Zimbardo's "Demise of Guys"

[cara susanna]

There is a lot of research demonstrating that porn viewing is linked to viewing women as sex objects.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01422.x/abstract

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wigflip]

cara, I know you're going to love this:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/girls-around-me-ios-app-takes-creepy-to-a-new-level/

 

[cara susanna]

I've read about that app! It sounds so creepy.

 

[Veit]

There is a lot of research demonstrating that porn viewing is linked to viewing women as sex objects.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01422.x/abstract

Well, sure. You can also say that there is research demonstrating some ill-defined connection between playing video games and experiencing aggression, but that doesn't mean that every video game is Manhunt 2, you know? Surely Rock Band won't have the same effects as any given hyperviolent game, whatever that affect may be. I was wondering if there's any research distinguishing between different types of pornography, in particular. It seems like it's using too broad a brush to just say "explicit depiction of sexual subject matter in any medium is linked to viewing women as sexual objects."

 

[wigflip]

worth noting: some of the research related to this area focuses more broadly on OSA (online sexual activities) or on particular non-porn activities within the OSA umbrella (cybersex, chat rooms, webcam use). These seem to have both beneficial and detrimental effects, depending on level of use, user demographics, context, etc.

 

[cara susanna]

Veit: Good question, I'm not really sure about that. I know that pornography is pretty hard to define, it's kind of like a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing.

 

[roubs]

I'm more interested in the definition of viewing a woman as a sex object. People who meet, date and get married presumably viewed each other as sex objects..and hopefully still do. :/

In the study cara linked to they defined it as a score on a measure containing the following five items:

‘‘Unconsciously, girls always want to be persuaded to have sex,’’
‘‘Sexually active girls are more attractive partners,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with boys being interested in a women only if she is pretty,’’
‘‘An attractive woman asks for sexual advance,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with boys being primarily interested in a woman’s body.’’

People would would endorse items 1 and 4 and generally think they can force themselves on a woman because they project their own attitude onto her aren't necessarily the same people as those who have a permissive attitude toward consensual, casual sex.

Also maybe it has to do with the Dutch translation but isn't it a bit odd that the questions alternate using the word 'girl' and 'woman' while they consistently use only 'boy'?

 

[futureapppsy2]

"explicit depiction of sexual subject matter in any medium is linked to viewing women as sexual objects."

The "any medium" part is interesting to me, because there certainly is a lot of explicit sex in literature (be it professional fiction, amateur fiction, high-brow, low-brow, etc). How different is the impact of written "porn" versus visual "porn"? They certainly are regulated very differently--my mom works for the library system in a very conservative state and yet books that contain explicit written descriptions of sex are both popular and permissible among patrons.

Also, I think there is a balance between not supporting porn (for the reasons cara and others have mentioned and with which I totally agree) and yet still allowing some open discussion of sexuality. For example, in a psychoed curriculum for abuse survivors that I worked with for a research study, there is a session devoted to healthy sexuality and what that may entail, because some of the women in this population never have any information on sexuality outside of their abuse experiences. Of course, there was no porn involved or anything (and FWIW, we considered forced viewing of or forced participation in porn to be a form of sexual abuse). Similarly, in rehab psych, there are some fairly explicit videos on sexuality and sex for people with spinal cord injury--I've never personally seen one, so I can't say how explicit they really are.

 

[FadedC]

That does seem like an odd set of questions to measure whether someone views women as a "sex object". 3 and 5, seem to be measures of how open minded you are about other people having casual sex. 2 could measure whether you have a double standard about it being ok for women to be sexually active but not guys. Only 1 and 4 seems to really relate to the scale, and even 1 relates partially to opnions about seduction.

If this is the scale being elevated after watching porn, it could just indicate that people who watch porn become less judgemental about men and women having consensual casual sex.

I'm more interested in the definition of viewing a woman as a sex object. People who meet, date and get married presumably viewed each other as sex objects..and hopefully still do. :/

In the study cara linked to they defined it as a score on a measure containing the following five items:

‘‘Unconsciously, girls always want to be persuaded to have sex,''
‘‘Sexually active girls are more attractive partners,''
‘‘There is nothing wrong with boys being interested in a women only if she is pretty,''
‘‘An attractive woman asks for sexual advance,''
‘‘There is nothing wrong with boys being primarily interested in a woman's body.''

