The straight male in Western societies has an ambivalent way of looking at the attractive female. On one hand he is fascinated by the aestethic beauty of the female form – on the other hand, he views her as an object of lust, an object he wants to fuck. The ambivalence is reflected in the way men talk about women – on one hand she is “beautiful”, on the other “a hot babe”. On one hand, she has “a gorgeous bust”, on the other “delicious tits”, etc. (Only the vulva itself seems to be spoken about solely in lustful terms)

 

And yes, this is objectification. But in my eyes, objectification is not necessarily a bad thing – in fact, it is inevitable in a sexual context. In a state of arousal we are drawn to the object (!) of our desire. The dehumanization occurs only when we reduce people to be solely objects and not whole beings. In the Arabian Nights, Sheherazade is clearly an object of desire – she is praised for her beauty, and the sultan lusts after her. But her intelligence and impressive knowledge is also emphasized as important parts of her character. She is objectified – but not reduced to only an object.

 

The ambivalence of the male gaze is exemplified by the act of the striptease. Here, in fact, the two diverging view are confronted and forced to merge or at least co-exist. On the one hand, the performance is obviously sexualized. The stripper moves in seductive ways, suggesting sexual acts. But unable to interact with the performer, the man is stuck in the role of spectator. And thus he is forced to merely aesthetically admiring the beauty of her body – even when she provocatively pushes him into a state of lust.

 

While recognizing his urge to fuck, he still resigns himself to a purely aesthetic experience. And he may even realize that the two are actually closely related – two complimentary aspects of the complex of male desire.