Women objectify women too

[Agymnum]

It's all your ladies' fault for making my pants uncomfortably tight.









... Not surprisingly, I'm quite okay with this.

No, I think it's gay men who designed our pants.

Sweatpants FTW!

Always comfortable

[Cannot think of a name]

Exposing shoulders and chest above stomach at the same time. In essence, I'll take it as not skimpy if it's not a swimsuit or a glorified bra.

If that's skimpy in your estimation then you need to get out more...

And I stand by my first assertion: just because something is advertised does not give anybody the license to make somebody uncomfortable by leering, period. A glance or a lingering gaze, perhaps, but anything beyond that hell no.

I think this whole line of thought is sort of taking a too narrow view and then applying it too widely.

There are a number of reasons that could go into anyone wearing anything and no two are likely to be entirely the same. Two women buy the same top and have different expectations for when they wear it and why they even like it in the first place. You're not going to find a consensus there, it's not a uniform.

But that's the problem, if we have to try and suss the motivation for the clothes women wear and how they look.

There's nothing wrong with being attractive or dressing attractively. Hell, if I had a barrel chest and tight abs I'd wear those short hemmed shirts so that if I lifted my arm I'd 'accidentally' reveal my six pack and where the cut around the chest is just to small so the buttons strain against my pectoral muscles (did every just start reading my post in Ren's voice from Ren and Stimpy or is that just me?). But in the balance, that should not be a measure of my value unless what we are trying to negotiate is whether or not we want to see each other naked.

And if I'm driving down the road and see an attractive lady there isn't anything wrong with going, "My...there is an attractive lady." Short of carrying around a sandwich board with our CV on it with character references all I really need to know about her is "Is she going to jump into the street and cause me to swerve or not?" Anything beyond that is gravy. Where the difference lies is using that as a measure of the person's value...something you don't even start to do driving by someone.

There is a difference to taking the notion that everyone is a special little snowflake with unique desires, backgrounds, and experiences and having to see all of that in everyone who shares a bus ride with you. No one is realistically asking that of you. I mean, we want you to know that, but you don't have to amend every thought you have about the people you see with, "And I'm sure they're a deep and well developed three dimensional human being."

But if the first things you describe about a dude is his sense of humor or his intelligence or some of the crazy shit he did, etc., and the first things you describe about a chick is her physical features or how pretty she is, that's significant. It's not what's 'destroying the world', it's more systematic of the pervasive problem. It doesn't make you a horrible person, it makes you a product of the culture. Just be aware of it.

[Zaras]

Seriously, though, I don't necessarily leer at people. I just disapprove mentally. I'm not going to go out of my way to make a woman uncomfortable on her choice of dress - that wastes my time and hers - but I sure as hell am not gonna praise her for her choice in fashion.

Because somebody made you lord of everything that's appropriate in fashion?

[Agymnum]

Seriously, though, I don't necessarily leer at people. I just disapprove mentally. I'm not going to go out of my way to make a woman uncomfortable on her choice of dress - that wastes my time and hers - but I sure as hell am not gonna praise her for her choice in fashion.

Because somebody made you lord of everything that's appropriate in fashion?

I never said her fashion was bad, just that I didn't have a high opinion of it.

If you don't like how I think, that's fine. Doesn't stop me from thinking that way.

[Northern Dominus]

No, I think it's gay men who designed our pants.

brb, boycotting pants

Oh yes curse those insidious gay designers like Dolce and Gabbana, it's a conspiracy you know, what with the compliments I get when wearing a suit designed by them or that shirt designed by Karl Lagerfield, or any outfit that is put together by my gay friend/stylist when I have a date.

Yeah it's a conspiracy alright, and I'm a part of it

[Firdausia]

If you don't want people to stare you probably shouldn't wear something that will draw attention.

This is a mind-bogglingly stupid statement.

I don't wear particularly revealing clothing very often, despite the fact that there are plenty of times when I might like to because of one of the reasons I noted previously, because people staring and leering makes me feel very uncomfortable and intimidated. I am not okay that I have to restrict my choice of clothing because some people can't keep their eyes to themselves.

I object to people making statements such as yours that reinforce the idea that it's fine for people to leer and stare at people in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated, reinforcing the idea that a woman's body is some kind of public property to be poured over and that if she doesn't want people to treat her body as such she should have to cover it up.

Frankly, it's only a small step from "if she didn't want to get felt up she shouldn't have worn a skirt that short", and it's pathetic.

It's the same with anything though! If you don't want a certain outcome, then you do all that's in your power to reduce the chances of it happening. I like I said, you have to weigh it out.

If you don't want someone to criticize your views, you don't say anything.
If you don't want people to eyeball you, you don't go out with your tits on display.

