because of all the exaggerated sexualization of her, but I eventually came to realize that it was more important that she was powerful. It made me think about similar male characters, and how sexual appeal and exaggerated sexual potency is a common and strong trait in heroes. It's a question of what defines them as heroic: Lara Croft is heroic because she's badass, not because she's sexually appealing.
Ciara looks pretty badass too, but her bra is showing. Is that bad?
I've decided to pay more attention to male sexualization in the media. Men or media containing men obviously trying to exploit sexual appeal, especially when that's the central image, as it was for the Backstreet Boys. I also want to pay more attention to the broader situation of gender roles, not just sexuality, but any other images that men are obligated to fulfill.
One thought I had specific to the sexuality of women and masculinity of men in hip hop was the idea of power -- men exploiting physical prowess and their distinctive gender traits, women in turn exploiting their ability to bring men to their knees. It's like the idea of women being more subtle and men being more direct, each is fulfilling a power role, but it's non-symmetrical. One is defined in its distinguishing factors and independent power, the other is defined in its ability to neutralize the first one.
But if this analysis is correct, is that demeaning to women, or just reality? Maybe our insistence on an independent form of power in gender roles is a patriarchal bias in itself? But if that's true, then what about Lara Croft? Is she a false pursuit of masculine power? I don't think so. This kind of question isn't one where there's one right answer for everyone to find, it's a question of what society can agree on.
If sexualization of women over and above men is justified on the grounds that it's natural, then that undercuts the fundamental feminist argument here. That a woman shouldn't be required to use her sexuality to succeed. And if you think about it, that's like saying that men shouldn't be required to use their masculinity to succeed. It's pretty obvious. I think the overwhelming concern here is that, even if this sexualization of women is natural, it's clear from popular culture's excesses that we don't need to instruct young women to be more sexual, and young men to be more masculine.
Supposing the images in the media exist because that's how power roles tend to fall together when they aren't consciously planned, would that really say anything useful about how we should be behaving? I tend to be very suspicious of conflating the idea of what's natural with what's proper.
I wanted to cap this off with a third image depicting Britney Spears or Madonna in some especially egregious photo, but then I realized that "especially egregious" for them would be "too crude to publish" for me.