Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Domestic violence in lesbian relationships · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Feminism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Pornography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Nudity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this article a joke? or a hoax? Surely it is not for real? Even feminists can not be so sexist as to refer only to them selves as the only sex/gender mentioned in the process of objectification. shemyaza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.19.84 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 January 2016

The point is not that only women are sexually objectified, merely that the vast majority are women. From a rational, empirical standpoint, that fact is hard to get away from. Its implications regarding blame, however, are another matter. Bearsca (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Women do command the greatest sex-appeal generally.

The problem with this article though, stems from the apparent bias, engendering a tone of victimization regarding objectification. A woman entering a bikini contest has chosen to objectify herself to her own advantage, and in the context of an encyclopedic entry, should not recieve the mistreatment characterizing blame or shame. And nor should any others participating in said objectification. It is a mutually consentual behaviour and presumably, mutually advantageous.

Encyclopedias should carry an informative, unbiased tone. They should not cater to popular and/or political biases. Baz Daniels (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the woman enter the contest willingly, or was she pressured by society to do so? Was their prize money to be had, therefore paying her to show her body? Why are the spectators there to see her body? And is there some desire on her part to 'show off' or 'tease?' This is why this article is so tricky. It isn't tying to fix or solve the issues; it is trying to describe the multiple layers of the bikini contest. StarHOG (Talk) 12:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be a clear mix of an article on sexual objectification, and an article on sexual objectification in feminism. Which article is this suppose to be? Sexual objectification, as a concept laid-out by Kant, pre-dates feminism (broadly speaking) by around a century and continues on to the present as a topic of philosophical, psychological and sociological discussion. This is so entirely devoid of feminist approaches, just as the reverse is true. As an article on sexual objectification within feminism, it gives far too much weight, and contradictory weight at that, to non-feminist approaches. As an article on sexual objectification, it's highly slanted in favour of feminist ideologies. The very fact that the section entitled 'Views on Sexual Objectification' is formulated as a disjunct between feminists and social conservatives is a breath taking outcome example of such a muddled approach. No encyclopedic entry would ever define this subject matter as a disjunct between social conservatives and feminists. This article should certainly be separated into two articles, one on the topic of sexual objectification (which of course should address Kant, among others fyi) and one on sexual objectification in feminism. Maxxx12345 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this subject matter, however I keep this article bookmarked for research purposes. You could always add a new section on Immanuel Kant and the article might just evolve on its own. WriterWithNoName (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see below, those of us who are expects who note such issues are simply told 'no'. Kant is a problem of undue weight, regarding a principle he scribed? Wow. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which treats the subject just as I mention, is a problem of reliable sources? Sexual objectification can't be formatted on wiki, as it is in other encyclopedias, because Kant would be undue weight and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not a reliable source... It's amazing lay people openly state things like this, simply amazing. Maxxx12345 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are referring to my comment below, I will just note that if you have a problem with the way Wikipedia works, don't edit here. Your POV editing, both as Maxxx12345 and as different IPs, has not gone unnoticed. And as for me being a layperson, you are free to think that, especially since, in my eyes, you are the layperson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, also, be careful not to twist my words in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supposed to be about the topic as defined by WP:Reliable sources and as applied with WP:Due weight. WP:Content forking in this case would be a no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanpet113, regarding this edit you made, that's not how WP:Neutrality works on Wikipedia. Also, if you want such a section in this article, find WP:Reliable sources for it and add it. Don't add an empty section. I reverted the empty section (followup comment here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I added a small section at the beginning of the subsection on objectification theory. This section seemed to be lacking a clear definition of the theory and its consequences, and I thought the section would be better clarified if this was stated first. I'm a student editor, so I'm still new to this process. If anyone has anything to add or anything that needs to be changed about my addition, the advice would be greatly appreciated. Charismatic88 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On this page, I would like to edit the section on objectification theory and self-objectification for clarity and to expand the overview of information given. Right now, it’s repetitive and hard for readers to understand; I believe an edit would better further reader’s understanding. Because there needs to be an understanding about self-objectification before one can fully understand objectification theory, I would like to integrate the self-objectification sub-heading into the objectification theory heading. I’ll then define them both, explain how they interact, explain the suggested consequences of objectification, and give a brief overview of how mental health could be influenced by this. Lastly, since the content of Frederickson and Roberts article is about 20 years old, I would like to give some updates and discoveries from a more recent article by Moradi and Huang. The citations I plan to use will be on my user page. The structure in this section is also lacking, and I was wondering if anyone had ideas about how to improve upon that. This is my plan right now, but I would really appreciate any suggestions or insight. Charismatic88 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mathglot, I was alerted that you had reverted the student's edits to this article. I was wondering if you could give a little further explanation as to why you did this and if you would be willing to help with the re-adding of the information - maybe give some feedback on their content? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Charismatic88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your recent edit to Sexual objectification; unfortunately, I had to revert it. Try and not to be too disappointed, this is a normal part of the BRD cycle. Much of the rationale for the revert is germane to all articles you may contribute to at Wikipedia, so rather than fill up this Talk discussion with a discussion of basic principles, I've written to you at your talk page about that.

