Jump to content

Sexual objectification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Sex object" redirects here. For other uses, seeSex object (disambiguation).
Women in abikini contestare valued for their bodies and sexual appeal over other attributes.

Sexual objectificationis the act of treating a person solely as anobjectofsexual desire.Objectificationmore broadly means treating a person as acommodityor an object without regard to theirpersonalityordignity.Objectification is most commonly examined at the level of a society, but can also refer to the behavior of individuals and is a type ofdehumanization.

Although bothmenandwomencan be sexually objectified, the concept is mainly associated with the objectification of women, and is an important idea in manyfeministtheories and psychological theories derived from them. Many feminists argue that sexual objectification of girls and women contributes togender inequality,and many psychologists associate objectification with a range of physical and mental health risks in women. Research suggests that the psychological effects of objectification of men are similar to those of women, leading to negativebody imageamong men. The concept of sexual objectification is controversial, and some feminists and psychologists have argued that at least some degree of objectification is a normal part of human sexuality.[1][2][3]

Part ofa serieson
Feminism
History
Waves
Timelines
Women's suffrageby country
Intersectional variants
Socialist
Multicultural
Other variants
Religious variants
Movements and ideologies
Concepts
Outlooks
Theory
Areas of study
By continent/country
Lists and categories
Lists
Categories
Feminism portal

Sexual objectification of women[edit]

Sexual objectification in advertisements occurs when the women shown have no relationship to the object being sold. Here, U.S.promotional modelsin bikinis and crop tops advertise a car battery brand (top image), and female models attract male customers to a motorcycle brand (bottom image).

General[edit]

The sexual objectification of women involves them being viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire, rather than as a whole person.[4][5][6]Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, many see the objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising, art and media,pornography,the occupations ofstrippingandprostitution,and women being brazenly evaluated or judged sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such asbeauty contests.[7]

Some feminists and psychologists[8]argue that sexual objectification can lead to negative psychological effects includingeating disorders,depressionandsexual dysfunction,and can give women negativeself-imagesbecause of the belief that their intelligence and competence are currently not being, nor will ever be, acknowledged by society.[6]Sexual objectification of women has also been found to negatively affect women's performance, confidence, and level of position in the workplace.[9]How objectification has affected women and society in general is a topic of academic debate, with some saying girls' understanding of the importance of appearance in society may contribute to feelings offear,shame,anddisgustduring the transition to womanhood,[10]and others saying that young women are especially susceptible to objectification, as they are often taught thatpower,respect,andwealthcan be derived from one's outward appearance.[11]

Sexual objectification of men[edit]

Male strippers are an example of the sexual objectification of men.

General[edit]

"Male sexual objectification" involves a man being in publicity in a sexual context.

Instances where men may be viewed as sexualized can be in advertisements,music videos,films, television shows,beefcakecalendars,women's magazines,malestrip shows,and clothed female/nude male (CFNM) events.[12]Women also purchase and consumepornography.[13]

Within gay male communities, men are often objectified.[14]In 2007 a study found discussing negative effects of objectification was met with considerable resistance in the community. The sexual objectification ofmen of colormay force them to play specific roles in sexual encounters that are not necessarily of their own choosing.[15]

Research suggests that the psychological effects of objectification on men are similar to those of women, leading to negativebody imageamong men.[16]

Media[edit]

Men's bodies have become more objectified than they previously were, though because of society's established gaze on the objectification of women, the newfound objectification of men is not as widespread.[17]Even with this increase of male objectification, men are still seen as the dominant figures and so the focus is still primarily on women.[18]

Male sexual objectification has been found in 37% of advertisements featuring men's body parts to showcase a product.[19]Similar to the issues of sexual objectification in women, it is common for said objectification to lead men to body shaming, eating disorders, and a drive for perfection. The continued exposure of these "ideal" men subject society to expect all men to fit this role.[20]

Male actors featured in TV shows and movies are oftentimes in excellent shape and have the "ideal" bodies. These men often fill the leading roles. When society is subjected to men who do not have ideal bodies, we typically see them as the comic relief. It is rare to see an out of shape man have a leading role. Leanne Dawson writes that "There are temporal, cultural and geographical" norms "of gender and other aspects of identity, which are often incorrectly considered to be inherent or natural."[21]

