We need more sexy images, not less.

Abso-bloody-lutely.

How completely disingenuous, dishonest and ultimately pointless to use Rolling Stone.

Why did these so-called researchers not use far easier targets like Zoo, Ralph or any number of men's rags that present women with lips as pneumatic as their breasts?

Both women's and men's magazine present completely unrealistic images of women. Yet these moral merchants chose Rolling Stone. Waste of time, money and, personally speaking MY patience. No-one can take this study seriously as a result.

PS

We need more sexy pics of men - author failed to mention this. Just as she failed to mention the mainstream magazines that do require a critical assessment. Apart from that rather major omission, I agree with the basis of her article.

89% ?

What's the margin for error. Sure it's not 88.234?

Hey I reckon you can quantify everything!

"scale of sexualization"

Hahahahah! More! More! It's the gift that keeps on giving.

'denying acknowledgement of anything other than our sexuality'

Hmmm. Does not mentioning it count as denying? Seems so. That would actually discount Playboy and Hustler. They give a nice little blurb about each model, summarising her dreams and aspirations. Along with her favourite positions.

Maybe we should measue cricketalising people! I think Ricky Ponting has been 73.2561% cricketalised in the the last 10 years.

'With the support of medical, academic and psychological experts, all of whom are usually on the look out for something new they can be credited with diagnosing, deconstructing and treating'

Hmmm. I can feel a whole new industry coming on!

'Any woman who claims she likes being sexy is told she doesn't know what she's talking about because the patriarchy has her brainwashed into thinking she knows what's sexy, when in reality sexy is only what they like and what they like always involves her humiliation and sexualization.'

But of course!

It goes one step further. I always like to highlight the use of the term 'for male... (insert disgusted tone)gratification'. It is really really offensive for males to at all be gratified sexually. When a male is gratified sexually, a little angle in heaven cries, and all sorts of cute little things die agonising deaths.

It really amuses me. If one wants to be sexually attractive, it normally means attempting to attract the opposite sex. The idea of attracting the opposite sex in outright hostility with what the opposite sex actually finds attractive doesn't seem to be a very successful strategy.

It would be like men defining their sexuality independent of women (as being the sensual scratching of their hairy balls with a crazed mating look), and thinking any kind of grooming or dressing to enhance features that women find attractive, behaving in any whay that women find romantic is defining their sexuality on womens' (insert disgusted tone) Gratification, and 'objectifying' themeslves.

The study falls apart on many gounds, actually I think on 97.365% of grounds but not on

'Why did these so-called researchers not use far easier targets like Zoo, Ralph or any number of men's rags that present women with lips as pneumatic as their breasts?'

a: Pneumatics is a branch of technology, which deals with the study and application of use of pressurized gas to affect mechanical motion.

b: It's a matter of context. To prove sexualisation, one would have to make a person's sex appeal the dominating factor in a CONTEXT where sex isn't relevent. Zoo magazine is all about sex in the first place.

"'denying acknowledgement of anything other than our sexuality'"

Hey! You're denying our sexuality denying acknowledgement of anything other than your sexuality.

And here I was thinking "ZOO" was pretty basic....Just goes to show...Big sister is watching!

A very shallow article. It doesn't make any attempt to understand why so many women 'need' the recognition that sexualised dressing/behaviour brings. We know why men enjoy sexualised images of women but what about the women themselves? Feminists never want to ask the hard questions. Just always blame men and paint the women as hapless victims. I know a young girl (friend of family) who embarrassed her parents by saying she wanted to be a pole dancer when she grew up. I think she was about 8 or 9 at the time.

Yet you say we need more images of sexualised women? I've been to countries with mixed saunas where everyone goes naked. There is nothing sexual about it. But in the mass media soft core porn is the new normal. Young girls literally want to grow up to be pole dancers! I guess a very shallow article for a very shallow society.