And it is every bit as purile--and sexist--as it is for Seth MacFarlane to sing of seeing women's boobs. (but I admit it IS funny.)

@1 - But nobody on the Oscars--ostensibly the highest awards for film making--ever thought of objectifying the men in attendance like that. It took the internet to bring this to us.

Men sure do have it rough, don't we?

Damn, another reason why only getting to see films on planes sucks.

Did everyone really miss the point?

I could make that montage! I may have sought out every junk ever dangled in mainstream cinema. Gerard Depardieu/Robert DeNiro being mutually masturbated in 1900 would kick it off. Mercy, I could go on. That and the McFarlane number would bookends the audiovisuals of every party I ever throw.

DO IT GUS!!! You'll be an internet sensation. For a minute or two at LEAST!

Seriously. Do it.

@4,

What point was that? That Jodie Foster in The Accused was slutting it up by showing her breasts?

@4: Yes, everyone did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13…

@9 Why wasn't this on Slog before now?

@2 Sadly, you have a point.

On the other hand, this was pitch perfect. And, because it even had a satirical edge, it was much better.

Both versions (McFarlane's and this) brought to mind the old Not The Nine O'Clock News routine of "The Two Ninnies":

"We're marching up and down on the spot, spot, spot,
'Cos the sodding choreographer's a twat, twat, twat,
And he couldn't care a jot
If we're milit'ry men or not,
With a bum, tit, 'ow's-yer-father, WHOOPS, tickle-a-dildo..."

@9 Thanks! But it would be better with the "I Saw Your Junk" song :)

@9, woo hoo!

@9, they missed a few notable ones, and the last clip from Boogie Nights was a prosthesis (not his real dick). But otherwise not a bad compilation.

Onion.

Imus.

@16 Cunt is not racist. Also, it's misogynistic but not sexist. Nappy-headed ho was both...and without even the slightest attempt at being ironic. Blatant racism and sexism for humor vs ironic misogyny.

Also, he took several days to apologize, Onion took a few hours.

#17

Yeah, but
Yeah, but
Yeah, butt butt butt buttt

Con los apologistas
(Do the Liberal Shake)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hpEnLtqU…

The real debate is this (and I'd love a 150+ comment thread on the subject)-- are professional entertainers less imaginative when it comes to satire or is the world so fucked up that satire is almost impossible?

@2: But nobody on the Oscars ... ever thought of objectifying the men in attendance like that.

That's because in all of Oscar history, only two women have hosted the show, and they are both lesbians.

@2: But nobody on the Oscars...ever thought of objectifying the men in attendance like that.

That's because in all of Oscar history, only two women have hosted the show and they were both lesbians.

I'd personally welcome more sexual objectification of men by women.

As far as I know, none of those scenes depicted rape against the male characters who showed their junk. At least four of the women in MacFarlane's stupid song showed their breasts during a filmed rape scene. And the worst part is that this guy has three or four TV shows, unless the one with Jonah Hill got canceled. Fuck Seth MacFarlane and fuck his stupid excuses for comedy.

@21: "I'd personally welcome more sexual objectification of men by women."

I love how this completely ignores the context where women are constantly objectified by men in our society. I bet you'd "personally welcome" being told that you should jump on a cock just because you're walking down the street and being called a total bitch when you roll your eyes and keep moving. I bet you'd personally welcome sexual objectification of men by women where you work. Jackass.

I'm thinking Minerva's hosting her monthly visitor.

@20/21 Whoopi has had a lot of beards...

@22 A lot, A LOT, of men don't mind sexual objectification. Even constant. Sure there are some who actually do mind, and they'd probably end up ranting much like you just did. But don't hoist your shit on everybody else.

(Sigh) That "We Saw Your Boobs" song wasn't funny for me. It was disturbing. It was "HA HA HA, YOU STUPID GIRLS! We got the better of you again!" just like thirteen-year-olds yelling "PMS!" whenever any of their female classmates do anything they don't like. There's no comeback for that. The really bad thing is that it's probably not possible to be any sort of film actress and get away with never going topless.

