On the Sexualization of Young Girls

[DutchLiberal]

28. I don't disagree with the premise of the video entirely.

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.