Objectifying Beauty
Kofi Fosu Forson

Some men objectify women. I have been guilty of this.

Neither vice nor conquest, in my life, women have been cause for an undertaking, grounds for a mission, a dance, celebration, mystery, sin and a lesson.

I realize now that I must exorcise the spirituality of women from my life. They are to be explored, interpreted, furthermore, intellectualized within the realms of love and beauty.

For me, given my psyche, conscience and reality (?), to have sex with a porn star (or a woman unfeeling sexually, highly liberated, practices sex as a religion, as a vice,) there would be no point of return. This is not meant to relay any point of ecstasy.

The dark side of every personality is a culmination of fears, desires and pangs. They usually combine to define our past history and psychology. We create an illusive screen which enables us to defend ourselves from other personalities and circumstances. This screen is made up of cynical thoughts, hate, anger, violence, sexual, emotional and physical. In a plural conscience, these feelings are marginalized.

To be chaste is the drive. In a world of material wealth, the flesh is at first textural. Mortality renders it dead. The drive to fornicate is part of the existence and conscience. In a plural conscience, it isn’t acted upon. It is truncated. The permissible result is the objectifying of beauty and love: that the being is sex. The being is love. The being is beautiful.

Artists objectify beauty. If seemingly, the woman is a work of art, artists are damaged by their beauty. For some artists, the woman is a vice. For others, she is a creature of love and beauty. In the world of art, she could be The Madonna or The Mona Lisa. In a hedonistic world, women are the constant source of temptation. The artist must then choose between living what must be deemed “normal” ritual of dating or spontaneously interacting with women.

The artist in question is just as damaged as the victim of rape. Sex is not an issue on both sides. The artist may have been molested spiritually, psychologically and intellectually by society. Thus is the language of pornography. The pluralism found in a pornographic film is as disturbing as the physical rape.

The final decision is then again to exorcise the spirituality of women from the life. They are not to be interpreted as sex objects. It is natural. But in the plural conscience, they are objectified in a clear and transparent way. There is no need for cynicism. The illusive screen will protect. It will be indeed cynical. The decision will then be to cleverly know what to say and what to keep hidden in the blinding beauty that makes up the psyche.

The artist has the greatest challenge. He is at once dark, and then he is caught up in the light. What he chooses to portray will define him. His intellectual thoughts on love and beauty will permeate his roles with women. It would be more than just dating and “conquering.” It would be a greater test.

The chance to live in a chaste and modern world!