Women objectify women too

[Cannot think of a name]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
But this:
1
is not this:



Nor is it, as you seem to think, something I have endorsed.

I addressed this ad naseum in the previous posts, I gave you an example that you completely missed the point of. And now you want me to agree to a poorly worded and largely inconsistent premise that you yourself cannot articulate the ramifications of.

3In fact, you want to believe, contrary to the volumes of text already written addressing this very flawed line of thought, that the existence of women that do want attention validates attention on any woman who meets your rather slippery and ill-defined by nature notion of skimpy or 'looking for attention.'

This is the argument you want to make. This is what you cannot articulate because you know this is not something I would agree with because I have in fact said as much. So you are trying to reduce it down to this one pinpoint idea and then try to rebuild your argument hoping I won't notice...or something.

But it remains bullshit for all the reasons that have already been stated. The fact that you ignored Dempulbicants 4response which more or less echos the sentiment that you excised from my argument really underlines the whole deal.

Now. Do you have anything substantive?

1. This is what I've been arguing against.

2. This has been my position.

3. This is not what I'm doing.

I have stripped away all the bullshit and reduced my position to one simple idea to see which parts exactly you aren't agreeing with. The only idea your adding here is that it's possible to make a misjudgement about someones motives. The fact that you still refuse to identify a part of my argument that you don't agree with leads me to the conclusion you're just trying to be contrary.
4.

You cannot reasonably assume that any given person has dressed the way they have to attract attention.

This is not what I'm arguing, I'm not going to bother defending an argument I never made.

Now, do you have an answer?

How about you actually make an argument?

[Des-Bal]

How about you actually make an argument?

It's impossible to argue when you won't challenge my position. This literally cannot advance until you say whether or not you agree with me.

[Zaras]

How about you actually make an argument?

It's impossible to argue when you won't challenge my position. This literally cannot advance until you say whether or not you agree with me.

Pretty sure he disagrees.

Really, why argue with somebody if you agree with them?

[Des-Bal]

Pretty sure he disagrees.


Really, why argue with somebody if you agree with them?

Yes but he won't say what he's disagreeing with. His responses so far have conceded that some women do want attention and that men can make assumptions about why a woman's dressed the way she is, I'm trying to figure out how exactly with that information how he's not getting to the same place I am.

That's exactly why the conversation can't advance.

[Bismarx]

I did a search on "lesbian" in this thread and had zero results. Shame on you all.

[Northern Dominus]

Pretty sure he disagrees.


Really, why argue with somebody if you agree with them?

Yes but he won't say what he's disagreeing with. His responses so far have conceded that some women do want attention and that men can make assumptions about why a woman's dressed the way she is, I'm trying to figure out how exactly with that information how he's not getting to the same place I am.

That's exactly why the conversation can't advance.

Can they? I think Nadkor pretty much spelled out how a woman could dress in a particular "way" and not be seeking the leering staring creepy attention that she supposedly deserves or is seeking according to your theory in the first place.

Plus even if she is seeking general attention from the populance, the kind I just mentioned is, doubtless, not what anybody wants in the first place. Flirting glances, lingering bewildered gazes maybe, but "undressing and imagining the most deviant things possible", not so much.

[Cannot think of a name]

How about you actually make an argument?

It's impossible to argue when you won't challenge my position. This literally cannot advance until you say whether or not you agree with me.

I cannot challenge a position that hasn't been stated. I just can't. Can't be done. I could try, but it would be pointless. In order for me to challenge a position it has to be stated.

For reference, this is a position:
"I like walnuts."

This is a question:
"Do you think walnuts are tasty or don't you?"

Do you see the difference? One is a statement that affirms your position...not mine, yours. You can even add to it, support it, "I like walnuts because they are tasty and breaking them open makes me feel like a tough guy for some reason." See? That's a position with an argument for it.

"Do you think walnuts are tasty or don't you?" doesn't tell me shit about your position. It's a question about me...and if I had done this whole bit about the complexities of the nut situation and then someone started hounding me about some isolated bit about walnuts, I'd have to ask him what the relevance of that question is, because the question seems to have drastically missed the point.

Now, if you want to make a position (remember, that's a statement, it should not require me answering some random ass question that again, completely misses the point of what I've been saying) then maybe I can challenge it. Here's a guideline--if you find yourself using a question mark while stating your position, you might actually be asking a question again.

Good luck.

Or, alternatively, you could just take the answers you already think you have

It's not a game, it's just two questions you've already answered.

and get the fuck on with it.

Because honestly, this shit...it is old. If I weren't smack in the middle of it I'd be suggesting we make out at this point.

[Cannot think of a name]

that men can make assumptions about why a woman's dressed the way she is

Ah...no, no I have not. I'm not sure where you got that impression. I think, in fact, I said the exact opposite.

