That's where it's at, huh ? Alrighty, here goes :

A few years ago, I had occasion to drive a freshly acquired bit of bipedal property of United States origin across a number of train tracks. She had never been to Europe before, the action was taking place in a somewhat decrepit looking part of Eastern Europe (perhaps Serbia ?) and generally the whole experience of travel and slavery and so forth had overwhelmed her to the point of permanent bated breath.

So I said, turning, all casual-like, "careful not to step on the actual tracks". Obviously one's not about to ignore what the god damned master tells you to do, but there was more to it here. She had a poor understanding of physics and generally the real constraints of the world around herⁱ which had been recently and overwhelmingly proven in numerous ways, and a good deal of fear of the novel stemming from itⁱⁱ. She gingerly stepped over the actual tracks (which, unlike the ones depicted, were shining fresh from regular use). Months later, feeling a little more at ease with basic science and engineering, she inquired as to the actual cause. And I told her I was just fucking with her.

Because, you know, one doesn't simply "have fun". It has to be organised and everything.

On display above is the coy behaviour, an innate mamallian reflex occasionally discussed here. Both women protect their pudenda ⁱⁱⁱ, except the older one has obviously had her innate behaviours modulated by culture and society to the degree where her shoulders are significantly more relaxed than the young woman's. But apart from that, picture a relaxed spine, picture their respective spines, be amazed and be amused.

I know I am.

PS. Objectifying women doesn't simply or for that matter doesn't at all mean "treating them badly". Objectifying women is treating women as if they were things, that react in certain ways to certain constraints placed upon them, much like a steel bar of so and so thickness bends under so and so load in such and such manner. This stands in opposition to the irrational religious view promoted by US retards that, in continuation of ridiculous Victorian notions of romanticism, aims to present woman as some sort of metaphysical entitty - something it most emphatically is not.

PPS. You wouldn't want to metaphysicize men, either, would you ? So stop doing it to women - the good ones suffer from it, because no fiction can surpass objective greatness, whereas the shitty ones unduly get to insulate their shit from washing.

1. Typical for people grown in that particular pen of religious fanaticism, by the way. [↩]
2. Also typical, which is incidentally why US tourists are so easy to pick out anywhere in the sane world : they're insane, they know it, so they feel very insecure with anything outside the routine of their insanity. [↩]
3. In Latin literally "that shameful bit", but be advised that what the Latins mean by "Shameful" isn't "what [the viewer] ought to be ashamed by" but much more practically, and much more positively (like you'd expect of any serious Latins) : that which the female tends to irrationally protect. As if she were - for some reason we don't see - ashamed of it. Apparently it's shameful to her, who knows. [↩]