e downright absurd to assume that women in this society are treated assexual objects only because the media releases or broadcasts pornographicmaterial. A magazine associated with make-up and skin care, for example, willquite obviously not be concentrating on much else. Such a magazine would notdisplay pictures of women who mountain-climb or women who water-ski; onlyimages of make-up and text referring to skin care would be relevant. Clearly,society does not consider women to be beings whos only purpose in life is toworry about make-up and skin care; but why are the complaints only directedtowards pornographic media then? The answer to this question may be morecomplicated, however, what remains obvious is that the media does not portraywomen as only being able to fill male sexual desires. To say that pictures featuringnudity, etc, are making objects out of women is foolish. One should considerfemales who pin-up posters of male rock stars or children who collect hockey orbaseball cards. Society, however, does not say that objects are being made out ofthese rock stars and sports heroes; pictures of clothed people are no less objectsthan pictures of naked people.Many complaints are also made to the effect that pornography only offers a one-dimensional view to life; that women are seen as nymphomaniacs who arehysterically addicted to sex. It should be pointed out that events such as hockeygames, boxing matches, horse races and operas all offer a one-dimensional view oflife. One does not attend an opera hoping to see a horse race. The underlingproblem here is that the above mentioned events are socially acceptable; mediadisplaying pornography is not. It is also said that the media reduces women to acollection of body parts through pornography (Christensen 1990:74). But whythen are their no complaints of advertisements in magazines displaying only ears,for example, or a nose, or feet? The reason is a simple one; society considerscertain body ...
