No abstract

Published as: Duits, L., & Van Zoonen, L. (2011). Coming to terms with sexualization.European journal of cultural studies, 14(5), 491-506. 2 Coming to terms with sexualization: ABSTRACT Not since the feminist pornography debates of the 1980ies, has there been such an outburst of discussion, research, and publications about the ubiquity and impact of sexualized images of women and girls. Unlike the 1980ies, however, nowadays the debate is carried by governments and other mainstream social actors, who have produced many regulatory and policy initiatives. Nevertheless, to hail the current attacks on sexualization as a belated victory for feminism is intellectually naive and politically problematic for a number of reasons we discuss in this article. First, we contend that the current sexualization policies, involve academic analyses and political solutions to sexualization which are firmly cast in the discourse of liberal feminism (equal opportunities) and neo liberalism (individual responsibility). Second, inevitable in the current work on sexualization is an identity of girls and young women as 'victims' in need of protection. We draw from our research among 12 and 13 year old Dutch girls to refute that construction and emphasise the tactics of resistance, negotiation and accommodation that these girls have developed. Third, we claim that current sexualization concerns are a-historical in their oblivion to similar sexualisation panics in the previous decades, and to the years of feminist cultural analysis and critique in this arena. 3 Coming to terms with sexualization: TEXTSexualization is firmly back on the agenda of feminist intellectuals and researchers from various academic backgrounds, particularly in the USA, the UK and continental Europe.Not since the pornography debates of the 1980ies, has there been such an outburst of discussion, research, and publications about the ubiquity and impact of sexual images of women and girls. Unlike the 1980ies, however, nowadays governmental, political and social actors share what previously seemed exclusively feminist concerns, and they have produced many a regulation and policy initiative. Nevertheless, to hail the current attacks on sexualization as a belated victory for feminism is intellectually naive and politically problematic for a number of reasons. For sure, one can be glad with the general critical mode towards representation, and the recognition of how annoying it can be to live in a culture so pervaded by images of perfect and (hetero)sexualized, predominantly female bodies. What is worrying, however, is that the current psychologised discourse of sexualization conceals its political allegiance, and that it is devoid of any intellectual memory, especially with respect to two axioms of media and cultural studies, namely that texts are polysemic and that reception is active.1 In this article, we will therefore first criticize the current sexualization debates from a feminist historical and political perspective. We will then use our research about sexualiza...

No abstract

No abstract

This article addresses girls' dress, which has become controversial, especially in contemporary multicultural Europe. Using the Dutch public debate about the headscarf, belly shirts, visible G-strings, and other forms of ‘porno-chic’, the authors show that these seemingly separate debates are held together by the regulation of female sexuality. Through their analysis of the headscarves and porno-chic debate, the authors argue that women's sexuality and girls' bodies in particular have become the metonymic location for many a contemporary social dilemma: of the multicultural society when it concerns the scarf, of feminism and public morality when it concerns porno-chic. They conclude that despite the widely different appearance of girls wearing headscarves or porno-chic, both groups of girls are submitted to the meta-narratives of dominant discourse: the state, school, public opinion, parents and other social institutions ‘resignify’ their everyday practices as inappropriate, and reprieve them from the power to define their own actions.