In the media, the ideal version of a man is seen as a strong, toned man. The idealized version of a woman is thin.[22]Body evaluation is more commonly used to criticize women than men, and it can take different forms for men. For example, body evaluation is often directed at men's nonverbal cues. By contrast, women more often are subject to body evaluation in the form of sexual, sometimes offensive, verbal remarks. Men tend to experience this from other men, whereas women experience it from both sexes.[19]The Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale (ISOS) is a scale that shows sexual objectification of respondents, both men and women. While experiencing sexual objectification it creates the need to constantly maintain and critique one's physical appearance. This leads to other things like eating disorders, body shaming, and anxiety. The ISOS scale can be related to objectification theory and sexism.[19]Self-objectification, which is the way in which people evaluate themselves, is concentrated more on women. Men typically experience it through media display. To the extent that men do experience self-objectification, studies have shown that men typically do not experience its negative effects to the extent that women do.[23][22]

In the media, sexual objectification has been used as a way to sell products to the general public.[24][25]Sexual objectification has been used as a marketing strategy for many decades according to the Journal of Advertising. This specific strategy targets the public in selling products that will make them look and feel desirable and attractive. It is stated that this strategy sells well by grabbing the attention of the public. The journal states that explicit advertisements do better in marketing than other non-explicit ads.[26]

Views on sexual objectification[edit]

See also:Gaze

While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such asNaomi Wolffind the concept ofphysical attractivenessitself to be problematic,[27]with someradical feministsbeing opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics.[citation needed]John Stoltenberggoes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves the visualization of a woman.[28]

Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "oppressed sexclass".[This quote needs a citation]While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue arepatriarchalas objectifying, they often focus onpornographyas playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women.[29]

Pro-feminist cultural critics such asRobert JensenandSut Jhallyaccusemass mediaand advertising of promoting the objectification of women to help promote goods and services,[7][30][31]and the television and film industries are commonly accused of normalizing the sexual objectification of women.[32]

The objection to the objectification of women is not a recent phenomenon. In the FrenchEnlightenment,for example, there was a debate as to whether a woman's breasts were merely a sensual enticement or rather a natural gift. InAlexandre Guillaume Mouslier de Moissy's 1771 playThe True Mother(La Vraie Mère), the title character rebukes her husband for treating her as merely an object for his sexual gratification: "Are your senses so gross as to look on these breasts – the respectable treasures of nature – as merely an embellishment, destined to ornament the chest of women?"[33]

The issues concerning sexual objectification became firstproblemizedduring the 1970s by feminist groups. Since then, it has been argued that the phenomenon of female sexual objectification has increased drastically since its problematization in all levels of life, and has resulted in negative consequences for women, especially in the political sphere. However, a rising form of new third-waver feminist groups have also taken the increased objectification of women as an opportunity to use the female body as a mode of power.[34] One study found that men exposed to media content in which women were objectified were more likely to accept those behaviors than men who were exposed to content where women were not objectified.[35]

Somesocial conservativeshave taken up aspects of thefeministcritique of sexual objectification. In their view, however, the increase in the sexual objectification of both sexes in Western culture is one of the negative legacies of thesexual revolution.[36][37][38][39][40]These critics, notablyWendy Shalit,advocate a return to pre-sexual revolution standards ofsexual morality,which Shalit refers to as a "return tomodesty",as an antidote to sexual objectification.[37][41]Some social conservatives have argued that the feminist movement itself has contributed to the problem of the sexual objectification of women by promoting "free" love (i.e. men and women choosing to have non-reproductive sex outside of marriage and for their own pleasure).[8][42]

