In short: sexualization is performance; it’s all about being desirable to others. Sexuality is understanding and connecting to your own desire.
At the reading, Orenstein shared this passage from Cinderella Ate My Daughter:
Let me be clear here: I object– strenuously– to the sexualization of girls but not necessarily to girls having sex. I expect and want my daughter to have a healthy, joyous erotic life before marriage. Long, long, long before marriage. I do, however, want her to understand why she’s doing it: not for someone else’s enjoyment, not to keep a boyfriend from leaving, not because everyone else is. I want her to explore and understand her body’s responses, her own pleasure, her own desire. I want her to be able to express her needs in a relationship, to say no when she needs to, to value reciprocity, and to experience true intimacy. The virgin/ whore cycle of the pop princesses, like so much of the girlie girl culture, pushes in the opposite direction, encouraging girls to view self-objectification as a feminist rite of passage.
This distinction between sexuality and sexualization is not made often enough. If you’re against the sexualization of girls, it’s often concluded that you’re somehow anti-sex, on the same team with Phyllis Schlafly or a fan of “traditional family values.” The political agenda to promote healthy sexuality is actually the opposite and must include access to contraception for all women, sex education in schools, and full reproductive rights.
This is such an important point from Margot Magowan and Peggy Orenstein – a point I have also been arguing – and it is where people like Melinda Tankard Reist really let the discussion down here in Australia.
Exactly.
Yes, this. Although MTR, who I believe to be christian but I won’t speculate😉, may believe in saving yourself for marriage which could be why she doesn’t make the distinction. Although, even if you do believe in the sanctity of marriage you could still say ‘I want her to be able to express her needs in a relationship, to say no when she needs to, to value reciprocity, and to experience true intimacy.’
Queer male here who works in sexual and reproductive health… I think it’s ceding too much to say that sexualisation refers to other people. I’m not a complete believer in Freud and Lacan — there’s just too much sexist bullshit to jump in with both feet — but Lacan made one point that resonates with me: our ego is constructed in the gaze of an imagined Other. That sounds really wanky, I know, but a synonym for development is socialisation, and that’s making almost exactly the same point: we learn our selves, our identities, from our social interactions and in relation to society. So sexuality inherently involves the gaze and influences of others; it doesn’t come from some pure and wholly individual wellspring within us. ‘Sexualisation’ is what some feminists and conservatives use to imply that women aren’t really expressing their sexuality when those women make choices of which they disapprove; instead they are cultural dupes, acting out the will of others! I wouldn’t dignify it by setting it up as the valid opposite of sexuality.
I take your point in that a certain part of our sexuality is ‘the gaze’ and our sense of being desireable and even enjoying the performance of ‘sexy’ for others… but I’ve got two big issues with your comment:
1) did you read the links? this post and the articles I linked to are about how there is a big difference between being opposed to the sexualisation of girls and being opposed to their sexuality. This whole post is about supporting girls in the expression and exploration and ownership of their sexuality as an experience apart from the sexualisation we impose upon them – in fact, defending them and their sexuality. It is NOT about straw feminists shutting down ‘the sexy’ or anyone’s ‘right to be sexy’.
And, 2) this whole topic is about the sexualisation of LITTLE GIRLS, which is a very different topic to “those women” about whom you are speaking.
You might like to consider some specific examples before you decide that all the ‘sexualisation of little girls’ is a wonderfully valid, culturally sophisticated, willingly adopted, free expression of their sexual selves – check my archives under the “bratz hatred” category for a bunch of examples. And maybe, you could ask some girls or women what it was like to be sexualised growing up and how they feel about it.
Yes, I did. I don’t think you understood my comment. I’m going to leave you to it.
Yes, absolutely.
I’m so tired of being viewed as somehow ‘anti-sex’ if I speak out against mainstream pornography, the sexualisation of little girls and the objectification of women.
I don’t even believe those things are about genuine enjoyment of sex for anybody anyway. They are about male expressions of dominance which is an entirely different matter.
I love sex, I have a high drive, and I enjoy feeling, and being found, sexy. I would want those same things for my daughter when the time is right for her.
What I don’t love is sex being used as a tool of oppression. Why can’t people see the difference?
Love your comment.
I think that a lot of people who are against the sexualization of girls and just the over sexualization of women in general ARE the ones who highly value sex and sexuality and understand all the good there is to it – which is why we don’t want it turned into something degrading, control oriented, or something used as a selling tool.
I can only enjoy my sexuality separate from all the negative messages I have received about it. And that can be difficult. We leave girls and women with a lot to sort through related to their sexuality in a culture like the one we have. And on top of that, there is the affect those messages have on men and their expectations in sexual relationships and their understanding and appreciation of healthy sexuality in women (and themselves) as well.
[…] There is a difference between sexualising and sexuality, you ask? […]
[…] This is such an important point from Margot Magowan and Peggy Orenstein – a point I have also been arguing – and it is where people like Melinda Tankard Reist really let the discussion down here in Australia. Original story here. […]
That whole section spoke to me so deeply when I read CAMD. Especially teaching girls to value their own pleasure, to find pleasure in their own bodies, not externalize it. That’s a lesson that was very hard for me to learn and took a ton of therapy and a really patient, loving partner.
[…] Blue Milk, a discussion about Peggy’s Orenstein’s account of the difference between sexuality and […]
[…] blue milk highlights the debate between the difference between sexualising and sexual […]
[…] can find it in my archives under ‘Bratz hatred’, for example – here, here, here, here and […]