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
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:54 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:
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.


Thank you, privileged man, for telling all women it's their fault that some men can't seem to control their urges properly.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:54 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:Except that the situations are not, in fact, analogous and have distinctions that make all the difference in the world...


I'm wearing something eye catching to get the attention of specific people but it's drawing unwanted attention, that is the exact same scenario.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Laerod
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26183
Founded: Jul 17, 2004
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Laerod » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:56 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Laerod wrote: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.

When compared to an SS uniform? Certainly not.
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.

Revealing clothes are not uniform and most certainly do not carry the context an SS uniform does. Yeah, there's dipshits out there that don't seem to get what wearing an SS uniform means (looking at Hetalia cosplayers here), but that SS uniforms provoke a reaction not necessarily intended by the wearer doesn't mean that it's comparable to wearing revealing clothing, for the simple reason THAT AN SS UNIFORM IS WORN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LOOKING LIKE AN SS OFFICER rather than for comfort or whatever other reason one might wear revealing clothing for.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:57 am

Laerod wrote:When compared to an SS uniform? Certainly not.

Revealing clothes are not uniform and most certainly do not carry the context an SS uniform does. Yeah, there's dipshits out there that don't seem to get what wearing an SS uniform means (looking at Hetalia cosplayers here), but that SS uniforms provoke a reaction not necessarily intended by the wearer doesn't mean that it's comparable to wearing revealing clothing, for the simple reason THAT AN SS UNIFORM IS WORN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LOOKING LIKE AN SS OFFICER rather than for comfort or whatever other reason one might wear revealing clothing for.


So your saying the difference is that the SS uniform is designed to serve a specific purpose.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:57 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:
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.
How compassionate of you.

Look its ok to look or even gaze a bit. It's natural for both sexes apparently. But unless somebody is designed in a deliberately provocative manner, such as your Waffen SS uniform, nobody has the right to make anybody else uncomfortable.

Comparing that uniform to the whole range of women's clothing that could be construed as "revealing" depending on the other end of the judging scale isn't a one for one basis. Your dress-up clothing utilizes symbols and imagery attached to a specific period and ideology that provokes extreme reactions in the first place, so in this case yes you probably deserve the leers and stares coming your way.

How exactly is that comparable to women getting uncomfortable stares for wearing something even remotely flattering to their figure?
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27103
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:58 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote: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.

Or, you know, you could have read what I had already wrote. Potato, po-tah-to.
Des-Bal wrote: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?

Aaaaand here we go again.

You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Azelkaeth
Secretary
 
Posts: 37
Founded: Apr 18, 2010
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Azelkaeth » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:58 am

Having read this thread, I am surprised, and not really sure what the opinions of the other posters are; they seem to alternate between trolling, to dogmatic this is the way it's always been objectification cannot be stopped, to attemps at discussion that have appeared to become bogged down.

Instead of proposing one excuse for objectification or a reason as to why it's not favourable I propose a solution that seems to work for me ( a man) to percieve random strangers I pass in the street as people when I look at them and not objects.

If it is assumed that our brains are 'programmed' to recognise human faces, and also considering our predisposition towards social learning/interaction, I would think that this issue about objectification of people when looking at them can be mostly avoided if instead of looking at someones physical features first( such as breats, abs, legs, biceps, ass, barrel chest ect ), one looks at the others face( And posture can convey information about someones mind as well I would think).

Then you look at a person smilling and think, they must be happy, extend to other facial expressions, and you've viewed that person as a person, with a current state and you have epathized with them ( Hopefully with them, I personallytend to feel happier when looking at happy looking people and vice versa , and would hope others experience this also ).

By empathizing with them you are viewing them as a person. Then if you appreciete any of their physical features or choice in apparel, you're assigning the appeciation of said features to that person; they are mearly aspects of the person, not objects.



What are your thoughts on my opinion here?
Last edited by Azelkaeth on Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:59 am

Zaras wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
My solution is suck it up or stop drawing attention to yourself.


Thank you, privileged man, for telling all women it's their fault that some men can't seem to control their urges properly.
Really, I appreciate being thrown in the same pool with the other apes and idiots that can't seem to control themselves and have the tact of a wildebeest.
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:01 am

Northern Dominus wrote: How compassionate of you.

Look its ok to look or even gaze a bit. It's natural for both sexes apparently. But unless somebody is designed in a deliberately provocative manner, such as your Waffen SS uniform, nobody has the right to make anybody else uncomfortable.

Comparing that uniform to the whole range of women's clothing that could be construed as "revealing" depending on the other end of the judging scale isn't a one for one basis. Your dress-up clothing utilizes symbols and imagery attached to a specific period and ideology that provokes extreme reactions in the first place, so in this case yes you probably deserve the leers and stares coming your way.

How exactly is that comparable to women getting uncomfortable stares for wearing something even remotely flattering to their figure?


Hello, I'm Des-Bal, I'm as compassionate as an electric fence.

So you're agreeing that someone dressed in a deliberately provocative manner is okay to stare at?
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:02 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:That was literally the only thing you had to clarify to prevent this entire exercise in tail chasing.

