I have no problem with sexualization of the marketplace, what I do have a problem with is a society of unrealistic standards.
The new Dove real women being used to show that ‘average’ women can dress in their underwear too. None of these women is ugly, several are quite attractive, and they are sizes 4-12. The average american woman is a size 14. Even the attempts to portray ‘real women’ just picks the best looking 10-20% of real women to portray, further alienating the other 80% of women in society.
I am worried about a media that creates unrealistic standards for everything and as a result makes people feel like there is something massively wrong with them for failing to live up to the standards. MTV’s cribs that shows houses people will never afford, ads show bodies people will never have, TV shows show relationships people will never have, and we have a media that gives no airtime to legimate problems in life (being molested, being gay, being mentally ill, etc) and instead focuses on irrelevant problems.
I know its not the media’s job to portray a realistic world, but I’ve seen women who were good people mentally destroy themselves because they got ideas of how they should look from airbrushed women in the media wih different genetics than they have. The point is, no sexualization doesn’t bother me, what bothers me is that media which is designed to sell escape fantasies is held up as a role model for real life, which isn’t an escape fantasy.
There are benefits to being open about sex. It creates an atmosphere where people can discuss STDs and pregnancy more openly. Plus I don’t think a society that is sexually repressed is normal. I don’t know alot about native societies but I doubt they were sexually repressed, that attitude was brought in by outsiders trying to follow religious laws.
As Menocchio said, “It is the combination of a lack of sex education (and serious discusssion on sex) and a sexualized media that’s the rotten combination here.” We aren’t open enough in the ways that really matter. We withhold information about sex from kids because some people see it as permitting or encouraging sexual activity, and the result is kids having sex anyway (you can’t change biology) but without the benefit of knowledge. We’re only “open” about shallow things like videos of drunken coeds being sold on late-night TV, or magazine covers boasting about 14 hot tips to make your man moan.
I don’t think they’re sexualized regardless of talent… I think they’re sexualized in inverse proportion to it. Top 40 music is bland, paint-by-numbers, lowest common denominator crap almost by definition, and sex appeal is all that really separates the #1 single from dozens of other songs.
Is that a bad thing, though? I don’t think so. Sex appeal works because people are hardwired to respond to it - adolescents even more so. I’ve seen no evidence that anyone is taking messages on how to live from music videos. People take cues on how to express themselves from pop culture, but what they express doesn’t seem to change. Respect for talent and beauty is still alive and well; you just won’t find it on MTV or at the grocery checkout counter.
Well, for some people, like the targets of those ads, it is of paramount importance. But again, that’s because that’s how their bodies work, not because Britney Spears told them sex was important.
I haven’t ever seen it presented as risk free, though.
These debates always seem to focus on what sexual openness might or might not lead to. It’s extremely difficult to make a general case one way or the other whether sexual openness leads to promiscuity or whether sexual repression leads to some other problem.
Sexual openness as it affects the here and now seems just as important, to me anyway. From that perspective, I’d strongly agree that society is “going too far” with sexual openness. I don’t like hearing fellatio jokes on broadcast TV, I don’t want to see ads for companies called “FCUK”, I don’t want to drive down the 110 freeway with my parents in the car and see the word “KUNT” spraypainted on an overpass, and I don’t want to pick up a local free paper looking for restaurant reviews only to read how the new word for the shit that comes out of someone’s ass after anal sex is now called “santorum”. I really don’t care whether it leads somewhere good or bad - I just don’t want to see that stuff all over the place, everywhere. I likes me some porn every so often, but I generally do not want to encounter unspeakable perversions in my day-to-day activities.
There are of course some free speech issues involved, but the question was whether “society is going too far”, not whether society should have the right to go too far.
I don’t know how things are over in The Orthogonal Complement–I can only assume it’s not part of the United States–but you might want to consider moving to beautiful Spokane, site of the 1974 World’s Fair, where none of our broadcast channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Fox, UPN, WB, PAX) seem to air fellatio jokes, our free papers only have Savage Love on one or two easily avoided pages, and there are no “unspeakable perversions” to be encountered in everyday activities.
[QUOTE=Hyperelastic]
I just don’t want to see that stuff all over the place, everywhere. I likes me some porn every so often, but I generally do not want to encounter unspeakable perversions in my day-to-day activities.
