Sexualization of Society

[Comrade #138672]

When I was talking with someone about the sexualization of society, he claimed that there was no such thing as sexualization of society and that it was in fact a vague and pseudo-scientific term used by "misguided" radical feminists.

Is this true? Can this not be answered generally?

I do believe that there are two forms of sexualization. One of them being led by sexually liberated feminists and the other being led by Capitalists who exploit this by commodifying sexuality.

I wonder what your view is on this?

[Камо́ Зэд]

I don't know that society is really more "sexualized" than it has ever been. It really does strike me as a vague and unscientific term, but I don't know that I've ever encountered it among feminist ideas. It's true that there is much about society that is sexual, but sexuality has generally been a very important factor in human civilization. The problem is that a male-dominated society imposes so many expectations on women. They are simultaneously expected to repress their own sexuality and satisfy the sexual appetites of men. The only difference between, say, the 19th Century and now is that a woman's sexual appeal has become a marketing gimmick, rather than something to be swept under the rug.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't know that society is really more "sexualized" than it has ever been. It really does strike me as a vague and unscientific term, but I don't know that I've ever encountered it among feminist ideas. It's true that there is much about society that is sexual, but sexuality has generally been a very important factor in human civilization. The problem is that a male-dominated society imposes so many expectations on women. They are simultaneously expected to repress their own sexuality and satisfy the sexual appetites of men. The only difference between, say, the 19th Century and now is that a woman's sexual appeal has become a marketing gimmick, rather than something to be swept under the rug.Do you agree that Capitalists exploit people's sexual fears and desires? How far will (and can) they go? Do you think that this could "sexualize" people (or shift their attention disproportionally to sexuality) beyond anything previously encountered in history? Could this be disruptive to a healthy development of sexuality or harmful in any other way? Is it possible that it forges more (political) apathy?

[Камо́ Зэд]

We're already there, really. But I guess we're not quite at science-fiction dystopia until we see a vagina tax.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I don't know that society is really more "sexualized" than it has ever been.

Ever heard of makeup, silicon, "girlie" clothing, muscle gymnast fetishists and inundating advertising on every electronic device since the invention of the television to implement these social "sexualised" constructs?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Ever heard of makeup, silicon, "girlie" clothing, muscle gymnast fetishists and inundating advertising on every electronic device since the invention of the television to implement these social "sexualised" constructs?

You're saying that:


women are expected to look sexually appealing to men;
men sometimes have peculiar sexual interests; and
sex appeal is being used to sell stuff.

And you're absolutely right about that. But not one of those features is unique to the 21st Century.

[International_Solidarity]

Do you agree that Capitalists exploit people's sexual fears and desires?

They definitely do, look at the way women are treated by the Capitalist media. Women in Capitalism are trained to compete with their appearance, which woman can be more sexually alluring. These women are then used for the mechanism of property, just as women were treated as property throughout much of history, the value of modern women is the same way. They are treated as property, and the "prettier" the women is the more value this "item" has.

Of course, there are also women workers. These women have to deal with working life as men, by daily selling their labor-power to their employer. However, in Capitalist society the worth of a woman's labor-power is less than that of a man's, merely because they are women.

Our sexual fears are also present in Capitalist society, mainly of women. Women are trained to be afraid of not being as sexually pleasing as other women; this making them not worth as much money. The fear of being less "sexually pleasing" brainwashes women and creates women that need to buy the designer clothes, makeup, and other things that fill the wallets of the Bourgeoisie.

Capitalism also attempts to widen and over-distinguish the differences between men and women, there are some, but Capitalist culture attempts to make us into two different species. Capitalism obsesses with pointing out the differences between all different groups of people in an attempt to keep us from uniting against the oppressive government.

