Women’s presence as a definition of success: how pornculture affects society? Image can be a very powerful thing. It can have impact on our behaviour or sometimes, even change our views, depends of a content of image and general aesthetics. And it is not only a poster or an illustration, which I am talking about, but also the image of ourselves- our appearance. Now, why do visuals influence people so much, and what images have the biggest impact on us? Freud theory might be a good way to find out, scopophilia: ‘(from Greek σκοπέω skopeō, "look to, examine" and φιλία philia, "tendency toward"), is deriving pleasure from looking.’(Scopophilia, 2016). Freud claimed that scopophilia is something that we experience from an early age and can make us interested in art but it also can turn in kind of obsession what Lucian Freud called "a burning and tormenting curiosity to see the female body” (Scopophilia, 2016). L Mulvey in her book called “Visual and Other Pleasures” says: “ Freud isolated scopophilia as one of the erotogenic zones [...] he associated scopophilia with taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze”. (Mulvey, 2009, p.53) That shows how empowering sexuality can be, and power in a sexual way can be described as a synonym of success. The thing I want to focus on is a women’s presence as a definition of success. I would like to analyse how did it change through the years in a context of feminism and objectification. In the past men and women’s presence were dictated by a strict set of rules they need to follow, and those rules were very different from each other and dependent on gender. A man's presence was all about his power towards people in every sphere- sexual, economic, social, physical. A woman’s presence was a contrast to that. As John Berger in his book called “Ways of Seeing” wrote: “Woman’s presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her. [...] Presence for a woman is so intrinsic to her person that men tend to think of it as an almost physical emanation, a kind of heat or smell or aura.” (Berger, 1793, p46) Then he explains, why women needed a constant control of their own attitude and behaviour, because how they appeared to others (mostly to men) decided about something that was successful to them. A female image seemed to be one of a very few male’s weaknesses and because men were the only ones that officially held the power, women needed to use their charms to get a man in order to success. That is why they object themselves and turned into a sight, which is strongly connected with dehumanisation. “ Kant notion of objectification [...] focuses largely on instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a mere tool for the lover’s purposes.”(Feminist perspectives on objectification, 2015), according to that this quote there is no surprise in fact that females started to fight about their human rights and equality with men in every aspect. One of the major things they were trying to get rid of for so long, was objectification and canons of female beauty they needed to follow. Comparing the past with nowadays, world made a massive progress, in equalization in various spectrums. But it is not enough progress to say that we are equal, especially in a sexual aspect. Current generation is surrounded by sexuality almost everywhere: starting from music video clips through television programmes, advertisements and magazines, ending on Internet. We can name it a sexualisation of culture or even soft-porn culture. And it is mainly based on ‘perfect’, erotic female image. Those things that feminists fought for so long, such as sexual equalisation and casting aside a narrow image of female beauty, seems to mean less and less in this generation. A very good example