Others such ascivil libertariansandsex-positive feministscontest feminist claims about the objectification of women.Camille Pagliaholds that "[t]urning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species." In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization andaesthetics.[43]Individualist feministWendy McElroysays, given that 'objectification' of women means to make women into sexual objects; it is meaningless because, 'sexual objects', taken literally, means nothing because inanimate objects do not have sexuality. She continues that women are their bodies as well as their minds and souls, and so focusing on a single aspect should not be "degrading".[44]Feminist authorWendy Kaminercriticized feminist support for anti-pornography laws, arguing that pornography does not cause sexual violence, and bans on such material infantilize women. She has noted thatradical feministshave often allied themselves with theChristian rightin supporting these laws and denouncing the depiction of sex in popular culture although the two groups strongly disagree on virtually everything else.[45]HerACLUcolleaguesNadine Strossenand Nan D. Hunter have made similar criticisms.[46][47]Strossen has argued that objectification is not in and of itself dehumanizing, and may fulfill women's own fantasies.[48]PsychologistNigel Barberargues that men, and to a lesser extent, women, are naturally inclined to focus on the physical attractiveness of the opposite sex (or the same sex in the case of gays and lesbians), and that this has been widely misinterpreted as sexism.[2]

Female self-objectification[edit]

Further information:sex-positive feminismandfeminist sex wars
Waitresses ofTilted Kilt Pub & Eateryrestaurant in uniform. Tilted Kilt has skimpily dressed waitresses, and is thus an example of abreastaurant.

Ariel Levycontends that Western women who exploit their sexuality by, for example, wearing revealing clothing and engaging in lewd behavior, engage in female self-objectification, meaning they objectify themselves. While some women see such behaviour as a form ofempowerment,Levy contends that it has led to greater emphasis on a physical criterion orsexualizationfor women's perceived self-worth, which Levy calls "raunch culture".[49]In a study conducted by the State University of New York, it is found that women self-objectify when trying to fit the "perfect" female standard according to themale gaze.

Levy discusses this phenomenon inFemale Chauvinist Pigs:Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.Levy followed the camera crew from theGirls Gone Wildvideo series, and argues that contemporary America's sexualized culture not only objectifies women, it encourages women to objectify themselves.[50]In today's culture, Levy writes, the idea of a woman participating in awet T-shirt contestor being comfortable watching explicitpornographyhas become a symbol of feminist strength.

Jordan Petersonhas asked why women need to wear make-up or high-heels in the workplace, that adouble standardexists for sexual harassment and females who self-objectify themselves in society.[51]

Social media has made a major impact on the self-objectification of women. Through social media, women self-objectify by posting provocative images that know will be objectified by their viewers as a form of seeking validation of posting images that fits the mold of society.[52]

Latina women[edit]

Latina women face a particular form of sexual objectification based onstereotypes relating to Latina women.American media often portrays Latina women as being sexually promiscuous and curvaceous, having large breasts and buttocks, being melodramatic, or having a feisty attitude.[53]Keller identifies three main stereotypes that contribute to the objectification of Latinas. (Cantina Girl, Suffering Senorita, and Vamp). The “Cantina Girl” is characterized as being an alluring sexual presence. The “Suffering Senorita” is the Latina who goes “bad” due to her love of the (usually Anglo) love interest. Lastly, the “Vamp” is seen as beautiful but devious, and a psychological threat for her wit or charm.[54]All three of these categorizations stem from the sexual objectification of Latina women's bodies and identities.

Such sexual objectifications hold real-world consequences for Latina women. For instance, the prevalence of negative Latina stereotypes (such ashypersexualization) has led to a decrease in positivein-group attitudesamong the Latina community.[55]

Black women[edit]

Black women have been fetishized and objectified throughout history. They may be portrayed as having a more animalistic nature than their non-black counterparts. People who fetishize black women are sometimes pejoratively said to have "jungle fever".[56]

Black women are widely objectified in the media and in pornography, and are scrutinized more closely for doing the same things as their non-black counterparts.[citation needed]They are also stereotyped in the media as having more curvaceous bodies and bigger lips.[56]

Objectification theory[edit]

Objectification theory is a framework for understanding the experiences of women in cultures that sexually objectify them, proposed byBarbara Fredricksonand Tomi-Ann Roberts in 1997.[57]Within this framework, Fredrickson and Roberts draw conclusions about women's experiences. This theory states that, because of sexual objectification, women learn to internalize an outsider's view of their bodies as the primary view of themselves. Women, they explain, begin to view their bodies as objects separate from their person. This internalization has been termed self-objectification. This theory does not seek to prove the existence of sexual objectification; the theory assumes its existence in culture. This self-objectification then, according to objectification theory, leads to increased habitual body monitoring. With this framework in mind, Fredrickson and Roberts suggest explanations for consequences they believe are the result of sexual objectification. The consequences suggested are: increased feelings of shame, increased feelings of anxiety, decreased peak motivational state, and decreased awareness of internal bodily states.