As for specific ideas on how to improve this article, we can continue to discuss that here. I think if you start to make your changes in baby steps, you will have better results. Adding new citations is fine, but be careful about removing existing ones; and if you do remove something, that should probably happen in an edit all by itself and have a talk section explaining it; if removing it is very uncontroversial, then you can just explain it in a long edit summary. Other than that, I'd just recommend stepping slowly and carefully, add pieces a bit at a time, and justify your edits (as you have done) in the edit summary.

If you have a specific question, you can raise it here; and if you want to alert users ABC and XYZ to your question, then prefix your comments ((ping|ABC|XYZ)) and they will be notified. And again, welcome, and I hope you decide to stay, even when the course is over! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one concrete suggestion for improvement:

The article doesn't currently contain the phrase "male gaze" anywhere. And yet, this concept is completely basic to the article topic. Without writing a whole, long essay about it, why don't you see if you can include the concept in a way that fits nicely into the article, and links to the male gaze article where someone can go to find more information about it. I think you could do this with a very small alteration to one of the sentences in the section Sexual objectification of women; probably only a few words need to be added to it, or at most, a single new sentence. Can you do that?

As a corollary to that: the male gaze article includes the term "sexual objectification" twice, but no link back here. Can you fix that? (One is in a quotation; normally, it would be better to link the non-quoted text.) Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot Thank you for your constructive criticism! I’ve added a small section that overviews Frederickson and Roberts original theory at the beginning of the Objectification Theory if you would like to look that over for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charismatic88 (talk • contribs) 16:50, November 30, 2017 (UTC)

I would encourage the editors to, in the section on Objectification Theory, add a subsection on expectancy role value theory and gender socialization. Expectancy role value theory claims women and men possess internalized stereotypes about how they are supposed to behave and/or act, and what activities they “should” engage in, such as whether they “should” objectify others (Liss et al., 2019). Gender socialization is what happens when “individuals internalize the social expectations,” behaviors, and “attitudes” that are stereotypically “associated with their perceived gender” (Liss et al., 2019). Gender is a critical aspect of sexual objectification and objectification theory because gender strongly influences who is objectified, in what ways individuals are objectified, who is considered the “objectifier,” and what places the role of “objectifier” upon them.

Liss, Miriam., Richmond, Katie., and Mindy Erchull. 2019. Psychology of Women & Gender, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

