Sexy vs. Sexualized: The Difference

[IMPress Polly]

I'm posting this in the Geek Out Zone because the Wonder Woman movie is coming out next week, I'm actually kind of excited about it, and I want to head off a particular line of critique that I'm getting somewhat tired of that will surely be disingenuously applied to this movie.

Some conservatives, and also probably some well-meaning-but-misguided feminists (not likely most feminists, but a few), are bound to point out the fact that Wonder Woman wears corset armor and a mini-skirt and be all "this is sexual objectification" simply because of that. It's not that simple. The fact that a fantasy character is intended to be sexy doesn't by itself imply that she is being sexualized, i.e. reduced to her sexuality. There is a difference! Since this is the Geek Out Zone and we're talking about what's bound to be kind of a geeky movie here, let me illustrate the difference between the two with images from/about classic '90s video games that I grew up with, just to be as dorky in approach as I possibly can:


SEXY:

18226


SEXUALIZED:

18227


SEXY:

18228


SEXUALIZED:

18229


(Yes, it's true: I've always hated Duke Nukem 3D.)

The question of whether a character is sexy or sexualized isn't a matter of how many layers of clothing they typically wear, but rather comes down to the context. The characters in the "sexy" category that I've shown are treated similarly to their male counterparts, with their strength and ability being defining parts of their sex appeal. They are also playable characters with fighting roles in the beat 'em up fighting games that they're in, much like their male counterparts. By contrast, the women in the "sexualized" category I've shown are non-playable characters whose sexuality is tied to their victimization or exploitation: to being controlled by male characters, in other words. That is part of what the presumed male player is supposed to find appealing about them. The latter category of female characters are, in other words, reduced to their sex appeal. They have no other role in the game but to be scantly clad victims (and incidentally, victimized as much by the player as by villains in these cases, as you typically "save" the damsels in Duke Nukem 3D by shooting them, for instance). This removal of their humanity is what makes them sex objects.

Of course, fantasy characters can be objectified in many different ways. For example, the villains in these games are rather one-dimensional as well, really just existing to be destroyed by the player. But there's nothing particularly gendered about that form of objectification. Sexual objectification is distinguished by its gendered nature: by the fact that it tends to one-sidedly happen to female characters in our media and girls and women in real life. That gender-based general difference in treatment is what makes it sexist.

There are also more subjective cases than the obvious types I've highlighted above. For example, the lead character Bayonetta from the more modern hack and slash fighting game franchise of the same name could be argued to be a sex object despite being the game's lead character and a highly capable fighting character in as far as all of her "fighting" moves are also stripper moves, and thus her sexuality is, in a sense, the only thing important about her. In recent movies, Harley Quinn from Suicide Squad falls into the same category of subjective cases for a number of reasons, not least of all being her infantilization. Still, you get the basic difference between the concepts of sexy versus sexualized here.

I worry that sometimes conservative-minded people (including some more conservative feminists) conflate sex appeal as such with sexualization and think that that will probably be done vis-a-vis this movie. Sexy female characters can be empowering, helping to promote a certain sense of self-confidence in girls and women. Sexualized female characters, by contrast, are demeaning, being meant to promote male entitlement mentality at the expense of girls and women. I don't know yet because I haven't yet seen the movie (obviously), but my strong impression from all the trailers, commercials, and other promotional material surrounding the upcoming Wonder Woman movie that I have seen is that Wonder Woman will fall easily into the first category as a character. Like other superhero movies, Wonder Woman appears to be basically a power fantasy. The main difference between it and other movies from the genre lies in that this one is centrally a power fantasy for girls and women. Methinks that that is precisely the real problem that some may have with it: the fact that the lead character in this movie is a kick-ass woman with visible arm and leg muscles rather than a muscle-bound man who rescues damsels in distress. In any event, the sample size for solo female superhero films being one as of June 2nd (the same as the sample size of superhero films directed by women), I think we should avoid going out of our way to find fault.

[donttread]

So sexy is when the woman wishes to use her sexuality for gain and sexualized is when men assume that showing off her "assets" for no other good reason means she wants to use her sexuality for gain ? Got it. It's all about us men being pigs when we are being prompted to be pigs but also being pigs when it only looks like we are being prompted to be pigs.
Silly men.

[Common]

There is an outcry that the movie only allowed Female Auditions for the part of Wonder woman. I wonder who started that complaint.

[Peter1469]

I saw an article in WAPO about a theater that was only allowing women to see the first showing of wonder Woman.

I say make all showings women's only.