People would would endorse items 1 and 4 and generally think they can force themselves on a woman because they project their own attitude onto her aren't necessarily the same people as those who have a permissive attitude toward consensual, casual sex.

Also maybe it has to do with the Dutch translation but isn't it a bit odd that the questions alternate using the word 'girl' and 'woman' while they consistently use only 'boy'?

 

[deleted176373]

I'm more interested in the definition of viewing a woman as a sex object. People who meet, date and get married presumably viewed each other as sex objects..and hopefully still do. :/

In the study cara linked to they defined it as a score on a measure containing the following five items:

‘‘Unconsciously, girls always want to be persuaded to have sex,’’
‘‘Sexually active girls are more attractive partners,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with boys being interested in a women only if she is pretty,’’
‘‘An attractive woman asks for sexual advance,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with boys being primarily interested in a woman’s body.’’

People would would endorse items 1 and 4 and generally think they can force themselves on a woman because they project their own attitude onto her aren't necessarily the same people as those who have a permissive attitude toward consensual, casual sex.

Also maybe it has to do with the Dutch translation but isn't it a bit odd that the questions alternate using the word 'girl' and 'woman' while they consistently use only 'boy'?

Anecdotally, in listening to women talk about men at times, I often see the same themes present.

"He's so hot" <- If I had a dime for everytime I heard a woman say this about a man, I'd be rich. If that statement alone isn't objectifying, I don't know what is.

But let's focus on the above, I would be curious to see if women would rate the following analogous stubs much differently than men?

‘‘Unconsciously, men always want to have sex,’’
‘‘Sexually active men are more attractive partners,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with women being interested in a man only if he is hansome,’’
‘‘As a woman I am more comfortable making sexual advances on attractive men,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with women being primarily interested in a man’s body,’’

 

[JeyRo]

anecdotally, in listening to women talk about men at times, i often see the same themes present.

"he's so hot" <- if i had a dime for everytime i heard a woman say this about a man, i'd be rich. If that statement alone isn't objectifying, i don't know what is.

But let's focus on the above, i would be curious to see if women would rate the following analogous stubs much differently than men?

‘‘unconsciously, men always want to have sex,’’
‘‘sexually active men are more attractive partners,’’
‘‘there is nothing wrong with women being interested in a man only if he is hansome,’’
‘‘as a woman i am more comfortable making sexual advances on attractive men,’’
‘‘there is nothing wrong with women being primarily interested in a man’s body,’’

 

[FadedC]

In general I agree, although I'm not really sure that

‘‘As a woman I am more comfortable making sexual advances on attractive men,’’

is remotely the same thing as

‘‘An attractive woman asks for sexual advance,’’

The second statement seems to be saying that if a woman looks attractive, then she must want to be hit on.

Anecdotally, in listening to women talk about men at times, I often see the same themes present.

"He's so hot" <- If I had a dime for everytime I heard a woman say this about a man, I'd be rich. If that statement alone isn't objectifying, I don't know what is.

But let's focus on the above, I would be curious to see if women would rate the following analogous stubs much differently than men?

‘‘Unconsciously, men always want to have sex,’’
‘‘Sexually active men are more attractive partners,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with women being interested in a man only if he is hansome,’’
‘‘As a woman I am more comfortable making sexual advances on attractive men,’’
‘‘There is nothing wrong with women being primarily interested in a man’s body,’’

 

[Ollie123]

If the measure was translated I think that may be part of the issue because some of these items are REALLY weird and I'm not sure how they tap that construct (at least as most of us typically think of it) at all. For one, my reading of "An attractive woman asks for sexual advance" was completely different than apparently either of yours, as I thought it was stating that attractive women will be sexually forward (e.g. "Its hot when a woman makes the first move"). FadedCs interpretation makes far more sense in the present context, but regardless either the item or the translation is poor.

