As much as I love 'Santorum,' Dan, your response to Fish Food for Thought sounds like the typical heterosexual male insecurity re: feminism. I mean...

"Objectification is a two-way street nowadays, with men coming in for their fair share."

You don't seriously believe this, do you? Even the most cursory analysis of television and print media will show that women are objectified FAR more than men. Perhaps "Naked Sushi" wasn't a legitimate concern, but so what? Isn't it far better to challenge such things and have a debate rather than give them a pass on the off chance that they're not actually sexist?

How else does one intend to enjoy the company of another in the bedroom?

He told her with a twinkle in his eye, "I just want you to know, before we have sex, that I don't consider you a sex object (and consequently I find you in no way physically attractive), and this is just my little way of my soul making love to your soul; the body is merely the crude interface for the union of our souls."

She replied, "I knew you were a fucking pervert; get the hell out of my house before I slap the weird right out of you!"

Sexual objectification is one of the keys to a satisfying sexual relationship; I like not the idea that my girlfriend exploits me not as a sexual object (in the act of sex) when that is clearly what I am--when that is clearly what I was seeking to at-least temporarily become.

All things being equal, these women were compensated (probably handsomely) to become someone else's eating surface; any sort of subordinate working for a corporation becomes a object, a mode, for a superior to employ to achieve his/her own career goals and those of the corporation; if things at the cooperation are symbiotic, both superior and subordinate, at least, will profit from that sort of relationship as it leads them to prosper. But I have a mind to think a corporate wage-slave is less-well compensated for that temporary objectification than one of our nude eating surfaces.

In response to #2: "As much as I love 'Santorum,' Dan, your response to Fish Food for Thought sounds like the typical heterosexual male insecurity re: feminism. I mean..."

It is easier to accuse, condemn, paint with broad brush-strokes, and employ ad-hominem, than it is employ more honest modes of discourse; that said, the latter requires a genuine interest in discussion rather than vain personal indemnifications.

"Isn't it far better to challenge such things and have a debate rather than give them a pass on the off chance that they're not actually sexist?" In this country, we proscribe to the belief of "innocent until proven guilty."

I haven't seen a convincing argument that this woman-eating-surface behavior was motivated purely by the malicious desire to chain women, pregnant and bear-foot, to the whims of men.

This incident would be exploitative if the women did not enjoy this line of work (which some well may) or were compensated for their time (which it seems they are), even without aforementioned malicious intent, but not in an anti-feminist way--only in the codes of reciprocity.

Well, I can't HELP but objectify my boyfriend, especially when he shows off his perfect rounded buttocks in those tight underpants. Objectification is awesome and everyone should be treated as a piece of meat now and again. In fact fabulous Swedish popsters The Ark have a song about that very subject: http://bit.ly/aUxn5v

jorauk,alexander james
Boo, fucking hoo.
Get a life.