703. Differing Effects Of Varieties Of The Visual Objectification Of Women
The objectification and commodification of women by visual representations is nothing new.
The objectification and commodification of women by visual representations is nothing new.
"The female nudes in Roman mosaics exalt beauty, the carnality and eroticism, while male bodies reflect determination, strength and power. This is one of the conclusions of research that analyzed the cultural construction and ideological implications of these artistic representations in which female predominate as compared to those of males."
"The deeply asymmetric treatment of male and female bodies is evident and, therefore, constitutes a reflection of relationships based on power, according to the researchers. "
"the main male figures tend to be gods, heroes and mythological beings, or else wrestlers and athletes."
"One very revealing example is a representation of Ariadne or the Nereid that shows a nude female figure lying on a marine animal, with one arm behind her head in a position and with a gesture that has been interpreted as "availability to the other.""
The text of this video is in Spanish, but it shows some good examples of the mosaics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKVwl4leLkU
These mosaics are expressions of the misperception, that women were objects existing to be used by men. This misperception had been women's plight through history.
But there is a fundamental difference between the effects upon men's brains by ancient mosaics, frescos, statues or pottery decorations and the contemporary effects by the overexposure to more or less pornographic life like representations of female bodies.
No matter how provocative and explicit the ancient representations, they were nevertheless clearly and unequivocally artifacts. Looking at a mosaic with whatever fantasy cannot have the same desensitizing effect upon a man's subconscious instincts as that which follows the abuse of a real woman. (I consider any use of a female body without emotional attachment and without commitment as a form of abuse.)
Today the situation is much worse. Visual representations, especially by high quality colorful moving pictures, are so much like real life people, that the male subconscious mind cannot distinguish between seeing a real woman and seeing a filmed representation of her. (Thanks to Kanazawa for this insight). The fantasy of abusing a filmed woman therefore contributes to the desensitization of men as if they had abused a real woman.
This makes pornography so devastating. Frequent abuse causes desensitization. Desensitization lowers the threshold for attempting and intending more abuse. It also blurs the male awareness, that approaching a woman for abuse is often perceived by the target as an insult and offense.
Would any model or actress enact the exact scenes of the Roman mosaics, as far as there is an effect, that by the mosaic and that by the photo of the inaction on a man's brain would be very different.
The mosaic would reinforce a man's conscious attitude, that women are there to serve him and to be used. The photo would trigger his instincts, and subconsciously he would perceive the picture as an available real woman.
I personally cannot see any additional artistic value of nudity compared with dress in any work of art and I also see no harm in nudity, when the represented naked body is obviously and unequivocally an artifact and not a real naked body presented for abuse and commerce. But the contemporary pictures are too much resembling real life women and thus they are confounding men's instincts. Such pictures have a very detrimental effect upon male brains, which those Roman mosaics could never have.
No matter how provocative and explicit the ancient representations, they were nevertheless clearly and unequivocally artifacts. Looking at a mosaic with whatever fantasy cannot have the same desensitizing effect upon a man's subconscious instincts as that which follows the abuse of a real woman. (I consider any use of a female body without emotional attachment and without commitment as a form of abuse.)
Today the situation is much worse. Visual representations, especially by high quality colorful moving pictures, are so much like real life people, that the male subconscious mind cannot distinguish between seeing a real woman and seeing a filmed representation of her. (Thanks to Kanazawa for this insight). The fantasy of abusing a filmed woman therefore contributes to the desensitization of men as if they had abused a real woman.
This makes pornography so devastating. Frequent abuse causes desensitization. Desensitization lowers the threshold for attempting and intending more abuse. It also blurs the male awareness, that approaching a woman for abuse is often perceived by the target as an insult and offense.
Would any model or actress enact the exact scenes of the Roman mosaics, as far as there is an effect, that by the mosaic and that by the photo of the inaction on a man's brain would be very different.
The mosaic would reinforce a man's conscious attitude, that women are there to serve him and to be used. The photo would trigger his instincts, and subconsciously he would perceive the picture as an available real woman.
I personally cannot see any additional artistic value of nudity compared with dress in any work of art and I also see no harm in nudity, when the represented naked body is obviously and unequivocally an artifact and not a real naked body presented for abuse and commerce. But the contemporary pictures are too much resembling real life women and thus they are confounding men's instincts. Such pictures have a very detrimental effect upon male brains, which those Roman mosaics could never have.
