[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)

[richardwillytexwilliams]

Ravi Yogi:
> Did you read this - 
> 
http://life.salon.com/2011/11/04/the_fantasy_of_a_cheating_wife/singleton/?mobile.html
> 
> 
Maybe that's one of the reason you no longer have a wife?

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)

[Ravi Yogi]

Right on Barry.. we both agree on John. And we both read Salon.

Did you read this - 

http://life.salon.com/2011/11/04/the_fantasy_of_a_cheating_wife/singleton/?mobile.html


I'm sure this is one of John's fantasies.

That's 50 and out for me.

I'll bring my needy, narcissistic ass back on Friday :-)


On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:34 AM, turquoiseb  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Why do you want to have sex with Ravi's wife?
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust 
> > > itself. With love, having sex with your wife would be 
> > > a divine gift. Ravi, quit kidding yourself. Be a man! 
> > > (See Russel Peters video clips to get this message).
> 
> Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far
> the most sexually repressed and hung up person here. Devoid of
> actual experience with the other sex, all he can do *is* imagine 
> women and try to objectify them as performing according to the 
> strict limits of his closed little belief system.
> 
> Here's an interesting article on the different ways people "objectify" 
> those they see, both clothed and unclothed. It makes me wonder 
> about the Internet, and whether people as uptight as John visualize
> the people they're writing to as clothed or unclothed.  :-)
> 
> 
> The science of objectification
> 
> The common wisdom is that naked women are seen as objects, but new research 
> says it's more complicated than that
> 
> When Sharon Bialek stepped before the press this week, she wore a demure, 
> long-sleeved black dress. The 50-year-old single mom also made sure to detail 
> exactly what she wore when she was allegedly sexually harassed by Herman 
> Cain. This is because she and her bulldog lawyer well  know that women are 
> judged by what, and how little, they wear.
> A new study attempts to explain exactly how that judgment works and why our 
> perceptions of people rely on the amount of skin they show. It's a question 
> at the heart of contentious debates about everything from objectification in 
> pornography to work-appropriate attire. Typically it's been assumed that this 
> is something that happens when men perceive women — the infamous "male gaze" 
> — and that it involves, as one of the study's researchers, Kurt Gray of the 
> University of Maryland, put it, "the wholesale stripping away of mind" (in 
> other words, viewing someone as a mindless sex object). "This study 
> challenges all of those ideas," he told me by phone.
> 
> As a red-blooded woman, I don't find it at all surprising that men aren't the 
> only ones capable of some level of objectification, nor is it unexpected that 
> we perceive a person in their birthday suit as having less agency than, say, 
> someone in a business suit. More intriguing, though, is that the data 
> suggests that despite all that, our perception of naked people doesn't 
> involve the aforementioned "wholesale stripping of mind." Nakedness does 
> change how we perceive a person, but it tends to make us see them as more 
> sensitive, vulnerable and emotional, the researchers say. Gray explains, 
> "People perceive minds along two dimensions and not along one. So instead of 
> seeing them as an object versus a person, we see them as two kinds of people. 
> An agent and an experiencer."
> 
> The study, "More Than a Body: Mind Perception and the Nature of 
> Objectification," is actually composed of several smaller studies, some of 
> which asked participants to come to conclusions about naked and clothed porn 
> stars pictured in photographs. In one exercise, images were featured from the 
> book "XXX: 30 Porn Star Portraits," which contrasts high-quality portraits of 
> stars like Jenna Jameson wearing regular street clothes with images of the 
> same performers standing stark naked but, importantly, without any 
> come-hither posturing. In another study, they had participants evaluate male 
> and female models in photographs showing just their face, or their face and 
> upper torso, in an attempt to see how perceptions change when the focus is on 
> a person's body and not his or her face.
> 
> The study itself argues that people with exposed flesh are seen as "beings 
> who are less capable of thinking or reasoning but who may be even more 
> capable of desires, sensations, emotions, and passions." This may not be the 
> most humanizing view, but the authors note that being perceived as such can 
> actually be a good thing in certain situations — like when you're complaining 
> to your doctor about a pain. In that case, it might be beneficial to be seen 
> as a feeling body instead of a mind. Gray adds, "If you're with your partner 
> then you might want to think of them as a body," he says. "If you want to 
> make love, you want to be thinking about their experience and not, like, `Oh, 
> are we planning on submitting these mortgage payments on time?'" It's us

[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)

[John]

