"This calls into question the idea that we sexualize violence against women because we find pleasure in harming her. Instead, maybe we sexualize violence against women simply because we sexualize women."

I'm sure that could be the case, but I don't understand why the latter necessarily contradicts the former. In many ways, aren't women despised because of their sexualities? Or at least, aren't women's sexualities despised because of the supposed violence they inflict on the psyche of the heterosexual men?.

I think this plays nicely into that. Their violence is sexualized, just as their sexualities are "violent". Woman kills man, woman seduces man...maybe, it's all the same thing to us. Maybe, the fact that women can be cruel and beautiful just reinforces this concept of women's sexual "power" over men. Maybe we enjoy it because it reinforces that idea, and reassures us that women truly are this way and this is why we despise them.

And if we sexualize and despise them, there ought to be nothing better than two women attacking and destroying each other. There ought to be nothing more comfortable to us (or the subconsciously misogynistic viewer at least) than that, I would think.

This post reminds me of the commercials for "The Glades." Three of the four teaser commercials had a dead woman in it, in a bikini, and in a relaxed pose as though she was just napping (as opposed to mangled/ disfigured bodies). Then again, seeing what you wrote about sexualizing violence against women, I doubt they would have racked up as many viewers with a dead man in a Speedo as their promo.

I recently saw a History Channel show on Cleopatra, which did something to this effect. The visuals and narration alternated between (1) explaining how she supposedly used sexual relationships and strategic killings to gain political power, and (2) repeatedly implying that she was some kind of thanatos-driven nymphomaniac (I can't count the number of times the narrator melodramatically intoned the phrase, "Sex...and MURDER"). Oddly, they seemed oblivious to the contradiction between these two readings of the events. Or that, you know, murder isn't actually sexy in real life.

I agree with Bri that sexualizing violence against women because we sexualize women doesn't preclude sexualizing violence against women because we take pleasure in harming them. We sexualize women in many different situations, but images of violence against women that are also presented as sexy tend to be particularly intense - or seem so to me, anyway. It may be impossible (and pointless) to isolate the various causes, but how about this: perhaps the tendency to sexualize women in general is part of what LEADS to taking pleasure in harming them.

Also interesting, this ad does very little to represent the show it's advertising, which has much less to do with sex appeal, and more to do with low budget reenactments.
It makes me wonder if maybe the images where pitched somewhere else, and offered to discovery I.D. second.

Another way of looking at the sexualization of violent women - beyond the idea that we enjoy seeing women in violent situations, and this is therefore sexy - is that maybe we sexualize a violent woman in order to make her more manageable. A violent woman is a profound threat, especially to masculinity, but when we make her a sexual violent woman, she is less powerful. She becomes more feminine, more easily controlled.

I've seen this commercial on TV, and it really bothered me!

I think a point that has been missed here (unless I overlooked it in some of the comments) is that women's sexuality is often equated with being dangerous or threatening, thus allowing a patriarchal society to blame HER for any damage done. This includes sexual violence toward the woman herself, as her sexuality is so powerful a man cannot resist.