On the Sexualization of Young Girls
Alexandra O’Dell, a student at North Idaho College, does a great job of integrating data, interviews, and images in this 11-minute video about the sexualization of young girls in the media:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Sexy young girls seem to be very popular. Britney, Lindsay, Miley. Popular with their preteen girl audience as well as those who do countdowns. 
You are a hero. 
I agree with what you wrote about sexual acceptance and that it's better than repression. That's exactly what I meant to say. However, in my post I was not only talking about what you described as "18+ women" and neither was the video. The video was making the point that teenage girls (below the age of 18) are (also) being 'sexualized' by the mass media. I argued that the mass media isn't needed for men to notice the beauty and the attraction in young girls; that there are biological and evolutionary reasons why they are appealing to men. (Reasons some feminists want to deny because they think it's creepy/perverse.)
I don't see how publicizing a series of photo's of a 16 year old Selena Gomez on vacation, in bikini, is 'sexualizing' her. Nor do I see how the multiple professional photoshoots she did before she turned 18 were 'devaluing' her. Sure, there will always be men who'll see those photo's and only see her as a body. But those are the kind of men who will see all women as objects REGARDLESS. Either you're a jackass or you aren't, is what I'm trying to say. There are men in all shapes and sizes. To say a sexy photoshoot of a 'legal' minor makes ALL men see her as nothing but an object, is both unfair to all men and to the girl in question. I know *I* don't think of her as nothing more but a pretty face/body. I respect her for whom she is and she does. I think it's devaluing of OTHER women to say that she's nothing more than a pretty face/body for doing those photoshoots. Why can't she work hard and make her own career and simultaneously do sexy shoots? Why not walk and chew gum at the same time?
And again: why is it a problem when young girls are being thought of as desirable and not when it happens to young boys? I never heard anybody about the problem of the 'sexualization' of Zac Efron, Justin Bieber (grmbl!) or Robert Pattinson. It's ironic that the same feminists who are fighting the double standard that guys get considered 'studs' when they act sexually pro-active and girls are considered 'sluts' for doing the same thing (and rightly so, by the way, that attitude IS sexist and should be fought tooth and nail), are perfectly okay with ignoring young boys being turned into sexually attractive males, while shaming young girls for doing exactly the same.
I want to stress that I don't underestimate for a second the impact the beauty-, fashion- and advertisement industry has on young girls. I'm no doctor, but I think it's one of the reasons why anorexia is purely a Western disease: young girls wanting to look like ridiculously thin models and starving themselves to achieve it. Wouldn't happen in Africa or Latin-America, I guess. So I recognize that. I just don't think the solution is to ban all media images of attractive young girls. It's better to teach and educate them about the media and to make them aware of the fact that it's unrealistic to want to look like Hollywood stars. Like I learned I would never be a John McClane.
Edit: yep, just as I expected: in one of the feminist forums, a member is already mocking the factually true statement that biology makes men notice attractive young women. Including barfing emoticon! Because noticing a beautiful young woman is just worth puking! And science is just over-rated anyway.
Thanks for your post. 
I think that, if you take the position of the maker of the video much, much further, you eventually get to the position of anti-women muslims, who think that women should cover their beauty (wear headscarves or even burquas) so that men don't get tempted by it. Of course this is hyperbole on my part, but the logical consequence of the maker's critique would be that young women stop dressing and/or behaving in a sexual way, so as to not look appealing to men.
I'm completely against that. I'm in favor of healthy, equal relationships between men and women. I just don't like the bullshitting that's going on sometimes, like that we have to pretend we're not interested in someone's appearance because that's deemed shallow or superficial. The first impression you get from people is largely based on their physical appearance. That's a fact. When we go into a bar or disco and we're looking to hook up with someone, who are we going to? The ones who attract us physically. There's nothing shallow about admitting that, but some would want to guilt-trip us into believing that. After we get to know someone and know more about his/her character, we can better judge whether or not that person is still interesting to us. But most of the times, it starts with physical attraction.
I've always wondered why Afghan or Pakistani men would want all women only covered in burqas on the streets. How are you gonna meet a woman that way? Seems hard to flirt that way to me. But they want women to wear those things so that men won't look at them. Which (again, watch the hyperbole) sometimes sounds a lot like some things I've read on DU. Some people have said men shouldn't look at women for her physical beauty alone. Well, when I'm walking on the streets and I pass a total stranger, what else is there to do? Should I start an entire conversation with every attractive woman I meet? Or should I put blinders on? Some people on DU have said it's devaluing to women to look at them that way. I really don't see HOW looking at an attractive girl could devalue her. If I ran up to her, ripped her clothes off and called her a dirty whore, yes, then I would be devaluing her. But noticing her beauty? Why is that bad?
I think it's moralistic and, yes, prudish, to think that way. Sexualizing pre-pubescent girls, thongs for 5 year olds, push-up bra's for little kids, yes, that is sick. Recognizing that a sexy teenager is sexy: that's human nature. I'm sorry if some people can't handle that reality and have to pretend biology doesn't exist...
