Men really do see scantily-clad women as objects!

Ha, good twist slumberjack.  So you're saying objectification of sexualized woman is infact a biological trend?

and just to add how the f did you go from a thread on objectifying sexualized women to biological sexual preference such as homosexuality?  wow that was a dumb comment slumberjack.

Heh, I guess that leaves us conflicting viewpoints...I beleive the objectification is of a social nature stemming from the patriarchy we're socially bound to and not biological reasons. Think Fiske can come up with an experiement to test that one?

Okay, having distilled this down to what objectification is in its broad definition. A process of making something abstract, intangible, or unknown into a concrete thing. As such, Friske's study can be seen to be the study of said process for what occurs in the male brain when women's pictures, along varying degrees of predetermined, by current societal norms of known attributes determining women's objectification, poses. This was done through headless bikini body shots, through to fully clothed head and body shots.

Now, it has long been held that within the process of objectification, certain conditions, or factors occur.

1. Instrumentality as in a synonym for a tool

2. Non-perception of personal autonomy or having no agency to self determine

3.  Ownership

4. Interchangable without regard

5. Denial of reality experiences or feelings, no subjective reality is considered

From this perception, objectification is not complex, nor is it a concept. It is a process that can be described, as been described. As such, I feel that perhaps it is men who are choosing to ignore what the history of objectification is, and who exactly it impacts and who thus know and feel exactly what it is, and can readily understand what the process is.

A tool is not different than an object, it is an instrumental object, it has no human, nor "alive" quotient, no thoughts feelings or desires, no history, no ability to act upon its own from its own initative.

So I am not sure what "history" you are speaking of catchfire, that is being ignored, nor do I perceive that objectification has been revised by women.

I see no categories, I see a sliding scale, of those engaging in the process of objectification, to greater or lesser degrees.

here u go stop arguing every1 was kind of right n wrong same wit me

http://www.zshare.net/download/6130432754707c85/

The "scantily-clad" women who posed for these pictures were objectifying themselves already.  Maybe they were even paid to pose, thus commodifying themselves.

Furthermore, these images are "objects" by definition, as they are objects used in an experiment.

And what's worse, someone objectifying these objects, or someone making a personal connexion with these pictures?  If a man were talking to these images, treating them as if they were living people and trying to have a human relationship with them, he'd be locked up in a rubber room.

It seems to me that by itself very little is learned by this study.

What would be more interesting is to do this kind of analysis across a wider spectrum of people, genders and ages.

How do the brains of homosexuals react? What about people who are asexual, or people who haven't yet hit puberty? And what about other cultures? For instance, in cultures where men and women are more often unclothed and see each other naked more frequently, do these same effects occur?

All this study tells us is a little bit about the minds of a handful of heterosexual male college students. Without being able to compare these results to those of other groups we simply cannot draw any conclusions about gender or social differences between unstudied groups.

Everyone comes to a study like this with their own preconceived ideas about what the results will be and what they mean. Even the study researcher has a preconceived idea about how men and women differ:

Quote:

If a similar study were done with women, Fiske told National Geographic News, it would be hard to predict whether a woman shown a scantily clad male body would dehumanize him in the same way.

Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that women tend to look for mates who have wealth and power, so some of Fiske's colleagues have suggested running a similar test where women are shown pictures of men next to expensive cars or other affluent symbols.

But Fiske doesn't think such an experiment would work the same way, because women usually react to men they desire by "interpreting their minds, thinking about what they're interested in, and then trying to please them," she said.

It seems to me that this would be a great study, and it is a shame that she didn't expand their study group to include women as well.

Dana Larsen wrote:

Everyone comes to a study like this with their own preconceived ideas about what the results will be and what they mean.

I suppose it is preconceived to a large extent.  It's not as if we do not already have the wider empirical data within society as to which segment is more likely, aided by a physical power imbalance and the traditional instilled notion of superiority, to be reinforced in their view that the individuals placed before them, either in print, visual media, or in person for that matter, are purely objects of entertainment, to be treated as such.  The historical preconceptions exist even in the absence of glossy photos or images.