I am truly struggling with determining the proper stance on the sexualization of women. What I mean by this is making women sexy or nude in video games, movies, and whatever else. Anita Sarkeesian seemed fairly clear that her stance at least promotes covering up female butts rather than showing more male butts, so I presume her take on it is that women should not be sexualized or nude at all because this objectifies them. It turns women into an object to be lusted after. And I totally get that. It seems bad to do that and we want people to see women as something other than a sex toy.
On the other hand, I see our culture as being entirely sexually repressed and overly stimulated by parts of the body. In more primitive cultures where women go around entirely topless, I do not believe anyone sees this as crude, offensive, or anything worthy of covering. There are many women who similarly wish to be able to go topless in our society like they do in France or Germany and just like their male counterparts. And why should they be hindered? I guess because breasts are objects of sexual desire. But is that a good reason? Do we truly want to cover up everything that is an object of sexual desire? Well, even faces, legs, and butts are objects of sexual desire. If we start covering up everything sexually desirous we are going to look like Saudi Arabia. Of course, if we choose not to cover such body parts, then we are letting people run around naked. As it is, we cover crotches and female chests but nothing else. Is this good, bad, or indifferent?
Is there a line? Is there a definition or explainable reason we can use to make some things good and some things bad? Do we need to? One difference I see between the two examples of games versus culture that I brought up is sexualizing versus censoring. Any woman walking around topless is not particularly sexually appealing and no one in particular is attempting to make people lust after her. Although, in our repressed culture, many people might be immediately aroused despite it. In other cultures, where the breasts are not so taboo, I presume they are not so immediately shocked and wooed. And yet, if we as a culture are suddenly accepting of naked breasts, games and movies would no longer be merely enlarging them, they will probably all the more reveal them like in other cultures where they are not taboo. But does this matter? I can see a difference between censorship and sexualizing, but is there a good way to separate the two with words to indicate what is 'good' and what is 'bad?' Perhaps we could allow women to run around topless but they cannot be depicted as such in media? That seems rather odd. Why not depict what is naturally occurring around us if we were okay with uncensoring?
But let us imagine a world where people freely ran around naked and unashamed. Now what? Is the society totally different? People would still wear clothes for comfort and convenience but we might see a few more genitals and breasts. Is this a problem? It sounds disturbing to think what I might see at Walmart, but I cannot think of one terrible thing that this might lead to as a precursor besides eye strain. It would probably, in my mind, lead to less sexual repression and less enticement due to forbidden fruit, and this would likely lead to fewer cases of rape and less risky sexual behavior leading to unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission. It seems counter-intuitive, but forbidden fruit has long been established as an enticement and sexual repression is guaranteed to lead to impulse with such a strong fundamental and natural drive. If we are inundated in the representation of nudity and sex, the awe disappears, the forbidden fruit disappears, the uncomfortable feelings of awkwardness disappear, and perhaps even the ability to sexualize women disappears since it is so commonplace.
On the other hand, I see our culture as being entirely sexually repressed and overly stimulated by parts of the body. In more primitive cultures where women go around entirely topless, I do not believe anyone sees this as crude, offensive, or anything worthy of covering. There are many women who similarly wish to be able to go topless in our society like they do in France or Germany and just like their male counterparts. And why should they be hindered? I guess because breasts are objects of sexual desire. But is that a good reason? Do we truly want to cover up everything that is an object of sexual desire? Well, even faces, legs, and butts are objects of sexual desire. If we start covering up everything sexually desirous we are going to look like Saudi Arabia. Of course, if we choose not to cover such body parts, then we are letting people run around naked. As it is, we cover crotches and female chests but nothing else. Is this good, bad, or indifferent?
Is there a line? Is there a definition or explainable reason we can use to make some things good and some things bad? Do we need to? One difference I see between the two examples of games versus culture that I brought up is sexualizing versus censoring. Any woman walking around topless is not particularly sexually appealing and no one in particular is attempting to make people lust after her. Although, in our repressed culture, many people might be immediately aroused despite it. In other cultures, where the breasts are not so taboo, I presume they are not so immediately shocked and wooed. And yet, if we as a culture are suddenly accepting of naked breasts, games and movies would no longer be merely enlarging them, they will probably all the more reveal them like in other cultures where they are not taboo. But does this matter? I can see a difference between censorship and sexualizing, but is there a good way to separate the two with words to indicate what is 'good' and what is 'bad?' Perhaps we could allow women to run around topless but they cannot be depicted as such in media? That seems rather odd. Why not depict what is naturally occurring around us if we were okay with uncensoring?
But let us imagine a world where people freely ran around naked and unashamed. Now what? Is the society totally different? People would still wear clothes for comfort and convenience but we might see a few more genitals and breasts. Is this a problem? It sounds disturbing to think what I might see at Walmart, but I cannot think of one terrible thing that this might lead to as a precursor besides eye strain. It would probably, in my mind, lead to less sexual repression and less enticement due to forbidden fruit, and this would likely lead to fewer cases of rape and less risky sexual behavior leading to unwanted pregnancies and disease transmission. It seems counter-intuitive, but forbidden fruit has long been established as an enticement and sexual repression is guaranteed to lead to impulse with such a strong fundamental and natural drive. If we are inundated in the representation of nudity and sex, the awe disappears, the forbidden fruit disappears, the uncomfortable feelings of awkwardness disappear, and perhaps even the ability to sexualize women disappears since it is so commonplace.
No comments:
Post a Comment