this is literally the best thing ever
another bunch of tossers exploiting a woman’s body for straight male arousal to piss off religious right wingers, wow, sure showed those homophobes
if you want people to think porn is liberating and harmless, then maybe don’t use it as a weapon against people you dislike.
I don’t care how shitty the people you hate are – using sexuality to attack people is always creepy and inappropriate.
women’s bodies are not political tools for you to use (and yeah I know she consented). This “protest” has all the thought and relevancy of something eighth grade boys would come up with. It has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with them wanting to seem edgy and powerful.
Stop using us as an excuse to be obnoxious shits because this does nothing to help gay people
BOOM
The religious authoritarian men and the pornographer authoritarian men have been fighting for years over how to position the boot on women’s necks.
Here is the illustration of that fact.
Tag: sexual objectification
This is some next level fuckboy bullshit
The breast doesn’t even look like it is attached to her
This is some next level fuckboy bullshit
The breast doesn’t even look like it is attached to her
A robot sex doll made by men reassures us pesky feminists that there’s no objectification going on here………. The irony is too much
Do men really think this isn’t objectification?
This tweet is projecting man made persona on a literal object in the shape of a woman.
The vibrator comparisons is a false equivalence.
A vibrator is not a full bodied doll that has a inbuilt computer program which projects the illusion of a submissive woman who only lives for her male owner (I felt sick writing that)
The face is so ugly.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:
Amending a sexist ad in Melbourne. “Women are not objects. Turning a woman into a sexualised object is the first step in justifying violence against her.”
Buying pants to make my ass looking peachy is not a step in giving someone justification to violate me. I don’t even know how you come to that conclusion. If you think you are justifying violence by wearing fashion, producing it, or advertising it, you are bonkers.
This poster is an advert for pants and you are calling it a call for violence.
You are bonkers. Violence is caused by rage, not by pants that make my ass look like the work of art it is underneath the tight embrace of cotton fabric.
btw, sexualization happens in the mind and no one even brought up
sex, which
means you were the one sexualizing it.You are the one asserting this poster is justifying violence, not the poster, you are literally projecting
Also, human beings are literally objects, we’ve got mass, states of matter, volume, weight, and
I can tell you the elemental composition of one if you’d like. Most of us are pretty sexual too and there is nothing wrong with that because sexualization is not dehumanization. Being an object is not justification for someone to be violent to me.
You are defacing artwork, you are a censor, you are an authoritarian and propagandist, you are having a power trip disguised as a victim narrative.
You are destroying people’s things and defending yourself by saying “well, they’re worse than me”, it is a pissing contest.You are justifying a crime under the false pretense that you defending against a worse crime.
Christ
“Wearing tight pants is violence but vandalism of private property is okay”
If advertisers are allowed to communicate to us why can’t we speak back?
A little bit of civil disobedience is fun.
objectification absolutely enables violence???? it prevents people from being empathetic???? christ
Yeah. That is how it works.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:
Amending a sexist ad in Melbourne. “Women are not objects. Turning a woman into a sexualised object is the first step in justifying violence against her.”
Buying pants to make my ass looking peachy is not a step in giving someone justification to violate me. I don’t even know how you come to that conclusion. If you think you are justifying violence by wearing fashion, producing it, or advertising it, you are bonkers.
This poster is an advert for pants and you are calling it a call for violence.
You are bonkers. Violence is caused by rage, not by pants that make my ass look like the work of art it is underneath the tight embrace of cotton fabric.
btw, sexualization happens in the mind and no one even brought up
sex, which
means you were the one sexualizing it.You are the one asserting this poster is justifying violence, not the poster, you are literally projecting
Also, human beings are literally objects, we’ve got mass, states of matter, volume, weight, and
I can tell you the elemental composition of one if you’d like. Most of us are pretty sexual too and there is nothing wrong with that because sexualization is not dehumanization. Being an object is not justification for someone to be violent to me.
You are defacing artwork, you are a censor, you are an authoritarian and propagandist, you are having a power trip disguised as a victim narrative.
You are destroying people’s things and defending yourself by saying “well, they’re worse than me”, it is a pissing contest.You are justifying a crime under the false pretense that you defending against a worse crime.
Christ
Do they know how much they sound like Sharia enforcing Islamists?!
Are you sure about that?
A week later, we were sitting in our film-theory class, discussing ‘female presentation in Hollywood cinema’. Our teacher, a renowned professor named Dai Jinghua, showed us some clips of Rita Hayworth and Marilyn Monroe. We were admiring the pneumatic breasts and plunging necklines, the shimmering wavy hair, and the sculptured legs polished like porcelain on high heels. But then Professor Dai introduced us to the British feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey’s essay ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’. She muted the Rita Hayworth film, and read out aloud from the essay: ‘mainstream film coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order …’ She paused and looked at us to see our response. But none of us said anything. Then she asked: ‘What does Laura Mulvey mean when she says the sex of the camera is male, not female?’
