As in, the laws of grammar are not the laws of biology. So your argument is wind.

It makes sense to call the patriarchy out for constructing you as a sexual “object.”

But you are a “sexual object” – among many other things. We all are – from sexual maturation until death, pretty much.

Robert–I didn’t say sexual “being,” I said “sexual object.” As in “object” as opposed to “subject.” A woman who is participating in “that great game” is ideally the subject of her own sexuality, not the object of someone else’s. If I treat you as a sexual subject, then I am treating you as a sexual human being with desires, dignity, hang-ups, etc. In other words, like a person. If I treat you like a sexual object, then I’m treating you as a thing–a passive recipient for my sexual subjectivity.

Just like in grammer–the subject actively “does” the sexuality, and the object passively has the sexuality done to it. Under those terms, (which are what most people mean when they refer to a sexual object as opposed to sexual subject) wouldn’t you agree that it’s healthier to be a subject–and to treat others as such–than an object?

Sexual objectification is something predominantly done by men to women.

What crap.

If we assume the definitions that I’m using above, and considering Playboy, Girls Gone Wild, etc., do you still find that statement to be, as you put it, “crap?” If so, could you tell us why?

But you are a “sexual object” – among many other things. We all are – from sexual maturation until death, pretty much. A few people choose to take themselves out of that great game (and society usually provides some signaling mechanism so that others can determine who’s not in play), but by and large, we are sexual objects.

The problem arises when we are treated ONLY as sexual objects – when the facet is read as the entire gem. And that has nothing to do with any ‘archies – it has to do with whether we as individuals choose to treat other human beings as human beings.

Sexual objectification is something predominantly done by men to women.

What crap.

Now, THAT, I’d wear on a T-shirt.

it makes sense to stop dressing like a sexual object.

No. It makes sense to call the patriarchy out for constructing you as a sexual “object.” Sexual objectification is something predominantly done by men to women. It is not the woman’s fault when she is objectified any more than it is when she gets sexually harrassed.

[That is] a continuation of the patriarchal demand that women rewrite their lives around avoiding the problems men cause them

Hell, yes. If a guy yells “Hey baaaybee! Wanna Fuck!?” at a woman on a sidewalk, it is not her fault for “dressing immodestly.” It is his fault for “acting like a flaming asshole.”

Lastly, for the father [eds. note--that's me] who is opposed to sexualized clothing for his pre-teen to claim that it has nothing to do with his desiring her to be modest . . . what???? Has “modest” become a loaded, bad word?

Unfortunately, to a certain extent, yes. Words are always freighted with the meaning they currently have in cultural discourse. Were “modest” currently being used to mean not bragging, not self-aggrandizing, and generally avoiding hubris, I’d have no problem saying that I desire my daughter to be “modest.” Unfortunately, that word, as it has been taken up by the “Girls Gone Mild” crowd, apparently means repressing your sexuality and hiding your (female) body as if there were something wrong with being a (female) sexual human being. [Where the hell are there "got shame" mousepads for boys?] If they use “modesty” as just one more tool to control women’s bodies in the service of patriarchy, then no, I don’t want my daughter to be “modest.”

Are you serious when you say that your biggest objection is that corporations are making money off this line of clothing?

I didn’t say that. I said:

The problem is that coporations are conspiring with the Patriarchatron to teach pre-teens that they are sexualized objects for the visual/physical pleasure and consumption of men. The girls are trained to be sex objects before they’ve really developed their own sexuality.

…and that was the follow up to my statement that “left to their own devices, they wouldn’t do it.” by “The problem” I meant not “that which bothers me,” but “that which explains why this is happening.”

Maybe I’m being naive but I can’t imagine that many parents are going out buying clothes that scream “do me” for their 12 year old kids without the kids lobbying for it.

No–I agree with you. But the kids lobby for what they see advertised. Kids swimming in popular culture absorb what the corporations have to sell. And Seventeen magazine, Victoria’s Secret, whatever, all make money by selling certain portrayals of womens/girls sexuality to pre-teen girls. Again, the girls are being sold patriarchal ideas of what sexuality is before they’ve really developed their own ideas of what sexuality is.

