You know, as much as I am pro-choice in all areas of life, that doesn't mean that someone can't make a choice that just disgusts me. I'm talking about this article on MSN.com.

You may remember the controversy about the woman who was kicked off a Southwest flight for having clothes that were too revealing. (To be fair, I saw the outfit in question, and I didn't really think it was something to get kicked off a plane for. But I digress.) Now, this woman is capitalizing on the controversy surrounding her story by posing in Playboy. Playboy's website says something to the effect of, "She was too sexy for Southwest, but she's perfect for Playboy."

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I am not one of those feminists who advocates any and all pornography (with the exception of child porn) under the guise of "sexual freedom." I'm all for sexual freedom, all right. To me, this isn't it.

I don't understand why, in this day and age, women are still allowing themselves to be viewed as sex objects. Kyla Ebbert, the woman in question, says, "The photos are very tastefully done. I don't see anything wrong with the female body." Well, neither do I! But just because I don't see anything wrong with it doesn't mean that I think it should be flaunted for millions of men who don't care about the woman as a person; to them, she is just an object.

And let's be honest; does Playboy showcase any and all female bodies, because there is nothing "wrong" with them and they are all so "acceptable" to society? Nope. It's only the thin, the young, the fit. This is a double slap in the face; on the one hand, beautiful women are viewed as mere objects, whereas older women who don't conform to the societal ideal are not considered sexy, in the eyes of the public.

There seems to be a consensus among some people that Playboy is somehow "better" than other types of pornography. While it certainly may not be as vulgar as other magazines and media outlets, it's still in no way "beautiful" or "classy," as some like to advocate. It is a primary factor in the demeaning of women; the women in these spreads are there to be viewed by others, without seeing these viewers. The women in these spreads have nothing to say; to the men (and women) who look at this magazine, she has no thoughts or ideas of her own. She is often portrayed as coy and childlike, with a hand over her mouth, symbolizing the stifling of her thoughts. Because really, do the men who view pornography really care about what the woman thinks or says? In a word, no. They just view it for the pure sexual pleasure of it, reducing the women to the state of an object.

The article goes on to say, "Ebbert worked at a Hooters in San Diego [hmmm, are we seeing a pattern here?] but said [she] wants to become an attorney, and doesn’t think posing nude should get in the way of her professional aspirations." Really?! Perhaps posing nude won't get in the way, but I speak only for myself when I say that I would be very hesitant to hire a woman who thought that taking her clothes off for money was an acceptable pursuit. To me, that demonstrates that she values her physical attributes more than her intellectual ones, and that is not the type of woman I would want working for me.

Now, some people have told me, "But there's nothing wrong with sex and sexuality. So what's the big deal with this?" First of all, sex/sexuality are not synonymous with pornography. Sex/sexuality, when in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, is completely natural, spiritual, uplifting, and satisfying for both parties. Pornography simply degrades this very important aspect of our humanity, and takes the spirituality and relational aspect out of the act, making the woman an object instead of a unique individual. The viewing of pornography can often spill over into other aspects of men's lives, as they expect the women they date in real life to match the unrealistic ideals put forth on the pages of these magazines. These are my primary issues with it.

Pornography makes the societal inequality that exists between women and men so apparent. While there are a few pornographic magazines that feature males, there are nowhere near as many as the typical "men's" magazines like Playboy, Hustler, etc. You don't see men, no matter how good-looking or attractive they are, degrading themselves by posing nude in order to "get ahead." No, men are valued for their intelligence and talents. Why, then, in this day and age when women can be and are just as educated, talented, and intelligent as men, are many women still valued solely for their physicality? And, perhaps more importantly, why do women, such as Kyla Ebbert, seem to think this is acceptable? I truly believe that inequality will continue to exist in our society until men and women are ALL viewed as human beings deserving of dignity, rather than mere sex objects.