Talk:Sexual objectification/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Er... no

Sexual objectification is not, repeat not, a feminist snarl word. Start with media studies 101. Men are judged by their minds or sporting achievements, women are judged by their perceived sexual attractiveness. We've come a long way since the fifties but writing this off as a hostile caricature of the inner lives of heterosexual men. is very wrong. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? That men and women will be valued by culture and human sexualities for different things is one of the aspects of human existence that is fortunately beyond the reach of mere politics. "Sexual objectification" is nothing more than the latest edition of "you should be ashamed of your dirty thoughts." I thought this was the skeptical site, sorry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

After taking a quick 'I thought this was Rational Wiki' drink - there are endless studies, and not all of them are by radfems, that show that women are judged by different standards than men. In particular, they are judged by their perceived sexual attractiveness. It's one heck of a lot more than "you should be ashamed of your dirty thoughts." No one gives a flying fuck about what's in your mind when you're tugging one off. They do give a flying fuck when it comes to how you, along with the rest of the world, treat real women. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally - WTF. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, women will be judged by different standards from men, and indicia of youth and health will always be desirable among them, even as indicia of leadership and competitive gain will make men more attractive; those are forms of human male sexual display. If you want to change this politically, you're going to need eugenics, and I'd still expect the humans to revert to type anyways. Still, I can't read Nussbaum's description as anything other than a hostile caricature of male sexuality, and an offensive rhetorical ploy that in fact dehumanizes men. At minimum, it pretends to be an account of how men treat images of sexually attractive women, and it is misinformed and wrong as such an account. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, bully for you, then. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So this is one of the borders of Official Reality here.

Gotcha. But if I'm going to be forced to join the "patriarchy" (pfft!), I'm going to have to let my beard grow out a lot more, ain't I? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the sisterhood. I could try to explain to you how it's not some magical thing that feminists invented, but something tangible that can be studied academically (and has been, over and over). I could try to explain to you how your very premise in "history" where you talk about "sex objects existed before sexual objectification" is just a complete "are you f'ing kidding me?" statement. I could try to explain something about privlidge, and teh male gaze - but I suspect all of that would go over your head, in your "oh my god, the ladies are talking back!" mentality.^{— Unsigned, by: Waiting for Godot / talk / contribs}

There's a big difference between admittance of attraction and objectification. For example, look at the field of professional athletes. When discussing women in athletics there's a lot of criticism of their appearance, most of which is completely irrelevant to their work (body weight excepted). With male athletes it's a non-issue. Sure, men are going to check out female athletes; there's nothing wrong with that happening privately. But when the public discourse is more about appearance than talent (as it often is), it crosses the line from attraction to objectification. It's not just "I find you sexy/not sexy" but "Whether or not I find you sexy matters more than your actual work." Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I still see mostly spin and cant here. Public discourse is still going to be made by the same primate brains that produce private thoughts. Yes, there is a kernel of truth here, that those features that indicate youth and health will always be more important for women than for men, even as public displays of power and prowess will be more important for men than for women. The spin and cant only appear when people imagine that these things can be changed politically without eugenics: as far as I am concerned, that in itself is human exceptionalism. If anybody wants to make actual progress on these grievances, you have to understand the natural history of the underlying issues, and we're apparently not there yet. I know, I'm going the wrong way on a one way street; when "privilege" gets trotted out, you may as well do as you're told and shut up; "privilege" is the new Godwin's. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not evolution. It's not human nature. It's assholes being assholes. Please understand that there is a difference. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 02:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are emphasizing sports figures or "picking up women". Objectification is in every single thing we do in our portrayls of women. From the tv characters they play, to the way we talk about rape victims, to the way we address female politicians, to the roles laid out for women in movies. How we sell products on tv with women's body parts, how we discuss women as adendums to men or children, the way in our interviews of successful women, we will always include discussions of marriage and children - things that are not usually discussed with men in the same position. Objectification is not JUST "sexual" objectification - or rather, teh "sexual" there has nothing to do with sex. it's sexual objectification because of sex as gender. women are turned into objects for men's USE. Men assume they have a right to talk to any woman, any time, any place. They invade her space in ways they never would, were she a he. Then if she dares say "i don't want your attention", they get offended, calling her bitch, or fridged, cunt or lesiban. These things are everywhere. That you can't see them has nothing to do with RW's reality or yours. simplyl your choice not to look.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 03:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

that's the price you pay so men let you have screaming kids infest the whole world. if there were no women with their screaming kids, eternal youth would have neem invented ages ago ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.59.170.245 / talk / contribs 22:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)}

I get your argument. You're wrong.

