this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2026
256 points (95.7% liked)
Asklemmy
55730 readers
582 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That core attitude is a big part why I can't respect this new secular Mormonism. There's nothing degrading about sexualization. The very idea of it is tied to the idea that a woman's worth is tied up in her virginity, which is a concept born from the patriarchal ownership of women. Sexualization is only degrading to property because it reduces the value of the property. Anyone who claims they don't see women as property but that sexualization does degrade women is incredibly confused.
The sexualization is not a problem on its own the objectification that often comes along with it is as well as the "unspoken" rule that only allows conventionally attractive people to be viewed in a sexual context.
People don't lose their personhood by being, acting or shown in a sexual context but many do absolutely not view it that way.
The problem i see is that since this mostly happens in visual media without context all meaning it could have is more often than not lost. If sexual content was created with a positive attitude we would see much more diversity. It is very obvious that it caters to people objectifying the protagonists and therefore its not that easy to blatantly approve of it.
This should off course not translate to shaming people in general but it should trigger nuanced debate and action.
Then you shame the prudes for their prudery and exclude them from society. You don't cave to them and stop showing sex as being a part of normal life.
That's only a problem for you if you're still clinging to those Bronze Age goat herders and their fucked up view of sex created to make it easier to justify treating women as property. Literally every idea about sex that treats it as some special area of human activity that is magical and different from everything else is descended from that one line of bullshit.
The point I’m trying to make isn’t about sexualization of women in and off itself. Woman have the right to celebrate their sexuality and there’s plenty of nutjobs that still haven’t come to terms with the sexual revolution.
But what I’m referring to is the hypersexualization of women present in things like adverts, music or film. Prior to the MeToo movement you couldn’t walk a block without spotting an highly revealing or highly suggestive advert of a woman.
Back in the sixtees, the sexualization of women served to promote ideas about the sexual revolution, bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. But decades of commercialization have reduced these ideas simply to “sex sells”.
The thing that makes the hypersexualization of women degrading imo is that it reduces women to a subject of lust, while deflecting any criticism under the pretends that women should be free to express their sexuality.
The goat fucking child sellers who invented purity culture are laughing through time at you still internalizing their bullshit 5000 years later.