o_O.Q said:
its not an opinion its a fact women consuming porn also does not disregard its damage there is such a thing as internalised misogyny http://www.culturalbridgestojustice.org/programs/sexism/internalized-sexism/
you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of porn? the purpose of porn is to make women's bodies available for the sexual gratification of men (obviously i'm generalising since men are the main consumers of porn) at all times without those men having to negotiate with an autonomous woman to do so this is the very definition of objectification which is a massive problem in our society "The male and female subjects matched the photos similarly. They recognized right-side-up men better than upside-down men, suggesting that they saw the sexualized men as persons. On the contrary, the women in underwear weren't any harder to recognize when they appeared upside down, indicating that the sexy women were consistently identified as objects. CONCLUSION: People objectify women in sexualized photos, but not men." and objectification is the main driving force for various women's issues such as sexual violence since an attitude is cultivated in men where they feel entitled to women's bodies since they are just objects without agency https://www.bustle.com/p/why-objectifying-women-makes-men-violent-32880 "You may be wondering why the sexual objectification of women has anything to do with violence if it doesn't explicitly depict violence itself. If nobody's suggesting overtly that rape or violence against women are a good idea, surely objectification can't be to blame? Well, not really. Research indicates that it doesn't just end with women being depicted as objects without humanity, needs or rights; it's about what they're objects for. The message, unfortunately, is often for gratification of dudes. And that approach can lead to some serious problems for women's safety."
this is all well understood and you need to come to terms with the real world consequences for women |
This "study" is based entirely on the principle that "If you recognize someone, it means you objectify them". What a crappy and scientifically worthless basis. We could make the same study and say "People consider that all men are the same, don't pay attention to them and are then unable to recognize them in pictures". I love the very scientific "weren't any harder" mention. I can't read the entire study now, that's too bad, I'm sure the methodology of the study is state-of-the-art. We can barely see the obvious agenda of the guys behind it...
I'm a published author in a medical review myself, and I can tell you that: not every published paper is worth scientifically more than reading used toilet paper after a big diarrhea.
Last edited by Faelco - on 27 April 2018
