ould be downright absurd to assume that women in this society aretreated as sexual objects only because the media releases or broadcastspornographic material. A magazine associated with make-up and skin care, forexample, will quite obviously not be concentrating on much else. Such a magazinewould not display pictures of women who mountain-climb or women who water-ski;only images of make-up and text referring to skin care would be relevant. Clearly, society does not consider women to be beings who’s only purpose in lifeis to worry about make-up and skin care; but why are the complaints only directedtowards pornographic media then? The answer to this question may be more complicated, however, what remains obvious is that the media does notportray women as only being able to fill male sexual desires. To say that picturesfeaturing nudity, etc, are making objects out of women is foolish. One shouldconsider females who pin-up posters of male rock stars or children who collecthockey or baseball cards. Society, however, does not say that objects are beingmade out of these rock stars and sports heroes; pictures of clothed people are noless objects than pictures of naked people. Many complaints are also made to the effect that pornography only offersa one- dimensional view to life; that women are seen as nymphomaniacs who arehysterically addicted to sex. It should be pointed out that events such ashockey games, boxing matches, horse races and operas all offer aone-dimensional view of life. One does not attend an opera hoping to see a horse race. Theunderling problem here is that the above mentioned events are socially acceptable;media displaying pornography is not. It is also said that the media reduceswomen to a collection of body parts through pornography (Christensen 1990:74). But why then are their no complaints of advertisements in magazines displaying onlyears, for example, or a nose, or feet? The reason is a simple one; so...
