What Rolling Stone and the Abstinence-Only Movement Have in Common
The latest Rolling Stone cover seems like a ridiculously apt illustration of what I was reading in Jessica's new book, The Purity Myth, just last night:
Touting girls and girlhood as ideal forms of sexuality is simply another way of advancing the notion that to be desirable, women need to be un-adults--young, naive, and impressionable. Being independent, assured, and grown up has no place in this disconcerting model.
Jess' goes on to make the argument that it's not just pop culture outlets like Rolling Stone that are pushing this highly sexualized and infantile image, but the virginity movement as well:
...the 'perfect virgin' is at the center of the movement's rhetoric, and its goals revolve largely around convincing girls that the only way to be pure is to abstain from sex. This means there's an awful lot of talk about young girls' sexuality in the movement, from T-shirts to abstinence classes to purity balls. By focusing on the virginity of young women and girls, the movement is doing exactly what it purports to abhor--objectifying women and reducing them to their sexuality.
Oh, and the totally unsubtle ploy to titillate dudes with girl-on-girl fantasies is duly noted. Really original Rolling Stone.
Thanks to platoformboots for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What Rolling Stone and the Abstinence-Only Movement Have in Common.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12716
I didn't even realize there was a such thing as skin-colored ice cream!
I think that's strawberry ice cream.
Even so, it pisses me off that they’d choose a color of ice cream that looks remarkably like (WHITE) skin. Even if the ice cream was green, sure it would still make me fume, but this puts me over the top.
Really? The whole ice cream as dick suggestion has been around for so long. It's annoying, sure, but I'm impressed you're able to muster this much outrage over it.
Well, why not? Just because we see something frequently in our media certainly doesn't mean we should just accept them and not "muster outrage" over such things.
Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Not only is it gross, it's TRITE. Double fail. I'm surprised there isn't a photo of the Washington Monument in the background or something.
It's got to be strawberry. Not so much for the "skin colored" aspect, but because strawberries are associated with innocence. Look at all the girl's clothes with berry prints.
You clearly have not been exposed to enough flavors of ice cream.
For me it's obvious why they used a light coloured ice cream and have some on her tongue. A not so subtle tee hee that could be semen.
Skin colored ice cream? Why does that sound nasty? :-P
Foot
paris sportif
Two girls, one cone! Mmm!
Notttt.
Oh, thank goddess you said that, now I don't feel like I'm the only one who was thinking it.
That photo just pisses me off and I've LOST any ounce of respect for those two actresses (oh, wait, I didn't have any in the first place). Now, now, let's imagine two male stars doing that on the front cover. It'll be very controversial.
Not trying to start an argument here or anything, but I don't think it's really fair to say that the two women in the photo are somehow undeserving of respect because they chose to pose in this provocative manner. Obviously, many of us don't agree with many elements of this photo--I'm particularly offended by the continued co-opting of bisexuality for the male gaze--but I'm not sure that this means any of us have a right to lose "any ounce of respect" for them.
If we go down that path, I feel like one could also use a similar logic to justify a lack of respect for other women who choose to express their sexuality in other ways. Of course, everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion, I'm just saying that (in MY opinion) people are entitled to respect no matter how many sexualized photos they pose in.
"I'm particularly offended by the continued co-opting of bisexuality for the male gaze."
Thanks for pointing that out. I've been having similar feelings about bisexual characters on shows like House and Bones. "Co-opting for the male gaze" feels like a good way to describe what is going on.
I actually said to my husband that if they had put the men of Gossip Girl on the cover in the same pose it would have been a cover made of win.
With the women though? The cover is so freaking cliched that it would be tame if it wasn't also serving a demeaning societal script.
But you know as well as I do that Rolling Stone would NEVER do a cover with two men posed in a sexual way!
Because two guys making out = HOMO
And two women making out = HAWT
And, of course, the only reason two women would be making out would be as a prelude to a three way with a guy - because, of course, women have no independent sexuality, and only exist to serve men sexually.
But two men making out?
They'd be getting ready to have sex...HOMOsex!!!
That's because men actually have an independent sexuality, totally separate from and independent of women - so two men in a sexual situation means womanless sex is imminent (and that's the secret desire and secret fear of many straight men in our society).