It's pretty simple.

[Jinos]

This. If you expose your breasts and posterior, you obviously want people to look at it. Well, unless maybe you have no other clothes (in which case, I question why all your clothes are so skimpy).

Nice of a guy like you to tell us what all women think, because you're an expert on that, eh?

Says the person who just stated that the only thing men think about when they stare at women are their ass/tits.

That's some frightening level of hypocrisy.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Everyone like nice tits.

Well, they are completely awesome.

Yes, yes yours are.

[Nadkor]

This is a mind-bogglingly stupid statement.

I don't wear particularly revealing clothing very often, despite the fact that there are plenty of times when I might like to because of one of the reasons I noted previously, because people staring and leering makes me feel very uncomfortable and intimidated. I am not okay that I have to restrict my choice of clothing because some people can't keep their eyes to themselves.

I object to people making statements such as yours that reinforce the idea that it's fine for people to leer and stare at people in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated, reinforcing the idea that a woman's body is some kind of public property to be poured over and that if she doesn't want people to treat her body as such she should have to cover it up.

Frankly, it's only a small step from "if she didn't want to get felt up she shouldn't have worn a skirt that short", and it's pathetic.

It's the same with anything though! If you don't want a certain outcome, then you do all that's in your power to reduce the chances of it happening. I like I said, you have to weigh it out.

If you don't want someone to criticize your views, you don't say anything.
If you don't want people to eyeball you, you don't go out with your tits on display.

It's pretty simple.

And if you don't want to get raped you don't go out and get drunk and flirt with guys while wearing skimpy clothes, of course.

[Geilinor]

Men don't objectify men that way because in my experience, women are much more self-conscious and compare themselves to other women.

[Firdausia]

It's the same with anything though! If you don't want a certain outcome, then you do all that's in your power to reduce the chances of it happening. I like I said, you have to weigh it out.

If you don't want someone to criticize your views, you don't say anything.
If you don't want people to eyeball you, you don't go out with your tits on display.

It's pretty simple.

And if you don't want to get raped you don't go out and get drunk and flirt with guys while wearing skimpy clothes, of course.

There's a big difference, rape is a crime, looking at someone isn't. I don't mind people looking at me, but I sure would have a problem with someone trying to rape me.

[Des-Bal]

When did objectify come to mean "leer at"? Either way I objectify the hell out of men and women, I just assess them differently. I tend to focus more at a woman's looks and more at a man's role in relation to me.

[Geilinor]

This. If you expose your breasts and posterior, you obviously want people to look at it. Well, unless maybe you have no other clothes (in which case, I question why all your clothes are so skimpy).

Nice of a guy like you to tell us what all women think, because you're an expert on that, eh?

If you don't want it to be looked at, don't let it show. Makes sense to me.

[Des-Bal]

If you don't want it to be looked at, don't let it show. Makes sense to me.

I have to agree with that sentiment. Women with glitter sprinkled tits are clearly trying to draw attention to themselves.

[Northern Dominus]

And if you don't want to get raped you don't go out and get drunk and flirt with guys while wearing skimpy clothes, of course.

There's a big difference, rape is a crime, looking at someone isn't. I don't mind people looking at me, but I sure would have a problem with someone trying to rape me.

Except you made the implication that women who get raped for wearing "skimpy" or "flirty" cothing deserved to be raped, in a not-so-roundabout fashion of course.

[Des-Bal]

Except you made the implication that women who get raped for wearing "skimpy" or "flirty" cothing deserved to be raped, in a not-so-roundabout fashion of course.

You just hurled his ass right off the slippery slope.

[Wilketoria]

I think that it is not a matter of what sex objectifies women more or less. I think that it is human nature to observe someone or something and be curious as to how it can be useful. I think that if a person does not want to be closely observed it is wise not to draw too much attention to one's self. This can be applied to both sexes in regards to what clothing they choose to wear and why. It is obvious that if a woman does not draw attention to her inteligence or grace then what she draws attention to will be initially noticed. Men that are curious enough about her personality will inquire further, others will just oogle or inquire her about what has intially caught their attention.

[Nadkor]

And if you don't want to get raped you don't go out and get drunk and flirt with guys while wearing skimpy clothes, of course.

There's a big difference, rape is a crime, looking at someone isn't. I don't mind people looking at me, but I sure would have a problem with someone trying to rape me.

There's not a big difference. You're using the same bullshit reasoning that rapists and would-be rapists use. It's bollocks. Utter bollocks.

Like I said: you are reinforcing the idea that a woman's body is public property to be poured over and that if she doesn't want people to treat her body as such she should have to cover it up.

