Posted on 12/09/2013 3:17:48 AM PST by markomalley
In the progressive future, men will not be able to look at women’s bodies because that is a terrible thing to do — and science says so.
Researchers have offered a definitive report into the science of the male “objectifying gaze” in the December 2013 volume of “Sex Roles: A Journal of Research” (Volume 69, Issue 11-12, pp 557-570).
“Although objectification theory suggests that women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequences, there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers. The main purpose of this work was to examine the objectifying gaze toward women via eye tracking technology,” according to the abstract of “My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women” by Sarah J. Gervais, Arianne M. Holland, and Michael D. Dodd.
“Consistent with our main hypothesis, we found that participants focused on women’s chests and waists more and faces less when they were appearance-focused (vs. personality-focused). Moreover, we found that this effect was particularly pronounced for women with high (vs. average and low) ideal body shapes in line with hypotheses,” according to the report.
This is the kind of study MSNBC commentators can hold up when they’re talking about “rape culture.” Because men are just all Bashar al-Assad and sex is their chemical weapon. Fifty-one percent of the U.S. population is a victimized group now. Don’t you know? Women are like Indians now. You can’t give them a once-over, a polite grin, and be on your way. You can’t notice the fruits of their several-hour morning project of preparing themselves to be looked at. Pretty soon, looking at a woman’s chest will legally be a “hate” crime instead of a love crime.
It’s already started. There was the Massachusetts secretary who sued her boss for staring at her breasts. There was the social media uproar when two tech conference presenters in San Francisco made a joke presentation for an app based on men’s desire to stare at breasts.
This is what the progressives exist to do. They take away our activities. If it’s an activity and it’s kind of fun or pleasurable, the progressives are going to take it away.
That’s the very basis of their personality type. They’re the regulators. The hall monitors.
Maybe catching a side glance of some cleavage on the subway isn’t for you. Fine. But for those of us who enjoy that, it’s one more thing that we’re allowed to do in this country. I’m not big on skiing, but if I see somebody walking down the street with some skis I’m cool with that. Why ban things that you might want to try sometime?
I’m not saying looking at tits is any kind of noble pursuit. But it’s one more freedom. It’s one more thing that has been allowed in this country since the time of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. One more thing that we’re not going to be allowed to do in the progressive future.
And you know what else? A lot of women like it.
Ladies, how are you going to feel when the progressives prohibit men from paying you a compliment on your walk home from the bar? You know there’s always one friend of yours who waited all night for that.
And if you happen to be a woman who isn’t employed by the Democratic National Committee or the New York Times, maybe you’re really not all that offended by these sorts of things. Because you realize that when progressives ban things, they don’t just prohibit activities: they set a new rule that goes out through the culture that must be obeyed.
And the new rule affects everyone. From the guy who now has to cover his face so as not to look at a hot girl’s tits, to the girl whose tits can no longer be looked at, to the friend of the girl who could have laughed when it happened, to the bar owner standing outside who could have lured them both in for a drink, to the husband’s small business partner who knows the story of how they met and smirks about it over dinner, to the daughter at their 30th anniversary party who decided that she just wanted to be a full-time mom and raise her kids Christian and send them to private school and she was proud of her decisions in life.
This is why conservatives will own the future of this country, and progressive leadership will fall by the wayside. Americans in nursing homes don’t like their activities being taken away. But that nurse who comes in Tuesdays for hip rehabilitation? She’s just fine.
Puritanism is dead, long live the Puritans
(with semi-apologies to actual Puritans, though they tended to have limited ideas of what God can do)
And as soon as the ‘rats’ finish implementing Sharia law the problem will go away as all females will be cloaked in black from head to foot.
When contacted by Rickey Rocket of our own staff about the study, Michael D. Dodd privately commented that he was just in on the study to get some 'tail'.
"You know, all them fem chicks like a sensitive guy they can dominate sexually."
And anyhow they don’t know what’s going on in the guy’s head, whether it’s “oh I’d love to go do some naughties with her” or “praise God for the beauty.” They have “objectified” mankind itself. What hypocrites!
Yeah, it’s ingrained. So long as it isn’t done like a creep, it is part of human nature. Shoot, I catch women checking me out all the time.
and hows about we butt admirers? How’s anyone gonna know if we’re doing that?
I will stop checking out women, when women stop checking out men.
Just imagine how upsetting it would be to a woman if no man ever again was to “check her out”
Beam me up... we are surrounded by morons.
Men ogle women because they are hard-wired for that impulse. Threats of severe punishment for simply obeying a categorical imperative shall prove to be ineffectual in the long run, and using some aspect of “science” to “prove” that some desired outcome can be achieved by ignoring very real basic fact demeans the scientific method, and is a call for failure.
There is no such thing as “settled science”. Any postulate, any theory, can be turned upon its ear by a more accurate assessment of existing basic fact, and in fact, has often happened. Denial of part of the spectrum of basic fact leads to selective blindness and erroneous conclusions, resulting in sometimes generations of individuals having a wholly skewed vision of the world.
So why don’t these research nerds set the example and never look at a female, or pictures of, again?
Yes, it’s human (read: mammal) nature for the male of the species to evaluate females with respect to their suitability for mating & childbearing. Curvaceous figures typically indicate fecundity. Why men have been attracted to such as Jean Harlow, Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, Beyonce, J-Lo, Kaley Cuoco (Big Bang, yeah!). Stupid, ugly, undesirable Femi-Nazis.
They should talk to Harry Reid about this problem...
Libs want us to check out little boys, not ADULT females. Sorry Libs, I will be Politically Incorrect and check out ADULT females, if my wife lets me. :)
It’s the gals who don’t get looked at and the guys who don’t look at gals who are driving this effort.
Men naturally are inclined to conduct a preliminary evaluation of women as potential mates. Women do the same, so maybe it should be a hate crime to check out a guy’s shoes, car, or wristwatch.
This journal exists for no other purpose than to give a pseudo-academic sheen to radical feminist whining.
The article is not medical research, and ignores the huge body of knowledge of animal mating behavior. In most species, the males use various displays to attract the female. Both human sexes have displays--women try to make themselves look like flowers, and men display their strength and ability to provide for the woman. Where this article could have attempted to impartially describe the behavior, its authors chose instead to make it all about victimhood. There is nothing scientific here.
My husband and I were on a long flight last week. The gal who sat with us was stunning, really gorgeous. We started talking and her grandmother was Helen Thomas’s sister. All I could think of were the pictures posted on FR and how this genetic thing could gave happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.