I know it's a little unfair to post again when you (Smerdis) haven't had a chance to reply to my last post yet, but I feel the need to clarify what it is I'm trying to say. I get what you're saying: that what leftist critics call "sexual objectification" is merely the modern reflection of genetically wired sex roles. I get it.

It's wrong. There is a big difference between men taking the initiative in a sexual relationship (natural, genetically driven, inoffensive, and not what I'm criticizing) and men only seeing women as sex objects. That is, after all, what objectification is – seeing people as objects.

The drive to competition is also part of human nature; men seek to better each other in many fields as they always have. Yet when men compete with each other, they don't reduce their opponents to objects. They don't deprive them of agency. By contrast, the way some men (yes, only some) do this to women, demean them, belittle them, attack them for not meeting their sexual desires in a context in which that makes absolutely no sense (i.e., any context other than a romantic or sexual one), is not a reflection of human nature, it's a reflection of bitterness and hate.

And cut out the references to eugenics! Nobody here is saying anything about forcibly controlling a population or genetics or anything like that. We are talking about raising awareness of social issues. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 04:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I come off like some kind of hard right winger, and while I may be further to the political right than the community generally, much of that is simple frustration at their ineffectual nonsense. While the bankers and Kochs have pretty much been given free rein over the stuff that actually matters, our political left has chosen to focus on issues of etiquette to assuage hurt feelings. The doctrine of "sexual objectification" is a perfect example of its divisive and trivial arguments over language, imagery, symbolism, and representation; and how it mistakes these things for things that matter. If I were of a more conspiratorial mindset, I'd suspect this was planned. My opinion is that it also is a perfect example of how people who apparently care about social justice have been distracted by a sexual sideshow while the rich get richer. The more you care about actual social justice, the more contempt you should have for this kind of gestural politics.

Dehumanization is hardly absent from male vs. male competition; meet Tokio Kid. For me this, too, has an evolutionary dimension; conflict between human groups (and always the men) has been with us since before the beginning; there's plenty of bitterness and hate in our evolved human nature as well.

Still, the doctrine of "sexual objectification" leads to calls for censorship, and makes fellow travellers of the right wing version of the anti-sex league. As a gambit in the evolutionary arms race between human males and females, it should not be accepted at face value. (One remarkable feature of feminist cant is how little of it is about women: "patriarchy", male gaze, mansplaining, rape culture, and now this.) You have a problem with "the way some men (yes, only some) do this to women, demean them, belittle them, attack them for not meeting their sexual desires". The article does not seem to be about that now; instead, it seems to be about the representations of women in advertising and mass media. Attempting to change the content of media through political means is something I oppose, especially if it involves removing sexualized images. We all know what that's called.

I still think my version was far better. The doctrine of "sexual objectification" is indeed a feminist snarl word that describes a hostile caricature of the inner lives of heterosexual men. The doctrine tells us that sexualization necessarily involves dehumanization; it involves reinterpreting men's inner lives and sexual desires as predatory and threats to women's autonomy. This is why I find it mostly bullshit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

May I add something, as *i think* the only women in this conversation. to you, these are not big deals, cause you do not face it. You do not get told at 5, by society, that math and science are not for you. You do not have men sit next to you, and say without any indication that you are intersted, "do you want to hook up?" You are not whistled at (well, i'm not either any more, but i'm a fat 40 year old, heh) by construction workers who walk beside you though the fence, saying disgusting things about what they want to do to you. You are not trying to fight to get into writing, when that culture says "we don't want women coding/writing comic books/working on sports". You are not frightened to get on a bus, onto an elevator, or just go to a male dominated job, for fear of the constant harrassment, the comments about your looks (in a job where looks are fully irrelevant, like say, a construction company). I find the "we have to deal with banks and global warming" diatribe to be cheep. an easy way to divert from real issues that real women face every day. Rape, lack of access to abortion, being called slut on national tv for advocating birth control be free at your school's health center... these are all factors that stem from, and feed into the objectification of women. At some point, perhaps you can see that not everything in this world focuses on the 50% of you that have penises. most of the men here, get that. clearly, not all do. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've always been a firm supporter of reproductive rights, and despise 'slut shaming' -- if for no other reason, as an attempt to politicize something that politics has no business messing with. I'm not seeing a clear line of causation between the legitimate issues you mention and an airbrushed image of female legs on a vodka ad, but that may just be me. Like you, I am tired of dealing with a stream of hostile sexual commentary from the media. My problem is with the constant characterization of male sexuality as something evil, predatory, and needing to be shamed and kept out of public view. Cant phrases like "sexual objectification" are part of this characterization, as far as I can see. Can't we just agree not to make political issues out of other people's sex lives? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

