It’s astounding to me that it’s usually the people who love to use the BIGGEST words, are also the ones who seem to know the least about a subject. (Perhaps making up for their ignorance and lack of thought)
Quote: “I think that’s the thing about sexualization, you kind of go into it thinking you’ll find one linear thing, but it’s very multi-factorial.”
Well, I don’t know what she wanted to say with it not being “linear”, but even the term “sexualization” is an interesting choice of words. Meaning, to give something sexuality, or see in a sexual manner. Well, instead of using this word, why not use sexuality, or sex appeal. To begin with she is referring to women, not as people with a sexual characteristics (which all people do to different levels), but as people who are made into sexual beings unjustifiably.
When referring to the large amount of “images” (unspecified) on the internet she says “these images are internalized as ideals”.
Really? Who says? And so What? Would I ideally like to date a super-model? Sure. So? What’s the harm? Is it a sickness or unnatural that I like ideal looking women? Should I not be doing that? Did men not want ideal looking women prior to the internet? Is this a product of modernity? In the past men didn’t care about looks? Many interesting assumptions made here.
Quote: “…pornographic images that demean women and that show aggression, and pair it up with sexualization.” (again the use of “sexualization” when just “sex” could work just as well)
Pornography demeans women is a common argument that has been repeated so often that is has been accepted a social fact. Yet, if pornography; being films that portray women having and in fact enjoying sex, demeans women, then the act of sex itself must be bad. “Demean” meaning “to lower in dignity, degrade or humiliate”; must mean that women who have sex and enjoy sex are degrading themselves. In men’s eyes as Dr. Papadopoulos is trying to argue, and I would, in fact, agree with this. As there are many moral groups, particularly religious groups, who teach their children from a young age that sex, people who have too much sex, women who enjoy sex or even masturbation are all “bad”. In these cases, perhaps she is right. These young males might perceive women in pornography to be degrading themselves.
However, I was never taught that sex was bad thing, or that women who enjoyed sex were less dignified. In truth, it never even crossed my mind to ever think that way. At best, what came to mind was “Damn! She’s hot.” Since I was young, and even to an older age, I continue to find beautiful women very intimidating, like most men do, and in no way do I have any contempt for women who are decidedly sexual active. (And let’s be honest. Who does have contempt for extremely attractive women, who are greatly sexual active? Obviously other, less attractive, women.)
In her quote “…aggression, and pair it up with sexualization.” Well, I don’t think I have to explain why sex itself is an aggressive, yet consensual and pleasant, act and at the same time a completely non-violent act. If you don’t know or understand this, well, I can’t help you.
When referring to media literacy she says quote: “The cognitive filters that adults have, even they, advertisers are able to bypass those. Imagine a child that has much few cognitive filters.”
Well, Cognitive Filters is not a complicated idea. It’s basically like when Coca Cola advertises their beverage with cute polar bears, and people, somewhat unconsciously, think “Oh those polar bear are cute, so I wanna drink Coke”. I won’t try and argue about whether cognitive filters are true or false, or whether how ethical or unethical it is for advertisers to bypass the public’s cognitive filters. I’m quite sure cognitive filters do exist, and that they are bypassed even in adults. I will argue that Dr. Papadopoulos is saying this is a reason for there to be more censorship. Dr. Papadopoulos is indirectly saying that that her cognitive filters are more atoned than any child and most adults in any society. This of course giving her some sort of intellectual or moral high ground to decide what is appropriate viewing material for the rest of the world. I saw a little while ago a lecture by writer Christopher Hitchens on freedom of speech; where he asked the question to the audience as to whether they could think of anyone they know, or have ever known, that they would entrust with censoring what they could see and not see. I have never met anyone like that, I would be surprised if anyone could name someone like that, and it would especially not be Dr. Papadopoulos.
At the end of the interview, Dr. Papadopoulos goes off on this rant about women being “objects or decorative figures” for example in music videos, because they are placed there solely for their sex appeal. I, again, won’t argue on whether or not women are placed in some music videos solely for their sexual attractiveness. I won’t even argue about whether that has any negative results, which I don’t think it does. What I will argue is the base of her argument laying in the fact that attractive women, portrayed and perceived by men as sexually appealing, will turn into “objects” or “decorative figures”. To say that when men find a women sexually attractive they become objects, must mean that there are objects that men find sexually appealing. Yet, men only find women (in some cases other men) sexually appealing, and women are not objects. Therefore, it is impossible to say they are objectified.
If that was a bit confusing, let me try and put this into the form of an equation.
Men + Attractive Woman = Objectification
However, if it is also true,
Men + Attractive Woman = Sexual Arousal
Then that must mean,
Objects = Arousal
And this is just not true. I can’t think of any objects that arouse me. Even to say that women are “sexualized” is grammatically incorrect, women are sexual (as are men), only in-adamant objects, or perhaps other animal species, can be “sexualized”.
Dr. Papadopoulos is trying to speak in the most scientific terms possible to give the appearance that what she is saying is science, when in fact everything she says is based on assumptions. The assumption that men seeing woman in sexual light will turn them into depraved psychopaths. Much like the assumption that children who play too many violent video games will, in turn, become violent people. Well, I, like most kids growing up in the 80’s and 90’s, spent the better part of my youth playing violent video games and staring at pretty girls. I don’t consider myself to be a violent person, nor have I ever seen any correlation between men who I thought were violent, and the amount of video games they played. (In fact almost every time I’ve come across men I thought to be violent, in all likelihood they had an extremely dysfunctional family).
In the middle of the interview Dr. Papadopoulos says “…and we’re seeing the evidence of this, in the way they behave to themselves and to each other.” Well, this is extremely vague, but quite obvious that she is talking about mal behavior. Dr. Papadopoulos is subtlety suggesting that disrespect and mistreat of women can be connected to men finding them sexually appealing, particularly if fed with large amounts of images of attractive women on the internet. In extreme cases even making connections of rape and domestic violence to pornography. Let me inform any women who might be reading this. All men watch or have watched porn. Yes, ALL. Scientifically debatable, since one article says its 100% [1], another might say 45% [2]. Trust me; if they have access to porn, they are watching porn, a 100%. Do men who mistreat, rape, or hit women watch pornography? Yeah. Do men who treat women kindly and with respect watch pornography. Yes. There is no correlation between the two at all.
In the description of the video it says “Dr Linda Papadopoulos says the Internet requires regulation to protect children from damaging imagery”
“Regulation”, run and decided by whom? Constantly in the interview she says “we need to”. Who’s “We”? If she means parents, maybe teachers; I might agree. But I think Dr. Papadopoulos wants to be included, and I don’t think she should be.
Just because I find a woman sexual appealing, does not mean that I have consciously, or unconsciously, turned her into an object void of personality or emotion. Even when I was 8 or 10, and was just beginning to see girls in a sexual light, it never occurred to me that they were only objects if they were pretty. There is absolutely no parallel, what so ever, of men considering a woman sexually attractive and the amount of respect men have for them as people. For example, I find Dr. Linda Papadopoulos very hot, and I would love to have sex, or sexualize as she would, with her. But I don’t find her unintelligent or loose respect for her because of this. I have no respect for her because she’s an ignorant, self-righteous, bitter feminist, who hates sex and thinks she is morally superior enough to tell everyone else in the world what they should and shouldn’t be looking at. Well, thank you doctor for worrying, but I think I can make decisions for myself.
Referenced Articles
[1] All Men Watch Porn, Scientists Find
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html
[2] 45% of men watch porn online
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3212380
On Dr. Linda Papadopoulos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Papadopoulos
I'd objectify That!
