The notion that Playboy turns women into sex objects is ridiculous. Women are sex objects. If women weren’t sex objects, there wouldn’t be another generation. It’s the attraction between the sexes that makes the world go ’round. That’s why women wear lipstick and short skirts.

That’s what Hugh Hefner says, anyway.

If this is true, then…

Why do women want to have sex with men? Men aren’t sex objects.

Why do men have sex with women who aren’t sex-objecty?

This doesn’t make sense.

There’s a difference between being sexually attracted to a woman and seeing women as objects that are all about sex and little else.

I don’t feel that I’ve been treated as a sex object by most of the men I’ve dated. And I’ve ended relationships with those who did see women in that way. They’re so annoying!

So I don’t buy it.

Playboy has certainly played a part in objectifying women. Hefner just can’t see it because he thinks we fit naturally into that limited box.

And by the way, women’s bodies are not inherently more sexually alluring than men’s. The male’s buttocks are just as attractive as the female’s. But the camera does not gaze at a man’s derrière as it does a woman’s. So we learn to see women’s bodies differently.

You think men are hard-wired to be drawn to women’s breasts? What about native societies where women walk around topless? And no one cares. The breast fetish isn’t biological. More on that later.

Notions like Hefner’s simply help those who objectify to feel better about it.

Popular Posts on BroadBlogs:
Anything Good About Being A Sex Object?
Men Are Naturally Attracted To Unnatural Women
Men Aren’t Hard Wired To Find Breasts Attractive
Women Learn the Breast Fetish, Too
“Cock” vs “Down There”
Beautiful Women’s Hips Are Thinner Than Their Heads?
Men Finding Fewer Women “Porn-Worthy”