Or, you know, you could have read what I had already wrote. Potato, po-tah-to.
Des-Bal wrote: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?

Aaaaand here we go again.

You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.
Pretty much this.

If Des-Bal is willing to disrespect women based solley on what they wear then he'd better be willing to put up with all the spit bricks and insults that come his way when he stomps around in his little dress-up SS Uniform. It's only fair after all, wearing something that clearly demonstrates he desires to be abused in some fashion.
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:02 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Zaras wrote:
Thank you, privileged man, for telling all women it's their fault that some men can't seem to control their urges properly.
Really, I appreciate being thrown in the same pool with the other apes and idiots that can't seem to control themselves and have the tact of a wildebeest.


I've had my behaviour criticised as stalkerish by a classmate, but I was never accused of sexually harrassing anybody. Don't lump me in with those arses either.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:02 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Aaaaand here we go again.

You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.


So you're saying there is no context where your clothing might suggest what motivated you to wear it?
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27103
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:05 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:
Aaaaand here we go again.

You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.


So you're saying there is no context where your clothing might suggest what motivated you to wear it?

I'm saying no matter what you think someone's motivations are, you are not absolved of your responsibility to treat them with respect.

Wait, I think I said something similar to that once...
Cannot think of a name wrote:You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.

Oh yeah, there it is.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:06 am

Northern Dominus wrote:Pretty much this.

If Des-Bal is willing to disrespect women based solley on what they wear then he'd better be willing to put up with all the spit bricks and insults that come his way when he stomps around in his little dress-up SS Uniform. It's only fair after all, wearing something that clearly demonstrates he desires to be abused in some fashion.


Yeah I don't disrespect women based on what they wear, actually that's not true I never leer, gawk, or stare at women. All of my respect and disrespect disrespect is based on how I view things in relation to myself, the same thing is true for men, children, houspets, and many of the more complex plants.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:06 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:I'm saying no matter what you think someone's motivations are, you are not absolved of your responsibility to treat them with respect.

Wait, I think I said something similar to that once...
Oh yeah, there it is.


So even the guy in the SS uniform?
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:08 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:I'm saying no matter what you think someone's motivations are, you are not absolved of your responsibility to treat them with respect.

Wait, I think I said something similar to that once...
Oh yeah, there it is.


So even the guy in the SS uniform?


Comparing somebody wearing the uniform of the most evil regime in modern history with somebody who dresses in a certain way for the reasons Nadkor enumerated?

Godwin's law.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27103
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:08 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:I'm saying no matter what you think someone's motivations are, you are not absolved of your responsibility to treat them with respect.

Wait, I think I said something similar to that once...
Oh yeah, there it is.


So even the guy in the SS uniform?

Wow, you're still holding on to that one, huh? After numerous people have pointed out the various problems with it?

Tell you what, find me that analog--what a woman can wear that compares with an SS uniform that makes this metaphor not...you know, complete bullshit. Let's see where you're going with this.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:08 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote: How compassionate of you.

Look its ok to look or even gaze a bit. It's natural for both sexes apparently. But unless somebody is designed in a deliberately provocative manner, such as your Waffen SS uniform, nobody has the right to make anybody else uncomfortable.

Comparing that uniform to the whole range of women's clothing that could be construed as "revealing" depending on the other end of the judging scale isn't a one for one basis. Your dress-up clothing utilizes symbols and imagery attached to a specific period and ideology that provokes extreme reactions in the first place, so in this case yes you probably deserve the leers and stares coming your way.

How exactly is that comparable to women getting uncomfortable stares for wearing something even remotely flattering to their figure?


Hello, I'm Des-Bal, I'm as compassionate as an electric fence.

So you're agreeing that someone dressed in a deliberately provocative manner is okay to stare at?

When they're dressed to be a spectacle, yes. Playing dress-up in a Waffen SS uniform and parading up and down the local streets is a spectacle in and of itself since A. The Nazis lost and B. They represent a certain mindset which is abhorrent or shocking and C. Nazi stormtroopers aren't exactly a fixture in this day and age. In that case staring is appropriate

A woman dressing in a manner that is appropriate for the heat or environmental conditions or, gasp, in a manner that is flattering to her figure to any degree is not a spectacle, it's normal, therefore staring isn't ok.

Is that a clear enough distinction?

Two things I think you probably should answer before continuing.
1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.
2. Do you apply this concept to men as well? Does this apply to men who do anything shirtless in public or wear clothing that is seemingly designed for the purpose of attracting the opposite sex.
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am

Northern Dominus wrote:1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.


And why get angry at the woman for being outraged that you're staring at her? The problem here is your dick and the fact that you wouldn't tell it to shut the fuck up and ignore it. Trying to shift blame onto a woman is just disingenous.
Bythyrona wrote:
Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.

Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
Factbook
RP 1, RP 2, RP 3, RP 4, RP 5
ADS, UDL, GFN member
Political compass (old), Political compass (new)
Bottle, telling it like it is.
Risottia, on lolbertarianism.

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:13 am

Zaras wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.