Sexual objectification has been studied based on the proposition that girls and women develop their primary view of their physical selves from observing others. These observations can take place in the media or through personal experience.[58]: 26 Through a blend of expected and actual exposure, women are socialized to objectify their own physical characteristics from athird-personperception, which is identified as self-objectification.[59]Women and girls develop an expected physical appearance for themselves, based on observations of others; and are aware that others are likely to observe as well. The sexual objectification and self-objectification of women is believed to influence socialgender rolesand inequalities between the sexes.[60]

Self-objectification[edit]

Self-objectificationcan increase in situations which heighten the awareness of an individual's physical appearance.[61]: 82 Here, the presence of athird-personobserver is enhanced. Therefore, when individuals know others are looking at them, or will be looking at them, they are more likely to care about their physical appearance. Examples of the enhanced presence of an observer include the presence of an audience, camera, or other known observer.

Women, girls, and self-objectification[edit]

Primarily, objectification theory describes how women and girls are influenced as a result of expected social andgender roles.[58]Research indicates not all women are influenced equally, due to theanatomical,hormonal,andgeneticdifferences of the female body; however, women's bodies are often objectified and evaluated more frequently.[61]: 90–95 Self-objectification in girls tends to stem from two main causes: the internalization of traditional beauty standards as translated through media as well as any instances of sexual objectification that they might encounter in their daily lives.[62]It is not uncommon for women to translate their anxieties over their constant sense of objectification into obsessive self-surveillance. This, in turn, can lead to many serious problems in women and girls, including "body shame, anxiety, negative attitudes toward menstruation, a disrupted flow of consciousness, diminished awareness of internal bodily states, depression, sexual dysfunction, and disordered eating."[63]

Sexual objectification occurs when a person is identified by their sexual body parts or sexual function. In essence, an individual loses their identity, and is recognized solely by the physical characteristics of their body.[58]The purpose of this recognition is to bring enjoyment to others, or to serve as a sexual object for society.[5]Sexual objectification can occur as asocial constructamong individuals.

Sexual objectification has been around and present in society for many but has increased with the introduction of social media according to “Objectification, Sexualization, and Misrepresentation: Social Media and the College Experience - Stefanie E Davis, 2018” This journal shows a clear explanation for how young girls are influenced by social media to be sexually objectified. The platform is meant to share a glimpse into a person's life through photos to share with friends, family and mutuals. For many individuals, social media applications like Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) are used to glamorize and romanticize certain lifestyles. Examples of this can be young women using their platform (however big it may be) to pose as an older age by uploading provocative photos. This behavior promotes sexual objectification of young girls that participate on social media.

Psychological consequences[edit]

Objectification theory suggests both direct and indirect consequences of objectification to women. Indirect consequences includeself consciousnessin terms that a woman is consistently checking or rearranging her clothes or appearance to ensure that she is presentable. More direct consequences are related to sexual victimization. Rape and sexual harassment are examples of this.[8]Doob (2012) states that sexual harassment is one of the challenges faced by women in workplace. This may constitute sexual jokes or comments, most of which are degrading.[64]Research indicates that objectification theory is valuable to understanding how repeated visual images in the media are socialized and translated intomental healthproblems, including psychological consequences on the individual and societal level.[8]These include increased self-consciousness, increased body anxiety, heightened mental health threats (depression,anorexia nervosa,bulimia,andsexual dysfunction), and increased body shame.[65]Therefore, the theory has been used to explore an array of dependent variables includingdisordered eating,mental health,depression,motor performance,body image,idealized body type,stereotypeformation, sexual perception and sexual typing.[8][61]Body shame is a byproduct of the concept of an idealized body type adopted by most Western cultures that depicts a thin, model-type figure. Thus, women will engage in actions meant to change their body such as dieting, exercise, eating disorders,cosmetic surgery,etc.[8]Effects of objectification theory are identified on both the individual and societal levels.