But just turning the tables on the guys to see how they like it doesn't work. Most straight guys think that sexual objectification is fun, even when they're the object. Unless the person objectifying them is also male; then they get upset. If someone could invent or discover a way for guys to really feel what women feel about stupid crud like this without firing up homophobia, I think that person should win some kind of Nobel.

That's the real reason why women feel less threatened by gay rights than men do. Men don't like the idea of being viewed as a possible recipient of sexual activity. Women don't like it either but are nonetheless used to it.

@21 Why "by women"? That wouldn't teach anyone a lesson. Most straight men like being objectified by women.

Here's how I suppose straight guys see sexual acts (from seeing someone's body to actual sex):

Sex involving a man and a woman: The man is winning and the woman is losing (or more benignly, the woman is giving something to the man). No matter what happens, if it's a hookup or a relationship that lasts or a relationship that goes south, the man gets to brag about the sexual act and the woman does not.

Sex involving a man and a man: The more aggressive of the two men is winning and the other man is losing.

Whether it's the man objectifying the woman or the woman objectifying the man, the man still perceives himself as winning. Either he's been able to get the woman to give him something or he's sooo super virile that he was able to draw her over to initiate contact just by being soooooo attractive. The only way to make a guy feel as creeped out by an unwelcome sexual advance as a woman does is to put him in a situation in which he'd be the loser: Have him approached by another man.

Is it just an American thing to equate male genitals with garbage/trash?

I find this extremely insulting and infantile.

Bring out the dozens of sleazoids who flock to these (or TSa-related) stories and can't wait to tell us how much they don't care if anybody sees their business so therefore ladies shouldn't care either.

@26: "If someone could invent or discover a way for guys to really feel what women feel about stupid crud like this without firing up homophobia, I think that person should win some kind of Nobel."

It's probably impossible, they're projecting how they feel about women back on themselves and it stings.

I think when straight guys say that they'd like to be objectified by women, they're imagining women they'd like to fuck paying them an occasional compliment.

They're not imagining being objectified as a point to control or demean or mock, to establish dominance or exert entitlement. Or imagining being objectified routinely by everyone--the unattractive or the old--to the point where you get the message that your attractiveness is all that is seen, all that matters about you, and all that dominates every interaction. Or have your bosses reduce you to such treatment...

And on and on the examples go, but the point: degree, context, and power matter.

@31: Again, projecting how (they pretend that) their actions are intended and how they demand that women take the attention. They could ~never~ demean a woman with a "compliment" about how the women are being ogled and demeaned. It's not surprising how quickly those dudes turn to actively demeaning when the passive attempts fall flat.

A million examples of that can be found in the messages sent by "nice guys" at http://okcgoldmine.com

Yeah, and being ok with being called "honky" gives you the right to use the N-word.

27 - Of course men like being "objectified." When media "objectifies" them it tends to appeal to male fantasies of power. I'll just leave this here...

http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/bo…

@ 23 - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and offer an explanation for why that was offensive and belittling:

First and most obviously, you are stating she only said/feels/believes (generic) "that" because her hormones are out of balance and therefore whatever she has said/feels/believes must either be untrue or without value.

Second, you are stating that she is not allowed to say/feel/believe "that." You are using a silencing technique. You are telling her to shut up and barring her from contributing to the marketplace of ideas.

Third, you are making it clear that women (all women, not just the woman you addressed) are not entitled to be angry. If a man is angry, he is angry. If a woman is angry, she is "hosting her monthly visitor." And if women aren't allowed to get angry about things that are relatively trivial in the greater scheme of things, where does that leave us with concern to the big things? How should women respond to wage discrepancies in the workplace, to forceful unsolicited sexual advances, to politicized attacks on our bodily integrity? Anger is unacceptable. So what does that leave?

Do you disagree with Minerva? Do you think Seth MacFarlane is funny or that seandr isn't a jackass? Explain why instead of falling back on a tired misogynistic trope.

@34: It'd be nice if they actually understood what the word "objectified" means instead of just uncritically substituting "someone would have 'the sex' with me!"