EPWGSSEPWGSS200 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

according to this source [1]. Is this too primary? I don't have the experience to assess the quality of a journal or study in this field. Can someone point me in the right direction? -- Spacepine (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spacepine, it's not a quality source. And I wouldn't use it to state the matter in Wikipedia's voice; see WP:YESPOV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An academic paper out of Yale is not a quality source? Primary yes... Are you saying that the jouranl is suspect? Spacepine (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just now saw your comment. I stand by what I stated above. A Psychology Today blog is not a quality source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Flyer22 Reborn / @User:Flyer22 Frozen (I hope it's okay I pinged you. I'm not sure if replying alone will send a notification to you.) Here [2] is a link to the study itself, which should be used given that it is pertinent to the topic and peer-reviewed. Given the large amount of sources stating otherwise, it shouldn't be given too much weight though, I would assume. - 92.206.142.146 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StarHOG, regarding this, the sources on sexual objectification are usually speaking of boys and men sexually objectifying girls and women. We should not be removing that clarity from the article. That is not how WP:NPOV works. Yes, women also sexually objectify women, but it is not as widespread as boys and men doing it, and the literature is mostly focused on men as the ones who objectify. And, yes, there is talk of women sexually objectifying themselves, but it's commonly traced back to being a result of patriarchy or sex-positive feminism/female empowerment. That men sexually objectify women should not be removed from the "Sexual objectification of women" section any more than both women and gay men being the ones who objectify should be removed the "Sexual objectification of men" section. You removed "male" from the following sentence: "Female sexual objectification by a male involves a woman being viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire, rather than as a whole person." While I don't mind the removal of "by a male", the "male sexual desire" part should be there, since that is usually what the sexual objectification of women concerns. I will restore it. If you reply to me on this, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. When I read the article for the first time I felt that the entire article strained to say what sexual objectification was for the lay person reading this encyclopedia. I'm really not trying to downplay the males' role in this, just wanted to present it in a way that acknowledges that it can come from many different sources and genders. You're right about the source material, but it is also our job as editors to paraphrase when the source is not quoted and make a better article. I think the rest of the article needs a lot of trimming, too, but I didn't have time yesterday. My view is that it needs further editing to focus on sexual objectification. I hope you will look at the edits I make today and feel free to build on them with edits of your own. StarHOG (Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StarHOG, thanks for explaining. Yeah, the article can obviously do with some improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you feel needs trimming or where the article deviates from a focus on sexual objectification, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article has a major problem with the message it is trying to convey. It briefly defines what sexual objectification is, then lists places where it can happen (without good examples) and the effects it has on victims (again, with poor examples or strange tangents). If the article is read objectively, from the viewpoint of a wiki-reader that wants to know what sexual objectification is, this article really misses the mark currently. I am engaged in trying to make bold edits to improve the article, and I encourage others to do the same. StarHOG (Talk) 16:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, of course. I will help when I can or (here on the talk page) address issues I have with parts of the article or edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I don't see where the article fails to make clear what sexual objectification is. It's not something that needs a Definitions section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is this page heavily biased? Nothing is wrong with putting feminist views here, but would it hurt to put some of the men's opinions here too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.10.142 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We go by WP:Due weight. Have a look at that policy. The literature on sexual objectification‎ is overwhelmingly about the sexual objectification‎ of women. Including more men's opinions is fine as long as it adheres to WP:Due weight. Men's rights views are WP:Fringe. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've felt a little of this in editing the article, especially since there is a section on gay men being objectified. Remember, you're welcome to make bold edits to include some of this as long as it is well-sourced and relevant. StarHOG (Talk) 15:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StarHOG, regarding this, this and this? That was WP:Drive-by tagging. They were added without any valid explanation being given for them on this talk page. In the case of these tags, what is WP:Peacock wording in the article? If it's there, it can be easily fixed. Any poor references can be easily removed. And citation style can be easily fixed. These tags will not help a thing. They will just sit there for years.

On side note: You keep re-adding this even though it keeps being removed. Exactly how does that commentary improve the article? How is this person's commentary WP:Due?

Please don't ping me when you reply. I did not ping you because it's not necessary. Clearly, we're both watching this article/talk page. And I pointed you to this talk page when reverting you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "More citations needed" tag, the only spot in the article where I see that more are needed is the beginning of the "Objectification theory" section. The other few spots are tagged with Template:Citation needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't really put any thought into the tags themselves. I know I had put some time into this article trying to make it better and it is a real chore, and I think i is far from being really good, so I thought the tags were a good idea to draw editors. But I didn't place the tags or put any thought into them. The Peterson statement and link I think, IMO, was an interesting commentary on self-objectification in a situation we don't really think about - your peers in a work environment. Not all self-objectification is Hooters, beauty contests, and playboy pictures. What do you think? StarHOG (Talk) 18:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the tags, I stand by what I stated above. Regarding that Peterson statement, no, I don't think it's WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are years later and Flyer22 is still trolling this article removing anything which doesn’t fit their preference on what sexual objectification is supposed to mean. Nothing is WP:Due unless it confirms to this editors personal political ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.231.199 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not neutral (it even uses the pronoun "we"). Can someone fix this? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be good to see a criticism of this concept included in the article for maintaining NPOV. Chantern15 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

I have eliminated the most outrageous biased sections, but this article still has problems. I will not be surprised if someone with a bias comes back and restores what I have deleted. I think editors should take a look at this. Island Pelican (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of this section is not correctly cited, and the first sentence is not necessarily what the citation says. It is also written poorly. Additionally, the section right above it, called "self-objectification" seems like a very short paragraph that can be merged. Captchacatcher (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was supposed to put this at the very bottom... I wasn't sure with all of the Wiki-Education sections. Captchacatcher (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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): Charismatic88.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ysilva-medina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ParisDE (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Joconnor589. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACHorwitz (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the numerous complaints and criticisms about this article’s point of view, I am adding an NPOV tag. As stated above (by someone else, not me) it uncritically states a very broad definition of objectification supported by anti-sex feminists (maybe they take issue with this term but I don’t know what else to call them) and social conservatives, and ignoring the views of sex-positive feminists and other classical liberals. Criticism of the article’s neutrality is not only common, but basically all this talk page consists of. Island Pelican (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BriannaR2226 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nataliiemacias, Andreaag0nzalez.

— Assignment last updated by Marimend (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Opticsix (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Makailanava01.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jewelz&Ruby24 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jewelz&Ruby24 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]