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.
Turning our young men into Islamists. If men can’t look and enjoy women, the next best thing - out of frustration - is to rape and maim them.
Are those results normalized for sexual activity?
I can see a higher pregnancy rate in low WHRs due to higher propensity for sexual activity instead of the low WHR being an actual indicator of fertility.
Feminism was created so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society - Rush Limbaugh’s Undeniable Truth of Life #24
Also beautiful faces: pink cheeks, pretty teeth, large, clear eyes, all indicate youth and good health - strong reasons for procreation.
Simply put: Biologically, girls and women are compelled to put on “displays” to attract potential mates. Extremely common in the animal kingdom. Liberals even defend the “right” of women to dress for display.
Again, biologically, boys and men are just as compelled to *notice* such “displays”, and then compete with each other for the attentions of the females. And again, this happens all the time in the animal kingdom. However, liberals deride boys and men doing this; which sort of defeats the purpose of the exercise.
If you think about it, if liberals are successful in preventing men from noticing women, it is the women who suffer most. This is because competition among women to find suitable mates is fierce already, and over a very limited time frame, and frustration produces some bizarre psychologies in women:
1) “Desperation to display”. In younger women this is usually seen in “overdoing it”, dressing so gaudily that they just look silly. Many others are caught in just the other direction, using increasing amounts of nudity to get male attention. In effect it is screaming: “Stare at my body!” Never look up “selfies” on the Internet, or you will find millions of 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.
2) Even worse is “attention addiction”, in which women will stay with any male who gives them attention, good or bad. This is often a technique used by pimps to control prostitutes. It doesn’t matter if he is beating her or dancing with her, as long as he pays attention to her, she will not leave him. N.B.: a superb indicator of an attention addict, with very low self esteem, are a copious number of finger rings and bracelets.
Being denied the ability to observe female displays also fouls up men. Saudi Arabia is well known as a huge importer of Internet pornography. All those men, desperate to look at women, because they are biologically programmed to, no matter what Mohammed thinks.
Sunglasses lads, sunglasses.
The results are for success rates of in-vitro fertilization, which would make it independent of rate of sexual activity. The paper goes into other factors as well, such as the ratio being an indicator of estrogen levels, etc.
Yep, that would certainly remove that variable.
Youth (and thus lack of prior pregnancy) are attractors also because lack prior pregnancies means that the current man's offspring by her would not be competing for care with the children of other men.
Virginity in a bride was prized because it used to be the only way to be sure she wasn't already pregnant by another man.
Beauty in a woman was prized because it increased the probability that she (and your children by her) would be taken care of by another man if anything happened to you.
LIBs dream of a “perfect” world where all will be homos and all woman will be lesbos. The only other acceptable alternative would be trannys.
I guess tranny is the route that they’d urge you to take if you just couldn’t get “over” your attraction to the opposite sex.
Stop checking out women?
No.
You’ll have to kill me to stop me.
“Helen Thomas was quite attractive when younger.”
Yeah, but then the War of 1812 ended and the troops went home to their wives.
and women don’t check out men????
Yes, exceptions that prove (read: test) the rule such as your aunt.
And sad as it seems, our aging — and I’m in that crowd — provides the physical cues to “not molest” or “not approach” this or that female or male, because the chances of successful mating and procreation are not there.
He’s checking to see if he’s scuffed his shoeshine.
Stop puttin' those ideas in my head!
US taxpayers paid for the gazing at women study Rush just talked about
Sarah Gervais http://psychology.unl.edu/sarah-gervais is the women’s studies professor at U Nebraska Lincoln Who got the $300,000 grant
Funded - External
National Science Foundation.
Objectification, affective forecasting, and sexual harassment (SES-1122683), Co-Principal Investigator, 2011-2014 ($300,000).
Literally right out of 1984. Quite a bit of the story is based on this stuff.
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.