“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.”
STFU, Hugh Hefner. By your logic, wouldn’t men be sex objects as well? Why are we only attributing this to women? And yes, Playboy does turn women into sex objects. It’s magazines like that that make it somehow okay to objectify women and perpetuate the idea that women’s bodies and sexuality exist solely for men’s pleasure and enjoyment. It’s magazines like yours that make women think they’re only worth is their beauty and sex appeal. It’s magazines like yours that make women think they have to wear lipstick and short skirts to be seen as attractive by men. You’re a disgusting, misogynistic prick.
I'm Britni, a snarky bitch and generally awesome person. I write about sex, love, and bullshit. If sex-positivity, discussions about BDSM and kink, queer issues, and topics that are completely inappropriate by society's standards make you uncomfortable, then this blog is not for you.
Good Vibes 
20 Comments
On a similar-but-not vein, I once argued the merits of having women in combat (this was during the first Iraq war) with my 8th grade US History teacher. He was strongly opposed. Young Meg was a fledgling feminist and thought women should be trusted in combat situations. (Young Meg also wanted to grow up to be a fighter pilot but later got sidetracked by music and the rest is history.)
My teacher said, “Women keep the population going. Women shouldn’t be put at risk because they’re the ones that have babies. We need women.” I think he was patting himself on the back for this oh-so-brilliant and wity argument when I retorted with, “We kind of need men to make babies, too.”
He told me I was immature and that my argument lacked merit. I still seethe when I think about it–19 years later.
His argument would have made more sense if he brought up the far greater amount of reproductive effort that goes into having a child instead of reducing the conversation to reproductive capabilities. I hate people like that.
I also hate when people throw the fact that women weren’t drafted and benefited from not being in the front lines of combat as some huge advantage having a vagina has afforded me. Right up there with free drink at the bar.
Now, the subject at hand: My mom once said, “How will you ever get a boyfriend if you don’t wear lipstick and earrings?” I laughed in her face. Sure, I haven’t had a ton of relationships, but I do get male interest without the lipstick and earrings.
And it’s usually from guys who see me for ME, and my brain and my heart. Not my boobs and hips and pretty pout.
Meg, I officially hate your teacher btw. Ugh!
Also, it’s true that Playboy didn’t turn women into sex objects, technically, it’s been that way long as there’s been women to objectify I’m sure. But it ain’t right, and neither is acting like there’s nothing to be done, just how it is.
I like earrings, but lipstick I tend to smudge off on my drink/during sloppy makeouts, so it’s not really my thing.
I’m happy to be a sex object to someone who is also a sex object to me, but that’s where it ends. Consenting to be each others’ sex objects: Yay! Getting leered at by everything with a dick: Boo.
People still buy his magazine?
People still BUY MAGAZINES?!
asdfghjkla;kla;lkdkl;adsjkl;gjkl;;lagkhklasdfj;laskdfj;alf
I have mixed feelings about this.
One one hand, once upon a time, Playboy did publish really good articles (my mom had a subscription in the sixties/seventies), and their centerfolds actually had freckles/pubic hair/etc. Nowadays, the franchise just seems to be a parody of itself.
Okay Heff, you took the idea of soft-core porn and made it more mainstream and acceptable, and published young, up and coming writers. But the insistence on lounging around in that robe, your numerous “girlfriends”, and saying bullshit like this doesn’t make me want to buy your magazine.
It’s only a matter of time before his enterprise goes under.
I have a subscription of Playboy (and Penthouse and Maxim for that matter…). I am 26 years old, straight, well maybe slightly bicurious, and FEMALE. I ordered these subscriptions prior to being in my relationship with my boyfriend.
I am apparently on the other side of the fence then many women about the whole porn issue. I’ve written many blogs covering sex and porn- I believe that the fact that many in society view females as sex objects is equaled out by the fact that we, as women, can/could use our sexuality (our sex-object-ness) in order to get things that we want/need in life. The fact that some men may see it (being a sex object) as a demeaning thing shouldn’t bother us, as that attitude just makes them easier to push around.
Now I’m not a man-hater, or a sneaky manipulating bitch, or anything like that … I mean this point more in the lines of “use what you have” or “men and women ARE different and we should embrace those differences.”
I think if a woman wears lipstick and has her self-esteem wrapped up in her looks, then she is just being a normal human with her own issues… Personally I could never justify blaming Hugh Hefner because I can’t go a day without mascara…
Major FAIL at the feminism.
Also, if you regularly read Britni’s blog you’d realize how ironic your comment is in so many ways.
Why is that a major fail at feminism?
Feminism is about woman having choices. She chooses to use her sex-objectness in this way instead of bitching about it being there.
Power to her, I say.
Feminism is not just about women having choices. There are more choices than the stereotypical feminist response of the “victim” and the opposite reaction being all “Yeah, I’m empowered by being a sex object!” Myself, I often just acknowledge it and move on. Also, women using their sex objectness throughout history did not result in women gaining even a modicum of equality. It obviously did fail at balancing out being a sex object. Not to mention the fact that feminism is not just about women, but about equality between the sexes, and to support manipulating men in this way is antithetical to those ideals.
Thank you, TC! I wasn’t going to reply, but since there is at least one person here who understands…
Jennifer, In my original comment, I believe I specifically asked that I not be misunderstood as being “pro” manipulation.