People who claim such causation are often short on actual data to establish it, as Nadine Strossen of the ACLU has been at pains to argue with regard to the specific question of smut and rape. Nevertheless, the claims continue, as it is difficult for some people to grasp the notion that the cause of plagues is not plays, but fleas. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One just has to draw a clear distinction between the actual phenomena (e.g., men who think of women as sex objects) and the bullshit constructions that pinkos build around them (e.g., exhorting frat-boys to combat sexual assault by inveighing against phallic perfume bottles). ListenerX^TalkerX 15:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"I suppose I come off like some kind of hard right winger..." Well, not in my opinion, actually. You just come off to me as someone who hasn't really thought things through. That may sound condescending, but coming from me it's a hell of a lot nicer than calling you a right-winger.

"While the bankers and Kochs have pretty much been given free rein over the stuff that actually matters, our political left has chosen to focus on issues of etiquette to assuage hurt feelings." First of all, no we haven't; in all of the leftie communities I follow except this one, taking corporate influence out of politics is considered either the biggest problem or second biggest (behind global warming). Second, this is a distraction. There's no reason we only have to fix one problem at a time.

"Dehumanization is hardly absent from male vs. male competition; meet Tokio Kid." Okay, good point. Women aren't the only victims of dehumanization. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

"Still, the doctrine of 'sexual objectification' leads to calls for censorship, and makes fellow travellers of the right wing version of the anti-sex league." Depends on who you're talking to. I for one don't want any more censorship than is absolutely necessary (mostly things like incitement to violence). There might be some people who want the government to censor objectifying works in our culture (I'm not personally aware of any), but most of us just want people to get their shit together on their own. I know full well the follies of trying to use government to fix society. It never works. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying to fix serious problems, just that we shouldn't use government censorship to do so.

Also, you seem to have missed my above link. It was intended to demonstrate the difference between men being men and men being assholes. Being an asshole isn't in my genes, or yours, or anyone else's. That disgusting behavior isn't a product of biology but of culture; we can tell because there are plenty of cultures in which this does not occur, and women are treated with dignity. It's purely cultural, and culture can change much more easily than biology. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, no we haven't; in all of the leftie communities I follow... They may agree upon those points as Christians agree upon the Nicene Creed, but they are also unyielding on further principles that prevent them from making common cause with, e.g., anti-corporate social conservatives. This is why "fixing one problem at a time" might be valuable.

There might be some people who want the government to censor objectifying works in our culture (I'm not personally aware of any)... Try Catharine MacKinnon and her comrades, who attempted to ban smut and other "objectifying works" via "civil rights ordinances" that did not even pretend to make an exception for works of literary merit. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about her. Okay, good point. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I did see the posted comments about Bartoli. Again, what I see is spin; the most general theme in the comments complained of is that some assholes called her "fat".

Funny how that works. People need somebody to hate and feel superior to, as surely as they need to breathe. When you tell people they can't hate Blacks any more, you roll the dice, and what you end up with is apartheid for smokers. The US government has gone all scientific racism on smokers, regaling us with images of disfiguring diseases you might catch if you catch a whiff of cigarette smoke. It's an attempt to turn our inherited subroutine for disgust against our fellow human beings.

(No government should do this, ever, no matter how worthy they imagine the cause is. This is one of the most dangerous subroutines in the human brain. They're playing with gasoline and matches here.)

And again, when you tell people they're not allowed to hate gays any more, you roll the dice, and you get a "war on obesity". Somebody's got to fill the role of the lazy slob whose filthy self-indulgence costs me money. The insecurities generated by these campaigns also help sell all sorts of products, and that's what it's all about Most of those remarks could be spun as body-image bias as easily as misogyny.

And to me, "sexual objectification" is about spin. Yes, images of attractive women or parts of their bodies are used to attract attention for commercial purposes. Pointing this out is one thing; making it out to be an elaborate conspiracy or cultural miasma, and deliberately encouraging people to take grave offense at otherwise innocuous vodka ads, strikes me as pure spin. It also seems unlikely to increase the limited supply of human happiness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. It sure is biological determinism around here. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Primates. You expected different? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

1) you've offered NOTHING to sell us on the idea that men/humans are naturally objectifers, of all their sexual partners, etc. 2) you've offered nothing to suggest it's at all biological, peroid. just said, "trust me, I'm a doctor". 3) even if you choose to find some non-existant evidence of this, you still have a big problme. "so what". Murder is biological, as is rape, as is having tons of children, as is fucking everything you can find, etc. yet we overcome these things, in the name of society. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is, of course, plenty of research out there about the human sexual conflict of interest and the associated evolutionary arms race, all of which goes a long way towards explaining both the human male fondness for visual sexual imagery, and the roots of human female dislike of the same. There is a reason why these images of females are made to distract men, and the reason has nothing to do with "patriarchy" or any other elaborate conspiracy theory.