That's the deeply sexist and homophobic belief system behind every lame lipstick lesbian tableau in print and broadcast media.
Rolling Stone consistently sexualizes the females it puts on its covers. The women that do get a cover (and it's a very, very small number - I skimmed through the archives once) are generally portrayed in a very sexy fashion - as here, suggesting girl-on-girl action, or half-naked. The men are almost never shown in a sexualized fashion - they're generally clothed, featured with a guitar if they play one. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but it really bugs me that RS, a mainstream music publication, only chooses to feature women on its cover if they're sexy, tragic (Brittney Spears was on there right after her breakdown), or otherwise titillating. Whereas men get featured because they're talented, regardless of their appearance - because the people who buy RS are white dudes.
Only slightly off-topic but that is the exact same sentiment I had going through about a year's worth of my bf's RS magazines. It is very true that all of the women on the covers are sexualized and rarely holding any kind of instrument or at least a mic if they're singers. I think the only woman I saw on the cover in the 12 or so magazines was what you said, Brittney Spears tragedy story. The also make fun of her and other singers in their articles. I remember reading one sentence that went something like, "We're faced with popstars (doesn't say female, but we know what they're implying) who will sell their soul for a shot at fame and give away their dignity to keep it" but it fails to make any recognition of why the women would want that fame. Uhhh maybe part of the reason is to end of on the cover of the very magazine that's criticizing them? Such hypocrisy.
I remember once circling with a marker every piece of sexism I saw in one RS mag. and ended up with a mess of red ink. I think I remember counting the male to female writer ratio and it ended up being something like 15:1. Any "real" female musician they feature will be sexed up or have a REAL article about their MUSIC, but only in the back half of the magazine.
Rolling Stone = Crap
It's crap like this that reminds me why I'm a classical composer. Yes, there's still plenty of sexism in classical music, but not nearly as much as in other genres. Female classical musicians are generally respected for their singing/playing/writing ability and aren't shown in a sexualized way. Whereas, in popular music, it's nearly impossible to escape the virgin/whore complex no matter how hard you try. (Those that do are seen as "asexual" and/or never get coverage in mags like RS. Pathetic.)
Infuriating but also "old news" that just will not die down.
Lolita...MTV videos (Britney in her school girl get-up)...Models who are made up as adults who are really 14 or so (remember Brooke Shield in Pretty Baby and on the cover of Cosmo?)...
Oh yes, Hooter girls who are required to look "date-ready" and resemble the "girl next door" and be "America's cheerleader.
I'm sure we could all rattle off plenty of examples.
And before anyone accuses me of blaming the women--I'm not.
Yes, it seems that our culture loves to sexualize girls and cast off old women(y'know, women over the age of 28 or so...). But it seems that men in our culture just refuse to grow up. These young women bring out the boy in them without reminding them that they are aging (just as their female counterparts are). I think the real challenge is for men to face their aging and mortality rather than wallowing in their prepubescent horniness!!
On an even more serious note, don't you all wonder how these sexualized images affect the incidents of sexual child abuse and incest? There has to be a connection...
These girls are 21 and 22. How is this sexualizing young girls. Yes it is disgusting that sexualized images of women are what thrive in the media today but these women made the choice to pose provocatively - a reflection of the content of their show. On another note, women who find power in their sexuality should be condemned or lose respect.
I meant should not be condemned or lose respect. sorry.
They play high school seniors on the show. Many high school seniors are not even 18. That is sexualizing young women. duh.
You'd have to watch/be familiar with the show to know that. I had no idea who they were.
You are right Oatnut, women who find power in their sexuality shouldn't be condemned. But the bulk, the vast bulk of sexualised images of women don't depict women who are in control of their sexuality. Rather it shows women who are being degraded, objectified and/or pretending to be bisexual for the benefit of the male gaze. That's not empowerment, even if the women involved feel empowered and are well remunerated for doing such work.
"You are right Oatnut, women who find power in their sexuality shouldn't be condemned. But the bulk, the vast bulk of sexualised images of women don't depict women who are in control of their sexuality. Rather it shows women who are being degraded, objectified and/or pretending to be bisexual for the benefit of the male gaze. That's not empowerment, even if the women involved feel empowered and are well remunerated for doing such work."
