NATION

PASSWORD

Women objectify women too

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:47 pm

Euronion wrote:
Zaras wrote:
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?


Paragraphs: use them.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Firdausia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 54
Founded: Apr 07, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Firdausia » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:48 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Firdausia wrote:
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.
Firdausia wrote: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.


I understood your point, people have differing opinions on what is revealing and what isn't, but that doesn't refute my argument, some types of clothing are more likely to attract attention than others.
La Príncipio di Firdausia / The Principality of Firdausia

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:51 pm

Jinos wrote:No. I know exactly what it means. And I'm saying that it doesn't apply. That what activists call "objectification" isn't really objectification.

No you clearly don't.
Jinos wrote:Objectification requires that people be treated as an object, not just as someone which they can see as something else.

A conman sees someone on the street, and thinks of that person as his next sucker. That doesn't mean he thinks of them as an 'object' or something less than human.

A general sees a list of casualties, and sees a statistic. That doesn't mean he thinks of them as nothing more than one less gun fighting for him.

Uh yeah. Treating someone like a mark or a statistic is by its very nature dehumanizing. You're not treating them as another person, but rather as a means to an end, or a just number respectively.
Jinos wrote:When someone is objectified, they're not only VIEWED as less than human, they're treated less than human as well. You can say "well, he objectified her" but without any tangible action on the man's part, it's impossible to say what he thought or what he might've done.

One leads to another.
Jinos wrote:Human traffickers treat people as a thing for their own amusement and economic gain. Some guy ogling a girl at a bar is not treating a person as a thing for their own amusement. Nor is it if he watches her in a porno.

Clearly he is.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
Euronion
Senator
 
Posts: 4786
Founded: Apr 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Euronion » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:51 pm

Nadkor wrote:
Euronion wrote:
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?


Paragraphs: use them.


Proper grammar dictates that when a sentence is related to the same issue/overall message of the paragraph, it belongs in said paragraph.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!
The Official Euronion Website
Proud Catholic and Member of the Tea Party; militant atheists, environmental extremists, fem-nazis, Anti-Lifers, Nazists, and Communists you have been warned
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
The name of our country is Euronion, the name of anything that is Euronion is called the/a Euronion ____, please do not say "the Euronionian, or the Euronionion people or military, it is simply the Euronion people, the Euronion military, ect. nor is Euronion a reference to the European Union or some United Europe.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45101
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:51 pm

Firdausia wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:I don't think you understood what I was saying.

You definitely didn't understand what I was saying.


I understood your point, people have differing opinions on what is revealing and what isn't, but that doesn't refute my argument, some types of clothing are more likely to attract attention than others.

No, you only understood the foundation, not the point itself because the foundation is easy for you to deal with...it can be easily folded into your own if you ignore the rest of the argument--made comically evident by actually trying to get me to agree to the 'know it when I see it' standard.

So no, I'm sorry, you clearly did not understand my argument if you still think we can apply some 'know it when I see it' standard and 'agree' that 'some types' of clothing are more likely to attract attention.
"...I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." -MLK Jr.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:52 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:
Jinos wrote:Human traffickers treat people as a thing for their own amusement and economic gain. Some guy ogling a girl at a bar is not treating a person as a thing for their own amusement. Nor is it if he watches her in a porno.

Clearly he is.


Where the fuck did this idea come from? When did we decide being physically attracted to someone is objectifying?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55158
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Big Jim P » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:54 pm

Physical assets attract attention. Personality is what keeps attention.
Hail Satan!
Happily married to Roan Cara, The first RL NS marriage, and Pope Joan is my Father-in-law.
I edit my posts to fix typos.

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:54 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:
Clearly he is.


Where the fuck did this idea come from? When did we decide being physically attracted to someone is objectifying?

It is not the state of attraction, it's the act of ogling.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:55 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:It is not the state of attraction, it's the act of ogling.


Which is completely irrelevant, how is "ogling" a woman treating her like an object?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Trotskylvania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17217
Founded: Jul 07, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Trotskylvania » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:59 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:It is not the state of attraction, it's the act of ogling.


Which is completely irrelevant, how is "ogling" a woman treating her like an object?

You're treating her as an object for your amusement, irrespective of her consent. This isn't that hard to understand.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Ultra - The Left Wing of the Impossible
Putting the '-sadism' in Posadism


"The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss."- Bordiga

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:01 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Nadkor wrote: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.