Of course, its easy to sit back and nitpick face validity of items, its another to develop a solid measure of a fairly complex construct. Its not remotely my area but I'm curious what else is out there - it seems an area where convergent and discriminant validity would be particularly challenging to deal with. I could also easily see it being an area where technical definitions used in research do not at all map onto how the general public thinks of and uses the terms, but am not familiar enough to comment with certainty.

All that said, I actually debated raising the same point that Mark did in that it does seem there is quite the double standard on many of these issues. t I have gotten the impression rather than moving "away" from objectifying women we (as a society) are simply moving towards objectifying men more. There's no doubt that it is still "accepted" for men to gawk, make objectifying remarks, etc.in many settings, but in many others, both men and women will view the man as a "pig", immature, etc..I have yet to hear any woman be called out or given dirty looks when making nearly identical statements about men, akin to what Mark said. Anecdotal, but I certainly hear such statements constantly from women in our program but am hard-pressed to think of a man ever making such a statement (about women) in public. Obviously the implications and weight of such comments are very different given societal trends, attitudes, history,etc. but I can't help but think we're digging ourselves in deeper rather than making progress in this area.

There is also a great deal of discussion about the effects of pornography on men's view of women, but I'm actually curious how it effects women's view of other women (and men, for that matter) since it seems like far less work has been done in that area. Contrary to popular belief, there are certainly a multitude of women who watch and enjoy pornography (and a much smaller, but still existent pornography industry catering to them). What the causes and effects of that are, I have no idea, but I think there are lots of interesting research questions that can be asked of that population and might help us better understand the issues involved.

 

[LivingOffLoans]

I think this is really a cultural problem, not a right/wrong argument to be made between sexes. It's silly to think that feminism is responsible for the male crisis. If anything, feminism is the liberator from it. Theories in feminism are not only about the liberation of women, but the liberation from the cultural confines of sex-typed behavior. Because women were the oppressed, they were the ones to assert gender theory and shine light onto cultural biases. Men who benefited and still benefit from simply being male, though their 'gender identity' is less clear-cut now because of the merging of roles, are no longer exclusively afforded the historic privileges they had been since the civil rights movement. I believe this is somewhat closer to where the locus of control is in the male crisis - that it is the stripping of a culturally constructed identity that was previously relied on, that is the problem. Imagine the point in Hegel's master-slave dialectic where the master becomes the slave after being challenged, and thus removed from, the dominant position which had prior confirmed his consciousness. Further awareness regarding the cultural influences of gender, and its restrictions on the human relational experience, are needed in order for us to transcend individuals and systems out of such a crisis.

 

[Pragma]

Anecdotally, in listening to women talk about men at times, I often see the same themes present.

"He's so hot" <- If I had a dime for everytime I heard a woman say this about a man, I'd be rich. If that statement alone isn't objectifying, I don't know what is.

But let's focus on the above, I would be curious to see if women would rate the following analogous stubs much differently than men?

&#8216;&#8216;Unconsciously, men always want to have sex,''
&#8216;&#8216;Sexually active men are more attractive partners,''
&#8216;&#8216;There is nothing wrong with women being interested in a man only if he is hansome,''
&#8216;&#8216;As a woman I am more comfortable making sexual advances on attractive men,''
&#8216;&#8216;There is nothing wrong with women being primarily interested in a man's body,''

Good point. Of course, this measure seems pretty weak. I do appreciate the reminders from this discussion that we are only as good as our research tools. Now, just because solid measures may not be available (maybe there are better ones), it doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't happen. But this also means that we can't read into findings much from a study like this one - at least if you care about measurement validity.

I certainly am aware that pornography can have detrimental effects, but I also think just about anything can have detrimental effects whe used in an unhealthy way.

I really hate the "you know it when you see it argument" as it applies to the discussion about social inequity. I mean sure, practically speaking, prejudices are obvious sometimes. But to invoke that as researchers I think is just lazy and doesn't get us anywhere (Cara not taking a jab at you). If we are going to make a big deal out of pornography, we ought to operationalize it for the sake of research.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I have gotten the impression rather than moving "away" from objectifying women we (as a society) are simply moving towards objectifying men more. There's no doubt that it is still "accepted" for men to gawk, make objectifying remarks, etc.in many settings, but in many others, both men and women will view the man as a "pig", immature, etc..I have yet to hear any woman be called out or given dirty looks when making nearly identical statements about men, akin to what Mark said.