Causes of depression[edit]

Learned helplessnesstheory posits that because human bodies are only alterable to a certain point, people develop a sense of body shame and anxiety from which they create a feeling of helplessness in relation to correcting their physical appearance and helplessness in being able to control the way in which others perceive their appearance. This lack of control often results in depression.[8]In relating to a lack of motivation, objectification theory states that women have less control in relationships and the work environment because they have to depend on the evaluation of another who is typically basing their evaluation on physical appearance. Since the dependence on another's evaluation limits a woman's ability to create her own positive experiences and motivation, it adversely increases her likelihood for depression.[8]Furthermore, sexual victimization may be a cause. Specifically, victimization within the workplace degrades women. Harassment experienced every day wears on a woman, and sometimes this results in a state of depression.[8][64]

Alternatives and critique[edit]

Ann J. Cahilluses the concept ofderivitizationas an alternative to objectification when trying to address sexual objectification's seeming judgment of all physical interactions (termed somatophobia by Cahill). Cahill criticizes the notion of objectification as marginalizing the role of the body in one's subjective experience and therefore making it impossible to understand how being viewed as a sexually appealing body can enhance an individual's notion of self.[66]: 842 

Instead, Cahill uses the concept of subjectivity from the study ofintersubjectivity.A subject is an individual with their unique experience of reality. Derivitization is then defined as limiting another person's subjective behaviour and experience to align with or serve your own subjective experience. In this framing, the objectification exists in sex work is viewed instead as the derivitization of having another act for only one's own subjective experience and ignoring the sex worker's experience. Drawing comparisons to thedoctor–patient relationship,Cahill argues that a recognition of what both people bring to a relationship and their subjective goals is what makes a relationship ethical.[66]: 843–847 