My body is not public property, whatever clothing I choose to wear.

[Firdausia]

There's a big difference, rape is a crime, looking at someone isn't. I don't mind people looking at me, but I sure would have a problem with someone trying to rape me.

Except you made the implication that women who get raped for wearing "skimpy" or "flirty" clothing deserved to be raped, in a not-so-roundabout fashion of course.

Wait, what? I didn't say anything about rape, and definitely not that anyone deserves to be raped.

I'm saying a person isn't wrong for looking at someone, even if they're staring (though they'd be kinda creepy or annoying). Rape is an actual invasion of your body, huge difference, unless you consider looking rape.....then you'd be a feminazi.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Nice of a guy like you to tell us what all women think, because you're an expert on that, eh?

If you don't want it to be looked at, don't let it show. Makes sense to me.

If I were to ogle a woman in a hoodie and baggy pants, would it be okay for her to be mad at me?

[Cannot think of a name]

This is a mind-bogglingly stupid statement.

I don't wear particularly revealing clothing very often, despite the fact that there are plenty of times when I might like to because of one of the reasons I noted previously, because people staring and leering makes me feel very uncomfortable and intimidated. I am not okay that I have to restrict my choice of clothing because some people can't keep their eyes to themselves.

I object to people making statements such as yours that reinforce the idea that it's fine for people to leer and stare at people in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated, reinforcing the idea that a woman's body is some kind of public property to be poured over and that if she doesn't want people to treat her body as such she should have to cover it up.

Frankly, it's only a small step from "if she didn't want to get felt up she shouldn't have worn a skirt that short", and it's pathetic.

It's the same with anything though! If you don't want a certain outcome, then you do all that's in your power to reduce the chances of it happening. I like I said, you have to weigh it out.

If you don't want someone to criticize your views, you don't say anything.
If you don't want people to eyeball you, you don't go out with your tits on display.

It's pretty simple.

Do you know who Porter Stewart is? He was an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Not remarkable, but relevant in this way...

During his tenure a decency case came before the court, as they would during that time (look up Lenny Bruce...). When he wrote his decision on the pornographic content of a particular movie he said that "hardcore pornography" is a hard thing to define but that he'd "know it when he saw it." (he actually said the film wasn't, but the "know it when I see it" standard is what matters here)

This is an untenable position. What standard should a woman have to comply to before her outfit meets the standard that she can go outside without inviting discomfort? How do we apply a standard that Porter Stewart even had to go back on in a later decision?

Further, how much agency do we give the stereotypical whistling construction worker over what a woman decides what is and is not 'decent'? There is the rub, because I do not have to consider women's opinions of what I wear unless I'm dressing for women. Why shouldn't women have that same agency over their clothing as men do?

The 'well, hey, you dressed to sexy so I get to stare...' is too ambiguous a standard. And yes, if I was an attractive dude dressed stylishly there is a possibility that some women would behave inappropriately and even make me uncomfortable, but not afraid, and that's an important difference.

[Firdausia]

It's the same with anything though! If you don't want a certain outcome, then you do all that's in your power to reduce the chances of it happening. I like I said, you have to weigh it out.

If you don't want someone to criticize your views, you don't say anything.
If you don't want people to eyeball you, you don't go out with your tits on display.

It's pretty simple.

Do you know who Porter Stewart is? He was an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Not remarkable, but relevant in this way...

During his tenure a decency case came before the court, as they would during that time (look up Lenny Bruce...). When he wrote his decision on the pornographic content of a particular movie he said that "hardcore pornography" is a hard thing to define but that he'd "know it when he saw it." (he actually said the film wasn't, but the "know it when I see it" standard is what matters here)

This is an untenable position. What standard should a woman have to comply to before her outfit meets the standard that she can go outside without inviting discomfort? How do we apply a standard that Porter Stewart even had to go back on in a later decision?

Further, how much agency do we give the stereotypical whistling construction worker over what a woman decides what is and is not 'decent'? There is the rub, because I do not have to consider women's opinions of what I wear unless I'm dressing for women. Why shouldn't women have that same agency over their clothing as men do?

The 'well, hey, you dressed to sexy so I get to stare...' is too ambiguous a standard. And yes, if I was an attractive dude dressed stylishly there is a possibility that some women would behave inappropriately and even make me uncomfortable, but not afraid, and that's an important difference.

Ok, then you're accepting the fact that no matter how you dress there is a chance someone will look or comment on you. The thing is, that wearing certain things invites more/longer looks and more frequent commenting, wouldn't you agree?

[Des-Bal]

There's not a big difference. You're using the same bullshit reasoning that rapists and would-be rapists use. It's bollocks. Utter bollocks.

