by Four-sided Triangles » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:03 pm
by SaintB » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:05 pm
by Ifreann » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:05 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
by Holy Paradise » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:06 pm
by Conserative Morality » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:07 pm
by Four-sided Triangles » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:08 pm
Holy Paradise wrote:Still don't see how attraction is a bad thing, being that it is necessary to promulgate the human race.
by Augustus Este » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:08 pm
by Fedeledland » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:10 pm
SaintB wrote:We get it you hate sex and sexuality. What you seem to fail to understand is the rest of the world actually likes sex and sexuality and you aren't going to win many if any supporters to your side on this issue because we are biologically hardwired to love fucking.
by Trotskylvania » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:10 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by The Murtunian Tribes » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:10 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
by Meryuma » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:10 pm
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:10 pm
SaintB wrote:We get it you hate sex and sexuality. What you seem to fail to understand is the rest of the world actually likes sex and sexuality and you aren't going to win many if any supporters to your side on this issue because we are biologically hardwired to love fucking.
by Conserative Morality » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:10 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote:Any outward manifestation of male attraction toward females appears to cause them psychological harm.
by Gauthier » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Fedeledland wrote:SaintB wrote:We get it you hate sex and sexuality. What you seem to fail to understand is the rest of the world actually likes sex and sexuality and you aren't going to win many if any supporters to your side on this issue because we are biologically hardwired to love fucking.
Oh, this so much.
by Manahakatouki » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
by Conserative Morality » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:So basically, you're saying that because women in this study shrunk under men looking at them, and became less talkative, that is proof positive that women are inferior to men, and are by their very biological nature silenced and objectified by men being attracted to them. (I will leave aside the false equivalence your thesis places in the male gaze and attraction. You don't have to like what you're looking at to glare at it)
I honestly don't know how you pretend that you in any way believe in feminism or feminine empowerment. In truth, you're the worst sexist of them all, and you hide your sexism under the puritanical guise of whiteknighting.
by Meryuma » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm
Manahakatouki wrote:Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
I think it's ok to be attracted to a female body, because a healthy good looking body that attracts you means that she has a good chance of being biologically good enough to pass down your genes with you. Thus, as you've been attracted to her good healthy body, you're subconsciously keeping the human race healthy as you continue to pass down healthiness...
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Trotskylvania » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in PosadismKarl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital
Anton Pannekoek, World Revolution and Communist Tactics
Amadeo Bordiga, Dialogue With Stalin
Nikolai Bukharin, The ABC of Communism
Gilles Dauvé, When Insurrections Die"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga
by Conserative Morality » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm
Gauthier wrote:Something tells me this guy won't be happy and stop blogging until every single male in the world lop off their own balls.
by The Cookish States » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm
Augustus Este wrote:The fact that I'm attracted to women doesn't mean I see them as sub human or that they only exist so I can have sex with them...
by Nightkill the Emperor » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
So basically, you're saying that because women in this study shrunk under men looking at them, and became less talkative, that is proof positive that women are inferior to men, and are by their very biological nature silenced and objectified by men being attracted to them. (I will leave aside the false equivalence your thesis places in the male gaze and attraction. You don't have to like what you're looking at to glare at it)
I honestly don't know how you pretend that you in any way believe in feminism or feminine empowerment. In truth, you're the worst sexist of them all, and you hide your sexism under the puritanical guise of whiteknighting.
Nat: Night's always in some bizarre state somewhere between "intoxicated enough to kill a hair metal lead singer" and "annoying Mormon missionary sober".
Swith: It's because you're so awesome. God himself refreshes the screen before he types just to see if Nightkill has written anything while he was off somewhere else.
by Rynatia » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:13 pm
by Four-sided Triangles » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:14 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:So basically, you're saying that because women in this study shrunk under men looking at them, and became less talkative, that is proof positive that women are inferior to men, and are by their very biological nature silenced and objectified by men being attracted to them. (I will leave aside the false equivalence your thesis places in the male gaze and attraction. You don't have to like what you're looking at to glare at it)
I honestly don't know how you pretend that you in any way believe in feminism or feminine empowerment. In truth, you're the worst sexist of them all, and you hide your sexism under the puritanical guise of whiteknighting.
by Hydesland » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:15 pm
Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
by Desperate Measures » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:15 pm
Trotskylvania wrote:Four-sided Triangles wrote: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.
So basically, you're saying that because women in this study shrunk under men looking at them, and became less talkative, that is proof positive that women are inferior to men, and are by their very biological nature silenced and objectified by men being attracted to them. (I will leave aside the false equivalence your thesis places in the male gaze and attraction. You don't have to like what you're looking at to glare at it)
I honestly don't know how you pretend that you in any way believe in feminism or feminine empowerment. In truth, you're the worst sexist of them all, and you hide your sexism under the puritanical guise of whiteknighting.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almonaster Nuevo, Andoros, ARIsyan-, Bienenhalde, Imperializt Russia, Kohr, Port Carverton, San Lumen, Shidei, The Two Jerseys, Turenia
Advertisement