I simply don't approve of anything that encourages people to make their neighbors lives more miserable by making issues of things they can't change. We have laws against murder or rape; these things are serious wrongs, yet they persist. There's only so much that law or politics can do in the face of serious wrongs. "Sexual objectification" leads to calls for censorship of images and behaviors that will not go away. It targets, at minimum, less serious wrongs than rape or murder, and politics here is still sailing against the headwind of human instinct. No good can come of it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

One, citing research done in the "capital-EP" vein of Evolutionary Psychology (h/t to David J. Buller for that distinction) as undeniable fact is problematic, to say the least. Two, patriarchy is a conspiracy theory now? We're in MRA territory here. I guess anthropologists and historians are also conspiracy theorists. Three, the fact that some people are calling for censorship on the basis of sexual objectification does not negate the phenomenon itself. Furthermore, criticizing speech does not equal censorship. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the opposition to evolutionary psychology is political in nature. Evolutionary psychology is controversial largely because it puts several utopias out of reach, be they egalitarian or libertarian; the opposition inevitably invokes human exceptionalism sooner or later. I find it, at minimum, more convincing than most other accounts of the human mind; it makes more accurate predictions than others. "Patriarchy" is either an inevitable part of being human, or an elaborate conspiracy theory, depending on what you mean. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should it have to be either? Female suffrage, property rights and financial independence could not have been achieved if people accepted such disparities as inevitable; neither they do involve a conspiracy theory since laws and customs were previously undeniable giving men rights that women did not have. The same goes for any other civil rights issue where some have rights and freedoms that others do not, such as racial segregation or LGBT rights. Equal rights in these cases can only be achieved if people are willing to point out the disparity and demand equality. But the prejudices that perpetuated such inequality (sexism, racism, homophobia) don't just disappear when the law changes and these must be opposed as well. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I do think that a problem arises when you move from specific things like laws and identifiable customs, to vague cultural miasmas, conspiracies of unconscious minds, or however this is supposed to work. In a world where lives are short and there's only so much goodwill to go around, issues that turn only on questions of language, imagery, symbolism, or representation ought at least to take a back burner.

Suppose we all assume that there is indeed something called "sexual objectification", and that it is a problem both serious and urgent enough to form a movement around and enact a political program. What do we do about it? And will those proposals for action just look like censorship, or demonizing and politicizing a taste for pinup art? I don't see either of those things being worth doing, myself. What else is there? "Sexual objectification" is an inherently authoritarian idea, and the current article doesn't really reflect that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question of "What do we do about it?" on sexual objectification: I think the overall idea was that you just convince the less sensitive man that it makes sense to stop seeing a woman as just a sex machine and start seeing her as more, as just as much of a person as he himself. Then, hopefully, he'll say something like: "Yes, of course! It only makes sense!" And when that happens, the problem will be solved. Nullahnung (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"People need somebody to hate and feel superior to, as surely as they need to breathe." What on Earth makes you think that? I don't. I could get by just fine without hating anyone, thank you very much. It's one thing to attribute sexual harassment to biology and quite another to attribute outright hatred. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlon seems to have confused original sin and Hobbesian philosophy with evolution. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I will not deny that I think that original sin and evolution are closely related subjects. Life itself is evil. Intelligent life is the worst kind; fortunately, it's a self-limiting phenomenon; it will precipitate an extinction level event that probably wouldn't last more than 100,000 years. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you consider yourself a nihilist? You sound like one. I am honestly curious. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, but I'm the next closest thing: a Calvinist, with maybe a side of Bob. Human moral inability is a vital part of the Good News. It's why we're asked to forgive our neighbors as we ourselves hope to be forgiven. Be easy on your neighbor; be easy on yourself. Good tidings of great joy: you cannot be anyone other than the person you were born to be. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Life itself is evil. Oh, dearie, dearie me! I so needed a good laugh to brighten up Monday morning. Aye, we're all doomed. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The real victims of sexual objectification

I think people need to bear in mind the real victims of sexual objectification. This is a serious issue indeed. --Damo^Hi 20:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Women are far more likely than men to be objectified and judged by a perceived sexual attractiveness rather than values such as intellectual ability.

