NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
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.

---

Nadkor wrote:
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.

Actually the Irony is you accused me of using strawmen right before you turned "You're dissecting my sentence structure" into "You don't think women know what they're doing"

Des-Bal wrote:

Nadkor wrote:
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.

Oh, well, away you run then and report me to the mods or something, there's a good boy.

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

If your objective is to get the attention of one or more specific or non-specific people, then you absolutely do get to complain when you get undesirable attention from people other than the one or more specific or non-specific people.

Ifreann wrote:

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:
brb, boycotting pants

Down with pants, up with skirts.

---

Des-Bal wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote: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?

You just see what you want to, don't ya?

Cannot think of a name wrote:He was.
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:

(Image)

And here is another woman wearing a Superman shirt:

(Image)

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.

And applying that to non glitter objects we can make assumptions about why a person is dressed how they are. When you combine that with the fact you recognize some articles of clothing are worn specifically to draw attention I think you'll find your on the wrong side of this debate.

Cannot think of a name wrote:You just see what you want to, don't ya?

I see what you write. Sometimes people wear clothing to attract attention, Y/N?

Nadkor wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
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.

Oh, well, away you run then and report me to the mods or something, there's a good boy.

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

If your objective is to get the attention of one or more specific or non-specific people, then you absolutely do get to complain when you get undesirable attention from people other than the one or more specific or non-specific people.

I agree with you mostly, except for that part.

Nadkor wrote:4) I want one particular person to look at me

And, in regard to number 4, here's an important lesson: wearing particular items of clothing because I want one particular person to look does not mean that I want everyone, or even anyone other than that one person, to look.

....going out in public doesn't work like that.

Nadkor wrote:If your objective is to get the attention of one or more specific or non-specific people, then you absolutely do get to complain when you get undesirable attention from people other than the one or more specific or non-specific people.

Okay so I'm wearing an SS uniform because I think an old friend of mine will find it funny. Do I get to act indignant because people stare or make rude comments?

Des-Bal wrote:

Ifreann wrote:
That's some fine irony right there.

---

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

Actually the Irony is you accused me of using strawmen right before you turned "You're dissecting my sentence structure" into "You don't think women know what they're doing"

Hey, you do it with men too. How egalitarian.

Sardine World wrote:Its only nature buddy

No. Just...no. I am not about to surrender my own personal agency to my penis anymore than I am willing to force women to surrender their personal agency to the desires of my penis. My penis likes a lot of shit, but over time my penis has learned to live with disappointment just like the rest of me. My desire to rut like a warthog in heat (well, I assume...I have no idea how warthog's behave while in heat) is my problem and stating "it's nature" doesn't get me off the hook for enforcing that problem on women trying to go about their damn day.

Look, I'm not running for saint here, I can absolutely find a women in public attractive etc. But it's my job to mitigate that so she can go about her day without thinking I'm going to drag her into an alley in the same way it's my responsibility to not punch someone in the nose for being really fucking annoying.

Or, if you're looking for something more succinct, you can be attracted to women, you just can't be a dick about it.

Ifreann wrote:Hey, you do it with men too. How egalitarian.

Yeah just to clarify I don't keep track of NSers genders. I was pretty sure Nadkor was a guy until you made that post.

Regardless you can generally determine what someone is doing by observing what they're doing.

Des-Bal wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:You just see what you want to, don't ya?

I see what you write. Sometimes people wear clothing to attract attention, Y/N?

Where you going with this, I don't play these games. Make your fucking point.

Cannot think of a name wrote:Where you going with this, I don't play these games. Make your fucking point.

It's not a game, it's just two questions you've already answered. Are you agreeing that women sometimes wear clothing to attract male attention? Are you saying that we have the power to determine why someone is dressed the way they are? You've either changed your position between those two posts or you're agreeing with me.

Des-Bal wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Where you going with this, I don't play these games. Make your fucking point.

