How to incite a moral panic about sex

The researchers do state that they chose Rolling Stone because it's a specialized music- focused publication. This, they seem to believe, only goes to show how successful things are in the sexualization business, when even a specialized magazine exploits famous women as sexual "things."

The problem with this reasoning is that everyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the last twenty years comes to the Rolling Stone covers with knowledge of the women's achievements. It's impossible to see them as "just things," as the researchers claim we must, because we are very familiar with their professional success. What we do see is the singer, actor, and model being sexy, because that's an aspect of herself she's chosen to reveal to the public in this particular way. Nobody made her. She didn't need the money to pay the rent. She's exercising agency, and the very definition of "sexualized" excludes that possibility.

The difference between sexualized and sexy

So are the researchers confusing sexualization, which according to the APA's definition is pathological, with sexy? The definitions of which are: arousing or intended to arouse sexual desire, and being sexually aroused, neither of which are, I hope, considered pathological by anyone. There is a world of difference between the two terms. Sexualization we may well get upset about, as a particular form of dehumanization. But sexy?

Is it a case of having failed to successfully demonize the sexy, a pathological disorder is the next step in the reactionary battle to control expressions of female sexuality?

The danger is that while sexy is a description of normal human pleasure, replacing it in the vernacular with "sexualized" throws any possibility of female sexual representation out the window. Every public display of female sexuality is interpreted as sexualized, and therefore pathological.

What kind of a lesson is this to teach our girls about their sexuality?

Starting a moral panic

In the researchers' study and in reports by media and conservative special interest groups, we find a textbook example of how to start a moral panic. The timing is perfect, with global financial uncertainty, underlying fears of terrorism, and all the other factors that contribute to sense of personal and societal insecurity, and a fear of being unable to control the circumstances of our lives. A moral panic offers a focus, and an outlet for fears and emotions that it's otherwise difficult to articulate.

We have the technical means to produce and distribute images of female sexuality and desire to an extent that has never before been possible. Guardians of morality interpret this advance as inevitably threatening, catastrophic, and as spiraling out of (their) control.

With the support of medical, academic and psychological experts, all of whom are usually on the look out for something new they can be credited with diagnosing, deconstructing and treating, they start up a campaign to pathologize sexy images of women that make them feel uncomfortable by re-naming them "sexualized." This is a bad, scary word, implying that something cold and horrible is being done to you, unlike sexy, which is rather nice and warm, and something you can control yourself. Being told you've been sexualized can make you feel very bad about yourself and shame is an intention of those who orchestrate moral panics. Once you're shamed, you're cowed. One you're cowed, they can rescue and re-educate you.

Various media become very interested in the theory of sexualization, especially if it can be conflated with children and childhood. As a matter of fact, the term is most appropriately applied to situations of child sexual abuse, when sexualization actually does occur, and the abuser's desire is pathological. The word would be better reserved for those circumstances, and other situations of sexual abuse and assault of women, however, another of the hallmarks of moral panic is the use of words that are disproportionate.