Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Rachel Marie Stone

Home
Progressive Christian
Why It Matters Whether a Toy is Thin and Sexy (Or Not)

Why It Matters Whether a Toy is Thin and Sexy (Or Not)

Last updated on: June 19, 2012 at 6:00 am by Rachel Marie Stone

Why It Matters Whether a Toy is Thin and Sexy (Or Not) 2012-06-19T06:00:20-04:00 Rachel Marie Stone

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

So the ‘thinner-and-sexier evolution’ series is kind of winding down, as there are (thankfully, I think?) only a limited number of consumer products that have been around long enough so as to be able to undergo some kind of thin-and-sexy transformation. Besides, at this point, it’s kind of ‘clicked there, browsed that,’ you know? Especially since every toy’s/image’s transformation does some basic variation on the theme of “thin down and sex up.”

Call it the Barbiefication of toys for girls.

Or, you could call it what the American Psychological Association does, which is sexualization. Sexualization, as opposed to healthy sexuality, is defined (by the APA) as any one of the following:

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. (especially relevant to

As usual, a picture makes things clearer: what if all the Avengers posed like the female one?

This brilliant artistic experiment demonstrates just how pervasive images portraying females as sexually available objects are, such that when we see men posing in ways that signify sexual objectification, it looks strange.

The APA task force writes:

“In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.“

Sexualization is damaging, really damaging, in a number of ways. Namely, it

has been repeatedly shown to detract from the ability to concentrate and focus one’s attention, thus leading to impaired performance on mental activities such as mathematical computations or logical reasoning
has repeatedly been linked with three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression or depressed mood
has negative consequences in terms of girls’ ability to develop healthy sexuality.
makes it difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or to fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner as a result of over exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attractiveness.

The APA has a number of recommendations–you can read the report here if you like–but one thing they mention kind of stuck with me in relationship to what churches can do/have done:

“encourage girls to become activists who speak out and develop their own alternatives.”

As I’ve said before, many of the messages given to young girls in evangelical churches–at least in my experience–encourage passivity, whether muted or outright. So Ruth, in the Old Testament, is not a story about a courageous woman sticking by her destitute mother-in-law, working hard, and making things happen so that “Mara” (bitterness) can be “Naomi” (pleasantness) again, it’s about Ruth’s wonderful feminine qualities in waiting for Boaz’s male leadership.

“someday my Prince will come”

(I’ve seen this in a number of places–namely, in this book, this one, and this one, and in the now-defunct Brio magazine from Focus on the Family.)

While these discourses emphasize ‘purity’ and, in so doing, do something to resist sexualization, I worry that the fear some evangelicals have of being “too feminist” actually means that they acquiesce to the broader culture’s objectification of women by insisting on a female passivity that’s

JUST. NOT. THERE. in the Bible they claim to revere.

Ruth’s a kick-butt type of lady. So’s Jael, so’s Rahab, so’s Tamar, so’s Deborah, so are number of others.

So here are my questions:

have evangelical churches offered a coherent alternative to the objectification of girls prevalent in American culture?
(because even where they’ve resisted sexualization–at least, sexualization outside marriage–they’ve emphasized passivity in that sphere?)
Is it possible to do so while continuing (as some do) to insist upon women’s subordination to men in the church?
what can churches, families, and individuals do to resist messages of sexualization?

Uncategorized

American Psychological Association

sexualization of girls

Tamar

Previous Post

June 18, 2012

“when women die in childbirth it is a violation of their rights.”

Next Post

June 20, 2012 The Writing Mama: What I Learned From My Kids (Part 1 of Many)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "health" activism agriculture animals anorexia Anticipating anxiety art autumn Baking beauty beer Bible Big Food binge eating blogging body image Books Bread of Life breastfeeding brokenness candy cartoons celebrity chefs children chocolate Classical Duckfaces Connecting consumption cooking creation care creativity current events death Dessert diabetes Dieting Eating Together Emotional Eating fair trade Faith Family Fannie Farmer fast food fat talk Films Food Food Policy formula feeding Gardening gluten free Grace gratitude guest posts guilt HIV/AIDS holiday hospitality housekeeping Jesus Joy just for fun Justice kindness Local media moment of joy north fork, long island OI parties personal pharmaceuticals photo photography plumpy'nut popular culture poverty pregnancy Preserving real food recipes rest restaurants School Food Seasons spring starvation summer Table Talk taste television theology travel Tuesdays With Fannie Uncategorized winter

Select a Month April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 August 2014 May 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was stoned to death for preaching about Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James Paul Peter Stephen