Let's Hear It For Sexual Objectification! by Matt G. Paradise

Any Satanist who steps outside his lair cannot help being stormed by the end-products of a near-neutered (or semi-spayed, if more to your liking) culture. It seems the 90s proselytizers of militant anti-sex doctrine, whether from the carnally-frustrated Religious Right or the Salem Male Trials inquisitors of the extreme "feminist" sect, have taken occasional root over the span of the post-Church of Satan years (i.e.: after 1966 C.E.). Throughout these decades, we've unswervingly supported and even glorified woman's productive use of her natural manipulative instincts to improve her circumstances; and evidently, the formula often works as in the modern-day cases of Pamela Anderson Lee, Anna Nicole Smith, and of course that woman who showed us all how to "vogue." No doubt, detractors of sexual objectification (voluntarily blind to who really holds the cards) would find our brand of female empowerment as an indirect form of male control over womankind, or just plain "sexist."

Nothing more than the complete opposite is true, and I'm just pleased as punch. One good pair of legs, the right legs, could bring down a civilization (and probably has). A certain set of bodacious ta-tas can turn a would-be deadbeat into a sugar daddy faster than you can say Revlon. And you simply do not want to know what the perfect mouth can do to Yours Truly. (Let me hear a "Shemhamforash!" from the Satanic ladies in the audience tonight.)

In the most Satanic of terms, where you stand on whether or not sexual objectification is a productive and beneficial thing depends a great deal on whether you are a Have or a Have-not.

In the overwhelmingly large number of cases, those shouting the loudest against the portrayal of women (or even men, though we don't see much protest of that, now do we?) as sex objects, particularly those offered by the media, are usually Nature's less-endowed specimens. It is a brutal call, but the reason why Madonna doesn't scream injustice and why Andrea Dworkin does has a whole lot to do with the fact that one person is not only sexually endowed but has learned to utilize it to her best advantage and the other person has little to no chance in Hades of achieving such a goal. So, instead of being secure with themselves and finding another way to attain success in the world (such as through intellectual means) or improving what part of their physical lot they can (and this is not limited to weight loss and cosmetic surgery), a Holy War is waged upon the Sexy for merely being resourceful with their lusty attributes; a heinous crime in this slobberingly egalitarian day and age. (On a related note, waif model Kate Moss is often berated by Have-nots as promoting child pornography or child "sexualizing" by having the body photographed that she, according to numerous interviews and accounts, naturally possesses. Talk about projection of repressed deviance from the masses. Where's Freud when you need him?)

Isn't the consistency of pretentious victim-play just a bit too thick to swallow? (Satanists may feel free to take that as a rhetorical question.) Or is it that some sexual persecutors (and anti-sex objectifiers are one form) desire the position of social dominatrix - preaching to men what they are permitted to enjoy looking at, and dictating to women what they may and may not wear (let alone the reason for wearing it)? If the anti-exploiters would allow the smoke to clear from their view, they'd see the futility in their campaign: that what they propose is rabidly anti-nature, and it is impossible to muzzle or regulate the natural sexual behavior of either gender when it's so far out of grasp. The effort proves the anti-objectifiers to be insecure, stupid, and mindlessly power-tripping. Same trap as Xtianity.

The hypocrisy of some of the most flagrantly vocal "free speech", "pro-woman" and "First Amendment" groups practically rallying for the banning and censorship of images of sexually-objectified people (or is it just women?) is not only playing the respective enemy's game, but a outright embarrassment. To these types, freedom for a woman to choose to abort a fetus within her own body is good, freedom to self-exploit that same body is bad. Some folks should make up their minds.

I say cheers to sexual objectification. It sure beats sexual repression. And people crave such voyeuristic stimulation, otherwise Calvin Klein, Playboy, and the porn industry wouldn't be the billion-dollar businesses that they are. Sexual objectification sells... and sells well (nothing un-Satanic about that); a clear indicator that there is something to it, an appeal to a pervasive and important human desire. Many women have such a wonderfully diabolical gift of being able to prosper from their sexual appeal and, by that wielding, show themselves to be very powerful, strong and in-control beings. This makes more sense to label feminism than what passes for it currently; and, I'm certainly not the first one to say this.

My favorite fallacy concerning the effects of supposed "violent" imagery of women objectified is that this sizably influences men to go out and replicate. This is hardly the majority of men. To think this is to over-intellectualize away the simplicity of the situation. If you took the average man and put in front of him a picture of a greased, naked woman on all-fours with a dog collar around her neck, a man's hand holding the leash, and having a black glove shoved in her face to sniff, Joe Average would, more times than not, take one look and say something to the effect of "Hey, nice beave!" Objectification (or maybe just plain horny), yes. Future violent offender, stretching the point.

Sexual objectification is rooted deep into our very urges; particularly, the ones that are stimulated by seeing something or someone attractive. We are visual creatures, regardless of how the god religions and the politically-correct slaves try to discount or trivialize it. We (especially, but not limited to, men) have a natural inclination to be sexually aroused by visuals. The Powers-That-Can't would have us believe that this is "evil," if you haven't heard that buzzword before.

I'm sickened to death of hearing how I should be attracted to someone for their mind. What a load of apologist crap. What a Have-notism. My best friend has a wonderful mind, too, but my penis is predictably uninterested in him. Wonder why? It's as equally brilliant, grey and bumpy as any woman's mind on the same level. Shouldn't I find it equally erotic and, by extension (pun intended), erection-inducing? How about no.

Without the soothing, popularist rhetoric getting in the way of a point, like it always does, this mind-before-body ploy (also known as "but she has a really nice personality") is merely a means to sanction those less fortunate a reserved end of the coitus pool. An intellectually superior brain, though useful in nearly every other aspect of human life, isn't really a prerequisite for fornication or even a decent blowjob. So, go have some big, dumb sex.

This isn't to say, however, that body and mind isn't a far more effective equation in the long run. As reason has it, it is. Women who have the physical plumage to attract often do better by having the brains to keep it going and profit for a prolonged period of time. Again, it's often enough the combination of the both ugly and stupid of the feminine ranks who resent the former, and they do so with the transparent pretext that most human bottom feeders display. Such is survival.

To say sexual objectification is "wrong" is to say that the act of being attracted physically to another person is also "wrong." It is both hypocritical and projecting, not to mention silly. Whether money is made from it or not, the archetype of the sex object will stand proud as both a testimony to our productive animal nature and a taskmaster to correct the herd's collective denial of pure attraction. [End of essay]