• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Not Sexualized Female Movie Characters?

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I get the context argument. It was part of the plot. It fitted. Logically.

Still didn't 'feel' right though and I'm not a prude.
You mean why did a member of an alien androgynous slug race just happen to find a skimpy costume forced on a built up powerful woman? And find it titilating?
The answer is either the writers pulled one over the execs and are making fun of the audience as a monster-audience-avatar (a-la Cabin in the Woods) or, more likely, a lot of men like seeing powerful women objectified and humiliated. And it's a little gross to see outside the bedroom. Either way, weird.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
You mean why did a member of an alien androgynous slug race just happen to find a skimpy costume forced on a built up powerful woman? And find it titilating?
The answer is either the writers pulled one over the execs and are making fun of the audience as a monster-audience-avatar (a-la Cabin in the Woods) or, more likely, a lot of men like seeing powerful women objectified and humiliated. And it's a little gross to see outside the bedroom. Either way, weird.
You mean like the original Star Trek which was, let's be honest here, basically James Bond in space? I mean just how many "women" did Kirk bang? (No seriously I never really watched the show I'm asking legitimately. Since that was the most well known aspect of the original series.)
Star Wars was made in the 1970s. If Disney pulled that trick now I'd be like wtf? But in the original trilogy the bite is significantly lessened. But that's just me.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
*sigh* Never mind.
:shrug:
I guess I'm just more lenient on a movie trilogy made like 40 years ago. It's not like I wander into 1984 expecting fantastic female representation even though I deeply respect Orwell. It was the god damn 40s. I'm not expecting a hearty feminist battle cry like today's fiction. For the most part.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You mean like the original Star Trek which was, let's be honest here, basically James Bond in space? I mean just how many "women" did Kirk bang? (No seriously I never really watched the show I'm asking legitimately. Since that was the most well known aspect of the original series.)
Star Wars was made in the 1970s. If Disney pulled that trick now I'd be like wtf? But in the original trilogy the bite is significantly lessened. But that's just me.
Understanding the time frame it was made in doesn't make it less icky to me. I can still appreciate the franchise for what it built and the good things it did (hell I'm roleplaying Edge of the Empire for my husband's birthday) but also say that was a dick move (literally). That was pretty much Carrie's commentary on it too.
(Although James Bond, the books, were especially gross. I do not recommend.)
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
Quite a lot of people seem to enjoy it, so that is a purpose.

Also, I haven't watched more than one of the movies in the list, so take my post with a grain of salt, but from what I can gather, in at least some of them it does seem to be not in contradiction to the plot, so I wonder why those made it to high places on the list.

One could similarly ask why so many movies include love stories, in many cases even entirely unrelated to the main plot. I frankly find that utterly boring (if humorous at times), but you don't normally see me complaining about that.

The video also seems to imply that being sexualized would in and of itself take away from the actual role of a character. That can be the case, but it didn't seem to be like that in most of the examples. On the contrary, there can even be cases in which that could add more depth by showing another aspect of the character, or also just make a character more memorable.
Again, maybe I'd come to different conclusions after watching the movies in question.


...Also, what does that Youtuber have against furries?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The video also seems to imply that being sexualized would in and of itself take away from the actual role of a character. That can be the case, but it didn't seem to be like that in most of the examples. On the contrary, there can even be cases in which that could add more depth by showing another aspect of the character, or also just make a character more memorable.
Which I believe can be said of Halle Berry's toplessness. I never watched the movie so I don't know anything about the character of the woman she's playing except that her character's blase regard to being topless does tell me she's a bit unconventional and has a sane attitude toward partial nudity. The character thinks for herself, and is probably little swayed by conventional mores. OR, maybe the toplessness was included to simply titillate the movie goer, which is just fine. ;)

.


.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I mean just how many "women" did Kirk bang? (No seriously I never really watched the show I'm asking legitimately. Since that was the most well known aspect of the original series.)
Not as many as you'd think...79 episodes...I'd have to do some actual research, but I doubt that it was a plot point in even half, but likely more than a quarter...although it became a more regular occurrence in the later episodes.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I can't say. You would need to ask a woman or a gay guy. Who do they find "yummy". A bit of gratuitous sex does not bother me in the least. And it can help the movie. I remember many years ago when a friend of mine reported back on watching Titanic with his wife. He was getting rather bored, it was pretty much a romance that was aimed at women more than men. Then there was the topless scene in the middle of the movie. A totally gratuitous flash of breasts. But that one scene piqued his interest and he got back into the film.
Overheard an apparently sincere conversation once: "he's taking me to see Titanic tonight, so don't tell me what happens, I want it to be a surprise! "
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I ask this because I came across the following video on YouTube


Watch it. Don't watch it. It's premise should be obvious; its producer, WatchMojo.com, doesn't believe female movie characters should be sexualized---or at least that's what it would like you to believe---although it never says why. At most it simply asks, "Is it really necessary?"