Please refer to the reasons (that I could think of off the top of my head) for wearing revealing clothing that I posted earlier.

I would like to be able to wear clothing that I like, or that I think looks good on me, or that I think will draw a particular person's attention, without having to be made to feel uncomfortable and intimidated by other people leering.

As CtoaN said - men do not generally have to factor in the risk of being made to feel uncomfortable or intimidated by other people in choosing what they wear. I would like to enjoy such a privilege.

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.

I object to that idea.

Also, it's not a crime to look at someone.


Aye away you go and hide out in the women's changing rooms so you can spy through a peep hole and see how that works out for you.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Firdausia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 54
Founded: Apr 07, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Firdausia » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:03 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Firdausia wrote:
I understood your point, people have differing opinions on what is revealing and what isn't, but that doesn't refute my argument, some types of clothing are more likely to attract attention than others.

No, you only understood the foundation, not the point itself because the foundation is easy for you to deal with...it can be easily folded into your own if you ignore the rest of the argument--made comically evident by actually trying to get me to agree to the 'know it when I see it' standard.

So no, I'm sorry, you clearly did not understand my argument if you still think we can apply some 'know it when I see it' standard and 'agree' that 'some types' of clothing are more likely to attract attention.


No, I'm not trying to manipulate your argument, it simply doesn't contradict mine...at all.

You can't honestly say that if I go out in public in my bra and panties, that someone will think I'm wearing a consealing outfit and that if I go outside wrapped up from head to toe like a Saudi, that someone will think it's a reavealing outfit. People's opinions of what's revealing isn't that broad.
La Príncipio di Firdausia / The Principality of Firdausia

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:04 pm

Nadkor wrote:
Firdausia wrote: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.

I mostly agree with you. But, there was one time where this woman had glitter sprinkled on her breasts and then was angry at me for glancing at it; what else could she possibly have expected with glitter on her breasts?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:04 pm

Euronion wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
Paragraphs: use them.


Proper grammar dictates that when a sentence is related to the same issue/overall message of the paragraph, it belongs in said paragraph.


No. "Proper" grammar (which is not a strict and inflexible thing) allows you to place a series of related points in separate paragraphs linked by a common or central theme or point.

In any case, "proper" grammar should be used flexibly when doing so increases the chances of anybody actually wanting to read what you're writing. Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:07 pm

Trotskylvania wrote:You're treating her as an object for your amusement, irrespective of her consent. This isn't that hard to understand.


It's hard to understand how the fuck you twisted a very simple scenario to your own ends. At no point does any dehumanization occur, the woman is not being treated as an object in any way, shape, or form. I once spent fourty five minutes laughing at some guy on a live security camera in an ugly jacket wandering around in circles, was that objectification? Every friday night I go out on the porch to watch my drunk neighbor try to park his giant truck after a few too many, am I objectifying him? I'm deriving amusement from them irrespective of their consent. If that's the case then hooray for objectification because it's clearly not harmful.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Euronion
Senator
 
Posts: 4786
Founded: Apr 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Euronion » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:07 pm

I'd really hate to do this to yah, but even though 'The Amazing Atheist' is someone I disagree with vehemently, I think he does have a point on this one particular video in this one particular case (DISCLAIMER: I do not think that what he says in other cases is justified nor right nor anything such as that, again merely this one particular case I think HE HAS A POINT, this does not mean that I agree with every single word he said it means he has a point)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eCnmeaoGMA&feature=plcp
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!
The Official Euronion Website
Proud Catholic and Member of the Tea Party; militant atheists, environmental extremists, fem-nazis, Anti-Lifers, Nazists, and Communists you have been warned
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
The name of our country is Euronion, the name of anything that is Euronion is called the/a Euronion ____, please do not say "the Euronionian, or the Euronionion people or military, it is simply the Euronion people, the Euronion military, ect. nor is Euronion a reference to the European Union or some United Europe.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45101
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Cannot think of a name » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:09 pm

Firdausia wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:No, you only understood the foundation, not the point itself because the foundation is easy for you to deal with...it can be easily folded into your own if you ignore the rest of the argument--made comically evident by actually trying to get me to agree to the 'know it when I see it' standard.

