NationStates

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.

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?

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.

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".

Mini Miehm wrote:

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

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

Mini Miehm wrote:

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

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

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.

Big Jim P wrote:

Mini Miehm wrote:

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

I suggest "suggestively".

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.

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.

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.

Mini Miehm wrote:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.