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 6:54 am

Big Jim P wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
Considering it's possible to get leered at (and thus made to feel uncomfortable and intimidated) when wearing virtually anything, regardless of how revealing it is, this is an interesting question.

You can go out wearing a pair of jeans and a hoody and get the same looks from some people, and be made to feel the same way, as if you were wearing a short skirt.

What I would really like to know from Des-Bal now is whether the looks are as justified when you're wearing jeans and a hoody as they are when you're wearing a short skirt?

Is a woman more justified in complaining when she gets leered at when wearing a pair of jeans in the same way as if she's wearing a short skirt?

Because they're the same looks, and make you feel the same way.

At what point, precisely, on the thigh does a skirt have to be at to render stares justified and complaints not?


As an aside, there is a big difference between looking appreciatively at an attractive person, and leering. Too bad that a lot of people (on both sides of the equation) don't know this.


No wonder these sorts of discussions have a tendency to go nowhere...
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
Mini Miehm
Diplomat
 
Posts: 785
Founded: Apr 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:55 am

Nadkor wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:[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.


Considering it's possible to get leered at (and thus made to feel uncomfortable and intimidated) when wearing virtually anything, regardless of how revealing it is, this is an interesting question.

You can go out wearing a pair of jeans and a hoody and get the same looks from some people, and be made to feel the same way, as if you were wearing a short skirt.

What I would really like to know from Des-Bal now is whether the looks are as justified when you're wearing jeans and a hoody as they are when you're wearing a short skirt?

Is a woman more justified in complaining when she gets leered at when wearing a pair of jeans in the same way as if she's wearing a short skirt?

Because they're the same looks, and make you feel the same way.

At what point, precisely, on the thigh does a skirt have to be at to render stares justified and complaints not?



For me, the line between cute and slutty is drawn right around the vagina. By which I mean that girls who go out wearing shorts so short that they're basically panties, or skirts that BARELY cover their panties are earning their discomfort. The same goes for tops where boobs are practically falling out. If they weren't displayed that way, it would be much easier not to stare.
Mallorea and Riva should resign

Don't reward the trolls.

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

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:58 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
Considering it's possible to get leered at (and thus made to feel uncomfortable and intimidated) when wearing virtually anything, regardless of how revealing it is, this is an interesting question.

You can go out wearing a pair of jeans and a hoody and get the same looks from some people, and be made to feel the same way, as if you were wearing a short skirt.

What I would really like to know from Des-Bal now is whether the looks are as justified when you're wearing jeans and a hoody as they are when you're wearing a short skirt?

Is a woman more justified in complaining when she gets leered at when wearing a pair of jeans in the same way as if she's wearing a short skirt?

Because they're the same looks, and make you feel the same way.

At what point, precisely, on the thigh does a skirt have to be at to render stares justified and complaints not?


For me, the line between cute and slutty is drawn right around the vagina. By which I mean that girls who go out wearing shorts so short that they're basically panties, or skirts that BARELY cover their panties are earning their discomfort. The same goes for tops where boobs are practically falling out. If they weren't displayed that way, it would be much easier not to stare.


Bad idea to use the word "slutty".
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
Mini Miehm
Diplomat
 
Posts: 785
Founded: Apr 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:00 am

Zaras wrote:
Mini Miehm wrote:
For me, the line between cute and slutty is drawn right around the vagina. By which I mean that girls who go out wearing shorts so short that they're basically panties, or skirts that BARELY cover their panties are earning their discomfort. The same goes for tops where boobs are practically falling out. If they weren't displayed that way, it would be much easier not to stare.


Bad idea to use the word "slutty".



You have a better adjective perchance? I'm just sayin.
Mallorea and Riva should resign

Don't reward the trolls.

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

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:02 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Zaras wrote:
Bad idea to use the word "slutty".


You have a better adjective perchance? I'm just sayin.


There has to be one that doesn't have that stench of judgementalism about it. English has a lot of words, after all.
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
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53539
Founded: Antiquity
Father Knows Best State

Postby Big Jim P » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:02 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Zaras wrote:
Bad idea to use the word "slutty".



You have a better adjective perchance? I'm just sayin.


I suggest "suggestively".

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

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:03 am

Zaras wrote:
There has to be one that doesn't have that stench of judgementalism about it. English has a lot of words, after all.


The more you use a word to stand in for an offensive word the more that word takes on it's own offensive connotation.
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
Mini Miehm
Diplomat
 
Posts: 785
Founded: Apr 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:05 am

Big Jim P wrote:
Mini Miehm wrote:

You have a better adjective perchance? I'm just sayin.


I suggest "suggestively".



Suggestive of...what? Being open to easy sex? I kinda see what you're saying, but still.
Mallorea and Riva should resign

Don't reward the trolls.

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

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:05 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Zaras wrote:
There has to be one that doesn't have that stench of judgementalism about it. English has a lot of words, after all.


