Women objectify women too

[United Marxist Nations]

No one is going to reply to what I said?

I already made the glitter-sprinkled tit argument and nobody wanted to touch it.

But it is a legitimate point.

[Cannot think of a name]

No one is going to reply to what I said?

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

[Terruana]

Objectification is bad. I don't see why the gender of the objectifier is relevant.

[Des-Bal]

But it is a legitimate point.

Nobody responds to legitimate points on NS, they're too busy constructing straw men to fight and prepping the funnel to jam words into your mouth.

[United Marxist Nations]

No one is going to reply to what I said?

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

Yes! Also, it was not a club, it was a public park.

[Des-Bal]

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

He wanted a response to the phenomonae of glitter sprinkled breasts. If a woman takes a special effort to cover her breasts in glitter what purpose does that serve except for drawing attention.

[Nadkor]

I was highlighting the problem with making wide, sweeping, and unqualified statements such as "it's not a crime to look at someone".

I'm sorry if you're not capable of comprehending that.

You were either sharpshooting my use of informal phrases, confused by the concept of non-denotative phrases, or just practicing your typing regardless it's adding nothing to the discourse.

Yes, how silly of me. You obviously know what I was doing better than I do.

[Gaveo]

So thats why ladies get "curious" during college...

[United Marxist Nations]

No one is going to reply to what I said?

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

Also, isn't womankind one word? I don't know, someone find out!

[Cannot think of a name]

But it is a legitimate point.

Nobody responds to legitimate points on NS, they're too busy constructing straw men to fight and prepping the funnel to jam words into your mouth.

You wouldn't consider holding up a single woman in a night club and her reactions to be, in itself, a bit of a 'strawman' (in the popular miss us of the concept) about the idea of objectification, that somehow all women must be in lockstep agreement with what is and what is not appropriate? That somehow this unverifiable stranger and her reported actions somehow undermine the larger societal issue as a bit reductive and an attempt to shift the argument? And not, perhaps, indicative of the larger problem of thinking that this is in fact a 'us vs. them' kind of thing, that thinking recognizing a societal norm is the same as saying 'men suck' and therefore finding some women who, by your estimation, send mixed signals therefore invalidates the entire notion of objectification?

You sure about that backpat you're giving yourself?

[Des-Bal]

Yes, how silly of me. You obviously know what I was doing better than I do.

I know what you weren't doing and that was anything relevant to the topic.

[Agymnum]

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

He wanted a response to the phenomonae of glitter sprinkled breasts. If a woman takes a special effort to cover her breasts in glitter what purpose does that serve except for drawing attention.

*Drools over glittery breasts*

"B-boobies!"

On-topic, I don't mind that women insist on dressing skimpily. I just mind when they bitch out at men staring, as if they dressed skimpily so people wouldn't stare at them. I get that rape is bad and all, but it ain't rape if all the man is doing is making chauvinist comments and staring. Both parties are at fault (the man for being a chauvinist asshole and the woman for her choice in dress) but realistically the clothing is changeable. The chauvinistic attitude you're not going to find easy to change.

[Nadkor]

No one is going to reply to what I said?

If a woman sprinkles glitter on her breasts it's entirely possible that she wishes for one or more specific or non-specific people to look at it. It does not necessarily mean that she wishes for you to look at it.

This has been If You'd Read The Thread You'd Have Got An Answer 101 with me, Professor Nadkor.

[Nadkor]

Yes, how silly of me. You obviously know what I was doing better than I do.

I know what you weren't doing and that was anything relevant to the topic.

Oh, I'm ever so sorry.

I didn't realise that you required that we adhere studiously to the precise topic at hand at all times.

[Des-Bal]

You wouldn't consider holding up a single woman in a night club and her reactions to be, in itself, a bit of a 'strawman' (in the popular miss us of the concept) about the idea of objectification, that somehow all women must be in lockstep agreement with what is and what is not appropriate? That somehow this unverifiable stranger and her reported actions somehow undermine the larger societal issue as a bit reductive and an attempt to shift the argument? And not, perhaps, indicative of the larger problem of thinking that this is in fact a 'us vs. them' kind of thing, that thinking recognizing a societal norm is the same as saying 'men suck' and therefore finding some women who, by your estimation, send mixed signals therefore invalidates the entire notion of objectification?

You sure about that backpat you're giving yourself?

Nobody is asking about that specific incident. Body glitter is a product that is sold in stores, if a woman sprinkles her body with glitter what is she doing other than drawing attention to her body? Is it justifiable then to look at this woman's body when she has clearly made a special effort to entice people to do exactly that?

[Sardine World]

He wanted a response to the phenomonae of glitter sprinkled breasts. If a woman takes a special effort to cover her breasts in glitter what purpose does that serve except for drawing attention.

*Drools over glittery breasts*

"B-boobies!"

On-topic, I don't mind that women insist on dressing skimpily. I just mind when they bitch out at men staring, as if they dressed skimpily so people wouldn't stare at them. I get that rape is bad and all, but it ain't rape if all the man is doing is making chauvinist comments and staring. Both parties are at fault (the man for being a chauvinist asshole and the woman for her choice in dress) but realistically the clothing is changeable. The chauvinistic attitude you're not going to find easy to change.

Its only nature buddy

[Des-Bal]

Oh, I'm ever so sorry.

I didn't realise that you required that we adhere studiously to the precise topic at hand at all times.

