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.
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.
> 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.
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!
Many women are ok with deeply sexist things towards women. Doesn't make it right.
It is likely that such a measure does not exist.
People’s perception therefore take precedent.
The author makes it sound like human women can't also get aroused by a black and white image of nude men.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
"Humans can become aroused looking at flat images of other humans in black and white” is probably a better way to put it.
> 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
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.
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.