The more you use a word to stand in for an offensive word the more that word takes on it's own offensive connotation.


I don't think the euphemism treadmill applies here. There are words that can objectively express what Miehm was going for without making it sound like he's sexist or judgemental about female sexuality.

I can't think of one right now, but it's a big vocabulary, it can't be entirely words with in-built implications and biases.
Last edited by Zaras on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53539
Founded: Antiquity
Father Knows Best State

Postby Big Jim P » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:07 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
I suggest "suggestively".



Suggestive of...what? Being open to easy sex? I kinda see what you're saying, but still.


"Attractively" doesn't quite work either. I am out of ideas.

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

Postby Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:08 am

Mini Miehm wrote:No. And what's more, hell no. If I'm staring at a woman(or a man for that matter) its because I think they're attractive. It is me paying you a silent compliment, because I feel that your appearance is worth prolonged appraisal. If you Kirk out on me for paying you that compliment, the only person being impolite in that situation is you. I'm a fairly average guy, and I enjoy dressing in a way that draws peoples attention, because I like it when people look at me. If I got mad when people looked at me appreciatively, that would be rank hypocrisy.


This is nonsense, you realise this right?

How gracious of you that you might deem someone worthy of your "prolonged appraisal".

I do not in any way consider being leered at a to be compliment. Keep your eyes to yourself, creep.
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
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:09 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Zaras wrote:
Bad idea to use the word "slutty".



You have a better adjective perchance? I'm just sayin.
How about finding a better use for your vocabulary than using a word that typically demeans and belittles women to objects rather than people. Regardless of what they're wearing and how you may personally feel about it, there is never an excuse to leer at somebody like Jeffery Dahmer, period.
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
Northern Dominus
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14337
Founded: Aug 23, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:09 am

Nadkor wrote:
Mini Miehm wrote:No. And what's more, hell no. If I'm staring at a woman(or a man for that matter) its because I think they're attractive. It is me paying you a silent compliment, because I feel that your appearance is worth prolonged appraisal. If you Kirk out on me for paying you that compliment, the only person being impolite in that situation is you. I'm a fairly average guy, and I enjoy dressing in a way that draws peoples attention, because I like it when people look at me. If I got mad when people looked at me appreciatively, that would be rank hypocrisy.


This is nonsense, you realise this right?

How gracious of you that you might deem someone worthy of your "prolonged appraisal".

I do not in any way consider being leered at a to be compliment. Keep your eyes to yourself, creep.
...does this mean I have to stop staring at your sexy comebacks?
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
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53539
Founded: Antiquity
Father Knows Best State

Postby Big Jim P » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:09 am

Nadkor wrote:
Mini Miehm wrote:No. And what's more, hell no. If I'm staring at a woman(or a man for that matter) its because I think they're attractive. It is me paying you a silent compliment, because I feel that your appearance is worth prolonged appraisal. If you Kirk out on me for paying you that compliment, the only person being impolite in that situation is you. I'm a fairly average guy, and I enjoy dressing in a way that draws peoples attention, because I like it when people look at me. If I got mad when people looked at me appreciatively, that would be rank hypocrisy.


This is nonsense, you realise this right?

How gracious of you that you might deem someone worthy of your "prolonged appraisal".

I do not in any way consider being leered at a to be compliment. Keep your eyes to yourself, creep.


Verbal compliments aren't often accepted either.

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

Postby Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:09 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Zaras wrote:
Try asking people who've actually been subjected to that for the time frame. I'd say constantly staring for at least a minute is already suspect.



That fails to define a time frame in the manner I was desiring. Its not practical to go up to every woman you see and ask her how long its ok for you to look at her. THAT'S creepy as shit.


The idea that you decided that some people are worthy of your "prolonged appraisal" is creepy as shit.
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
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:11 am

Mini Miehm wrote:
Zaras wrote:
Brilliant argument. When somebody brings up sociological aspects of privilege and existing power structures, resort to the tone argument to dismiss the idea that privilege exists. Sure, that's a winning strategy.

How exactly is bringing up privilege not helpful, especially since I'm not the only one who's done it so far in the thread? Others have already advanced the point that some people debating here seemingly assume creepy staring also falls under "appreciative compliments".



You assume that all staring is automatically creepy.


You'll have to be doing something very special for it not to be.
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
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28545
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:11 am

Nadkor wrote:
The idea that you decided that some people are worthy of your "prolonged appraisal" is creepy as shit.


Do you go into public often? "Prolonged" appraisal is pretty standard nonverbal communication.
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 7:12 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
The idea that you decided that some people are worthy of your "prolonged appraisal" is creepy as shit.