@34 What I am saying is that because most men like being objectified by women, singing a song that objectifies men does not teach them lessons about why it's bad to objectify women. It will not make them feel the way those actresses felt when they were mocked for the (albeit mild) social transgressions that they performed for the sake of their careers.

I guess the thing here is that allowing oneself to be viewed naked is against the rules, but it's considered much worse for a woman to do it than for a man to do it. Saying "I saw your boobs" has a far bigger element of "You're a rotten person, Charlize Theron/Kristin Stewart/Scarlett Johannson" than "I saw your junk" does. It's like saying, "Hey, remember all those directors and agents who insisted that you'd never get that part if you didn't go topless, and all those people who insisted that going topless for the sake of art was serious and legitimate? FOOLED YOU!!"

The song "We Saw Your Junk" is merry, but it does not do anything to help with the problem of the song "We Saw Your Boobs."

@26/27: Just wanted to say how much I agree with you/that analysis. I wish more people would call out that dynamic explicitly.

Wait. What? Whoopi Goldberg is gay? Not that I care, really, just never considered it.

And yes, that clip made me feel better.

Fuck you, MacFarlane.

@36 The same ridicule could easily be said about We Saw Your Junk. Perhaps even moreso because full frontal male nudity is far more stigmatized than toplessness.

You say it's worse to see a woman's boobs than a man's junk? That's just wrong. So wrong. If that was the case why was it such a big deal when Bruce Willis flashed his cock in an extremely brief scene in a terrible movie? Or when Harvey Keitel showed his in The Piano...or Bad Lieutenant?

Did you find it offensive when Rose McGowan calls Neve Campbell in Scream saying "I rented Risky Business. I've heard if you pause it just right, you can see his peee-nisss."?

@39 Worse to see a woman's breasts than a man's penis? As far as objectification goes, yes. I've never seen Scream, so I can't comment on that scene.

The "We Saw Your Boobs" song was all about "Ha ha ha! We tricked you into doing something that we liked and you didn't!" "Oh, so you thought you were real artists who were being authentic and no-holds-barred by being topless because your character would be? Nope! You stupid c---s were just gettin' nekkid' so jerks like us could get off and laugh about it!" and we really don't see that with a man showing his penis.

@40 You have a real issue with how you deal with men looking at women. Or, with people being sexualized and objectified in general. People are sexualizing other people all over the place. Whether its gay men objectifying men, straight men objectifying women, straight women objectifying men, or gay women objectifying women...or bisexuals objectifying everybody.

Did you find the Diet Coke commercials offensive? Remember the ones where the women ogled the hot construction guy who took off his shirt and drank a Diet Coke. I don't remember men having a problem with that.

Do you find moments of women objectifying men to be offensive? Such as, in Go, when Katie Holmes sees the two soap stars, sighs and says "gay men are so hot." Or, the movie Magic Mike where men strip down to g-strings for half the movie for an in-movie audience exclusively made of women?

@ 35 - Exactly. Male power fantasies about being desired by Bond Girls is not the same thing as day in day out objectification of women. Objectification is the opposite of sexy.

@ 36 - No, most men have never -been- objectified by a woman. Most men like the fantasy of a beautiful woman staring longingly at him. That is not objectification.

Humor me in a little thought experiment: A man steps up to a bar alone to order a drink. A woman who he finds physically intimidating steps up behind him. When he turns around with his drink in one hand and his wallet in the other to attempt to return to his seat, the stale smell of the alcohol on her breath nearly makes him gag. She is standing way too close. She slurs something about him being pretty and he tries to sidestep her. She grabs his crotch and then calls to her equally drunk friends. "I'm throwing this one back! He's too small!" They laugh. She steps aside and lets him past.

Do you really think most men would enjoy that? That is objectification. Objectification is treating another human being as an object for your own personal pleasure. It is taking that person's autonomy away from them. It is not sexy. It is not fun. It is not enjoyable.

I agree that the "We Saw Your Junk" song doesn't impact men the same way the "We Saw Your Boobs" song impacts women. Most men have never been truly treated as nothing more than an object. That imaginary guy in that imaginary bar? The "We Saw Your Junk" song wouldn't make him feel good at all.

