Defenders of Real Love

Posted Items are now Links.Only the name has changed - all features remain the same.
Displaying all 6 links.
You posted a link
Yesterday at 6:45pm.
Sex objects: Pictures shift men's view of women Science guardian.co.uk
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Photographs of scantily clad women light up part of the brain normally associated with using power tools
Cute.
Comment - Like Unlike
You like this.

Aaron Cox at 7:14pm February 16
i don't know what i think of this one. sure, it's sad that when a typical, mainstream male sees a picture of a scantily clad women, the "tool" part of the brain (that name fits in more ways than one) becomes more active and the empathetic portion receives less activity. that's sad, but that's lust. all humans have it. i would bet a large sum of money that if a mainstream female was shown a picture of Orlando Bloom or that british twighlight guy with no shirt flexing in the rain, the empathetic portion of their brain would also shut down and they, too, would view the subject of the picture as merely a sex object. i'm that the men who look at half-naked supermodels or actresses could care less about the feelings and wants and needs and other empathetic matters of the model, and i'm also sure that women who look at half-naked pictures of male supermodels or actors could care less about the feelings and wants and needs and other empathetic matters of the model.

Aaron Cox at 7:21pm February 16
i have to do 2 comments because there is a limit on length.the last thing i was going to add was this.both sexes experience lust. it's an ugly part of our being, but women and men both lust after other as much as the other. do i believe that women are objectified far more than men? of course.but this study does not prove that. it is pointless and flawed. it proves that men lust after women. we already know that. it's extremely biased as well, because they didn't give the opposite sex the same study. it's like studying the effects of drunk driving, but not recording data on the test subjects when they drive sober. you're left with one set of data that proves nothing.i know what it's trying to prove, and i agree with the point it wants to make. but this study proves something we already know, AND leaves out anything with which to compare (ex. the same study on women).

Cheyne Palmer at 9:28pm February 16
If men didn't see women as something to act upon; the human population would die out.Objectifying women is healthy. ;)

Kendall Sallay at 10:02pm February 16
Cheyne, I hope you're kidding. Aaron, I agree with you completely. Or, mostly.The article never claims that only one sex experiences lust. We all do fo sho. The point to me, (yes, I do believe there was a point to this study) was simply to reinforce the idea of the woman as an object by presenting to readers the results of these brain scans. Cause believe it or not, some people really don't attest or notice that the vast majority of mainstream pornography, media and advertisements are using womens bodies. Props to you for viewing this study as redundant.And, though I can not speak for all women when I say this, when I see a picture of a naked male, I don't feel the same way as I feel when I grab a screwdriver to change some batteries or something. I don't want to "use" men. Though, I'm sure there are many ladies who wish to and do.I agree with you. The research needs to be taken to the next level to see what happens when femme brains are scanned under similar circumstances.

Dirk Milotz at 10:17pm February 16
Hell ya, every time I see Kendall I dream of chainsaws and drills. vroom vrooooom

Kendall Sallay at 10:19pm February 16
Every time I see you I dream of hunting ducks.

Nick Liberatore at 11:53pm February 16
BORINGWHO CARESFEMINIST AGENDA

Aaron Cox at 12:04am February 17
i know, that's why i mentioned mainstream males and mainstream females. when the typical mainstream person sees a person who is used as a sex symbol, their mind treats them as that. i think it would be a waste of money to keep studying that when there can be so many more studies as to what mistakes human beings made historically that put women, blacks, hispanics, jews, homosexuals, muslims, and and other abused groups into the positions in society that they are forced to occupy today and what can be done to fix the damage that's been done. and also what can be done to make sure future generations don't mess up like the old ones did.split in two again...