[Dangermouse]

This week! Two heroes died refusing to let racist hate stand. Other men whine about women-only movie showings.

[IMPress Polly]

donttread wrote:
So sexy is when the woman wishes to use her sexuality for gain and sexualized is when men assume that showing off her "assets" for no other good reason means she wants to use her sexuality for gain ? Got it. It's all about us men being pigs when we are being prompted to be pigs but also being pigs when it only looks like we are being prompted to be pigs.
Silly men.

What the hell? :huh: Go troll somewhere else!


Common wrote:
There is an outcry that the movie only allowed Female Auditions for the part of Wonder woman. I wonder who started that complaint.

lol, hadn't heard about that!


Peter wrote:
I saw an article in WAPO about a theater that was only allowing women to see the first showing of wonder Woman.

I say make all showings women's only.

I heard about that (http://mashable.com/2017/05/25/wonder-woman-women-only-screening/#bIV.foc6aaqc) too. The Alamo Drafthouse's women-only screening idea seems to be pretty popular. Certainly a lot more popular than the critiques thereof, to judge by the radical difference in the number of Likes those critiques have gotten versus the number that the theater's sarcastic replies have.

[Peter1469]

This week! Two heroes died refusing to let racist hate stand. Other men whine about women-only movie showings.

Language is hard.

Who whined?

[Private Pickle]

What the hell? :huh: Go troll somewhere else! .

He made a point. You called him a troll. This is the typical response of a "feminist" when someone challenges them on their ideals. Oh...and you broke the rules...

[IMPress Polly]

Private Pickle wrote:
He made a point. You called him a troll. This is the typical response of a "feminist" when someone challenges them on their ideals. Oh...and you broke the rules...

I couldn't even decipher what he was trying to say! It sounded like a bunch of paranoid double-talk to me. If you got something coherent out of it and can explain it to me, I'll take the "troll" remark back. Sound fair?

[Chris]

Is this like the difference between socialism and socialized? Only halfway joking.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris bullshitted:
Is this like the difference between socialism and socialized? Only halfway joking.

If you've got nothing to say, people, then spare me the extra click will you?

[Chris]

If you've got nothing to say, people, then spare me the extra click will you?
donttread had a point.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
donttread had a point.

Will somebody please explain to me what that point was? It sure sounded like a bunch of paranoid double-talk to me. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It just seemed like nonsensical, whiney BS to me.

[Private Pickle]

I couldn't even decipher what he was trying to say! It sounded like a bunch of paranoid double-talk to me. If you got something coherent out of it and can explain it to me, I'll take the "troll" remark back. Sound fair?
His point was: Sexy is when the woman decides it is. Sexualized is when the woman decides it is. Yet both are predetermined by how a man views it...

[donttread]

There is an outcry that the movie only allowed Female Auditions for the part of Wonder woman. I wonder who started that complaint.


Why "Wonder ?Tranny" of course

[Chris]

His point was: Sexy is when the woman decides it is. Sexualized is when the woman decides it is. Yet both are predetermined by how a man views it...

I took it as sexy is when women use it and sexualized is when men do. It could be their bodies, their sexuality.

[donttread]

What the hell? :huh: Go troll somewhere else!



lol, hadn't heard about that!



I heard about that (http://mashable.com/2017/05/25/wonder-woman-women-only-screening/#bIV.foc6aaqc) too. The Alamo Drafthouse's women-only screening idea seems to be pretty popular. Certainly a lot more popular than the critiques thereof, to judge by the radical difference in the number of Likes those critiques have gotten versus the number that the theater's sarcastic replies have.


That's not trolling. Actresses, actors , signers use their sexuality to make money all the time and not just women. It's a little sad that we are still as tied to our primal instincts as we are. But we are. Or did you just think that the gene for acting ability and music was 90% tied to the "hot gene" ?
So when an actress dresses like this men will gawk, order posters , make jokes etc. We will see this talented young lady as a sex object because that's how she is presented to us. Period. So will women, but that's supposed to be a secret, right? The snied comments about the other gals skirt being too short at work ? Who really first labels a gal a "slut" . Or the way woman talk about men as sex objects when other men aren't around? I worked with women for decades , I know the secrets.
That's part of the problem between "cats and dogs" . A man's sex drive is pretty much always on ready to go. A women's is much more subject to mood, situation, biology, etc.
But we can't tell that if the women present the same all the time.

