NationStates

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Nadkor wrote:
No shit.

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.

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.

United Marxist Nations wrote:No one is going to reply to what I said?