So no, I'm sorry, you clearly did not understand my argument if you still think we can apply some 'know it when I see it' standard and 'agree' that 'some types' of clothing are more likely to attract attention.


No, I'm not trying to manipulate your argument, it simply doesn't contradict mine...at all.

You can't honestly say that if I go out in public in my bra and panties, that someone will think I'm wearing a consealing outfit and that if I go outside wrapped up from head to toe like a Saudi, that someone will think it's a reavealing outfit. People's opinions of what's revealing isn't that broad.

The problem is, we're not talking about extremes and so providing me an example of extreme behavior does not substantively contribute to the discussion.

Sure, if we were talking about underwear vs. burkas, you'd have a point.

But we're not. We're talking about a wide and vague swath of clothing in between. And whether or not we allow this ridiculous standard...a standard so ridiculous and unworkable that it's famous for being so...to rule women's lives.

It doesn't work.

Well, unless you try and reduce the argument down to two choices, underwear or burkas.
"...I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." -MLK Jr.

User avatar
Agymnum
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7393
Founded: Jul 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Agymnum » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:09 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:You're treating her as an object for your amusement, irrespective of her consent. This isn't that hard to understand.


It's hard to understand how the fuck you twisted a very simple scenario to your own ends. At no point does any dehumanization occur, the woman is not being treated as an object in any way, shape, or form. I once spent fourty five minutes laughing at some guy on a live security camera in an ugly jacket wandering around in circles, was that objectification? Every friday night I go out on the porch to watch my drunk neighbor try to park his giant truck after a few too many, am I objectifying him? I'm deriving amusement from them irrespective of their consent. If that's the case then hooray for objectification because it's clearly not harmful.


Hehehehe, I do the same thing when my neighbor tries to park his old Toyota after spending the night drinking sake at his friend's house.

More on-topic, if you're looking for equality then, yes, we shouldn't gawk at women who wear overly revealing clothes.

But if you're looking at common sense, do you expect men to avert their eyes when a woman's breasts and posterior are exposed for all to see? If you do, you must be living in the Middle Ages because most men I know (and have met and have seen) tend to be attracted to the idea of an attractive woman walking past them with skimpy clothing on.
Glorious puppet of Highfort

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:10 pm

Nadkor wrote:Please refer to the reasons (that I could think of off the top of my head) for wearing revealing clothing that I posted earlier.

I would like to be able to wear clothing that I like, or that I think looks good on me, or that I think will draw a particular person's attention, without having to be made to feel uncomfortable and intimidated by other people leering.

As CtoaN said - men do not generally have to factor in the risk of being made to feel uncomfortable or intimidated by other people in choosing what they wear. I would like to enjoy such a privilege.

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.

I object to that idea.

Also, it's not a crime to look at someone.


Aye away you go and hide out in the women's changing rooms so you can spy through a peep hole and see how that works out for you.


Yeah there's a difference between spying on people and observing them when they go into public. If women feel "intimidated" by going out in revealing clothing you can only be saying that wearing revealing clothing invites crime or that women need to toughen up. A womans body is private property, when you bring your property into public people look at it.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:12 pm

Des-Bal wrote:Yeah there's a difference between spying on people and observing them when they go into public.


No shit.
Last edited by Nadkor on Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:14 pm

Nadkor wrote:
No shit.


I thought you might be confused because you seem to be drawing parallels between looking at a woman walking down the street and spying on a woman in a dressing room. As a word of advice you could make your position clearer by not saying things you don't believe.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:16 pm

Des-Bal wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
No shit.


I thought you might be confused because you seem to be drawing parallels between looking at a woman walking down the street and spying on a woman in a dressing room. As a word of advice you could make your position clearer by not saying things you don't believe.


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.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:18 pm

No one is going to reply to what I said? :(
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:19 pm

Nadkor wrote:
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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32801
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:20 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:No one is going to reply to what I said? :(
I already made the glitter-sprinkled tit argument and nobody wanted to touch it.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ancientania, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Big Eyed Animation, Enormous Gentiles, Fort Viorlia, Gorutimania, Ifreann, Lindsay, Lord Dominator, ML Library, Neo-Hermitius, Northern Rabgrema, Northern Socialist Council Republics, Of Memers, Omphalos, Plan Neonie, Port Carverton, Simonia, So uh lab here, Statesburg, Sylvastan, Tinhampton, Turenia

Advertisement

Remove ads