Grace...getting...angry... rage...taking...over

Little bit of Mr Furious from Mystery Men there to illustrate some rage.

So i've just been tootling around the blogoshpere, clicking on links, watching Lucy Pinder on Richard and Judy on YouTube and reading the sick comments that went with it and i'm just...so...bloody...angry!

So for any lads-mag/porn/lapdancing fans out there, this is for you:

• Nudity is not the same as pornography - we get that. The female body is beautiful, it is also individual to every woman, and in it's natural state can be very artistic* - but homogenising women into one package of airbrushed, artificial, submissive wank-fodder is NOT the same as nudity - lads mags ARE pornography - pornography in days gone by was tamer than lads-mags and for some reason society has rolled with the changes and become more 'liberal' - but as with all things in society there are people who don't agree, some feminists are these people and this is our opinion, get over it.
• *i.e. has anyone been having a go about posing nude for art classes? No. Why? Because the artists are drawing their form and interpreting their body shape artistically, not looking at them as sex objects.
  
• Feminists, and other women who don't call themselves feminists, are not against lads-mags because they aren't sexy enough themselves to pose naked, and are therefore jealous of glamour models; nor have they been told by some man that they aren't sexy and therefore feel bitter towards the models.
  
• Lads-mags do NOT serve a NEED. There are lots of magazines in which to get information about football, cars and other 'mens' interests that don't include naked/semi naked women being draped around like tinsel. And a man does not NEED to look at naked women to masterbate, in fact lots of men don't masterbate at all (really, they're out there,and they're NOT lying) and surprisingly they don't explode or have fits of rage because they can't release their tension. Men who do that just LIKE THE WAY IT FEELS!
• There is nothing wrong with feeling sexy and feeling attractive - but there is something wrong with feeling that the only part of you that is attractive, or that people find sexy, is how you look. This is why pornography/lads-mags/lap dancing is NOT empowering for women because it makes them believe that they SHOULD be judged on how they look, and that that's the best that they can offer the world.
• Deep-seated patriarchy from generations ago has lead to many women feeling that by them CHOOSING what they do with their bodies they are automatically empowered. No one is calling me empowered because I choose to wear a bra are they? Or because I choose not to cram myself into skinny fit jeans for the sake of fashion? No one calls women who choose not to shave off their body hair empowered do they? In society I mean, because I would call those women empowered. I wouldn't call women who are so sure that they're empowered that they can't even see that they're still doing exactly what men and society want them to do, empowered at all.
• Lads-mags and porn DO NOT REDUCE RAPE as one commenter said about a news article about people trying to ban lads-mags (well, he said that there would probably be more rape if the magazines were banned). If anything they perpetuate it because they show women as subordinate and there for men's pleasure, and promote going on holiday to countries where prostitution is legal so that they can find out what it's like without breaking any laws.
• The big difference between the objectification of men vs women is that women are posed in submissive ways, whereas men are posed like burly, statuesque, gods, flexing their muscles - it's a strong image, and an image of protection and comfort for some women who like burly men. A big strong man means protection, but to a man, a strong woman means threat. They need someone they can dominant and take over and that's what they see in the homogenised woman - a generic breed of sexual objects who will submit to their every whim.
  

Specifically regarding the Richard and Judy video - most of the comments were from men saying things like 'Lucy Pinder is hot', 'why isn't Lucy Pinder getting naked?', 'I didn't hear any of it, I was looking at Lucy', 'I turned the sound down and just looked at Lucy' - and they're trying to say that men don't objectify women? That they don't make them 2D? That they do care about what they have to say? One commenter actually said she was talking too much - i.e. women should be seen and not heard.

Are there any man who don't actually read that smut who advocate it?

I know that i've just gone over a lot of things that other bloggers have said more accurately and with real quotes and more balance but i'm just expressing my rage!

Please don't comment if you're going to just say horrible things about me, as you don't know me (and i'll just not allow them anyway). My arguments here are built on annoyance but they are backed up by evidence and balanced information, which are objective and truthful. Assuming that i'm an abhorrent, ugly person because I like to be viewed as person not just a body is a reflection on you, not me.