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^Paglia, Camille (10 September 1990).Sexual Personae.ISBN9780300182132.Retrieved13 November2022.
  2. ^abBarber, Nigel."Objectification Is a Basic Aspect of Male Sexuality".Psychology Today.Retrieved13 November2022.
  3. ^Strossen, Nadine (2000).Defending Pornography.p. 136.ISBN0814781497.Retrieved13 November2022.
  4. ^Barry, Kathleen (1984). "Pornography: the ideoloy of cultural sadism". In Barry, Kathleen (ed.).Female sexual slavery.New York London: NYU Press. p. 247.ISBN978-0-8147-1069-2.
  5. ^abLeMoncheck, Linda (1997). "I only do it for the money: pornography, prostitution, and the business of sex". In LeMoncheck, Linda (ed.).Loose women, lecherous men a feminist philosophy of sex.New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p.133.ISBN978-0-19-510556-8.
  6. ^abSzymanski, Dawn M.; Moffitt, Lauren B.; Carr, Erika R. (January 2011)."Sexual objectification of women: advances to theory and research"(PDF).The Counseling Psychologist.39(1): 6–38.doi:10.1177/0011000010378402.S2CID17954950.
  7. ^abJhally, Sut (director)(1997).Dreamworlds II: desire, sex, power in music(Documentary). USA:Media Education Foundation.
  8. ^abcdefghiFredrickson, Barbara L.; Roberts, Tomi-Ann (June 1997). "Objectification theory: toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks".Psychology of Women Quarterly.21(2): 173–206.doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.S2CID145272074.
  9. ^Szymanski, Dawn M.; Moffitt, Lauren B.; Carr, Erika R. (2011)."Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory and Research"(PDF).The Counseling Psychologist.39(1): 6–38.doi:10.1177/0011000010378402.S2CID17954950.Retrieved17 October2022.
  10. ^Lee, Janet (September 1994). "Menarche and the (hetero)sexualization of the female body".Gender & Society.8(3): 343–362.doi:10.1177/089124394008003004.S2CID144282688.
  11. ^Report of the American Psychological Association task force on the sexualization of girls, executive summary(PDF)(Report). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.2010.Retrieved19 February2007.
  12. ^"Sports, gym classes, team initiations and events".Sensations4women.com.26 January 1998. Archived fromthe originalon 30 April 2018.Retrieved1 August2012.
  13. ^Citations:
  14. ^Teunis, Niels (May 2007). "Sexual objectification and the construction of whiteness in the gay male community".Culture, Health & Sexuality.9(3): 263–275.doi:10.1080/13691050601035597.JSTOR20460929.PMID17457730.S2CID8287617.
  15. ^Teunis, Niels (2007). "Sexual objectification and the construction of whiteness in the gay male community".Culture, Health & Sexuality.9(3): 263–275.doi:10.1080/13691050601035597.PMID17457730.S2CID8287617.
  16. ^Neimark, Jill (1 November 1994)."The beefcaking of America".Psychology Today.Sussex Publishers.Retrieved1 August2012.
  17. ^Kellie, Dax J.; Blake, Khandis R.; Brooks, Robert C. (23 August 2019)."What drives female objectification? An investigation of appearance-based interpersonal perceptions and the objectification of women".PLOS ONE.14(8): e0221388.Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1421388K.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221388.PMC6707629.PMID31442260.
  18. ^Tortajada-Giménez, Iolanda; Araüna-Baró, Núria; Martínez-Martínez, Inmaculada José (2013)."Advertising stereotypes and gender representation in social networking sites".Comunicar.21(41): 177–186.doi:10.3916/C41-2013-17.hdl:10272/7056.Original Spanish article.
  19. ^abcDavidson, M. Meghan; Gervais, Sarah J.; Canivez, Gary L.; Cole, Brian P. (April 2013). "A psychometric examination of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale among college men".Journal of Counseling Psychology.60(2): 239–250.doi:10.1037/a0032075.PMID23458607.
  20. ^Buchbinder, David(Winter 2004). "Object or ground? The male body as fashion accessory".Canadian Review of American Studies.34(3): 221–232.doi:10.1353/crv.2006.0030.S2CID161493223.
  21. ^Dawson, Leanne (2015)."Passing and policing: controlling compassion, bodies and boundaries inBoys Don't CryandUnveiled/Fremde Haut"(PDF).Studies in European Cinema.12(3): 205–228.doi:10.1080/17411548.2015.1094258.hdl:20.500.11820/8f102aab-aa8c-4524-8cc1-18ff25ed0467.S2CID147349266.
  22. ^abStevens Aubrey, Jennifer (27 May 2003).Investigating the role of self-objectification in the relationship between media exposure and sexual self-perceptions.Paper presented at the annual meeting of theInternational Communication Association,Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA, May 27, 2003.