ISTM that this is one of the questions that was mildly loaded. Not too extensively, but…
As the questions stands, I would say Disagree - primarily because how can someone be against openness?
Rephrase the question as “Society’s current focus on sex is going too far” or “Society’s current preoccupation with sex is going too far” and I start to venture into Agree territory. And if you change it to “Society’s current intensive marketing campaign on behalf of a shallowly exploitative view of sexuality is going too far” and I start to Strongly Agree.
Sex education is one thing. Half naked adolescents in clothing advertisements is another. It doesn’t seem quite kosher to me to lump them both together under the rubric of “openness about sexuality”.
As a general proposition, I believe society benefits from considering sex as a personal, private, activity restricted to long-term couples. Considering sex as simply a biological function is an error. It is something that engages emotions in ways that breathing, eating, and crapping do not. It’s tied inexorably to reproduction. Engaging in it can have long-term, lifetime consequences.
If the import of this question were simply sex education, I would ‘disagree’. But the questions suggests much more than academic education about sex: it suggests an openness, a free acceptance aspect in society, and I contend that these days, that goes too far.
There’s certainly specific instances of less than ideal sexual behavior or sexual exploitation, but that’s not the same thing, nor does openness lead to such things or repression prevent them.
Except inasmuch as half nakedness in ads (or full nakedness for that matter) represents a further progression of the openness spectrum. e.g. A says, “I’m okay openness about sex only for education, but draw the line at nudity in advertising.” B would would be okay with nudity in advertising. A would say B’s opinion is “too far.”
At one time baring one’s ankles was risqué. Someone at that time, trying to express the above quote, may well say, “Sex ed is one thing. Wearing knee-high skirts in advertising is another.”
It’s a given there has been a change in attitudes towards sex since Victorian times. I think it’s true that attitudes are still changing and in the same direction (i.e. away from prudishess, towards “openness”). Some feel right now we’ve gone too far. What will the opinions of those 50 years be, looking back at how repressed “they used to be back then” once shocking things like, say, public nudity are commonplace.
I agree. There are also activities that engage emotions greater than sex that are not necessarily private. Even for those that are private, there are no taboos against openly discussing.
Child rearing is much more emotionally engaging than child conceiving. Decisions and actions made in the course of child rearing affect more lives with greater impact than mere sex, even sex resulting in mere pregnancy. There is no such thing as casual child rearing.
There are oodles of sitcoms, documentaries, magazines shinging child rearing in all kinds of light. There are ads that blatantly depict the act of child rearing - right on the screen!
<hijack>funny though that there is little/no child rearing taught in schools</hijack>
Do you see what I mean? What is it about sex that we should hide it under a bushel? What is it about some body-bits that make them bad or private or embarassing? The answer to both is nothing, except what society makes it so - and to this I say we haven’t gone far enough.
That’s not to say anyone who thinks otherwise is backwards or prudish - or at least if so than mea culpa. I have enought hang-ups in an all-guys gym locker that you have not to fear I’ll be streaking at a ball diamond near you. I do, though, see the trend and for all I can I encourage it. I hope our great descendants look back at our quaint attitudes, chuckle, than carry on enjoying what their momma gave’em in whatever way makes them happy, free of the shackles we’ve placed on ourselves today (which are coming loose, thankfully).
Sorry, shoulda previewed first: In Bricker’s quote s/he mentions the stance that sexual activity should be restricted to long-term relationships. While I agree with everything else quoted, this I do not agree with. What’s the harm of casual one-time sex between mature, well adjusted, consenting partners of whatever gender, and whatever number, for however long they all choose?
It’s part of a general openness to all kinds of attitudes about sex, true. And as I said, in general that is OK, at least with me. What I object to is the “openness”, if you want to call it that, to attitudes about sexuality and sexual behavior that used to be taboo - not because they were icky but because they were irresponsible or exploitative.
I’m talking here primarily about things like children out of wedlock, the sexualization of increasingly younger people, the chic of androgyny and the accompanying glamorization of anorexia, the mainstreaming of adultery or serial divorce - not necessarily homosexuality or premarital sex per se.
I don’t think the current use of sex as a marketing tool universally emphasizes sex for people who fit all the adjectives above.