This claim needs a reference. It is clearly a statement of fact and therefore should be referenced. The 3 references that were given do not show evidence of the fact claimed in this sentence, so I am invoking "put up or shut up". Note that I believe the statement is true, and considering that many in this talk page mention that there are numerous studies showing this, how about actually referencing them here? I suggest we either show some real references, reword the sentence to remove the comparison to men (thus making it fit the references given), or remove it entirely. Adrian232 (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Bruh, the fact that women are more likely than men to be sexually objectified is so obvious to everyone who looks at the world around them that there don't even need to be studies to back that up. 138.43.105.17 (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this has yet to be addressed, I have corrected the claim to match the references given by removing the comparison to men. Adrian232 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read through all 3 sources given and haven't seen anything regarding the sexual objectification of men in order to make a comparison. If I have missed something, show me an actual citation from one of those documents and I would gladly rescind my edit. Adrian232 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was not the person who originally put up those references, but I'll try and give you quotes from one of those documents as it seems you have requested.

I will take the psychology paper reference which starts out about occurrences of SO before going into theory. Let's look at the occurrences part for quotes.

Here's one from page 11 of the psychology paper that relates to frequency of SO in daily life for women being a lot, while being not as much for men:

"Turning to women’s interpersonal experiences, research indicates that being sexually objectified is a regular occurrence for many women in the United States. For example, in a series of daily diary studies, Swim and her colleagues (Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001) found that 94% of undergraduate women reported experiencing unwanted objectifying sexual comments and behaviors at least once over a semester, women reported more SO experiences than men, and SO emerged as a unique factor of daily experiences of sexism."

Here's one from page 16 of the same paper that relates to SO on television and how it is occurring for women, but not so much for men:

"C. Hall and Crum (1994) examined the use of camera shots of men and women’s body parts in different brands of 59 beer commercials. They found that women appeared less in beer commercials than men, but their bodily exposure was greater. In addition, there was a 49% likelihood that a commercial had at least one camera shot focused on a woman’s chest, but men had only a 24% chance. There were also no male crotch shots, but female crotch shots appeared in five ads. Another important finding was that the majority of women appeared in either swimwear or leisure wear, whereas the men often appeared in work clothes. Commercials like these are direct instances of SO that women may be subjected to any time they turn on their television. In addition to commercials, other forms of media such as movies and music videos (for media critiques see Jhally, 2007; Katz & Kilbourne, 2004), communicate to women that if they engage in substance use they will be hot, sexy, and both admired and desired by men. These types of media also influence a woman in what her place is in the world—to be an object or decoration for men to admire—and this is connected with the intake of substances (Bem, 1993)."

Nullahnung (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those. I did read the beer commercial one. I'm not challenging the claim that in media and advertising women are more frequently used as sex objects. The claim being made, however, is that women are more likely to be judged by their sexual attributes *rather than values such as intellectual ability*. In the beer ads, I doubt the men are portrayed much by their intellectual ability or accomplishments. Similarly, the undergrad study, while more convincing, doesn't measure judgment of values. A study of people in a position of being judged, such as job interviews, would seem to fit here, which is what I was expecting in the citations. Adrian232 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Some issues

"Another classical example is the endless characters in TV or movies who have no name (other than a first name, or "babe"), no background character, no lines to say who they are, and why they are on the screen — they exist merely for the pleasure of the male character, or to provide some plot point to demonstrate that the male character is strong, kind, sexual, and heroic." Why is this only an issue when it's a sexy woman? Not every character in fiction can have a fleshed out character. In movies and TVs there are dozens of people of all genders who are simply used as objects to fill a large public space (extras) or evil henchman who get easily murdered in order to advance the plot. My question is why does it matter when a woman is portrayed sexually for the sake of the plot but not when a woman is simply introduced as someone who a protagonist might bump into on the street? What's the difference? Neither of them have names, background character, or agency, and they only serve to advance the plot. Why then is one so much more outrageous than the other?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The general reason is how universal and widespread it is.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So is the use of movie extras or people who we don't know the background or personality of in general being used in advertisements.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the entire advertising industry needs to be burned to the ground and the earth salted so nothing grows there again for unrelated reasons. Let's try to focus on media that's actually popular. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Then why is so much of the page about advertising?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's super-rampant in that venue? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

So then why should I "try to focus on media that's actually popular" (I assume that means "not advertising")?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)