Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

Sex objects: Pictures shift men's view of women

[wesharris]

Quite interesting. But, honestly we know this. Men view women as sexual objects. That's the way it works.

[Trevor]

[peppermint]

[Fox]

The funny thing is that if this data is correct, and she's interpretting it correctly, it lends some credibility to the "It's just boys being boys," excuse for certain behaviors, as that becomes very true in a biological sense. Of course I doubt feminists will let that one slide just based on something as trivial as biology.

Strange they didn't include any women in this test, especially given they were all ready using scantily clad images of men too. I strongly suspect Mrs. Fiske got the exact results she wanted from this test, both with regards to the brain data, and with regards to the sexism questionaire.

[Gopher]

[Manner of Speaking]

Big Bird,

One of the big problem with studies like these is that the researchers do tests on males/females/subjects from only one culture and from that assume that they have established some kind of human universal.

I remember reading about a similar study done in New York a few years ago on kissing...the researchers measured brain activity in individuals who were being kissed, and extrapolated that kissing "had evolutionary benefits" and was a universal phenomenon...

...except that in certain cultures, particularly southeast Asia, kissing mouth-to-mouth was considered disgusting. It was called "eating each other's dirt". This was before the advent of hollywood movies in SE Asia.


Imagine a study where Western males were hooked up to EEG machines and shown photographs of topless Western women...and then the same thing was done with Nuba men from Sudan who were shown photographs of topless Nuba women. Would the Nuba subject's brains react the same way as the western subject's brains? Unlikely.

[Gopher]

Are you referring to sociobiology/evolutionary psychology?

Even if you are not, your critique is dead on. Again, psychologists do not typically study foreign areas or foreign languages, let alone conduct studies in non-Western nations. At best they study statistics. In any case, their thinking remains fatally Western-ccentric, if not Eurocentric.

[Adventurer]

I agree with this study. I mean men do look at women as a means to an end if they see women fully displaying their sexuality and the man is not interested in a relationship. The same happens when women engage in this thinking. When we look at people in simply a sexual prism, nationalist prism, religious differences, then their humanity is not so evident, but rather how there is some conquest involved.

The trend in North America, not in Europe as much, is to wear more revealing clothing. Is this good for women or men? Sex sells, and since the early 1980s it has been pushed very heavily in music, especially in the late 80s. Now, it's rather mainstream. Being sexually suggestive is par for the course in music and on T.V. It's a way to get ratings, sell products...

I don't know about the people who are used to the idea of women walking around topless. Still, within that context, couldn't a woman be sexually suggestive. The point is that in a Western context those images are sexually suggestive. It's not simply what you are wearing or not wearing. Couldn't attitude play a role in this?

[ReeseDog]

[yingwenlaoshi]

That's the case with attractive women, not so much with Martha dumptruck from 'Heathers' look a like girls.

[Trevor]

[blackjack]

[Trevor]

I strongly recommend that you do not poke holes in condoms or go after bad catholics!

We are socialized into curbing our instinctual behavior. In strange ways, however, our instincts seep through. That's why men are turned on by large breasts. That's why women are turned on by big wallets. Most women will vehemently deny that they go after guys with money. You be the judge. (Men are a little more honest about the big breasts).

Evolution is not an excuse for behavior, but remember, how we are socialized is quite arbitrary. I'll give you a couple of examples:

-- Five hundred years ago, it was considered blasphemy not to believe that the sun orbited the earth. The vast majority of people did not believe otherwise. There were strong social powers that insisted that physical evidence be ignored, and it was.

-- Today, it is considered on the far outer-fringe if you do not believe that on 9/11, two airplanes caused three buildings to collapse, in free fall, into a neat little pile into their respective basements. The vast majority do not believe otherwise. There are strong social powers that insist that physical evidence be ignored, and it is.

I recommend that you continue with your creed of not poking holes in condoms, befriending bad catholics, or lieing, cheating and stealing -- but you should also be aware that the way you are socialized is only part of the story. The details of our socialization is very easily maipulated by outside forces. DNA is not. As a result, our beliefs can and will change in remarkable ways over time, but I have a feeling our natural preferences will stay much the same.

[peppermint]

I think the guys are missing the point a little bit. The problem isn't that you're sexually aroused by hawt chicks. That's just normal.

It's that when you're aroused, you want to do words I'm not allowed to say here to those women rather than with them. You guys are seeing these women as objects to be enjoyed rather than as people who just might enjoy doing things I'm not allowed to say here to you as well.