Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Debunking Feminist Theory of " Sexual Objectification".

We've all heard the feminist movement claim that when women pose nude or use their bodies for profit, we men are are singling out women for sexual objectification and sexually exploit consenting women to perform jobs despite these women clearly accepting propositions of employment and being considerably paid more than majority of men. Here are some figures of the earnings of some of the currently highest paid models from page 3:

'Michelle Marsh (topless) and Lucy Pinder (nipples covered, so far) - can earn in excess of £100,000 a year.  
Twenty-one-year old blonde Michelle (vital statistics - 32G-24-34) says such sums should serve notice to anyone who wonders whether all Page Three girls are not bright. 
"At the end of the day I could work nine to five, but I would not be travelling the world earning such good money and meeting brilliant people," she says.  
They think it's normal and acceptable to carry daily pictures of half-naked women, which is still revolting - but I'm still glad they're supporting us"  Clare Short, in 1997, after the Sun backed LabourLike many girls, she got into Page Three through a local modelling agency and also works for the lads mags.  
She says there have been catty comments from one or two women offended by their boyfriend's wandering eye and the odd time when she's wished the men would stop paying her attention, but most people respect her choice - including her family.  
"My mum and dad are absolutely fine about it, they collect everything I do," she says. "When they saw how happy I was they were really pleased for me. My dad runs my website." 
Michelle, the proud owner of her own house and a sports car, knows she won't be able to continue in her line of work for ever and plans to work as a carer for the elderly.  
While she can probably afford to pick and choose, even averagely successful Page Three girls make between £30,000 and £40,000 a year."Page Three girls are in demand with magazines right now," says Edwards.'

That should put to rest the idea that these women are being exploited by being somehow brainwashed to serve at men's leisure.

Now let's see the how feminists describe "sexual objectification" shall we? Here's Everyday Feminism defining sexual objectification:

"Sexual objectification and sexual desire are two different things. Sexual desire and attraction is a normal and natural part of life. It involves two (or more) people stating their desire for one another and consenting to mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.  
So in the case of someone “using” the other for consensual sex, it’s not true objectification because both parties have agreed (hopefully!) to engage in the act.Sexual objectification, however, puts one person in the role of subject and the other person in the role of object. 
 In heterosexual coupled relationships, these roles are usually assigned to the man and woman, respectively.  
Sexual objectification requires that one person choose what they want sexually and the other person is required to perform to their standards."
This  nonsensical garbage is what is destroying the relations of the genders and natural human sexual instincts. This is the same as arguing that consensual sex is the same as sexual desire and that “using” someone for sex is not sexual objectification because it is consensual…
 In reality, according to a study published in the international Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, sexual desire is a motivational state and an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, need, or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities."  
Also, the definition of sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a “sex object” and is not defined as one person choosing what they want sexually and the other person being required to perform to their standards, as reported by everydayfeminism.com. According to merriam-webster dictionary a sex object is “someone who is thought of only as being sexually attractive or desirable.”
This famous feminist magazine literally wrongly defined what sexual desire is in order to make it seem like sexual desire is not sexual objectification, when, by its very definition it is. Sexual desire doesn’t involve consent, it involves one person having the desire to have sex with another. When a man’s sexual desire for a woman is driven by her physical attractiveness, feminists freak out and say that he is sexually objectifying women. And they’re right, he is, it’s completely natural, and there’s nothing wrong with it. 
And this is typically the instances where feminism reveals its true colors. The reason why feminists  wrongly defined sexual desire was to make sure the real definition wasn’t revealed, which would have brought up some very concerning questions about the feminist ideology. According to this ideology, sexual objectification is worthy of condemnation, meaning that anyone who has found another person sexually desirable based solely on their physical attractiveness is guilty, i.e majority of the human race. Indeed, men are frequently more guilty than women about their sexual desire because men tend to be more open about their desires than women as we've posted on this blog. But women also are susceptible to the same levels of intensity and lust as men are, as a sexologist describes in a book
Recognizing that sexual desire drives the sexual objectification of women, some feminist philosophers have stated they believe the whole concept of physical attractiveness is problematic. Feminist John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn sexual fantasies which involve the visualization of women. You read that right! This is the feminist agenda that demonizes and tries to monopolize normal male sexuality. In fact, feminists are now attacking the gaming industry for the sexual objectification of women in video games in the same way social conservatives were attacking them for their portrayal of violence. Who would have guessed the cultural marxist ideology of feminism would have so much in common with social convservatism?
At its core, feminism is a double-think/speak/discourse, supremacist ideology of forced equality, chivalry and political correctness which will ultimately strangle free speech if society as a whole does not reject it.

1 comment:

  1. "... feminism is a double-think/speak/discourse, ..." - Talking about "thinking" in the context of feminism is strange. When I read or hear a feminist idea I always feel that I am hearing the playback of a segment of feminist brain-washing activity ***completely untouched by any thinking***.