The objectification of men is happening in different ways than sexual--i.e., when women gawk at men in a sexual way, it's seen as funny and doesn't abuse the power differential in the same way that sexuality exploits power when women are the object. Men are objectified in popular media as dumb, brawny, lazy, emotionless creatures who are good for certain things (killing a spider, changing a tire, etc.) and not for others (engaging with their children, having a meaningful conversation).

 

[cara susanna]

IMO, showing men as dumb or emotionless is not objectification. Objectification refers to someone shown as an object, with no agency of their own. I only saw one ad objectifying men in this year's Super Bowl. It was the one with David Beckham, and all of the guys I was watching with were absolutely horrified. Whereas I'd had to watch three Go Daddy ads with naked women and that Fiat commercial where a sexy woman represents a car (if that isn't objectification, then what is?)

Furthermore, feminists would argue that the power differential in society is what makes female objectification more of a problem. Because men hold the power differential, when they are objectified it is different from when women are objectified.

I would also argue that men who are objectified are still shown as strong, powerful, etc.

 

[Shatani]

there is a recent study (i dont have access to it right now, sorry), and maybe im using the term "study" a little loosely, that indicates that women in underwear are more likely to be seen as objects than men in underwear.

they figured this out by using images of male and female underwear models and showing them to people upside down and then seeing if the subjects could identify who was in the image when it's right side up. the theory is that our brains have difficulty identifying human forms when they are presented upside down, but find it much easier to do so with non-human forms (objects). they found that it was harder for people to identify the male underwear models right side up after viewing them upside down. apparently, it was much easier by far to identify the female underwear models.

just adding that as one of the ways people are trying to operationalize the idea of viewing someone as an object.

 

[FadedC]

That also seems like an extremely shakey operational definition though. Does the fact that you can still recognize someone when they are upside down really mean that you are objectifying them?

there is a recent study (i dont have access to it right now, sorry), and maybe im using the term "study" a little loosely, that indicates that women in underwear are more likely to be seen as objects than men in underwear.

they figured this out by using images of male and female underwear models and showing them to people upside down and then seeing if the subjects could identify who was in the image when it's right side up. the theory is that our brains have difficulty identifying human forms when they are presented upside down, but find it much easier to do so with non-human forms (objects). they found that it was harder for people to identify the male underwear models right side up after viewing them upside down. apparently, it was much easier by far to identify the female underwear models.

just adding that as one of the ways people are trying to operationalize the idea of viewing someone as an object.

 

[Ollie123]

The objectification of men is happening in different ways than sexual--i.e., when women gawk at men in a sexual way, it's seen as funny and doesn't abuse the power differential in the same way that sexuality exploits power when women are the object.

You are sort of touching on what I was addressing at the end of the paragraph (i.e. that these are certainly different things). However, such arguments generally presume that society is 1) Static and 2) Universally experienced in similar ways by all, which I think is a tough argument to make (in other words, society is not an object but - per our other thread - is also a distribution of relative likelihood of certain experiences occurring in someone's life). I'm not certain I buy that the existence of a societal power differential makes something "funny" when women do it and "gross" when men do it...I think it depends on the context, the nature of the comments, etc.

IMO, showing men as dumb or emotionless is not objectification. Objectification refers to someone shown as an object, with no agency of their own. I only saw one ad objectifying men in this year's Super Bowl. It was the one with David Beckham, and all of the guys I was watching with were absolutely horrified. Whereas I'd had to watch three Go Daddy ads with naked women and that Fiat commercial where a sexy woman represents a car (if that isn't objectification, then what is?)

Furthermore, feminists would argue that the power differential in society is what makes female objectification more of a problem. Because men hold the power differential, when they are objectified it is different from when women are objectified.

