Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Objectifying Women’s Bodies is Acceptable from an Intimate Perpetrator, at Least for Female Sexists


Objectification of the female body is generating much research. Nevertheless, this has revealed little about whether women’s evaluations depend on the level of psychological intimacy with the perpetrator of that objectification. Intimacy theory predicts that objectifying comments would seem more acceptable coming from a close partner, especially for sexist women. The present study begins to fill these gaps by analyzing responses from 301 heterosexual/bisexual adult women in the United States (M age = 37.02, range = 18–72) to appearance and sexual body comments made by four different male perpetrators: strangers, colleagues, friends, or partners. Measures assessed women’s perceptions of objectification, as well as reported enjoyment of these comments. As long as they were not negative, comments from heterosexual partners were perceived as the least objectifying and enjoyed the most; comments from colleagues, strangers, and friends were linked with greater objectification and less enjoyment. Additionally, sexist attitudes toward men and women—but more clearly toward men—linked with objectification and enjoyment. Future research directions and practical implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1


  1. Abbot, B. D., & Barker, B. L. (2011). Differences in functional and aesthetic body image between sedentary girls and girls involved in sports and physical activity: Does sport type make a difference? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.005.

  2. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx.

  3. Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of engaging in fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.654500.

  4. Attwood, F. (2006). Sexed up: Theorizing the sexualization of culture. Sexualities, 9(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706053336.

  5. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.270.

  6. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.

  7. Cafri, G., Yamamiya, Y., Brannick, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2005). The influence of sociocultural factors on body image: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12(4), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpi053.

  8. Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021864.

  9. Calogero, R. M., & Tylka, T. L. (2010). Fiction, fashion, and function: An introduction to the special issue on gendered body image, part I. Sex Roles, 63, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9821-3.

  10. Calogero, R. M., Herbozo, S., & Thompson, J. K. (2009). Complimentary weightism: The potential costs of appearance-related commentary for women’s self-objectification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01479.

  11. Calogero, R. M., Pina, A., Park, L. E., & Rahemtulla, Z. (2010). Objectification theory predicts college women’s attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Sex Roles, 63(1–2), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9759-5.

  12. Chaudoir, S. R., & Quinn, D. M. (2010). Bystander sexism in the intergroup context: The impact of cat-calls on women’s reactions towards men. Sex Roles, 62, 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9735-0.

  13. Cortina, L. M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2008). Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review. Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 1, 469–497. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200448.n26.

  14. Dillon, H. M., Adaer, L. E., & Brase, G. L. (2015). A threatening exchange: Gender and life history strategy predict perceptions and reasoning about sexual harassment. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.002.

  15. Doohan, E. M., & Manusov, V. (2004). The communication of compliments in romantic relationships: An investigation of relational satisfaction and sex differences and similarities in compliment behavior. Western Journal of Communication, 68(2), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374795.

  16. Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.145.

  17. Eisenberg, M. E., Berge, J. M., Fulkerson, J. A., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2011). Weight comments by family and significant others in young adulthood. Body Image, 8(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.11.002.

  18. Etcoff, N., Orbach, S., Scott, J., & D’Agostino, H. (2004). The real truth about beauty: A global report. White paper. New York: StrategyOne. Retrieved from http://www.clubofamsterdam.com/contentarticles/52%20Beauty/dove_white_paper_final.pdf.

  19. Fairchild, K., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0.

  20. Fallon, E. A., Harris, B. S., & Johnson, P. (2014). Prevalence of body dissatisfaction among a united stated adults sample. Eating Behaviours, 15(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.11.00.

  21. Franzoi, S. (1995). The body-as-object versus the body-as-process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex Roles, 33, 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01954577.

  22. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experience and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

  23. Gervais, S. J., Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (2011). When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310386121.

  24. Gervais, S. J., Bernard, P., Kelin, O., & Allen, J. (2013). Toward a unified theory of objectification and dehumanization. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization. 60 th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1–24). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_1.

  25. Gill, R. (2009). Mediated intimacy and postfeminism: A discourse analytic examination of sex and relationships advice in a women’s magazine. Discourse & Communication, 3(4), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309343870.

  26. Gillen, M. M., Markey, C. N., & Markey, P. M. (2012). An examination of dieting behaviors among adults: Links with depression. Eating Behaviors, 13(2), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2011.11.014.

  27. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.