@42 I don't know. I bet some men have been objectified. There are probably a few women out there who go to bars or clubs because they just want an instrument to ride and they don't care about his thoughts or feelings, but the sort of men they find there are usually happy to oblige.

For the scenario you describe 1. the woman has to be very unattractive and 2. the man has to be physically lacking in some way. 3. The man has a comeback. He can say she was lying. He can say she was too drunk to tell. He can say that she was drawn over in the first place by his irresistible male magnetism, joking how it brings out the skanks like mosquitoes. He can even admit that his genitals are small but sneer at her that he's great at using them and so paint her as the one who's defective and shallow. Women mocked for showing their breasts have no such recourse.

He might not enjoy it, but he'd have a defense for it. Women don't get to do anything but say "That's not fair!"

@43: "I bet some men have been objectified"

And we know that you never have.

@41 Men being objectified by women almost always find it pleasant and consider it an affirmation of their virility. Most women find it much more unpleasant. Being objectified requires the object to think about having sex with the subject. If the object is a man, this is usually a pleasant prospect because casual sex has a far smaller cost for men than it does for women, both culturally and biologically. Unless of course the subject is also a man. The closest thing to woman-being-objectified-by-men that a man can experience is man-being-objectified-by-men. Even that doesn't have the element of being objectified by someone who is almost certainly bigger and stronger and could take physical action if he chose. Yes, most men wouldn't actually do it, but objectification brings up the fact that they could if they wanted to, and that does make a difference.

I notice that most of your examples come from works of fiction.

Saying "Well women who feel objectified by men can just objectify men right back!" is like when straight conservatives tell gay men, "It's legal for me to marry a woman and it's legal for you to marry a woman, so we're all equal under the law." It doesn't work that way.

@45 We are talking about objectification in works of fiction, and as seen through the eyes of the culture. This issue is about objectification of women in works of fiction. Unless you want to completely change topics, which I won't let you because that's asinine. "I'm losing in the topic we're arguing about, so I'm going to win over here." No, fuck that.

I notice that you avoided every single one of my examples of cultural objectification of men in fiction.

No, we're talking about the song "We Saw Your Boobs," which isn't fiction. Those are real women. Talking about fiction instead of real life is changing the subject.

But to humor you, okay. I haven't seen Go or Scream or Magic Mike so I really couldn't say whether I would have found them offensive. If I must take a guess, let's see... I'd say that because being objectified by women is a male fantasy, then it makes sense for movies, which are the place for fantasies, to portray women happily objectifying men, even if this is very rare in real life. Look at Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalo and that movie from the 1980s about the pizza guy ...Loverboy! In those films, the male lead was objectified by the women, and everyone was happier and better off for it. As real letters to Dan Savage have shown, there isn't really much market for male prostitutes who serve female clients in real life. But we still have fiction about it. Ergo, works of fiction are not always good examples of real-life gender issues.

Did you really just comment on a movie that made $3m in the US? Really??

Did you also use an example by an SNL knockoff??

4/10 Too obvious.

But, beyond the reaction in film about male objectification, were you offended by the real life objectification of Taylor Lautner in Twilight by women in their 30s-60s? Were you offended by women objectifying the muscle men in Magic Mike, or the objectification of Channing Tatum in general? Were you offended by women swooning and objectifying Fabio?

What about the titillation of Bruce Willis' wang in Color of Night?

Women have objectified men in film since film. The objectification of a young Marlon Brando? Or, the guy in Hunk, since you're fond of shitty comedies? Are you telling me you're not offended by women objectifying men in these scenarios?

I didn't see Magic Mike and this is the first I've heard of Color of Night or Hunk. I've never seen women swoon over Fabio and Marlon Brando was before my time. As for Tyler Lautner, I heard about something that happened to him at a convention once. A grown woman asked him an inappropriate question—I think it was about underwear or something—and her daughter corrected her. Especially considering that Lautner was very young—I think he was still a teenager at that time—then yes I find that behavior offensive, but I'm not sure if it's the same as objectification.

