Attraction is Objectification

[Seperates]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

At last, proof of my ideas. No man should ever be attracted to a female body because it has the effect of objectification. Note, however, that females staring at male bodies does not produce the same effect.

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

How am I supposed to view them then? Make fart jokes with them, despite the fact I don't do that with men. I already view them as equals. Hell, I'm more of a feminist than some women are. I'm not allowed to be intellectually attracted to them first, then physically attracted over time? Am I really objectifing the women then? Or again, what if they want me to be physically attracted to them, they want me to notice them (not that that has ever happened).

We're people FST. Not robots. Attraction =/= objectification. Objectification is objectification. Tautology, bro.

[Odins Scandinavia]

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/01/how_sexual_objectification_silences_women_-_the_male_glance.php

At last, proof of my ideas. No man should ever be attracted to a female body because it has the effect of objectification. Note, however, that females staring at male bodies does not produce the same effect.

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

How am I supposed to view them then? Make fart jokes with them, despite the fact I don't do that with men. I already view them as equals. Hell, I'm more of a feminist than some women are. I'm not allowed to be intellectually attracted to them first, then physically attracted over time? Am I really objectifing the women then? Or again, what if they want me to be physically attracted to them, they want me to notice them (not that that has ever happened).

We're people FST. Not robots. Attraction =/= objectification. Objectification is objectification. Tautology, bro.

something tells me that this will come to be like that "vaccinations cause autism" bullshit in a month or two.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Something tells me that this will come to be like that "vaccinations cause autism" bullshit in a month or two.

What do you mean?

[Odins Scandinavia]

Something tells me that this will come to be like that "vaccinations cause autism" bullshit in a month or two.

What do you mean?

that study will become ridiculed and discredited by the larger scientific community and a small minority will fanatically believe in it despite massive evidence to the contrary.

[Seperates]

Something tells me that this will come to be like that "vaccinations cause autism" bullshit in a month or two.

What do you mean?

Hell, usually even I can understand the orgin of such moronic statments and even I'm having a doozy with that piece of work. Not yours FST, his. I can at least understand and sympathize with yours.

[Cromarty]

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Who gives a flying fuck?

I like sex. Most (I hope) of my sexual partners liked sex with me. Deal with it.

[Seperates]

What do you mean?

that study will become ridiculed and discredited by the larger scientific community and a small minority will fanatically believe in it despite massive evidence to the contrary.

The study wasn't even about what he thought it was. He interpreted the evidence wrong, implied that correalation equals causation, when anybody with a minor in psych can tell you it doesn't. That doesn't mean the study was wrong.

[Odins Scandinavia]

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Who gives a flying fuck?

I like sex. Most (I hope) of my sexual partners liked sex with me. Deal with it.

/thread

[Natapoc]

What do you mean?

that study will become ridiculed and discredited by the larger scientific community and a small minority will fanatically believe in it despite massive evidence to the contrary.

Did you read the article in the OP? If not I suggest you do then come back and comment on it.

[Seperates]

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Who gives a flying fuck?

I like sex. Most (I hope) of my sexual partners liked sex with me. Deal with it.

And it usually comes down to this.

[Seperates]

that study will become ridiculed and discredited by the larger scientific community and a small minority will fanatically believe in it despite massive evidence to the contrary.

Did you read the article in the OP? If not I suggest you do then come back and comment on it.

Already berated him Nata... now if somebody would just read stuff when I posted it...

[Natapoc]

Did you read the article in the OP? If not I suggest you do then come back and comment on it.

Already berated him Nata... now if somebody would just read stuff when I posted it...

Do people not read your sources?

[Odins Scandinavia]

Already berated him Nata... now if somebody would just read stuff when I posted it...

Do people not read your sources?

the autism thing came from the Princet medical journal, did it not?

[Seperates]

Already berated him Nata... now if somebody would just read stuff when I posted it...

Do people not read your sources?

I don't bother to post sources because then NOBODY would ever read them. It's struggle enough to get them to read my posts.

[Seperates]

Do people not read your sources?

the autism thing came from the Princet medical journal, did it not?

Don't make me slam my head against a desk. Only coddled religious poof-heads without a brain between the lot of them would believe in such a connection. Medical journals would be hard pressed to ever support such ninny-headed nonsense, and if it did happen to be published in a medical journal... IT'S A FUCKING MEDICAL JOURNAL, NOT PEER-REVIEW LITERATURE. And that is besides the point. The study that he referenced was a valid study. What he did was mis-interpret the evidence from the study, implying that because women are more likely to think that men who stare at them are objectifing them, means that men are in fact objectifing them.

[Natapoc]

Do people not read your sources?

I don't bother to post sources because then NOBODY would ever read them. It's struggle enough to get them to read my posts.

I read all your posts in this thread since a page before I started posting in this thread. I just replied to that guy before I'd finished reading the rest of the page.

[Reploid Productions]

the autism thing came from the Princet medical journal, did it not?

