Challenging sexual objectification through 100 vulvas

Feminism impacts the public sphere on many fronts, attempting to transform those areas where inequality still exists. A long-term feminist topic which holds current relevance is sexual objectification, a socially constructed phenomenon that enforces instrumentalization of people, epitomizing them as things or body parts rather than human beings. Whereas objectification of men does occur, women are victim to it more frequently and to extremer extents (Vaes et al., 2013). This adverse phenomenon is commended by the media, mainly the pornography industry, depicting women’s bodies in unrealistic ways and resulting in highly damaging distorted expectations and behaviours for men.

Laura Dodsworth challenges sexual objectification, specifically regarding vulvas, as shown in the recent documentary 100 Vaginas (2019). Providing a novel and feminist perspective, she presents the intimates of women as an object, but through personifying and embodying it using the experiences and stories of participants she also transforms this objectification into an act against it. Discussing this artistic work in relation to Nussbaum’s sexual objectification theory and additional observations by Papadaki, this essay seeks to answer how the depiction of the vulva in ‘100 Vaginas’, simultaneously as an objectified body part and as a source for male objectification, can both clarify and challenge sexual objectification?

Sexual Objectification Theory

According to Nussbaum, objectification entails making into a thing and treating as a thing something which is not a thing (1995). In Objectification (1995) she indicates seven features central to her idea of treating as an object, stating that when a human being is treated in one or more of these ways, objectification occurs. These features encompass:

1. instrumentality, treatment as a tool for personal purposes,
2. denial of autonomy, lacking in autonomy and self-determination,
3. inertness, lacking agency and activity,
4. fungibility, being interchangeable with other objects of the same and/or other types,
5. violability, lackboundary-integrity, being permissible to break up or into,
6. ownership, being owned by another, and
7. denial of subjectivity, having experiences and feelings not be taken into account (Nussbaum, 1995, P257).

Nussbaum places most emphasis on the notion of instrumentality, which involves seeing and treating a person as an object so that their humanity is harmed or ignored. Importantly, context is a central view throughout her writing, stressing its importance as specific ways of treating may have different intentions and outcomes in various circumstances, and may be influenced by larger social issues of power (1995). Papadaki elaborates “the difference between the occurrence or not of objectification will be made by the overall context of the human relationship’’ (2010).

Nussbaum further reflects on sexual objectification perspectives by Kant, McKinnon and Dworkin and the ways these contradict hers. For Kant, objectification involves outright vanishing of morality and treating a person as an object or mere instrument for another’s purposes and sexual satisfaction, reducing the objectified’s status into a set of body parts to be misused by all. This then seriously harms their humanity, the individual’s rational nature and capacity for rational choice and pursuing ends, constructing objectification as a purely negative phenomenon (as cited in Nussbaum, 1995).

McKinnon further argues that sexuality, which is most one’s own, is removed through objectification. This results in loss of autonomy for the objectified, especially to the individuality-denying objectifier who then engages in forms of abuse, solely for his own purpose (1987). Woman becomes ‘’a set of bodily parts, in particular a cunt and an anus to be entered and used, with nothing of salience over and above them, not even individuality and agency’’ (as cited in Nussbaum, 1995, P270).

Supported by Dworkin, McKinnon underlines the influence of the hierarchical and dominant society in socialising and constructing women erotically. This includes women being taught to voluntarily be dominated and objectified and men being told that their gender is a justification for them to violate half the humanity-less human race. According to the two feminists, only women are objectified as in the patriarchy the terms gender, the social construct of being man or woman, and sex, the biologically defined, are still misused. They envision man as the definite objectifier with McKinnon emphasizing women’s dehumanization as commodities or sexual objects, specifically in pornography (1987; as cited in Nussbaum, 1995).

Objectification is seeing and/or treating a person as an object (following Nussbaum’s seven features), in such a way that denies this person’s humanity. 