If the song had been "We Saw Your Abs," and female singers listed actors like Lautner who've shown torso in the movies just like in "We Saw Your Boobs," I would not have found that offensive and I doubt any of the actors would have. It would have been a compliment to the men in the song.

@49 what about the brouhaha over wang in Forgetting Sarah Marshall?

You have a very very VERY selective memory when it comes to male objectification.

Of course, women objectifying men really doesn't fit into your worldview of men objectify women only.

@48: I don't think the problem is really with nudity in movies. The problem was women being made fun of for being nude in movies. "Haha, we saw your boobs, neener neener." There's a humiliating aspect to nudity (see every story where the girl is embarrassed because her bikini top fell off at the beach). And these women thought that the artistic expression of their character was enough to overcome the humiliating aspect. And then Seth McFarlane made fun of them for it in front of millions of people in a completely tasteless manner.

It's the shaming nature of the joke that bothers me, and probably a lot of other people. I mean, the joke doesn't work if the initial assumption isn't that the woman wouldn't want just anyone to see her boobs.

@51 What you said. And then there were the camera cuts to the women as their names were called. It was pretty clear that the fact that they were upset was supposed to be part of the show.

@50 It sounds less like I have selective memory and more like we don't have the same taste in movies. I didn't see Forgetting Sarah Marshall because it looked boring, and I didn't hear about any brouhaha. How about you tell me what it was that happened with that movie that you find relevant to this problem at the Oscars.

@51, and @52 you two (sock puppets?) feel showing nudity is humiliating.

It's not.

You two are shaming women for having boobs.

You two are shaming anybody who rejoices in sexuality.

You two are the most asinine assholes this side of One Million Moms. Who made Janet's wardrobe "malfunction" humiliating? You did.

It's obvious you two find complete shame in sexuality. Any sexuality. And it's obvious MRF is willfully trollfull.

DRF, at least some of those reactions shots were filmed ahead of time, with the actresses in on the joke.

Oh, I forgot, it's Misanthrope. The major jerk who pretends to not understand why women get so het up about things like rape and sexual objectification.

@53 There are contexts in which nudity is not humiliating, but the song "We Saw Your Boobs" made it humiliating.

Seth McFarlane didn't sing a song about healthy sexuality. He sang a song that maintained that the best thing a female actor could possibly do was take her clothes off. Why not, instead of, "Ha ha ha! I saw your BOOBS!!" focus on how viewers might show up to see the boobs but stay for some great filmmaking? Why not make a song that celebrates the risks that actors are willing to take to make an authentic films? If that's too advanced, why not write a song thanking the women for how happy they've made their male viewers? But he didn't.

Oh look...DRF is another of the manufactured outrage troll

I didn't even read his or her response to @51 which proved he didn't even know the fucking context.

Fuck off.

Your pearl clutching is based on faulty information. Get off the Internet. You're too dumb to be on it. Jesus.

Also, oh look. It's clashfan. The moron who contributes only the minimum.

Oh look... Another male poster (57) who tries to silence by dumb-shaming two articulate female posters (51 and 52) who endeavour to describe what objectification of females by males mean to them...

Of course, they don't "even know the fucking context" : they're females ! How could they know anything that relates to humankind, huh no, mankind ?

All that smugness : just because 57 is both unable to work an answer around their ideas, that could both explain and promote his own ideas...

Why am I not surprised... If you don't want to grow up past your insecurities, just get naked and go back to your mancave, 57, along with every other unable-to-treat-females-as-equal males, who shout "la la la, I can't hear you, you're unworthy" at any female able who answer back to their drivel.

Then lock yourselves in, and proceed to objectify each other - among like-minded males, who consider objectification as a healthy passtime. I'm sure it will be such a treat to force-take pictures of each other's nuts and ass holes, then to comment them in a song and why not, to bet on whose parts will sag first ! So manly !

