Sexualizing Children - Infantilizing Women

[viscousmemories]

In this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1265) there was a discussion about the relative sex appeal of a young girl in a photo. Due to the course of the discussion this interesting angle was largely ignored, so I thought I'd follow it here.

A lot of sexual imagery is really, at its root, childish. Pouting is a perfect example. Or take a picture of a grown woman from above, looking up at the camera all wide-eyed, with her finger in her mouth, and it's perceived as sexy, when it's really a fairly obvious childish pose. If you take a picture of a little girl doing that, it would probably read as 'sexy' too, despite the fact that it's uniquely childish.
In the early '90's I attended a presentation about the characterization of women in advertising (including the sexualization of girls and the infantilization of women) called Killing Us Softly, by Jean Kilbourne (http://www.jeankilbourne.com/). I thought it was a fascinating perspective but I really haven't read or heard much about it in the years since.

At the same time I wonder if the examination of this issue as a cultural phenomenon is the whole story. For example, as I understand it men have a biological predisposition to find full lips on women sexually appealing. Pouting creates the appearance of full lips. So might it not be the case that models pouting is more about trying to look sexy than trying to look girlish?

I'm not trying to make a case for any particular position, I just think this could be an interesting discussion.

[Adora]

Depends on the culture you're raised in.

If the culture you're raised in says sexual attraction of a man to a woman is characterised by a dominance/submission, strong/weak, knowing/innocent, and therefore masculine/feminine dichotomy, you're going to have problems arising from overstepping the boundaries where truly innocent/weak individuals (be they male or female) are abused because of the system they reside in.

But these days, if you're going to talk about the sexualising of girls and women, you have to apply the same logic to male advertising as well. The big businesses have realised the potential of the (for an EXTREMELY long time untapped) straight male market, and are now using the same tactics on men as they have one women (ie- the rise of the "metrosexual" image pushed by certain businesses).

One example: I was doing some Chrissy shopping today and I walked past a common both-sex clothes shop that most targets the 13-30-something range. The two very large photos hanging in the window depicted a young, very attractive dark haired male being er... "embraced" by a very androgynous person all covered in sparkly silver and with wings (I had to look twice to realise it was a) and angel and b) female). Though the "angel" woman was theoretically naked, you could only really see her limbs and compared to the male, she was very non-sexualised. The sexualised creature in the ad was definitely the male model, and he was in a very submissive role in the image, if you had to compare the two characters. This is a trend that's been growing, started a while back by fashion companies trying to sell their products to the gay male subsection of the community. Pouty young men with Apollo-like physiques have become the trend, as much as waifish androgynous no-boobed young women adorn the windows of most fashion boutiques and clothe chains.

For me, pouts are sexy on any gender. I can't tell you the biological reason why, and honestly, I don't know any cultural one either (though I think it has something to do with kissing). I notice lips a lot on people when I look at them, moreso than eyes even.

But the whole child-issue is another set of balls altogether. Can you say that just because a couple play a naughty-innocent-schoolgirl/boy & teacher-with-a-paddle scenario in their bedroom, they're equally attracted to true innocence or domination in a person/thing/child? Personally, I think it's far more compelx than that, since fantasy is one thing and reality is another. I think to describe simply a woman looking up as Lis described as "childish" is simplifying the issue way too far. Also, it doesn't become sexualised just because a) some people sometimes do it as a sexual act and b) children also do it because a lot of the time when children do it, it is totally a non-sexual act. It is absolutely innocent. It is an act, that when done by certain people in a certain setting is sexualised and when done by others in another setting is non-sexualised to the extreme.

True paedophillia crosses the line when the latter is still interpreted by the paedophile as sexual and/or a sexual advance.

Sorry for the rambling EDIT: And horrendous spelling & grammar mistakes which I'm too lazy to go back and fix, I'm kind of all over the place due to lack of sleep @_@ bleh.

[Dingfod]

I think it's the biological drive to reproduce. Men are typically attracted to young women of child-bearing age because they have the best chance for bearing the most viable offspring. Features like pouty lips, childish expressions, perky breasts, shapely curves, etc. are fairly representative of the young fertile female of the species.


I have no idea why the androgenous look is fashionable. Maybe it appeals to women, who in most of society still do not have equal power. If men can be emasculated through imagery, it is appealing to them. There are quite a few television commercials that make the men look stupid, always having to be rescued by the well dressed, more intelligent competent women in their lives. Is that the same sort of imagery that appeals to women?

[dave_a]

Depends on the culture you're raised in.



Most of the time when you go off on your gender issue stuff I am lost just as I get lost when Roland gets all Micro b on us or when any number of people here delve into thier speciality or area of particular interest.

In this case I actually am following you and feel no need to say 'liberal PC bullshit". Good job.

One of these days I am gonna go all off on you people on relational database theory and chastise you for not understanding the difference between a database and an instance or ridicule you all for not understanding what the 3rd normal form is.

Until then, peace.

