Hugh Hefner maintains that Playboy doesn’t treat women like sex objects … because women ARE sex objects. Hef can prove this because men want to have sex with women, and women want to be sex objects because we wear make-up and cute clothes. So there you have it!
The trouble here is not the sex … it’s the word “object”. An object has no personhood. An object has no reality outside of the viewers projection. A vase is an object. A book is an object. A woman is a person, even if she is sexy and men want to have sex with her.
Personally, I think a lot of men look at women as something other than hollow gourds for semen collecting. Certainly mature and fully adult men look at women as humans. Sure, they may think, “I’d tap that” but it doesn’t mean that they view that woman as an object. Someone they would like to see nekkid? Sure! But object? No, most men would understand she was more than just boobies and a vagina, she was a person with boobies and a vagina. Nor do they assume that sex was her only possible function. They may fantasize about pretty nurses, but if they are in the ER they want a nurse because there is a big cut on their arm. Men, as a whole, aren’t stupid. They know that women are not objects.
Women (straight ones anyway) like to look at men as well, and most of know we can deem men sexy without removing their humanity. I think Brad Pitt is sexy as sexy sexiness and yet I don’t view him as a sex object. Idol? Hunk? Hottie? Movie Star? Eye candy? Yes. Object? No. Because I know that that sex and sexual fantasy is not all he is good for.
I don’t have a problem with most porn, especially not the vanilla soft porn that Playboy dishes out. I think almost all straight men would like to see pretty women nekkid. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I’m not thinking of Dolph Lundgren’s master’s degree in chemical engineering when I’m looking at him. I’m thinking his body is bee-you-teh-full. But I don’t assume that is all he his. And the normal man is intelligent enough to know women are more than a body-for-sex.
So Hugh Hefner not only insults women when he maintains that we are sex objects, he insults all the men who know that we are human beings, albeit ones who may be sexually desirable as well.
As for his assertion that we were makeup and short skirts to be sex objects … no, we don’t. Women wear those things because we want, like most humans, to blend in with our culture. We want to be in fashion, in style, because those are status markers and usually humans try to ascribed themselves the highest status they can. If short skirts are in style, many women wear them. Does Hef think that men wear suits in the middle of summer because they are cold? Or is it because they need to project a certain status in their professional and personal lives? Thought so!
We wear makeup for the same reason we wear fashionable clothes. It’s part of a gender marker that, in our culture, makes women feel ‘prettier’. Do we want to look pretty? Yes we do. Do we want men to want us? In some circumstances. Do we want to be hotties? Yes, for the most part, because looking pretty and being desirable are also status markers and you are treated better by your culture if you are attractive. Those are the facts. But that does not mean that we want our boss to paw at us or to be treated as though we were capable of nothing else but attracting men. Very few women got dressed and put on their make-up this morning thinking, “I hope this helps me look like a sperm sponge”. Nope, we just wanted to look as pretty as possible because pretty is a cultural asset.
Some one needs to sit Hef down and explain to him, using teeny little words he can grasp, that “attractive” and “sex object’” have different definitions for a reason. Then that person can explain that women have thoughts and feelings, and were not put on this earth solely for his sexual gratification. Then smack him upside his head because he is a misogynistic asshat.
Herein ends the lesson.
The automatically generated of possibly related posts for this post included an article “When Love is a One night Stand” that I am horrified to have clicked on. DON’T CLICK! I am traumatized by their “feminism is evuuul” spewing. I’m going back to bed and maybe when I get up next time the world will be a more logical and pleasant place.
I have no idea what the criteria is for the random generator. I think the computer may smoke crack.
Are there actually people who think anything Hef has to say is important or relevant today? Stupid question. Of course there are. What a dilhole he always has been.
As a woman you can feel it when a man is thinking he’d like to have sex with you but your brain is inconveniently interfering with his fantasy / plans. That’s when I feel objectified and icky. And no, that is definitely not how I want to feel.
Right! But if I man is into you, and you can tell he thinks you are hot & interesting, it is a real turn on. People want to be seen as people!!
He may be a dilhole with regards to women, but he’s not a complete dillhole. He publicly declared black women beautiful way before the rest of mainstream white society, he revoked franchises from owners in the south who tried to refuse entrance to black men, he’s tended to like models who have actual curves and aren’t starved, and he’s employed some amazing writers. Do I want him meeting my future nieces? Not really, but is he a total waste because he’s a mysogenistic old man who doesn’t understand the term sex object? Not completely. He did have some good qualities. That said, the comment was completely dumb on his part.
I’d like to think he (being a human) has redeeming qualities, but he needs a smack for being a misogynistic asshat. Although revoking franchises which denied the entry of black men WAS a proactive move on Hef’s part, I would argue embracing black women was not. There is a long tradition of black women being sexual objects of the white male gaze http://bit.ly/9NOeaG.
Thought provoking, glad I found your blog!
Thanks! I like people to read it because it reminds me I am still a ‘real’ person with thoughts, not just mama mama mama all the time :0)
Objectification=bad.
I was in a narrow airplane aisle on Sunday, waiting to deplane after an unpleasantly crowded flight. Imagine my dismay when the nice looking professional young man in queue ahead of me turned around 180 degrees, ogled at my cleavage in a Bridget-Jones-Diary-Mr.-Titspervert fashion, licked his lips and smirked. I had to stand in line behind him another six minutes before we started moving. When we did, I hoisted my massive carry-on from the overhead, yanked the handle, and promptly slammed his ankles with my wheelie bag at full-tilt hustle. He turned around, dismayed. I smirked in all my passive aggressive glory.
What I should have done was shout, I teach underprivileged children to READ, you asshat. Quit staring at my breasts as though I were an inanimate sex toy.
Some men do not get the difference between a glance and a small smile (with eye contact) that says “you are pretty”, but an ogle & leer with a smirk says “you need to squirt me with pepper spray”.
Okay. “Sperm Sponge”. Now I’m a subscriber.
Hef is much better at publishing than he is at relationships. I’m a subscriber to Playboy as well as to you, but the women all look the same to me. If you want to view my standard of beauty, check out Tessa Le Fae. It’s not my site. But that, to me, is a beautiful woman.
I think we are hard wired to want to look at pretty nekkid people and sexy stuff. But I also think that most of us have the brains to know that’s not an ‘object’. The anti-porn feminists think there can be no porn without objectification. I disagree. I think the photoshopping of models on the covers of Vogue does much more damage to women than porn ever could.
A woman (or a man) is not a sex object. A dildo or a fleshlight is. Nuff said.
LOL