"Objectivization," fantasies and the future of Playboy

[Steve Sloca]

Brian Sorgatz wrote:
"I think you're giving too much credit to the sanctimonious rhetoric of
certain feminists.  Their complaints about "objectification" and
"unrealistic" sexual images and fantasies are, as far as I'm
concerned, just another form of repression.  Fantasies are unrealistic
by definition, and as long as PLAYBOY's models are informed,
consenting adults, they are not being objectified."

I used the term "objectivization" because it has a well-recognized
meaning in the debates over Playboy and pornography in the popular
press, in psychological literature and on college campuses where such
issues are studied.  And, I think that is exactly what men do when
they construct a sexual fantasy about a celebrity or Playmate without
thinking of her as a real person with needs and concerns of her own,
but simply as a hot body to bounce in bed.  However, unlike the Andrea
Dworkin brand of feminists, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong
with such objectivization in the context of fantasy.

It does no harm to the celebrity or Playmate who is completely unaware
of the fantasy; and so long as the fantasizer knows he is fantasizing
and doesn't carry it to extremes (like becoming a stalker), it may
even be helpful or positive for the objectivizing male.  Men often
fantasize when they are lacking a partner at the moment, when there is
something missing in their love lives, or simply because they are
genetically predisposed to be sexually aroused by the vision of a
sexually desirable female.  Such fantasies help them manage sexual
desires by diverting desire from action-taking incentive to the realm
of pure thought, unlike our primitive ancestors who probably would
have reacted to the sight of an attractive female by raping her.
Civilized man uses fantasy as a means of repressing what he knows to
be uncivilized behavior.  Moreover, fantasizing may bring to conscious
awareness some sub-conscious desires and interests, which in turn can
lead to improvements in his love life with his real-life partner.  By
fantasizing a scene with a Playmate, he may discover that he wants to
replay that scene with his partner; and the result may be a better
sexual experience for both of them.  And, contrary to Dworkin, there
is no credible evidence that men are turned into stalkers or rapists
by fantasizing about women; indeed, 99.99% of straight men do it every
day!

Furthermore, it is interesting that of all the times I have heard
Playboy models and other nude models asked, "What do you think of the
fact that millions of men are getting sexually turned on, even
masturbating, by looking at your pictures?" about 90% of them have
responded by saying they loved it!  Some even admit that they
themselves get turned on by this thought.  Contrary to the
Dworkinites, this is not a sign that these models have been abused or
"objectivized."  Throughout history, women have used sex appeal as a
means of obtaining and securing power, or in exercising control over
their husbands or lovers.  In a male-dominated world, this was their
best weapon to obtain what they desired; and even in our post-feminist
culture, women are brought up believing that a sexy look is an asset,
that beauty means more boyfriends (and a better choice of them), more
popularity, and more material rewards (like jobs, gifts, etc.).  So it
is completely natural for a woman to feel pleased and proud to *know*
that men are turned on by how she looks.  It is an empowering
feeling--and one that Ms. Dworkin cannot share and of which she is
likely jealous.  Thus, even if she were to learn of the
"objectivizing" fantasies men have about her, most Playmates would
react positively and with pleasure, not shame or scorn.

To bring this a bit closer to our topic, it is precisely this kind of
issue that Playboy ought to be exploring in its pages.  Like the Civil
Rights Movement in the '60's (which Playboy covered extensively), the
movement for women's rights and the direction feminism should be
moving are vital issues for our times, issues which will determine how
our culture evolves in the 21st Century.  Why not have Andrea Dworkin
as a Playboy Interview subject?  Followed by a panel of Playmates,
porn stars and strippers to talk about how they really feel about
posing and performing nude?  With a feature pictorial of the panelists
to illustrate their comments?  Followed by a psychologist to talk
about the objective psychological ramifications of nudity in Playboy,
both upon the model and the viewer?  (Playboy's own Victoria Zdrok,
now a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, would be perfect in this role.)
With a cover of Victoria dressed in a business suit and her reading
glasses, perusing a Playboy centerfold?  This is exactly the kind of
blend of sex, science, probing interviews, articles and photography
which made Playboy an icon of American culture, and which it has
gotten away from in the last decade or so.  It seems to me that
Playboy is today afraid to take on the feminists and the Puritans,
hiding instead behind the skirts of celebrities to gain newsstand
sales or sneakily selling its non-Playboy branded porn to stay afloat
economically.  When has Playboy recently waded in on a matter of great
social controversy, particularly one involving sex and culture?  It
used to.  Why not now?