Alex Cranz came back from seeing Magic Mike and decided there was a big difference between objectifying women and objectifying men: "A male exotic dancer is meant to be objectified as well, but here’s a key difference in how they’re portrayed versus how every female exotic dancer ever has been portrayed. When a male dancer is on that stage? He is in control. He owns the room. The women sway to his beat. He chooses who to dance with and he manipulates her." Get it? No? Cranz tries again: "These guys maintain their power while they dance. They hold onto the privilege that has been afforded them . . . ."
Could have fooled me. My guess is male strippers do what they do because it sells -- and that they'd gladly ditch the "privilege that has been afforded them" if a more demeaning style of stripping would bring more customers in the door.
Ah, but Zoe Williams knows why objectification is OK during the Olympics: "Why isn't it offensive, the slavering? Because of the almost pitch-perfect balance of men and women. Usually, when people go on about attributes, they are female . . . . If the gazing . . . falls equally upon everybody, you have to think that maybe there is no ulterior motive."
Get it? It's OK so long as both genders do it. Men can only get a free pass about their own "objectifying" if women happen to do it at the same time.
If you fail to see the logic behind that rationale, you're not alone.
For my money, the woman who should be behind bars for sexual relations with children, Kristle Vandever, is more honest than these features writers trying to manufacture politically correct reasons for their ogling. Vandever said bluntly: "I just can't help wanting these hot young boys . . . ."