« A Gap in Labeling | Main | "Making Love Last" at Princeton: a post-conference report »

March 12, 2007



While, I support the idea that men and women should be treated and respected equally, I always took this to mean that both men and women would be held up to equally high standards. Unfortunately, many people seem to take the opposite meaning. That men and women should both reach the lowest standard of objectifying each other.


Thank you Eve! True equality is achieved when both men and women are finally treated with the equal dignity and respect they deserve as human beings. Those who are disenfranchised will never get ahead by tearing others down, but by building others up.


wow, I needed to re-read some of those paragraphs to wrap my brain around what I was reading o_0

The part where they stated that they don't publish such things for the purpose of male gratification is like a baker saying (s)he doesn't bake goodies for the purpose of making people fat, but regardless of the intentions the fact remains that baked goods are fattening just as erotic images of women will turn men on.
So the intention does not rule out the result.

The "porn" girl who stated that her boyfriend dumped her because he didn't want to be in a relationship, made me sad, not because he broke-up with her but because she's naive to believe that her actions were not the factor in him not wanting to maintain the relationship.

It seems like all these women who take part in pornography, or any promiscuous lifestyle, end-up being taken advantage of by men who pretend to play a romantic until they have finished using them for their own sexual gratification and end-up settling with a more respectable woman.


These college editors, many of them women, prefer the term "sex positive."

They can use all the twelve-syllable psychobabble words they want, but it's still porn.


Ah, this particular brand of 'feminism' never caught on at my Australian university campus, thank goodness. The bizarro logic would be funny if it weren't so severely harming the lives of those who follow it. The whole 'intention not ruling out the result' thing Christine has pointed out is ENTIRELY lost on 'sex-positive' feminists.


And I would be pretty bloody ticked off if any of my tuition fees somehow went toward paying for something so ridiculous. Or if I were a parent paying those fees!


I agree that the magazines haven't really achieved full equality of the sexes, because the costs of casual sex to women are more than the costs of casual sex to men. (The same could be said about all heterosexual relationships in our society: marriage certainly doesn't get rid of the inequalities.) And yes, it's hard to publish naked photos of women and still live up to your feminist ideals, because it's so easy for others to co-opt those photos for sexist purposes. All that said, I do think the pictures of men are a step forward.

If men are going to get their ideas about sex from porn, I'd rather they got realistic ideas. Many men still think sex = the female body, which is damaging to women (because our sexuality gets equated with our sex appeal) and to men (because they're able to deny responsibility for their sexual desires). Sexy pictures of men drive home the idea that men are sexy too. That could conceivably help men to become less homphobic, which would be a huge relief for everyone.

That stuff only scratches the surface of the sexism in a lot of porn these days. It will take more than nekkid pictures to stamp out the assumption that women must look sexy at all times. In fact, nekkid pictures are probably counterproductive, for obvious reasons. And lots of gender inequality, like discrimination against women in the sciences, has little or nothing to do with sexuality.


Whoops! That "less" in the first sentence should be "more".


I'm completely shocked. I don't even know what to say, but that this is absolutely ridiculous! Poor people. I just don't understand how messed up you have to be to actually agree with these colleges.