Whereas these theorists regard sexual objectification as purely negative, Nussbaum differentiates herself by also recognising a benign/positive side. This idea suggests that objectification does not necessarily harm one’s humanity. It indicates that objectification can occur with one’s humanity simply being ignored or not acknowledged, that a person can be objectified but at the same time receive proper acknowledgement or promotion of their humanity, and that objectification does not involve treating a person as an object but merely seeing them as one (1995).

This then addresses Lawrentian objectification, which articulates that “objectifying attention to bodily parts is an important element in correcting the deformation and promoting genuine erotic equality’’, enabling women’s self-expression and seeing a domain of natural sexuality behind cultural constructions (as cited in Nussbaum, 1995, P290).Attributing independent agency to objectified body parts it states that “being identified with her genital organs is not necessarily to be seen as dehumanized meat ripe for victimization and abuse, but […] is a reminder that the genital organs of people are not really fungible, but have their own individual character, and are in effect parts of the person, if one will really look at them closely without shame.’’ (as cited in Nussbaum, 1995, P267).

The inclusion of the benign/positive side broadens Nussbaum’s view far beyond Kant’s, McKinnon’s and Dworkin’s, as unharmful instrumentality occurs constantly. Thus, she leaves the judgement of objectification to the people’s instinct, causing confusion and conflict and the risk of the fight to end objectification being depreciated to a non-pressing issue. Considering both Kant et al.’s and Nussbaum’s views, Papadaki then proposes a revised definition: “Objectification is seeing and/or treating a person as an object (following Nussbaum’s seven features), in such a way that denies this person’s humanity. A person’s humanity is denied when it is ignored/not properly acknowledged and/or when it is in some way harmed’’ (2010, P32). Identifying unintentional ignorance as a cause for objectification, Papadaki pleads for men being educated on the deeply problematic nature of their stereotyping and women being taught that men’s objectifying attitudes are incongruous (2010).

Are 100 Vulvas pictures objectifying women?

In order to grasp the ways in which sexual objectification is manifested and consequently challenged in the present day, this paper investigates the third volume of the forthcoming Bare Reality project by Laura Dodsworth. Whereas the first two photograph books depict 100 breasts and penises in all shapes and sizes, supported by personal writings of their owner’s experiences, the most recent publication represents 100 vulvas, also reinforced by such stories. The concept of this vulva edition sprouted from Dodsworth’s reading of a report on female genital mutilation, a ridiculous reference to vaginas as ‘front holes’, and an article on very young girls seeking labiaplasty (Dodsworth, 2019).

The accompanying 47-minute documentary 100 Vaginas (2019), which reveals the behind-the-scenes of Dodsworth’s vulva photography and includes personal interviews with various participants about every aspect of their vaginas, including masturbation, abuse and childbirth, is this paper’s methodological focus. It inspects both the vulva photographs as a creative form and the content of the personal stories in analysing the ways women are objectified. TAddressing documentary reviews and interactions with Dodsworth of several respectable newspapers provides additional data and insight to further gauge the project’s reception, whether it grasps sexual objectification and whether it succeeds as an act against it.

Directed by sexual objectification theory the analysis of the documentary will argue that the sexual objectification that occurs through the expressive form, the photographs of vulvas, exists in a positive notion. Further focussing on the intimate interviewee's stories it reveals how women are victim to sexual objectification and how they deal with it. A general reflection contends for Dodsworth’s project as an act against sexual objectification.

100 vulvas and sexual objectification

When solely considering the medium, the act of photography, and the way Dodsworth candidly presents vulvas, it can be argued that the women in 100 Vaginas are objectified. Within this perspective women are identified through a body part, specifically one with a heavy sexual notion.

Furthermore, the feature of instrumentalization occurs as the women’s intimate parts are photographed for the purpose of the artist, an act not initiated by themselves. It can also be argued that in the occurrence of the multitude of vulvas they are presented as fungible and thus replaceable by any other.