Hey, some of you might even get raped by the others, since rapists are so predominantly male... and maybe that'll be you ? All fun and games, right, nakedness and oogling and taking a feel or a fuck just make for so much fun, and there will ne nobody there to shame you for "rejoicing in sexuality" !

@58 STFU you fucking misandrist. MRF is indeed a fucking moron reacting to manufactured outrage, without actually learning the context of the actual song to which he or she should be outraged.

But you go on with your bad self. Your hate is showing through just fine.

@43/44: And apparently I was reading that comment wrong, my apologies DRF.

"Since you are a woman, you can not possibly speak on a man's experiences. As a man, I will now be speaking on women's experiences."

"Hey now, as a man, you can not speak on a woman's experiences, and as a woman, I find it offensive that you do. Now here is the truth about the male experience:"

@58 It takes me a little longer to recognize a troll than most people, probably because I enjoy a spirited discussion. Regardless of how he feels about mine, if @59 cared about his or her own opinion, he or she would be more eager to answer questions about it.

@60 Thanks. I'd been wondering what you were getting at.

@62 I care not to engage in people who haven't actually done any research into what they're getting outraged about.

If you just have an easily flipped outrage switch based on other people's faulty reports, you're not worth anybody's time.

@ 43 - I'm sure you're right. There have been men who have been objectified. But that doesn't make it a common experience and it certainly doesn't make it pervasive enough to shape the culture and the thoughts and reactions of the majority. And I think that's at the root of why you and I are disagreeing when we agree.

I'm going to take your comments out of order because I think it will make mine more coherent. When I said there was a difference between the reality of objectification and the fantasy of objectification, I think I didn't elaborate enough to be clear. We agree 100% that a lot of men claim to get off on "being objectified." Where we seem to disagree is in our assessment of that fantasy. You seem to accept that the fantasy of being objectified coincides, for men, with the reality. You state:

@ 45 - "Men being objectified by women almost always find it pleasant and consider it an affirmation of their virility."

and

@47 - "being objectified by women is a male fantasy"

I posted this before but I'm going to post it again. I'd like you to take a peek at it. (It's a silly comic strip but it illustrates the point I have been trying to make.)

http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/bo…

A beautiful stranger finding a man so irresistable that she wants him badly and immediately is an "affirmation of [a man's] virility." And it is a male power fantasy every bit as much as being strong and in control. Remember, sex is about power exchange in our culture. Why else would it matter, in a homosexual relationship, which man is the intersive partner? (Read: Which one of you is the guy?) Men are powerful. Women are weak. If a man fucks a woman, he is taking something from her. (For proof of concept: "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" I'm sure you've heard that expression.)

But remember, the "objectified by a woman" fantasy is a fantasy. The reality leaves the "object" with a much different feeling. It's not reaffirming. Having a stranger think you're hot? Sexy. Affirming. Having a stranger treat you like a chair? (Really think about that, please. Objectification is about other people - even strangers - feeling entitled to treat you like a chair. They can touch you, move you, comment on you as a matter of course. No conscent necessary.) It leaves you feeling vulnerable and uncomfortable. It's not sexy.

@ 43 - "For the scenario you describe ... the woman has to be very unattractive"

You have it backwards. For the scenario you describe, the woman has to be very attractive. That's the way fantasies work. No one fantasizes about someone they aren't attracted to. The scenario I describe, on the other hand, requires only that the woman is able to make the man feel physically intimidated. (Why you equate "physically intimidating woman" with "extremely unattractive woman" is a whole other discussion.) I can assure you from personal experience that intimidation does not derive from uglyness. I have been grabbed and touched and moved in ways that made me feel extremely uncomfortable by plenty of men who were not at all unattractive. The way they looked had zero impact on how I felt.

@ 43 - "The man has a comeback."

So does the woman. I always have a comeback. And I'm quick on my mental feet and painfully practiced so it's usually a good one. Sure, he could say she was lying or drunk (both of which would sound pleading or desperate or defensive to everyone within earshot). Or he could come back at her with an insult of his own. But it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't make him feel any better. He wouldn't feel less violated or more in control. It wouldn't stop him from lying awake at night wishing he had done something else or something more or wondering why him what did he do to deserve that. It doesn't work that way. I wish it did.