Using your personal assets as positives in your life is not manipulation (any more then any basis for a relationship is by default). Using your assets as assets is simply being smart. It’s all in your perspective; either the couple has a healthy, happy relationship (which always includes give and take from both parties). Or the couple is just manipulating each other … the man is just using his “protect the girl” instincts as part of the package to “manipulate” the woman into finding him useful and keeping him around. And, the woman is just using her “sex-object-ness” as part of the package to “manipulate” him into staying around and being faithful.
If a woman finds that she is “empowered by being a sex object,” then how is it wrong of her to embrace that? Even if you truly believe it hasn’t helped historically, why is she responsible for all of society’s “women” and not just for herself. I say if she’s found something that works for her, more power to her.
As far as the history theory goes, there are plenty of matriarchal societies in history, and I guarantee you they did not rule by denying that they were different from men and avoiding the sexual side of their natures.
I really don’t think I am anti-female by being pro-sexuality… However, if I have failed at your version of feminism, that is OK with me as any type of “feminism” it isn’t a label I claim. I enjoy the fact that I am female and my differences from men give me the ability to be desired by a man.
“As far as the history theory goes, there are plenty of matriarchal societies in history, and I guarantee you they did not rule by denying that they were different from men and avoiding the sexual side of their natures.”
Can you name one? Most of the societies people claim as “matriarchal” turn out not to be when one pauses for more than a cursory glance.
I’m sorry but you seem to think that sex object = the only way to be considered desirable and attractive. You don’t have to objectify someone to consider them attractive.
And what does matriarchal societies have anything to do with this? Feminists don’t want matriarchy in place of patriarchy.
You also fail at assuming my “type of “feminism”" is not okay with women wanting to be considered attractive by men. Last I checked, I too enjoy being found attractive by men and ::gasp:: I often am in that I largely fit into our society’s beauty ideal in that I’m young, fit, have a pretty face, and am somewhat feminine (though not as femme as Britni, who rocks it!). After checking out your blog though I realized the irony of your argument in that by essentially accepting our society’s conventional beauty and sex object “ideal”, you yourself have accepted that you are not truly considered beautiful or worth lust as much as other women who fit the ideal because you are in fact a larger woman.
I don’t read it like sex object = the only way to be considered desirable and attractive at all. I read it as she’s using her attractiveness (which is not the same as being a sex object) to her advantage, just as men use their natural more muscular physique as an advantage in the mating game to attaract women.
To me, as a male, feminism is about acknowledging the difference between men and women instead of equality. The women in the 60′s didn’t burn their bras because they wanted to be seen as equal to men, they wanted to have the same rights and possibilities while still being obviously different to men.
If a woman finds that she is “empowered by being a sex object” then how is it wrong of her to embrace that? If she does this out of her own free will and by her own choice, how is that not the epiphany of feminism.
To add to your other comment about non hetero women, how does her statement differ if the woman is hetero or non hetero? Change every “man” in her statement to “human being” and it still stands.
Also, not to mention that your comment totally erases women who are not in fact hetero.
I would like to add that if a man used his “protect the girl instincts” to attract me, my “instinct” is to roll my eyes so hard that I probably end up in the ER with detached retinas.
Honestly, I think Hef is just comparing sexual attractiveness to procreation (though in a pretty misogynist sounding way). I think he’s a total sleazeball, but I have hard time getting upset over this. Though maybe I’m just desensitized by all the bullshit I’ve been reading lately.
This is so full of win though (from here):
“The question in my mind is why does he [Hugh Hefner] even bother to set up this image of pseudo-sophistication while also pandering to men who fear the idea of a spark of intelligence in a woman more than death itself? Well, my theory is that Playboy’s pseudo-sophistication is the art of selling denial to men. On a certain level, sexist men are often aware that it’s pathetic to want women to be dumb and compliant. And that is an embarrassing thing to realize about yourself, that you’re so incapable of holding your own that you squawk at the idea of socializing with women that aren’t giving your ego a handicap with a Hooters uniform or a bunny costume or playing dumb or whatever. So in comes Playboy with Hugh Hefner, who needs a who string of women playing bimbo to calm his ego, but claims to be The Man and that by reading his magazine, you too can convince yourself that you’re actually not a feeb, but a sophisticated man of the world.”
In my personal opinion, no person is a “sex object.” In my mind, an object is an unthinking, unfeeling thing. People don’t qualify… I would say that the majority of people are sexual BEINGS, but that isn’t even everyone. And, in fact, I would argue that being sexual beings does not necessarily create the next generation or make the world go ’round. Rather, procreation can be accomplished in any number of different ways these days. Beyond that, if everyone that was a sexual being had sex for the singular objective of having children… well, that just isn’t the case. His logic is faulty because it is too simplistic, too stereotypical, and entirely asinine.
No person is a “sex object” but the reason that women are objectified and are thought of as sex objects is because, exactly an object is “an unthinking, unfeeling thing,” and a woman is looked at nothing more than an unthinking, unfeeling body. Women are viewed as sex objects because they are viewed by sexists as without thoughts and without feelings, something solely there for the sexist’s pleasure, hence, a sex object.
One Trackback
[...] that I should address it, especially regarding the discussion that took place in the comments of this post, yet I don’t even know where to [...]