So I've had to hear some lectures recently about how women have been more and more objectified over the years in magazines or this and that etc. Yet when men are objectified, they claim the man is objectified in a "good way" or that it is "not as bad" as women. An example was an add faced by some supermodel with makeup and the other by the same company faced by David becham with little to no makeup. The claim was that males get to look like normal people. Well guess what, women can pour on makeup to look like that model, but none of use males will ever look like David Beckam. Then they had the audacity to say men AREN'T OBJECTIFIED ON TV, well how to do explain old spice, Axe, etc etc. Yet the claim their was that its "not the same". Right. Here's the question then. They claim the magazines tell us what is attractive and what is not. This is somewhat true. However, consumers get what they want for the most part. If a woman agrees to be paid to take her picture, and another woman buys the magazine she is on (say cosmo), then BOTH of those women are ACCEPTING that THAT is the standard for themselves. Therefore, blaming the magazines is useless, you have to look at how the CONSUMERS are reacting to it. And to assume it's only men who like to look at objectified women is ridiculous. Cosmo does it and they are female oriented. But enough, here is my point: If the magazine shows you skimpy beyonce, and you say "that is not what a proper woman looks like, they are pushing unreachable goals", then that means that you are saying beautiful women like beyonce ARE NOT NORMAL AND SHOULD BE SHAMED, right?

Am I taking crazy pills here? I'm about to write a thesis