A if this subject hasn't been beaten to death, zombified, and then eviscerated piece-by-piece with a Gatling gun.

So, I like to play this little game here on DA. I enter a random word into the search engine and see what art comes up. I try to do a different word every time. I don't really stick to any particular type of word, just random stuff like cuttlefish, eggs, stargazing, energy, politics, bookworm, devils, horse, orange, pistol... you get the idea.

So, I had been doing this for a while and it didn't take long for me to notice a pattern. No matter what word I put in, I can almost guarantee that at least ONE of the following will be on the first page of results:

-Boobs
-Girl crotch
-A woman glaring aggressively at the camera through layers of eyeshadow, often posed in an provocative (aggressively, straight up crotch-shot, or otherwise) manner
-A woman turned slightly away from the camera, looking vulnerable and pouty, also often posed provocatively (mostly little-girlish, vulnerable, or coy poses here)
-Anime boobs

Far be it from me to dictate what is and what is not art. I am a feminist and all, but I recognize that cheesecake has it's place in the art world. As some probably-dead-now person once said, art isn't chaste. The human body is a beautiful thing, yaddayaddayadda.

It's just that I get awfully tired of seeing TITS BLOODY EVERYWHERE I LOOK. Not tasteful titties, but the big back-breaking knockers people seem so fond of superimposing on rail-thin pixies. The problem lies not within prudishness/smut or even real women/photoshopped, 'fake' women (though those ARE big issues). The problem I see here is that here on DA and in the entire world, women are seen not as whole human beings, but as body parts. A nude woman is a pair of breasts, an ass, a groin, or a pretty face. Sometimes, this particular brand of misogyny is satirized to great effect, but most of the time, all you get is T&A.

This kind of objectification is only RARELY seen with men. Once in a blue moon you'll come across a photo of a guy from his mid thighs to his belly-button, with his exposed penis in full view.

Now this may be kind of exclusive to DA (it's very different in mainstream adverts), but when nude men are drawn or photographed looking vulnerable, with showcased body parts, or as anything but the typical 'muscly herculean man-of-iron', they are intensely feminized. That's not to say that men aren't allowed to be vulnerable (they are! it's okay!). The point I'm trying to make here is that this kind of 'human-as-single-body-part' thing almost ALWAYS leads back to femininity and women. Naked women are a pair of breasts, while naked men (masculine, tough, true men) are tall, sculpted, self-assured gods.

Some people would call seeing objectified men 'equality between the sexes'. To this I say "OH NO WAY!!!" We're all living, feeling humans. No one should be made into a 'thing'.

The big difference (in this issue) between what is objectification and what is not, is the intent of the artist. If someone takes a classic pin-up photo of a cute girl in a sailor suit, they're paying tribute to what is a big part of pop-art history. If someone draws a nude woman in a classical pose, it's an academic piece. I could go on and on. Can YOU see the polar opposite intents of these two images?

1
2

I'll end the rant here and ask you to participate in an exercise. Go to the 'artistic nude' section of DA and page through. How many women do you see? How many women are posed in sexy or provocative ways? How many women are posed in classical, or 'artistic' ways?How many pictures of just breasts do you see? How many pictures of just female ass? How many men do you see? How are the men posed as opposed to the women? How many pictures of vaginas and vulvas do you see? How many of penises? How are vaginas photographed as opposed to penises?