    See also:Stevens Aubrey, Jennifer (June 2006). "Effects of sexually objectifying media on self-objectification and body surveillance in undergraduates: results of a 2-year panel study".Journal of Communication.56(2): 366–386.doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00024.x.
  23. ^Roberts, Tomi-Ann; Gettman, Jennifer Y. (1 July 2004)."Mere Exposure: Gender Differences in the Negative Effects of Priming a State of Self-Objectification".Sex Roles.51(1): 17–27.doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000032306.20462.22.ISSN1573-2762.S2CID55703429.
  24. ^Zimmerman, Amanda; Dahlberg, John (1 March 2008)."The Sexual Objectification of Women in Advertising: A Contemporary Cultural Perspective".Journal of Advertising Research.48(1): 71–79.doi:10.2501/S0021849908080094.ISSN0021-8499.S2CID30977582.
  25. ^Vargas-Bianchi, Lizardo; Mensa, Marta (1 January 2020)."Do you remember me? Women sexual objectification in advertising among young consumers".Young Consumers.21(1): 77–90.doi:10.1108/YC-04-2019-0994.ISSN1747-3616.S2CID216353566.
  26. ^Martin, Brett A. S.; Lang, Bodo; Wong, Stephanie (2003)."Conclusion Explicitness in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition (NFC) and Argument Quality (AQ) on Persuasion".Journal of Advertising.32(4): 57–65.doi:10.1080/00913367.2003.10639148.ISSN0091-3367.JSTOR4622179.S2CID140844572.Retrieved27 October2022.
  27. ^Wolf, Naomi(2002) [1992].The beauty myth: how images of beauty are used against women.New York: Perennial.ISBN978-0-06-051218-7.
  28. ^Stoltenberg, John(2000)."Sexual objectification and male supremacy"(PDF).Refusing to be a man: essays on sex and justice.London New York: UCL Press. p. 38.ISBN978-1-84142-041-7.
  29. ^MacKinnon, Catharine(1993).Only words.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-63934-8.
  30. ^Jensen, Robert(1997). "Using pornography". InDines, Gail;Jensen, Robert;Russo, Ann (eds.).Pornography: the production and consumption of inequality.New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p.133.ISBN978-0-19-510556-8.
  31. ^Frith, Katherine; Shaw, Ping; Cheng, Hong (March 2005). "The construction of beauty: a cross-cultural analysis of women's magazine advertising".Journal of Communication.55(1): 56–70.doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02658.x.
  32. ^balembbn (15 April 2013)."Representations of Women in Reality TV".Feminism and Film (blog).Archived fromthe originalon 14 April 2019 – via Vanderbilt University.
  33. ^Schama, Simon(1989). "The cultural construction of a citizen: II Casting roles: children of nature". InSchama, Simon(ed.).Citizens: a chronicle of the French Revolution.New York: Knopf Distributed by Random House.ISBN978-0-394-55948-3.
  34. ^Heldman, Caroline (August 2011). "Sexualizing Sarah Palin: the social and political context of the sexual objectification of female candidates".Sex Roles.65(3): 156–164.doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9984-6.S2CID141197696.
  35. ^Galdi, Silvia; Maass, Anne; Cadinu, Mara (September 2014). "Objectifying media: their effect on gender role norms and sexual harassment of women".Psychology of Women Quarterly.38(3): 393–413.doi:10.1177/0361684313515185.S2CID145614917.
  36. ^"Dr. James Dobson".The Interim: Canada's life and family newspaper.Toronto, Ontario,Canada: viaTrue Media.12 January 1997.Retrieved1 August2012.
  37. ^abShalit, Wendy(2000).A return to modesty: discovering the lost virtue.New York: Touchstone.ISBN978-0-684-86317-7.
  38. ^Reisman, Judith A.(1991)."Soft porn" plays hardball: its tragic effects on women, children, and the family.Lafayette, Louisiana:Huntington House Publishers. pp.32–46, 173.ISBN978-0-910311-92-2.
  39. ^Holz, Adam R. (2007)."Is average the new ugly?".Plugged In Online.Focus on the Family.
  40. ^National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families (July 1997)."Subtle Dangers of Pornography (special report by the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families)".Pure Intimacy (website).Focus on the Family.Retrieved1 August2012.
  41. ^Shalit, Wendy(2000)."Modesty revisited".orthodoxytoday.org.Fr. Johannes Jacobse.Archived fromthe originalon 2018-10-28.Retrieved2015-09-07.
  42. ^Abrams, Dominic; Hogg, Michael A. (2004). "Collective identity: group membership and self-conception". InBrewer, Marilynn B.;Hewstone, Miles (eds.).Self and social identity.Perspectives on Social Psychology. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. p. 167.ISBN978-1-4051-1069-3.
  43. ^Paglia, Camille(1991).Sexual personae: art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson.New York: Vintage Books.ISBN978-0-679-73579-3.
