Let's Clear Up Some Doubts

The Difference Between Sexual Liberation and Sexual Objectification

AGENCY.

This three-syllable word can help us understand the difference between sexual liberation and objectification, but it’s not that easy. This is a pretty nuanced matter so it requires some solid and backed-up-by-examples kind of explaining.

So let’s start with definitions. I like the Urban Dictionary version, which defines ‘sexual liberation’ as the ability to enjoy sexual activities without guilt or shame. I’ll go one step further and describe it as the idea that sex should be enjoyed on one’s own terms and knowing that your own desires are worth just as much as the opposite person’s. This term is generally applied to women, because the Sexual Liberation Movement focused on telling women that their sexual desires must be fulfilled, and that they shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed about pre-marital sex. The whole point of the movement is to make people realise that female orgasms do exist and should be a mandatory part of heterosexual… well, sex.

But let’s not forget the other members of the gender spectrum. The two-worded term applies to everyone with sexual desires (or lack thereof) reminding them that the only moral rule in sex is that it be consensual. Thus, sexual liberation serves to remind people that sex is empowering because it gives you the choice to partake or not.  

Onto sexual objectification then. It’s basically the idea that people can be viewed and used solely as instruments of sexual pleasure. It strips someone of their personhood, and presents them as a commodity to be used for sexual fulfilment. Going back to the theme of consent, I’d like to point out that it’s never one’s choice to be sexually objectified and that sexual objectification takes away the person’s power over themselves because they are viewed as a commodity. It’s rather tragic that whilst the Sexual Liberation Movement served to remind women of their sexual desires, sexual objectification ensured that women will simultaneously be reduced to their simply sexual desires. Or, to put it more accurately, women will be reduced to instruments for MEN’S sexual fulfilment. And if a woman is unable to fulfil a man’s sexual desires, well then, she’s not really a woman.

Of course, this mentality isn’t universal. It’s obviously not an absolute situation in society. It’s not even necessarily the biggest of global issues. But it’s just enough of an issue that sexual liberation and sexual objectification are discordantly portrayed in all of our films. It’s just enough of an issue that leaking nudes can be used a tool to obtain fame and feel shame. And it’s just enough of an issue that people are still questioning the difference between objectification and liberation.  

There were two situations in my life which I present as the times where, first, I questioned and, in the second instance,  understood the difference between liberation and objectification.

When comet scientist Dr Matt Taylor appeared on TV wearing a T-shirt with scantily dressed cartoon women, I had for the first time, albeit unknowingly, questioned the difference. I did not have a personal opinion on it, because I had not seen the shirt or his speech and had never even heard of him. I read heated debates on Tumblr, feminists arguing about sexism and everyone else defending the man’s freedom of choice and his scientific achievement.

Here’s the thing; you are allowed to look at the situation with both perspectives, but the fact remains that the shirt was indeed sexist. It presented the fictional female as sexy because she had conventionally attractive features and was dressed to accentuate it. She was presented through the ‘male gaze’ since the character was not portrayed as having any other personality trait apart from being attractive. It doesn’t matter that the designer of the shirt was female, because it doesn’t negate the fact that the shirt presented a female in a sexual manner, with no question of consent as it is a fictional character. The man’s scientific achievement does not excuse the fact that being on live television meant that his shirt was bound to receive criticism as it was at a public event. I’m not trying to persecute Dr Matt Taylor, he gracefully apologised for the act and I believe that it was not intentional to cause offence.

The second time I witnessed sexual objectification, I understood it quite thoroughly. On BBC Parliament a petition, against a dress-code that made high heels mandatory for women, was being presented. Most notably, the three young women on the first witness panel were each asked the question “Why do you think an employer would want you to wear high-heels?”. The British Airways hostess promptly replied with a concise “My employer would want me to wear high heels for the same reason as I would, but I find it inappropriate that they have the right to force me to wear it.”

Cases like these make it abundantly clear that sexual objectification and liberation can be so easily confused. A person wearing clothing of their choice is sexual liberation because they have the power to wear that piece of clothing on their own terms. It turns into objectification when the person wearing the piece of clothing doesn’t have the power to choose what they wear or isn’t allowed to feel comfortable with what they wear because they are bound to be judged negatively.

It’s one thing to disagree with neon hot pants because they’re an atrocious shade of fluorescent. But it’s unacceptable to disagree with neon hot pants because they’re hot pants and they seem “sexual”.

Even as I write this article, I find myself second guessing my statements. Am I reading into every little detail, the resonances of which are arguably insignificant? But the truth is, only by questioning ourselves can reach a true conclusion, and erase all the ingrained misconceptions fed to us by our surroundings.

The only way to reduce sexual objectification of people (women in particular) in media is by showing a diverse range of female characters, whose sex appeal doesn’t depend entirely on their figure or clothing, but rather on their personality, as is usually common for male characters. When we present diversity, we create an environment where a variety of tastes are accepted, and people of all classes, races, religions, heights, weights, professions, etc. are viewed as attractive. It’s highly unfair that movie villains undergo complex character development and are presented with complicated backstory whilst common characters such as The Mother or The Girlfriend remain one-dimensional and are side-lined.

To put power of someone’s personhood in someone else’s mind or hands only opens them up to a world where they can lose their sense of self. But, I guess this is the subconscious effort made by all of society, to distance one from the self. The Sexual Liberation vs. Sexual Objectification debate is one of the many ways in which this distancing manifests itself