[Adelaide]

I interpret "sexy" to mean that a person feels attractive and confident, and people respond to that. It could be very different things to different people, but I don't think someone has to show a lot of skin or wear specific types of clothing to be sexy - I think it's the attitude that other people can sense that is appealing.

Otherwise, no comment since I have zero interest in video games.

[donttread]

I took it as sexy is when women use it and sexualized is when men do. It could be their bodies, their sexuality.

Pretty close Chris. But also the point that at the level of celebrity you don't have any control over how men veiw that sexuality once you put it out there. Fame is not free. Polly, I bear you no ill will, I just call em like I see em. See post 17.

[IMPress Polly]

Private Pickle wrote:
His point was: Sexy is when the woman decides it is. Sexualized is when the woman decides it is. Yet both are predetermined by how a man views it...

Okay, I put it to my guy, Matt, and here's what he got out of it, quote:

"As far as I can tell, he seems to think that a woman wanting to look sexually attractive on her own terms means she's trying to gain something and sexualized means ...wait no. Umm. I dunno, this is kinda hard to decipher. It's almost Trumpian in its language. He seems to assume that sexualized means the woman is still in control and is basically the same as sexy, as far as I can tell. Dunno if I'm right there though. That is quite hard to decipher. Okay, so sexy means she's doing it for gain and sexualized means men assuming she's doing it for gain. That appears to be what he's saying? I think? Seems like a misunderstanding of your point."

I provide his remarks just so you know that it was NOT just me. That was objectively a difficult post to decipher.

In any event, okay, whatever. I guess I take the "troll" remark back then. *shrugs*

I still think even your version is BS. I'm distinguishing between contexts where women (or female characters in this case) express ownership of their sexuality versus contexts that promote male control of female bodies. I don't see how there's any double-standard there. That's pretty straightforward. I think he (and you) are just trying to disingenuously fabricate a double-standard in the OP that doesn't exist just so you can have some excuse to object to everything I say because I'm a feminist.


Adelaide wrote:
I interpret "sexy" to mean that a person feels attractive and confident, and people respond to that. It could be very different things to different people, but I don't think someone has to show a lot of skin or wear specific types of clothing to be sexy - I think it's the attitude that other people can sense that is appealing.

THIS is it! That's the idea I'm trying to convey here. I also like that you pointed out that "sexy" does not require revealing clothing or anything like that.

[Peter1469]

Matt's back? I though you two spit.
Okay, I put it to my guy, Matt, and here's what he got out of it, quote:

"As far as I can tell, he seems to think that a woman wanting to look sexually attractive on her own terms means she's trying to gain something and sexualized means ...wait no. Umm. I dunno, this is kinda hard to decipher. It's almost Trumpian in its language. He seems to assume that sexualized means the woman is still in control and is basically the same as sexy, as far as I can tell. Dunno if I'm right there though. That is quite hard to decipher. Okay, so sexy means she's doing it for gain and sexualized means men assuming she's doing it for gain. That appears to be what he's saying? I think? Seems like a misunderstanding of your point."

I provide his remarks just so you know that it was NOT just me. That was objectively a difficult post to decipher.

In any event, okay, whatever. I guess I take the "troll" remark back then. *shrugs*

I still think even your version is BS. I'm distinguishing between contexts where women (or female characters in this case) express ownership of their sexuality versus contexts that promote male control of female bodies. I don't see how there's any double-standard there. That's pretty straightforward. I think he (and you) are just trying to disingenuously fabricate a double-standard in the OP that doesn't exist just so you can have some excuse to object to everything I say because I'm a feminist.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Matt's back? I though you two spit.

It's been an on-again, off-again type of relationship.

[Private Pickle]

I took it as sexy is when women use it and sexualized is when men do. It could be their bodies, their sexuality.

Looks like you had the correct take.

[Private Pickle]

Okay, I put it to my guy, Matt, and here's what he got out of it, quote:

"As far as I can tell, he seems to think that a woman wanting to look sexually attractive on her own terms means she's trying to gain something and sexualized means ...wait no. Umm. I dunno, this is kinda hard to decipher. It's almost Trumpian in its language. He seems to assume that sexualized means the woman is still in control and is basically the same as sexy, as far as I can tell. Dunno if I'm right there though. That is quite hard to decipher. Okay, so sexy means she's doing it for gain and sexualized means men assuming she's doing it for gain. That appears to be what he's saying? I think? Seems like a misunderstanding of your point."

I provide his remarks just so you know that it was NOT just me. That was objectively a difficult post to decipher.