[Adora]

I think it's the biological drive to reproduce. Men are typically attracted to young women of child-bearing age because they have the best chance for bearing the most viable offspring.
Except by this logic, men should be attracted to much older women because a female's reproductive peak is much further on in her life (I'm not sure exactly when, but I think it's sometime over 30).

Also, if you're just using the term "child-bearing age", then we're talking anywhere between 11 and around 40-50 years old here. We're also talking about a society that has only recently started improving the health of its citizens (in the West) and therefore extended the lifespan of the average female beyond that of the average male and into its 60s/70s. For a very long time, we've had a society that married women off early and had them bearing children at a very young age. So I think part of it is we're still growing out of cultural values that associate a very young female body with sexuality and reproduction.

This is still absolutely no excuse for infantalising the feminine in a way that causes so many problems though.

Is that the same sort of imagery that appeals to women?
I don't watch TV with a lot of ads, so I don't know. Can you give me an example?

In this case I actually am following you and feel no need to say 'liberal PC bullshit". Good job.
Mental note to self: post more often when sleep deprived, if trying to communicate with Davey. It brings you down to his level. ~_^

[Dingfod]

I think it's the biological drive to reproduce. Men are typically attracted to young women of child-bearing age because they have the best chance for bearing the most viable offspring.
Except by this logic, men should be attracted to much older women because a female's reproductive peak is much further on in her life (I'm not sure exactly when, but I think it's sometime over 30).I said the best chance for bearing the most viable offspring, or any offspring (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1155.asp). It might be biologically important to have women be around until their offspring reach adulthood too, something that until the last 100 years or so a woman in her 30s or 40s might be at risk of not doing. It is oft repeated that women have their sexual peak in their 30s, (http://www.mypleasure.com/education/qanda/questions/49.asp) but their fertility peak is much earlier than that, perhaps in their late teens, early 20s. (http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20020401195016_health_news.shtml)

Also, if you're just using the term "child-bearing age", then we're talking anywhere between 11 and around 40-50 years old here. We're also talking about a society that has only recently started improving the health of its citizens (in the West) and therefore extended the lifespan of the average female beyond that of the average male and into its 60s/70s. For a very long time, we've had a society that married women off early and had them bearing children at a very young age. So I think part of it is we're still growing out of cultural values that associate a very young female body with sexuality and reproduction.Wishful thinking, but I doubt the basic biological drives that drive preferences have changed that much in the past million or two years.

This is still absolutely no excuse for infantalising the feminine in a way that causes so many problems though.What the hell does that mean anyway, infantilising? Women wear makeup to make themselves appear younger for what reason exactly?

Is that the same sort of imagery that appeals to women?
I don't watch TV with a lot of ads, so I don't know. Can you give me an example?New thread answering this question. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=2)

[Adora]

Wishful thinking, but I doubt the basic biological drives that drive preferences have changed that much in the past million or two years.
Oh please. Grow up and realise that not everything on this planet can be explained/excused by "human biology". If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Basic biological drives may not have changed, but if the things they are attracted to change from culture to culture, and generation to generation, an attraction to (excessively) young women cannot be explained through any form of "biology". When will you realise we are more than simple animals?

PS: Your links are cute, but until I see multiple research from credible primary sources, I'll remain sceptical. One investigation does not proof make.

What the hell does that mean anyway, infantilising? Women wear makeup to make themselves appear younger for what reason exactly?
You bring out the supposed "scientific evidence" in your post but can't see past basic visuals to a deeper social problem? Sheesh...

Okay, I'll give you an extreme example I know of (yes, back to Japan again).

In the Land of the Rising Sun, since the rise of the Shogunate and cemented during the Meiji era, there is a distinct lack of equality between the sexes moreso than in the major Western countries. The idealised woman is still submissive, expected to give up work when she marries, be devoted to her husband no matter what he does, etc etc yadda yadda yadda.

An extreme infantile-female male fantasy subculture exists, however, commonly refered to as Lolicon ("Roricon" aka Lolita Complex). And it's more than just your average hentai manga about schoolgirls, and an attraction many men have to extremely youthful looking women (and yes, the 'Christmas Cake' paranoia still exists because of this). This fantasy is so widespread and popular to so many men in such a culture that many actual schoolgirls make thousands of dollars a weak participating in the Enjo Kosai ("Compensated Relationship", basically a form of prostitution that may/may not involve sexual favours between much older men and young schoolgirls below/just above the age of consent). This is an example of what I mentioned in my very first reply in this thread, referring to such an imbalanced dichotomy of the genders in a society where one is portrayed as weak/innocent/submissive etc. The shoujo culture compounds this, but creating an ideal of femininity that involves the basic naughty-innocent schoolgirl ideal I mentioned some couples role-play in, in a more widespread and popular form. At the same time as young women are encouraged to be independent and identity forming through consumerism (in a massive way), they're supposed to play into the male fantasy of the submissive "innocent", very child-like woman. This is changing with growing numbers in the younger generations, but is still a dominant part of the culture, mainly because of the gender relations in the country.

