Talk:Sexualization/Archive 1

Archive 1

Re-definition

Please perceive this as a serious and determined request. I do not wish to accuse the actual contributor of the article that I dislike. Rather I seek to convince them of my correctness and I beg you to see the value of the changes I ask for. The definition is irrational because it presumes that sexuality is negative and only applied to the negative contest. Nothing in the description contains anything better than a subjective explaination of why it is negative. Sexualization is defined so that it is nothing but an argument for why all healthy sexual activity is negative.

I want a version of positive sexualization to be added to the negative. Objectively the following can be equally applied to a positive effect for the person being sexualized: sexualism refers both to negative usage and to positive sexuality. I believe that redefining would suit the mindset of everyday persons and in a broader perspective, suit reality better. Is there nothing about positive forms of heterosexuality or positive sexuality that includes heterosexuality? There are no positive terms or descriptions. This is proof that society (and all moral) is anti-sexualistic and anti-pleasure. Not becouse it is harmful but becouse it is sex.

"a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or sexual behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics; Motivation, just becouse other characteristics are limited to the sexual doesn't mean they doesn't exist. All behaviours in life can be seen as extension of sexual beheaviour. As an example; children and parents have a form of sexuality according to Freud. Several persons declair that all abilites are means to impress the opposite gender."

"a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy; People who see any meaning with sex other than a simple drug without substance usually agree that physical beauty is what sexy. That even leads partially outside actual sexual orientation."

"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;

All people are objects in one's mind, all people see other people as extensions of their own expectations and opinions. Society is based on the idea that people cannot make independent decisions, the same applies to all forms of friendship or family. This is a healthy requirement. Without this we would not be able to feel the impulse to convince other individuals, nor would we be able to imagine other people to do what we desire that they do even in our minds. It would be impossible to fall in love or connect through sex if we did not see sexually attractive persons as an extension of ourself. Therefore this logic is corrupted by a fear for relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.211.245.152 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

This article is not about sexuality in general. The term sexualization is not the same as sexualism or sexuality. The use of the term “sexualization” in the literature cited in this article is specifically about negative imposition of sexuality. This is in no way saying that sexuality is negative, just that there are ways in which the imposition of sexuality is harmful and that the term “sexualization” is used to refer to those negative ways.

In a related example, rape is a negative forcing or coercion of participation in sexual intercourse. To cite rape as being negative does not mean that sexual intercourse is negative, it means that the term rape refers specifically to a negative application of sexual intercourse.

If you have citations for non-negative uses of sexualization, please identify them and expand the article appropriately. Having never seen any use of the term outside of the negative contexts described in the article, I am doubtful that you will find such citations. Too clarify my own position: I am in no way anti-sex. I am opposed to the harmful application of sex and sexuality, but I support the embracing of healthy, consensual, sexuality for anyone who chooses it. —GrantNeufeld 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference to definition without negative connotations: Apparently, "sexualization" can also mean: To make sexual in character or quality. This definition came from "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition" copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. I found it here. This definition carries no negative connotations. Those who compile dictionaries do not create the definitions arbitrarily: they compile different uses of a word in books, magazines, and other available writings that reflect how people are speaking and using the word at that time. Then they write the definition(s) based on how people are using the word.

There is nothing wrong with the APA definition given, if that is how they use the word. It might be worth recognizing that they are not the only ones using the word, and that their definition is not gospel. They do not control how the populace at large uses words. Colloquially the word is being used to mean something slightly different, without negative connotation.

It is quite common for a word to be used to mean something very specific to a profession, but to have a somewhat different meaning in colloquial usage. Usually, such a word is called a "term of art". As an example, the word "infant" is colloquially used to refer to a very young child who has not learned to walk or talk (<1 year old). In legal terminology in the U.S., an "infant" is someone under 18 years of age.