  28. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.

  29. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x.

  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.

  31. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., … Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold; ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713.

  32. Goldenberg, J. L. (2013). Immortal objects: The objectification of women as terror management. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization. 60 th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 73–96). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_4.

  33. Hakim, C. (2010). Erotic capital. European Sociological Review, 26(5), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq014.

  34. Harriger, J. A., Calogero, R. M., Witherington, D. C., & Smith, J. E. (2010). Body size stereotyping and internalization of the thin ideal in preschool girls. Sex Roles, 63, 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9868-1.

  35. Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Holland, E. (2013). The psychology of humanness. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization. 60 th Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 25–52). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_2.

  36. Hesse-Biber, S., Leavy, P., Quinn, C. E., & Zoino, J. (2006). The mass marketing of disordered eating and eating disorders: The social psychology of women, thinness and culture. Women's Studies International Forum, 29, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2006.03.007.

  37. Hirshman, L. R. (2006). Get to work: A manifesto for women of the world. New York: Viking.

  38. Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7.

  39. Jones, D. C., & Crawford, J. K. (2006). The peer appearance culture during adolescence: Gender and body mass variations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, (2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9006-5.

  40. Kozee, H. B., Tylka, T. L., Augustus-Horvarth, C. L., & Denchik, A. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x.

  41. Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Gonzalez, M., Rodriguez, Y., & Carrera, F. (2017). Hostile versus benevolent objectification: Development and exploration of the objectification and enjoyment of Sexualitation scale. Paper under review.

  42. Lazar, M. M. (2006). Discover the power of femininity! Analyzing global “power femininity” in local advertising. Feminist Media Studies, 6, 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770600990002.

  43. Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9770-x.

  44. Legenbauer, T., Vocks, S., Schäfer, C., Schütt-Strömel, S., Hiller, W., Wagner, C., … Vögele, C. (2009). Preference for attractiveness and thinness in a partner: Influence of internalization of the thin ideal and shape/weight dissatisfaction in heterosexual women, heterosexual men, lesbians, and gay men. Body Image, 6(3), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.04.002.

  45. Levine, M. P., & Harrison, K. T. (2004). Media's role in the perpetuation and prevention of negative body image and disordered eating. In M. P. Levine, K. T. Harrison, & J. Kevin (Eds.), Handbook of eating disorders and obesity (pp. 695–717). Hoboken: Wiley.

  46. Levy, A. (2005). Feminist chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture. London: Simon.

  47. Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., & Ransey, L. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the enjoyment of Sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55–68–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386119.

  48. Loughnan, S., & Pacilli, M. G. (2014). Seeing (and treating) others as sexual objects: Towards a more complete mapping of sexual objectification. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.6.

  49. MacMillan, R., Nierobisz, A., & Welsh, S. (2000). Experiencing the streets: Harassment and perceptions of safety among women. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(3), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427800037003003.

  50. Maiz-Arevalo, C. (2012). “Was that a compliment?” Implicit compliments in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(8), 980–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.004.

  51. Markey, C., & Markey, P. (2006). Romantic relationships and body satisfaction among young women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(2), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9013-6.

  52. McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: Review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00300.x.

  53. McNair, B. (2002). Striptease culture: Sex, media and the democratization of desire. New York: Psychology Press.

  54. Meltzer, A. L., & McNulty, J. K. (2014). “Tell me I'm sexy... and otherwise valuable”: Body valuation and relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12018.

  55. Milillo, D. M. (2006). Situational and ideological stake as predictors of women's perceptions of ambivalent sexism from potential romantic partners (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3239567/

  56. Moffitt, L., & Szymanski, D. (2011). Experiencing sexually objectifying environments: A qualitative study. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(1), 67–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100001036455.

  57. Motañes, P., de Lemus, S., Moya, M., Bohner, G., & Megias, J. L. (2013). How attractive are sexist intimates to adolescents? The influence of sexist beliefs and relationship experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313475998.

  58. Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, E., Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1421–1434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207304790.

  59. Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2010). Women’s perceptions and use of “anti-aging” products. Sex Roles, 63(1–2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9791-5.

  60. Murray, S. (2005). (Un/be) coming out? Rethinking fat politics. Social Semiotics, 15(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330500154667.

  61. Murray, S. (2008). The 'fat' female body. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584419.

  62. Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x.