Okay! Change of topic!

You also said @ 52 "And then there were the camera cuts to the women as their names were called. It was pretty clear that the fact that they were upset was supposed to be part of the show."

Those cut away shots were reactions from past Oscars. They were not the reactions of those women that night. (The shots of the actresses had them in different dresses.) This is extremely important because it even takes the victim's reactions away from them. The use of past footage to ensure that their reactions were "correct" is just one more example of objectification: they were reduced to mere props with no agency of their own.

@ 64 - Oops, I've come across some stuff that says that the actress's reaction shots were prerecorded specifically for the Oscars rather than being nipped from previous events. Dunno if that's true or not but if it is they were still scripted to have the reactions that were deemed "correct" for the song. So... That's better? I guess? But still not exactly great.

@65 Oh. Look. Another one who had outrage based on faulty information.

Congratulations on being able to do research!

@64 I agree that men truly being objectified is rare, but we should acknowledge that it is possible. I believe that if a man is objectified in the way that women are usually objectified, he would find it pleasant, not unpleasant. If the song had been "We Saw You Naked" and addressed as men, the men would have been "Yep, and you couldn't look away because I'm awesome!" It wouldn't have been the same kind of joke or experience for them that it was for their female counterparts.

As I wrote in post @27, we're on the same page about sex, gender and power as perceived by our hypothetical average straight male.

By "the scenario you describe," I mean the thought experiment in @42 in which you described a woman accosting a man. If she'd been attractive, even if she was also intimidating, it wouldn't have been the same kind of problem. He could still brag about how a hottie was drawn to him.

I mean that women don't have a comeback that works. There's no comeback to "You have PMS" or "We Saw Your Boobs" or "We had sex!" that would diffuse the situation and put the crude initiator in his place. The woman would just sound like a whiner or in the case of the PMS comment, as if she were proving the guy right. But if you know a comeback that would work, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah, I'm not sure if the scripted reaction shots make it better or worse either, even assuming it's what happened.

@ 67 - I hope you don't mind this question, but are you a man or a woman?

I ask because I don't know where you are getting the idea that men would enjoy being put through what women go through on a regular basis. Sure, lots of guys say they would like it. But the point that you don't seem willing to accept is that they have no real idea what they are saying they would like. They have a fantasy in mind - some idealized set of expectations of what it would be like. And the fantasy does not match the reality.

The reality is that male victims of sexual assault (read: physical objectification) under report the crime just like female victims. Male victims blame themselves, just like female victims. Male victims think they should have been stronger or fought harder or done more, just like female victims. And male victims feel like they are less of a man because of the experience. Not more of one.

So yes, you're absolutely right. Our hypothetical average straight male thinks he would like it. But he is wrong.

Off the top of my head just for fun:
"You have PMS"
-Yep, and you have a tiny dick. I'll get over the PMS. (Must be said with a smile and a wink.)
"We Saw Your Boobs"
-Wow, it was that exciting for you? What, have you never seen boobs in person before?
"We had sex!"
-Yeah, sorry I didn't call. It just got too weird for me there at the end... when you started crying.

But this assumes he has friends with him. In my experience, the fastest way to shut a guy down it to get his friends laughing at him. Usually at that point he'll opt to save face and laugh too. Just think of them as the audience and play to them. (Remember: that's exactly what he was trying to do. Just trade places with him.)

Regarding the scripted reactions, yeah, I've been turning that over in my head off and on today and the only answer I have come up with is schadenfreude.

The reactions of the women, whether they were scripted or taken from past Oscars, were intended to show the audience that the "We Saw Your Boobs" song wasn't about laughing with the ladies. In fact, by showing those clips Seth MacFarlane went out of his way to make absolutely sure we knew that we weren't laughing with the ladies; we were laughing at them. I know a lot of people have been on about how it was a joke so no one has the right to be offended but to me, that just doesn't quite work. I mean, if you tell a joke with the intent of hurting someone, isn't that just bullying?

