Originally posted by Tzeentch
Are you imying that Women aren't oppressed and disadvantaged in our society, Rob?!?BECAUSE IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE BRO.
It seems like you're implying men don't have a say in their poor choice of actions, like how some cultures blame-shift the responsibility away from men by thinking: "meh, men can't help but molest a pretty girl if they see one, so we'll force the women in our society to dress like a ninja, it's for the betterment of all."
Are you a secret terrorist apologist, brah!?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
I think alot of objectification is motivated by sexism.However I would argue that objectification plays a large part in Human mating biology, and therefore is predominantly not motivated by sexism.
Appreciation for the physical appearence is the first stage of attraction for men, in broad strokes, which is a biological thing, not social conditioning. When we see a woman for the first time we look over their bodies and our minds make a snap-decision on her worth in a relationship, completely independently of what their personality may be like, because fertility doesn't give a shit about your ph.D
Men may appreciate their personality later, but the initial phase of attraction for most men is basically objectification. In fact, you could say that we objectfy women, sub-conciously, dozens of times every single day.
This type of objectification is the most common form of all, and I would argue that it isn't sexist. Therefore on average, objectification is not motivated by sexism. Men just have a predisposition to make initial judgements based off of appearance.
EDIT- And please don't mistake this as a form of deterministc argument. I'm not trying to justify any kind of behavior.
Actually, what you say is backed up by real science.
Men also, in the same vein, label dumb women as being more attractive because they pick on up cues from women (as we are discussing it in this context, objectifying them in intuitive ways) that indicate that they would be more receptive to copulation.
The researchers said that not all men did this. It was the men that had less empathy (they measured for other personality traits) that were more likely to objectify women like that. They were also more successful in their sexual proliferation.
Believe it or not, but the Showtime TV series, Dexter, covered this is a much more poignant manner: back in the day, the psychopaths were the rulers (and still are, to this day) of their tribes because they could make quick, logical, non-sentimental decisions that benefited the tribe as a whole. It was the psychopaths, or the people that had at least some psychopathic behaviors, that allowed our species to not become extinct at at least a couple of points during our last 100,000 years of evolution (we were reduced to less than 10,000 members of our species, at one point).
Anyway, I said all that to say this: the people who have less empathy (leaning more towards psychopath than empath), seem to be more sexually successful because they can pick up on cues that others seem to be blind to. This also ties into another theory that some evolutionary biologists have about humans: rape has been central to the human species. So much so that women seem to have an evolutionary adaptation to rape due to natural selection. It should be no surprise that men also have "built in behavioral mechanisms" that seem to biologically feed the "rape loop."
When some feminists (extremists) whine and cry about men being natural rapists, they are not wholly wrong. Some men ARE naturally predispositioned towards rape (such as those that both have low empathy and can pick up on vulnerability cues in women...such as the study I am referring to). Some men give into those behaviors and some resist. I still hold that, no matter what you were born with (as far as behavioral predispositions), you still have the power to veto some actions and affirm others. Think about this for a moment: we wouldn't question these notions if the behavioral traits led to positive outcomes such as empathy and altruism (those things have been studied, too...and are generally seen as evolutionarily advantageous) but some like to question the notion that some of us are born with negative behavioral predispositions. They feel it removes responsibility from the individual. I don't. I think it just helps us better understand how to rehabilitate and reintegrate people back into society (criminals).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Men also, in the same vein, label dumb women as being more attractive
Idiocy isn't attractive to me. In fact, it's a turnoff when a woman acts or comes off as a dullard for attention.
Stop blanketing. Thanks.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So much so that women seem to have an evolutionary adaptation to rape due to natural selection. It should be no surprise that men also have "built in behavioral mechanisms" that seem to biologically feed the "rape loop."
😆
Originally posted by Robtard
Idiocy isn't attractive to me. In fact, it's a turnoff when a woman acts or comes off as a dullard for attention.Stop blanketing. Thanks.
Guess what? Generalizations from studies like those have exceptions. Always.
That's why they are generalized studies: they seek to generalize a particular population demographic.
Originally posted by Robtard
😆
Seems like crazy talk but it is not a new concept.
This is what I was talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape#Women.E2.80.99s_defenses
The whole article covers rape adaptations and anti-rape adaptations and has links to external sources that are better reading.
While still controversial, I think I did a decent job of covering the differing views on this, in my previous post.
I clicked on the hyperlinks which should have lead me to the study/support for the "research claims" in that article and they both linked me to the wiki of "Weasel Word".
Originally posted by Robtard
I clicked on the hyperlinks which should have lead me to the study/support for the "research claims" in that article and they both linked me to the wiki of "Weasel Word".
I didn't research that entry very much at all (in fact, I didn't read much of it...maybe 2-3 sentences). But it provides a nice launching point that you can google search for stuff (lists some researcher names and studies you can google).
I'm not too big on the points presented nor do I give very many shits about it since they are partially unsubstantiated OR amount to speculation regarding some studies that are unsubstantiated (meaning, the researchers try to draw conclusions from their results but it is just speculation as to what the results mean). But, we are definitely getting closer in our scientific understanding of complex human behaviors.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
And unlike you I won't edit your post in retaliation or spam the report button.
Out of context quoting is the same thing as modifying a post, bro.
You should work for Fox News: you'd fit in quite well. 😉
Besides, it's is not like I'm making anything up about you: you've stated that before on Bardock's chat. 😐
Originally posted by Lek Kuen
With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on th sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that.
Well, it's a given that we're all going to kick someday, so it's only natural to concentrate on the pleasure the characters brought to others in the story (and us by extension). So let's not focus on how they died, let's focus on how they lived. That's and it's also just a story and not grounded in reality.
Originally posted by Lek Kuen But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation
That's a great point. If a video was made by a woman or women who consent to the behavior depicted in the video, it can hardly be seen as objectification on the part of the viewer based on the fact that the woman (or women) in the video are allowing themselves to be seen as objects of pleasure who are there for the sole purpose of fulfilling a basic human need based on a conscious decision to create material for that sole purpose.
This might lead to the old argument of "who's worse, the one who made it or the one who buys or watches it", but it all goes out the window when you're sitting back on the couch wishing those two hot-as-hell Asian girls were servicing you and not themselves...
😉
The when is immaterial to the where. You would know that if you thought about your question even a little bit.
But if you have a dying need to know, sometime between 2009 and 2011.
What good did that do you? The chat scripts don't exist anymore where you whined about your small penis. Don't you remember Robtard and I telling/consoling you that size generally doesn't matter?
No, DDM, I have a clear grasp of the English language, I asked when because I honestly don't remember this at all.
Originally posted by dadudemonAre you trying to say that because you don't understand the difference, that I don't? This is another classic case of you assuming your narrative is right and not even considering the fact that other people have basic reading skills.
The when is immaterial to the where. You would know that if you thought about your question even a little bit.
2009-11? If that's the case are you really going back to a conversation over 4 years ago that didn't happen to troll me?
You really are clutching at straws.