All in all, Capitalist Economics always come down to one thing. Even pro-Capitalist biased Economics courses and books will not try to hide this, they may even call it "healthy". Capitalism always comes down to maximizing profits. Would they exploit sexual fears and desires to do this? Hell yes, the Bourgeoisie are money-making machines, they will do anything for that bit of extra profit. No matter how many children are blown up, starved, and driven to death by sickness. No matter how many women need to be raped, or killed, or anything else to "stay in line". No matter how many workers need to die and suffer at extremely low wages. They don't care, it all comes down to profit, if it will give them more profit they will do it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The only people I really see complaining about the "sexualisation of society" are those moral conservative types with sand in their genitals and a stick permanently rammed up their bums. Those neo-Puritan assholes can go fuck themselves, as their interest is not protecting anyone from harm but instead denying pleasure and promoting miserable asceticism.


Ever heard of makeup,

We've been wearing makeup for millennia.


silicon,

You're referring to breast enhancement, right? That doesn't necessarily have to be sexual; in fact I would guess that more often than not it's about the woman in question achieving a breast size with which she is truly comfortable - that's self-esteem and self-image, which are only tangentially related to sex.


"girlie" clothing,

Which predates capitalism by centuries if not more. In fact I would say that since more women wear trousers more often than they did in the days of yore, clothing has become overall less gender-specific.


muscle gymnast fetishists and inundating advertising on every electronic device since the invention of the television to implement these social "sexualised" constructs?

"Muscle gymnast fetishists"? What?

[Os Cangaceiros]

A lot of people (both conservatives and some feminists who may have misgivings about where feminism has supposedly led) cite "raunch culture" as somehow a product of feminism. I don't think it is, though. I think that puts gives too much credit (or too much blame, depending on how you look at it) to a body of ideas, in this case feminism, rather than economic developments that would eventually unleash the "sexual revolution".

For example: I have a book that cites a statistic that over 60 percent of New York City women 16-20 worked outside the home in the early 1900s. They earned their own money and they often lived alone. They increasingly went out to bars, establishments which traditionally used to have only prostitutes as female patrons. They also frequented dance halls (a big cause for alarm among moral puritans back in the day), increasingly liked to gamble, they went out shopping, they arranged their own liasons with men, they walked unescorted in the streets, etc. The book makes a persuasive case that these are the sort of people that kick-started the sexual revolution, not explicitely feminist ideologues.

One thing about capitalism, IMO, is that it really doesn't give a shit about moral values at all. It's in constant conflict with the religious and moral puritans, even if it also allies with these same groups on certain occassions. You know that scene in "There Will Be Blood", when Daniel Day Lewis' character (an arch-capitalist entrepeneur) beats the preacher to death with a bowling pin? It's kind of like that. So I don't think it's any suprise that "moral values" eventually just got abandoned due to capital's endless thirst for new markets and a larger profit margin, as well as what I described previously, a large population of female and male workers with a certain degree of financial and social independence.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I agree with the comrade above me. Capitalism is a lot like Daniel Day Lewis beating a preacher to death with a bowling pin.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You're saying that:


women are expected to look sexually appealing to men;
men sometimes have peculiar sexual interests; and
sex appeal is being used to sell stuff.

And you're absolutely right about that. But not one of those features is unique to the 21st Century.

No. Advertisement spending per individual is higher than ever. Have you noticed latel how we now have shite for culture? That is because from the morning cartoons, to the lunch boces, to the school material to every youtube video the young mind is forcibly occupied with and innundated with advertisment. Am i on a leftist website here or not? Have you never heard or seen twelve year old girls trying to look like the latest celebrity because they can't fit into capitalist society and feel they need to be more like the advertisement models to be accepted? Never heard of or seen the consumer culture where workers get exploited daily, feel like shit and buy the latest consumer item that their subvonscious associates with happy smiling people? Things have a social meaning in Capitalist society, and making oneself look "sexy" is done by people because they think they need to change themselves to become accepted. Basic marxist psychology here.

[Камо́ Зэд]

No. Advertisement spending per individual is higher than ever. Have you noticed latel how we now have shite for culture? That is because from the morning cartoons, to the lunch boces, to the school material to every youtube video the young mind is forcibly occupied with and innundated with advertisment. Am i on a leftist website here or not? Have you never heard or seen twelve year old girls trying to look like the latest celebrity because they can't fit into capitalist society and feel they need to be more like the advertisement models to be accepted? Never heard of or seen the consumer culture where workers get exploited daily, feel like shit and buy the latest consumer item that their subvonscious associates with happy smiling people? Things have a social meaning in Capitalist society, and making oneself look "sexy" is done by people because they think they need to change themselves to become accepted. Basic marxist psychology here.