In any event, okay, whatever. I guess I take the "troll" remark back then. *shrugs*

I still think even your version is BS. I'm distinguishing between contexts where women (or female characters in this case) express ownership of their sexuality versus contexts that promote male control of female bodies. I don't see how there's any double-standard there. That's pretty straightforward. I think he (and you) are just trying to disingenuously fabricate a double-standard in the OP that doesn't exist just so you can have some excuse to object to everything I say because I'm a feminist.



THIS is it! That's the idea I'm trying to convey here. I also like that you pointed out that "sexy" does not require revealing clothing or anything like that.
Fair enough. I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Chris]

Okay, I put it to my guy, Matt, and here's what he got out of it, quote:

"As far as I can tell, he seems to think that a woman wanting to look sexually attractive on her own terms means she's trying to gain something and sexualized means ...wait no. Umm. I dunno, this is kinda hard to decipher. It's almost Trumpian in its language. He seems to assume that sexualized means the woman is still in control and is basically the same as sexy, as far as I can tell. Dunno if I'm right there though. That is quite hard to decipher. Okay, so sexy means she's doing it for gain and sexualized means men assuming she's doing it for gain. That appears to be what he's saying? I think? Seems like a misunderstanding of your point."

I provide his remarks just so you know that it was NOT just me. That was objectively a difficult post to decipher.

In any event, okay, whatever. I guess I take the "troll" remark back then. *shrugs*

I still think even your version is BS. I'm distinguishing between contexts where women (or female characters in this case) express ownership of their sexuality versus contexts that promote male control of female bodies. I don't see how there's any double-standard there. That's pretty straightforward. I think he (and you) are just trying to disingenuously fabricate a double-standard in the OP that doesn't exist just so you can have some excuse to object to everything I say because I'm a feminist.



THIS is it! That's the idea I'm trying to convey here. I also like that you pointed out that "sexy" does not require revealing clothing or anything like that.


Right, being sexy is not necessarily to control, but it can be used that way. A hooker or a stripper is being sexy to make money,

[Standing Wolf]

It isn't just you, Polly. 'dontread', "p.p.", 'Chris', etc. have in no thoughtful or pertinent way responded to what you wrote in the OP. 'donttread' started the ball rolling with a knee-jerk, overly defensive, logically impenetrable non sequitur of a "response" and the others have simply rallied behind him. A serious, good faith re-reading of your OP - assuming that they actually read it all to being with - would cause them to understand their initial error in thinking you were talking about A, rather than B...but figure the odds of that happening.

While not a gamer, I'm certainly a movie fan, and I think I understand exactly what point you were making in the OP. Conflating "sexy" and "sexualized" is not understanding the difference between Alexander Skarsgard or Charlie Hunnam running around half-naked in their last films and a Chippendale's dancer shaking his anatomy in women's faces. Sexualization is a de-personalizing making of sex itself the center, focus and entirety of the existence of any image or performance. That some members here apparently just took a quick run through the OP and decided it would be a good time to dredge up the self-pitying "It's only bad if men do it" card is unfortunate - but entirely predictable.

[Chris]

It isn't just you, Polly. 'dontread', "p.p.", 'Chris', etc. have in no thoughtful or pertinent way responded to what you wrote in the OP. 'donttread' started the ball rolling with a knee-jerk, overly defensive, logically impenetrable non sequitur of a "response" and the others have simply rallied behind him. A serious, good faith re-reading of your OP - assuming that they actually read it all to being with - would cause them to understand their initial error in thinking you were talking about A, rather than B...but figure the odds of that happening.

While not a gamer, I'm certainly a movie fan, and I think I understand exactly what point you were making in the OP. Conflating "sexy" and "sexualized" is not understanding the difference between Alexander Skarsgard or Charlie Hunnam running around half-naked in their last films and a Chippendale's dancer shaking his anatomy in women's faces. Sexualization is a de-personalizing making of sex itself the center, focus and entirety of the existence of any image or performance. That some members here apparently just took a quick run through the OP and decided it would be a good time to dredge up the self-pitying "It's only bad if men do it" card is unfortunate - but entirely predictable.


initial error in thinking you were talking about A, rather than B.

Talks about B. Bad faith.

[Ethereal]

Wonder Woman is a superhero action movie that I'm actually looking forward to.

Firstly, it seems fresh, if for the only reason the main hero is a woman.

Secondly, she's seems pretty compelling as a character (judging by my limited observations of the commercials). For whatever reason, I like the idea of a gorgeous woman running around kicking people's asses in expertly choreographed action sequences.