If you think this is something as shallow and simple as "women wearing makeup to appear younger", you really need to start thinking beyond shallow visuals. It's women having to act younger in many ways both in the West and other countries to be accepted, and at the same time being encouraged not to act that way in certain other aspects of life. Before you all start jumping to conclusions, I'm not saying every woman in every culture is forced to act this way. But I am saying that this is part of what I feel VM brought up, even if it is only a small number of people in a certain culture. It goes beyond the shallow stupid visuals to the actions, behaviors and identities of the people it affects. And if it was simply about looks, and about "biology", there wouldn't be such a problem. But it isn't, and instead it is a massive problem to many people.

PS- I think I spelt infantising wrong in my last post. My bad. Need sleep.

[Nex]

When will you realise we are more than simple animals?.
We are just animals. Just animals with language.

We do tend to think we're more speshuller than other animals, though. :wink:

(and yes, the 'Christmas Cake' paranoia still exists because of this)
What's "Christmas cake" paranoia? Google didn't turn up anything.

[lisarea]

For some reason, I'm unusually inarticulate today, so I can't quite extract the big long, boring-assed post I want to make on the subject.

But I do want to say that I don't think the phenomenon is entirely unnatural. Youth is a powerful sexual marker, and the concept of adolescence/teenagerhood/whatever is a relatively modern one, so it's entirely understandable that there might be a lot of gray areas and uncomfortable overlaps and such. Youth is a sexual attractor, and the hallmarks of youth are conflated, as such, with sexual signals. This includes things like red lips, large eyes, rosy cheeks, etc.

Also, the childishness, as Adora I think pointed out, is really just submissiveness in a lot of cases. I think this is more applicable to the behavioral aspects. Which again is a biological drive. Men may well be attracted to submissiveness and perceived innocence in women for procreative reasons.

But just because something is natural doesn't mean it's OK. Males frequently have the natural urge to kill their partners' offspring from previous unions, but doesn't mean it's OK to actually do it, or that those feelings should be respected.

What bugs me is that the sexual symbolism has become so outright pervasive that it almost seems inverted. That is, it's not that childish traits are considered sexy in adult women (although that does bug me a little sometimes, when it's over the top), but that those same childish traits and behaviors are considered sexual, even in children who are years and years away from puberty.

(I should note that I think I was wrong to assume that was the case in the original context. I'm pretty sure now that it had more to do with the girl in question having certain traits that were perceived as mature. Although my theory is that it's the eyebrows.)

[Adora]

We are just animals. Just animals with language.
And the ability to create complex systems of society. And the ability to create metaphors and fantasies and try to make them reality and use them as survival tools. And the ability to effect this world physically in such an incredibly short amount of time in a way very few single species has ever done on this planet.

I don't care what planet you come from, I think that makes us a standout from the simpler creatures around us. "Speshul" or otherwise. But, y'know, when albatroses start manufacturing products from carbon based resources and using said resources to communicate with each other across the globe via an electronic powered information/communication/mastubartion system to debate whether or not they are "just animals", I'll give you a call.

What's "Christmas cake" paranoia? Google didn't turn up anything.
When a woman gets to about 22-25 in Japan, she is called a "Christmas Cake", which means her chances of getting married have lessened severely. Ie- an old Christmas Cake no one wants after the celebratory date. It's fading with some younger groups, but for many young women in Japan, is still a pressure put on them by their parents/family.

[Nex]

And the ability to create complex systems of society. And the ability to create metaphors and fantasies and try to make them reality and use them as survival tools. And the ability to effect this world physically in such an incredibly short amount of time in a way very few single species has ever done on this planet.
And murder each other over Nikes. And throw babies in Dumpsters. And spread AIDS like wildfire. And kowtow to Skydaddies and Skymommies. And pay for psychic "consultations." And beat each other senseless over a woman. And beat each other senseless over a man. And beat children. And beat dogs and cats.

We're animals. I never said we weren't intelligent. We can be mighty stupid, though.

I don't care what planet you come from...
Planet X. And you make my tentacles tingle, baby doll. :lecher:

I think that makes us a standout from the simpler creatures around us. "Speshul" or otherwise. But, y'know, when albatroses start manufacturing products from carbon based resources and using said resources to communicate with each other across the globe via an electronic powered information/communication/mastubartion system to debate whether or not they are "just animals", I'll give you a call.
Language is what brought all that on, Adora. Can't build a nuclear power plant without syntax or the written word.

I await your call on pins n' needles, ma petite chère. We Planet Xese are mighty long-lived. ;)

When a woman gets to about 22-25 in Japan, she is called a "Christmas Cake", which means her chances of getting married have lessened severely. Ie- an old Christmas Cake no one wants after the celebratory date. It's fading with some younger groups, but for many young women in Japan, is still a pressure put on them by their parents/family.
Thanks.

[Adora]

We're animals.
And I never said we weren't. I said we were more than simple animals.

Language is what brought all that on, Adora. Can't build a nuclear power plant without syntax or the written word.
True, but language is (originally) arbitrary. There's no grand force - biological or otherwise - in the universe that dictated that "ug" means rock and "ung" means river. This is what I mean when I say "Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation", if it wasn't for the power of arbitrary, in many cases illusionary, social conditioning.