Take a breath, comrade, and let me break it down: we've always had shit for culture, you dig? The difference is in the mode of communication. It isn't unreasonable to say that the young girls and women of societies predating capitalism admired those of higher status. Although we see that capitalism has distilled this tendency into something overtly superficial, like physical appearance, women all over the world have been held to certain expectations by male-dominated societies, such as the expectation to submit to men. Before there were movie stars on a handheld screen, there were the ideals embodied in "perfect women" like Christianity's Mary. It was more the realm of upper class women to emulate living individuals, although this was not unheard of for the more upwardly mobile of the lower classes. And consumption isn't about "acceptance" in any meaningful way, so no, this isn't "basic Marxist psychology." A Marxist approach to anything remotely psychoanalytical will take into consideration the more fundamental needs of the human animal. Our most fundamental need is expressed in consumption, and to consume, we must produce. Proletarian alienation is by no means unique to the year of the tablet; what the working man produces is owned and thus consumed by the capitalist. He cannot individuate himself by the efforts of his labor, because the means of production are not his in any way. So he must individuate himself by the investment of his wages. Where disposable income is had, the working man anchors his sense of individual identity with the unique assortment of particular things he owns.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. Advertisement spending per individual is higher than ever.

By itself, I don't think that fact means much. Don't forget that advertisers commonly tend think of themselves as artists of a kind, and (following capitalist reasoning) more money spent means its more artistic, right?


Have you noticed latel how we now have shite for culture? That is because from the morning cartoons, to the lunch boces, to the school material to every youtube video the young mind is forcibly occupied with and innundated with advertisment.

We have shite culture now? Have you considered that with regards to the culture of yesteryear, all the mountains of mediocre crap has been forgotten and people only remember the stuff that is worth remembering? I fear you are looking at the past through rose-tinted spectacles.


Am i on a leftist website here or not? Have you never heard or seen twelve year old girls trying to look like the latest celebrity because they can't fit into capitalist society and feel they need to be more like the advertisement models to be accepted?

Which has nothing to do with either the current state of our culture nor the supposed sexualisation of society, but with the relentless capitalist logic of market expansion. The earlier you get brand loyalty the better.


Never heard of or seen the consumer culture where workers get exploited daily, feel like shit and buy the latest consumer item that their subvonscious associates with happy smiling people? Things have a social meaning in Capitalist society, and making oneself look "sexy" is done by people because they think they need to change themselves to become accepted. Basic marxist psychology here.

I don't see what's "Marxist" about it, myself. Advertising and product promotions use whatever aspects of human psychology they think they can get away with in order to get people to buy their crap. Whether this means preying on our vanity, our desire to fit in and find peers, our own doubts about our own good image and social competence, or our desires carnal and otherwise, the monomaniacal pursuit of the almighty profit permits no other course for successful advertising.

If humans reproduced using spores or something and thus did not have any use or desire for sex, then this discussion would be revolving around the "culinarisation" of society or some other fundamental biological function that advertising can make use of.

[cynicles]

You're referring to breast enhancement, right? That doesn't necessarily have to be sexual; in fact I would guess that more often than not it's about the woman in question achieving a breast size with which she is truly comfortable - that's self-esteem and self-image, which are only tangentially related to sex.



"Muscle gymnast fetishists"? What?

lol What? Now that is deluded, maybe a minority of women do, some even get implants after recieving double-mastectomies but I very much doubt the majority are "for the woman's own sake".

That fetish is more related to advertising to affluent gay men. Basically for every Sports Illustrated there's an A&F catalogue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol What? Now that is deluded, maybe a minority of women do, some even get implants after recieving double-mastectomies but I very much doubt the majority are "for the woman's own sake".

Going under the knife is never a trivial matter, even for elective procedures. What do you know of women's motivations for undergoing breast surgery?


