I also dislike Halloween, because I'm a prude.
| By Jenny Odegard - Oct 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
And by prude, I mean that I view Halloween as the last straw in the stack of hay that is the infantilization of women and the fetishizing of youth. Go ahead, say I'm over generalizing, it’s probably just my estrogen getting out of hand.
I'm sure each of you can come up with your own list, without my help, of the ways in which beauty norms (SDF - for a definition of "norms" and "culture" see mainstream media, don't keep denying that it exists) require a youth aesthetic.
Easy examples to help you get started: Calvin Klien ads, obsession with the Olsen twins, anti-wrinkle cream, body hair removal.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
And since you're in the mood for calling a spade a spade, let's talk about "more attractive" for what it is -- more fuckable. :)
The Olsen twins are marketed towards me. Why? Because I'd like to have sex with them, or at least imagine having sex with them. Statistically speaking, I, male, am willing to buy products that I associate with my fantasies of fucking the Olsen twins. Companies sell me the products and images that I'm interested in.
Where, under your definition, am I going wrong?
They're selling me what I *want*.
Does my girlfriend look like one of the Olsen twins? Nope. Would I want her to? No. Would she want to? No. In fact, being bisexual, she's a big fan of young, slutty blondes as well.
And hey, it's not like skinny girls have a monopoly on this - tomorrow I might be in the mood for curvy girls. And Dove's got me covered there, too -- Link Much love for Stacy.
Objectifying members of whichever gender you'd like to sleep with that you'll never meet but will see in images is perfectly healthy. You're more than happy to objectify whichever men in the media you'd like, and to vote with your consumer dollars for ads that display the type of men you'd like to fantasize about.
Tall guys.
Nearly all media portrays tall guys as being more desirable. I am, to put it charitably, not tall (5'4"). :)
Is this some horrific injustice? Some imposed-by-the-culture definition of masculinity?
Well, no.
For reasons intimately linked to biology, women tend to prefer guys taller than themselves, even in an era where being tall doesn't give you some hunter-gatherer advantage. It's not just women, either -- men are more likely to view tall men positively, too. A tall guy is more likely to get the big promotion (tall people are paid more and promoted more for the same work, on average), get lucky more often, etc.
And yet, it's not a big deal, or worth protesting against -- it's genetics. People have preferences, and you can't just make those preferences go away by socializing them differently.
I was wondering if the sexual selection aspect would work its way into the argument. One of Darwin's best examples of sexual selection was the coloring of birds. Peacock plumes, etc serve as a devise to lure a mate with the promise of sexual prowess shown in a beautiful exterior. I'd like to add an element to the equation. We are cyborgs. We are defined as much by our machine appendages (our cars, phones, i-pods, etc) as we are defined by our physical stature. The shiny things we own are part of our sexual worth, just like the bird's feathers. Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah - biology. Does youth work its way into our sexual preferences because of presumed longevity or virility? In the end, will the biological appeal win out over the glitter of our shiny new body parts? Or is it a sexual striving for more material? Oh wait, the Olsen twins have both! Eureka! They're rich and young! But seriously, what's the bigger drive in your opinion?
"They're selling me what I *want*."
The kid down the street from me wants an eight-ball of coke. If he's arrested for posession by an undercover cop, can he complain that the police officer was selling him what he wanted? I miss the logic of this argument. I know I mentioned this in a previous post, but the sort of commodification of women (i.e. they're selling me what I want) creates a sex trade. I know, I know, I'm a prude, too, and I'm overreacting.
In response to Kay's quesiton, I think it's easier to attack a 'symptom' like Halloween than a full-scale issue like 'fetishization.' A post on fetishization would be either incomplete or too long for a weblog.
""The kid down the street from me wants an eight-ball of coke. If he's arrested for posession by an undercover cop, can he complain that the police officer was selling him what he wanted?""
First off, do you see any reasons to keep cocaine illegal? As I see it, all the compelling arguments favor legalization rather than continuing the drug war.
Secondly, did you really just compare my desire to view images of attractive women to the desire to commit felonies?
""I know I mentioned this in a previous post, but the sort of commodification of women (i.e. they're selling me what I want) creates a sex trade.""
This is, to put it charitably, completely fucking retarded. A sex trade exists because human beings like sex, and it's a good that's in (in economic terms) scarce supply.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a sex trade, either. The problems that have arisen are problems with a lack of regulation -- and since you can't regulate what's prohibited by law, the prohibitionists are directly to blame for that.
Yes, if you oppose the legalization of prostitution, when you see that a hooker turned up murdered on TV, know that a significant chunk of the moral responsibility for her death lies with *you*. The same as alcohol prohibitionists are somewhat morally responsible for the rise of organized crime that accompanied prohibition.
""I know, I know, I'm a prude, too, and I'm overreacting. ""
I don't know if you're a prude, and I don't know if you're overreacting -- but it does seem like you aren't thinking about this very hard.
About your idea of a regulated sex trade, how exactly would that work? And would you really want some sort of bureaucratic regulation of your body and your most intimate decisions?
As for your comment about my reasoning being "completely fucking retarded," I'm glad that you put it charitably. I'd hate to read any remarks from you that were any less than charitable.
Finally, you forgot or neglected to answer my question. In your opinion, are the Olsen twins more desirable because of their youth or their material net worth? My curiosity in this matter is quite sincere.
If there's anything in my post you take issue with, out with it.
Instead, your responses have focused on personal feelings and preferences, which, I might add, is not pertinent information to this argument.
Lay off the personal attacks, stick with things based in other news or essays you've read. Personal experience does not constitute a social trend.
You can ignore my last question about motives and preferences. I don't really need an answer, and my curiosity was not quite sincere.