It's not a game, it's just two questions you've already answered. Are you agreeing that women sometimes wear clothing to attract male attention? Are you saying that we have the power to determine why someone is dressed the way they are? You've either changed your position between those two posts or you're agreeing with me.

What the monkey fuck are you talking about?

Cannot think of a name wrote: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.

I think it's interesting that the way we think about something so seemingly simple as whether or not someone is attractive may be gendered. After reading the article, I started thinking about how I notice random people and I think I probably fall into the norm in the study. When I notice an attractive man, I just notice that he is attractive. If you then ask me why, I might break it down and talk about his build, face, arms, etc., but I'll likely have to think about it first. When I notice an attractive woman, I've already noted those things in determining whether or not I find her attractive. I'll likely notice her chest or rear first, then check to see if she has a pretty face.

I don't know what, if anything, that indicates beyond the fact that I process male and female attractiveness differently, but I do find it interesting.

Des-Bal wrote:I have to agree with that sentiment. Women with glitter sprinkled tits are clearly trying to draw attention to themselves.

Or they're doing something that looked nice to them. When I dress up to go out, I'm not thinking about picking someone up or being checked out or whatever. In fact, 9 times out of 10 I'm going to a gay bar where I'll be surrounded by men who aren't going to be at all sexually interested in me. I dress the way I feel like I look good.

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

Do you know when I get ogled and hit on the most? When I'm wearing workout clothes - yoga pants of some sort and a t-shirt. I'm not showing a lot of skin. I'm not trying to be attractive. I'm sure as hell not trying to draw attention to myself. So, if it makes me uncomfortable, what I am I supposed to do? Work out in uncomfortable and inappropriate clothing for the task?

Euronion wrote:why would you be wearing such little clothing if your purpose was to not attract people?

Ok, from now on, everyone who asks this stupid question that has been answered multiple times over in the thread is getting discounted as useless to the discussion.

...

OH MY GOD, THEY'RE ONTO US!

This thread has really slowed down; it needs new life in the form of a bigoted and irrational statement: ALL WOMEN ARE SLUTS!

Cannot think of a name wrote:What the monkey fuck are you talking about?

You asked me if we could assume Sarah Palin and Jessica Mills were wearing their clothes for the same reason, doesn't that imply we can determine why they are wearing what they're wearing? You conceded that somethings were worn to invite attention. Combine those two ideas. You can assume that some women are wearing what they are to invite attention.

United Marxist Nations wrote:This thread has really slowed down; it needs new life in the form of a bigoted and irrational statement: ALL WOMEN ARE SLUTS!

We need more firepower than that...any takers?

Retro Lyra wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:This thread has really slowed down; it needs new life in the form of a bigoted and irrational statement: ALL WOMEN ARE SLUTS!

We need more firepower than that...any takers?

Aww, mine wasn't good enough.

Des-Bal wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:What the monkey fuck are you talking about?

You asked me if we could assume Sarah Palin and Jessica Mills were wearing their clothes for the same reason, doesn't that imply we can determine why they are wearing what they're wearing? You conceded that somethings were worn to invite attention. Combine those two ideas. You can assume that some women are wearing what they are to invite attention.

So? What do you think that means?

Cannot think of a name wrote:So? What do you think that means?

You can assume that some women are wearing what they are to invite attention.

This is the position your arguing against, if you agree with it you are on the wrong side.

And that's supposed to be something new?

I remember seeing this cartoon titled "Woman", depicting a young woman sitting in a tram, and the way different bystanders see her. A little boy saw her as an old lady. Her dog saw her as a hand giving him a bone. A young man would see her without clothes. Another woman would see only her clothes on an indistinct silhouette.

A man looks at a woman as something fuckable in the very least, so I wouldn't exactly call that objectification.

Des-Bal wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:So? What do you think that means?

You can assume that some women are wearing what they are to invite attention.

This is the position your arguing against, if you agree with it you are on the wrong side.

No it's not. You are continuing to see what you want to see.