Obscenity and Violence in Sexualized Media

Celebrity Paris Hilton
all tied up



















Jimmy Choo
advertisement for shoes

















Dolce & Gabbana
advertisement













Dolce & Gabbana
advertisement













Dolce & Gabbana
advertisement for a purse













America's Next Top Model
Cycle 8














When looking for examples of obscenity and violence in the media I was overwhelmed with examples, most of which were in the form of advertisements for designer fashions. Several of the examples I chose to use are from designer Dolce & Gabbana who thrives on creating a look that is “all about sexiness, a glorious type of sluttishness,” (Mixing Business and Pleasure, http://shopping.guardian.co.uk/clothes/story/0,,1418613,00.html). Dolce & Gabbana’s image #3 is that of a man forcefully holding down a woman while three other men stand watch. This image can be said to be violent in that it shows a man using force against a woman as the other men stand by waiting to take their turn. According to Robert Jensen and Gail Dines in their article Pornography in a Pornographic Culture: Eroticizing Domination and Subordination, this image shows violence against a women which in case causes the degradation of this women. They are of the belief that images such as these are glamorized (the high fashion industry in this case) and it causes more men to act sexually dominant and more women to be tolerant of this violence which increases the degradation of women in our society. On the other hand Nina Hartley (In the Flesh: A Porn Star’s Journey) and Veronica Monet (What is Feminist Porn?) believe that images like this can empower women to act out their fantasies or at least get a chance to see their fantasies acted out for them.

Dolce & Gabbana images #4 and #5 can also be said to glamorize violence for the sake of high fashion. Image #4 shows a man lying dead from the gun shots fired from the hero whom the beautiful naked female is sexually clinging to. This image reinforces the ideology that men are powerful and take action and women are sexy and stand by their sides. Image #5 shows two beautiful women, one ready to murder the other while the victim gracefully and gently holds the arm of her enemy. Although this image shows violence in the act of murder, it also says that women are not as violent and dominant as men are and that they love each other which is the tiresome fantasy of the girl on girl action.

Image #2 is an advertisement for Jimmy Choo shoes and it again glamorizes violence for the sake of selling fashion. The sexy women in the image lays slumped in the trunk of a car while a dominating male figure digs her grave in the middle of a remote desert. I personally can’t see how Hartley or Monet could defend that this is supporting women’s desires or fantasies of being murdered and I have to agree with Jensen and Dines on this one that the image depicts the power and dominance of the male over the female.

Image #1 is that of celebrity Paris Hilton. Not only is Hilton extremely wealthy but she is seen as extremely sexy too. These two things give her too much power for her male audience and she is shown here tied up and powerless which gives male viewers more power in their sexual fantasies about her. It is images like this that bring to question how much power does sex, fame, and fortune really give a person? Does the power a female holds have to be taken away from her (by tying her up, verbally or physically abusing her, etc.) in order to make her a seem even more desirable because she is now more vulnerable?

The fashion industry trains their participants to glamorize violence right from the beginning. Image #6 is that of a photo shoot from cycle 8 of the television show America’s Next Top Model. This photo shoot was trying to show beauty in the form of death and most of the images were taken to look like a violent death. Murder, drugs, suicide, they were all glamorized and sexualized and these aspiring models were trained to believe that these are important elements of the fashion industry.

The Social Construction of Sexuality

Wikipedia's Portrayal of Popular Girls














http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Popular-Girl


Rey from The New York Times article "When Girls Will Be Boys"
















http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16students-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thomas the First Pregnant Man


















http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200804/20080403/slide_20080403_350_101.jhtml

"Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" by Judith Levine



















"Flirting 101" from Cosmo Girl!



















http://www.cosmogirl.com/flirting-101

I chose these five pictures as representations of how the social construction of sexuality is presented in the media. This week I chose all artifacts from online sources yet I am certain that there are many similar examples right in our faces everyday even when we aren’t in front of the computer.

The first and last artifacts (Wikipedia and Cosmo Girl!) grabbed my attention after reading “Mass Media Influences on Sexuality” by Jane D. Brown. The article touched on many important issues including how the mass media is a huge influence on today’s youth and could be used to teach valuable lessons or positive habits but in reality typically teaches risky behaviors and bad habits. Brown explains that the Cognitive Social Learning Theory predicts that people imitate the behaviors of others such as in the Wikipedia article about how to become a popular girl. Girls are exposed to these “How to” guides and this is the behavior that they begin to imitate in order to seem popular, normal, or whatever the goal and photo show. In the Cosmo Girl! flirting guide girls can imitate what they read is the normal procedure for girls their age. Articles such as this assume that all teens are heterosexual and do not give flirting tips for bisexual or homosexual teens or even raise the important issue that many teens are still unsure of their sexual orientation and that that is what is normal. The reader is forced to imitate the actions of all the “normal” heterosexual teens by following the flirting how to guide.

The fourth artifact is the cover to the book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex” by Judith Levine. From what I could tell through my research this book speaks about what can happen to children that are shielded from sex and why they should be free to learn and express sex throughout their lives. The description of this book reminded me of the article “The Social Construction of Sexuality” by Ruth Hubbard. Hubbard explains how children should be encouraged to express themselves sexually by encouraging them to explore their own bodies and those bodies of their friends of both genders. She suggests that by doing so then these children will grow to have a better understanding of their own desires, the desires of others, and a better chance at having open communication about sex and contraception with their sexual partners which in turn will hopefully lead to safer sex. Hubbard explains that in the Unites States we typically try to shield our children from sex in hopes that they won’t have it without acknowledging that they are having sex at young ages and aren’t knowledgeable about consequences and/or sexual exploration and desires. Children in the Unites States are supposedly shielded from sex which in reality they are learning about sex through the media when they should be learning about sex from day one from a trusting person and the freedom to explore it on their own terms.

Media artifacts two and three (Rey and Thomas) are artifacts that I thought also related to the article “The Social Construction of Sexuality” by Ruth Hubbard and also the article “Prurient Interests: Sexuality, Ideology, and Popular Communication” by Jane Banks. Rey was the subject of The New York Times article “When Girls Will Be Boys” and Thomas was the subject of a recent Oprah interview. Both Rey and Thomas were born as females but lived their lives feeling like the opposite gender. It wasn’t until later in life that they both came to terms with their true self and realized that they were transgendered and began treatments to correct the issue. Rey’s story focused on the fact that he is attending an Ivy League all girls’ college and was admitted when he was still female and now has undergone hormone treatments to become male. Thomas’ story focused on the fact that he was once a female and has undergone a sex change all except for his female reproductive organs which is how he has become the first man to become pregnant and soon to give birth. The two examples are related to Hubbard’s article in that they were not free to explore their sexuality when they were young which has caused them to live confused lives without knowledge of their own sexual desires or a firm grasp on their gender identity. The two lived as they were taught was “normal” for their gender without the freedom to explore who they really were. The two examples are related to Banks article in how they are portrayed in the media. Banks explains how the media deals with homosexual or transgendered couples versus heterosexual couple’s very differently. In these two cases it is as if Rey and Thomas are on display for everyone to see how “un-normal” they are compared to all of the “normal” heterosexual non-transgendered people we see everyday in the media. Rey and Thomas are definitely not the typical Hollywood glamour types that the media loves to parade around but instead they are another type that the media loves to parade around to show how “different” they are from what has been established as the norm.

All five of these are prime example of how the social construction of sexuality of presented in the media and again, I am confident that we are exposed to artifacts such as these everyday without even having to look for them.