I agree with the first point (of course, it could certainly still be harmful, it just doesn't meet with my view of what objectification is). I also in no way disagree about the potential differences in consequences for objectification. Of course, its an empirical question (and a difficult one to answer per some of our discussion above RE: methodology) with a great deal of nuances to it, but I don't doubt that the effects are different at present. However, it does raise the question about what our ideal should be. In an alternate dimension with a purely egalitarian society that is and always has been that way, is everyone making such comments, or is no one doing so? Its obviously difficult to remove ourselves from the context, but I find it an interesting thought experiment. I do think it has pretty profound implications in how things are handled and progress on the issue will be made...society is an inherently complex system with lots of feedback loops, with such comments likely serving as both a cause and symptom of any existing power differential, yet any statement retains objective properties as well. Personally, I think the objective properties likely overwhelm the societal implications in a great many circumstances, and we'll be unlikely to achieve subjective/abstract equality (e.g. equal "power" in society) while maintaining unequal objective aspects (e.g. "its okay for women to do this but not men, its okay for men to do this but not women").

And Cara - for the record, I realize your are not in any way arguing "Objectifying men is good!", to me it is just a question of how to approach the problem and the extent to which it is likely to have long-term success if we (as a society) attempt to reduce objectification of one gender in isolation, without targeting objectification as a whole.

 

[cara susanna]

That's fair, Ollie. I think the issue is that often people use the "Males get objectified, too!" argument to make it appear as though female objectification is not really a problem because, hey, it happens to everyone.

Not that I think people on this thread were implying that, I'm just saying that's often how I've seen it used.

 

[Shatani]

That also seems like an extremely shakey operational definition though. Does the fact that you can still recognize someone when they are upside down really mean that you are objectifying them?

it seems that was the assertion....but i havent read up on it too much, so i dont know how reliable it is.

 

[roubs]

Cara, I agree with you that the central problem is men who don't feel women have/should have agency of their own and view them as objects for their sole gratification. I would be interested in if porn modified this specific view or whether it just makes people more interested in / accepting of casual hook ups. I don't think the latter necessarily implies the former.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, it'd be nice if someone did a study with questions that assessed that particular construct more. It's difficult to measure objectification, though--even the self-objectification measures for women aren't great.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, it'd be nice if someone did a study with questions that assessed that particular construct more. It's difficult to measure objectification, though--even the self-objectification measures for women aren't great.

It sure is, but I think until it can be a) defined and b) measured, it will be difficult to say whether there has been progress. I also think, as Ollie mentioned, defining the goal (what would it look like in a society where genders are treated equally?) would be helpful. I think people focus on the problem, which is less well-defined these days since it has more to do with implicit attitudes than external behavior (usually), and not solutions often enough.

 

[thepug]

Ummm...I realize the OP was curious as to the feminist perspective on this (btw do we still call it that I mean over 40 or so years you think it would have relabeled itself...), but I'm pretty surprised no one has suggested THE BRAIN.

There are many marked differences between male and female neuroanatomy. While these differences may not explain violence and impulsiveness so well (they do), that alone suggests that *gasp* men and women are not equal beings. This is not to discount society and whatnot as far as contributing to criminal behaviors (women are starting to take up more of the prison population), but seriously fellas there is a reason we like war movies, FPSs, and videos of people getting mildly injured and it's not because of socialization.

 

[KillerDiller]

Ummm...I realize the OP was curious as to the feminist perspective on this (btw do we still call it that I mean over 40 or so years you think it would have relabeled itself...), but I'm pretty surprised no one has suggested THE BRAIN.

There are many marked differences between male and female neuroanatomy. While these differences may not explain violence and impulsiveness so well (they do), that alone suggests that *gasp* men and women are not equal beings. This is not to discount society and whatnot as far as contributing to criminal behaviors (women are starting to take up more of the prison population), but seriously fellas there is a reason we like war movies, FPSs, and videos of people getting mildly injured and it's not because of socialization.

Which studies/differences are you speaking about? The vast majority of neuroimaging data on gender differences is only correlational. It is by no means enough to draw the conclusion that men and women are fundamentally different and "not because of socialization." If you are speaking about non-correlational studies, please cite.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Yes--neuroanatomy does not mean "from birth (or conception)." Neuropathways can be (and are) created by socialization and interaction throughout life.

