OK. You are probably wondering how I found it (them?) – aside from looking. Well it was a commenter at Gay Patriot. I swear. You can’t make this stuff up.
So how did gay patriots get involved with women’s chests (well tits actually)? No it is not a residual from being nursed as a child. It is actually Democrats. Ugly Democrats. Well yeah. I skipped a few links in between. It would take a forensic expert (minimal competence) to unravel the chain of evidence. But maybe I was distracted by the Ds, DDs, Fs, FFs, and GGs. Or something. Anyway this is what the Democrats are up to.
“Although objectification theory suggests that women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequences, there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers. The main purpose of this work was to examine the objectifying gaze toward women via eye tracking technology,” according to the abstract of “My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women” by Sarah J. Gervais, Arianne M. Holland, and Michael D. Dodd.
“Consistent with our main hypothesis, we found that participants focused on women’s chests and waists more and faces less when they were appearance-focused (vs. personality-focused). Moreover, we found that this effect was particularly pronounced for women with high (vs. average and low) ideal body shapes in line with hypotheses,” according to the report.
Well that and a few other things lead to:
“Earlier this week, Limbaugh mocked ‘liberals’ for criticizing men who stare at women’s breasts, encouraging them to instead approach women and say, ‘Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?,’” according to an email that DNC deputy communications director Lily Adams sent to supporters at 1:42 PM Thursday.
Get that? Confused yet? Replay the video. Maybe that will clear things up. Maybe.
But you know what the real danger is here? Science. Scientists say women stare at other women’s chests as much as men. Confused yet? Have another look at the video. And watch out for chicken parts. And hair parts. Assuming your chicken has hair. And watch the video.
Comments
6 responses to “What Exactly Are They Selling?”
Well, Limbaugh is on record saying that modern feminism was designed to secure political power for ugly women. The UnUgly don’t need a government assist…
It just may be the case that cognitive control is required to engage in more appropriate, and less damaging, visual behavior
Hmm, I wonder if Dodd is aware that “visual*” behavior is equally capable of referencing the object as well as the subject? So Limbaugh’s idea of self-burka-ization is perfectly in line with Dodd’s statement. Dodd wants “cognitive control” when what is needed is obviously, “Wardrobe Control.” It’s some much more, ummm, Objective…
*vis·u·al
adjective
1.
of or relating to seeing or sight.
“visual perception”
noun:
1.
a picture, piece of film, or display used to illustrate or accompany something.
Well, there is such a thing as the “objectifying gaze” – as they so hilariously put it.
I used to cure men who didn’t understand what I was talking about by taking them to a gay bar. 😀
Kathy,
When I was younger I used to get strippers to sit with me at stripper bars by not giving them the “all strippers are whores” look. One of them and I sat (she had her clothes on) and discussed kids and family while occasionally holding hands.
Kathy,
It’s true, there is such a thing.
Perhaps I should tell you sometime about the “I’d love to get my hands in his…wallet” look that women throw.
@Neil – oh, I know that one. I’ve seen it. I HOPE I’ve never done it. But it IS the equivalent.
The criminalization of normal.
.