It’s all perfectly fine and on the level for a boy to be a toy–a boy toy, if you will–as a result of how subversive it still is to objectify “men” in any way (plus it typically means his way is getting paid for, so where’s the harm in his objectification if it comes with a Gucci suit?), but it remains something of a source of melancholy to see a “woman” reduce herself to being a sheer plaything for the sake of either 1) money, 2) power or 3) some vague attempt at getting respect by dichotomously surrendering what little is left of her dignity to a “bloke.” Her relinquishment of all control over the self, both body and mind, in effect, renders her as lifeless and lacking in dimensionality as a Kim Kardashian corpse meme. Kim herself, obviously, knows a little something about engaging in the “beneficial” role of toy, otherwise she might have found the strength of character to leave Kanye long ago. Or even Kris Jenner, for that matter.
Because most “women” still feel that the height of their strength cannot be achieved unless they have a “man” at their side to form some version of the “power couple” (though we all saw how that turned out for Hillary), they can’t help but continue to feel prone to a certain amount of self-reduction. The kind that leads them to the mental level of little better than a doll or semi-modern Barbie (the kind with “accurate measurements“), which means a very minimal amount of overly “opinionated” comments that might lead to their prop of a “boy”friend’s sudden abandonment in favor of a more toy-like “girl.” It’s better to be lifeless in a pair than vivacious and “full of cute ideas” alone. Which, yes, does make one need to double check every so often to corroborate that it is, in fact, the twenty-first century.