http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/dev_group/ufrith/documents/kampe_n.pdf

I found it in the references for the Sapolski course.

I lost count of the number of weasel-words such as “may” and “linked to”, which seem to be there mainly because what they are claiming has no evidence base, and at best only shows correlations and not causations.

And their “definition” of sexualisation consists of four “conditions” or “componants” (they can’t make their mind up what they are), but only one is needed for it to be counted as sexualisation?! They either have to stick to one or make it clear which one they are referring to whenever they mention ‘sexualisation’. They do neither. So basically they’re using four separate definitions interchangeably to make the claims they want to make.

From the report: “Research documenting the pervasiveness and influence of such products and portrayals [media representations they don’t like] is sorely needed.”

So they don’t know anything, as the evidence for their beliefs doesn’t exist, yet feel able to publish this report and put pressure on authoritative bodies to legislate anyway? What the fuck. This is not science, this is politics.

As we all know when you mix science and politics you get politics.

“Although most of these studies have been conducted on women in late adolescence (i.e., college age), findings are likely to generalize to younger adolescents and to girls”

No they are not likely to generalize you lazy fucks. As college students the test subjects are likely to be already exposed to bullshit theory like “objectification”, and are likely to have reassessed their earlier behaviour due to this exposure. Plus it’s the prime age for embracing counter-culture, which is likely to result in them demonising mainstream culture more than they would otherwise. These things will affect your results. Go and do some actual research and get back to us.

“Alternative media such as “zines” (Web-based magazines), “blogs” (Web logs) and feminist magazines, books and websites encourage girls to become activists who speak out and develop their own alternatives.”

WTF. Is this a public endorsement of feminism, and vastly under evidenced non-scientific feminist “theory”, from the APA? (And Ally Fogg says feminism has no influence.)

“Organized religious [instruction]… can offer girls important practical and psychological alternatives to the values conveyed by popular culture.”

…

Enough said. I could keep on going considering the number of flaws in that report but I’ll leave it there.

FTR I think it is likely that media representations of women will have an effect on girls, but an organisation such as the APA shouldn’t be campaigning on this until they’ve done their jobs and actually built up an evidence base.

That wasn’t a study, it was a report.

And it didn’t prove that men sexually respond to women as objects rather than women as subjects.

All it seems to prove is that sexualization correlates with negative outcomes for women.

I don’t disagree with that, but I would disagree with the causal arrow.

It isn’t sexualization in and of itself that causes negative outcomes, it’s associating women as a class with the category “acted upon”. This association creates the negative outcomes identified and also inspires women to sexualize themselves more to compensate for their perceived lack of agency.

“Its bullshit that men need women to express interest in them to be aroused. I guess there’s no such thing as guys who masturbate to girl on girl porn.”

Men can also be aroused by identifying with female arousal. Shock!

“And men who rape women who are sleeping or unconscious? They’re not aroused silly!”

And women who rape men who are sleeping or unconscious are not aroused either.

I never said male rapists didn’t sexually objectify their victims–either male or female–nor did I say female rapists weren’t sexually objectifying their victims.

I was talking about normal people. You know, the vast majority of men and women who don’t rape?

Bernard, you are responding to a post written by a rape victim – a woman raped repeatedly by a woman. How does that square with your comfortable little paradigm of who is and isn’t a rpae apologist? You might want to check your self-satisfied moral assumptions before they make a complete fool out of you.

“If you people (who I wouldn’t be replying to if I didn’t have some faith left that one of you might have a shred of empathy left on this ironically empathy-themed website) don’t think that comment is intended and interpreted as intimidation like a KKK member joking about beating niggers, then you really need a different theme for your website.”

The KKK? Oh, the irony! Here’s an article arguing against rape hysteria, and now here recently Alabama finally got around to exonerating the last of the Scottsboro Boys. just so you know, as you apparently do not already, rape hysteria was their stock in trade, the same Sacred White Womanhood trade you are trafficking in.

You say:
“Finally, the phrase: “If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” clearly implies that a rape is a job to be done well and is not complete till the victim is dead.”

Derailment. That is not why that was quoted and that was clearly not the meaning of the text.

““If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” and “Hide your kids I be raping all yall up in here” are both not rape threats.

The first is not a threat, the second references a video a while back in which a black man prevented the rape of his sister and when he was interviewed he said “Hide your wives and kids and your husbands because they’re raping everyone up in here!”

the issue was whether or not these were credible threats. They clearly were not threats of any kind; the second one is a blatant misquote.

And speaking of rape apology – if you want to see real rpae apology, you have to go to feminist spaces:
““Cut Toronto a wide berth. That city is stupid with MRAs. Speaking of which, I wonder whatever happened to that 19-year-old boy who claimed he’d been gang-raped by four fat chicks. The National Post gave that story quite a bit of press for a few weeks because that paper is very sympathetic to MRAs. Something tells me it turned out to be bullshit, something the National Post wouldn’t be quite so eager to crow about.”

Those are the real rape apologists, your precious feminists.

Its from the largest association of psychologists in the world, 152’000 of them to be precise, and it cites all kinds of actual reference material.

Here’s a shortened version of the study for those of you too lazy to consider that you may be rape apologists (you are, by the way) –

http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/women/strategic-plan-recommendations.aspx

Its bullshit that men need women to express interest in them to be aroused. I guess there’s no such thing as guys who masturbate to girl on girl porn. And men who rape women who are sleeping or unconscious? They’re not aroused silly!

Sexual objectification is when someone is considered as nothing more than a thing which is useful for providing sexual gratification. Casual sex with contraception obviously shows that desire for the species to reproduce, and desire for sexual activity are not the same. So no it is not humanizing to want to ‘fuck sluts’ or ‘rape bitches’, or say ‘I would ride that’. That all falls under the header of sexual objectification.

Finally, the phrase: “If your friends survived rape they weren’t raped properly” clearly implies that a rape is a job to be done well and is not complete till the victim is dead. If you people (who I wouldn’t be replying to if I didn’t have some faith left that one of you might have a shred of empathy left on this ironically empathy-themed website) don’t think that comment is intended and interpreted as intimidation like a KKK member joking about beating niggers, then you really need a different theme for your website.

I note with interest the absence in anything I have rever read on female victims of any mention of suicide induced by rape, and I feel sure that if there had been even one we would have heard aaaaaall about it over and over.

The reason this is an issue specfically with female rape victims, specifically white female rape victims, is the long shadow of toxic femininity. When victimhood is a feature of your gender role, you tend to perform it all out of proportion to reality, the same a stoicism.

The only difference is heightened scrutiny to rule out this effect. Probably most white female rape victims struggle with suicidal thoughts, self-destructive behaviors and a whole range of horrific after-effects. It’s just that we in this society have a legacy of very destructive rape hysteria around a certain class of victims and we have a historical duty to be cautious.

For instance James Landrith uses the term “rape survivor” about himself. I don’t think anyone should police his choice to do so.

I’m going to be honest though, I’d probably use “survivor” mainly because I don’t want my head bitten off for using the wrong word.

While also being damseling. “Survivor” implies your life was at risk. That is trying to put rape on the level of attempted murder.