On the Sexualization of Young Girls

[DutchLiberal]

7. Some really good points buried under a lot of moralistic and prudish conservatism...

That is, in a nutshell, what I think about this rather amateurish video. I'll explain why in greater detail below.

First, let me explain that I totally "get" what is being said and argued in the video. I get the theories and narrative and arguments put forth by the maker. I just don't agree with most of it. Or, to reverse that: just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean I "don't get it". Telling people, men AND women, who disagree that they "don't get it" is, in my opinion, condescending and does not contribute to a good and honest discussion. I felt it was important to stress this.

Now, about the video: I agree with the members above who have voiced their disgust for the sexualization of the little pre-pubescent girls. Like beauty contests for babies/toddlers that you often see in the US, this seems to me as nothing but an excuse for pedophiles to live out their fantasies. (Let it be noted, by the way, that I'm not against anybody fantasizing about anything they want, as long as they don't harm others. I'm not a member of the thought police, so what is in anybody's head is really none of my business.) There is nothing sexual about a pre-pubescent girl's body. Never has been, never will. That's why nature didn't give them any sexual features (no breasts, no pubic hair etc.). To dress up kids that way seems to me like sending a signal to others that it is logical to look at kids that way, which of course it isn't.

I also agree that things like the pole-dancing toy are not acceptable. I'm all for adult women choosing to do that as a profession, but it's not a game little girls should play. There is no reason for them to ever do that, nor do I believe any child would think of "playing pole-dancing" on her own. Kids should be stimulated to use their intellect and their creativity. What parent in his right mind would buy a thing like that for his kid?

Then came some examples about which I'm torn. Advertisements for bra's and underwear were used as examples of the 'sexualization' of young girls. Maybe it's me, but don't girls NEED bra's from a certain age on? And if you're a company trying to sell them, wouldn't it then make sense to use a model the age of the targeted demographic instead of a lady in her forties? Honestly, I don't see anything inherently sexy about the ads shown here. Had the ads been two lesbian twelve year olds kissing, then, yes, I would see the point. Still, I can kinda see the point of the maker here and see how somebody COULD find those ads to be 'sexualizing'.

Then the video steered in the direction I feared it would go when I clicked on the thread. Predictably, then came the images of teen singers and actresses, like Vanessa Hudgens and Selena Gomez (my personal favorite, by the way). To use them as examples of 'sexualization' I find not only prudish, but also shallow. These girls look good, they are attractive and beautiful and they are being made to look that way. That's how it's always been in the entertainment world. For both women AND men, I might add. Movie and television stars have always been cast not only because of their acting skills, but just as much because of their good looks. For instance, Cary Grant and Grace Kelly were both great actors, but would they have become international superstars if they hadn't been that attractive? I highly doubt it. People like to see attractive people on-screen. Has been that way for a long time.

Should we NOT give Selena Gomez a starring role in a tv series because she's pretty? Should we hold it against Vanessa Hudgens that she's sexy? Why shouldn't singers or actresses look good? Personally, I'm a fan of Bob Dylan and other 1960's-1970's musical heroes, so I could care less about musician's appearances, but most teens are not even remotely interested in that type of music. They want to see young people because they can identify with them, and like I said, most people like to see pretty people, so why is it a strange idea to use a singer who also looks beautiful?

I think arguments like this, on the 'sexualization' of young girls, often go too far; they go over-the-top, because they over-react. They act as if images and videos of young women looking sexy are the same as pornographic images of young girls. Hyperbole from my side apart, that IS how I often perceive the over-reaction about 'sexualization'. The moral panic is often not warranted. Selena Gomez in a short dress or Vanessa Hudges in tight pants is not hardcore porn. Nor is it 'dehumanizing' them. Frankly, I find it much more dehumanizing to them when feminists say they ARE being dehumanized. Is it really true that making pictures of a pretty girl like Selena in a sexy pose devalues her? How is that even possible? She has value, right? We agree on that, don't we? She's an actress, she's a singer and an entertainer. She works hard for her money. I think that's deserving of respect. I don't get how that respect magically flies out the window the second she dresses up pretty and has her picture taken. I think it's disrespectful of OTHER women to tell these hard-working young girls that they devalue themselves/are being devalued.

Besides, why is the argument never made for the other side? I mean, for the male side. Young boys are also photographed and filmed in ways that show their physical attractiveness. Think about Robert Pattinson of 'Twilight'-fame, or Justin Bieber (grmbl!), or so many other examples past and present. I vividly remember my younger sister having her entire bedroom decorated with Backstreet Boys posters. There have been and still are lots of those boybands. Are they about musical qualities? About artistry? No, they are about a bunch of pretty boys who have to look appealing to get the young teen girl demographic to buy their albums. How come I never hear anybody about the supposed 'sexualization' of young men? What, it's only a problem when it's about girls/women? Is it "different", AGAIN, because men 'are privileged'/'have not been oppressed for centuries'/'the patriarchy' etc.? Or do we WANT to further the idea that young women everywhere are always victims of 'the male gaze'?

I've read quite a number of articles arguing the exact opposite, saying young women USE their sexuality to be strong, to be in command. Haven't we heard that message ever since Madonna in the 1980's? Why do attractive women who show their beauty and their sexiness have to be portrayed as victims? If you see the success the likes of Selena, Vanessa, Miley etc. have; the lives they live; the money they have, it's hard to see them as victims. I think they have made a good name for themselves and they have worked hard to get where they are. And no, they haven't shied away from showing the world their beauty. But then again: why SHOULD they? What is inherently wrong with that?