My only comment is, so what if Sexualized Female Movie Characters aren't necessary?

.

With respect, if someone has to ask what's wrong with the sexualization of people, then I must suspect their definition and/or understanding of what is involved in sexualization is relatively benign and perhaps superficial.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
With respect, if someone has to ask what's wrong with the sexualization of people, then I must suspect their definition and/or understanding of what is involved in sexualization is relatively benign and perhaps superficial.
As I would respectfully ask if there's anything wrong with presenting mild erotic content through sexualization in a movie? (Off hand, I can't think of any other way to do it. :shrug:) Or is mild erotic content in movies a no-no?

Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality, especially in relation to men and women.
Source: Wikipedia

erotic
Relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary


.


 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
As I would respectfully ask if there's anything wrong with presenting mild erotic content through sexualization in a movie? (Off hand, I can't think of any other way to do it. :shrug:) Or is mild erotic content in movies a no-no?

Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality, especially in relation to men and women.
Source: Wikipedia

erotic
Relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary


.

I love Wiki, but it -- like any encyclopaedia or dictionary -- is only a place to start if you want to understand sexualization. The definition you've quoted from it is practically useless. You might want to read up on what outfits like the American Psychological Association have to say about sexualization --- that is, if you're genuinely interested in the topic. If you're not genuinely interested, then I presume your thread is for entertainment purposes only, so -- enjoy!
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
I love Wiki, but it -- like any encyclopaedia or dictionary -- is only a place to start if you want to understand sexualization. The definition you've quoted from it is practically useless. You might want to read up on what outfits like the American Psychological Association have to say about sexualization --- that is, if you're genuinely interested in the topic. If you're not genuinely interested, then I presume your thread is for entertainment purposes only, so -- enjoy!
E.g. this? (first thing I found)
There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when

  • a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

  • a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

  • a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

  • sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
(from: Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls)

That doesn't seem to be what is meant in the YT-video which this thread is about, or at least that's not the impression I got from it.
It's unfortunate that this term has two such different meanings.
As mentioned before, I haven't seen most of the movies in question, so it might be that they also include that kind of sexualization.
In any case, however, they are works of fiction and entertainment, and therefore there are no persons but characters involved (unless people transfer what they think about a character on the actor/actress in question). It might be the case that characters getting sexualized in that sense also influences the spectators' perception of themselves and/or other people in ways one would want to avoid. But I would wonder whether it really has that much an effect on people and if the causality is not the other way round (i.e. the movies representing what people already think beforehand).
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I love Wiki, but it -- like any encyclopaedia or dictionary -- is only a place to start if you want to understand sexualization. The definition you've quoted from it is practically useless. You might want to read up on what outfits like the American Psychological Association have to say about sexualization --- that is, if you're genuinely interested in the topic. If you're not genuinely interested, then I presume your thread is for entertainment purposes only, so -- enjoy!
So if the American Psychological Association's definition of "sexualize" differs significantly from the one I presented, as you imply it does, do you actually believe that when WatchMojo.com used the term "sexualized" it was referring to the American Psychological Association's definition? I highly doubt it. I would bet it uses the word defined as:

Oxford Dictionaries

sexualize
(British sexualise)
verb
[with object]

Make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to.
_________________________________
Dictionary.com

sexualize
[sek-shoo-uh-lahyz or, esp. British, seks-yoo-]

verb (used with object), sexualized, sexualizing.

