One of the hardest contradictions to comprehend is feminism's complete and utter disdain for men adoring sexually appealing women, yet encouraging women to become sexually appealing beyond common decency. It is not uncommon to see women constantly mooning you with their skin-hugging yoga pants these days, but should you question this, feminists (and increasingly, mainstream society) will become hostile. Sorry, ladies - you're making it difficult for me to admire your achievements when you lathered your face like a whore - for yourself, of course.

The issue of objectification itself stems from the fact that women are frustrated they are not sexually admired for their accomplishments. They're basically the reverse of Nice Guys. They think, "I love guys who are driven, wealthy, and world-famous. If men don't like that, then that means men must want women to be useless barbie dolls!" But, as men, we know that's not how the world works. Personality in women still matters, but nothing is more desired than physical beauty. So women are going to seek the pinnacle of beauty, and men will adore them more than more successful uggos. If feminists wanted to attract men based off their accomplishments alone, they would want to minimize their sexual attraction. The exact opposite of what women do irl. Clearly, they want some men to objectify them on some level...just the ones they are sexually attracted to.

This revelation came to me after reading an article on sex robots, with yet another feminist panicking about the potential replacement of women. Now, I doubt that women will be treated as an afterthought because of these things, but the sheer hatred and bitterness towards what are essentially very advanced sex toys was quite a reaction. And, much like when feminists try to address the issue of Nice Guys, she can't break her rant for a second to wonder what drives a man to seek artificial women over real ones:

"Women’s objectification and exploitation is always defended of the basis of some imagined defenseless, sad, disabled, lonely man who is confined to his house either due to mental or physical conditions or some kind of crippling shyness, and is completely harmless — a victim more than anything else...What McMullen and his weaselly counterparts seem never to understand is that the idea that men’s happiness should be catered to by women’s bodies and that “loneliness” is an acceptable excuse for objectification epitomizes patriarchy. It says that women should nurture men no matter what, to their own detriment."

Yes, the whackjob MGTOW or the physically ruined war vet are really maintaining the patriarchy in the four walls of their isolated home. In the end, feminists care more about lives of artificial women than sad, romantically unsuccessful guys. To her, it is their fault they are not getting laid, like they have some inherently evil character flaws. They will acknowledge the complex set of sociological factors that lead people to crime, but can't admit that some men are going to be unsuccessful with women despite being genuinely good guys, and some need strange outlets for their misery.

And that is the real issue of "objectification". It is not about men's sexuality, because feminsts love to cater to it. They are simply against the low-value man's sexuality.

Both the Alpha and the Beta generally have the same outlook on relationships. Both want to settle down eventually, but in the meantime sowing their oats is the ultimate bragging right. The difference is in their success. The Alpha has the value and skills to lay women is rapid succession, while the Beta constantly struggles to get laid. Both of these men equally enjoy a piece of fat ass. It is no coincidence, then, that the coping of the Beta is shamed. Feminists have no issue with women having loads of casual sex with noncommittal men who see her as another brief experience - they have an infinite amount of issues with the men who portray this in their fantasy.

Gamers met this issue head on in their desperate attempt to defend their institution. We tried, in vain, to explain that female characters can be both sexually appealing and have rich, detailed character backgrounds. We get it, it is unrealistic for this character to be wearing just two pieces of dental floss. But she still has her own personality, goals, motivations, successes, and failures. This attempt completely failed. Because it was never about characterization or even the that they were overly sexual (just look at any feminist Slutwalk). It is because Beta men have a medium to represent their deepest fantasies. And that's, like, just so creepy, ya know?

For women, status is everything. Men attain status to get female attention. If he can only dream about beautiful women being sexually submissive to him, then he must be a loser. If he can can get beautiful women to be sexually submissive to him, then not only does the Halo Effect initiate, but her chances of wanting to fuck him bounce up.

More relevant to the manosphere, this will always be another major issue in the progression and defense of sexual outlets for men outside of relationships. Iceland has banned strip clubs. Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, and France all make it illegal to BUY sex, but not to SELL sex. While I'm against aiding human trafficking, the framework that women who, of their own choice, volunteer to be paid far more than they could ever dream of with their current set of skills are "oppressed" is a feminist construct. These countries are basically saying to men "Go back out there Beta, and find a woman who can force you to work your life away. If you can't, then fuck you, you misogynist pig."

As usual, dominance and positive public perception is required for men. Women will treat men who have higher notch counts better than men who don't. If you're stuck in your basement jacking off to porn, you will be despised, while the same man who slams sloots at the party is heroized. A sad world we live in, but that is simply female nature.