Abuse Wiki
"Sex object" redirects here. For other uses, see Sex object (disambiguation)

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure. Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with insufficient regard for a person's personality.[1][2] Objectification is most commonly examined at a societal level, but can also arise at an individual level. The concept of sexual objectification and, in particular, the objectification of women, is an important idea in feminist theory and psychological theories derived from feminism.[3][4]

Many feminists regard sexual objectification as objectionable and as playing an important role in the inequality of the sexes.[1] Some social commentators, however, argue that some modern women objectify themselves as an expression of their empowerment over men, while others argue that increased sexual freedom for women, gay and bisexual men has led to an increase of the objectification of men.[5][6][7][8][9] The idea of sexual objectification has also been an important area of discussion and debate in the area of sexual ethics and the philosophy of sex.[10]

Sexual objectification of women

Feminist scholars say that the objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman's worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another.[2][3] Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists see objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media, women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art, stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces, and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement and labiaplasty.[citation needed]

Feminists argue that women have historically been valued mainly for their physical attributes. Some feminists and psychologists argue that such objectification can lead to negative psychological effects including depression and hopelessness, and can give women negative self-images because of the belief that their intelligence and competence are currently not being, or will never be, acknowledged by society.[11][12] The precise degree to how objectification has affected women and society in general is a topic of academic debate. Such claims include: girls' understanding of the importance of appearance in society may contribute to feelings of fear, shame, and disgust that some experience during the transition from girlhood to womanhood because they sense that they are becoming more visible to society as sexual objects;[13] and that young women are especially susceptible to objectification, as they are often taught that power, respect, and wealth can be derived from one's outward appearance.[14]

Pro-feminist cultural critics such as Robert Jensen and Sut Jhally accuse mass media and advertising of promoting the objectification of women to help promote goods and services.[15][16][17]

Female self-objectification

Feminists such as Ariel Levy contend that Western women have begun to sexually objectify themselves by choice, by wearing increasingly revealing clothing and engaging in lewd behavior. While some women see such behaviour as a form of empowerment, critics contend that it has led to greater emphasis on a physical criterion for women's perceived self worth.[18]

Levy discusses this phenomenon in her 2005 book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. Levy followed the camera crew from the Girls Gone Wild video series, and argues that contemporary America's sexualized culture not only objectifies women, it encourages women to objectify themselves.[19] In today's culture, Levy writes, the idea of a woman participating in a wet T-shirt contest or being comfortable watching explicit pornography has become a symbol of feminist strength; she says that she was surprised at how many people, both men and women, working for programs such as Girls Gone Wild told her that this new "raunchy" culture marked not the downfall of feminism but its triumph, because it proved that U.S. women have become strong enough to express their sexuality publicly.

Sexual objectification of men

Feminist authors Christina Hoff Sommers and Naomi Wolf write that women's sexual liberation has led many women to view men as sex objects.[20][21][22] Research has suggested that the psychological effects of objectification on men are similar to those of women, leading to negative body image among men.[23]

Instances where men are being presented as sex objects include advertising, movies and television shows,[24][25] beefcake calendars, women's magazines, male strip shows, and clothed female nude male (CFNM) events.[26] Also, more women are purchasing and consuming pornography (especially, adult videos).[27][28]

Gay pornographic magazines such as Blueboy, Honcho and Manscape and physique magazines such as Men's Workout, Exercise for Men Only and Men's Exercise appeal to the gay male demographic. Gay male pornography makes up 1/3 of the adult film industry.[citation needed] Some male strip clubs cater to a gay male clientele.

Views on sexual objectification

Template:Related While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist and masculist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[29] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics. John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves visualization of a woman.[30]

Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class". While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women.[citation needed] Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.[citation needed]

Some social conservatives have taken up aspects of the feminist critique of sexual objectification. In their view however, the increase in the sexual objectification of both sexes in Western culture is one of the negative legacies of the sexual revolution.[31][32][33][34] These critics, notably Wendy Shalit, advocate a return to pre-sexual revolution standards of sexual morality, which Shalit refers to as a "return to modesty", as an antidote to sexual objectification.[31][35]

Other feminists contest feminist claims about the objectification of women. Camille Paglia holds that "Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species." In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.[36] Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy holds that the label "sex object" means nothing because inanimate objects are not sexual. She continues that women are their bodies as well as their minds and souls.[37]

Objectification theory

Objectification Theory is based on the principle that girls and women develop their primary view of their physical selves from observations of others. These observations can take place in the media or through personal experience[38]. Through a blend of expected and actual exposure, females are socialized to objectify their own physical characteristics from a third person perception, which is identified as self-objectification[39]. Women and girls develop an expected physical appearance for themselves, based on observations of others; and are aware that others are likely to observe as well. Objectification theory is essential in feminist theory,[neutrality is disputed] as the sexual objectification and self objectification of women is believed to influence social gender roles and inequalities between the sexes.[40]

Self objectification

Self-objectification allows individuals to acclimate to a society where the objectification of female bodies is prevalent[38]. Self objectification can increase in elicit situations which heightens the awareness of an individual’s physical appearance[41]. Here, the presence of a third person observer is enhanced. Therefore, when individuals know others are looking at them, or will be looking at them, they are more likely to care about their physical appearance. Examples of enhanced presence of an observer include the presence of an audience, camera, or other known observer.