And why get angry at the woman for being outraged that you're staring at her? The problem here is your dick and the fact that you wouldn't tell it to shut the fuck up and ignore it. Trying to shift blame onto a woman is just disingenous.
No kidding. When somebody gets caught being a creepy perv, they get called out on it, the subject of the creepy perviness doesn't get blamed.

Now, that being said, I understand some of the male frustration here. As I said there's nothing wrong with the glance or gaze, apparently it's natural for both sexes. So getting yelled at for a cursory glance because somebody dressed well, that' isn't cool either.
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

User avatar
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:19 am

There's this guy who lives in my neighborhood who lost his arm in combat. Sometimes you'll see him walking around, often in short sleeves, and he doesn't wear a prosthetic or anything. He just has a stump from the elbow down, and it's kind of a messed up stump (I mean it's got knobby things and such).

People don't point and stare at him though. People don't harass him for how he looks. People don't yell that he should cover up his stump, or that he should wear a fake arm to hide his missing arm.

What this tells me is that people are quite capable of controlling their eyes and their voices. They are capable of noting that something is unusual or attention-grabbing, without leering or pointing or hooting at it. They are capable of seeing something they are interested in while still behaving respectfully.

Even small children seem quite able to absorb this lesson, and treat the man respectfully.

This is why I have zero patience for the little boys in this thread who insist that it's SO IMPOSSIBLE to expect men to refrain from harassing women who are dressed a particular way, as if they cannot possibly be expected to show the basic public behavior that most people master before they start primary school.

You are capable of behaving respectfully toward women regardless of how they look; you are CHOOSING not to do so because you feel entitled to be rude to certain people. You are CHOOSING to be disrespectful because you know certain people are easy targets and you can get away with treating them badly. You are CHOOSING to behave that way to punish people who don't behave the way you want. Own your choice.
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

User avatar
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:21 am

As for the OP, yes, women live in this world too. This world teaches us that women are just a collection of parts, that women are objects rather than subjects, and that male = human while female = other. Women absorb those lessons just as men do.

Women also learn early on that they can reap some rewards by being Patriarchy Compliant(tm). This is also known as the "chill girl" phenomenon; by being "one of the guys" and agreeing that all girls are stupid and weak and totally not as cool as boys, they can get a pat on the head and special chill girl status. See Ann Coulter for a glowing example of this in the public sphere.
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:23 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:Wow, you're still holding on to that one, huh? After numerous people have pointed out the various problems with it?

Tell you what, find me that analog--what a woman can wear that compares with an SS uniform that makes this metaphor not...you know, complete bullshit. Let's see where you're going with this.


You just said that no matter what someones wearing you have to treat them with respect, is that conditional or absolute?

Northern Dominus wrote:When they're dressed to be a spectacle, yes. Playing dress-up in a Waffen SS uniform and parading up and down the local streets is a spectacle in and of itself since A. The Nazis lost and B. They represent a certain mindset which is abhorrent or shocking and C. Nazi stormtroopers aren't exactly a fixture in this day and age. In that case staring is appropriate

A woman dressing in a manner that is appropriate for the heat or environmental conditions or, gasp, in a manner that is flattering to her figure to any degree is not a spectacle, it's normal, therefore staring isn't ok.

Is that a clear enough distinction?

Two things I think you probably should answer before continuing.
1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.
2. Do you apply this concept to men as well? Does this apply to men who do anything shirtless in public or wear clothing that is seemingly designed for the purpose of attracting the opposite sex.

1. I don't stare, but I draw the line at clothing designed to draw attention.
2. Yes.
Welcome to the internet, our men are men, our women are men, our children are FBI agents.

Founding Member The Sovereign League

Red Eclipse Executive Slave Traders: Anonymity Guarantee

User avatar
Laerod
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26183
Founded: Jul 17, 2004
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Laerod » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:24 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Laerod wrote:When compared to an SS uniform? Certainly not.

Revealing clothes are not uniform and most certainly do not carry the context an SS uniform does. Yeah, there's dipshits out there that don't seem to get what wearing an SS uniform means (looking at Hetalia cosplayers here), but that SS uniforms provoke a reaction not necessarily intended by the wearer doesn't mean that it's comparable to wearing revealing clothing, for the simple reason THAT AN SS UNIFORM IS WORN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LOOKING LIKE AN SS OFFICER rather than for comfort or whatever other reason one might wear revealing clothing for.


So your saying the difference is that the SS uniform is designed to serve a specific purpose.

Pretty big difference there.

User avatar
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:25 am

Des-Bal wrote:1. I don't stare, but I draw the line at clothing designed to draw attention.
2. Yes.
And again, what would constitute that criteria, in your estimation? It's a subjective issue so that could be anything from "pasties and a g-string" to "anything which uncovers the forearms".
Battletech RP: Giant walking war machines, space to surface fighters, and other implements blowing things up= lots of fun! Sign up here
We even have a soundtrack!

RIP Caroll Shelby 1923-2012
Aurora, Oak Creek, Happy Valley, Sandy Hook. Just how high a price are we willing to pay?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chan Island, Costa Fierro, Forsher, Geneviev, Jean-Paul Sartre, Nakena, Neko-koku, Pacomia, Samudera Darussalam, Telconi, The Chuck, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Yisrae1

Advertisement

Remove ads