The problem arises when young girls equate the idolization and success of these stars as being a direct result of their sexuality. And then attempting to emulate that sexuality as a path to social acceptance and success and wealth. Young girls are getting the message that their worth as humans is determined by their sexuality and their usefulness as sexual objects.
I was a young girl once, so I am speaking from experience not from feminist book theory.
The argument should be made for the other side. It wasn't made for the other side here, because that is not the subject of the video. The lack of "the other side" being presented here does not negate the argument that is presented.
But I will give you an example, though it's not about a really young man. The trumpet player Chris Botti. There are other trumpet players who far surpass Botti in talent and technical skill and musicianship. Botti became a success based on his sex appeal. He's easy on the eyes, as they say. He looks great on TV and he looks great on an album cover. That's just as wrong.
There are real instances in which young girls are being treated like objects. You will never hear me deny that. For instance, think about all those videoclips where scarcely clad or half-naked women do nothing but dance around some rapper, slapping their asses and calling them his "bitches". Now that is degrading, that is dehumanizing. If that is what's meant with "sexualization", I'm totally in agreement with the maker of the video.
It's just too bad that he maker, like some (by far not all!) feminists on DU, has to take it to extremes by declaring all forms of young girls showing their beauty 'sexualizing' or 'dehumanizing'. I think there's a world of difference between those girls in the rappers' videos and other examples from the video, like dressing up pre-pubescent girls in sexual ways, and mainstream singers and actresses taking photoshoots stressing their beauty. Those photoshoots often compliment magazine articles about their work. So when Selena Gomez has a new movie out, the article will be about that movie and her work on it and the shoot will only compliment the article. I don't see why it is bad for an actress or singer to be made to look her most attractive for a shoot like that. I think they, themselves, would also want to look the best they can. But that's universal. I'm no Brad Pitt, but when I'm going out, I also want to look the best I can. I think that goes for everybody.
You can argue, of course, about the need to look attractive. You could argue: what has looking sexy got to do with your singing or acting qualities? Well, frankly, nothing. But it comes in handy when you want to make it in the business, because, like I said, we would rather watch attractive people. It's not like you can't make it without good looks anyway. Otherwise people like Steve Buscemi or Philip Seymour Hoffman wouldn't have become such famous and respected actors. (I'm not gonna name a woman here, out of fear of possibly offending someone.)
I agree that the lack of one side of the argument being presented does not negate the argument that is presented. However, I feel it is deliberately skewed. I believe the side of young boys/men being 'sexualized' (though I personally don't see it that way, but for argument's sake I continue to call it that) is being deliberately ignored, because it doesn't fit in the narrative that 'the patriarchy' uses and exploits young girls, who are turned into victims because of this supposed exploitation and dehumanization. When you look at the fact that young male idols like Efron and Bieber (grmbl) are being treated THE EXACT SAME WAY, the narrative of the exploited teen girls falls apart. Because if it's really a conscious effort by men to 'objectify' girls, then why would they do the same to their own 'kind'?
I take very seriously the issue that young girls think you can only be successful if you're sexy, attractive and 'perfect'. I remember watching the movie 'Videocracy' and being horrified by it. Have you ever seen it? It's about television in Berlusconi's Italy where women are reduced to pieces of meat, assisting horny old hosts in nothing more than a bra or bikini; and the movie shows how more and more girls are aspiring to be those girls on tv, because it's valued so much.
But again, I see a world of difference between that and young singers, actresses and cartoons. That even cartoons are named seems so absurd to me and to me, it really undercuts the arguments made in the video. It's hard to take it seriously after that. It's also too bad that those things (attractive young teen stars and cartoons) get lumped in with all the other stuff, which I agree IS bad. I have a far more nuanced view on it, as I've tried to explain, but it seems like you always have to take a black or white position. It's always either-or. Either you're completely in agreement that everything shown and mentioned in the video is sexualizing and dehumanizing and you're a true supporter of women and womens' rights; or you believe everything shown is fine and dandy and thus you are a sexist who objectifies girls. Give a nuanced reply and you get automatically lumped into the latter camp. Or you get accused of 'ignoring the problem'.
Also, I sometimes get the impression that the fact that men like to look at attractive young girls/women is in itself considered a problem. It's never said openly, but I think it's inferred a lot in discussions like these. (I'm not saying you did that.) To this day, STILL nobody has been able to explain to me why it's devaluing or degrading to a girl when I or another man look at her because of her beauty. I see lots of women on the everyday: on the street, in the bus, at work, in the store etc. Whenever I see an attractive one, I look. I've seen entire rants on DU bemoaning this. Why? Do women not look at a handsome man when they see one? 
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Hooker Bratz dolls?????? 
What about push-up bra's for six-year olds? What's there to push up at that age? 
I know you weren't; that's why I said "some people", referring to others.
I agree that pre-pubescent children should not be made to look and act in a sexual way. They're children, there's nothing sexual about them! Nobody is a 'prude' for pointing that out. That's just good common sense!
I'm sure you agree that there is a world of variety between 'dressing conservatively' and 'dressing like a sex object'; that there is a lot of grey between those two black and white polars opposites.