I would recommend that someone edit the entry to reflect this definition. I don't think that the APA definition should be removed, though, unless it does not accurately reflect how the APA uses the word. I am in no way affiliated with original poster of the objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.75.225 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned, I understand what you're saying and probably would agree in principle, but in practice the term is usually used in a negative context. The latin suffix "-ize" or "-ized" implies some sort of identification or stereotyping in an exaggerated and often negative way. Some examples of what might be considered "positive" sexualization for boys might be exposing an adolescent boy to (presumably positive) stereotypes of masculinity (and femininty) in traditionally male occupations like the military or domestic occupations like law enforcement, firefighting, construction, etc, or in sports (amateur or professional), especially at the high school level with male teams and female cheerleaders, and for girls exposure to the numerous fairy tales and legends about handsome princes saving (and marrying) pretty, chaste princesses, and participation in sports and activities which are stereotypically engaged in by girls (cheerleading, for example). This might more accurately though be seen as a kind of sexual imprinting, which is referred to in a Wikipedia entry (Imprinting (psychology)) that probably should be linked to if one wants to explore that angle. By the way, as I'm finishing typing this paragraph I have to think of so many instances where I've heard criticisms of sports and sexual stereotyping especially where it relates to high school and younger (mostly male) athletes and (female) cheerleaders, but I think this still stands as a good example even more so because of that criticism, because as much complaining there has been about them over the decades there are few examples one can find of serious efforts to eliminate all-male sports teams altogether or seriously go for some sort of male-female parity on cheerleading squads, though debates over emphasis, funding, and student conduct are perennial. southern students for choice - abilene (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue on the side of including a definition of the word sexualization that is not negative (i.e. the one referred to above in the dictionary). Colloquially and in writing, I use the word to mean the process that we human beings go through that transforms us from children, uninterested in sex, into adults who seek healthy, intimate sexual relationships. When natural and unforced, the process includes puberty and is well underway during the teenage years. The APAs definition concerns itself with inappropriate sexualization, but the process happens even in healthy people during a normal transformation into an adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.227 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Moral panic

On May 16, 2007, Peter G Werner added a link to moral panic in the 'See also' section of this article. This appears to me to contradict WP:NPOV. I suggest that either an appropriate citation(s) be provided that provide some sort of link between the subject of the article and “Moral panic”, and that it be placed in a “Controversies” section of the article, or that the link be removed if its relationship to the subject cannot be substantiated. —GrantNeufeld 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerated fear of what is seen as premature sexualization of girls has been criticized as a kind of moral panic. It's true, however, that this criticism needs to be fleshed out, cited and clearly stated who's making this critique, and worked into the text of the article. Iamcuriousblue 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A good example of a writer who might take this position of fear of "sexualization" having some qualities of a moral panic would be Judith Levine in her book "Harmful to Minors". However Judith and many other feminists would also strongly take the position that sexualization and sexual content can be very harmful when mixed with violent imagery or sex-role stereotypes which depict women as victims necessairly needing men, for example, to rescue them, or mixing commercialism and sexuality, e.g. using sex (even implied sexual imagery, especially where adolescents or children are involved) to sell products. I'm not really sure how best to cite her book as an example here, so I just wanted to mention it, and I'll also suggest that someone does want to cite her or her book in this context should probably at least read it first. southern students for choice - abilene (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge from sexualization of children

I did not see see a topic for this, but someone has tagged this article with a merge proposal to child sexuality. I noticed that there was a section here about this too, so I also tagged a merge proposal for here. Probably, if it doesn't retain a discrete article then the content from it can be merged into both articles, but I think since the topic is 'sexualization' that this article would contain the majority of the information. I will also post merge info on that other talk page too though. Tyciol (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexualization

I've seen the term homosexualization being used by critics of the gay liberation movement. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant, but it exists anyway. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

“Premature” sexualization

Ewawer modified the sentence “For girls and young women in particular, studies have found that sexualization has a negative impact on their “self-image and healthy development”.” to include the word “premature” before the word “sexualization”. The referenced citation does not refer to “premature sexualization” it refers to the harmful effects that sexualization has on women and girls. If Ewawer believes otherwise, please provide a suitable citation. Until then, the text should stand without the addition of the word “premature”.

The cited work[6] — the American Psychological Association report which serves as the most prominent reference for this article — does not use the term “sexualization“ in a way that would indicate that it is appropriate at some point in a woman’s life (if that was the case then the use of “premature” would be appropriate).

Not to be confused with the term “sexuality”, which can be a positive or negative thing, the report explicitly identifies “sexualization” as a negative thing, regardless of age, and goes into detail regarding negative impacts of sexualization on the development of girls and young women. Which is not to say that sexualization doesn’t also have negative impacts on the development of adult and senior women, or on males of any age — just that the portion of the report being discussed, in the part of this Wikipedia article I’m talking about here, was specifically looking at impacts on girls and young women.

—GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The source referred to deals with girls and young women and the negative impact that sexualisation has on them. But there is always a point at which a person become sexualised without external influences. At that point the person must be seen as sexualised, perhaps by the normal maturation process. Ewawer (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The meaning you are applying to the term “sexualized” is not the meaning of the word as used by the APA report (nor the meaning I have seen in any of the literature). The term that would match the meaning you intend to convey is “sexual” — not the term “sexualized”. Those may look like similar words, but their meanings are substantially different. It is true that the vast majority of humans become sexual as they mature (although asexuals are often exceptions), but it would be far from true to say that humans necessarily become sexualized as they mature. There are (sadly, quite rare) cultures and communities that do not engage in sexualization. That does not mean they are not sexual, just that they do not put people into the role of “sexual object”. If my explanation still does not make the distinction between “sexual” and “sexualized” (or “sexualization”) clear for you, please take some time to read the APA report in more detail, as well as some of the literature on feminist theory, gender studies, queer theory and such. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added three new sections to the page - Popular Books, Reports and Cultural Studies Work on Sexualization. —User:feonaattwood (talk)—17:58, 1 November 2009 (GMT)

I have added some further reading - Attwood-Paasonen. User:feonaattwood (talk) 12.16, 9 November 2009 (GMT)

List of edits 1 March 2013

• Name change, separated from Sexualization (as of human sexuality) meaning & did redirects.
• Moved original introduction to new 'criticism of' (as this is clearly what it is).
• Added politics & categories.
• Did a tidy on the referencing.
• Work still needed.

The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest having "sexualization" be a disambiguation page, with links to both the political term, and the article on human sexuality. Shrewmania (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

20 March rewrite

The rewrite was essentially just a commentary on a single source, a European Parliament draft resolution on the sexualisation of girls and women. FiachraByrne reverted this rewrite because "that is not what an encyclopaedia article is", and I agree with that. An encyclopaedia article discusses material from many, primarily secondary, sources.

In addition, the amount of material quoted from the draft report meant that it was very likely a copyright violation and I was about to revert for that reason had FiachraByrne not got there first. There appears to be no explicit copyright statement attached to the draft report (and so would default to copyrighted in the absence of a specific statement otherwise). The general provision for documents of the European Parliament seems to be "As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union [...] is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged." [7]. This is not compatible with Wikipedia's cc-by-sa license. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FiachraByrne and Thryduulf on this, and it was me who first expressed concern about the rewrite. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexualization of men

Hunk, beefcake, man-meat...all common terms used to sexualize and belittle men, characterize them as nothing more than sex objects for women to use to get their clam-jollies (don't laugh, or assume trolling...keep reading). Why is this article so gynocentric? I recommend adding a new section or better yet a complete overhaul to expose the very-real and frequent sexualization of men. As it stands, this article assumes the position that all culprits of sexualization are men and (as a man) I find that very offensive to my gender and completely erroneous. What about adult women (some of them teachers) who prey on young boys? They show up in court in a pretty dress and cry to the cameras about how they're "so sorry" and they "never meant to hurt anyone" and BOOM they get half the jail time or less than a man would get in the same position, usually even getting early parole as well. IT MAKES ME SICK. The feminist movement was supposed to make men and women equal in our society but in a lot of ways they're treated superior. Also, as a boy I was to exposed to cultural ideals of masculinity and male-body perfectionism. Movies, magazines, tv shows where the girl went for the muscle-bound jocks and left the nerds behind. Is their no acknowledgement that boys can also experience anxiety, shame and embarrassment at their inability to match what they're told women want? Even worse, the lack of material stating this FACT made me feel even more shameful. Thoughts of "boys shouldn't feel this way" and " I'm not normal" ran through my head, making me feel guilty of my shame and too scared to tell anyone for fear of being ostracized. Men and boys have feelings too, no matter how much they're told and/or tell themselves they don't. It's about time that public recognition accedes this. --Rpm2004 (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Whew someone mentioned it! This article is really one-sided. Sexualization of men is a big thing in media (and super ignored too), yet this "factual" article acts like it's only a women's issue. Super disappointing. Just another anon (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs or experiences. Since no sources on the sexualization of men have been put forward, I've removed the {{missing information}} tag at the top of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert made on 16 October 2013: Scope of the article

Reverted as the hat note clearly states - "This article is about sexualization as a political term. For sexualization as related to human sexuality, see human sexuality."

The opening passage was changed to a description of sexualization as it relates to human sexuality - that is not what this article is about. The article is about the way that the term is used politically (e.g. "The media is too sexualized."), and the numerous commissioned reports from governments around the world into sexualization of goods / media.

The opening definition: Sexualization (or sexualisation), is a derogatory term used by those opposed to it, in particular the way that it relates to women and girls. makes no claim that those opposed to sexualization of goods / media are correct in their assertion. In the same way a wiki article on communism or liberalism does not claim that either of those ideologies is correct either. The article contains a section which clearly criticises the way the term is used politically and the further reading section contains books and articles both for and against the use of the term.

