7b7f82e553... jpg
(1.22 MB, 834x1675)

2241da284a5d0a8c107... png
(990.88 KB, 1698x1805)

4980 jpg
(375.29 KB, 1600x2812)

60 jpg
(43.45 KB, 390x513)

9220794039420253 jpg
(63.63 KB, 564x690)

Now, let us discuss one particularly obnoxious buzzword-laden phrase while I, all the while, somehow stop myself from having physical sex with digitized photographs of naked women. Maybe I'm able to control myself from cutting a hole in my monitor and thrusting my member through the electrified orifice because I'm a career-oriented health professional completely at ease with the naked human form because my eyes have been desensitized to the sight? Who knows for sure?

The buzzword phrase we'll be discussing is 'objectifying women'. Let us take a closer look at that absolute absurdity, shall we? Firstly, aside from those depraved and blatantly stupid BSDM Dom/Sub extreme kink relationships, it assumes that the remaining majority of men ever think of women as inanimate objects. If you are indeed religious, did GOD himself not create woman perfectly for men to enjoy the sight of? Is not her very figure a natural state not to be shamed? If you are not religious, then put simply, the very notion of "objectifying women" is a modern ideological construct that strips away nuance and demonizes natural human attraction.

If we follow the religious perspective, as I rightly pointed out, the female form was designed to be admired, crafted with intention and beauty. To call appreciation of that design "objectification" is to insult the divine artistry behind it. Are we to believe that the male gaze, an inherent biological response, is somehow immoral? That would imply nature itself is flawed, which is absurd. And for the secular-minded: if attraction is rooted in biology, then labeling it as "objectification" is nothing more than a puritanical rebranding of natural instincts. Men are visually stimulated. This is a scientific fact, not a moral failing. To pathologize this is to deny human nature in favor of a politicized narrative that seeks to control and shame normal behavior.

The accusation of objectification assumes malice where none exists, men viewing women as inanimate objects when we are not, by majority, intensely blind with a complete loss of our eyesight. You would have to be! To think that mobile, living breathing beings are immobile objects. Either that, or borderline retarded. Most men do not see women as literal objects, we see them as desirable, as partners, as inspirations. The very act of attraction implies recognition of humanity, not its erasure. To conflate admiration with dehumanization is either disingenuous or hopelessly naive. So, no, "objectifying women" is not some widespread moral crisis. It’s a fabricated outrage, a weaponized term used to police normal interactions and demonize masculinity. The real absurdity is expecting men to suppress their instincts to satisfy a very Jewish feminist ideology that pathologizes the very essence of human attraction.