Do you go into public often? "Prolonged" appraisal is pretty standard nonverbal communication.
Yes and it usually communicates something very awful, probably either some psycho-sexual sadistic leanings or pseudo-religious slut-shaming of some kind.
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
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:14 am

Big Jim P wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
Considering it's possible to get leered at (and thus made to feel uncomfortable and intimidated) when wearing virtually anything, regardless of how revealing it is, this is an interesting question.

You can go out wearing a pair of jeans and a hoody and get the same looks from some people, and be made to feel the same way, as if you were wearing a short skirt.

What I would really like to know from Des-Bal now is whether the looks are as justified when you're wearing jeans and a hoody as they are when you're wearing a short skirt?

Is a woman more justified in complaining when she gets leered at when wearing a pair of jeans in the same way as if she's wearing a short skirt?

Because they're the same looks, and make you feel the same way.

At what point, precisely, on the thigh does a skirt have to be at to render stares justified and complaints not?


As an aside, there is a big difference between looking appreciatively at an attractive person, and leering. Too bad that a lot of people (on both sides of the equation) don't know this.


There's a difference between glancing, or looking briefly, and staring. If you're appreciative looks fall into the former category then it's probably fine, pretty much everybody does that from time to time. If it doesn't fall into the former category then it's probably leering. Don't do that.
Last edited by Nadkor on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:15 am, 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
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:14 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
The idea that you decided that some people are worthy of your "prolonged appraisal" is creepy as shit.


Do you go into public often? "Prolonged" appraisal is pretty standard nonverbal communication.


Really? You might wanna tell that to my classmates, who were rightfully weirded out by my tendency to stand in the background too long while overthinking what I was about to say, and assumed I was being stalky instead? It's a reasonable assumption given that they had no way of knowing what I was doing.
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 7:14 am

Northern Dominus wrote:Yes and it usually communicates something very awful, probably either some psycho-sexual sadistic leanings or pseudo-religious slut-shaming of some kind.


I'm sure you must live in an awful neighborhood but in the rest of the world whether it's a man or woman doing the looking it's generally an indicator that you find the other person attractive and are either inviting them to make a move or you to give them the go ahead to make a move.
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
Mini Miehm
Diplomat
 
Posts: 785
Founded: Apr 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:14 am

Nadkor wrote:
Mini Miehm wrote:No. And what's more, hell no. If I'm staring at a woman(or a man for that matter) its because I think they're attractive. It is me paying you a silent compliment, because I feel that your appearance is worth prolonged appraisal. If you Kirk out on me for paying you that compliment, the only person being impolite in that situation is you. I'm a fairly average guy, and I enjoy dressing in a way that draws peoples attention, because I like it when people look at me. If I got mad when people looked at me appreciatively, that would be rank hypocrisy.


This is nonsense, you realise this right?

How gracious of you that you might deem someone worthy of your "prolonged appraisal".

I do not in any way consider being leered at a to be compliment. Keep your eyes to yourself, creep.


You seem to share the common misconception that the only possible way to look at an attractive person is to leer. Leering implies a certain quality that appraisal does not. If you are an attractive female, and I look at you, and take the time to myself "She's really good looking.", that is not the same as looking at you and thinking "I'd like to plow her like a field.". I'm aware the difference seems subtle, but it is there.

Also! Time frame. How long is too long? Since I've never gotten a good answer from anyone else on this.
Last edited by Mini Miehm on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mallorea and Riva should resign

Don't reward the trolls.

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:15 am

Big Jim P wrote:As an aside, there is a big difference between looking appreciatively at an attractive person, and leering. Too bad that a lot of people (on both sides of the equation) don't know this.


I find that the vast majority of people who try to use this as an excuse for their behavior can't get within 30 feet of the line between them.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

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

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:15 am

Zaras wrote:
Really? You might wanna tell that to my classmates, who were rightfully weirded out by my tendency to stand in the background too long while overthinking what I was about to say, and assumed I was being stalky instead? It's a reasonable assumption given that they had no way of knowing what I was doing.


It sounds like you aren't very good at social situations.
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
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53539
Founded: Antiquity
Father Knows Best State

Postby Big Jim P » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:16 am

Nadkor wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
As an aside, there is a big difference between looking appreciatively at an attractive person, and leering. Too bad that a lot of people (on both sides of the equation) don't know this.


There's a difference between glancing, or looking briefly, and staring. If you're appreciative looks fall into the former category then it's probably fine, pretty much everybody does that from time to time. If it doesn't fall into the former category then it's probably leering.


I am aware of this, and am too much of a gentleman to insult a woman with unwelcome leers.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Aureumterra, Ayissor, Balican, Blanjiland, BlazingAngel, Ding Ling, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Gagium, Ifreann, Kannap, Logikie, Lower Nubia, Majestic-12 [Bot], Minachia, Nakena, Novus America, Ostroeuropa, Pacomia, Phria, Proctopeo, Rojava Free State, Shrillland, Stellar Colonies, The American Free States, The Liberated Territories, The New California Republic, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads