Female objectification

Are females too much objectified

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 61.7%
  • No

    Votes: 20 33.3%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Yes and No

    Votes: 15 25.0%
  • Neither yes nor no

    Votes: 9 15.0%
  • Any combination

    Votes: 9 15.0%
  • No combination

    Votes: 7 11.7%

  • Total voters
    60
Females can never be objectified "too much".
 
Keep in mind that I hold basically the same belief about men; I'm just less vocal about it because I don't swing that way.
 
All we have to do is look at the recent threads dealing with appropriate dating ages. It seems that the foundation of a relationship is assumed by some to be pure sex appeal, so it creeps them out if the age split is too great.
 
A whole thread about female objectification and we don't even have any pictures of females being objectified?
 
People of both genders are objectified, and it is a nonissue. I guess the answer to the question would be no.
 
I don't see a problem here. Women want attention and they want to look good, thats perfectly reasonable. The picture of the body is much more an aspect of ones personality then it is a simple object.
 
You're sitting in a dentist's waiting room for a root-canal. There are two magazines lying on the table in front of you. One has Kim Kardashian, Megan Fox or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (your choice) on the cover. The other magazine has Milton Friedman, Mr. Charles Windsor, or Pope Benedict XVI on it.

Assuming you're heterosexual with no female significant others present, which magazine do you pick-up first?
 
The issue of pornography is an interesting one. Is the naked female body never pornographic if it is fine art? I suggest that historically that's what it was, and a man might declare his status by exhibiting such a picture, with a duplicitous intention. What does the pornographic nature of the image depend on? I don't see anything wrong with anyone's body per se. But the nature of its exhibition can be very problematic.
 
You're sitting in a dentist's waiting room for a root-canal. There are two magazines lying on the table in front of you. One has Kim Kardashian, Megan Fox or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (your choice) on the cover. The other magazine has Milton Friedman, Mr. Charles Windsor, or Pope Benedict XVI on it.

Assuming you're heterosexual with no female significant others present, which magazine do you pick-up first?

If you change the male names to Stephen Hawking, President Obama, and Lemmy then I pick that one up.
 
You're sitting in a dentist's waiting room for a root-canal. There are two magazines lying on the table in front of you. One has Kim Kardashian, Megan Fox or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (your choice) on the cover. The other magazine has Milton Friedman, Mr. Charles Windsor, or Pope Benedict XVI on it.

Assuming you're heterosexual with no female significant others present, which magazine do you pick-up first?

I probably pull out my phone instead.
 
You're sitting in a dentist's waiting room for a root-canal. There are two magazines lying on the table in front of you. One has Kim Kardashian, Megan Fox or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (your choice) on the cover. The other magazine has Milton Friedman, Mr. Charles Windsor, or Pope Benedict XVI on it.

Assuming you're heterosexual with no female significant others present, which magazine do you pick-up first?
Why would I want to pick up a magazine featuring some woman who appeared to be manufactured for the purpose of appearing on a magazine? I wouldn't be caught dead "reading" one of those.
 
Back
Top Bottom