Women, girls, and self-objectification

Primarily, objectification theory describes how women and girls are influenced as a result of expected social and gender roles[38]. Research indicates not all women are influenced equally, due to the anatomical, hormonal, and genetic differences of the female body; however, women’s bodies are often objectified and evaluated more frequently.[42] Females learn that their physical appearance is important to themselves and society. As a result, females consider their physical appearance often, expecting that others will also.

Sexual objectification occurs when a person is identified by their sexual body parts or sexual function. In essence, an individual loses their identity, and is recognized solely by the physical characteristics of their body[38]. The purpose of this recognition is to bring enjoyment to others, or to serve as a sexual object for society[43]. Sexual objectification can occur as a social construct among individuals.

Psychological consequences

Research indicates that objectification theory is valuable to understanding how repeated visual images in the media are socialized and translated into mental health problems, including psychological consequences on the individual and societal level[44]. These include increased self consciousness, increased body anxiety, heightened mental health threats (depression, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and sexual dysfunction), and increased body shame. Therefore, the theory has been used to explore an array of dependent variables including disordered eating, mental health, depression, motor performance, body image, idealized body type, stereotype formation, sexual perception and sexual typing.[41][44] Effects of objectification theory are identified on both the individual and societal levels.

Sexual fetishism

Sexual fetishism may involve sexual objectification, when a person is assigned or adopts the status of a fetish object. This may provide erotic humiliation for the person treated in such manner. As with most BDSM-related activities, it is not considered abusive when engaged in consensually. Allen Jones' "Hat Stand and Table Sculpture", which show semi-naked women in the roles of furniture, are clear examples of the depiction of the fantasy of sexual objectification.

See also

  • Commodification
  • Lookism
  • Objectification
  • Objectification theory
  • Sex in advertising
  • Sexuality in music videos
  • Sexualization