Thirdly, I enjoy the WWII context (if I've interpreted the commercials correctly) in which it takes place. For some reason, superheros and WWII go together really well (think X-Men movies, for example).

As for the OP's distinction between sexy and sexualized, I would tend to agree, although I find the need to even explain this to some people rather tiresome. Can't we just have a few areas of life where the only or overriding concern is pure entertainment? Do people have to politicize everything? I mean, OF COURSE the actress who plays Wonder Woman is going to be a gorgeous biological female. And OF COURSE they are going to leverage her sex appeal, not only to widen the potential market, but to stay true to the original story line of a race of super-women living on a tropical island. Correct me if I'm wrong, but physically exceptional warrior women living in a tropical environment probably aren't going to be wearing sweat pants.

[Private Pickle]

When do we discuss the sexual exploitation of men?

[Ethereal]

THIS is it! That's the idea I'm trying to convey here. I also like that you pointed out that "sexy" does not require revealing clothing or anything like that.

I agree that it does not require it, but sexiness, at the most fundamental level, is biological, so showing some skin, while not required, is certainly encouraged. We have to remember that humans evolved in warmer climates and in tightly knit tribal communities where polyamory was probably the norm. Skimpy clothing, sweaty glistening bodies, liberal sex... they are paradoxically conservative insofar as they are the oldest model of humanity.

[Ethereal]

When do we discuss the sexual exploitation of men?
You could start a thread on it. I honestly don't see why Polly is getting so much guff. Her OP makes sense to me and I don't feel like she's trying to bash guys.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
Thirdly, I enjoy the WWII context (if I've interpreted the commercials correctly) in which it takes place. For some reason, superheros and WWII go together really well (think X-Men movies, for example).

It's WWI actually, which sounds even more interesting to me, as it's an even less common subject. It should also provide a good excuse to tie the narrative to the women's suffrage movement. (Come on, we know it's going there. :wink:)


As for the OP's distinction between sexy and sexualized, I would tend to agree, although I find the need to even explain this to some people rather tiresome. Can't we just have a few areas of life where the only or overriding concern is pure entertainment? Do people have to politicize everything?

Well, are there at least two characters in the movie? If so, then it has social relations and therefore politics. Political discussions are thus going to happen. Just wanted to clarify where I stood on one particular issue.


You could start a thread on it. I honestly don't see why Polly is getting so much guff. Her OP makes sense to me and I don't feel like she's trying to bash guys.

I'm not. I actually figured that a topic validating female sex appeal would be popular with the guys. :tongue:

[Private Pickle]

You could start a thread on it. I honestly don't see why Polly is getting so much guff. Her OP makes sense to me and I don't feel like she's trying to bash guys.

Not giving her guff. Just trying to engage in a discussion.

[IMPress Polly]

Private Pickle wrote:
When do we discuss the sexual exploitation of men?

That's not exactly something that happens as commonly (and usually it's by other men when it does), but I've got no objections to that subject. I was just throwing out a preemptive defense of this movie was all.

[Ethereal]

It's WWI actually, which sounds even more interesting to me, as it's an even less common subject. It should also provide a good excuse to tie the narrative to the women's suffrage movement. (Come on, we know it's going there. :wink:)

Okay, that's even cooler to me. WWII is always compelling, but it's a bit played out at this point.

As for tying the narrative into the women's suffrage movement, that would make a lot of sense. However, assuming they go that route, they should do it in a way that is true to the spirit of that era, and not try to lecture the audience from a modernist perspective.


Well, are there at least two characters in the movie? If so, then it has social relations and therefore politics. Political discussions are thus going to happen. Just wanted to clarify where I stood on one particular issue.

Well, in the spirit of your OP, I'd like to make a distinction between something being discussed in a political context and something being politicized. And the way I interpret your OP, you are actually arguing AGAINST the movie being politicized by the puritans on the right and the left. In other words, you recognize and accept the political dimensions of the movie and its narrative, but you aren't trying to turn the movie and every facet thereof into some kind of political statement. The actress playing Wonder Woman is hot, wears hot outfits, and is a a bad ass, and that's OKAY.

[Ethereal]

I'm not. I actually figured that a topic validating female sex appeal would be popular with the guys. :tongue:
I have no objections. But when it comes to sexual liberty and expression, I'm radically liberal, so my support is to be expected... :cool2:

[Green Arrow]

When do we discuss the sexual exploitation of men?

