While both men and women can be sexualised, it is primarily women who are being objectified, and women who are far more likely to be negatively impacted by it as demonstrated earlier.

When men are sexualised in media and advertising, they are not typically demeaned, portrayed as decorative objects or posed as vulnerable and submissive in the ways that women are. Men are also rarely dismembered and presented as a collection of sexualised or individual body parts. Instead, men are depicted as hyper-masculine and strong. The sexualising and objectifying treatment of men may serve to enhance their power and status rather than to reduce it.

Having said that, we do not support ‘equal opportunity’ objectification. We encourage individuals to speak out against objectification including when men and boys are subjected to it.

In Australia, this material is illegal. The Commonwealth Criminal Code prohibits the sale, production, possession and distribution of offensive and abusive material that depicts a person, or is a representation of a person, who is or appears to be under 18.

While some people defend the use of virtual child sexual abuse material or child sex abuse dolls as “victimless”, these products serve to normalise and legitimise men’s sexual use and abuse of children. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children notes, this material “may encourage potential offenders and increase the severity of the abuse…the objectification of children comforts offenders in their actions.”  

A 2019 report by the Australian Institute of Criminology concluded not only that there was no evidence child sex abuse dolls could prevent abuse, but that they could increase the risk of child sexual abuse by desensitising users, bridging the gap between fantasy and reality and could be used to groom children. 

In her book Sex Dolls, Robots and Woman Hating Campaigns Manager Caitlin Roper documents a growing number of cases where men found in possession of child sex abuse dolls are sexually offending against children in additional ways. Some incorporate children into their doll use, and commission dolls made in the likeness of children known to them. 

There is no evidence that having access to ‘virtual’ or AI CSAM, or replica children to practice sexual abuse, prevents child sexual abuse. Rather, it encourages it. 

We are not against sex – we are against sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, the two are often conflated, with any critique of sexual objectification and exploitation framed as an objection to sex – often a deliberate attempt to silence those who speak out against sexual exploitation industries.  

As sociologist and founder of Culture Reframed Gail Dines explained, "People who often criticise pornography are called ‘anti-sex’, to which I would argue that if you want to be pro-sex you have to be anti-porn. You can’t be pro-porn and pro-sex, you have to pick one. I think those of us who are against pornography are against pornography because we can’t stand what it does to sex. We can’t stand to see the way in which it reduces sex to an industrial, toxic product, which is exactly what pornography does." 

We speak out against a culture that sexualises children, that exposes them to adult sexual concepts prematurely, and imposes toxic ideas about sex and sexuality on them. We challenge the message to women and girls that their worth is defined by their sexual appeal. We believe young people should be able to develop healthy relationships and authentic sexuality free from the influence of the global porn industry and its messages.

The sex trade is a form of systemic violence against vulnerable women and girls fuelled by male demand. Legitimising the sex industry through legalisation or decriminalisation communicates that men have a right to paid sexual access to women’s bodies, and that it is acceptable to make an underclass of women available for men’s sexual use. 

Decriminalising pimping, brothel keeping and sex buying is a gift to those who profit from the sexual exploitation of women. It leads to an increase in sex trafficking (as more women have to be imported to meet the growing demand) and poorer conditions for the women in the industry, while emboldening buyers.

We work closely with sex trade survivors and seek to amplify their voices. These women reject the term “sex work” and describe prostitution as paid rape. We stand with survivors in calling for the Nordic/Equality model, which has been endorsed by the European Parliament as best practice for tackling trafficking and gender inequality. The Nordic model decriminalises those providing sexual services and supports them to exit the trade, while the buyers, pimps and exploiters are criminalised. “Without men’s demand for and use of women and girls for sexual exploitation, the global prostitution industry would not be able to flourish and expand.” - Gunilla Ekberg

See also: 

Collective Shout Submission, Review into Decriminalisation of Sex Work  

‘Prostitution Narratives: Stories of Survival in the Sex Trade’, ed Caroline Norma & Melinda Tankard Reist, Spinifex Press, 2016.