Also the info box at the top which states, "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject." was put there when the tone of the article was, "Yeah, load of stupid reports - all of them wrong. Just moral panics really....." If there was any kind of agenda it came from that sentiment.--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The Vintage Feminist. There's not a lot more for me to elaborate on with regard to this matter, other than what was stated to you in the #20 March rewrite section above and what I stated to you in this and this edit summary. I changed the lead on September 30, 2013, seen here and here, after an edit by an IP who objected to the article's definition/scope. Since I came upon this article at the time of your March 20th rewrite, which was reverted, I have felt that this article needs a lot of work. There is no valid reason for it to be highjacked so that it is only about political use of the term sexualization. If the way the lead was worded before my change to it is the political definition, it is not the most common definition of the term (as shown by simply looking at dictionary sources). There is room for this article to cover all aspects of the term, as it should. A WP:Spinout article, such as Sexualization (political term), should only be created when needed. Perhaps Thryduulf, who weighed in on your March 20th rewrite, is interested in weighing in on this new discussion.

On a side note, I tweaked the heading of this section by removing the period and adding on ": Scope of the article" so that it is clearer what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read this article in a while so I'm not really familiar with it's current state. However I think it is incorrect to consider either the political term or the human sexuality topics as spinouts from other. They are two different concepts that happen to use similar language and both need full articles. In the #List of edits 1 March 2013 section above it was suggested by Shrewmania to have the article about the political term at different title and make Sexualization a dab page. Given this section, I think that this is a good idea. I'm not certain that "(political term)" is the best disambiguator, but other than "(term)" (which I'm equally unsure about) I can't immediately come up with an alternative. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Thryduulf for your sensible comments. The original article looked like this and the last version before I touched it, looked like this.

This article has always related to the numerous political campaigns that have coalesced into government reports and the article has never related to the linguistic derivative of the human sexuality (which is also a perfectly valid entry to Wikipedia), therefore it has not been "hijacked" by a "feminist agenda" in the slightest.

The opening sentence, which was randomly changed by an IP, is now completely at odds with the article below it. To say, Sexualization (or sexualisation), is a derogatory term used by those opposed to it, in particular the way that it relates to women and girls. makes no claim as whether those opposed to the phenomenon of sexualization are correct, only that they use the word in that sense, and then the article records that politically the concept has gained traction.

I agree that the article is a mess but it is a good deal less of a mess than before I touched it, particularly its references which broke all kinds of Wiki conventions. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussions or going very far into this article's edit history (as you have done), it is clear that this article has not always only been limited to "the political term." The American Psychological Association's definition, for example, which was included in this article then and now, doesn't define sexualization as narrowly as it was defined before my changes to the lead. So my version of the lead is not "completely at odds with the article below it." The European Parliament text is WP:Undue weight in the lead and should be removed from the lead (I don't claim that part as my version). Per WP:Content forking and WP:DABCONCEPT (the broad-concept rationale), this article should be an article covering all aspects of the term sexualization unless there is a need to have different articles with regard to what sexualization means or a disambiguation page for it. This is not a case where sexualization should be a disambiguation page. And like WP:Content forking states, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." So whether hijacked by you or someone else so that it is only or mostly about political use of the term sexualization, the article was indeed hijacked. Keeping it limited the way that it has been is undoubtedly going to result in more comments like the #Men can be sexualized comment above and what the aforementioned IP stated; there will undoubtedly be more actions like the IP's actions if this article's lead is limited the way that it was before my changes to it.

Someone who can help with this matter is BD2412, who deals with content forking/disambiguation matters (especially specifically disambiguation matters) often. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that only one article is needed, and that the concept of sexualization (social, commercial and political) can be thoroughly covered in such a space. I would add that assigning one gender the characteristic of being responsible for sexualization is itself a form of sexualization - i.e., to say that "members of this group generally think of others in sexual terms" is to generally think of members of that group in terms of a psychological sexual stereotype. That doesn't make the stereotype untrue, but it is certainly subject to the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone else who can help with this matter is Kevin Gorman, who deals specifically with demographic issues. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess right now; it may become apparent that a split is needed after it has been cleaned up, but I don't think one is necessary right now. I suspect a well-written article could represent all major viewpoints fairly and proportionately, including differences in how the scope of how sexualization is defined. This article should certainly not be merged with human sexuality as it apparently once was.

