In other words, it is not the depiction of sexual acts per se, or the excitement such depictions cause, which is immoral, but rather certain types of depictions, namely those which show individuals in degrading positions. Garry agrees with Kant that objectification is morally unacceptable, but raises interesting questions about what this means. It is easier to objectify women as a whole, because the roles they are allowed to play in society are still far more restricted than those of men. Stock stereotypes ring more true when counterexamples are hard to find. Since their status is so different, the loss of respect has greater repercussions for women in general.
Pornography is often pernicious because it perpetuates images of the so-called 'fallen woman'.
Losing respect' for men as a class is more difficult than losing respect for women. The so-called 'double standard' is an affront to dignity. Therefore, it is not sexual desire that is objectionable, but the different attitude society has toward men versus women who engage in essentially the same sexual activities. For example, a high-ranking female Army officer, treated with respect by men and women alike, could be shown not only in various sexual encounters with other people but also carrying out her job in a humane manner. Or perhaps the main character could be a female urologist.