OnlyFans, a subscriber-only social media platform that allows people to sell pornographic content of themselves, is portrayed as a great way for young women to make money, and a better, safer option than traditional prostitution. In reality, it puts women at risk and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. An increasing number of young female content creators report degrading and violent requests, abusive and predatory treatment, as well as doxxing, image-based abuse and stalking. 

We published a piece by a woman named Victoria, a former recruiter for OnlyFans, who revealed that women who were prepared to do the most degrading acts were glorified on the platform. Victoria wrote: 

“I have seen young girls in the most intimate of positions. I have even seen them defecate on themselves and it was encouraged by the agency, as the more intense the act, the more money you could make. The more the girl would do, the better for us.

“I had people ask for the girls to be tied up, write ‘slut’ on her stomach, play with sex toys on camera while saying the man’s name, moaning and other sexual acts. ‘Age play’ was huge!  The girls who looked the youngest were the most in demand and made the most money so you’d promote them that way.”

In 2023 we joined a coalition of thousands of advocates calling on the US Attorney General to investigate OnlyFans for facilitating sex trafficking, child sexual abuse material, and image-based sexual abuse. The women who have alleged rape and sex trafficking by Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan reported they were forced to make pornography that was shared on OnlyFans.  

Our joint research with the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia (CATWA) found that during the first year of the pandemic, Australian media actively promoted OnlyFans to young women.

See also:

 ‘Side Hustles and Sexual Exploitation: Australian news media reporting and commentary on the sex industry during the Covid-19 pandemic,’ CATWA/Collective Shout

Arguments that women posting pornographic images online, being subjected to violent, abusive and degrading porn-sex acts or being paid for sex by men are all “empowering” render the word meaningless.

Is empowerment nothing more than a feeling, a state of mind, a defence of misogynistic practices? Or does it involve real-world conditions, advancing the status of women as a whole – women globally having rights, education, a voice (actual power)?

In a culture that teaches women from the earliest of ages their value lies in their physical attractiveness and sexual appeal to men, being wanted sexually may feel validating. But individual validation for being ‘hot’ is not meaningful power, nor is it advancing women’s collective rights. The ‘power’ that comes from being desirable is temporary and conditional.

If pornified portrayals of women as passive, interchangeable, sexualised props are really the means of obtaining power, why isn’t the same treatment being extended to men? And why is it that this so-called ‘empowerment’ is only found conforming to narrow demands about how women should look and act, and not in our resistance to harmful cultural practices?

It’s true that some companies will use controversy as a way of increasing exposure to their product and brand and increasing sales. 

But these are our choices: ignore it and hope it goes away (it won’t).. Or take action and call them out. Some act because they see the negative publicity is harming their brand and they need to fix it. Many times - and even more welcome - is when companies decide to act ethically, demonstrate Corporate Social Responsibility, make amends and apologise.

‘Silence is the language of complicity, speaking out is the language of change’ – anon

As part of our campaigning, we share these images to encourage supporters to take action. Most of these images are already in the public domain where they are visible to an all-ages audience. Where possible, we take steps to censor the images we share on our social media platforms. 

History shows that most of our supporters are more compelled to take action when they see the offending ad or product. We take all necessary measures necessary to hold companies to account. Sometimes we have to be made uncomfortable in our efforts to protect our kids.(Armchair critics who take time to berate us rarely make complaints directly to companies whose ad or product they find so offensive. And no one is forced to follow us). 

While we wish none of us had to see these images, our aim is to create change through collective action in the most successful way possible. Our record over 14 years shows our methods work.

While we support challenging the narrow, limiting beauty standards for women, and greater representation of diverse body types, race and ethnicity and age, we do not believe objectifying a wider range of women constitutes progress. No one should be reduced to the status of an object. 

See also:

'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit: Is inclusive objectification something to celebrate?'

It’s not “sex” being sold, it’s women’s objectified bodies. If it was sex being sold, we would see men and women equally objectified, but we don’t. Even if it is true that advertising that sexually objectifies women does generate more profits, this doesn’t make it any less harmful. (See also ‘What do you mean by ‘objectification’?')