'Well, excuse us as we objectify men'

Err, I'm confused (again). Are feminists now saying men DO have the right to objectify women, and "equality" is all about giving women the same rights as men? Or are they saying although women reserve for themselves the right to NOT be objectified they are also demanding the right to objectify men?

If they believe in the latter is that a double standard or a triple standard (if that even exists of course).

More feminist muddled thinking. Where will it all end eh?

Many women objectify men and have objectified men for decades. Some see men as dildos with ears, others as wallets with legs, and some as brainless pieces of meat. If that's not objectification, I don't know what is.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Absolutely, it's amazing how some women are concerned with sexual objectification when women objectify men in all sorts of ways.

From women using men as status objects to only wanting men as sperm banks women are as guilty of objectification as men.

Nothing just "started" here at all. It's been same thing for decades, ever since playgirl and chippendales and all those stuff started happening years and years ago now. It's not like that kind of thing just happened a few years ago, so what the fuck are they talking about? This whole talk is decades old now and they're talking like it's some new thing. It really makes them look funny and ignorant.

I personally like the idea of men using their own beauty power and power of sexuality alone to lure stupid, greasy, stressed out on the verge of suicide horny women, but the way they always frame it is to not have this consideration enter into the discussion. It's all always what's good for women and there's a denial and a dismissal of the idea of the power of male beauty over women -- if it's even thought of at all (and we're to exactly dealin with big thinkers when comes to people who talk like "we all agree that it’s about time women have equal rights to objectify men." First off, who's "we", second what "right" is referred to exactly? What does this fall under in the constitution that you have an "equal right" to ogle? It's barnyard, rabid dog dumb eating it's own dogshit is what it is. If they have an equal right, then surely men do too, so then all that does is just doom women from perpetually beng sexually exploited.The way the male libido is, and with the culture addicting men to female beauty and sex the way it does, there will always be more "objectivication" in this manner of women. Women's libido's just can't compete, just compare revenues in female vs male erotica.

This is a great sign of things to come actually. Someday soon men will exercise greater beauty power than women, than women can be the ones with the ulcers, heart disease (it's already increased a lot for women as they entered more stressful occupations), suicides, etc as they bust their humps in devoid, pressure filled jobs providing for the beautiful men in their lives.

If women don't objectify men then why is it that the Caribbean Islands are jam packed with FEMALE sex tourists from around the world looking for sex with men and BOYS in EXACTLY the same fashion as Thailand is vilified for male sex tourism? Shit goes down EXACTLY the same in Jamaica as it does in Thailand but in Jamaica its a horny old woman sitting at a bar waiting for a teenaged male prostitute to come up and stroke her ego and in Thailand it's horny old men sitting at the bar waiting for teen girls.

And it's not decades old. It's as old as humanity. Women are and always have been the MORE sexual gender. There have always throughout human existence been more celibate men then women. We just don't notice it as it is as common as the air we breath.

I've heard of the sex tourism to the Caribbean too. There was an article in a British newspaper a few years back. Apparently the women who go on these holidays say they are going for the "black bamboo" (their nickname for it) that's available there...

What's troubling is people take the whole phemonon of women sex tourists as a joke, despite the potential harm and abuse that can come from it. I notice the British government has said nothing about this, but for now that's to be expected.