 

[PhilAwesome]

As a disclaimer, the points I have to make on this topic have no basis on actual research (that I'm aware of); it's entirely based on theory and anecdotal accounts I've heard from people. But I think some of the most detrimental effects of porn (particularly mainstream porn) are the ways it teaches young people (i.e. people who don't have other models for sexuality) that "this is the way sex works." If we all talked about sex openly and honestly, and came to understand the vast diversity in people's sexuality, then I don't think porn would have the same effect. But we're all so quiet about sex, especially with adolescents; we don't teach them about the good parts, the concerns, the ways it interacts with your self-worth, and just how different people are in terms of their sexuality. We just teach them "this is how you have safe sex" (if we even teach them that). So given that we don't all go around seeing each other naked and having sex, we don't really know what's normal. For an adolescent boy whose only interaction with sexuality is mainstream porn, especially one who doesn't have a lot of female friends, you can see how ideas of sexuality could get warped. Without a lot of real life experience, boys can develop this mindset that "this is how men act during sex," and model that during their sexual encounters. They can also learn that "this is what these body parts look like," and can be surprised or even turned off when they see something that deviates from that.

You wouldn't believe the amount of insecurity I've seen in women around how their labia look. I don't think that would be possible if porn hadn't created a standard for what labia "should" look like. It's definitely not restricted to labia, either; porn furthers the notion that large breasts and large penises are socially desirable, and that can create a lot of insecurity. The amount of communication online makes it easier to learn "the real facts," but it's still easy to look at porn and feel inadequate for both men and women. As we grow up and become more mature, we discover that the standards mainstream porn creates are unrealistic, but that insecurity can still linger.

Outside of issues around understanding how people's bodies are "supposed to" look, I think mainstream porn creates sexual scripts that are counterproductive to good sex. Again, this is primarily a problem among people who have no other models for what sexual intimacy looks like. But by having the men be hyperaggressive and demeaning towards women, and having the women act like they're enjoying it, porn can create an expectation that that's typically what women enjoy. For boys who empathize well with women and are generally communicative in their relationships, this won't be a problem; for boys who don't, it can be a huge issue, particularly if the woman feels insecure about speaking up about it (and gender norms that encourage women to "keep the peace" don't help with that). Among things that mainstream porn paints as normative are "the jackhammer" approach to sex, men basically expecting that women always want to give oral sex, and teaching men how to give the worst oral sex possible to women. Also, no foreplay or communication...ever.

This isn't inherent in pornography; I think there's a lot of great porn out there, and I believe porn could be really useful in helping people see the diversity of approaches people have to sex, and figuring out what really works for them. But the majority of porn doesn't show that; it shows an approach to sexuality that most women don't find pleasurable, and it fosters insecurities about body types and sexual performance (even more so than the insecurities that are already there when you're new to it!). For a lot of people who watch porn (possibly even the majority, or the vast majority), it's not an issue; they learn how to communicate with their partners and, through experience, develop realistic expectations for their own and other people's bodies. But for some people, it encourages a highly destructive sexual dynamic and creates unrealistic expectations for everyone involved.

Porn addiction is a real problem too, because people who get addicted often tend to "escalate" (they need more and more intensive and extreme porn to be satisfied). It's a related problem in some ways, because it's easy to think that being into really extreme sexual things is "just who you are" once you hit that stage, especially if you've never had a stage in your life when you didn't watch porn to discover that you can be totally satisfied with a relatively vanilla sex life, and that expanding to "less vanilla" things can happen gradually and as you and your partner(s) feel comfortable.

 

[erg923]

Yes, Im sure people can get addicted to porn. I'm sure it can harm relationships and distort people views of sex, etc. However, I'm also sure the vast majority of people who watch porn live fairly normally lives and simply use it as an erotic outlet. Hot naked people can be fun..and pefectly ok. Let's not foget that...

However, I am a little taken aback by the focus on all the presumed damaged to us and the lack of focus on the actual damage/harm to the "talent" who engage in this world. The modern, primarily online, porn business is filled with violence, drugs, exploitation (primarily of young, naive and/or emotionally damaged girls), and general psychopathic like behaviors/attitudes. If you want to accuse porn of making people view others as objects, all you have to do is talk to a director, agent, or producer about how they view their "actresses." They are the ones suffering the most harm in all this.