In another thread where it is the topic.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm personally very excited for this movie. I think it's DC's best chance to have a great movie and turn things around for their cinematic universe. Also, the WWI angle is something different. Another thing is that she is a character that can go toe-to-toe with Superman and is generally a more well-liked character that is much easier to write great stories for.

As to the sexy/sexualized argument, I think I can simplify it for those that don't seem to get the difference. Look at sexy as more having to do with looks (and yes, attitude plays a role. Some attitudes are just damn sexy.), while sexualized is more based in action.

[Ethereal]

I guess my only objection to the OP (and it's somewhat of a minor quibble) would be the seeming implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that sexualizing someone (as the OP has defined it) is always wrong or unacceptable. Granted, in this particular context, it would be wrong to portray a superhero as a sex object, but not because of any moral or ethical reasons per se, but because it makes no sense from an artistic and aesthetic perspective to reduce a warrior to their sexual identity. However, I would argue that there are some contexts where sexualizing someone is not only acceptable, but even artistically and/or behaviorally proper. The most obvious example of when this would be warranted is in pornography, but there are other contexts where it would be acceptable. Why do we think, for example, that so many people are into BDSM? Whether we like to admit it or not, humans are excited by the idea of being reduced to nothing but a purely sexual being. Obviously, it's not healthy if you do it all the time, but in moderate doses, it can be quite healthy and liberating. I could expand on this by putting it into the larger context of our evolutionary biology, but I don't want to wander too far afield... :smiley:

[Chris]

I'm personally very excited for this movie. I think it's DC's best chance to have a great movie and turn things around for their cinematic universe. Also, the WWI angle is something different. Another thing is that she is a character that can go toe-to-toe with Superman and is generally a more well-liked character that is much easier to write great stories for.

As to the sexy/sexualized argument, I think I can simplify it for those that don't seem to get the difference. Look at sexy as more having to do with looks (and yes, attitude plays a role. Some attitudes are just damn sexy.), while sexualized is more based in action.


Action? To control or oppress or objectify or exploit?

I think earlier objections recognized the difference, there's looking sexy, but want to say not only conservatives, and especially not only men sexualize women but women do it to other women and to themselves, acting sexy to get out of a traffic ticket, dressing sexy to get a job, stripping, acting in porn, and so on. It's not a simple dichotomy.

[Hal Jordan]

I agree that women sexualize women as well. Porn and stripping are clearly fully sexualized industries. Dressing sexy to get a job is a bit different, because you should try to look good for a job interview. Acting sexy to get out of a traffic ticket is a bit murky, imo.

Look at it this way, I can't help being sexy. I'm naturally going to appear that way. It would take effort for me to be sexualized, however.

[Captain Obvious]

I agree that women sexualize women as well. Porn and stripping are clearly fully sexualized industries. Dressing sexy to get a job is a bit different, because you should try to look good for a job interview. Acting sexy to get out of a traffic ticket is a bit murky, imo.

Look at it this way, I can't help being sexy. I'm naturally going to appear that way. It would take effort for me to be sexualized, however.

Wolfman jack beard and all?

[Hal Jordan]

Wolfman jack beard and all?
The beard is a major part of my sexiness.

Coming to you from the depths of inner space

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
As for tying the narrative into the women's suffrage movement, that would make a lot of sense. However, assuming they go that route, they should do it in a way that is true to the spirit of that era, and not try to lecture the audience from a modernist perspective.

To judge by the fact that most of the advertising for this movie has been in places like ABC, Freeform, and Marie Claire magazine and circulated most heavily on explicitly feminist web sited like the Mary Sue, I'd say that (for once) you are not the target audience, but a peripheral element. I am the target audience, or at least part of it. I find that kind of satisfying by itself in a way, being more accustomed to being thought of as the peripheral element whose opinion doesn't matter myself. And frankly I WANT this movie to pander to me a little! This is the first (live action) superhero movie to have a solo female lead. There's a lifetime's worth of pent-up demand there to appease. 'Make me feel welcome in this world' is my sentiment. I mean not ALL the female-led superhero movies that may come out in the future should be like that of course, but I feel that the first one should be. It's Wonder Woman, for Christ sakes! She's always been a feminist icon! I believe she's the only comic book superhero to appear on the cover of Ms. magazine before. She's supposed to be unsubtly feminist and, by virtue of being an Amazonian warrior, is narratively justified in presenting any variation on feminist thought that the director wants to convey! She's supposed to be more progressive than her historical context.