Don't make me slam my head against a desk. Only coddled religious poof-heads without a brain between the lot of them would believe in such a connection. Medical journals would be hard pressed to ever support such ninny-headed nonsense, and if it did happen to be published in a medical journal... IT'S A FUCKING MEDICAL JOURNAL, NOT PEER-REVIEW LITERATURE. And that is besides the point. The study that he referenced was a valid study. What he did was mis-interpret the evidence from the study, implying that because women are more likely to think that men who stare at them are objectifing them, means that men are in fact objectifing them.

Oookay, the topic guys. It's not autism. If you want to debate the whole vaccinations cause autism topic, take it to a new thread.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Seperates]

I don't bother to post sources because then NOBODY would ever read them. It's struggle enough to get them to read my posts.

I read all your posts in this thread since a page before I started posting in this thread. I just replied to that guy before I'd finished reading the rest of the page.

Fortunatly, I'm not talking to you. Despite our ideological differences, I actually like and respect you.

[Seperates]

Don't make me slam my head against a desk. Only coddled religious poof-heads without a brain between the lot of them would believe in such a connection. Medical journals would be hard pressed to ever support such ninny-headed nonsense, and if it did happen to be published in a medical journal... IT'S A FUCKING MEDICAL JOURNAL, NOT PEER-REVIEW LITERATURE. And that is besides the point. The study that he referenced was a valid study. What he did was mis-interpret the evidence from the study, implying that because women are more likely to think that men who stare at them are objectifing them, means that men are in fact objectifing them.

Oookay, the topic guys. It's not autism. If you want to debate the whole vaccinations cause autism topic, take it to a new thread.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Yes'm.

[Odins Scandinavia]

the autism thing came from the Princet medical journal, did it not?

Don't make me slam my head against a desk. Only coddled religious poof-heads without a brain between the lot of them would believe in such a connection. Medical journals would be hard pressed to ever support such ninny-headed nonsense, and if it did happen to be published in a medical journal... IT'S A FUCKING MEDICAL JOURNAL, NOT PEER-REVIEW LITERATURE. And that is besides the point. The study that he referenced was a valid study. What he did was mis-interpret the evidence from the study, implying that because women are more likely to think that men who stare at them are objectifing them, means that men are in fact objectifing them.

i dont believe in that retardedness. i was saying that i expected 4ST's study to end up with similar ridicule.

Don't make me slam my head against a desk. Only coddled religious poof-heads without a brain between the lot of them would believe in such a connection. Medical journals would be hard pressed to ever support such ninny-headed nonsense, and if it did happen to be published in a medical journal... IT'S A FUCKING MEDICAL JOURNAL, NOT PEER-REVIEW LITERATURE. And that is besides the point. The study that he referenced was a valid study. What he did was mis-interpret the evidence from the study, implying that because women are more likely to think that men who stare at them are objectifing them, means that men are in fact objectifing them.

Oookay, the topic guys. It's not autism. If you want to debate the whole vaccinations cause autism topic, take it to a new thread.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

admin maam (or sir, i am not sure), you misinterpret my post
i was questioning the quality of his source

[Seperates]

Don't make me slam my head against a desk. Only coddled religious poof-heads without a brain between the lot of them would believe in such a connection. Medical journals would be hard pressed to ever support such ninny-headed nonsense, and if it did happen to be published in a medical journal... IT'S A FUCKING MEDICAL JOURNAL, NOT PEER-REVIEW LITERATURE. And that is besides the point. The study that he referenced was a valid study. What he did was mis-interpret the evidence from the study, implying that because women are more likely to think that men who stare at them are objectifing them, means that men are in fact objectifing them.

i dont believe in that retardedness. i was saying that i expected 4ST's study to end up with similar ridicule.

Oookay, the topic guys. It's not autism. If you want to debate the whole vaccinations cause autism topic, take it to a new thread.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

admin maam (or sir, i am not sure), you misinterpret my post
i was questioning the quality of his source

And had you actually read what I posted, I'm telling you that FST's study was fine. His conclusion was faulty.

[Odins Scandinavia]

i dont believe in that retardedness. i was saying that i expected 4ST's study to end up with similar ridicule.



admin maam (or sir, i am not sure), you misinterpret my post
i was questioning the quality of his source

And had you actually read what I posted, I'm telling you that FST's study was fine. His conclusion was faulty.

meh. it was.. poorly handled by my browser, and i could read maybe 70% of it.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Vindicated of what?

Part of sex is objectification. We all objectify our partners when we select them for certain features we like....

[Straughn]

I'm vindicated. All sexual attraction is objectification. You can't get out of it.

Vindicated of what?

Part of sex is objectification. We all objectify our partners when we select them for certain features we like....

Yet here we easily and without much thought of repercussion fornicate with each others' minds .... much like has been said on many occasion.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Vindicated of what?

Part of sex is objectification. We all objectify our partners when we select them for certain features we like....

But since objectification is always wrong, your "attraction" to your partner is nothing but a lie. Hence, sex is degrading.