  1. 1.0 1.1 Bartky, Sandra Lee, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (Routledge, 1990), ISBN 0-415-90186-3, p. 26
  2. 2.0 2.1 LeMoncheck, Linda, Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex (Oxford University press, 1997), ISBN 9780195105559, p. 133
  3. 3.0 3.1 Barry, Kathleen, Female Sexual Slavery (NYU Press, 1994), ISBN 9780814710697, p.247
  4. Goldenberg, Jamie L., and Tomi-Ann Roberts, 'The Beast within the Beauty: An Existential Perspective on the Objectification and Condemnation of Women' in Jeff Greenberg, Sander Leon Koole, Thomas A. Pyszczynski and Tom Pyszczynski (eds) Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology (Guilford Press, 2004), ISBN 9781593850409
  5. Men As Sex Objects (turnin' the tables)
  6. Study: For Israeli women, going on vacation means more sex Irit Rosenblum, Haaretz, 26/02/2008.
  7. Botting, Kate and Botting, Douglas. "Men Can Be Sex Objects Too". Cosmopolitan. August 1996.
  8. No more faking: "Sex isn't over until we've had an orgasm...," say Melinda Gallagher and Emily Kramer, founders of the outrageous Cake sex empire for women. But is their love of porn and lapdancing breaking new ground, or is so-called 'raunch feminism' setting the cause back? Sharon Krum The Guardian, Monday May 15, 2006.
  9. Speedophobia by Mark Simpson,
  10. See, for example – Soble, Alan (ed). 1997. Sex, Love and Friendship: Studies of the Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love 1977–1992. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ISBN 9042002271. Chapters 13–16.
  11. Hewstone, Miles; Marilynn B. Brewer (2004-01-01). Self and Social Identity. Blackwell Publishing Professional. pp. 167. ISBN 978-1-4051-1069-3 ISBN 1-4051-1069-4. http://books.google.com/?id=aGhvm-QH1yEC&pg=RA1-PA136&lpg=RA1-PA136&dq=Fredrickson+and+Roberts.
  12. Fredrickson, Barbara L.; Tomi-Ann Roberts. "Objectification Theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks". Psychology of Women Quarterly 21: 172–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119947167/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0. Retrieved 2008-12-11.
  13. Lee, Janet. 1994. Menarche and the (hetero)sexualization of the female body. Gender & Society 8(3):343–362. Template:DOI
  14. APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007-02-19). "Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, Executive Summary". American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualizationsum.html. Retrieved November 2, 2007.
  15. Jensen, Robert, 'Using Pornography' in Dines, Gail, Robert Jensen and Ann Russo (eds) Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality (Routledge, 1998), ISBN 9780415918138
  16. Jhally, Sut (dir) Dreamworlds II: Desire, Sex, Power in Music (Media Education Foundation, USA, 1997)
  17. Frith, Katherine, Ping Shaw and Hong Cheng 'The Construction of Beauty: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Women's Magazine Advertising' in Journal of Communication 55 (1), 2005, pp.56–70
  18. 'Save the males': Ho culture lights fuses, but confuses, By KATHLEEN PARKER, NY Daily News, June 30th 2008. Based on "Save the Males" by Kathleen Parker, Copyright 2008, Random House, an imprint of Random House Publishing Group.
  19. Dougary, Ginny (September 25, 2007). "Yes we are bovvered". The Times (London). http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article2523264.ece. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  20. Sommers, Christina Hoff. 1994. Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York. Simon and Schuster (pp.264-265), ISBN 0-671-7924-8 (hc), ISBN 0-684-80156-6 (pb)
  21. Wolf, Naomi. 1994. Fire With Fire: The New Female Power and How to Use It. New York: Fawcett Columbine (pp.225-228), ISBN 0-449-90951-4.
  22. Friend,Tad. Yes (feminist women who like sex) Esquire. February 1994
  23. The Beefcaking of America
  24. Shirtless Scene
  25. Eating the Eye Candy
  26. Sports, Gym Classes, Team Initiations and Events
  27. McElroy, Wendy. 1995. XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's Press (p.36)
  28. 66% of women watch porn
  29. Wolf, Naomi. (1992). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. New York: William Morrow and Co. (Reprinted, 2002. New York: Harper Perennial) ISBN 0060512180
  30. Stoltenberg, John. 1989. Refusing to be a man: Essays on sex and justice. Portland, OR: Breitenbush Books. (Reprinted, 2000. Oxford: Routledge) ISBN 1841420417
  31. 31.0 31.1 Shalit, Wendy. 1999. A Return To Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0684843161 (hc), ISBN 0684863170 (pb).
  32. Riesman, Judith A. 1991. Soft Porn Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children and the Family. Lafayette, LA. Huntington House Publishers. ( pp.32-46, p.173) ISBN 0-910311-92-7
  33. Holz, Adam R. 2007. Is Average the New Ugly? Plugged In Online
  34. Subtle Dangers of Pornogaphy
  35. Shalit, Wendy. 2000. Modesty revisited. Boundless webzine.
  36. Paglia, Camille (August 20, 1991). Sexual Personae: Art & Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. Vintage. ISBN 0-6797-3579-8 ISBN 978-0-6797-3579-3.
  37. McElroy, Wendy. 2006. A feminist overview of pornography, ending in a defense thereof. WendyMcElroy.com.
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Bartky, Sandra Lee. (1990). Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. Routledge. ISBN 9780415901863. p 26.
  39. Kaschak, Edward. (1992). Engendered Lives: A new Psychology of Women's Experience (Basic Books). ISBN 046501349X. p 12.
  40. Goldenberg, Jamie L., and Tomi-Ann Roberts. (2004). The beast within the beauty: An existential perspective on the objectification and condemnation of women. In: J Greenberg, SL Koole, T Pyszczynski (eds), Handbook of experimental existential psychology; p 71–85. (Guilford Press). ISBN 9781593850409.
  41. 41.0 41.1 Fredrickson, Barbara L. and Kristen Harrison. (2005). Throwing like a girl: Self-objectification predicts adolescent girl's motor performance. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 29(1):79–101. Template:DOI. p 82.
  42. Fredrickson and Harrison (2005), p 90–95.
  43. LeMoncheck, Linda. (1997). Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex (Oxford University Press). ISBN 9780195105559. p 133.
  44. 44.0 44.1 Fredrickson, Barbara L.; Tomi-Ann Roberts. (1997). "Objectification Theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks". Psychology of Women Quarterly 21(2):173–206. Template:Doi. Retrieved on 2009-4-11.

Further reading

  • Bartky, Sandra Lee. 1990. Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-90185-5 (hc), ISBN 0-415-90186-3 (pb).
  • Berger, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books. ISBN 0563122447 (BBC), ISBN 0140216316, ISBN 0140135154 (pbk).
  • Brooks, Gary R. 1995. The Centerfold Syndrome: How Men Can Overcome Objectification and Achieve Intimacy with Women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0787901040.
  • Eames, Elizabeth. 1976. Sexism and woman as sex object. Journal of Thought 11(2):140–143.
  • Holroyd, Julia. 2005. Sexual objectification: The unlikely alliance of feminism and Kant (conference paper). Society for Applied Philosophy International Congress 2005, Oxford, UK.
  • LeMoncheck, Linda. 1985. Dehumanizing Women: Treating Persons as Sex Objects. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0847673316 (hc).
  • Nussbaum, Martha C. 1995. Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs 24(4): 249–291. Template:DOI. (JSTOR link.)
  • Papadaki, Evangelia. 2007. Sexual objectification: From Kant to contemporary feminism. Contemporary Political Theory 6(3):330–348. Template:DOI. (PDF)
  • Shrage, Laurie. 2005. Exposing the fallacies of anti-porn feminism. Feminist Theory 6:45–65. Template:DOI.
  • Soble, Alan. 2002. Pornography, Sex, and Feminism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-944-1 (pb).

External links

es:Deshumanización sexual lt:Seksualinis objektifikavimas