Whoa I take issue with the statement "even if the women involved feel empowered". To me empowerment is all about the women in question and NOT ANYONE ELSE. That's the whole point.
I don't care if other men or women think I am empowered - why are women always cast in the shadow of others? Women need to be free of this!!
If you feel emporered you ARE emporered. That's how it works. To me at least. Nobody else should be able to bring you down or castigate you, that's exactly what we are fighting against. Women need to be free, not castigated or the subject of the whims and opinions of others.
Well... You can think of it this way: If the guys who ran the magazine were gay, don't you think they would be doing the same thing, only with boys in their early 20s instead?
I think this sort of thing is evident in the past... There are a lot more statues of idealized men from ancient Greece than women because that's what people sexualized and desired. Today, homophobia abounds, so it's not acceptable to desire boys, so the focus is on girls.
The sexual orientation of the senior staff is irrelevant. The decisions are based on what will sell ads/magazines. Because homophobia abounds, a sexualized photo of two guys will not generate nearly as much revenue (and many more objections).
Well... You're restating what I said concerning homophobia, but I understand that changing the sexuality of senior staff at this stage of the game would be ill advised. Sure, they'd want hot teens on the cover, but it doesn't mean their sense of reason would go out the window concerning profits.
But hey... I think my statement still stands that if this wasn't a homophobic nation, the scenario fits. Men will make happen what they want to see.
You think the people who run Rolling Stone are clawing at their eyes while the photo shoot of the hot girls is going on? I'm sure they enjoy these segments.
I don't really understand what you're saying. My point was that putting "hot girls" on the cover sells ads, and profit is their motivation. Which sucks, and results in covers like this and features on bands that are terrible but sell a lot of records. I don't think having a gay man or a woman make the cover decisions would necessarily result in more feminist choices, simply because of the nature of the business.
Who do you think first thought of the idea to put sexy women on the cover? It's about profit, but it's also about the desire of the people who run the company. They make executive decisions about what reflects what they consider is a 'good' magazine. Even if sexually suggestive covers didn't bring big numbers in, they'd probably still be doing it... As long as it didn't have a negative impact on profits.
If you were running the magazine, you wouldn't make different decisions?
1 - Having two men in that same position on the cover WOULD hurt their profits, and that's why they don't do it.
2 - In most mainstream magazines, it's not about making something "good" -- it's about making something profitable. That is precisely why (among many other reasons) you wouldn't find me working at that kind of publication.
3 - Hypothetically speaking, would I love to see James Franco and Jon Hamm canoodling on the cover of Rolling Stone? Hell yeah. Would I let my fantasies dictate what cover I'd run? No, not if I wanted to keep my job.
did ANY of you guys see the cover with the Jonas Brothers?
here
1. also young boys (the youngest is 15, i think 14 here)
2. very sexual (shirt ripping, choking with tie, exposed chest)
3. sort of homoerotic/fantasy of them touching each other
That's a good counterexample. Although I love "God! Girls! Guitars!" ... It might as well read, "They're virgins, but they're not gay."
But don't you see -- for attractive barely-legal girls to engage in sapphic activities is not only *totally hot* but, providing that their past sexual history is lesbian-only, it keeps them "pure" until the all-important Cock (yours, of course) comes along to rescue them from being gay. Hah.
It's a sad state of affairs but I'm definitely in agreement that women are infantilized in mass media, over and over again. In one sense, very young girls are theoretically the most "pure" and desirable. I've always explained it by saying that certain groups of men are particularly anxious that the sexuality of their girlfriend/wife "belong" to them in the sense that he will be her only sexual partner, past present and future. The younger she is, the better odds that you got there first. Also it's not a stretch to say that one would in theory have more control over someone who is neither emotionally nor physically fully mature.
It's insecurity, in my opinion.
It's all insecurity.
I'm a guy; I hang out with lots of other guys. I hear the "locker room talk" quite frequently, and I can tell you this: guys are freaking paranoid about sex and women. They want young and inexperienced so they don't feel any pressure to "perform" as ably as her past lovers. They want young and "pretty" according to the media so that they don't face rejection or ridicule from their friends for having sex with someone "unattractive." But they also don't want their wives/girlfriends to be too attractive, because then their friends might be attracted to them too and there'd be competition, and heaven knows how they'd stack up against their friend with the nicer car and bigger... erm... paycheck.