1. to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics.
___________________________________
Merriam-Webster

Definition of sexualize
sexualized; sexualizing
transitive verb

: to make sexual : endow with a sexual character or cast
____________________________________
Collins English Dictionary

sexualize
(sɛkʃuəlaɪz )
Word forms: sexualizes, sexualizing, sexualizedregional note: in BRIT, also use sexualise
transitive verb

To sexualize something or someone means to make them sexual or consider them in a sexual way.
____________________________________
The Free Dictionary

sexualize (redirected from sexualized)

Related to sexualized: Sexualisation
sex·u·al·ize (sĕk′sho͞o-ə-līz′)
tr.v. sex·u·al·ized, sex·u·al·iz·ing, sex·u·al·iz·es

To make sexual in character or quality:
_____________________________________
Cambridge Dictionary

sexualize verb [ T ] UK usually sexualise /ˈsek.sju.əl.aɪz/ /ˈsek.sju.əl.aɪz/

to see someone or something in sexual terms, or to make someone or something sexually exciting:
______________________________________
Your Dictionary

sexualize

transitive verb
-·ized·, -·iz·ing

to make sexual; endow with sexual significance, feeling, etc.
_______________________________________

All of which are fine with me.

Thing is, when a word is used in an ordinary context you can't concluded it's using it's most formal definition. Unless a word appears in a formal context there's no reason to believe it's necessarily using its formal definition. If I said "Boy, he's insane," do you think I actually want you to think I mean

Insanity
1) mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury.

its legal definition? I hope not. In any case, how about addressing my two questions.

1. As I would respectfully ask if there's anything wrong with presenting mild erotic content through sexualization in a movie? (Off hand, I can't think of any other way to do it. :shrug:)

2. Or is mild erotic content in movies a no-no?

.











 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Understanding the time frame it was made in doesn't make it less icky to me. I can still appreciate the franchise for what it built and the good things it did (hell I'm roleplaying Edge of the Empire for my husband's birthday) but also say that was a dick move (literally). That was pretty much Carrie's commentary on it too.
(Although James Bond, the books, were especially gross. I do not recommend.)
Ehh I'd take slave Leia over Padme any day. At least she was memorable. Despite said dick move.
I grew up on the Bond franchise actually. I liked most of the Bond girls. They embraced their sexuality and used it against all the idiot men in the franchise. And in all honestly they were the characters I was always empathising with the most. There were also many movies where I thought they were playing Bond as much as he thought he was in charge. Can't comment on the merit or lack thereof of the books though. I read Casino Royale like ages ago and I think either Goldeneye or The Spy Who Loved Me. But it's been years and l've mostly forgotten what happens in them. Besides it's Bond, even as a kid I took it as nonsense. I literally thought it was satire until the Spy who shagged me came out in theatres. (You can blame that on my youthful naivety. I mean I didn't know what the 60s or whatever were like.) Also female M kicks ***. Course now we ladies can enjoy the eye candy in the modern era Bond.
I dunno. Maybe in the books the women are treated terribly. I don't remember. Although I think I had read Lolita just before I read Bond so I might have just been too emotionally exhausted at the time.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Not as many as you'd think...79 episodes...I'd have to do some actual research, but I doubt that it was a plot point in even half, but likely more than a quarter...although it became a more regular occurrence in the later episodes.
Yes "research" ;)
Actually weird thing I had with the original Star Trek even though I never watched it. For the longest time I thought Spock was the son of Elrond from Lord of the Rings because he always looked like an angry elf to me (albeit in space.):oops:
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
So if the American Psychological Association's definition of "sexualize" differs significantly from the one I presented, as you imply it does, do you actually believe that when WatchMojo.com used the term "sexualized" it was referring to the American Psychological Association's definition?


Doesn't matter at all whether WatchMojo is using the word "sexualization" except in the important sense how the word is being used will largely determine how one answers the question you've posed in the OP.

Use what I think is your definition of sexualization and pretty much the only sensible answer to your question is "no". In other words, you've set up a game, not a genuine inquiry. Use a definition of "sexualization" that is employed in scientifically reasearching the subject and it's consequences on girls and women -- such as the APA does -- and you've created, not a game, but a genuine inquiry.

Oxford Dictionaries

sexualize
(British sexualise)
verb
[with object]

Make sexual; attribute sex or a sex role to.
_________________________________
Dictionary.com

sexualize
[sek-shoo-uh-lahyz or, esp. British, seks-yoo-]

verb (used with object), sexualized, sexualizing.

