Another nude sports figure pointlessly objectified on a magazine cover

[Orrex]

176. I was referring to the snark in my OP

And though I was not snarking, you certainly were dismissing and twisting the message of those with whom you disagree when you said, "since he and I are both victims, after all."

As to this point...

I have stated repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere that we all objectify others. The particular form of objectification will vary from person to person and situation to situation, but it's a fact. Unless you can tell me that you fully realize the individual worth and uniqueness of every person with whom you interact, then you, too, are objectifying. When you called to dispute your cellphone bill, did you take the time to learn the specific hopes and dreams of the person who answered? Or did you reduce that person to the bare minimum needed to get you through that transaction? I rather suspect the latter, and that's objectification.

You might assert that this is manifestly different, but it strikes me as a difference only in degree, and I would need someone to explain to me why I'm wrong.

Every time someone on DU mocks a Walmart customer or derides a fast food worker or dismisses a cop as a pig, that's objectification. I am not even persuaded that objectification based on sexuality is worse than any other form, and if we're talking about widespread oppression then frankly I'll assert that economic objectification is far more profound and pervasive than sex- or gender-based objectification. After all, women are 51% of the population, but the economically objectified (those treated as consumer-machines or cast aside entirely) number somewhere above 98%.

So when I poke fun at the firestorm that resulted from the SI cover, I do it knowing that each of those three models will likely earn more from that cover than I will earn in my professional lifetims. If they're being objectified and oppressed, then what the hell is being done to you and me and the rest of the 98%?