Aaron Cox at 12:09am February 17
also, studies like this are unintentionally antogonizing. by studying only one gender and not recording anything about how the oposite sex reacts to the same tests, it gives off the feeling that it's only out to fight back instead of push forward. imagine if, as a reaction to discrimination against blacks, a study was released saying "white people are prone to making uninformed judgements about other races based on what they see in the media." ok, it's true. AND that fact is one of the main parts of racism. but it doesn't have anything to do with white people. blacks, asians, hispanics, all are capable of the same thing, it's not a white issue. the issue is that HUMANS are capable of the act, and it is encouraged among whites. a one-sided study like that does more damage than anything else. because when an ignorant white person reads it, they feel attacked. AH SPLIT IN THREE!

Aaron Cox at 12:17am February 17
and the whole point of civil rights isn't to piss off your opposition. because your opposition isn't "evil", they're ignorant. so by preaching to the choir, nothing is done to help. by making your opposition mad, nothing is done to help. the ONLY way to advance civil rights is to educate. so when studies are done that (uninetentionally) antagonize males, they are that much less likely to be willing to understand in the future. the pont of civil rights is to prove your opposition wrong, and they can only be proved wrong once they are willing to listen. and it may be sad that we have to "baby" the ignorant and be nice and delicate with them, but it's the only way besides full on war. just like how MLK worked with white people, whereas malcom X preached how whites were bad people who took pleasure in opressing blacks. but who succeeded?that said, i too dream of hunting ducks when i see dirk. it must be something in his eyes...

Aaron Cox at 12:20am February 17
or butt.

Kendall Sallay at 1:11am February 17
Personally, I think it's his butt. I disagree with what you find to be the whole point of the ongoing civil rights struggle. True, it not soley an attempt to anger the opposition just for kicks. But, without the antagonizing of a widespread ignorance that is being used to hurt many people, nothing will ever get done. If civil rights activists spent all their time tiptoeing around the issues such as to avoid hurting the feelings, or god forbid, offending their oppressors, societies would ever move forward. The civil rights movement was and is about exposing a bullshit discriminatory culture for what it is. As far as I'm concerned in this particular case, the alleged "mainstream male" we speak of has had as much time as all the rest of us to evolve and get his shit together. I see absolutely no reason to baby him into posssibly changing his ways. This doesn't mean being outright offensive or irrational toward him, but it does mean... (NEXT POST)

Kendall Sallay at 1:19am February 17
like you said, educating him until it is certain that he and his lifestyle choices have been proven detrimental to himself as well as to the culture he exists in. I don't think MLK would agree that he babied anyone into adopting his beliefs, nor do I think he would agree that his way was the only way to approach civil rights.It is true that ALL people are equally inclined to make racist/ sexist judgements about others. However, the interspecies hierarchy that has long been perpetuated in the US is quite unlike any other, and as citizens of the US I think it makes sense for us to focus on the depth of the problem here since we are most familiar with it.Once again, this study was simply conducted to serve as a sample of the woman as an object for the male gaze and why that might pose problems for people. If nothing else, you can never have too much evidence.

Aaron Cox at 2:10am February 17
my main point was that remarks like this:"BORINGWHO CARESFEMINIST AGENDA"could be avoided if it were more complete and direct at proving why men objectify women.unless it that remark intended as a joke, in which case sorry sir. but if not, then i'm not sorry.i think it's ok to be confrontational, if it's well planned and it really puts the opposition in their place. but the problem is that this study was not intended to be confrontational, yet it will be interpreted that way by those who are not as open-minded. but if it gave no ammunition to those who would accuse it of having a slant and presented a bigger picture of the facts, it would leave no room for attacks and no room for anyone to challenge it as biased. because the results are certainly not biased, but the study is not immune to the accusation. if anything this study attracts that accusation. so evidence is good, but without the full picture it really can't be used. it's literally circumstancial evidence

Cassandra Croft at 1:17pm February 17
Though the study may be biased in its narrowness, it should not be rendered pointless. The sexualization in our culture is primarily one-sided. The study does not implicate only images of women in the media, which is a specific genre of objectification, but implies the general sexualization of women in our culture. Yes, some women, perhaps even a large portion, gaze at the shiny bare chests of male celebrities in pop magazines. But does there exist an industry of pornography that objectifies, humiliates, and abuses males? Are men's bodies and sexuality the MOST used marketing strategy in American culture? In any individual piece, is the amount of skin shown of a male EVER comparable to that of a woman? Are women NOT treated as 'less-than-human' because of the forces that exploit their bodies? If this were a genuinely equal oppression, then yes, the study would have to be more comprehensive. And I don't mean that men aren't ever sexualized or hurt by objectification. I would say that...