What I consider objectification: One person viewing or treating the other as a sexual object without regard for whatever else that person might be, as in the song "We Saw Your Boobs." Yes, I think that men would take that as a compliment. I think that most of the actions that make women feel objectified, genders reversed, would not make men feel bad. One patron in a bar slaps feels another person's butt without permission. It's not appropriate no matter who's done it, but the man isn't going to feel as bad about it as the woman is unless he got felt up by another man. Going back to the song at the Oscars and the response posted above, the women cannot make men feel the way they've been made to feel simply by turning the tables.

For all of the responses you posted, the woman has to admit that the man is right. She has to either reveal private information (yes she has PMS and the man should go ahead and continue to disregard whatever she was complaining about as just PMS) or acknowledge that he got the better of her in a sexual situation (yes she did transgress by showing her boobs; yes she did find him attractive enough to sleep with).

Physical sexual assault is not the same thing as objectification. I would expect that male victims of sexual assault underreport more than women do. However, we must acknowledge almost all of them were assaulted by other men. Sexual assaults by women on adult men are rare, though a book by Brenda L. Russel suggests that men react similarly.

What I consider objectification:

objectify: (tr v) to present or regard as an object

object: (n) a material thing

You list a slap on the ass as an example of objectification and then you differentiate between objectification and sexual assault. A slap on the ass -is- sexual assault. It is a mild example but that's what it is. You mention that Brenda L. Russel suggests that men react similarly to women in a way that seems to suggest that you acknowledge that as true. But you also state that you (still) don't think men would mind. So which is it?

And in all seriousness, why should a woman deny having PMS or showing her breasts or having sex? You're buying into the idea that a woman acting on her own sexual agency is doing something wrong. Pick up a copy of The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti. It's a good read and I think you might get a lot out of it.

@ 66 - Oh honey, really? Are you failing to make some kind of a point or are you just being tacky?

Do you want to know why I didn't like the song? It bothered me for two specific reasons: he mixed nudity in the context of the portrayal of rape in with nudity for titillation. And the cuts to the women mentioned made it clear that the audience was supposed to feel like we were laughing at them rather than laughing with them. It was mean. It was bullying. It was a rotten attempt at slut shaming. And if the man has even a sliver of influence, he might have actually managed to discourage other actresses from being topless on camera with his elementary school us vs them nonsense. Speaking as someone who thoroughly enjoys breasts, I would consider that a damned shame. Wouldn't you?

But you understand that to view a chair or economics class or even a person like a janitor as an object isn't quite the same thing as sexual objectification, right? Sexual objectification can be considered a subset of "to view as an object."

A touch on the butt—actually a touch of any sort, even just brushing clothes—can indeed be considered assault under the laws of many states; you're right, but a man is going to find being felt up by a woman to be less unpleasant than a woman is going to find being felt up by a man, even if the exact same thoughts were going through the perpetrator's heads. I maintain that not all forms of objectification should be considered the same as sexual assault or rape. The kind of objectification that took place at the Oscars is another.

Men use PMS as an excuse to ignore and belittle women. For a woman to claim that she has PMS when she doesn't or to admit that she does but it shouldn't matter is for her to suggest that her reproductive system could possibly have been his business.

Yes, showing one's breasts is considered a transgression, albeit a mild one, in today's Western society. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. Yes, women face worse consequences for nudity than men do. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

As I said in post 27 and you said in post 64, when a man has sex with a woman, it's like he's winning something and like she's losing something. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Ms. Valenti might believe that purity is a myth, but surely she'd agree that the double standard is real.

No, I mean that Russel said that men react similarly regardless of whether they were raped by a man or a woman.

@70 Oh honey, I don't engage in morons who get enraged because they're supposed to fall in line. You obviously didn't care enough to learn how the thing was constructed, so you probably didn't care to read anything about it beyond feminist blog outrage. It's nice you were offended though. Have fun raging in the dark. Cheers.

@72 Troll-santhrope

"who haven't actually done any research"
"on being able to do research"

That word, "research" ? I don't think it means what you think it means.

@62 You're welcome .