That fetish is more related to advertising to affluent gay men. Basically for every Sports Illustrated there's an A&F catalogue.

OK, so advertisers have learned to diversify by including images of handsome young men as well as women. I think that just proves my point that that advertisers will use any hooks they can to hawk their wares.

[Jazzratt]

So, how does everyone clutching their pearls over the "issue" of sexualised society envisage solving the "problem"? Should we go back to the imaginary golden age of the 19th century with its hidden ankles and sexual repression?

Cynicles

That fetish is more related to advertising to affluent gay men. Basically for every Sports Illustrated there's an A&F catalogue.
Companies exist to sell shit. If it offends your prudery that they sell to gay men using attractive models then that's your issue to work out. Looking at all the evils of capitalism sensibly I don't think it could be argued that advertising even makes the top 50.

[Philosophos]

Do you agree that Capitalists exploit people's sexual fears and desires? How far will (and can) they go? Do you think that this could "sexualize" people (or shift their attention disproportionally to sexuality) beyond anything previously encountered in history? Could this be disruptive to a healthy development of sexuality or harmful in any other way? Is it possible that it forges more (political) apathy?

Of course they do. Just see all the stuff that they have made for sex or to how to have sex or anything that has to do to gain the love of the other person.

The capitalists want people to be afraid of love so they hit the best part of love: sex. If you are in love you start thinking differently. You care about what's happening around you or you want to make the world a better place for the other person you love or you just don't give a fuck about the "SUPER DUPER ULTRA NEW iPHONE" because you are HAPPY. REALLY HAPPY!

That's why people are afraid to talk about sex. That's why men are raised to be studs and they have to reproduce everything that moves and why women have to "take care of the man and try to do the best they can while they keep standing their attitude".

That makes people cold to each other. They can't really talk or find something interesting outside the bedroom and in a few months they will get bored with each other and go back to their consumeristic lifestyle.

It's a little sad that we talk about sexualization and we try to find different opinions and all that kind of stuff because most of these opinions go against the human nature. I suggest you to read some ancient greek documents about Eros (Love). They had it going back then and they were very familiar with their sexuality. I will pm you if I find something on the internet.

Hope I helped somehow

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Companies exist to sell shit. If it offends your prudery that they sell to gay men using attractive models then that's your issue to work out. Looking at all the evils of capitalism sensibly I don't think it could be argued that advertising even makes the top 50.

I would definitely say that advertising is an overall negative influence on the world, but that is because it is something that takes advantage of our weaknesses in the pursuit of profit, and damn the consequences.

[Rottenfruit]

Ever heard of makeup, silicon, "girlie" clothing, muscle gymnast fetishists and inundating advertising on every electronic device since the invention of the television to implement these social "sexualised" constructs?
Yeah for example women in the dark ages used the plant belladonna as a lipstick only problem belladonna is higly toxic and can easily be fatal

Silicon, compare that to the tyin together the toes of women in ancient chinese to make them small feet or heck female genital mutilation, aint new either


muscle gymnast fetishists, Whats so wrong about that? Any diffrent then finding man with tight butts hot or blond women attertcive?

[cynicles]

Going under the knife is never a trivial matter, even for elective procedures. What do you know of women's motivations for undergoing breast surgery?



OK, so advertisers have learned to diversify by including images of handsome young men as well as women. I think that just proves my point that that advertisers will use any hooks they can to hawk their wares.

Prove to me then that elective surgery would be sought out in non-capitalist circumstances and answer for me what you know of womens motivations. I don't by this crap people spew about 'their doing it for themselves' to dodge the issue that capitalist society is exerting preassure on the choices they make and effecting their own body image.

Yes of course they will.



Cynicles

Companies exist to sell shit. If it offends your prudery that they sell to gay men using attractive models then that's your issue to work out. Looking at all the evils of capitalism sensibly I don't think it could be argued that advertising even makes the top 50.