Barry,

Since you brought the subject up, it appears that you are hung up on the 
objectification of women.  IMO, you have a specific image of what women should 
be like in your sexual fantasies.  But you have not accepted them as human 
beings.  Get over it dude!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Why do you want to have sex with Ravi's wife?
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust
> > > itself. With love, having sex with your wife would be
> > > a divine gift. Ravi, quit kidding yourself. Be a man!
> > > (See Russel Peters video clips to get this message).
> 
> Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far
> the most sexually repressed and hung up person here. Devoid of
> actual experience with the other sex, all he can do *is* imagine
> women and try to objectify them as performing according to the
> strict limits of his closed little belief system.
> 
> Here's an interesting article on the different ways people "objectify"
> those they see, both clothed and unclothed. It makes me wonder
> about the Internet, and whether people as uptight as John visualize
> the people they're writing to as clothed or unclothed.  :-)
> 
> The science of objectification
>  n>The common wisdom is that naked women are seen
> as objects, but new research says it's more complicated than thatWhen
> Sharon Bialek stepped before the press this week, she wore a  demure,
> long-sleeved black dress. The 50-year-old single mom also made  sure to
> detail exactly what she wore when she was allegedly sexually  harassed
> by Herman Cain. This is because she and her bulldog lawyer well  know
> that women are judged by what, and how little, they wear.
> A  new study attempts to explain exactly how that judgment works and why
> our perceptions of people rely on the amount of skin they show. It's
> a  question at the heart of contentious debates about everything from 
> objectification in pornography to work-appropriate attire. Typically 
> it's been assumed that this is something that happens when men
> perceive  women — the infamous "male gaze" — and that it
> involves, as one of the  study's researchers, Kurt Gray of the
> University of Maryland, put it,  "the wholesale stripping away of
> mind" (in other words, viewing someone  as a mindless sex object).
> "This study challenges all of those ideas,"  he told me by
> phone.
> 
> As  a red-blooded woman, I don't find it at all surprising that men
> aren't  the only ones capable of some level of objectification, nor
> is it  unexpected that we perceive a person in their birthday suit as
> having  less agency than, say, someone in a business suit. More 
> intriguing, though, is that the data suggests that despite all that, our
> perception of naked people doesn't involve the aforementioned 
> "wholesale stripping of mind." Nakedness does change how we
> perceive a  person, but it tends to make us see them as more sensitive,
> vulnerable  and emotional, the researchers say. Gray explains,
> "People perceive  minds along two dimensions and not along one. So
> instead of seeing them  as an object versus a person, we see them as two
> kinds of people. An  agent and an experiencer."
> 
> The study, "More Than a Body: Mind  Perception and the Nature of
> Objectification," is actually composed of  several smaller studies,
> some of which asked participants to come to  conclusions about naked and
> clothed porn stars pictured in photographs.  In one exercise, images
> were featured from the book "XXX: 30 Porn Star  Portraits,"
> which contrasts high-quality portraits of stars like Jenna  Jameson
> wearing regular street clothes with images of the same  performers
> standing stark naked but, importantly, without any  come-hither
> posturing. In another study, they had participants evaluate  male and
> female models in photographs showing just their face, or their  face and
> upper torso, in an attempt to see how perceptions change when  the focus
> is on a person's body and not his or her face.
> 
> The study  itself argues that people with exposed flesh are seen as
> "beings who  are less capable of thinking or reasoning but who may
> be even more  capable of desires, sensations, emotions, and
> passions." This may not be  the most humanizing view, but the
> authors note that being perceived as  such can actually be a good thing
> in certain situations — like when  you're complaining to your
> doctor about a pain. In that case, it might  be beneficial to be seen as
> a feeling body instead of a mind. Gray adds,  "If you're with
> your partner then you might want to think of them as a  body," he
> says. "If you want to make love, you want to be thinking about 
> their experience and not, like, `Oh, are 

[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)

[richardwillytexwilliams]

> > > IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even 
> > > lust itself...
> > >
turquoiseb:
> Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that 
> JohnR is by far the most sexually repressed and hung 
> up person here...
>
So, you're opposed to normal sexual relations with a 
wife? The left-handed tantric's main goal, which is to 
have sexual relations with their mother, Sri Lakshmi,
short of that, sex with a sixteen year old. Did I get 
that right? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

Sort of like with Zen Master Rama and that girl he 
gave the sleeping pills to up in Westchester?

Thanks for all your help!