1. to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics.
___________________________________
Merriam-Webster

Definition of sexualize
sexualized; sexualizing
transitive verb

: to make sexual : endow with a sexual character or cast
____________________________________
Collins English Dictionary

sexualize
(sɛkʃuəlaɪz )
Word forms: sexualizes, sexualizing, sexualizedregional note: in BRIT, also use sexualise
transitive verb

To sexualize something or someone means to make them sexual or consider them in a sexual way.
____________________________________
The Free Dictionary

sexualize (redirected from sexualized)

Related to sexualized: Sexualisation
sex·u·al·ize (sĕk′sho͞o-ə-līz′)
tr.v. sex·u·al·ized, sex·u·al·iz·ing, sex·u·al·iz·es

To make sexual in character or quality:
_____________________________________
Cambridge Dictionary

sexualize verb [ T ] UK usually sexualise /ˈsek.sju.əl.aɪz/ /ˈsek.sju.əl.aɪz/

to see someone or something in sexual terms, or to make someone or something sexually exciting:
______________________________________
Your Dictionary

sexualize

transitive verb
-·ized·, -·iz·ing

to make sexual; endow with sexual significance, feeling, etc.
_______________________________________

All of which are fine with me.


Quoting dictionaries fails to address the issue that dictionaries are quite often superficial -- especially with words that have scientific meanings, as does "sexualization". I would never quote a dictionary as the final authority on the meaning(s) people give words, especially the techincal meanings specialists (such as scientists) give words. At best a dictionary is a place to start.

Thing is, when a word is used in an ordinary context you can't concluded it's using it's most formal definition. Unless a word appears in a formal context there's no reason to believe it's necessarily using its formal definition.

That may be true, but it utterly and completely misses the point.

As I would respectfully ask if there's anything wrong with presenting mild erotic content through sexualization in a movie? (Off hand, I can't think of any other way to do it. :shrug:)

Depends on how you are defining "sexualization", now doesn't it?


At any rate, those are my thoughts on the issue. I think I've made them clear, which is the only thing I hope to achieve here because it is virtually impossible (according to the psychologists) to change anyone's opinions through debate, which means to me that debate is largely a waste of time. To sum up, I would suggest that if you are genuinely serious about the effects and consequences on woman and girls of sexualization then you look at the science on the issue, which almost certainly means familiarizing yourself with the scientific definitions of "sexualization".
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
That doesn't seem to be what is meant in the YT-video which this thread is about, or at least that's not the impression I got from it.

The OP basically asks the question whether sexualization of females harms anyone. How one will answer that question largely depends on how one is defining "sexualization". If you define it like the APA does, then there is study after study after study showing that sexualization does indeed have many and various negative consequences on females, most of them quite serious. If you define "sexualization" as it seems to be defined in the OP or the video, then it has little or no negative consequences. Personally I don't care how someone defines the term so long as they don't conflate definitions -- and I would suggest that to some extent the question asked in the OP implicitly does just that because it has the appearance of asking for a fact based answer (and what better way to determine the facts of an issue than through science).

At any rate, I'm responding to your post out of courtesy and not because I wish to debate the issue further.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Doesn't matter at all whether WatchMojo is using the word "sexualization" except in the important sense how the word is being used will largely determine how one answers the question you've posed in the OP.
Yes, and it is far, far more likely that WatchMojo is using the word in its common sense, than in a scientific sense, which I assume is significantly different than its common one.

Use what I think is your definition of sexualization and pretty much the only sensible answer to your question is "no". In other words, you've set up a game, not a genuine inquiry.
Characterize it however you wish, but if you're unable to play the game using the definition WatchMojo appears to use, then so be it. But regardless of how you choose regard it, it certainly has no bearing on the genuineness of my inquiry. That you seem to feel genuine inquiries can only be conducted under scientific standards using scientific definitions misses the point that not everything worth examining falls within the parameters of scientific definitions, particularly when it comes to social issues. Social issues, and the words society uses to express them, must often be examined within their social framework, and not that of academia. And that means accepting what society means when it uses a word.

Quoting dictionaries fails to address the issue that dictionaries are quite often superficial -- especially with words that have scientific meanings, as does "sexualization".
Most importantly, dictionaries reflect the common understanding of a word, AND its usage, which is why they're important when trying to understand their use in common contexts. Want to use a word in within the rigors of science then I agree, it's best to use its scientific definition.

I would never quote a dictionary as the final authority on the meaning(s) people give words, especially the techincal meanings specialists (such as scientists) give words.
Then I assume that when I observed "Boy, he's insane" you think I actually mean the word as legally defined:

"a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior."
Your choice of course, but if so, I think you're being a bit narrow minded and unfair to yourself. Want to insist that when someone calls you "bro" (brother) he means your his actual brother, go right ahead. But :shrug:


Depends on how you are defining "sexualization", now doesn't it?
How about using the definition I presented from Wikipedia? It's as good as any of the others I listed.

.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Liu
Top