  44. ^McElroy, Wendy(2006)."A feminist overview of pornography, ending in a defense thereof".WendyMcElroy.com.
  45. ^Kaminer, Wendy."When Conservative Senators Sound Like Anti-Porn Feminists".Retrieved15 October2022.
  46. ^Strossen, Nadine."Who Really Benefits From the First Amendment".Tablet.Retrieved15 October2022.
  47. ^Hunter, Nan D.; Duggan, Lisa (1995).Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture.Routledge. pp. 44–45.ISBN9780415910378.Retrieved15 October2022.
  48. ^Strossen, Nadine (2000).Defending Pornography.pp. 136–165.ISBN0814781497.Retrieved13 November2022.
  49. ^Levy, Ariel(2006).Female chauvinist pigs: women and the rise of raunch culture.London: Pocket Books.ISBN978-1-4165-2638-4.
  50. ^Dougary, Ginny (25 September 2007)."Yes we are bovvered".The Times.London.Retrieved23 May2010.
  51. ^Maples, Miranda (22 March 2018)."Jordan Peterson Questions If Men and Women Can Work Together".Study Breaks.
  52. ^Zheng, Dong; Ni, Xiao-li; Luo, Yi-jun (2019-03-01)."Selfie Posting on Social Networking Sites and Female Adolescents' Self-Objectification: The Moderating Role of Imaginary Audience Ideation".Sex Roles.80(5): 325–331.doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0937-1.ISSN1573-2762.S2CID149757000.
  53. ^McLaughlin, Bryan; Rodriguez, Nathian S.; Dunn, Joshua A.; Martinez, Jobi (2018-09-03)."Stereotyped Identification: How Identifying with Fictional Latina Characters Increases Acceptance and Stereotyping".Mass Communication and Society.21(5): 585–605.doi:10.1080/15205436.2018.1457699.ISSN1520-5436.S2CID149715074.
  54. ^Merskin, Debra (2007-05-29)."Three Faces of Eva: Perpetuation of The Hot-Latina Stereotype in Desperate Housewives".Howard Journal of Communications.18(2): 133–151.doi:10.1080/10646170701309890.ISSN1064-6175.S2CID144571909.
  55. ^Tukachinsky, Riva; Mastro, Dana; Yarchi, Moran (2017-07-03)."The Effect of Prime Time Television Ethnic/Racial Stereotypes on Latino and Black Americans: A Longitudinal National Level Study".Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media.61(3): 538–556.doi:10.1080/08838151.2017.1344669.ISSN0883-8151.S2CID148590923.
  56. ^abBianca, Fransisca (2017)."Fetishism and Sexual Objectification towards African (Black) Women in Modern Society: Analyzing the Portrayal of African Women in the Media".Jurnal Sentris.1(1): 91–99.doi:10.26593/sentris.v1i1.4132.91-99.ISSN2746-3826.S2CID240601761.
  57. ^Fredrickson, B. L.;Roberts, T.-A. (1997). "Objectification Theory".Psychology of Women Quarterly.21(2): 173–206.doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.S2CID145272074.
  58. ^abcBartky, Sandra Lee(1990). "On Psychological Oppression".Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression.New York:Routledge.p.22-32.ISBN978-0-415-90186-4.
  59. ^Kaschak, Ellyn(1992).Engendered Lives: A New Psychology of Women's Experience.New York, New York:Basic Books.p.12.ISBN978-0-465-01349-4.
  60. ^Goldenberg, Jamie L.; Roberts, Tomi-Ann (2004)."The Beast within the Beauty: An Existential Perspective on the Objectification and Condemnation of Women".InGreenberg, Jeff;Koole, Sander L.;Pyszczynski, Thomas A.(eds.).Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology.New York:Guilford Press.pp. 71–85.ISBN978-1-59385-040-1.
  61. ^abcFredrickson, Barbara L.;Harrison, Kristen (2005). "Throwing like a Girl: Self-Objectification Predicts Adolescent Girls' Motor Performance".Journal of Sport and Social Issues.29(1): 79–101.doi:10.1177/0193723504269878.S2CID146312527.
  62. ^McKay, Tajare' (2013)."Female self-objectification: causes, consequences and prevention".McNair Scholars Research Journal.6(1): 53–70.ISSN2166-109X.
  63. ^Calogero, Rachel M.; Davis, William N.; Thompson, J. Kevin (2005)."The Role of Self-Objectification in the Experience of Women with Eating Disorders"(PDF).Sex Roles.52(1): 43–50.CiteSeerX10.1.1.413.8397.doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1192-9.S2CID10241677.
  64. ^abDoob, Christopher B. (2013).Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:Pearson Education, Inc.ISBN978-0-205-79241-2.
  65. ^Moradi, Bonnie; Huang, Yu-Ping (2008). "Objectification Theory and Psychology of Women: A Decade of Advances and Future Directions".Psychology of Women Quarterly.32(4): 377–398.doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x.S2CID144389646.
  66. ^abCahill, Ann J. (2014)."The Difference Sameness Makes: Objectification, Sex Work, and Queerness".Hypatia.29(4): 840–856.doi:10.1111/hypa.12111.ISSN0887-5367.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related toSexual objectification.

User-generated content

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_objectification&oldid=1226307023"