It's generally understood that going from "women objectify women too" to "dissecting ambiguities of the english language" in one post someone is pretty seriously off topic.

If a woman sprinkles glitter on her breasts it's entirely possible that she wishes for one or more specific or non-specific people to look at it. It does not necessarily mean that she wishes for you to look at it.

This has been If You'd Read The Thread You'd Have Got An Answer 101 with me, Professor Nadkor.

If your objective is to get peoples attention you don't get to complain when you get attention from different people.

[Cannot think of a name]

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

Yes! Also, it was not a club, it was a public park.

Well, there's your problem.

I know you're thinking that men in general are being asked to answer for the actions of 'some men', but that's your own defensive thinking. You're not. Unless you are learing and whistling at women and then making excuses for that. But then, I'm not asked to make excuses for you even if I have a penis. You are taking personally a societal argument and then trying to personalize the argument for everyone. It's a very popular thing to do, but it is neither constructive nor as insightful as you'd like it to be.

Also, isn't womankind one word? I don't know, someone find out!

Dude, you're lucky this shit is legible.

What, do you want woman kind to respond to some anecdotal shit that happened to you in a club?

He wanted a response to the phenomonae of glitter sprinkled breasts. If a woman takes a special effort to cover her breasts in glitter what purpose does that serve except for drawing attention.

So? Talk to chicks with glitter on their breasts.

[The Zeonic States]

Who honestly cares

[Des-Bal]

He wanted a response to the phenomonae of glitter sprinkled breasts. If a woman takes a special effort to cover her breasts in glitter what purpose does that serve except for drawing attention.

So? Talk to chicks with glitter on their breasts.

So what your saying is that what a woman is wearing may in fact suggest she desires to be looked at?

[Ifreann]

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

brb, boycotting pants

Down with pants, up with skirts.

---

But it is a legitimate point.

Nobody responds to legitimate points on NS, they're too busy constructing straw men to fight and prepping the funnel to jam words into your mouth.

That's some fine irony right there.

---

You were either sharpshooting my use of informal phrases, confused by the concept of non-denotative phrases, or just practicing your typing regardless it's adding nothing to the discourse.

Yes, how silly of me. You obviously know what I was doing better than I do.

Well how would you know what you were doing? You're only a woman.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes! Also, it was not a club, it was a public park.

Well, there's your problem.

I know you're thinking that men in general are being asked to answer for the actions of 'some men', but that's your own defensive thinking. You're not. Unless you are learing and whistling at women and then making excuses for that. But then, I'm not asked to make excuses for you even if I have a penis. You are taking personally a societal argument and then trying to personalize the argument for everyone. It's a very popular thing to do, but it is neither constructive nor as insightful as you'd like it to be.

Also, isn't womankind one word? I don't know, someone find out!

Dude, you're lucky this shit is legible.

He wanted a response to the phenomonae of glitter sprinkled breasts. If a woman takes a special effort to cover her breasts in glitter what purpose does that serve except for drawing attention.

So? Talk to chicks with glitter on their breasts.

On the legibility of my typing: I don't know about that, I guess I had a sudden urge to use punctuation at inappropriate times.

[Cannot think of a name]

You wouldn't consider holding up a single woman in a night club and her reactions to be, in itself, a bit of a 'strawman' (in the popular miss us of the concept) about the idea of objectification, that somehow all women must be in lockstep agreement with what is and what is not appropriate? That somehow this unverifiable stranger and her reported actions somehow undermine the larger societal issue as a bit reductive and an attempt to shift the argument? And not, perhaps, indicative of the larger problem of thinking that this is in fact a 'us vs. them' kind of thing, that thinking recognizing a societal norm is the same as saying 'men suck' and therefore finding some women who, by your estimation, send mixed signals therefore invalidates the entire notion of objectification?

You sure about that backpat you're giving yourself?

Nobody is asking about that specific incident.

He was.

Body glitter is a product that is sold in stores, if a woman sprinkles her body with glitter what is she doing other than drawing attention to her body? Is it justifiable then to look at this woman's body when she has clearly made a special effort to entice people to do exactly that?

Alright, before you get too...lets call it 'excited' about glitter take a step back and consider who likes wearing glitter the mostest...preteen girls. So...you know...just, yeah...

Okay, here's something...probably won't work, but hey...

Here is a woman wearing a Superman t-shirt:

And here is another woman wearing a Superman shirt:

Do we assume that both of these women are wearing the Superman shirt for the same reasons? That Sarah Palin is a devout fan of comic books and looks at the Superman symbol of her embracing her love of things geeky...or that Jessica Mills, the author of a geek blog and creator and writer of a series about geeky girls is wearing the Superman shirt as a display of political power and strength along the lines of 'mama grizzlies?'

Are the really both sending the same message? Remove the context of my own sexual desires, lets just look at this as sussing the motivation behind other peoples clothing and decrying it in some sort of blanket fashion, do we really feel that we can assign the same motives and goals of both women for wearing the same shirt?

If we cannot do it with a Superman shirt we should not assume we can do that with glitter.

[Cannot think of a name]

On the legibility of my typing: I don't know about that, I guess I had a sudden urge to use punctuation at inappropriate times.

I was talking about my typing.

[United Marxist Nations]

On the legibility of my typing: I don't know about that, I guess I had a sudden urge to use punctuation at inappropriate times.

I was talking about my typing.

Oh.