Sex objects for the whole family

My goodness, America is anal! In today's society, we can barely think about "offensive" material, let alone enjoy it. It's true that some things we do or say cause more harm than good, however, the politically-correct state that we live in is borderline painful.\nObjectifying the sexes is my favorite offense. These days, you can barely turn around without someone being exploited for his or her body. The message is clear, being a sex object is "bad."\nBloomington is no exception to taboo tits. Students caused a row all year long by popping up in dorm porn, strip bars, and the IU theatre production "Lysistrata." It seems that anything that is not art, i.e. Judy Chicago's vaginal art exhibit in 1999 at the Fine Arts Museum, is suddenly vulgar.\nDoes anybody realize how silly this is? We condemn strippers and porn stars for displaying skin, for being an object. What, I ask you, is wrong with being an object?\nI'm going to make the broad, sweeping statement that, at some level, every single human wants to be found physically attractive by somebody else. In order to do this, both sexes do such immoral things as shower, dress up, put on perfume or cologne, women sometimes put on makeup, men might gel their hair, or do whatever in an effort to attract their target. They become objects so that they can reach their goal.\nIf it's not obvious, try this push-up bra on for size: Victoria's Secret grossed $2.4 billion in 2002 according to financial analysts at www.hoovers.com. Estee Lauder, a makeup and fragrance company, listed $4.7 billion in sales the same year. Consumers spent $1.3 billion on clothing by Giorgio Armani and the average breast augmentation costs $3,257 according to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.\nAre you holier than thou? Hardly. Let's look at scope versus intent.\nAt the marital level, wives want to attract their husbands and husbands want to entice their wives. Believe it or not, married persons commonly use the techniques mentioned above. Objectifying oneself at this level is accepted by basically everyone.\nThe same scope and intent also applies to unmarried couples.\nLet's move up a level to cultivating new relationships. Relationships forged at bars or clubs provide an excellent example. In these places, available people also become objects in order to reach their goal. Jewelry, makeup, and accentuating clothes are by no means the only ways to lure potential partners, but they are common tactics. The Saturday night Kilroy's line testifies to that.\n In this example, the scope is the entire bar. The intent varies from finding a lifelong partner to a lusty one-night stand. Like the couples in the first level, the men and women use their attributes to reach a definite goal, the only difference is the range of their targets. Most people accept becoming an object at this level.\n Finally, let's talk about the last level -- strippers and porn stars. For some reason society condones being a sex object for one's permanent or temporary partner, but not for the general public. Once again, we'll look at scope and intent.\n The men and women that give sexual performances have a scope of their audience and the intent to make money. It is to their financial advantage to be as sexually attractive as possible. Sure there are other jobs out there, but how can we criticize sexual performers for objectifying themselves when we also become objects for our own benefit without the slightest scorn everyday?\nThe scope and payoff may change, however society's actions show that there is nothing wrong with being an object. It's hypocritical for us to use the current double standard.