Oh, I know people will say its puts a huge emotional weight on teenage girls who aren't supermodel-perfect (like 99% of all people). That it puts pressure on girls to look and behave exactly like the girls they see in the media. I agree about that. It's not only young girls, though. I think lots of mature women (AND men) feel exactly the same, constantly striving to be like the perfect, handsome people they see on tv and in the movies. Me, I never tried that and never felt bad about it. I looked around in my high school, in my family and in my circle of friends and I realized nobody in real life looked like the models in the magazines and on tv. Just like I knew why Bruce Willis could single-handedly blow 15 internationally wanted terrorists to pieces and not get killed in 'Die Hard' but nobody in real life could do that: because I knew the difference between fiction and reality. Now, I realize that apparently lots and lots of teen girls don't get this notion and they still strive to look like the models they see in the media. Should we, therefore, not show pretty girls in the media anymore? Or should we teach our children about the fakeness and the falseness of the media? Everybody in the generation after me literally grew up with the computer; everybody knows Photoshop. So everybody should also know lots of images we see in the media are photoshopped. Why not Media Training as a subject in high school?

Before I go on about the part where the high school students are being interviewed: cartoons as examples of 'sexualization'? Really? People really think that young girls see Disney's Ariel or Jasmine and want to look like them? What's sexualizing about cartoons anyway? They're drawn characters who go onto impossible and fantastic adventures, that's all there is to them. Seeing such innocent things as 'sexualizing' is one of the reasons why these arguments are always so overly panicky, because it's always taken to such absurd lenghts. I see the point about pre-schoolers being dressed up as pole dancers and I can imagine bra-commercials advertised at young girls can be considered sexualizing, but when you throw in something as benign as cartoons, your theory becomes so far-fetched that it's hard to take it seriously. Cartoons aren't supposed to be taken seriously in the first place. Parents often see more in them than children anyway.

Now onto the part with the interviews with the highschool students. I think these are overly moralistic and, yes, prudish. Just to rebut the kind of criticism I expect to get: no, you're not a prude if you haven't had sex in high school and no, you're not a prude when you're a young girl and you won't put out or do other things to satisfy boys that you don't really want to do. That's clear, I hope? What IS prudish and conservative, in my view, is that the maker of the video is acting so shocked about what she hears from these girls. "Imagine that: teens are having sex! Or they want sex! Boys want pretty girls! Looks are important to them! My God, the horror!" Seriously, how does this drama relate to the 'sexualization' of young girls in the media? Does the maker think that, without mass media, teens would not want to have sex? Boys wouldn't think about sex without the media? How does the maker think things went in those tens of thousands of years before mass media? Teens want sex because they're teens. It's nature calling. That's why girls start ovulating and boys start to produce sperm. And boys pick out the most attractive girls because their evolutionary instinct tells them they will produce the best offspring. Even though they don't want to have kids and probably use contraception, they're still wired that way. Girls, the same: girls also seek out the most handsome guys. That's just something that isn't told in the video, because it doesn't fit the one-sided narrative of the maker. At my high school, girls were all going for the 'player' kind of guys: a couple of years older, tall, handsome, strong. Sure they cheated left and right, but because of their macho attitude they got the attention of most of the girls. Let's not pretend that's not true; everybody knows those stories and has witnessed those things. Again, this is evolution speaking: girls looking for the males best fitted to protect her and her offspring.

Speaking of evolution, this brings me to another element of the video: the idea that it's not natural to look at young girls as sexually desirable. I hate to break it to you, but the idea that girls that age are not 'supposed to be' attractive to men is a societal 'rule' that we have put in place a mere 100-150 years ago. Biologically speaking, there is no inherently objective reason why girls that age aren't attractive to men. I know there has been an effort of some feminists, also on DU, to whitewash this history and to try to erase biological and evolutionary factors. It's now said by some women that "they give men more credit than to be slaves of their biological urges" as a reason to pretend biology doesn't exist. It's Newspeak, plain and simple. In their line of reasoning, pointing out biological and natural reasons why men are in fact attracted to young girls is now "making up excuses" by men who have to "rationalize their unnatural desires". It's framing, that's all there is to it. Objectively speaking, there is no reason why a girl with developed mature sexual features (breasts, hips, pubic hair -but you can't see that, of course) should not be attractive to a man.

In other words: the media don't have to "sell" us the idea that young girls are sexy and attractive. We already know that and have known that for tens of thousands of years, when it was very common for young girls to marry much older men and have their children. And to beat you to the strawman: no, just because slavery was once acceptable doesn't mean we should resort to it now. I'm not advocating old men marrying 14 year olds; I'm just saying no media need to 'sexualize' young women for us to notice they're sexy.

I see I have just written three pages worth of argumentation, so I'm gonna wrap it up here. In summation: no, I don't think thongs for five-year olds are acceptable or desirable. No, I don't think 'hooker dolls' are appropriate toys for girls. Yes, I think it is problematic to put pre-pubescent girls on display in a sexual way. Had the video sticked with that theme, it would've been a good video and a good argument. But once it drifted into the far-fetched argument that teen actresses, singers and even cartoons are 'sexualizing' young girls, it falls apart, because there's nothing unnatural about teens having or wanting to have sex; there's nothing strange about both boys AND girls going after attractive peers; the media didn't instill these ideas in us, we already inhibited those ideas biologically; there is a double standard since nobody is concerned about young boys, which makes this video seem at least a BIT disingenuous (as if nobody pines for Robert Pattinson and if Aladdin or Hercules are realistically animated!); and there is nothing wrong in and of itself with being a sexy girl, like Selena Gomez. Why would it be dehumanizing to show the world your beauty? If you work as hard as she does: good for her.