>>33-34
This is the first time I've ever seen Q.E.D. used online properly, and in a manner that completely convinced me too.

Of course, from your argument stems an interesting point: Hollywood is a clear study in the heteronormative male gaze, yet it is, for the most part, completely accepted by the female population. A couple goes to a movie; a giant apparition that bleeds sex appears on the screen, more skin than cloth, the man loves it and the girl seems to enjoy it too. Perhaps the objectification of women is not clear until it is taken a step further: to ink and paint.

Though we have become accustomed to seeing 'real' women as sex objects, the fantastical aspect emerges much more clearly in Japanese erotic drawings. They are highly stylized, catered particular to male desire, and thus there is no semblance of humanity. At least fleshy Hollywood sex stars - or even fleshy porn stars - 'look real,' but the posters are clearly things. Their lack of humanity is immediately apparent; they are only candy to be devoured by men. Hollywood, by the simple reality of their stars, professes to give these sex objects power and personality, and we believe it. It becomes normal to objectify these 'real women.'

This is the fundamental difference between a pin-up of a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model and one of a bikini-clad anime girl. The former tricks us into a comfortable sense of reality, while the latter disturbingly reminds us that all this is simply fantasy: thus you, >>33-34, will be seen as a freak, a man alienated from the rest of society, because you have apparently heavily retreated into fantasy. But the sad truth is that all of us live in fantasy - none of us truly reside in the reality that so many call 'real life.'