[Forster Keys]

It's impossible to argue when you won't challenge my position. This literally cannot advance until you say whether or not you agree with me.

Pretty sure he disagrees.

Really, why argue with somebody if you agree with them?

Does this qualify is meta-argument?

[United Marxist Nations]

Because when you make your breasts sparkle you can't really complain when someone looks at them.

I don't complain when someone looks at me. How could I? I have no way to know where every single person's eyes are at any given time. I do complain when someone leers at me or makes inappropriate comments or thinks it's ok to grab or otherwise touch me without my permission.

See the difference?

Meanwhile, you could say the same thing about anything glittered. I can't expect to put glitter in my hair without the eye being at least momentarily drawn to it. Sparkly tends to draw the eye. I can't expect to put glitter on my arms without expecting people to look at my arms. I can't put glitter around my eyes without expecting people to notice it there. And so on. So, once again, why are you so stuck on the idea of women putting glitter on one specific portion of the body as if that action has to be all about you?

But people do complain.

[Des-Bal]

Can they? I think Nadkor pretty much spelled out how a woman could dress in a particular "way" and not be seeking the leering staring creepy attention that she supposedly deserves or is seeking according to your theory in the first place.

Plus even if she is seeking general attention from the populance, the kind I just mentioned is, doubtless, not what anybody wants in the first place. Flirting glances, lingering bewildered gazes maybe, but "undressing and imagining the most deviant things possible", not so much.

You seem to be arguing that dressing in a certain way doesn't always mean seeking attention, I've never taken a contrary position.

Unwanted attention is the logical side effect of seeking specific attention and it's really something you should be prepared for. Again with the SS uniform, trying to get my friends attention but I have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that once I go out into public I'm inviting the public's attention.

[Laerod]

I don't complain when someone looks at me. How could I? I have no way to know where every single person's eyes are at any given time. I do complain when someone leers at me or makes inappropriate comments or thinks it's ok to grab or otherwise touch me without my permission.

See the difference?

Meanwhile, you could say the same thing about anything glittered. I can't expect to put glitter in my hair without the eye being at least momentarily drawn to it. Sparkly tends to draw the eye. I can't expect to put glitter on my arms without expecting people to look at my arms. I can't put glitter around my eyes without expecting people to notice it there. And so on. So, once again, why are you so stuck on the idea of women putting glitter on one specific portion of the body as if that action has to be all about you?

But people do complain.

Like who?

[Zaras]

Pretty sure he disagrees.

Really, why argue with somebody if you agree with them?

Does this qualify is meta-argument?

Je suis un postmoderniste.

[Northern Dominus]

Can they? I think Nadkor pretty much spelled out how a woman could dress in a particular "way" and not be seeking the leering staring creepy attention that she supposedly deserves or is seeking according to your theory in the first place.

Plus even if she is seeking general attention from the populance, the kind I just mentioned is, doubtless, not what anybody wants in the first place. Flirting glances, lingering bewildered gazes maybe, but "undressing and imagining the most deviant things possible", not so much.

You seem to be arguing that dressing in a certain way doesn't always mean seeking attention, I've never taken a contrary position.

Unwanted attention is the logical side effect of seeking specific attention and it's really something you should be prepared for. Again with the SS uniform, trying to get my friends attention but I have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that once I go out into public I'm inviting the public's attention.

So....your solution is not "inform those who leer and make people uncomfortable that their leering is not appreciated" it's "women should wear mumus or get what's coming to them" basically.

[Laerod]

Can they? I think Nadkor pretty much spelled out how a woman could dress in a particular "way" and not be seeking the leering staring creepy attention that she supposedly deserves or is seeking according to your theory in the first place.

Plus even if she is seeking general attention from the populance, the kind I just mentioned is, doubtless, not what anybody wants in the first place. Flirting glances, lingering bewildered gazes maybe, but "undressing and imagining the most deviant things possible", not so much.

You seem to be arguing that dressing in a certain way doesn't always mean seeking attention, I've never taken a contrary position.

Unwanted attention is the logical side effect of seeking specific attention and it's really something you should be prepared for. Again with the SS uniform, trying to get my friends attention but I have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that once I go out into public I'm inviting the public's attention.

Are you seriously comparing the wearing of a very, very specific uniform with a very, very specific context to the broad selections of clothes that could be considered revealing?

[Forster Keys]

Does this qualify is meta-argument?

Je suis un postmoderniste.

*takes drag on cigarette*

Moi aussi, alors je parle Francais.

[Des-Bal]

I cannot challenge a position that hasn't been stated. I just can't. Can't be done. I could try, but it would be pointless. In order for me to challenge a position it has to be stated.

