jayandsilentboob:

girlsarestrong:

Trigger warning: sexual violence

latinosexuality:

isaywesay:

1. Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person’s body?

BMW

2. Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object?

Four Loko

3. Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable? 

Mercedes Benz

4. Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person who can’t consent?

Duncan Quinn

5. Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person? 

American Apparel

6. Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity that can be bought and sold?

Red Tape Shoes

what bodies are considered sexual and consumable? what do you notice about shape, size, color, ability, etc.? go deeper w/these images and think abt what ADDITIONAL messages they send us.

“think about what ADDITIONAL messages they send us” is key. someone seriously tried telling me that the sexual objectification in ads aren’t mostly with women (yes they clearly are, though?) and that men are objectified too!!11!!111!!1!!!… and i wasn’t sure whether i wanted to laugh or cry. her argument was that she’s seen fashion ads with half naked men. but here’s the difference: a picture of a naked person by themselves is much, much different than a picture of a naked person with a car magazine over their face. or just their boobs showing. or all these fucking stupid little innuendo phrases like “now open”. also, look at the role of men in those few ads above. i don’t think objectification is solely about a naked body. it’s about everything in the ad working together to send a specific message about those bodies.

when it comes to half naked men in fashion ads, all i’ve fucking seen are shirtless dudes in black and white, usually by themselves, with the fashion logo underneath them. so no, it’s not the same fucking thing at all.

i like your words.