I think if the corporate-sponsored images were all about empowerment and authentic sexuality and believing that you are sexually alive whether or not boys see you as a sexbot, kids would be free to develop much healthier ideas about sexuality.

I think you ay be reading too much sinister motive into this. Rather than an at of will I think it’s much more an unintended consequence of the culture.

Do the people who market these images to girls sit up at night, rubbing their hands and muttering, “How can I steal girls’ authority over their own sexuality, Withers?…I know! I’ll tell them that they only have sexual value if they can get boys to leer at them!”

No. But do they place the profit motive ahead of any concern for girls developing a healthy and self-empowering sexuality? Yes. The people who get paid to market stuff get paid really goddamn well for their ability to get inside the heads of kids and make them do shit they wouldn’t do if left to their own devices. Like putting candy next to the checkout line so that when the parents are trapped in line, their kid will whine for candy and they’ll fork over the dough just to get their kid to shut up. Hell, there’s a famous article that quotes a marketer bragging that she’s catalouged 7 different kinds of whine, and that provoking each one can make parents buy their kids different goods in different situations.

So I don’t think it’s an unintended consequence of the culture–any more than Camel marketing cigs to pre-teens is.

Anyway, Hugo has a great post on this topic, especially the question of male responsibility for objectifying women/girls.

If women wish to be seen as having value beyond their sexual appeal, and I think this is the position of those of us who are feminists, no?? then it makes sense to stop dressing like a sexual object.

No, it doesn’t. Not only is that a continuation of the patriarchal demand that women rewrite their lives around avoiding the problems men cause them, but it also suggests that value beyond sex appeal requires that sex appeal be given up in order to have any other value.

Objectification is not achieved in how one dresses, but by how one is perceived by others. It is better to attack this at its source, by demanding to be taken seriously even when you happen to be dressed “immodestly.” Attack the people who reduce you to your sex appeal, not the sex appeal itself. Attack the idea that if someone has lots of skin showing, that makes it acceptable to dismiss all other aspects of them.

I don’t show skin to be seen as sexy. I show skin to feel comfortable, and beautiful, and confident. I should not have to trade any of this for other people to see me as a person, and if someone decides to judge me by my covering, that is their problem, not mine.

Certainly I’m not going to cover myself up for the approval of Wendy Shalit and her ilk, any more than I’m going to pose naked on the cover of Vanity Fair for the approval of Tom Ford and his ilk. If I do either, or anything in between, it will be for my comfort, my self-expression, my opinion of how I should look. And everyone else can direct their eyes where they please, and fuck off.

In other news:
Well said, Kyra. *applause, applause* There is such a thing as *fitted* clothing these days (as opposed to the 1980s, for instance), and that does tend to reveal one’s shape. And that is not a bad thing, especially for larger, curvier women (“semi-fitted” is the kiss of death for us round chicks). I think that Malachi person was just a random troll trying to stir up rage, etc. It worked.

Men don’t respect women who dress like sluts. They have sex with them, they pay them, but they don’t respect them. The ones (girls) who think wearing tight clothes is attractive are not respected at all, since they don’t even have the guts to respect themselves. They might look sexy, but that’s all there is there.

What, all men are such jerks as to use a woman’s wardrobe as an excuse to treat her less than human? Empowerment is (among other things) being able to wear whatever one pleases and still be taken seriously.

And what the hell? “The ones wearing tight clothes don’t even have the guts to respect themselves”?! A) I wear tight clothes when I feel like it and I do respect myself, thank you very much, and B) I think the ones who embrace/endorse modesty as a means to respect from others lack the self-respect to realize that they’re entitled to respect no matter what they’re wearing.

I really wish this culture wasn’t so pervasive about equating female bodies with sex, to the exclusion of everything else. I want to be able to walk around topless when it’s ninety degrees out, and have it understood by all and sundry that I do so because it’s hot out, not because I’m feeling exhibitionistic. It’s my body; what I feel is a hell of a lot more important than what other people see.

I think it’s more about telling women that if they’re sexual harrassed it’s their fault for not dressing modestly enough. And yeah, I don’t understand how they think a coffee mug with a blushing cow on it is likely to prevent it in any way.