What I'm trying to say is that you had Doctor Strange last fall, Logan in the winter, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 last month, you will have your sixth Spider-Man movie next month, another Thor movie this fall, Deadpool 2 in the winter, etc. etc. etc. This is all I get. Just let me have my one movie, K? :tongue:


Well, in the spirit of your OP, I'd like to make a distinction between something being discussed in a political context and something being politicized. And the way I interpret your OP, you are actually arguing AGAINST the movie being politicized by the puritans on the right and the left. In other words, you recognize and accept the political dimensions of the movie and its narrative, but you aren't trying to turn the movie and every facet thereof into some kind of political statement. The actress playing Wonder Woman is hot, wears hot outfits, and is a a bad ass, and that's OKAY.

Actually, I was just defending one aspect of one movie, not drawing all those broad and sweeping conclusions. :wink:

I'm not opposed to critically analyzing a film's thematic contents at all! I just think that there are people who are overly concerned about things like how women dress (some well-intentioned and others not so much) even in empowerment fantasies. And yeah, given the precedent that this movie is setting especially, indeed I don't think this is the film to just be particularly hyper-critical of.


I guess my only objection to the OP (and it's somewhat of a minor quibble) would be the seeming implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that sexualizing someone (as the OP has defined it) is always wrong or unacceptable. Granted, in this particular context, it would be wrong to portray a superhero as a sex object, but not because of any moral or ethical reasons per se, but because it makes no sense from an artistic and aesthetic perspective to reduce a warrior to their sexual identity. However, I would argue that there are some contexts where sexualizing someone is not only acceptable, but even artistically and/or behaviorally proper. The most obvious example of when this would be warranted is in pornography, but there are other contexts where it would be acceptable. Why do we think, for example, that so many people are into BDSM? Whether we like to admit it or not, humans are excited by the idea of being reduced to nothing but a purely sexual being. Obviously, it's not healthy if you do it all the time, but in moderate doses, it can be quite healthy and liberating. I could expand on this by putting it into the larger context of our evolutionary biology, but I don't want to wander too far afield... :smiley:

Well I don't want to get too far afield either, but to just briefly respond to the core case you're aiming to make here, I do, in fact, oppose pornography for the very reason you highlight.


Hal Jordan wrote:
As to the sexy/sexualized argument, I think I can simplify it for those that don't seem to get the difference. Look at sexy as more having to do with looks (and yes, attitude plays a role. Some attitudes are just damn sexy.), while sexualized is more based in action.


I agree that women sexualize women as well. Porn and stripping are clearly fully sexualized industries. Dressing sexy to get a job is a bit different, because you should try to look good for a job interview. Acting sexy to get out of a traffic ticket is a bit murky, imo.
Look at it this way, I can't help being sexy. I'm naturally going to appear that way. It would take effort for me to be sexualized, however.

Here's what I mean when I say that someone is being sexually objectified in a real-world setting: When I say that someone is being sexualized, I mean that they are being thought of or acted upon in a certain way that separates their bodies from their souls, like their will doesn't matter because they are just things for one to consume. Like the mentality you saw on display in that infamous Access Hollywood video.

"Sexy" is about expressing your own sexuality. Sexualization about controlling someone else's.

Where Chris's simplistic analysis falters is in its failure to consider social context. Yes, women can definitely objectify themselves. I certainly have many times. But that doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens in the context of patriarchy.

[Chris]

Unless you're locked up in your room looking at a mirror, sexy, sexualized is social. All my examples were social.

But, yea, I see, women sexualize themselves because of patriarchy. Abstractions like that don't mean a whole lot.

[Archer0915]

I saw an article in WAPO about a theater that was only allowing women to see the first showing of wonder Woman.

I say make all showings women's only.

I can dress up like a woman if needed.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
But, yea, I see, women sexualize themselves because of patriarchy. Abstractions like that don't mean a whole lot.

Well let's get more specific then. Based on my personal experience working as a stripper and prostitute in my college years, I would say that taking up that line of work requires the perfect combination of high body confidence and low self-esteem.

In connection to the former, you know, most people get pretty nervous about merely giving a speech in front of an audience, let alone removing most of all of their clothes in front of one. There are wallflowers who go into stripping, but they never make it past the first day. You have to be someone who has been told regularly that you're beautiful, hot, cute, stuff like that in order to have the level of body confidence required.

