Bob Geldof once met the Dalai Lama, and he asked him, the Living God, if he looked at women. The Dalai Lama answered: yes, objectively.

Women are objectified. What does it mean? Well, in my (and in anyone's) experience of the world, most of the things that come forth are simply objects: that Playboy mag, this monitor, the light that comes in through the window. Others are interpreted as subjects: other persons, such as my friend who is in the next room, the various gods, devils and aliens I can think of, and, according to certain theories, also our neighbor's dog that is howling right now (the dog, not the neighbor) and any other animal as well. "Object" means some thing rather different from me, for I can certainly be an object to myself (this is called self-conscience) but I'm first of all a subject, i.e. a thing which is not only a thing, for it is also able to think (sometimes, at least) and experience the world.

When a woman is objectified, she is treated not as a subject, as a person, but as a thing. When I look at a busty naked babe, I don't consider the fact that she can think and have emotions: she manifests herself in my experience just as a beautiful object. Women can react the same way towards men, of course, but historically the opposite is more usual. The problem is the moral judgment of this way of approaching them.

So, is objectifying women a crime? No, it isn't: let me explain why. (a) First off, to see something as a person is, as I said, an interpretation. We do it every day, but some ambiguous cases can arise: in the movie Blade Runner, for instance, future technology is able to make such perfect replicas that a sophisticated test is required to distinguish them from human beings. And, as the story goes on, the policeman whose task is to track down the replicas and retire them begins to think he's not only turning off machines, i.e. things, but killing persons.

Generally, whatever is due to interpretation is a choice, not a necessity. Sometimes we choose to see our animals as "persons" and love them as relatives. Sometimes we do it also with inanimate things: for instance, I'm almost sure that my old Toyota has a soul, and a touchy one too: each time I say I want to exchange it (um... "her") for a new car, she refuses to start. Looking at a woman as an "object" is also a choice. It's simply a way to emphasize the objective, external side any one of us has: the body.

(b) Now, when I look at a woman, and I consider her simply as a body, I do it because I find the beauty in her external shape -- exactly as I find beauty in a sculpture or in a natural landscape. I also do it most of the time when I see images of naked women. This happens because I observe them with the eye of the morpher, and the first things that come to mind when I look at a pic is whether the image quality is good, and if/how I can morph it.

I also have to add that objectifying a person is sometimes the best way to improve him/her: for instance, I've chatted through the Net with a famous busty supermodel (whose name I won't drop here), and she wasn't at all the nicest woman in the world. But when I look at pics of her objectively, I like her. The experience of beauty is an unselfish pleasure: there is no desire in it. If you look at adults-only stuff with desire too often, your sexuality might be too, uh... self-centered (pun intended).

(c) But men can also look at women with desire, and this is what is sometimes morally condemned as "objectifying". The paradox is that sexual attraction is not objectification at all. I can desire a new car (God, I've done it again... let's hope "she" will start tomorrow) or a jewel, but what I actually want in this case is the possession of them. I can't feel any sexual attraction towards them (and if I do, then I am considered a pervert, one who has serious psychological troubles) precisely because they are only things. On the contrary, the sexual desire for a woman is the way in which I recognize her as a woman, a person that I like as a person, sexually determined: and this is one way - though one of the most primitive - to consider a person without objectification.

After these brief remarks, many problems remain unsolved, of course; for instance: is your conscience at rest now? Do we respect a woman when we only desire her for sex? Does the Dalai Lama watch porn? ...And so on. Meanwhile, at least you have a new argument in your defense if your wife discovers your long- concealed bad habit of looking at our busty ladies: "Well, I did, but I did it objectively".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ST. MATTHEW,
The Gospel according to St. Matthew

ST STEPHAN,
101 Ways To Looketh On A Woman To Lust After Her Without Committing Sin

THE DALAI LAMA,
Let Me Make It Perfectly Clear: None Of The Above Shares My Religion

Thanks to my favorite Saint (no, not the evangelist) for editing my English.

Franz75@excite.com