Cassandra Croft at 1:21pm February 17
mainstream gender roles and norms hurt both sexes fairly equally. But it is fairly undeniable that the exploitation is unequal. Though the article does not elaborate on the complexity of these issues, it is perhaps the very beginning of a mainstream recognition of the true effects of this objectification. Unfortunately, even without a closer analysis, the study whispers a truth.

Cheyne Palmer at 1:48pm February 17
I'm saying yeah; I get a burst of enjoyment when I pick up a soldering iron and go on to make something. Very similiar to when a babe starts undressing with focused eye contact. it's kind of like excitement of anticipation for what I'm about to do. actually It just is excitement of anticipation.(to be stated in a way that could easily be misconstrued) if men perceived power tools and scant women as the same thing...+(in my subconscious mind Yeah I'm going to use that soldering iron to make something with it; tailor distortion or flanger. build my own PA.+(in my subconscious mind) I'm going to use that hot babe to make something, I don't know what at the time, but I'm sure within at least nine months after, I'll have a good idea.the first paragraph is serious; the second continues with the joke.hmmm... I wonder if the same are of the brain is involved when women shop for shoes as when Kendall thinks about duck hunting?

Cheyne Palmer at 1:50pm February 17
hmmm... "same area of the brain"

Cassandra Croft at 2:02pm February 17
You try to disconnect the two excitements as separate feelings, but the fact that they are scientifically conjoined does say something ugly. It is not as innocent as "yes, both of those things excite men." By trivializing the objectifying excitement men experience when viewing those images, you ignore the reality of the similarity. The argument that says men perceives 'power tools and scant women' in the same fashion does NOT imply the connection between PA's and babies. It suggests a connection between the USE of both tools and women's bodies. Not their products. Perhaps I'm just exhausted, but I really, really don't see the connection between shoe shopping and duck hunting.

Aaron Cox at 2:07pm February 17
cassie, i agree with you. i never said the objectification was balanced. i know that North American and Western European culture have brainwashed themselves to walk all over women and assign them the role of either sex object, baby maker, or dinner maker. i know the oppression is unequally tilted onto females. i know that women are the ones primarily exploited both in the media and in daily life. but what i'm saying is that a study like this doesn't show a media bias, it shows that men experience lust. and lust is a sexual impulse that operates independent of emotion (which is why the empathetic part of the brain shut down), and we have known about lust for as long as we've been around. a more appropriate study would have been this: (split in TWO AGAIN!)

Aaron Cox at 2:10pm February 17
both males and females are given the test. but then they find out why men's brain's are in that position more often in daily life and while watching TV than women. so both subjects are sitting in front of TV sets, and the male brain keeps shutting down the empathetic portion and going up in the "tool" portion. but the woman's brain is doing this 1/10 as frequently as the man. the scientists know, from their data, that both the male and female were equally as capable of this lust, but why is it just happening to the male? then they can draw those conclusions. but as long as they didn't test the opposite sex, they can't make it a complete study of it, and can't prove the big issues.

Cassandra Croft at 2:19pm February 17
yes, i agree with you. hopefully that kind of study is on the way. you've got to start somewhere.

Cassandra Croft at 2:20pm February 17
*studies like that have been performed, but they are not published or recognized on a mainstream level.

Cassandra Croft at 2:20pm February 17
*kendi i hope the attention this post is getting makes you feel like you have more friends

Aaron Cox at 2:25pm February 17
kendall and cassie, you two are my favorite power tools.i just thought i'd let you guys know how much you mean to me.

Nick Liberatore at 4:23pm February 17
tl;dr I dont understand, this is dumb. Brains dont even light up anyways, this is dumb. How can it light up if theres no bulbs in it???