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.
It is all about control, period. Totalitarianism in the wild.
I will gaze at hooters if I want. And I want. Talk about soft tyranny...they have gone too far now.
In retrospect, I should have said: “Never look up “selfies” on the Internet, or you will find millions of *headless* nude pictures of girls and women that they took themselves, and posted with a desperate plea to “pay attention to me”. It’s just sad.
The “headless” part is important, because while it seems to imply the desire for anonymity, in truth it is the rather bizarre “stare at my body, not my face”.
This flies in the face of women insisting that men look them in the eyes, not stare at their breasts. So there is some serious biological psychology going on here.
“Stare at my body until I select you for an interview as a potential mate, then only stare at my face, not my body.”
“If it’s an activity and it’s kind of fun or pleasurable, the progressives are going to take it away.”
I knew they always wanted to nuke Italy.
Something soooooo familiar about this... oh yeah, the idiots in the middle east who cover women head to toe so their bodies can't be seen are on the same page with our 'progressives'... charming.
It’s the gals who don’t get looked at and the guys who don’t look at gals who are driving this effort.
.
Can we use this study to pass a law prohibiting gay men from wearing assless chaps?
Nobody commented yet? Well, I will. That may be considered sexist by some but it’s very funny.
All those 'progressive' free love, sex, porn on your phone, buggery, oral sex, etc. people want to make me look away from a well displayed set of legs or breasts?
Is this the Onion?
I'll say this once.
Ladies, If you don't want it looked at, don't put it on display. I'll be a gentleman, and even remember to look at your face when we talk, but I'm not dead yet, and I'll look where I will.
Helen Thomas in 1920
is that a joke?
lol
So, if you are keeping score, according to progressives:
Vacuuming a live baby out of a woman = OK
Staring at a woman’s chest = grounds for a lawsuit
pretty crazy
Parents were illiterate Lebanese immigrants.
In other words, they don’t think men have any self control.
So maybe woman should wear more clothes, perhaps even a burka so men’s passions will not be inflamed.
And then to really protect women’s virtue there should laws, let us call them Sharia, where women can never be alone with a man not a relative.
That is pretty amazing. Thomas ‘s sisters granddaughter on the plane was a TEN plus a wonderful personality. She was second generation American and we talked politics and middle eastern women, seemed to be a conservative, and a devout pro-lifer.
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.