However, in this claim of objectification its context, as stressed by Nussbaum, cannot be omitted. In terms of her divided theory, this specific case exists on the positive side, as besides the act of objectification the women’s humanity is not harmed but actually acknowledged and promoted. Dodsworth elaborates this in her conscious choice of presenting the body part in a “simple, comparative and non-sexual’’ manner, which does not ignore the vulva’s sexual load but simply says ‘’That’s what they look like’’ (Dodsworth as cited in Harvey, 2019).

She further mentions how this usually concealed part of women is crucial in defining our being and intimate experiences of pleasure and pain (Ash, 2019). The initial notion of objectification, then, can be considered an act against sexual objectification itself attempting to break taboos and remove the shame surrounding vaginas. The novel and bold visuals, but more so the various participating women, “strip away the absurd normalisation’’ of vulvas and bodies in the media whilst simultaneously normalising the female body (Mangan, 2019). Dodsworth further acknowledges the shocking value of her images is denounced through their educational value (Dodsworth as cited in Harvey, 2019).

Sexual objectification is further contextualised and manifested beyond the female body part, in the content of the personal and intimate stories told by participants who reflect on their relationship and experiences with their vagina. As the narratives cover a variety of topics, including menstruation, virginity, childbirth, masturbation, menopause and abuse, too broad to all be discussed in this analysis, two overarching themes directly related to the participant’s discourses of sexual objectification have been selected

Unrealistic representations, vulvas and pornography.

The notion of people’s oblivion regarding realistic representations and treatment of the vulva is a reoccurring topic in 100 Vaginas. It is inevitable not to refer to McKinnon’s and Dworkin’s reflection of the social construction and objectifying gaze in mainstream pornography. As “there’s a world of difference in how you see vulvas in porn – and how you see them in real life’’ (Harvey, 2019) the idea of the ‘perfect’ neat and self-contained vulva aesthetic, of looking good for other people rather than feeling good and enjoying physical enjoyment, is damagingly reinforced (Buchanan, 2018).

One participant explains how men she has been with “basically just had the idea that there’s one type of vulva and this uniform way as to how women look down there, [and] had a slightly warped idea of how they’re supposed to be treated’’ (Ash, 2019). She further relates this to the wrongful treatment of women, “in porn it’s hard and intense. You don’t get taught about the mechanics of sex, and not about any sort of care, compassion or respect for each other. Through watching porn like that partners didn’t understand it is very much a two-way street and the myth of the female orgasm wasn’t even a consideration.’’

Another participant elaborates “the women [in porn] are so degraded that it puts me off […] porn is very distorted and reinforces the idea that a woman’s body is not enough as it is, that it needs to be changed’’ (Ash, 2019). Revealing personal  and sexual pleasure, another confesses ’’there’s something quite animalistic about not making eye contact with each other but watching these two other essentially animals fucking’’ (Ash, 2019).

Dodsworth’s approach provides a contextual and visual representation of the vulva and the clitoris, helping women to overcome the body anxiety caused by unrealistic images in porn, and men by showing the complexities of the female body and how it requires compassion and tenderness to be fully satisfied and respected. She provides the much-needed educational solution as suggested by Papadaki.

Bodily autonomy

This theme directly addresses instrumentalization, the main focus within sexual objectification theory, which involves denial of autonomy and removes the objectified’s humanity and sexuality. As Kant states, when a woman is instrumentalised she is regarded as nothing more than bodily parts present for another’s sexual pleasure.

Several of the experiences in 100 Vaginas manifest ownership as a result of instrumentalization and entirely negative objectification, such as a woman who was genitally mutilated at the age of 7. Others controlled her body for the rest of her life, taking away her sexuality and womanhood “to prove to my future husband I was a virgin’’ (Ash, 2019). Or a rape victim who through being abused by a man lost her entire sense of body-confidence and self, “I went from being a super-confident young woman wearing low-cut tops, loved my boobs, to suddenly hating anything that was sexual about my body’’ (Ash, 2019). Another woman notices society’s disregard of the intrusive and intimate nature of sexual intercourse, “the privilege of being allowed in or near someone’s vagina it’s... she needs to be vulnerable, she needs to be accepting of the situation […] penetrative sex, it’s, that’s an enormous deal, that’s not a small thing. But we live in a society which doesn’t think that way, we live in a society that treats women entirely like a cockpocket’’ (Ash, 2019).