What the fuck are you talking about? I was just pointing out that those advertisements are used to target affluent gay men as a demographic. Don't fucking put words in my mouth and assume what my opinions are on the topic when you have no grounds. I was just stating a fact not voicing my disapproval or approval of it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Prove to me then that elective surgery would be sought out in non-capitalist circumstances and answer for me what you know of womens motivations.

Body modification goes back some time before capitalism. Some considerable time before. I made the negative claim (that the reasons are not always sexual), so the burden of evidence is on you to establish that it always is, if you disagree with my assessment.


I don't by this crap people spew about 'their doing it for themselves' to dodge the issue that capitalist society is exerting preassure on the choices they make and effecting their own body image.

And I don't think people are necessarily always mindless followers of whatever, and that people can actually have some fairly complex and personal reasons for doing the things that they do.

Frankly I get the impression that for some, even on left, the problem they have with cosmetic surgery is not with people paying over the odds for possibly dodgy work, but the very idea that people may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of their bodies and want to change that. It's as if they completely forget that nobody gets to choose at birth what kind of body they'll have.

It's not as if pre-capitalist societies had no concepts of physical beauty, and somehow I doubt that we'll abandon that pursuit post-capitalism. It would be a greyer world if we did.

[human strike]

It is not the sexualisation of society that we are witnessing, but rather the pornification. There is a very significant distinction.

[Jazzratt]

I would definitely say that advertising is an overall negative influence on the world, but that is because it is something that takes advantage of our weaknesses in the pursuit of profit, and damn the consequences. Oh it's certainly anevil of capitalism borne out of blind greed as the other's are. It's just not the worst of them though when compared to things like using child soldiers in diamond wars or sending people into dark and dangerous mines to acquire fuels that should be considered obsolete, for example.


What the fuck are you talking about? I was just pointing out that those advertisements are used to target affluent gay men as a demographic. Don't fucking put words in my mouth and assume what my opinions are on the topic when you have no grounds. I was just stating a fact not voicing my disapproval or approval of it. Calm down dearie. I thought you were the person who brought up the term "muscle gymanst fetishes" obviously I was mistaken, sorry.


It is not the sexualisation of society that we are witnessing, but rather the pornification. There is a very significant distinction. Care to elaborate on it?

[human strike]

Care to elaborate on it?

Pornography is the representation of sex, the image of sex. It is, in other words, the commodification of sex. Consequently porn is anti-sex. Society is becoming more and more permeated with pornography, in advertising, films, books; probably all forms of media. This is what I mean by the pornification of society. Can you see how this is different from sexualisation?

[cynicles]

Body modification goes back some time before capitalism. Some considerable time before. I made the negative claim (that the reasons are not always sexual), so the burden of evidence is on you to establish that it always is, if you disagree with my assessment.



And I don't think people are necessarily always mindless followers of whatever, and that people can actually have some fairly complex and personal reasons for doing the things that they do.

Frankly I get the impression that for some, even on left, the problem they have with cosmetic surgery is not with people paying over the odds for possibly dodgy work, but the very idea that people may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of their bodies and want to change that. It's as if they completely forget that nobody gets to choose at birth what kind of body they'll have.

It's not as if pre-capitalist societies had no concepts of physical beauty, and somehow I doubt that we'll abandon that pursuit post-capitalism. It would be a greyer world if we did.
I never made the claim that there weren't other reasons, I even said it in my first reply to you that there were other reasons. So no, I don't have to prove that they all do. And you are stating a positive, you first stated:



You're referring to breast enhancement, right? That doesn't necessarily have to be sexual; in fact I would guess that more often than not it's about the woman in question achieving a breast size with which she is truly comfortable - that's self-esteem and self-image, which are only tangentially related to sex.



You claimed the more often then not, these procedures are done for sef-eesteem and self-image(which are shaped by capitalism again), that is why I asked you those questions of providing proof to back up your initial claim.

[Rottenfruit]

It is not the sexualisation of society that we are witnessing, but rather the pornification. There is a very significant distinction.
So porn made women in the dark ages use the higly toxic plant belladonna for lipstick?

