Sports Illustrated cover - practically porn?

[F4lconF16]

65. Bit of a difference.

That's like claiming calling a black person "N-----" is the same as calling a white person a "cracker". There's thousands of years of oppression to contend with on one side, and thousands of years of oppressing on the other. Context makes a big difference.

Even your example is not a particularly good one. There's a huge difference between showing some stereotypically hot guys with their shirts off standing strong, and an all but nude picture of woman in a manner that is clearly designed to be seductive. Even with something closer, say a female firefighter who is also muscular, they are almost always presented in a very sexual manner, compared to the "strength" of the men. Yes, it is sexual, but in a totally different world from the way women are presented. And women are presented that way everywhere.

Yes, neither is great from an objectification standpoint, but comparing some handsome dudes half naked to the vast destructive misogyny of our world is rather disingenuous.