"Lenz, 48, and a female companion, who was not identified, 
tried to kill themselves April 11 by taking a large amount 
of Valium, Gierasch said. They then went out on a dock at 
the rear of his $2 million home, where Lenz fell into the 
water. His body was found two days later with a dog collar 
around his neck.

The Three Village Herald reports that 33-year-old Lacey 
Brinn, who was found at Lenz's mansion, said Lenz had 
taken 150 tablets of the sedative and she had taken 50..."

- The Three Village Herald, April 16

[FairfieldLife] The Science Of Objectification (was Re: Can an Enlightened Person Lust?)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Why do you want to have sex with Ravi's wife?
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > IMO, the message is that love conquers all, even lust
> > itself. With love, having sex with your wife would be
> > a divine gift. Ravi, quit kidding yourself. Be a man!
> > (See Russel Peters video clips to get this message).

Right on, Obba. It's been clear for some time that JohnR is by far
the most sexually repressed and hung up person here. Devoid of
actual experience with the other sex, all he can do *is* imagine
women and try to objectify them as performing according to the
strict limits of his closed little belief system.

Here's an interesting article on the different ways people "objectify"
those they see, both clothed and unclothed. It makes me wonder
about the Internet, and whether people as uptight as John visualize
the people they're writing to as clothed or unclothed.  :-)

The science of objectification
The common wisdom is that naked women are seen
as objects, but new research says it's more complicated than thatWhen
Sharon Bialek stepped before the press this week, she wore a  demure,
long-sleeved black dress. The 50-year-old single mom also made  sure to
detail exactly what she wore when she was allegedly sexually  harassed
by Herman Cain. This is because she and her bulldog lawyer well  know
that women are judged by what, and how little, they wear.
A  new study attempts to explain exactly how that judgment works and why
our perceptions of people rely on the amount of skin they show. It's
a  question at the heart of contentious debates about everything from 
objectification in pornography to work-appropriate attire. Typically 
it's been assumed that this is something that happens when men
perceive  women — the infamous "male gaze" — and that it
involves, as one of the  study's researchers, Kurt Gray of the
University of Maryland, put it,  "the wholesale stripping away of
mind" (in other words, viewing someone  as a mindless sex object).
"This study challenges all of those ideas,"  he told me by
phone.

As  a red-blooded woman, I don't find it at all surprising that men
aren't  the only ones capable of some level of objectification, nor
is it  unexpected that we perceive a person in their birthday suit as
having  less agency than, say, someone in a business suit. More 
intriguing, though, is that the data suggests that despite all that, our
perception of naked people doesn't involve the aforementioned 
"wholesale stripping of mind." Nakedness does change how we
perceive a  person, but it tends to make us see them as more sensitive,
vulnerable  and emotional, the researchers say. Gray explains,
"People perceive  minds along two dimensions and not along one. So
instead of seeing them  as an object versus a person, we see them as two
kinds of people. An  agent and an experiencer."

The study, "More Than a Body: Mind  Perception and the Nature of
Objectification," is actually composed of  several smaller studies,
some of which asked participants to come to  conclusions about naked and
clothed porn stars pictured in photographs.  In one exercise, images
were featured from the book "XXX: 30 Porn Star  Portraits,"
which contrasts high-quality portraits of stars like Jenna  Jameson
wearing regular street clothes with images of the same  performers
standing stark naked but, importantly, without any  come-hither
posturing. In another study, they had participants evaluate  male and
female models in photographs showing just their face, or their  face and
upper torso, in an attempt to see how perceptions change when  the focus
is on a person's body and not his or her face.

The study  itself argues that people with exposed flesh are seen as
"beings who  are less capable of thinking or reasoning but who may
be even more  capable of desires, sensations, emotions, and
passions." This may not be  the most humanizing view, but the
authors note that being perceived as  such can actually be a good thing
in certain situations — like when  you're complaining to your
doctor about a pain. In that case, it might  be beneficial to be seen as
a feeling body instead of a mind. Gray adds,  "If you're with
your partner then you might want to think of them as a  body," he
says. "If you want to make love, you want to be thinking about 
their experience and not, like, `Oh, are we planning on submitting 
these mortgage payments on time?'" It's useful for our
perceptions of  people to change, depending on the context. Sometimes
the outcome is  positive, sometimes it's negative, but Gray argues,
"Psychological  phenomena aren't intrinsically good or bad."

It's important to  note that although the research positions itself
in part as a response  to debates over objectification and pornography,
it didn't look at  actual X-rated movies or anything of the sort