Elodie strips for the Pirelli Calendar and claims to do it for “women’s rights”, for their freedom and for their emancipation from a patriarchal culture that would like, today more than ever, to control their bodies. And yet, despite this noble gesture, many on social media have attacked her, not so much for the choice to strip, but rather for the frame of activism that she wanted to attribute to this activity of hers, considered by many to be hypocritical and instrumental.

I am well aware that as a man my analysis on this matter could be frowned upon, and interpreted in turn as part of that male control over women, but I believe that as a social psychologist it is my absolute duty to deal with the issue (obviously accepting the possibility of being contradicted).

Elodie has always used her sexuality

Let’s start by saying that Elodie has always used her sexuality in the interpretation of her role as a singer and influencer. She did it as a free woman, who chooses, without any constraint, when, how much and how to undress. From this point of view, her battle is perfectly superimposable to that of the sex worker (Onlyfans, porn actresses, escorts, etc.), who claim the right to be able to freely dispose of their own body, even for economic purposes.

Onlyfans yes and the porn industry no?

The key discriminant, however, is that the decision to monetize one’s sexuality is in fact a completely autonomous choice and that therefore there are no other people, especially men, to act as “gatekeepers”, controllers, coercers and, above all, speculators. In particular, Only Fans has always been touted as a tool for female emancipation because it effectively eliminates intermediaries (even if in reality this is not always true), unlike for example the pornographic industry, where women are interpreted by many as not free and at the service of a historically chauvinist, macho and sexist world.

And so the question arises spontaneously: but aren’t erotic calendars, or pornographic ones, an integral part of this universe considered patriarchal? From the showgirls of Striscia la Notizia, to the billboards with half-naked women who sponsor products that have nothing to do with the female body, up to the entire Mediaset of Berlusconi. Let’s not kid ourselves: yes, erotic calendars have been considered objectifying and demeaning for the image of women for several years now.

Why is Elodie selling us a nude calendar as activism?

So why does Elodie try to sell them to us today as a tool for women’s emancipation? It seems to me that there is great confusion about this. Perhaps the only difference, worthy of note, could be that Elodie is already a rich and successful woman, who is not forced to accept undressing to survive, so hers is a free choice. But it is clear that this is a rather speculative discussion, because it is impossible to define case by case when a woman is completely free to choose and when instead there are economic or even sociocultural constraints behind it.

In short, the issue is far from simple, whatever self-styled conservatives and even self-styled progressives may say.

I would like to emphasize, however, that the battle has never been against sexualization, but rather against objectification, or the dynamic that leads to dehumanizing a human being and equating him to a (sexual) object devoid of feelings, emotions and value. And objectification is always a problem for the beholder, not for the one who undresses or decides to dress in one way rather than another. Let us never forget this.