If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Proof That We Sexually Objectify Women: We (all of us) look at women the same way we look at cars and sandwiches, as composites of attractive parts.. Read/Left, Objectify/Right   (theatlantic.com) divider line 341
    More: Obvious, objectification  
•       •       •

12236 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2012 at 11:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



341 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 10:11:34 AM
SCIENCE!
 
2012-07-26 10:18:20 AM
And the point is...?
 
2012-07-26 10:18:24 AM
Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.
 
2012-07-26 10:23:36 AM
And this thread is over.
 
2012-07-26 10:31:01 AM

Pocket Ninja: One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts.


I'm just gonna read this a few more times, I think.
 
2012-07-26 10:47:53 AM
I'd like to hear more about her heart-shaped ass, please.
 
2012-07-26 10:52:37 AM

bdub77: And this thread is over.


I do appreciate the picture that Pocket Ninja painted with the perfect choice of words and rhythmic structure. However I am concerned that the less educated Farker as well as the dyslexic Farker will miss out if we limit the thread to word pictures, and real pictures are not provided
 
2012-07-26 10:54:15 AM
www.smokepower.com
 
2012-07-26 11:16:15 AM
I would be willing to bet that most of the difference in how men and women are viewed is cultural. We have been training ourselves for generations to notice certain aspects of the woman's body, whereas with a man the view is a lot more of a total package. A man would be viewed strangely if his legs and legs were nicely ripped but he had a pot belly. But for a woman, if she has a nice pair of breasts people would likely not care if her legs were flabby.
 
2012-07-26 11:19:26 AM

Pocket Ninja: They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat.


To point out the obvious for the rest of us morons...men are the ones that are sexualized.
 
2012-07-26 11:30:04 AM
Were the images of the men in the study presented with their annualized income statement?
 
2012-07-26 11:37:25 AM
motorera.com
 
2012-07-26 11:37:36 AM

Pocket Ninja: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.


That's both titillating, profound, and scary.

Screw Headline of the Year. This is Post of the Year.
 
2012-07-26 11:38:23 AM
objectify!

makeupjournal.net
 
2012-07-26 11:38:35 AM

Slives: I would be willing to bet that most of the difference in how men and women are viewed is cultural. We have been training ourselves for generations to notice certain aspects of the woman's body, whereas with a man the view is a lot more of a total package. A man would be viewed strangely if his legs and legs were nicely ripped but he had a pot belly. But for a woman, if she has a nice pair of breasts people would likely not care if her legs were flabby.


speak for yourself

\sharp knees
 
2012-07-26 11:38:37 AM
Mr Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
 
2012-07-26 11:38:48 AM
Oh, baby, I want to objectify all over your face.
 
2012-07-26 11:38:50 AM

Pocket Ninja: Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts.


I don't like to nitpick, but you mentioned breasts too many times

/pet peave
 
2012-07-26 11:39:04 AM
I'm so ashamed of my instincts that have been honed over millennia of evolution.
 
2012-07-26 11:39:58 AM
Because People in power are Stupid       

Were the images of the men in the study presented with their annualized income statement?


The winner is you!
 
2012-07-26 11:39:59 AM

Pocket Ninja: And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as... one hunk of meat... Man like meat.


Not that there's anything wrong with that...
 
2012-07-26 11:40:07 AM

Pocket Ninja: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.


Or for some people s/breast/booty/
 
2012-07-26 11:40:18 AM
Some people buy a car for the looks, some for performance, and some for efficiency. Everyone does it, just with different priorities. In a similar fashion, women objectify men too, just with different priorities.
 
2012-07-26 11:40:23 AM
Is this where we point out that male sexual organs pretty much only need to function in order to satisfy the basic biological imperative to mate, while we assess the female for overall fertility in determining their physical attractiveness?
 
2012-07-26 11:40:36 AM
No shiat hotpants.

Now on to more important topics! Like this link at the bottom of the page.

Link

How many cameras were pointed at this kid?

cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2012-07-26 11:40:39 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I'm so ashamed of my instincts that have been honed over millennia of evolution.


yeah, we clearly know better than a paltry few million years of evolution. Pfft, Mother Nature, what does she know...

Speaking of which, about this whole "global warming" thing...
 
2012-07-26 11:40:46 AM

Pocket Ninja: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.


And we're done here
 
2012-07-26 11:41:02 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I'm so ashamed of my instincts that have been honed over millennia of evolution.


Except that this study doesn't really show that. They could also have been trained over decades of life. The study merely shows that there is a difference, but not what the cause is.
 
2012-07-26 11:41:33 AM

Pocket Ninja: Words, breasts, words, breasts, words, breasts, and breasts. etc.


Beautiful, just beautiful
 
2012-07-26 11:41:51 AM

Pocket Ninja: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.


