5 ms·
> Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white.
by tpmx 6y ago
> Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white.
And then it goes on. Imagine writing something similar regarding human women? I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist? I would have flagged this if there weren't already substantial discussion here that I don't want to bury.
- fxtentacle 6y agoI'd say that is only sexism if you consider it biologically wrong. If you believe that it's a correct description of an effect caused by genetics, then it would be descriptive instead. But what your comment nicely illustrates is that whether someone considers something sexist depends on whether or not they believe it to be true. As a result, people who are unwilling to accept certain objective truths might consider descriptive science to be sexist. If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree.
- throwaway_dnadu 6y agoI think you've missed what they were complaining about. > Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. Dispassionate factual statement. Not sexist. > Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Comparing men to dogs and implying they're dumb. Sexist.
- grillvogel 6y agothat's a bit of a stretch. more like "here's an example of something that animals do that most would consider dumb, it turns out that humans actually do something similar"
- throwaway_dnadu 6y ago> that's a bit of a stretch Nah people do this all the time when making comments designed to put people down. Yes they didn't explicitly say they think men are like dogs... they just gently popped those two things together next to each other and left them there for people to quietly pick up what they mean, but keeping themselves clean if anyone points it out. It's called (ironically in this case) a dog whistle. Keep an eye out for them!
- maroonblazer 6y agoAre you arguing against the example or the idea? More generally we call these illusions. There are any number of examples we could swap out and the point wouldn't change.
- polotics 6y agoNitpicking brigade here, sorry: In my understanding a dog whistle is something else, it's a code phrase used to refer to some opinion that's unsavoury and know transgressive to communicate out-of-band to your supporters that you share that opinion. An actual dog whistle for calling dogs produces ultrasound, that humans cannot hear...
- irrational 6y agoI don’t know. I’m a man and in my experience men are pretty dumb. I wasn’t offended by the dog comparison.
- throwaway_dnadu 6y agoOne individual in the target group not being offended doesn't mean it's not sexist. Many women are ok with deeply sexist things towards women. Doesn't make it right.
- Draiken 6y agoNot being offended by something does not make it sexist or not
- mensetmanusman 6y agoYour statement assumes there is an objective ruler/measure of what is sexist or not. It is likely that such a measure does not exist. People’s perception therefore take precedent.
- jedimastert 6y ago> Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. The author makes it sound like human women can't also get aroused by a black and white image of nude men.
- AnonHP 6y ago> If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree. I have a disagreement on one word choice here: “skills”. I don’t think that’s the best word to use in this context since it could be understood for one of its dictionary meanings, which is expertise.
- grillvogel 6y agoi genuinely don't understand what is offensive about the line you quoted
- R0b0t1 6y agoAt the very end it seems to me she is trying to side with men in some capacity, but without agitating women. >But market innovation has already created something dreadful on the other side of the coin: a large segment of men that have no prospect of satisfying their most basic desires. Though this comes at the end, and without much else said about it.
- tpmx 6y agoI see what you going for.. but... I just don't think it's fine to use casual overt sexism in this way.
- jjj1232 6y agoNot really seeing sexism, I’m more annoyed that it ignores everyone besides heterosexual men. "Humans can become aroused looking at flat images of other humans in black and white” is probably a better way to put it.
- fomine3 6y agoI should expand it for *philia other than humans.
- Noumenon72 6y agoTry this quote from Steven Pinker: > Zoologists have found that the males of many species will court an enormous range of objects having a vague resemblance to the female: other males, females of the wrong species, females of the right species that have been stuffed and nailed to a board, parts of stuffed females such as a head suspended in midair, even parts of stuffed females with important features missing like the eyes and the mouth. --Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works
- content_sesh 6y agoIt's also a bad analogy: a dog reacting aggressively to their own image vs a human getting aroused by images of someone else. It's apples and oranges folks! I came up with two much better analogies 1. Ever think a dog is dumb for humping a stuffed animal? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. <- Comparing dog vs. human arousal to external stimulus 2. Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror. <- Comparing dog vs (unusual) human reaction to seeing their own reflection.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago> Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror. Is that statement actually true for a significant plurality of human men? I've never heard anyone say this before, and it has 0% resonance with me personally.
- content_sesh 6y agoIt's not true for me, and I do not believe it is for a significant number of men either. My post was tongue-in-cheek
- matheusmoreira 6y ago> I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist? It is! It just happens to be sexist towards acceptable targets. Since men are perceived as dominant and powerful, the sexism is regarded as a non-issue.
- TheDong 6y agoI think you can read it much more charitably. Rather than assuming it implies "men are dumb, like dogs" or "men are like dogs, and dumb", you could instead read it as "men can get aroused so easily. Human arousal is dumb". I take no offense at the idea that the monkey-brain arousal mechanisms of men and women is "dumb", in the sense of simplistic. Logically, we know a picture is not a valid mating target, but still we can get aroused. Yes, if you read it as calling men dumb, it's a little sexist. But if you read it as a commentary on human arousal, well, that's not a thinking feeling target, so you can be no more sexist against it than against a rock.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIf you didn't want it to be sexist, you would say people instead of men. That's the sexist part. I know plenty of women who are aroused by visual porn.
- 21eleven 6y agoI am a human male and I found that part to be both humorous and insightful.
- quantified 6y agoI can’t speak for the females, but it’s absolutely true. Sex is, well, sexist.