The school year is finally ending, as is my time as an arts columnist. I have one last, life-ruining situation to discuss with you all.

It might come as a surprise, but Lantern arts editor Graham Beckwith has ruined my life. What I thought was a generous offer to express myself and diversify my writing became a source of stress and made me more enemies than I already had. Worst of all, he shot down possibly the greatest idea ever to circulate the newsroom.

Springtime Studs. It would be a compilation of Ohio State’s sexiest, Oval-frequenting men. My best friend and I imagined ourselves walking down a line of shirtless Buckeyes, and picking our favorites to grace the arts page.

Graham Beckwith said no. He said he refused to objectify men.

Oh my little Graham cracker, why?

I argued at first. I explained it would be harmless and funny, and we could let students vote for the studs. I even pitched the idea of a Fall Femmes page next year to allow equal objectification. It was still a no-go because he would not be arts editor by the time we would write it.

Stung by the unfairness of the verdict, I grabbed my BFF, donned a pair of giant sunglasses to disguise myself and set out to objectify as many OSU men as possible. We met another friend at a picnic table on the Oval, them smoking, me eating barbecue chicken pizza. We wondered how to go about our objectifying. Was it merely looking? Was it talking about men as sexual objects? Were we supposed to whistle or shout uncomfortable things?

We attempted all of the above. We made fun of the inadequacies of men in bed (Why do you talk to me in bed? Why did you attempt to bite her panties in a sexy way?) We winked at innocent passersby and waved, trying our best not to care that what we were doing was creepy and alienating.

Our objectifying lasted all of 20 minutes. Talking about sex is endlessly fun, but the staring, and sneering and commenting? Not for me. Not only that, no one really cared about what we were doing except for us. Perhaps objectification is blown out of proportion?

Then a man passing out “O Face” magazine approached us and gave us copies of the new magazine.

I opened it and found my eyes bombarded with sexy co-eds posing for an amateur camera and sex galore. Of course it was geared completely towards men. And once again, the unfairness of not being allowed to have Springtime Studs made me bitter.

So the question is, why is it okay for the “O Face” to exist, and not Springtime Studs, Lantern edition? Don’t get me wrong, I kind of love the “O Face.” It’s entertaining; I like to read other people’s ridiculous sex anecdotes, and I like to pick apart the girls with my guy friends. I love magazines like it. “Playboy” is fun times, and I want to be a “Maxim” hometown hottie when I grow up (as well as an esteemed writer obviously).

What I want to know is, what makes objectification gender specific? Is it because guys look gross naked? Is it because men buy more magazines and publications? Is it socially wrong for women to look at men on a solely physical level? Most would say this sort of view towards men or women is completely wrong. The reality is, I think it’s most correct.

Let’s put it this way: My friends and I are completely self-sufficient. We pay for our rent, food and books. We change our own tires, do our own home repairs, cook and clean. Emotionally, we rely on each other for conversation and company. Guys are the same way-most of their interaction is with their guy friends. So then, what do we need the opposite sex for if not for their intended physical purpose?

I asked my friend Eric this as we browsed the “O Face.”

“Sometimes, we lift stuff,” he said, as speaker for the entire male race.

I stand corrected.

Everdeen Mason can be reached at [email protected].