Like I said: you are reinforcing the idea that a woman's body is public property to be poured over and that if she doesn't want people to treat her body as such she should have to cover it up.

My body is not public property, whatever clothing I choose to wear.

Bullshit, if you don't want people looking at you don't wear clothing designed to be eye catching. Also, it's not a crime to look at someone.

[Cannot think of a name]

Do you know who Porter Stewart is? He was an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Not remarkable, but relevant in this way...

During his tenure a decency case came before the court, as they would during that time (look up Lenny Bruce...). When he wrote his decision on the pornographic content of a particular movie he said that "hardcore pornography" is a hard thing to define but that he'd "know it when he saw it." (he actually said the film wasn't, but the "know it when I see it" standard is what matters here)

This is an untenable position. What standard should a woman have to comply to before her outfit meets the standard that she can go outside without inviting discomfort? How do we apply a standard that Porter Stewart even had to go back on in a later decision?

Further, how much agency do we give the stereotypical whistling construction worker over what a woman decides what is and is not 'decent'? There is the rub, because I do not have to consider women's opinions of what I wear unless I'm dressing for women. Why shouldn't women have that same agency over their clothing as men do?

The 'well, hey, you dressed to sexy so I get to stare...' is too ambiguous a standard. And yes, if I was an attractive dude dressed stylishly there is a possibility that some women would behave inappropriately and even make me uncomfortable, but not afraid, and that's an important difference.

Ok, then you're accepting the fact that no matter how you dress there is a chance someone will look or comment on you.

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

The thing is, that wearing certain things invites more/longer looks and more frequent commenting, wouldn't you agree?

You definitely didn't understand what I was saying.

[Euronion]

Seriously, though, I don't necessarily leer at people. I just disapprove mentally. I'm not going to go out of my way to make a woman uncomfortable on her choice of dress - that wastes my time and hers - but I sure as hell am not gonna praise her for her choice in fashion.

Because somebody made you lord of everything that's appropriate in fashion?

No, because he is the lord of his or her own mind and body and he or she can do whatever he or she sees fit with it as long as it doesn't break the law. The last thing we need is police being called to parks or sporting events because a woman says that a man was looking at her for too long.

I would also like to point out that somehow women find it 'creepy and uncomfortable' when a man who they do not want to attract (an overweight man, or a teenager) looks at them, but find it flattering and good when the guy they were trying to attract (a 'nice guy' with a six-pack or something). In regards to what Nadkor was saying, you can't expect to wear something revealing to attract ONLY the guy that you want, if he has a penis, so do other men, and men with penises who are 100% homosexual will find something revealing on a woman attractive. Unless he has some kind of arm fetish or way that you can attract him specifically in a room full of men, you cannot expect what you wear to only attract one person out of all the people you meet, it's simply not going to happen, we are males, we are heterosexual, we like women and what we like even better than women are naked women; the closer you get to being naked, the more we stare, It is in our genetics, and if it is not then it is instilled by society. By wearing revealing clothing to get the guy you wish to look at you to look at you, you are purposefully objectifying yourself to him, and not just him, but the wide spectrum of men from him to the most unattractive man you can imagine. When we see a naked woman, or a very revealing woman, we look, odds are most of us haven't seen a naked woman in a while or haven't seen one at all and are interested as to what a woman looks like, the same as women like looking at men who they classify as attractive with their shirts off, I happen to also know from female friends that women also like looking at the male posterior. If a man with a six pack is running down the street in gym shorts (another alternative for women to wear that is rather comfortable and not skin tight when wishing to cool off) or running down the beach in a speedo or swim trunks, and girls stare at him and he turns to the girls and tells them that he doesn't like people staring at him because it makes him feel uncomfortable, doesn't that seem a bit odd? why would you be wearing such little clothing if your purpose was to not attract people? I do not like people objectifying me because I exercise yet I look overweight even though my BMI is normal, as someone who was obese I know how people think very well, everyone views you as someone who eats twinkies everyday and pigs out at McDonalds in their free-time, women wish nothing to do with you and if you try to exercise you are made fun of for doing so. I bought a treadmill and dumbbells and exercise in my garage every day, this way I avoid any kind of awkward stares, or worrying about how people view my appearance. I do not expect to run around on the street while Obese and expect people to think of me as a person rather than what I look like if they have no basis to project a personal life on. I would rather someone make false assumptions about my appearance and give me awkward stares than someone to barely look at me a weave a life story that has no factual evidence what-so-ever. What would you rather have? someone judging you by the way you look as in attractive or unattractive, the former being a very good thing, or someone making assumptions about your personality based on nothing and possibly spreading a false image of you to others?