You forgot breasts.
 
2012-07-26 11:42:25 AM
objectify!
www.oocities.org
 
2012-07-26 11:43:19 AM
objectify!

www.photofunblog.com
 
2012-07-26 11:43:38 AM

asmodeus224: Pocket Ninja: Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts.

I don't like to nitpick, but you mentioned breasts too many times

/pet peave


I guess he likes breasts.
 
2012-07-26 11:43:39 AM
Suddenly I want a chicken sandwich and a blow job.
 
2012-07-26 11:43:41 AM
Thread needs Grable's Daughter and lots of her!
 
2012-07-26 11:43:59 AM

Pocket Ninja: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.


www.terrariaonline.com

After reading that, I have nothing to say that could possibly add anything to this thread.
 
2012-07-26 11:44:03 AM

Pocket Ninja: ...
This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole....


Dunno why the h477 ya'll are so fascinated with breasts!! It's not like you are gonna get a meal off 'em...
 
2012-07-26 11:44:30 AM

Pocket Ninja: This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.


You said "Breast" fourteen times.

/He likes breasts.
//So do I.
 
2012-07-26 11:44:48 AM

LoneWolf343: Some people buy a car for the looks, some for performance, and some for efficiency. Everyone does it, just with different priorities. In a similar fashion, women objectify men too, just with different priorities.


I just did a quick google search to find it, and I believe this is one of the most revealing studies of all time.

TL;DR version:
If you ask a woman to describe her ideal mate, ignore all the emotional/mental/spiritual stuff, because her mate will only likely match the physical attributes she lists.\
If you ask a man to describe his ideal mate, ignore the physical stuff, because his actual mate will likely only match the emotional/mental/spiritual stuff.

Even shorter version: Women lie about not caring about bodies, men lie about only caring about bodies.
 
2012-07-26 11:44:49 AM
I don't.
 
2012-07-26 11:45:36 AM
Objectification thread!

my2-i.com

my2-i.com
 
2012-07-26 11:45:39 AM

otto the bull: Suddenly I want a chicken sandwich and a blow job.


Is it Tuesday already?
 
2012-07-26 11:46:19 AM
obejctify!

www.girlscosmo.com
 
2012-07-26 11:46:20 AM
So....... admiring = objectifying?????



/confused
//am I objectifying the article if I find it admirable?
/// If judging things is bad, then how do I know what I should eat, or drive, or have sex with??????????
 
2012-07-26 11:46:52 AM
I was thinking about the whole objectification thing the other day. What I don't get is why we don't give women a ton of flak for objectifying men?

Face it, all a woman sees when she looks at a guy is his outfit. We get in trouble for staring at a girl in a bikini, but we just accept it when she's staring at an Armani Suit.

At least men admire a person's innate physical attributes.

Women basically see anyone as a mannequin displaying an outfit.
 
2012-07-26 11:47:05 AM
i47.tinypic.com

I forgot what I was going to say
 
2012-07-26 11:47:05 AM

Pocket Ninja: Regardless of gender, participants consistently recognized women's sexual body parts more easily when presented in isolation. Men's sexual body parts, on the other hand, were more memorable as part of their entire bodies.

This isn't about sexual objectification. This is about respect and admiration. See, when one notices a woman, one notices her as a sum comprised of various parts that are each unique and splendid in both their individuality and their cohesiveness as a whole. One does not merely see a woman, in other words. One sees her elegant foot, the smooth curve of her calf, the delicate swell of her knee and the soft line of her thigh. The rounded plushness of her heart-shaped ass, the dimple in the small of her back. Her breast, her other breast, her breasts together. Her neck, rising above her breasts, and her head, atop her neck, atop her breasts. Both breasts. The nipples on her breasts, like small erasers. Her eyes, her breasts. Her lustrous hair as well as her breasts. And her breasts. And so we see the whole woman, but we know that her perfection is the result of every single part of her coming together in a beautiful harmony of legs, breasts, neck, breasts, foot, breasts, and breasts. It is an homage, really, to visualize people in this way, to recognize that every small part is merely one element of the whole.

And what of men? They are looked upon, seen as one package, one blank slate, one hunk of meat. There is no recognition of what defines them, of their own body's symphony and perfect orchestration. No, just: man. Oooga. Ugh. Man make fire. Man like meat. Ooogh. It sickens me, how unfair gender can be.


I came before I finished that.
 
2012-07-26 11:47:42 AM
i.dailymail.co.uk

Objectifying women on a whole new scale.
 
2012-07-26 11:47:47 AM
i877.photobucket.com

Helpful pic of what a composite of attractive parts does look like
 
2012-07-26 11:47:58 AM
objectify!

www.featurepics.com
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report