In connection to the latter, almost every girl and woman in the sex industry has been sexually abused before and/or are drug addicts, and for the exceptions to those rules, were probably abandoned by their father early on in life and just never had a positive male role model. The rates of depression, PTSD, suicidal tendencies, that sort of thing are all sky high among sex workers and the average life expectancy in those fields is very low. This is the kind of mentality that it takes to be willing to put up with being grabbed and groped and even physically attacked on a regular basis even when it's against the rules and to just be willing to completely debase yourself and do whatever the most hideous, demented, hateful guy on Earth commands you to for hours. On top of that, everyone hates sex workers. Women hate you for the attention that you get from men (perhaps including their's) and men just view you as a worthless, throwaway piece of meat. Accordingly, you have to be willing to lie to yourself a lot and convince yourself that that's what love is. And you have to be willing to be hated even by your family because you may well be disowned. I mean, yeah, the business pays. It's the only business that pays women more than men on an hourly basis. (A fact which ought to tell you something about what we as a society value in women.) But there's a tremendous social and psychological price tag attached to it. For me, that price tag became too high eventually and I just couldn't go on anymore. They couldn't pay me enough. I think you'll find the same attitude among most of the women who worked in the sex industry in the past.

[Chris]

Well let's get more specific then. Based on my personal experience working as a stripper and prostitute in my college years, I would say that taking up that line of work requires the perfect combination of high body confidence and low self-esteem.

In connection to the former, you know, most people get pretty nervous about merely giving a speech in front of an audience, let alone removing most of all of their clothes in front of one. There are wallflowers who go into stripping, but they never make it past the first day. You have to be someone who has been told regularly that you're beautiful, hot, cute, stuff like that in order to have the level of body confidence required.

In connection to the latter, almost every girl and woman in the sex industry has been sexually abused before and/or are drug addicts, and for the exceptions to those rules, were probably abandoned by their father early on in life and just never had a positive male role model. The rates of depression, PTSD, suicidal tendencies, that sort of thing are all sky high among sex workers and the average life expectancy in those fields is very low. This is the kind of mentality that it takes to be willing to put up with being grabbed and groped and even physically attacked on a regular basis even when it's against the rules and to just be willing to completely debase yourself and do whatever the most hideous, demented, hateful guy on Earth commands you to for hours. On top of that, everyone hates sex workers. Women hate you for the attention that you get from men (perhaps including their's) and men just view you as a worthless, throwaway piece of meat. Accordingly, you have to be willing to lie to yourself a lot and convince yourself that that's what love is. And you have to be willing to be hated even by your family because you may well be disowned. I mean, yeah, the business pays. It's the only business that pays women more than men on an hourly basis. (A fact which ought to tell you something about what we as a society value in women.) But there's a tremendous social and psychological price tag attached to it. For me, that price tag became too high eventually and I just couldn't go on anymore. They couldn't pay me enough. I think you'll find the same attitude among most of the women who worked in the sex industry in the past.


You're not really addressing what I posted.

I intend no negative judgment of hookers and strippers. I've met some who are very good decent people. But they do sexualize themselves to make money. It's a risk and I'm sure they do suffer for it, just the same as if a man secualized them.

Nor did you address your own abstract point on patriarchy.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

My rule is that in fiction (games included), sexual content which serves as a meaningful plot device is different than sexual content just for the sake of pure gratuity.

There's not a fine line, but the same's true of violence, there's a difference between violence that serves a plot device (such as in a Godfather film) and violence just for pure exploitation (such as in a slasher film).

Problem here is that the OP seems singularly fixated on "games" and not popular entertainment and culture as a whole.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

When do we discuss the sexual exploitation of men?
Well for one, it would be identical to the "whining" we here in "social justice" identity politics, just with the sexes reversed.

Second, it doesn't happen in the same degree as sexual exploitation of women due to biological differences, mainly because sex drive for women allegedly isn't as purely "visually oriented" as it is for men.

I'd say there are legitimate cultural issues to discuss, the problem is that "feminism" and identity politics muddy the water and make the issue solely about "identity politics" or "video games" rather than issues about culture on the whole.

Why this is in "Geek Out Zone" instead of the Gender and Sexuality forum I don't get either.

[Captdon]

Dressed the way she was is sexualization just short of porn. They used an outstanding beauty and not someone just attractive.

[IMPress Polly]

Devil's Advocate wrote:
Why this is in "Geek Out Zone" instead of the Gender and Sexuality forum I don't get either.

It's always a debate for me as to where to place topics like this that can go either way. But the way I figure it, pop culture topics are kind of less serious than others (like questions about sexual violence, for example) that I think most people might prefer to discuss in the other forum.


Captdon wrote:
They used an outstanding beauty and not someone just attractive.

She's literally playing a goddess. I think they had a narrative justification.