Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross
Better Orgasms. Better World.
 |
Betty's Vaginal Barbell |
 |
My Romantic Love Wars: A Sexual Memoir - EBOOK EDITION |
 |
Betty Dodson's Bodysex Workshop DVD |
 |
Betty Dodson Liberating women one orgasm at a time |
 |
Carlin Ross Sex, Politics & More Sex |
 |
Eric Amaranth Sex life coaching and neo-male perspectives. |
 |
Lawrence Lanoff President of Pleasure, Tantric Master. Creator of Tantra-X University. |
 |
Liandra Dahl Sex Documentarian |
 |
LilithLand Women, Sex, Culture & Relationships |
 |
BorderReiver Restoring My Foreskin |
 |
Caitlin Bovard From the bible belt to under the belt |
 |
Caitlin Roberts Taking Back "Slut" |
 |
cajun sausage Lovin' Dr. Betty since 1996! |
 |
Christina Cicchelli |
 |
Danny Wylde Male. Libra. Whore |
 |
Dr. Lulu History & the Material Culture of Sex |
 |
Emily and Ju Queer love |
 |
Eric Francis Astrology & Adventure |
 |
Jenn Parenthood. With Cursing |
 |
Jessica Kramer Liberating Birth |
 |
jexhibitionism |
 |
Julia Emerald Philosophy, Sex and Freedom |
 |
Kasini Poet. Educator. Catalyst. Mother. |
 |
carlisleorama |
 |
LesleyS Redefining my sexual self after babies. |
 |
Logan Levkoff sexologist, sex educator, intellisexual, author, mom |
 |
Marisa Black Finding room for all of me |
 |
Marylou Naccarato Learn how to raise your level of “Sexability” |
 |
Miss Dirt Sex. Yoga. Feminism |
 |
Palesa Art + Sex + Media + Empowerment |
 |
The ED Coach Pa... Helping Men Regain Their Sexuality |
 |
Princess What would my mother say? |
 |
Scout Life...Parenting...Bodysex |
 |
VirginMonoblogger Thought all virgins were the same? Think again. |
 |
WildOrchid A selfsexual, toy loving, bisexual fetishist. |
I used to think that feminists who got their panties in a bunch over T&A pictorials were a bit sexually repressed but they may be on to something. Researchers have found that we process sexy images of men vs. women much differently:
"One way that psychologists have found to test whether something is seen as an object is by turning it upside down. Pictures of people present a recognition problem when they're turned upside down, but pictures of objects don't have that problem.
So researchers used a test where they presented pictures of men and women in sexualized poses, wearing underwear. Each participant watched the pictures appear one by one on a computer screen. Some of the pictures were right side up and some were upside down. After each picture, there was a second of black screen, then the participant was shown two images. They were supposed to choose the one that matched the one they had just seen.
People recognized right-side-up men better than upside-down men, suggesting that they were seeing the sexualized men as people. But the women in underwear weren't any harder to recognize when they were upside down -- which is consistent with the idea that people see sexy women as objects. There was no difference between male and female participants."
We're bombarded by sexualized images of women every day. Every product imaginable is hawked using the power of the female form but our brains don't see these women as human. And that's f*cking scary.
If we don't see women as human, how does that affect the way we treat women. Gandhi said that you could judge a culture by how it treats its animals - I say you can judge a culture by how it treats its women.
0 items
Too many questions
Hmm... I see some questions about the value of this study, and any "deep problems" it may point to.
1) Would *non-sexual* images of female bodies be just as recognizable? How about images of women deemed unnatractive by the viewer? "Attractive" female body is pretty much a part of the scenery in our culture... Not so much the male one. It would be natural to be more familiar with them and therefore react quicker and more accurately. The fact that women in the study also recognized female bodies faster might be pointing to this as a simple explanation.
2) Did anyone try *nude* images? Male body can be pretty non-descript except for that one instantly recognizable part :-). Basically, the hourglass shape and/or that bikini triangle of a female body is a dead giveaway. Partially clothed male bodies can look like pretty much anything, from a sexy male to a female with little curves, to a child.
3) Is there a difference based on sexual orientation? This might help determine the role of sexual impulse itself in any objetification noted. (Don't know about you, but I know plenty of heterosexual women who fantasize about men to get off - at the time very much as simple objects for their pleasure, not as complex, breathing human beings...)
4) Even if it's true that this clearly points to objectification of *sexual images of women*, does this translate to objectification of actual, real, live women? "Devil made me do it" defenses aside, most people are pretty good at separating fantasy from reality.
I'm thinking that this study would be a great starting point to some more in-depth work; not the sign that the sky is falling on our porn-addled heads...
Is it possible that we're
Is it possible that we're just used to seeing women in sexualized poses in a greater variety of directions and positions? It's an interesting study, but I don't think it's remotely conclusive, nor detailed enough to actually draw the conclusions it seems to.
We need to...
... bring the humanity back to sexy images of women. It's easy to see a woman as an object because air-brushed images of women don't look like women actually look.
I bet if they did that experiment with untampered photos of women of all body shapes in sexy poses and underwear they would no longer be seen as objects.
Liandra, You're so right.
Liandra,
You're so right. Making women blemishless removes their humanity. They look like dolls...objects. I say let's bring back imperfections, dimples, cellulite, and real flesh.
Could be another reason.
When I drew naked ladies in an art class I discovered that there are a very specific and subtle set of curves that represent a female form. If you haven't got those curves the drawing will look like a man with boobs and wide hips, If you get them right you can draw narrow hips and no breasts (and there are women who have those bodily features) and the drawing will still look like a woman. these subtle forms can be designed into rather beautiful objects without people really realising where their brain is referencing the notions of beauty.
To me the subliminal distinctiveness of female lines and curves, well known in art and design but not in science seems like a more plausible cause for the results.
I think leaving someones character intact in a photo is way sexier too. With these experiments there is just guess work and interpretation. but that these results prove that the women are seen as objects is a leap of faith in that notion. In advertising and graphic design it's well known that images in sequence produce very complex responses that change according to exactly what image is seen with very minor changes producing very different results. It would be quite easy for them to present the image sequence online with the results and would enable everyone to understand their work better, and contribute to it's interpretation too. .
Real people and sexiness
Very interesting comments! Unfortunately, anyone can be objectified for any reason, and we often are. As 'consumers' by marketers, as 'factors of production' by industrialists, and so on. I very much agree that if people were shown in photographs as they really are, 'blemishes' and all, they would be seen as the individuals they are and not as objects. Recently I came across some images of a woman I found attractive. She was about fifty. She was fit, self-confident, and had made no effort to conceal her 'flaws' such as sun damage or the wrinkled skin criss-crossing her neck. She was attractive to me exactly because she was a real person, and real people, rather than airbrushed fantasies, are the only kinds of people we can ever hope to meet.
Post new comment