That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

 I couldn't find the study either.  My initial guess is that this is an example of sensationalist reporting of relatively neutral findings.  For one thing, women are objects.  Men are objects.  Penises and vaginas are objects.  Duh.

The notion that women shouldn't be viewed as "objects" is not the same as the observation that our brain categorizes them as objects in the materialist sense of the word.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about phrenology.  The phrenological (?) concept of brain modules is defunct, but our brains most certainly do have regions dedicated to specific tasks.  Maybe you can clarify what you mean.

I don't quite get the bit about empathy shutting down, either.  I suspect it's just drama queen speak for reduced feelings of empathy.

Look, this study is probably valid, and it's just being reported with bias.  Evolutionary psychology predicts the kind of response we're talking about.  Our genes want us to have sex.  It's well known that men's ability to perform logic goes down in the presence of attractive women.  It's also well known that women romanticize men to the point of viewing them as concepts, not individual people!  That is, they look at a man and see walks on the beach, romantic dinners, roofs being patched, and children playing catch with dad next to the white picket fence.  To women, this may seem perfectly normal, natural, and healthy, in contrast to the "unhealthy" and "immoral" views of men, but it's not any more or less normal than a man looking at a woman and seeing himself getting a blow job.  Blow jobs are just as much a part of the human experience as walks on the beach.

There's a hidden assumption in this presentation, namely that any "objectification" of women by men is a bad thing.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  As I mentioned in my post on sex in advertising, it is perfectly natural and functional for us to have varying degrees of empathy for our fellow humans, and it's perfectly natural and functional for us to treat people with a level of social intimacy appropriate to their relative function in our lives.

In a neutral setting, this is just telling us what we already know.  If a woman dresses sexy, more men are going to want to have sex with her.  If she dresses frumpy, she's going to get put into the "platonic friend" category more often than not.  This is useful knowledge, to be sure!  If you run a business that counts on intimacy and trust among employees, insist on sexually neutral clothing, and you'll foster friendship and comeraderie.  If you run a restaurant that sells wings, and you want to talk your customers into lots of impulse buys, put your waitresses in short shorts and skin tight low cut shirts.

There's nothing inherently wrong with either of these approaches, just as there is nothing wrong with men looking at porn and getting themselves into a sexual tizzy.  For that matter, there's nothing inherently wrong with two people treating each other like objects for an hour or so and then having a cigarette.  The human experience is quite broad, and there is a time and a place for nearly all of it.

Ok, I get what you are saying, and I agree.

That's what I was saying.  Women are objects in the phenomenological sense.  (I'm using Dan Dennett's version of phenomenology there, FYI.)

Actually, the study had a control, the men and the clothed women.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were true quite frankly, but then again images like that are everywhere so we've been somewhat de-sensitized to them.

~Sigh~

Yes, the study is probably true.  The point is that it's a misleading article that probably doesn't represent the true implications (and lack of certain implications) in the study.

No, I couldn't find it, I quoted the article from the link in the OP

But I found her facualty webpage and her personal webpage

When I said "I wouldn't be surprised if it were true" I was talking about the implications.

To be honest I was going to go on a rant, but then I actually thought about what I was saying and noticed I was rambling.

Whatever, forget I said anything about it.

 Well, I think he was talking about the statement that regions of the brain "shut down."  That is patently absurd.

Gee, that study doesn't sound the least bit biased...

I can't believe what I am reading here, it shouldn't even be a debate. WE ARE ATHEISTS AND HAVE NO MORALS!

It is up to us to rape, pillage and spread cooties and barbeque kittens!

We wouldnn't want others thinking we have common ground with them.