Women’s’ bodies are objects – everything that is discernible by the senses is an object. You cannot control how people perceive objects but you can take those objects out of view so they are not discernible.

The objects in question are not women’s’ bodies but pictures of women’s’ bodies. You cannot do any harm to a picture. The claim is that these magazines lead to men ‘entertaining’ themselves. Where is the harm in all of that? What is the harm in being aroused by the sight of what nature intended men to by aroused by in the first place? What is the harm of ‘entertaining’ oneself when nature has given us all that capacity? The homosexual culture now creates pornography which many women are taking advantage of. If there was an ‘establishment’ bold enough to produce images of scantily clad men for the enjoyment of women they might do very well.

There is no one bold enough to admit that women also enjoy looking at the bodies of men and being aroused by them but this is changing for a few reasons. Young women are becoming more accepting of their own sexual feelings and feel freer than previous generations to act upon those feelings. ZOO magazine is an anachronism in modern media and will eventually die out. Most people who want images obtain them online in the privacy of their own homes. They do not have to suffer the awkwardness of admitting to the check-out attendant at Coles or the newsagent that they have perfectly natural desires.

This awkwardness affects women so much more than men and so men are an easy target for blame. Women would be equally to ‘blame’ if they were not so repressive of their own feelings. They would establish their own publishers and produce magazines or ezines which cater to the very same instincts that men have.

This inequality becomes just another peg to hang the feminist hat on and another example of the evil empire controlled by men.

The idea that you can ban men from ogling at women is the equivalent of trying to ban womens' periods

phanto

'Women would be equally to ‘blame’ if they were not so repressive of their own feelings. They would establish their own publishers and produce magazines or ezines which cater to the very same instincts that men have.'

Therein lies the problem. The social mechanisms for women to do this are simply not there. This is because of what those pesky feminists keep referring to as 'the patriarchy'. Under a patriarchy, men ogling at pictures of scantily clad, sexually provocative women is an important function of keeping men in control of what it means to be a woman in this society.

Rather than assuming that women should go down the same sleazy path in order to achieve some dubious equality with men, perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy.

Many people of both genders neither need nor want to exploit other human beings in this way. These are the people who are fighting this exploitation, because they know that they are fighting an industry that is corrupting and perverting the natural human need for connection and intimacy

Killarney:

You seem to be saying that it is not an experience for either sex to enjoy and the only reason for producing such magazines is to exploit women. Men do not buy those magazines to exploit women they buy them to enjoy their content. Some men sit on a park bench and watch the women walk by simply because they enjoy the beauty of women in the same way they enjoy the flowers or the sunset. Enjoying what nature has created is not exploitation of any kind but simply enjoying life.

They are not trying to tell the women who walk by what their status in society should be – that is totally up to women to define for themselves. Just because magazines exist where the women have fewer clothes than on the street does not make their viewing any more exploitative – they are simply enjoying another aspect of women’s beauty. Publishers cater to this desire for men to appreciate and enjoy the beauty of women. That is not exploitative either but just common business sense.

Nobody ‘needs’ this experience anymore than they need to see the sunset but that does not mean it cannot be enjoyed when it happens. If there were no such magazines then there are plenty of other great things to enjoy. Even if there were no women there are still millions of other natural beauties to enjoy.

It has nothing to do with intimacy and connection. A man who is not in harmony with his own human nature and feelings is a poor candidate for intimacy and a woman who thinks such enjoyment is only available to men and not women would also be such a poor candidate.

Hey John,

How about you come and spend a week, even a day, working in a domestic violence refuge or a rape crisis centre and then come back and re-tell us so confidently about your loathing for "confected, professional" outrage?

Geoff

This discussion seems go be based on the assumption that the alleged problem with Zoo Magazine is because of the pictures in it. Has anyone considered the possiility that it's actualy the articles in it that people object to?