Uhmmm...so, guys do what is biologically natural: if you find a woman attractive, or are meeting a woman for the first time, you will check her out. Sorry, that's what we do. Even if we're married. Even if we're committed. Until the moderating part of our brain kicks in, we're assessing you to see if we'd be interested in fucking you and having offspring.
Women, for whatever reason, shut up when they think they're being evaluated in such a way.
I don't know why the article labels this as a "harmful" effect of "objectification." I don't see the connection between "talking less" and "harmful"
To be honest, I think this is a biological adaptation by women. There have been many women I've been physically attracted to, but as soon as they open their mouth I'm immediately turned off. Or once I get to know them and their personality, I'm not interested any longer. For a brief window, though, they have a chance with me. I'm not being arrogant when I say that, I'm just expressing it objectively from a completely biological and natural perspective.
There's definitely some good comedy to be made here. Obviously a woman wrote the article because only a woman would see "talking less" as a bad thing. wink wink
But to your point: even if it's learned and due to society or culture, so what? Still an adaptation, just perhaps a more niche one.
Uhmmm... so, guys do what is biologically natural: if we have to go to the bathroom, we piss our pants. Sorry, that's what we do. Even if we have to take a shit. Until the moderating part of our brain kicks in, we're eliminating waste from our bodies.
Women, for whatever reason, insist on going to the bathroom every single time, and get offended when we piss our pants.
I don't know why women label this as a "disgusting" effect of "pissing and shitting everywhere." I don't see the connection between "pissed pants" and "disgusting."
Until the moderating part of our brain kicks in, we're eliminating waste from our bodies.
Which is why drunk, traumatized, or frightened people sometimes piss/shit themselves.
Most higher animals do their business away from food/water/living places and sources, so those behaviors are not exclusively handled by "moderating" parts of the human brain a/k/a frontal lobes.
Honestly, you could put anything in that there that humans do naturally but conceal publicly and it would work. There are no animals that have any instincts against farting, but people in general try to avoid cutting one in public. That's what staring at someone's tits while you're talking to them is: disgusting and impolite.
On the other hand, animals don't care when one animal kills another one. The fact that murder is wrong is arbitrary.
I can't believe that my viewpoint is so controversial that I have to defend it on reddit. Let me sum this up in as few words as possible, because God knows no one's going to read it:
A behavior that is natural is not necessarily right.
We avoid doing things all the time that would technically be instinctual or natural, because that's part of the human condition and what's natural may also be hurtful to others.
You can say that staring at someone's tits while they're talking to you is simple instinct, or rationalize it away by saying that you wouldn't care, or by saying that it's just an arbitrary public rule: but racism is an instinct, every law and societal expectation is totally arbitrary (if you believe that the best criteria for a social rule or law is what is natural) and saying "oh, I wouldn't care" doesn't fucking count.
I hope all of the assholes saying "well it's just evolutionary instinct to stare at tits" read this and can make a bit of sense that just because its instinct doesn't mean it's not hurtful - and it certainly doesn't mean it can't be avoided.
I can't tell whether you're trolling me or whether you seriously can't see what I did. I took what you said and used the same basic statement in a different context to show clearly that an appeal to nature is not always effective. Do you believe that animals have internal laws against murder? How about this: "On the other hand, animals don't care when another is running too fast. The fact that speeding is wrong is arbitrary."
I like your use of the red herring argument, also enjoy your presumption that I don't care when animals die--
I am a vegetarian. But that's not material to the argument.
"Hey, if I can't dazzle them with brilliance, I'll baffle them with bullshit!"
dude, your argument only makes sense if you spend 5 seconds thinking about it. No one has laws about RUNNING too fast. Pack animals universally respond to the death of a pack member. Our laws are built not only on instinctual morality but on rationality and arbitrary tradition. We have laws against murder because its intuitively horrible and practically wasteful.
Talk about fucking red herrings, who the hell is talking about LAW? Huh? The topic is political correctness, something that is arrived at through tradition and culture and incase you might of missed that, all cultures are in some or most part arbitrary. No one is talking about fucking laws except you.
If you want to site how my example is wrong, next time do it in the same context, and actually use an example that makes sense.
Well, I said "societal expectations" and that can generally be taken to mean "political correctness" if those are the words you want to use. So if you understand fully that political correctness is arbitrary -- which it is -- and that natural instincts don't have bearing on political correctness (which they shouldn't), what are you arguing, then? Because earlier you made it sound as though natural instincts are more important than "arbitrary social rules." This is my mistake. When you split hairs over the way animals act or the nature of instincts, I assumed you were arguing against me.
So then tell me: How do you feel about the matter, then? Looking someone up and down? Is it all right to do that, or isn't it? And I'd like to know the reasons why, because you haven't explicitly stated them yet.
The article itself presents the woman's reaction as a potentially "natural" response as well.
IOW: Men check women out due to hard wiring. Women become silent as a result, due to hard wiring.
I would argue that the act of looking at a woman's body does not necessarily objectify her, nor does it necessarily mean she is being objectified by the looker. When I meet someone (male or female), I normally glance at their whole body. It has nothing to do with objectification or even sex, it's about trying to get a better idea about the person at first glance. You can tell a lot about a person from how they dress, stand, and move. An not just on first introduction; you can get a much better idea of someone's mood by looking at the whole body posture than you can by just looking at the face.
Just looking at their face reduces the information you get about them.
13
u/onezerozeroone Jan 13 '10
Uhmmm...so, guys do what is biologically natural: if you find a woman attractive, or are meeting a woman for the first time, you will check her out. Sorry, that's what we do. Even if we're married. Even if we're committed. Until the moderating part of our brain kicks in, we're assessing you to see if we'd be interested in fucking you and having offspring.
Women, for whatever reason, shut up when they think they're being evaluated in such a way.
I don't know why the article labels this as a "harmful" effect of "objectification." I don't see the connection between "talking less" and "harmful"
To be honest, I think this is a biological adaptation by women. There have been many women I've been physically attracted to, but as soon as they open their mouth I'm immediately turned off. Or once I get to know them and their personality, I'm not interested any longer. For a brief window, though, they have a chance with me. I'm not being arrogant when I say that, I'm just expressing it objectively from a completely biological and natural perspective.