[#FF0000]

Yeah, whatever you want to call it, having a society with open/permissive/whatever attitudes towards sex is fine. It's good, in fact. Ideal, I guess. Problem is what we have isn't what I'd say is a healthy sex culture. You have this whole thing where sex is seen as competition or something other than, you know, fun.

And someone could probably do a whole big situationist/post-modernist thing about porn and sex and the real and hyperreal and blah blah blah bahakgdf

[Камо́ Зэд]

An open attitude with regards to sex is perfectly healthy. The problem with capitalist sexualization is that it is to some extent permissive, rather than open. That is to say, it encourages the consumption of sex like any other commodity, rather than the experience of sex. At once, sex is considered a conquest, a pass-time, and a sign of maturity. On the other hand, and this is particularly true for women, sex is still considered something taboo to an extent; a man with many partners is a "real man" while a woman with many partners is a "whore." Sex sells and is sold, in many more contexts than pornography and prostitution. It is a thing to be consumed in massive quantities, like anything else that drives profit.

I imagine that "socialist sex" will assume a more sincere character in that it won't be so much considered a commodity as much as it would be considered a shared, universal human experience. "Permissive" attitudes may be such a way of looking at sex as it is something to be enjoyed without consequence, but "open" attitudes understand that sex is a very emotionally bonding experience. It is intimate in every sense of the word.

[#FF0000]

"Permissive" attitudes may be such a way of looking at sex as it is something to be enjoyed without consequence, but "open" attitudes understand that sex is a very emotionally bonding experience. It is intimate in every sense of the word.

I think sex can be both.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I think sex can be both.

I don't know that sex can be simultaneously intimate and free of consequence.

[#FF0000]

I don't know that sex can be simultaneously intimate and free of consequence.

well i mean not at the same time.

[Buttress]

Sex plays a big part in human development and interaction. While there is always a risk of repressing sex in a society, I am not too sure "sexualisation of society" is a meaningful term. I would say, however, there is an emphasis on sexual restriction in our current world. There is an aggressive push to favour certain types of sex and erotic imagery, which tends to restrict sexual activity to these social prescriptions. So while advertisements may sell with sex, they sell on specific sexual norms. You do have the less "advertised" sex (which can often be much more tender or ordinary) which I would say is the most common sexual activity in reality, but there is always a tendancy to either "ramp it up" or to change to the prescribed sexual norms.

[ckaihatsu]

Sex plays a big part in human development and interaction. While there is always a risk of repressing sex in a society, I am not too sure "sexualisation of society" is a meaningful term. I would say, however, there is an emphasis on sexual restriction in our current world. There is an aggressive push to favour certain types of sex and erotic imagery, which tends to restrict sexual activity to these social prescriptions. So while advertisements may sell with sex, they sell on specific sexual norms. You do have the less "advertised" sex (which can often be much more tender or ordinary) which I would say is the most common sexual activity in reality, but there is always a tendancy to either "ramp it up" or to change to the prescribed sexual norms.


The dramatizing of it goes along with the commodification of it.

[Positivist]

Sex has obviously been influential throughout all of human history, and women's self-images were definitely "sexualized" in previous class societies, but to deny that this hasn't expanded dramatically in the epoch of capitalism, especially of more recent commercialised capitalism, is flat out wrong. Women (and more recently men, albeit to a lesser extent) are inundated with sexual images from a very earlier age in the form of magazines, billboards, Tv programs, and most recently, the Internet. Workers-Control-Over-Prod is correct, marketing produces certain subconscious valuations and determinations which shape consumptive habits, and the marketing of sex has expanded significantly over the past 50 years. Now this market has taken a different form than it has in the past, with female sexuality being promoted instead of repressed, but this promotion has occurred in unison with the sexualization of conscioussness.

[Mao_O]

Yes, some women used belldonnna in caves, some women bound their feet in china but the fact is that due to breakthroughs in biology, chemistry, psychology medicine, etc, we now know that body modifications are 1)not actually necessary to attract a mate 2)can be harmful and 3)not necessary for self-esteem. In fact it should be easier now for women to be happy with their bodies in it's natural state. Thanks to capitalist exploitation, this is not the case.