Openness in general, sure. But how about a media message to women that the sexuality of anyone bigger than a size four or over the age of forty simply cannot be taken seriously? Is that a message about sexuality we need to be more open about?
I think I see your point: In the same way cereal commercials exploit kids love of sugar to push more product, with one of the outcomes higher incidents of obesity in children (to oversimplify for illustration). Nothing wrong with cereal, nothing wrong with eating it responsibly or having non-exploitive commercials featuring cereal. Agreed.
Excellent point. Some taboos are based in sound judgement, and throwing them out just cuz is irrational - although I would want to remove the taboo-ish-ness (?) Having a child out of wedlock, for instance, was a fierce taboo at one time. The principle behind the taboo is sound: marriage tends to provide a stable, supporting environment in which a child can fluourish. Single parenthood is often unfair for children who do not receive energetic attention from their wearied care-giver.
But look what happened: the sound judgement became blown out of proportion. Sex outside of marriage became a sin, of all things! No sex, no possibility of kids. You may as well make hunting a sin because not hunting is a sure fire way of not shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended - just not that funny).
Exploitation and irresponsibility are always bad. Taboos, though, are extreme reactions that trump reason.
Sure, the anniversaries of their marriages - the point at which they became fully responsible adults. I don’t exactly think this is what the advertisements of sixteen year olds is pushing nowadays.
But in a largely agarian society, with a general labor shortage, the mores were different. When the society changed such that it became more of a survival skill to graduate from high school than simply to be able to guide a plow, the taboo changed and teen agers were expected not to marry and not to get pregnant.
So your point:
is valid. Although I may not agree with your definition of “taboo”.
But the other part of the OP with which I take issue is that, in many instances, a general “openness” about sexuality is taken to mean that no objection can be made to anything sexual. And that such objections are unhealthy, or prudish and inherently ridiculous. What used to be labelled in Freudian terms as “repressive” is now more generally labelled “judgemental”. It is still considered unhealthy, but is also still used as a term to shut off debate. Often by someone who wants to get something, either money or irresponsible sexual access. It’s a marketing ploy, in other words.
I want to sell expensive blue jeans, therefore your objection to my ads with topless seventeen year olds is prudish and Victorian and a signal that you have a narrowly repressed and unhealthy attitude towards sex. If you see what I mean. And if I can lump any objections to my ads together under the heading of “people who are against openness about sex” I have gone a long way to getting my ads into general circulation.
You and I are this close to agreeing with each other, methinks. What makes a blue jean company consider topless models is certainly it’s shock value. Years ago the same company would have considered bare ankles instead for the same shock value. Back then it was wise for young girls to cover their ankles just as today it’s wise to cover their breasts - only because of the shock value. Exposing a youngster to such shock is disruptive and likely harmful - today.
But that doesn’t mean there’s anything inherently evil about bare ankles or bare breasts - or bare geniltalia (although the lattermost has hygiene concerns). It is a good thing we no longer scold girls for exposing their ankles. Bare midriffs are slight eyebrow raisers today but for the most part that battle is won. At each stage there were those whose shock at these exposures translated to laments of “what has society come to?” The same will happen if/when bare breasts become stylish.
The boundary that defines “too far” has expanded and shrunk as the prevailing winds have dictated. We’re currently in expansion. Perhaps society has always “gone too far” in that, wherever the definition of “too far” happens to be at any given time, there is always something shocking beyond the boundary that a few enjoy flouting. When these few cause people to realize the water’s fine just beyond the boundary, the boundary moves and they are no longer too far. Leaving the tantalizing next step.
Marriage is a good thing (although I challenge the idea that there is only one or two narrow definitions of marriage). There certainly is merit to the idea that children are raised only within a stable home. Marriage is often an institution that provides stability. Of course not always, and of course it’s not the only stable institution. But even given (for argument’s sake) that the only right way to raise kids is within a marriage, does it necessarily follow that the only right time to have sex is within a marriage?
A test: Is it shocking to believe a modern-day 16 year old may be responsible enough to engage in no-strings attached sexual activity and still graduate high school, etc. and successfully live a fulfilling life? If such a thing is possible, is it the right thing to do to deny this 16 year old just because it’s harder for the majority of 16 year olds to handle sex maturely?
But again, that’s because that’s how their bodies work, not because Britney Spears told them sex was important.