For reference, this is a position:
"I like walnuts."

This is a question:
"Do you think walnuts are tasty or don't you?"

Do you see the difference? One is a statement that affirms your position...not mine, yours. You can even add to it, support it, "I like walnuts because they are tasty and breaking them open makes me feel like a tough guy for some reason." See? That's a position with an argument for it.

"Do you think walnuts are tasty or don't you?" doesn't tell me shit about your position. It's a question about me...and if I had done this whole bit about the complexities of the nut situation and then someone started hounding me about some isolated bit about walnuts, I'd have to ask him what the relevance of that question is, because the question seems to have drastically missed the point.

Now, if you want to make a position (remember, that's a statement, it should not require me answering some random ass question that again, completely misses the point of what I've been saying) then maybe I can challenge it. Here's a guideline--if you find yourself using a question mark while stating your position, you might actually be asking a question again.

Good luck.

Or, alternatively, you could just take the answers you already think you have
and get the fuck on with it.

Because honestly, this shit...it is old. If I weren't smack in the middle of it I'd be suggesting we make out at this point.

what a woman is wearing may in fact suggest she desires to be looked at

This is my position as I have stated and restated. During your sarah palin superman spiel you suggested that you can make assumptions about why someone is wearing what they're wearing. The question marks you keep seeing are from me asking you to point out which part of my position you aren't agreeing with.

[Northern Dominus]

You seem to be arguing that dressing in a certain way doesn't always mean seeking attention, I've never taken a contrary position.

Unwanted attention is the logical side effect of seeking specific attention and it's really something you should be prepared for. Again with the SS uniform, trying to get my friends attention but I have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that once I go out into public I'm inviting the public's attention.

Are you seriously comparing the wearing of a very, very specific uniform with a very, very specific context to the broad selections of clothes that could be considered revealing?

And let's not forget "revealing" is a purely subjective matter too.

[Laerod]

Are you seriously comparing the wearing of a very, very specific uniform with a very, very specific context to the broad selections of clothes that could be considered revealing?

And let's not forget "revealing" is a purely subjective matter too.

That hijab doesn't cover the eyes! Why does no one think of the children?! ;_;

[Cannot think of a name]

So....your solution is not "inform those who leer and make people uncomfortable that their leering is not appreciated" it's "women should wear mumus or get what's coming to them" basically.

You know, I had been thinking about this sign I saw in a photo taken at some demonstration of some kind or whatever...went looking for it and I guess there is a bit of irony that I found a version of the sign on a meme site called 'Power Pussy Says'...

[Northern Dominus]

And let's not forget "revealing" is a purely subjective matter too.

That hijab doesn't cover the eyes! Why does no one think of the children?! ;_;

"Gawd will strike you down for displaying your arms and feet woman!"

[Cannot think of a name]

This is my position as I have stated and restated. During your sarah palin superman spiel you suggested that you can make assumptions about why someone is wearing what they're wearing. The question marks you keep seeing are from me asking you to point out which part of my position you aren't agreeing with.

You not only did not understand the point of that, but you seem to have gotten the exact opposite idea from it. You perhaps should read it again.

[Des-Bal]

So....your solution is not "inform those who leer and make people uncomfortable that their leering is not appreciated" it's "women should wear mumus or get what's coming to them" basically.

My solution is suck it up or stop drawing attention to yourself.

Are you seriously comparing the wearing of a very, very specific uniform with a very, very specific context to the broad selections of clothes that could be considered revealing?

The one set of clothes you can wear at a time is a very very specific uniform and the context in which you happen to be wearing it is a very very specific context. The point of making it an SS uniform was to out the obvious flaws with the idea that you should have complete control over how people react to what your wearing.

[Cannot think of a name]

So....your solution is not "inform those who leer and make people uncomfortable that their leering is not appreciated" it's "women should wear mumus or get what's coming to them" basically.

My solution is suck it up or stop drawing attention to yourself.

Are you seriously comparing the wearing of a very, very specific uniform with a very, very specific context to the broad selections of clothes that could be considered revealing?

The one set of clothes you can wear at a time is a very very specific uniform and the context in which you happen to be wearing it is a very very specific context. The point of making it an SS uniform was to out the obvious flaws with the idea that you should have complete control over how people react to what your wearing.

Except that the situations are not, in fact, analogous and have distinctions that make all the difference in the world...

[Des-Bal]

You not only did not understand the point of that, but you seem to have gotten the exact opposite idea from it. You perhaps should read it again.

That was literally the only thing you had to clarify to prevent this entire exercise in tail chasing.

You are arguing that you cannot make assumptions about why someone's wearing what they are. Are you saying that is an absolute truth or can you based on context make such assumptions?