Hadley Freeman is a journalist for the Guardian. She's a feminist and so am I.

For centuries it was (and still is) believed that women are inferior beings. Because of that they can not have education, can't vote, can't have a profession.

Today, in a liberal democratic society, lots of women are paid less than men for equal labor. Freeman states that the sexualization of women also creates inequality.

This is true, tough it's not beneficial for men as Freeman believes.

Take the German Bravo magazine for example. Imagine you'd like to pose for the 'Body Check' as it is called now. Not a problem if you're a girl. But as a boy: forget it!

Same thing for Seventeen: if you're a man and you'd like to do porn you would have to bring your girlfriend as well. If Seventeen doesn't accept your girlfriend: forget it!

So basically if you would like to make money in the sex/porn business, you really have the advantage if you're a (beautiful, young) girl. You even have more chances if you're an ugly girl or a so called MILF.

Of course this is not wat Freeman is talking about. 

In her article 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/beyonce-photographed-underwear-feminism 

it basically comes down to this (and I quote) 'But they (women) are similarly humiliated by being fed the message that it doesn't matter how succesful, powerful or smart you are - all that matters is how sexually available you are willing to make yourself look.'

I'll have to admit: Freeman can write. It's a very powerful phrase, and I guess it reflects how a lot of people (not only women) think about the subject of 'sexy pics'.

 But just to make things clear: Freeman's not talking about porn or nude posing. She's simply talking about how magazines like GQ make covers of Cameron Diaz, Lana Del Rey, Mila Kunis...

So, why is she not right?

1. Freeman uses an absolutism ('all that matters'). Why would anyone suddenly disrespect Beyonce - the subject of the article - because she poses sexy in her underwear in a magazine? Beyonce doesn't turn me on (and I'm not even a fan of her music), so I'm not a Beyonce-expert. But for as far as I know, she was - besides a singer - always a sex-symbol. The same thing goes for Madonna. Would Freeman really fear that the only reason why men (and - who knows - women) listen to Beyonce is because she is sexy?

The truth is: it does matter. If you are very goodlooking (male or female) you'll generally make more money and be more succesful. This is not a question of taste. It's science. Our mind tells us that people who look pretty will also be nice. And - in general - this is true. Their beauty gives them confidence and we like confident people (a generalisation, of course their are beautiful insecure people as well).

But it's not ALL that matters. For example: I don't really like Madonna's music except for her 'Ray Of Light'-album and a few other tracks. Even if Madonna would have pose nude on every cover of her cd, I'd still only buy 'Ray Of Light' and NOT because she would be nude, but because it's good music. Her being a sex-symbol doesn't change that.

2.  The sexualization of women is humiliating for them. Not only for the (nude) models or celebrities, but for ALL women. 

This is very strange, because I believe it's just the opposite. To me the difference between male and female models is that female models look even better when wearing no clothes at all. I'm not saying that women shouldn't pose clothed or unsexy, but they can pose sexy with AND without clothes. A man can hardly pose sexy (usually when a man pose sexy (like for example George Clooney in the Nespresso ads) he just poses cool and doesn't want to seduce), and when they do (posing sexy, seductive) it's probably for a gay-event (and I've got nothing, absolutely nothing against male models who'll pose seductive for a gay event). 

But I'll admit: If Freeman were to visit Imagefap and reads the comments of the users, she'll probably think she's got her point proven. But if Imagefap proves one thing, it's that humiliation (as beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

Take the three Bravo girls for example. Do they humiliate themselves or all the women on the planet by showing us their bodies? I don't think so.

But could it be that some of their friends were ashamed that a girl they were close to suddenly appears naked in a magazine? Yes, that could very well be. But does it matter if the girl herself feels good about posing nude? And what if she's not only feeling good, but she gets really horny as well. Should these girls have to feel ashamed because they make me horny (they do b.t.w., otherwise I wouldn't include them in this blog)? Why would I suddenly feel less respect toward a girl/woman when I'm seeing them naked while masturbating? This is something men can never be for me. They can never be my masturbation-material. But - and this adds up to point 1 - when a girl becomes masturbation-material, that's not ALL she is. I would love it if very intelligent women would pose nude (and I guess some of them do) and I really don't look down on them.

This is the end of part 1. Part 2 will follow.