I would imagine everyone is already aware/onboard with this, but I would also point out that since NPOV is based off of the proportionality of viewpoints as presented in reliable sources, it is likely that a well-written Wikipedia article dealing with sexualization would appropriately place more emphasis on the sexualization of women than on the sexualization of men - the body of literature dealing with the sexualization of women by men and its effects is larger than that dealing with the opposite; we don't need to shoot for a sort of artificial parity. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, thank you for acknowledging WP:Neutral as a whole. Like I've stated before, too many editors at this site think that being WP:Neutral is about giving equality validity to matters; those editors seriously need to read and comprehend (or simply remember) the WP:Due weight and "giving equal validity" parts of WP:Neutral. Being neutral does not mean giving "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing. Seeing editors creating artificial balance irks me to no end. I can understand being more equal if the majority is a small majority, but not when the majority is significant and/or vast. If WP:Reliable sources give significantly more weight to the sexualization of girls and women than to that of boys and men, which they certainly do, then we should as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. What do you think of making this one of the articles in the WP: Education program?

Dr. Diana Strassmann (Carolyn and Fred McManis Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Humanities) and Dr. Robin Paige (the Visiting Professor of Sociology), are running a program through Rice University into the capability approach. Perhaps they would like to take it on? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for calling my attention to the debates on this article. I work extensively in this area and the article was originally expanded from a stub by one of my students. Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum pioneered the capabilities approach, and have both published extensively in this area. Additionally, the preeminent published work on this approach is by scholars who are members of the Human Development and Capabilities Association. (I am a fellow of that association.) In addition, scholars of international human development and feminist economists work extensively within that paradigm. The issues with the article can be resolved with appropriate references to published material in the area, and I agree that it would be a great project for updating. The two classic texts in the area are Sen's Development as Freedom and Nussbaum's Creating Capabilities. Other recent books include Nussbaum's Frontiers of Justice and Sen's Theories of Justice. In addition, the Journal of Human Development is the primary venue for further scholarly discussions of the material. For this article to meet wiki standards it should reflect the state of analysis as represented in such publications, and not viewpoints which do not represent the current state of scholarly debate on the topic.I'm tied up now with some other pressing matters, but have added this to my watch list and look forward to getting more into the weeds with this. DStrassmann (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

UK sexualization of children piece

I would like to add some information with regards to the UK reports on the subject of sexualisation of children, in particular the Bailey Report Ealtuccini (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Addition of pornography navigation box

I've added the pornography nav box to the article due the comments about pornographication in the culture and media section (after first adding the word "pornographication" to miscellaneous section of the nav box), and also due to their now being a separate article on the topic. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Geobias should be addressed

Most of this article deals primarily with the United States (with some Australian sources). If the concept of sexualization is only conceived as such in certain regions, that should be made clear in the article. If the article is only to deal with a few countries, maybe it should be split or moved to another title such as Sexualization in the United States. In the meantime, the article exhibits geobiased jargon with header terms like "Asian" (to refer to East rather than South Asian) "women of color" (to refer to non-whites in general rather than mulattoes in particular) and "Latina" (to refer to Spanish speakers as opposed to all Romance speakers) which are unknown or have different meanings outside of the U.S. —  AjaxSmack  03:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Commas

In the last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, there are two unnecessary commas.

"According to the Media Education Foundation, the sexualization of girls in media, and the ways women are portrayed in the dominant culture, is detrimental to the development of young girls as they are developing their identities and understanding themselves as sexual being."

The commas after, "media," and, "culture," don't need to be included in the sentence, so I suggest we remove them from the article. Oaktree813 (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Usable content?

A student created an article on the book and term "Lolita effect". The material is a bit too general for the term itself, as the sourcing actually discusses the sexualization of minors and when it mentions the term it's in passing. It's very well written, so I think that it could be useful here for the impact of sexualization on minors. Here's the original version before my editing. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In the eyes of men - which men? All men?

The article currently claims "In the eyes of men, women that practice this behavior [the behaviour of embracing their sexual desires] serve the pure purpose of providing satisfaction and showcasing their human nature." I am a man and therefore I would appear to fall within the term "men", yet despite being within the word "men", I do not have this view that women serve this purpose at all. The use of "In the eyes of men" appears to pull and lump together into one mass all men as if every one of them has this homogenous view and none of them have any other view at all. I have no evidence as to how many "men" view women that practice this behaviour in the way the article claims. The article refers to an academic piece that surveys Dutch adolescents aged 13 to 18, only the age of 18 within which can be considered to be "men". The majority of the ages therefore appear not even to be "men" and then this article applies this view to "men", used it as a generic term that sexually stereotypes men as holding this view or excludes myself as a man from being within "men" as I don't share it. It therefore either sexually stereotypes me unfairly or denies my gender or else purports to assume a belief to myself that I do not hold. Who are "men", who are alleged to hold this view? All men? Some? Many? Or a subset of adolescents, many of whom are not yet men? aspaa (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lgossland, MonicaA318, Bsv1204.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahuddy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaredcordova.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)