Sexual Objectification Theory

In the article Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997), the notion they call ‘sexual objectification’ theory is evaluated, measuring the impact sexual objectification has on women within society. The heteronormativity of our society means it is seen as “the socially sanction right of all males to sexualize all females, regardless of age or status” (Horney cited in Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). To them sexual objectification is: the experience of being treated as a body (or collection of body parts) valued predominantly for its use to (or consumption by) others (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). In other words, “Sexual objectification occurs when a woman’s body, body parts, or sexual functions are separated out from her person, reduced to the status of mere instruments, or regarded as if they were capable of representing her” (Fredrickson and Roberts, 1997). Such sexualisation occurs in many forms, but one of the subtlest ways this sexualized evaluation takes place is through gaze, or the visual
Caroline Heldman, the co-editor of “Madame President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House?” defined sexual objectification as “the process of representing or treating a person like a sex object, one that serves another’s sexual pleasure.”

She finds an overall increase in sexual objectifying ads in our media, while the sexualisation has also become more extreme, more hyper-sexualized. She addresses what she calls “the sexy lie:” that sexual objectification is empowering for women. Even if you become the “perfect sex object,” she argues, you are still subordinate, are you are not seen as an active subject in control. She came up with a list of questions to answer whether or not an image is objectifying:

• Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualised person’s body?
• Does the image show a sexualised person as interchangeable (as one of many items that can be swapped