Okay, one, as MN noted, JSTOR is not automatically "peer reviewed". Apparently anyone can dump anything onto it, as this gibberish clearly shows. I'd be real curious as to see the "peers" that reviewed that thing and came back with "yes, that's good science". It's not even a good High School level essay.
This thing is even WORSE than the gobbledygook-laden crap explaining "scientific objectification theory", the one with the gems about the male gaze and the disruptions in the floooow of consciousness.....
Okaaaay, here goes-
Pages 1-4) Hunting! is! sexual! because hunters use words like "marriage" and "seductive". So hunters are getting off on hunting, which is sort of like getting off on sex, which must say something horrible about sex. Because hunters like hunting, like fuckers like fucking. See?
I guess.
Pages 5-6) Hunting is bad, remember! And hunting must be bad because hunters use sexual words to describe hunting. So sex is bad, too, see? And not just a few crazy men hunt, but many men who are in groups of hunting men, surprisingly, hunt. So you have lots of bad men doing a bad thing and thinking bad sex thoughts while hunting in big, bad groups. Now, rape! Yes, rape. Rape is, obviously, bad. And like sex, and hunting. So lots of men hunt, lots of men rape. Rape, sex, hunt, hunt, sex, rape. See the connection? Hmmm. Must be something wrong with men. I know what to blame!
*** I just want to interject, here: What does this imbecile dedicated scientist think people ATE, say, 20,000 years ago? You know, during the, ah, what was it called--- hunter gatherer epoch? Oh, right, that was before the Great Space Patriarchy™ Fucked Everything Up™ [font size=1]with its[/font] Cosmic Penis Of Oppression™, of course, and in addition to humans magically reproducing with just the aid of the wise crone medicine women and NO "PIV", food just magically appeared with no sex-hunt necessary. ***
Page 10) Okay, Ted Nugent. You knew he'd turn up somewhere! Ted Nugent proves exactly one thing and one thing only, that Ted Nugent is an asshole. You can't use him as an "example" of anything beyond Ted Nugent being an asshole. That's like Godwin's law, of the Nuge.
Page 11+) The point at which a gnawing suspicion which has attended the perusual of this work, made ever-more-stronger by the appearance of Ted Nugent's name, finally flowers into a near certainty: Someone is putting me right the fuck on, here. Either the author, to the general reader, or you, for getting me to actually read this. In either context, it's funny, actually. Doesn't work as "science", doesn't work as a High School Essay, but it might work as satire. Maybe.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read