Iconic Sexuality
Marilyn Monroe and Kim Kardashian are the most iconic women of their time, and arguably ever.
My initial interest in Marilyn Monroe surprisingly led me to Kim Kardashian. I couldn’t help but notice striking parallels between these two women. Admittedly, I am quite fond of Marilyn and not a fan of Kim. Even though I feel justified in my opinion.. I have been challenged to accept their profound overlap, which lead me to question my own bias.
Why is this my preference? And more importantly, where did it come from?
To start with the obvious; their image. Both are curvy, sensational women known for their aesthetic. Yet, here is the distinction I noticed. Marilyn oozes sensuality. Kim translates sexuality.
Now this realization has deep roots and I’ll do my best to explain. But first, a disclaimer on my personal views:
I believe American culture (mainstream media) is priming men and women to engage in separation instead of unification. The tool… a twisted value system within capitalism. Women have been encouraged to embody objectification, while men have been praised for consuming it. Women are unknowingly sustaining it amongst themselves. Men are inadvertently encouraging one another to continue. It’s my hope to illuminate these patterns and how they’re proliferating.
Hopefully this provides context to my case study of Marilyn and Kim. Now, some definitions are in order.
According to Webster Dictionary, sensuality is a “condition of being pleasing or fulfilling to the senses” whereas sexuality is “sexual activity” or “capacity for sexual feelings”.
Sensuality is expressed by someone embodied. This translates as a comfort in identifying as a sexual being who understands the art of play. This includes witty banter, vivid imagery, a touch of mystery, and most importantly joy.
Sexuality in American culture has been exploitive. When it comes to being sexual, the sentiment in human connection is absent. Hook up culture and swiping left has removed intimacy and mimics amazon and Uber eats. There is a plethora of selection with low investment, delivered to your door.
Women have been categorized as commodities to men, being grouped with materials such as cars and shoes. This practice of grouping women with inanimate objects, creates an air of anonymity, which doesn’t require emotional consideration. I’m not here to discount there are successful connections and meaningful love on these platforms. But I want to offer an observation of how millennials and gen z are beginning to relate to one another.
Women have also been included in the male numerology system of one’s “body count”. This may seem like a stark contrast, but numerical systems are used to eliminate humanity, and are implemented in corporate and prison systems. At a young age, men have categorized women as tallies in their own numbers game. It’s risky territory to include this practice in our dating culture.
In addition to the lack of intimacy, I’ve been reflecting on the marketing technique “sex sells”.
It’s been a quiet concern of mine, that we’ve moved into entrepreneurship where we “sell ourselves”, “be the brand” and advertise to compete for attention. I do see the value of this sentiment, recognize the impact of imagery, and continue to explore this as an entrepreneur myself. But I feel it’s flirting with a dangerous line. The consumer marketing model is mimicked in dating apps. I’m honest in saying that I’m not sure what a clean solution is.
As I mentioned earlier, the agenda of separating the sexes through the lens of products and merchandise, has been developed on both sides.
As far as our male counterparts, men are being propped up for consuming women to discard them after. All the while deeming them of less value after intercourse has taken place. I can’t help but think of the engagement of waiting for the next PlayStation. Tired of what once was and anticipating the next edition. Attention span is a buzzword with legitimate concern and capitalism is profiting on our new level of engagement. It seems that this mechanical infatuation (I feel as been imposed on men) is solidifying the expectation for men to prove their masculinity by eliminating emotion. Men are encouraged to disconnect from women because emotions are “weak”, and we prefer them to maintain this machine-like existence.
This is the undertone I’m hoping to shine light on and I’m using hyperbole to do so. I recognize this doesn’t apply to every man and woman, and there’s different levels of participation with the mainstream. As I explore my writing, it’s not my desire to be crass, but vivid in illustrating the connections I’ve made. My intention is to use bring awareness to an underlying feature.
As I continue discussing Kim Kardashian, we must first recognize the collective value system that’s attributed to her success.
Kim and Marilyn are brilliant minds who observed, strategized, and executed. The difference between their approach lies in these two questions: Do you use femininity as a tool to expand your presence? Or do you use the feminine appeal to become a glorified product?
We will be discussing the life force and the inanimate.
Marilyn Monroe and Kim K.