re: #245 Blind Frog Belly White

Yeah, but I don’t know of another term that conveys the same meaning without the pejorative connotation. PART of the job is to be attractive young women in revealing clothes, to be admired for their attractiveness. I don’t think one can reasonably deny that part of the job description.

My point is - So they’re sex objects. SO WHAT? That doesn’t mean they’ve consented to all the stuff described in the article.

My point is that this is the common descriptor for attractive women be they cheerleaders, actresses, singers, newscasters, models, whatever. They are sex OBJECTS. When are attractive men, even in those same fields doing the same work, called objects? (Except for maybe Fabio.) Was GW Bush an object during his Yale cheerleading days like the women on his team? Was Tom Selleck an object during his modeling days? I believe they were known as male cheerleader and male model, respectively.

When I ask if this isn’t the core of the problem I’m suggesting that when the first term that comes to mind is “sex OBJECT” that there is no place to go but downhill after that because the personhoods of the women being discussed has already been defined as non-existent.

Or maybe it’s just me.