I'd say 85% of guys spend so much time obsessing over what others guys do, make, have, or don't have that they rarely, if at all, think of the women in their lives. Guys who feel inadequately-equipped sexually often fantasize about other men that they believe are more endowed, believing that their insecurity (and their lover's _perceived_ dissatisfaction) is directly tied to one single factor.
Consequently, much of what's wrong with the patriarchal view of sex and sexuality, the way men are taught to think about women and how to treat women, comes from this insecurity. Young, innocent, inexperience and naïve is lauded as _good_ (in the face of all logic and reason) because it means less for the guy to worry about.
Nuts to that, I say. I'd rather have a confident, assured, mature woman as a partner any day. Being a good lover requires many factors and takes a lot of time to develop, not to mention open and honest communication between people to find out what works for each other. But most guys don't recognize this at all, let alone in their youth, because they're all too scared that the girl they're seen with won't live up to his friend's "standards" or worse, that he won't compare well to her previous lovers.
Thanks so much for sharing this -- I have a lot of theories, but they're just guesses unless other people can corraborate.
If I could add a bit to what you're saying, I think a significant lack of communication between partners leads to men (and women) making rather cluelessly sexist assumptions as to what their girlfriends/boyfriends want in the relationship. If communication were much improved and those assumptions wiped out, both genders could be confident that their partner was satisfied. They'd know because they could actually TALK to each other about their insecurities, rather than sitting around worrying that their partner's exes all had bigger, ah, paychecks than they do.
(And let's hear it for mature and confident women -- romantic relationships are much improved when both parties can communicate clearly and openly about what they want, and likewise about how satisfied they are. It eliminates so much of those mind-games that make relationships frustrating.)
Good input. Where do you think this crazy obsessive insecurity comes from?
For instance, I talked to my boyfriend one time about who we think about when we fantasize while masturbating. I said that I just fantasize about random people that I don't even know.
He said the same, except with emphasis that the guy has a big cock. I'm just like, why?
And I think it's because guys think that bigger cock=better sex. FAIL!
Personally, the guy with the biggest dick in my sexual relationships sucked the worst in bed. I mean it's a two-way thing but he definitely didn't put in his half and it resulted in me feeling like he was stabbing away at my insides. Sorry for that, but you know.
"I'd say 85% of guys spend so much time obsessing over what others guys do, make, have, or don't have that they rarely, if at all, think of the women in their lives. Guys who feel inadequately-equipped sexually often fantasize about other men that they believe are more endowed, believing that their insecurity (and their lover's _perceived_ dissatisfaction) is directly tied to one single factor."
Brilliant, I think men's sexuality is discussed far too little (read: not at all) in these discussions.
I want a feminist to explain male sexuality as something other than politically dangerous.
This insecurity shows how the patriarchy hurts men as well as women. If you are told you are supposed to possess and control something, and you can't, of course you're going to be insecure.
Courtney,
"Being independent, assured, and grown up has no place in this disconcerting model."
I think that's not entirely true - being independent, assured, and grown up is everyone's favorite form of sexuality (ok, not everyone's, but most people's). But if you're independent, assured, and grown up, chances are you're not as interested in putting your sexuality front and center and aren't as keen to experiment with it - certainly not publicly - as you are when you're not as independent, assured, and grown up, and using your experiments as a way to get to that state of being.
I don't think it's that easy to find grown up, independent, and assured women that are also able to play cat string (flirt), for example with the people who buy a magazine. But in order to redefine such a conception, you need something to visualize it.
I know that's not the whole story, but I think it's an important aspect.
