William Shakespeare, arguably the greatest playwright ever to grace this Earth with his quill, knew what people wanted — sex. Although it may have been a taboo brunch topic during his era, he knew if his plays had sex in the first act that audiences would be captured, although not necessarily by the “thrust” of his words.

Nowadays sex is everywhere. It is acceptable to speak publicly about doing it privately (or not so privately, for the exhibitionists), is found all over the media and even graces this campus through murals such as the one on the fifth floor of Willow Hall.

Recently, this sexually implicit art has come under a surge of pressure to be removed. Eight girls have taken up arms against it due to references to date-rape drugs as well as the blatant objectification of women. The mural depicts a group of soldiers, armed with condoms, carrying off a barely dressed, big-chested woman who has “tool” written across her head. Also, references to drugs like roofies have been added to the work over the years.

So men are objectifying women, like always. Nothing new, other than its permanent setting in a college dormitory. So should feminists everywhere take up the cause to bring down this evil mural that solidifies male dominance?

No, they shouldn’t. If they did, it would be pure hypocrisy.

Before I get radical females all up in arms, I pose this question: Would we women not enjoy painting our own mural, depicting ourselves in our stereotyped kitchen-setting, cooking up something quite tasty, namely a scantily-clad, hard-bodied hunk of a man, whose washboard chest is so hot that we’re frying the bacon on it? Heck, for even a little more fun, we can stamp “moron” on his head, since generally most men seem to be just that.

Personally, I would love to do this. The Willow mural does not bother me at all for one very good reason — women objectify men too.

Female sexuality has come a long way over the years. This is not the Victorian period, where women were seen as docile, fragile figures. Modern ladies choose to be sexual creatures, and have been making it known for quite some time. Bringing this concept to the forefront are magazines such as Cosmopolitan and the TV show “Sex and the City.” They showcase women’s desire to be sexually explorative, that women cheat as much as men and are quickly erasing the myth that women don’t touch themselves.

Cosmopolitan has been boosting the objectification of men for decades. Just look at the cover and this is obvious. Headlines range from “40 sex secrets of women who are great in the sack” to “Turn him into a perfect lover.” The November issue even had four naked guys in the kitchen (where they belong), privates covered in one case by no more than a mixing bowl. And believe me, these guys’ smiles were not what had women drooling all over themselves.

Playgirl is another shining example of the sexual exploitation of men. Known for showing men in the buff, this magazine has been printing since 1973. With a healthy 29-year run, it is pretty obvious there is a fan base for nude males, no matter how unattractive their privates may be. One might even be shocked to learn that their female professors flip through this “smut”; one of mine has already admitted she does. (Granted, her announcement of this is guaranteed to give my classmates and me nightmares for weeks to come.)

But women do not only objectify men — they also tend to objectify themselves. Females don’t wear sexy clothes just for the heck of it, they want attention. They chase men and sack them, in more ways than one. It is all a battle for control of a man’s “second brain.”

Women are increasingly using their powers of “sex” against men too. Roughly 60 percent of sexual harassment claims currently made are false. A woman is much more likely to succeed in a court case due to the established standard that men are aggressors. This is also the reason no guy has succeeded in a sexual harassment claim against a woman, even one who is his superior. The deck is stacked against the men, and women play their hand well.

Yet, no matter which way the cards are dealt, one thing about the mural is inappropriate, and that is the reference to date-rape drugs like roofies. Rape is a serious issue, and should never be mocked. Any reference to these drugs should be removed. It is insight into illegal activity, unsettling with the masses and quite honestly, embarrassing for the guys who live on the floor, considering it insinuates the only way they can get a girl is if they drug her.

But to say down with the whole mural is outright hypocrisy. If men can’t objectify women, then I can’t objectify men, and really, what fun would that be?

Ayrel Clark

is a sophomore in journalism

and mass communication from Johnston. She is the opinion editor of the Daily.