I have come to conclude that the way our culture objectifies women promotes autosexuality in women, who come to view themselves as objects, and also nurtures same-sex fantasies as such women similarly objectify other females, and come to sexualize their bodies through admiration and/or envy.
I myself have not thoroughly researched autosexuality, and am by no means well-read on the topic--this is but a theory in my head. However, I do recall reading quite some time ago an article on same-sex relations in ancient Greece, and how the cultural glorifications of the male body played a role.
But really, this was quite clear to me even in high school, when girls would proudly proclaim that they would "go lesbian for Britney." I interpret this as admiring/wanting Britney's sex appeal to such an extent that fantasy of Brit sets in.
Now, this is not to say that women do not already experience natural and healthy attractions to other women, nor am I suggesting that no woman would want Britney otherwise--but I do suspect that western perceptions of the role of women and the objectification of female bodies further promotes same-sex fantasy among women.
Think about it: women are buying the Cosmos and Vogues with other women scantily-clad on the covers. As women are socially programmed to view themselves as objects of desire, they own that role (dieting, primping, tanning, waxing) and therefore buy into a particular view of themselves.
As a person longs to be an object, she strives to wreak of sex, and in doing so, evaluates her own sexual appeal, develops and applauds it, in such a way that she sexualizes herself, to herself. This is the autosexual aspect.
But it really goes a step further in looking at other women. This same person who forms sexual attractions to herself as an object (because she aspires to be the object for others, generally men), also sexualizes surrounding objects (a.k.a. women), and in desiring similar features, becomes physically drawn to these women.
This is my first time attempting to articulate these thoughts, and so this post remains ill-articulated and ill-researched. More to come in the future, I am sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Don't be so critical - your assessment is not ill-articulated! I get what you're saying and I think you make some excellent, accurate points.
A perfect example of your claims? Sorority recruiment. Women united under the banner of a social/philanthropic/collegiate organization seeking to enrich their membership with other attractive (and presumably accomplished, charming, etc...) women. Women seeking to join sororities are encouraged to "look their best," primp and embody class/beauty. Current sorority members want these other, beautiful girls to join their ranks so that the beauty & poise of new members reflects on themselves... Here is the autosexuality you speak of. Although plenty will argue that beauty is secondary to all other qualities, we all know that's not the case. I agree with your argument that this autosexuality can be manifest in sexual desire for the self and for others. Anecdoctal evidence of many of these self-proclaimed straight women "making out" with other self-proclaimed straight women at fraternity parties or other social situations may serve to reinforce your point.
Kudos, I really liked this post!
Way interesting, keep going (and I might try to research and jump in).
Though, kel, I disagree with the fraternity party example, because I think that's more of a performance to attract male attention than actual attraction to females.
Again, brilliant post... these ideas had never entered my male-centric head!! fascinating stuff :)
Really nice theory.
I would like to ask one thing: don't you think same could be apllied on males as well? I mean, check out the covers of Men's Health magazine, or just search for images of men wearing UnderArmour garments (there are groups on flickr on that topic as well). Those guys are about streght mostly, but isn't that a male's beauty? And who really needs that much physical strenght at times when most hard work is done by machines, after all?
Post a Comment