Women are ever so dominated by the penis, restricted from the pleasure men know they can have or are even unaware of their sexual abilities as they were taught to put the partner’s pleasure first (O’Connor, 2019). Upon being shown the image of her vulva, a woman exclaims, “there she is, it’s so pretty isn’t it?’’, comparing it to a pink-iced cupcake she says “the penis is this knife that’s cutting into the rose velvet layers. It’s kind of slicing through, cutting up the cake’’ (Ash, 2019).

Taking a stand against sexual objectification and reclaiming sexual agency of their bodies are those women who discuss matters such as masturbation and orgasms, which are generally denied in comparison to the openly acknowledged white male equivalent (Mangan, 2019). Dodsworth practices influence on this form of activism by adopting an intersectional representation of women, including transgenders, lesbians, black women, elderly women and gender non-conforming people, who each have different experiences related to their vulvas.

The stories about and visibility of the usually underrepresented vulva strengthen women’s body-confidence and reveal its potential for pleasure and inspire them to think about sensuality differently (Dodsworth as cited in Harvey, 2019). Ultimately it leads women to reconsider who has authority over their intimacies, “What if women did a sexual Brexit? And took back control? And then said to men you’re only allowed near it if you know what you’re doing. And we set up a kind of driver’s license, I think it would be useful.’’ (Ash, 2019).

100 Vulvas 

The analysis of 100 Vaginas has revealed that in very specific contexts sexual objectification can have a positive connotation, as suggested by Nussbaum. The depiction of the vulva as a thing, as implemented by Dodsworth, reflects a personal sense of self and empowerment under the condition that it does no harm to one’s humanity. Rather than sexualizing women these images hold educational value provide a way of breaking taboos around the physical vulva, reducing body anxiety.

Further, the intimate experiences and stories related to women’s vulvas are direct expressions of womanhood. Events that affect a women’s agency over her intimates are inevitably tied to negative sexual objectification. Constructed by society, the unrealistic representation of vulvas and women in mainstream porn cause damaging expectations and behaviour among men. Instrumentalizing women as body parts that exist for the pleasure of others result in acts such as rape, which completely destruct a woman’s self-confidence. With her straightforward artistic endeavour and the contribution of women’s personal stories, taking sexual objectification as their main focus, Dodsworth provides an act against it, educating men about their prejudicial stereotypes and actions, and women about the dangers of this behaviour and the abilities of their bodies, ultimately empowering women to reclaim bodily and sexual authority.

References

Ash, J. (director). (2019). 100 Vaginas [TV Movie]. London: Burning Bright Productions

Buchanan, D. (2018). Can we stop talking shit about our vaginas please? BBC.

Dodsworth, L. (2019). Me and my vulva: 100 women reveal all. The Guardian.

Harvey, L. (2019). Laura Dodsworth: Why I photographed 100 vulvas. BBC News.

Mangan, L. (2019). 100 Vaginas review – an extraordinary and empowering spread of the legs. The Guardian.

McKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Harvard University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291.

O’Connor, R. (2019). 100 Vaginas review: A powerful and essential documentary about sex and sexuality. The Independent.

Papadaki, L. (2010). What is Objectification? Journal of Moral Philosophy, 7(1), 16–36. doi.org/10.1163/174046809X12544019606067

Vaes, J., Loughnan, S., & Puvian, E. (2013). The inhuman body: When sexual objectification becomes dehumanizing. Humanness and Dehumanization. doi.org/10.4324/9780203110539