Tht might be fine for a zen koan, but its hardly a scientific concept.

One, where is the scientific evidence that consciousness has a "flow?

Two, what constitutes a "disruption" in that flow? Is the person still conscious? Are they anesthetized?

and sexual attraction that is.

Specifically, in that paper, the authors state that when objectified, women are treated as bodies. And reduced to parts, whatever that means, although it sounds awfully silence-of-the-lambs-ey.

So, if Objectifico-Man #1 is having sex with the victim of his objectification, he is "treating her as a body". But he's also treating her as an object, and bodies aren't supposed to be objects. But they are. But they're not. And he's thinking about parts of her body, I guess.

If Non-Objectifico-Man #2, the one with the more fulfilling relationship, apparently, is having sex with the partner in the more fulfilling relationship, he's thinking about.. what? I'm gonna go out on a limb, say she's a grad student in economic theory. Maybe as they're having sex, he's supposed to be thinking about her recent brilliant dissertation on the economic impacts to third world economies caused by supply chain disruptions tied to inflated commodity prices.

Something like that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392087

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=2613


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=41896


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=42083

"we have had THREE women TOS'ed from our group over ONE hidden post"



http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391866#post19

And of course, le piece de resistance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1973

It's got a helpless icon of sexualized, objectified, male gaze phallopressed femininity, sexualized curves and all, and on the ground is a laughing pac-MAN (MAN!!!! ) who is quite probably looking up her skirt at the sacred Dworkin of her victimized maidenhood. Or, the round laughing head may symbolize the fragmented, damaged moon goddess, still traumatized by the brutal cosmic sexual assault by the brutes at NASA and their space phallus.

Patriarchy, INDEED.

The breakdown of MILF is "Mother I'd Like To Fuck". Of course, the dreaded "fuck" is in there, but so is "I'd like to". So it is, essentially, an expression of wanting to have sex. With a woman. Presumably from a man.

Now, I am well enough versed in Dworkio-Mackinnonite dogma and such to understand why, in SOME circles, that is tantamount to an expression of advocating the worst oppression that has taken place, ever, anywhere, in this universe or any other. It's not the vagaries or crudity of the expression, it's that a man is expressing his desire to oppress a woman by putting his evil, oppressive, PIV-implement in her. Whether or not the "like to" implies that this would be an imaginary consensual act of mutual imaginary pleasure (as much as womyn are conditioned to believe that their oppression is "pleasurable") it doesn't matter, because it's implying an oppressive, evil act.

Doubtless we've all figured out that this expression originated with teenage boys, talking about their friends' moms. Which, undoubtedly, has happened a lot throughout history. I suppose one could pontificate endlessly on why it would be more appropriate for teenage boys to use an expression like MILTHSWCNPIVSCIWITWWNDBTPWMASIBGIOIO ("Mother I'd Like To Have Some Womyn-Centric Non PIV Sexual Contact With If The World Was Not Dominated By The Patriarchy Which Makes All Sexual Interaction Between Genders Impossible Or Inherently Oppressive") but realistically, MILF is probably more in tune with the vernacular used by teenage boys.

For the record, the mothers of my friends are all either dead or senior citizens, and while I'm sure they're lovely people, I'm not available anyway.

Warren DeMontague is THE man.










And, he's a puppet, too! How's that for a soooper secret meta meaning! Decipher that one, %#%#^£€£¥¥%s!

Curious.

I'm responding to a post about porn, which not only goes over some tried and true goofy noise about how the horrible imagewaddles are reconfarglibrating the patriarchy-fuddled shnitznodubloids of our collective male gaze transibraininators, it also combines a refreshing new perspective colored by goofy new world order Bildeberger illuminati Alex jones conspiracy yargle bargle truth to power class consciousness paradigm and narrative challenging deconstructive analysis!

So, I'd think you'd be excited at the opportunity for refreshing new directions on this discussion. If you're not, take it up with the guy I was responding to.

It's HORRIBLE, the reductio-gynocentric female gaze phallo-objectiflisnatzhartz which women with their evil womany woman ways turn all that is wonderful about a man into a plastic doo-dad that they can blithely and emotionlessly toss into the nightstand drawer. Sniff!

At least the MEN, the poor victimized matriarchy-abused men, who are still holding on to a shred of their dignity under the weight of the female oppressor, still cry out for a sliver of the humanity their fem overlords have denied them, by purchasing (or, I suppose, renting....yuk) a full body animatronic substitute-- of their cruel oppressionatrix!

Not the women, no, no, not the women. With their emotionless casual lack of regard for all that is good and decent, they can turn a man into a battery operated orgasm dispenser, and nothing more. And when those batteries are dead, what do they often do? THEY THROW THEM OUT, THAT'S WHAT.

They probably don't even use rechargeables. Sigh.

Yes, Yes. I blame the Matriarchy.

And it is certainly worst where fundamentalists rule.