The prevalence of 'porn for men' [1] doesn't counter the argument. You're just pointing out a (largely historically-biased) discrepancy in the target market.
'Porn for women' exists. The day it sells as well as 'porn for men', will something about 'porn for men' have magically changed?
Frankly, that it's not yet as popular says more about our society's remaining sexism [2] than it does about whether pornography, as a concept, is inherently sexist.
And I'd also argue the point of whether the male actors are objectified in the same way the women are.
There is no shortage of 'porn for men' that revolves around the concept of the 'hapless delivery guy as sexual object'.
The assumption that this isn't equivalent is purely sexist. The argument ("what red-blooded male isn't Ok with that?") presumes that no red-blooded female should be Ok with a 'hapless secretary as sexual object' fantasy.
And there's absolutely no basis for that assertion. Objectification is high on the list of fantasies for any gender and any orientation. Assuming it's something women shouldn't or don't want is sexist repression, pure and simple.
[1] The idea of 'porn for men' vs 'porn for women' is pretty useless. The genres of porn are many and varied and have wildly differing levels of objectification of the parties involved, wholly separate from the concern of who their typical consumers are.
[2] Our society holds women to a far higher sexual standard of chastity and more-harshly represses any exploration they may do, as compared to their male peers. To say nothing of what we imply their fantasies and erotic consumption habits are or should be.
'Porn for women' exists. The day it sells as well as 'porn for men', will something about 'porn for men' have magically changed?
Frankly, that it's not yet as popular says more about our society's remaining sexism [2] than it does about whether pornography, as a concept, is inherently sexist.
And I'd also argue the point of whether the male actors are objectified in the same way the women are.
There is no shortage of 'porn for men' that revolves around the concept of the 'hapless delivery guy as sexual object'.
The assumption that this isn't equivalent is purely sexist. The argument ("what red-blooded male isn't Ok with that?") presumes that no red-blooded female should be Ok with a 'hapless secretary as sexual object' fantasy.
And there's absolutely no basis for that assertion. Objectification is high on the list of fantasies for any gender and any orientation. Assuming it's something women shouldn't or don't want is sexist repression, pure and simple.
[1] The idea of 'porn for men' vs 'porn for women' is pretty useless. The genres of porn are many and varied and have wildly differing levels of objectification of the parties involved, wholly separate from the concern of who their typical consumers are.
[2] Our society holds women to a far higher sexual standard of chastity and more-harshly represses any exploration they may do, as compared to their male peers. To say nothing of what we imply their fantasies and erotic consumption habits are or should be.