 

[cara susanna]

Yes, that's really the big issue with porn. Look up interviews with actresses or former actresses in the business and you'll see how exploitative it is. The women may start out actually liking the work, but often they get pushed into more and more hardcore and degrading action that makes them uncomfortable. Not to mention that some porn is filmed with women who have been trafficked, especially the Eastern European stuff.

Sure, the porn you watch may be completely consensual, but how do you really know for sure?

I also have a BIG issue with how porn always puts the man first and has the woman fake pleasure at situations you know she probably isn't getting any pleasure from. Not to mention the "money shot."

Edit: Oh, and not to mention the pejorative terms and descriptions it uses for women. Just look at porn descriptions sometimes and count the times you read words like "slut" and descriptions of pain and degradation. Then count how many times those terms are used for the men.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

However, I am a little taken aback by the focus on all the presumed damaged to us and the lack of focus on the actual damage/harm of the "talent" who engage in this world. The modern, primarily online, porn business is filled with violence, drugs, explotation (primarily of young, naive and/or emotionally damaged girls), and general psychopathic like behaviors/attitudes. If you want to accuse porn of making people view others as objects, all you have to do is talk to a director, agent, or producer about how they view their "actresses." They are the ones suffering the most harm in all this.

I was going to respond last time you said this, and I'm also surprised no one else did!! Totally right on. In casual day-to-day discussion about porn, I swear to you that I have heard (mostly) men talk about it in an ideal way--as in, what a great way to make a living. It's like it's a male fantasy to be successful in the porn industry. So, it seems like the best business evah, so what's the problem? Oh, the problem is how it affects us when we watch it? No. The problem is that it's a sick, exploitative business full of trafficking and drugs, and people don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[Pragma]

I was going to respond last time you said this, and I'm also surprised no one else did!! Totally right on. In casual day-to-day discussion about porn, I swear to you that I have heard (mostly) men talk about it in an ideal way--as in, what a great way to make a living. It's like it's a male fantasy to be successful in the porn industry. So, it seems like the best business evah, so what's the problem? Oh, the problem is how it affects us when we watch it? No. The problem is that it's a sick, exploitative business full of trafficking and drugs, and people don't want to acknowledge it.

I have never once heard a man suggest that they would want to work in this industry. On the contrary, the discussions that I have with men and women regarding pronography have always centered around pitying those that do work in the industry.

 

[Iwillheal]

Which studies/differences are you speaking about? The vast majority of neuroimaging data on gender differences is only correlational. It is by no means enough to draw the conclusion that men and women are fundamentally different and "not because of socialization." If you are speaking about non-correlational studies, please cite.

Wait, are you saying that male and female brain are EXACTLY THE SAME and all the differences in behavior are due to socialization?! That kind of radical view better be supported with some good research. Remember, just because particular kind of socialization can change the brain in a particular way does not mean any such changes happening or not happening in other circumstances have to do with socialization.

 

[PhilAwesome]

Wait, are you saying that male and female brain are EXACTLY THE SAME and all the differences in behavior are due to socialization?! That kind of radical view better be supported with some good research. Remember, just because particular kind of socialization can change the brain in a particular way does not mean any such changes happening or not happening in other circumstances have to do with socialization.

There are several logic leaps from "neuroimaging data is correlational" to "the male and female brain are EXACTLY THE SAME," and I'm a little concerned that you automatically assumed that Killer Diller was trying to say that, rather than actually asking the question in that post. I don't think anyone would argue that; the problem is, it's virtually impossible (AFAIK) to determine which differences in behavior would exist regardless of social context and which wouldn't. Given that (to the best of my knowledge) we don't have strong evidence of what gender differences are heavily influenced by social factors, I've found it's generally safer to take a stance that most gender differences are a result of socialization. This may not be true (and I acknowledge that it may not be true), but you have a better chance of changing any problematic gender-related behaviors if you assume that, you know, they can actually be changed. You're also more likely to accept people who don't fit the standard gender mold. Because let's face it; there are a ton of people out there who, if you tell them that gender biology influences men/women in a certain way, they'll take that as dogma and think that men/women SHOULD act in those ways, and that there's something wrong with them if they don't.