  63. Orbach, S. (1978). Fat is a feminist issue: The anti-diet guide to permanent weight loss. New York: Paddington Press.

  64. Park, L. E., Diraddo, A. M., & Calogero, R. M. (2009). Sociocultural influence and appearance-based rejection sensitivity among college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01478.x.

  65. Payne, L. O., Martz, D. M., Tompkins, K. B., Petroff, A. B., & Farrow, C. V. (2011). Gender comparisons of fat talk in the United Kingdom and the United States. Sex Roles, 65(7/8), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9881-4.

  66. Pina, A., & Gannon, T. A. (2012). An overview of the literature on antecedents, perceptions and behavioural consequences of sexual harassment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2010.501909.

  67. Puhl, R. M., & Latner, J. D. (2007). Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation’s children. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.557.

  68. Quinn, B. (2002). Sexual harassment and masculinity. The power and meaning of 'girl watching'. Gender and Society, 16(3), 386–402. doi:10.1177%2F0891243202016003007.

  69. Ramsey, L. R., & Hoyt, T. (2015). The object of desire: How being objectified creates sexual pressure for women in heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314544679.

  70. Ramsey, L. R., Marotta, J. A., & Hoyt, T. (2017). Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied. Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived partner-objectification. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516631157.

  71. Rees-Miler, J. (2011). Compliments revisited: Contemporary compliments and gender. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2673–2688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.014.

  72. Ricciardelli, L. A., McCabe, M. P., & Ridge, D. (2006). The construction of the adolescent male body through sport. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(4), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105306065018.

  73. Ridgeway, R. T., & Tylka, T. L. (2005). College men’s perceptions of ideal body composition and shape. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.3.209.

  74. Riemer, A., Chaudoir, S., & Earnshaw, V. (2014). What looks like sexism and why? The effect of comment type and perpetrator type on women's perceptions of sexism. Journal of General Psychology, 141(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.907769.

  75. Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. (1984). Women and weight: A normative discontent. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 267–307.

  76. Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the ambivalent sexism inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3.

  77. Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2010). Body image and disordered eating in adolescent girls and boys: A test of objectification theory. Sex Roles, 63, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9794-2.

  78. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1979). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

  79. Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell, J., Watts, C., … Moreno, C. G. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet, 382(9895), 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61030-2.

  80. Strelan, P., & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52, 707–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3.

  81. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00200.

  82. Thompson, L., & Donaghue, N. (2014). The confidence trick: Competing constructions of confidence and self-esteem in young Australian women's discussions of the sexualization of culture. Women's Studies International Forum, 47, 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2014.07.007.

  83. Tylka, T., & Calogero, R. M. (2010). Fiction, fashion, and function revisited: An introduction to the special issue on gendered body image, part II. Sex Roles, 63, 601–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9888-x.

  84. Tylka, T., & Calogero, R. M. (2011). Fiction, fashion, and function finale: An introduction and conclusion to the special issue on gendered body image, part III. Sex Roles, 65, 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0042-1.

  85. Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1996). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  86. Visser, B. A., Sultani, F., Choma, B. L., & Pozzebon, J. A. (2014). Enjoyment of sexualization: Is it different for men? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(7), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12241.

  87. Watson, L. B., Marszalek, J. M., Dispenza, F., & Davids, C. M. (2015). Understanding the relationships among White and African American women’s sexual objectification experiences, physical safety anxiety, and psychological distress. Sex Roles, 72, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0444-y.

  88. Zubriggen, E., Ramsey, L., & Jaworski, B. (2011). Self-and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship dissatisfaction. Sex Roles, 64(7), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9933-4.

Download references


The first author was supported by the Government of Spain, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport State Program of Promotion of Talent and Employability R + D, State Sub-program of Mobility (State Plan of Research and Technology and Innovation 2013-2016).

Author information

Correspondence to María Lameiras-Fernández.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Authors don’t have any conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

The research on which this article is based was reviewed by the IRB or human subjects committee of Princeton University. Active informed consent was required.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 58 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lameiras-Fernández, M., Fiske, S.T., Fernández, A.G. et al. Objectifying Women’s Bodies is Acceptable from an Intimate Perpetrator, at Least for Female Sexists. Sex Roles 79, 190–205 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0862-8

Download citation


  • Objectification
  • Sexualization
  • Sexual harassment
  • Romantic relationship
  • Body image
  • Heterosexuality