Valenti explains it all, "Women need to be un-adults--young, naive, and impressionable. Being independent, assured, and grown up has no place in this disconcerting model"
Rolling Stone knew exactly what they were doing when they chose this image for their cover. Not only are the girls objectifying themselves by licking the "skin colored" ice cream cone, but they are clearly looking into the camera with a seductive, yet innocent eye. They might as well be licking a giant penis, rather than objectifying a poor ice cream cone. It's unlikely for people (specifically men) to recognize that these young women are of legal age, especially considering the characters that they play on TV. More so considering their television characters, young girls look up to them and try to mimic characters/ actresses they see on TV. Exposing their breasts on national magazines, while subjecting themselves to the fantasy world of lesbianism is what our future is being taught. Being pure is a fantasy that every man supposedly wants, and the younger the girl is, the more pure they become, thus the reason for so many older actresses portraying younger roles. These unrealistic stereotypes are not only set up by men, they are used in a ploy to draw men into an unrealistic world, which then affects their attitudes on all generations of females.
It looks like someone drugged Blake Lively and then handed her a cone. The dead look in her eye as she licks the ice cream is sort of disturbing.
Just to let everyone know, i apologise if it has already been brought up, but this shoot was done by the one and only Terry Richardson who is a former pornographer turned fashion photographer. He is notorious for these kinds of photographs. Some others include a photo of a girl who is squirting milk into her mouth via a cows udder. i think you can all guess what the metaphor is there, and another where he himself is photographed receiving oral sex. His approach is often seen as progressive however i only few it as the same old sexist, misogynist crap we see day in day out. Personally i don't think its difficult to create a shoot where women are child like, sexual and objectified.
Pornography is not inherently misogynistic.
Pornography may not be inherently misogynistic but the fact remains that most pornography is.
The vast majority of pornagraphy is not misogynistic. Your claim appears to made out of ignorance and a fear of sexuality.
I agree that porn isn't inherently misogynist. However, as someone who's worked in a couple of sex shops, I have to say that an appalling amount of porn is misogynist. A shocking amount is also racist. I'm not qualified to give percentages, but I've seen enough to know that the accusation isn't "made out of ignorance and a fear of sexuality".
Pornography is still a boys' club, and while we're starting to get women behind the cameras shaking things up, it's going to be a slow process.
Exactly. Calling out the fact that MOST porn (not all, obviously) is misogynistic doesn't mean that s/he is "afraid of sexuality." It's defensive and insulting.
I seriously absolutely WILL NOT support anything that I see on mainstream websites. FUCK THAT.
But I love me some porn. Give me some porn where the woman is fucking soaking wet, enjoying herself immensely, and the guy is loving her pleasure because it's HERS and she's experiencing it, not because HE somehow 'made' her experience it. I'm allll for porn.
But like I said, saying that you don't support most porn does not mean your afraid of sexuality. Check yo self.
Wow, way to shut down an argument by attacking someone and making ASSumptions.
I can't believe that all this misogynistic, sexist crap is seen as progressive! It makes me want to cry and scream!
I can't believe I've read this entire comment thread without a single comment about the South Park "Jonas Brothers" episode that aired (I think) two weeks ago.
It's got abstinence, sex, and pop culture as its main themes, as well as an analysis of the Jonas Brothers 3D Experience movie poster.
South Park is SO '97.
If '97 was the last time you watched, you're missing out.
You probably watch "Family Guy" too.
;)
I know, I'm pretty sick and tired of it too. I have a hard time however thinking that pornography is essentially good. All i think about is how much money the industry is making out of the exploitation of women.
Oh yea, just like the movie industry exploits Tom Cruise, the porn industry exploits Jenna Jameson. I don't really have a problem with a star getting millions of dollars and then having their image exploited to sell more stuff. I might be upset if they were paid minimum wage and the fruits of their labor was being sold for millions, however that is not the case.
Am I the only one that's thinking "Get your own fucking ice cream!"?
Maybe the recession really IS that bad!
But I think this is the only way for a woman to be on the cover of Rolling Stone without being naked. Unless she's over 40.
Both the virginity movement and the Rolling Stones cover are definitely two sides of the same coin. Both movements are about pleasing men and giving whatever they want and ignoring what women and girls want and need.
Bingo.
I'm so glad that Jessica posted this and that you all are discussing it. My boyfriend subscribes to Rolling Stone and this issue arrived last week. As soon as my boyfriend saw it he looked at me and said, "are you going to let this thing into the house?" I did, but I ripped the cover off first.
awesome!