So say one group of campaigners who oppose the sexual objectification of women in mainstream life - what they call 'sex object culture'.

Having read their beliefs which you can download from here and the list of things they seem to aspire to ban - porn mags, lad mags, men who use prostitutes, pole dancing, lap dancing, escort agencies etc - let's just cut it short and say I'm not sympathetic :)

However, do they have a point?

Does anyone feel that sexuality is so commonly expressed these days that it is oppressive?

In particular, do any women feel that glamour models in the media, strip clubs and wank mags make their ordinary lives uncomfortable or unsafe? Does male sexuality intrude when it is inappropriate and does anyone agree you need to be 'hot' to be a valid female?

    ^top

theres a point to restricting lapdancing clubs - thats good

    ^top

To be fair, they don't seem to be talking about banning things - but they do talk about licensing lap-dancing clubs, which seems pretty fair to me.

Personally, objectification doesn't really work for me - perhaps it is the obviousness that doesn't really appeal. (Though I'm not as bad as the friend who looked at a pin-up for some time and said "Did you notice that one breast is so much larger than the other?" Nobody else had, actually) A female friend reckons that most men can just drool over the individual bits of the body (breasts, leg, arse etc) rather than seeing the whole woman (or person, I suppose!).

I think my real concern is that women can be treated simply as objects - even if they are not playing that particular game. I know a woman who was groped in a pub, when she told the guy to stop (reasonably politely) she was told she should have been flattered! Part of the difficulty is we all have different dividing lines between erotic and sleazy.

    ^top

I think they should ban porn. It's so desensitized these days I have to watch a video of a smurf taking it up the ass to even get a semi on...

    ^top

I think women are just as bad.

You have to be a decent looking guy for them to notice you and chat to you as they would anyone else. If you're below par in the looks department, then they tend to dismiss you, pretend you're not there or presume that you're some kind of freak who's going to stand behind them and drool down their necks.

Things like, if you're not good looking, in the workplace they will hand you something, for example, without looking at you and just keep on with the conversation that they're having with someone. If you were hot they would be all fluttery eyes.

I try and treat everyone the same be they hot or not.

It works both ways man.

    ^top

I have never thought about if women think I am hot or not, I just assume they all fancy me and if they don't I don't give a shit, lesbians the lot of em!

    ^top

I agree with:

"OBJECT campaigns for an end to the sexual objectification of women in the media and popular culture. We challenge the normalising of ‘sex-object’ culture - showing women as sexual objects and commodities whose purpose is to provide titillation."


However, not with:

"We are against the criminalisation of women selling sex. But we support tackling the demand for buying sex. " Would they say the same about drugs, that the junkie should be targeted and not the drug-dealer. What about people who run these rings, should they not be targeted?


They also talked about glamour models - yes, some women have get forced into the sex trade, but the likes of Jordan, were not forced or had limited choices, they choose the glamour path, they wanted to be seen as 'objects'.
What about the story of the mother who wants her 15 year old daughter to the next Jordan and is saving up for her boob-job. That is just fucked up and no one should take blame for that.



"The hard core porn actress, Jenna Jameson was apparently shocked to discover that girls as young as 13 saw her as their role model" - which girls were they asking? When I was school, she was seen as a slut.

    ^top

Nuts and Zoo's norks war over the last couple of years bothers me. God, I love boobs as much as most of you, but the way these mags try to pretend they're wholesome harmless fun gets on my wick. They're soft porn. And if we're applying the same rules they should be covered up and relegated to the top shelf.

I'm also concerned about the message they promote, particularly to their younger audience. Turn to any page and you'll see pneumatic blondes and brunettes - how many women look like this for a start? - who're always available and gagging for it.

One regular feature - Street Strip - implies you can grab any woman off the street, bung her £50 and she'll take her top off. Folks here may think I'm a prude but what message does this send to teenage lads? Particularly in the absence of decent sex education.

    ^top

I have tried to get various girls at work to send in pictures to nuts and zoo. You get £200 a pop, last time I checked. Pity they all thought I was joking. It's easy money to my mind, split it 50/50, £100 each. Lovely.

Also, I want to get my views known about lapdancing/strip clubs. I detest them. Really hate them. I just don't understand how they interest anyone. If you weren't paying them, they probably wouldn't look at you twice.

    ^top

I'm in agreement with the vast majority of what they have said on the FAQ's.

    ^top