A Male’s Perspective on the Objectification of Women

Written by Regular Guy in response to Post Are People Oblivious to the Extent and Effect of the Objectification of Women

The current societal norms of the day provide very powerful conditioning as to what all of us consider to be beautiful, attractive or even sexually stimulating. If you look to different periods of time or even different cultures you will see this clearly evidenced. For instance, in ancient Rome, homosexual behavior of men was commonplace and dare I say socially acceptable. It is also interesting that if you look at the art of the day, you will see the male form very prevalently represented and idealized and as quite attractive.

Compare that to the recent modern history of America where the socio-politico-economic power has been concentrated with men (although now shifting and shifting quickly). Correspondently, the “art” and pornography were chasing those dollars, while at the same time women are being sexually repressed to chastity and being hyper-exposed to sexualized images of women tailored to mens’ preferences. Given this, it is no wonder that the subscription rates to Playboy by hetero women are so high. If you are a bi or homosexual female by all means enjoy the female body in all its glory. Just don’t be confused, what we experiencing in this modern girls gone wild, sexting era, is not the pinnacle of hetero female sexual liberation, but is the ultimate and darkest sexual exploitation of women, in that you yourselves are complicit (and doing it for free) and we have all been convinced this is socially acceptable. Take a jump back in time 50 years and try describing to your grandparents what they would see in girls gone wild infomercials 50 years in the future. Hard to imagine isn’t it?

As an aside, Playboy, while not hardcore, is pornography and not art. It is the same photographers churning out pictures like they were making hamburgers at McDonald’s. Don’t get me wrong, I think you can have explicit depictions of men, women, and sex that are absolutely art. While this is a high hurdle to jump, true art should be up the task and meeting that task is truly what distinguishes it from run of the mill porno. Maybe the supreme court got it wrong. Maybe the standard is and should be that you know it is art when see it. Which leads me to my final point, there were no women on the supreme court when the seminal cases on pornography and the first amendment were being decided. Split the court with men and women and I bet we have a much different and I suspect healthier definition of what pornography is permissible under the 1st amendment.