 

[KillerDiller]

Wait, are you saying that male and female brain are EXACTLY THE SAME and all the differences in behavior are due to socialization?! That kind of radical view better be supported with some good research. Remember, just because particular kind of socialization can change the brain in a particular way does not mean any such changes happening or not happening in other circumstances have to do with socialization.

No, that's not what I said. Like PhilAwesome summarized, I'm saying that neuroimaging research is correlational. You can't infer causation from either socialization or inherited biological differences. That's not a radical view, it's Research Methods 101.

Also, it's not only particular kinds of socialization that change the brain. I think we can reasonably say that the brain is changing constantly due to all the types of stimulation we experience, social or otherwise. It would be more surprising to find a type of socialization that didn't change the brain.

 

[Iwillheal]

There are several logic leaps from "neuroimaging data is correlational" to "the male and female brain are EXACTLY THE SAME"...

Two things: One, you misquoted the important part. I was reacting to his saying, "It is by no means enough to draw the conclusion that men and women are fundamentally different." I took that to mean that he thinks they are fundamentally the same. Here's a mistake I made. I meant to say "FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME" not "EXACTLY THE SAME." Second, that's my starting position, that they are different. That's my null hypothesis, for better or worse. Regardless, as you point out, it's very difficult, impossible even, to say anything conclusive on the matter.

 

[KillerDiller]

Two things: One, you misquoted the important part. I was reacting to his saying, "It is by no means enough to draw the conclusion that men and women are fundamentally different." I took that to mean that he thinks they are fundamentally the same. Here's a mistake I made. I meant to say "FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME" not "EXACTLY THE SAME." Second, that's my starting position, that they are different. That's my null hypothesis, for better or worse. Regardless, as you point out, it's very difficult, impossible even, to say anything conclusive on the matter.

A few things.
1) We agree with each other, so there's not a debate here.

2) I'm female.

3) I didn't misuse the word "fundamental." Fundamental means being an original or primary source. I was countering the assumption that the genders are fundamentally different (meaning that they originate as being different through a genetic process that does not require learning or socialization). Saying there is no evidence that the genders are fundamentally different is not the same as saying I think they are fundamentally the same. In fact, there is not enough evidence in either direction. That being said, wouldn't the null hypothesis in fact be that they are the same?

 

[roubs]

It's funny how in a 80% female field we still make the default male assumption. base rates!!!! Oh wait wrong thread?

 

[wigflip]

it's funny how in a 80% female field we still make the default male assumption. Base rates!!!! Oh wait wrong thread?

+1

 

[cara susanna]

It's kind of like how I assume everyone on a musical theatre message board is a gay male until told otherwise.

 

[Iwillheal]

KillerDiller, sorry for the mistake, something about your name or avy or something threw me off. I think a guy on another forum uses a very similar avy. Anyhow, as far as the null hypothesis, I'm not sure which would be. I suppose it depends on which you take to be the default. If we go back to early developmental phase of fetal development, and assume that the brains are the same but the during the gestation period, the "environmental influences" cause the brains of each gender to differentiate, then yes, the default position is that they are the same. However, if we start out with two newborns and assume that the two brains are indeed different, we can study the effects of socialization by exposing both to very same influences--at least in theory--and see how that affects their brains and behavior.

Having said that, this is pure speculation on the spot and this is not my area of study so I appreciate being corrected.

 

[Iwillheal]

It's kind of like how I assume everyone on a musical theatre message board is a gay male until told otherwise.

Wow, stereotyping gays, that's nice.

 

[cara susanna]

No, more like stereotyping musical theatre fans. I used to assume they were women, but I ended up being wrong a lot.

 

[Iwillheal]

No, more like stereotyping musical theatre fans. I used to assume they were women, but I ended up being wrong a lot.

Well, I'm a fan of musical theatre. And no, I'm not gay. I'll be damned if I let you stereotype my people. Do you know what us non-gay musical theatre fans been through, you anti musical theatrite bastard!

 

[cara susanna]

I'm a non-gay musical theatre fan too, so I have nothing but the best wishes for our people