I can't help thinking that people are referring to the objectification of men as if it were a choice. what I'm trying to say is that I'm a heterosexual women and would quite like there to be more pictures of handsome naked men. I am, however, undecided as to whether treating the human body in this way is right or not. Whether it is right or not, it does not take away from the fact that I would like to look at pictures of goodlooking naked men! This is not because I have labelled myself a feminist, but because I am a human being with desires. I worry that people are becoming to enrapped in the idea that the objectification of men is simply a form of feminism, a reaction against the objectification of women. It ofcourse will be interpreted that way. Growing up as a heterosexual woman, for may years not even knowing what a feminist was, I did wonder why men's desires were always catered for. It felt strange to me that half of the world's population (the women) were left with nothing. The only way women can look at mens bodies up until recently was in a gay man's magazine (if they dared). The message has been loud and clear that women shouldn't need these magazines. I overheard a man saying the other day that "we men dont have to worry about our looks, women are less superficial and go for mens personalities". I could not believe my ears. While personality is important I personally feel that I have to be attracted to the body too. This does not make me a superficial woman, for being attacted to an attractive man is something I cannot do anything about. Some women may have no interest in looking at mens bodies, and thats fine too, but what about the women who do? Are we to feel ashamed and unnatural for having these desires? Should we, as we have for many hundreds of years, continue to hide our sexuality, to the point of almost believing that we dont have one? People always say "Oh women are just trying to be as bad as men", but what if women actually are as 'bad' as men? I personally dont like labelling men as 'bad' as this makes it all the more harder for women to be who they want to be e.g this makes out that women are somehow born 'good' and therefore women then have to forever live up to those expectations. I never look at men and think "I want to be a man", but I do think " I want to have the freedom that men have". A woman with a healthy appetite for sex is deemed by many as 'bad' while a man would be deemed normal. If a woman acts as a man, she is therefore deemed 'bad' for acting outside of the considered norm of her sex. But she should not be looked at as having behaved 'like a man' for she is surely just behaving as herself. Forinstance it is more acceptable for men to burp and yet both men and women are both physically capable of belching! True equality would surely come out of not giving people labels. People are not good or bad, they are just people. The trouble is as much as I never judge any woman for being her true sexual self, because of my social conditioning I am too much of coward to follow my philosophy. There have been many times when I could have had a night of intimate passion with a guy that I was not serious about and I'm telling you it was really hard to say no to someone you desire more than anything, but I usually dont go throught with it, because of this fear of people and him labelling me as 'easy'. So basically I spent most of my teens and twenties repressing these desires and being left feeling sexually frustrated. Had I been the man, I would have had a night of fun! I guess these guys would not have cared if I labelled them 'easy', although I dont think I would have as I dont actually like labelling people. In my world, if a man and a woman sleep together on a one night stand then each would be happy and not judge each other, alas this is not how it works. This is not to say that I have not had some nights of no strings fun, but they are few, especially when compared without the amount of fun my male friends have had. And I have to say it does leave me feeling annoyed. Why should I be expected to resist the urge to have fun more than anyone else? Why should I, as a woman feel more guilty about sexual pleasure? Some of my female friends just say to me that they dont care what the man or anyone else for that matter thinks. They are ofcourse right because why would anyone worry about the opinion of somebody who judges you for the very same thing that they have done. Surely, it is the ultimate form of hypocrisy for a man to judge a woman for being 'easy' when he is easy too. How can a man possibly judge a woman for the very same actions? I refer to the male model in the article. If I could speak to the girl who was so cruelly dumped by him, I would ask her if she really wanted to be with someone so narrow minded anyway? Its all a bit depressing all this repressing. Im haunted by the fact that I might actually end up following the norm and marry some guy for his 'personality', some great guy who unlike me was lucky enough to be born a man so that he was able to have more than enough fun before he settled down with his 'good' wife. The truth is as a woman you generally are not allowed to have too much fun. Ask a man if he would be happy to have his future wife have as many or more sexual encounters as he had and you know what the answer will be . NO! So bring on the objectification of men, who knows it might balance everything out, and if women aren't actually allowed to sleep with lots of men, they should at least be allowed to look at them! Perhaps society is scared that if there is a smuch objectification of men as there is of women then society will go sex mad! Well it already is, but I cant help thinking that if men are to be treated in the same way then things would change and evetually (after some time) even out. The longer it is just women who are seen as sexual objects the more acceptable it will always be and the less acceptable for women to be true to their sexual desires. I guess if you wanted to label me it would be as a feminist, but what is a feminist afterall, but simply a human who wants the right of equality and who happens to have been born a woman. A feminist is surely a woman who wants to be able to be her true self, whether she is 'good' or 'bad' and wants to objectify men or not. I'm not saying that women have to be sexual, just that they are given a choice to be, without this constant judgement.


To Sally, are you saying that the guy who used that girl deserves to end up with a 'respectable woman'? Or that that is just the way life works in this world? I feel very soory for the girl. It is sometimes hard to read how superficial a man can be? I think he deserves to end up alone.

A Man!

What happened to choice in all this?

These young women are free to make their own choices. And like young men, hopefully they'll earn from their mistakes. I mean, mission accomplished, right? You can't single out one quote from an article, conclude that men are superficial, women are sensitive, and both should be denied porn.

And is a pic of a naked man (or woman) always objectification? The article kind of assumes that from the beginning. But with the rise of digital cameras, cell phone cameras, and the like, more and more porn is self-produced by lovers and couples, anyway. Assuming those images don't later get co-oped for some sinister, solo-male(?) purpose, is this like a double-objectification scheme that we should watch out for?


"we men dont have to worry about our looks, women are less superficial and go for mens personalities. I could not believe my ears."

Well, he's not exactly wrong. How often have you seen an extremely good-looking man with a below average looking woman? Not nearly as often as you've seen an extremely good-looking woman with a below average looking man. Why are gay guys, relative to straight guys, so much more intent on their appearances and keeping their bodies in shape? Because they have to attract men, not women.

Why are there fewer magazines with nude men than with nude women? Seriously, it is NOT because of any lack of gender equality, but because they don't sell as well. Women don't like to look at nude men as much or as often as men like to look at nude women. Women generally prefer written erotica to visual pornography, because they are generally aroused by a combination of factors that cannot be merely visually depicted, which is why the women's erotica market booms and the women's visual pornography market doesn't.

"And is a pic of a naked man (or woman) always objectification?"

When it's published in a magazine primarily used by men for the purposes of whacking off, I'd say yes. Or do they buy it for the academically obtuse articles on gender equality?

The comments to this entry are closed.