I turned to the screen, where Marilyn Monroe was swinging her miniskirt with a shake of her perfect waistline, and smiling at the camera seductively.
Timidly, I raised my hand and answered with another quotation from Mulvey: ‘She meant that women are the image and men are the bearer of the look. So women are the sexual objects of Hollywood films.’
‘Yes, absolutely,’ Professor Dai nodded. ‘Most conventional Hollywood films are just like Playboy magazine, but with a bit of narrative.’
Playboy magazine. So far we’d never had the chance to see one for ourselves. Before the days of the Internet, Western magazines were definitely not available in China. I could only guess what it might be like. In truth, I longed to own a copy of Playboy! It would at least prove that I knew a thing or two about the West. I couldn’t help but wonder if Western girls were also subjected to the constant sexual harassment we Chinese girls in the countryside were. We didn’t wear miniskirts or sexy dresses to seduce men, but we were abused by them nevertheless. In what sort of society had Rita Hayworth and Marilyn Monroe lived? Was it anything like ours, or completely different? These were the questions I took away with me after that class.
Xiaolu Guo, from her memoir ‘Once Upon A Time in the East: A Story of Growing up’ (via yayfeminism)
Amending a sexist ad in Melbourne. “Women are not objects. Turning a woman into a sexualised object is the first step in justifying violence against her.”
or maybe some girls want to have a nice looking butt
this is an ad for women’s jeans y’all
if having a butt in a jeans ad is sexist, you “activists” are setting your provocation standards pretty low
Judging by the angry males in the notes I think the shit stirring tactics are working.
How come I’m not seeing equivalent ads of men “just wanting to have a nice butt”
Because men are not sold their own sexual objectification as a good thing.
Women aren’t food for male consumption 😘 stop making these sexist ass comics and pretending like they are anything but. Stop shitting on females.
This comic is so fucking disgusting and misogynistic
Wtf
“we transgirls aint cheap” YES BC UR NOT A GIRL U HAD TO BUY PIECES ASOCIATED WITH GIRLHOOD YOU PIECE OF SHIT
How are you a child a this fucked?
Go take a fucking nap and stop hating on trans women. Do your home work some shit damn
if what i said is really the only thing u see wrong here and not the author saying “cis” girls are cheap and basically saying transgirls are better, then you go to sleep bc u got some hardcore brain damage
Its so misogynistic. We are not meat, we are fucking human beings, and you are not better than women because you have been through surgery and took hormones. Having money doesnt make you better than anyone. Id rather be cheap as hell than sexist. If you can’t understand that, you can’t be a women. If u really see us like that, congratulations, you think like a men! Men treat us like piece of meat for centuries! Omg im just so shocked. How could anyone pretend this kind of crap is progressive?!!?
This is so fucking repulsive and misogynistic and hateful towards actual women I can’t even. Just more proof that lots of transwomen don’t see us as actual human beings, just costumes for them to imitate to be appealing to men.
I fucking hate this man.
Objectification – what is it?
Caroline Heldman, PhD.
What is sexual objectification? If objectification is the process of representing or treating a person like an object (a non-thinking thing that can be used however one likes), then sexual objectification is the process of representing or treating a person like a sex object, one that serves another’s sexual pleasure.
How do we know sexual objectification when we see it? Building on the work of Nussbaum and Langton, I’ve devised the Sex Object Test (SOT) to measure the presence of sexual objectification in images. I propose that sexual objectification is present if the answer to any of the following seven questions is “yes.”
1) Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person’s body?
Headless women, for example, make it easy to see her as only a body by erasing the individuality communicated through faces, eyes, and eye contact.
2) Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object?
3) Does the image show a sexualized person as interchangeable?
Interchangeability is a common advertising theme that reinforces the idea that women, like objects, are fungible. And like objects, “more is better,” a market sentiment that erases the worth of individual women.
4) Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person that can’t consent?
5) Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person?
6) Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity (something that can be bought and sold)?
By definition, objects can be bought and sold, but some images portray women as everyday commodities. Conflating women with food is a common sub-category.
7) Does the image treat a sexualized person’s body as a canvas?
The damage caused by widespread female objectification in popular culture is not just theoretical. We now have over ten years of research showing that living in an objectifying society is highly toxic for girls and women.
More info and images available on this link to the original.
Celtyradfem 
