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
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16797
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:19 pm

Chinese Regions wrote:
Lenehen wrote:
FST probably conducted this study.

Still intrigued why he was banned.


He was DoSed already. He was DEATed as FST for pic-trolling. Judging by how he was in those last few weeks he could be among as still, unknown and actually avoiding detection sensibly. On the other hand, whatever he was doing to still be FST probably only works once and it may have been his only option.

Luw wrote:I prefer smaller breasts 8) .
Men aren't very attractive if you think about it. The few who are, are generally androgynous.


What attracts one is entirely subjective. It shouldn't really be something that needs defending but it seems that is the world today.

But like I said before, this should not be surprising.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

On hiatus. Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

User avatar
Dempublicents1
Senator
 
Posts: 3963
Founded: Mar 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Dempublicents1 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:02 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Dempublicents1 wrote:Seriously. I'm one of the most clueless people in the world and I usually assume no one is looking at me at all, but even I can tell when I guy is seriously checking me out.

My experience as a man is that some women confuse blank staring for staring at them; and that they can also easily mistake why they're being stared at. Glares and ogles are easily mixed...

Sometimes it's obvious that you're being checked out - when you can see where the eyes are going and where they linger - sometimes it isn't.


Note the qualifier "seriously checking me out." I actually miss quite a bit, apparently. I've had multiple people laugh at me because i *didn't* notice guys who were, according to them, ogling me. But I notice when a guy walks up and his eyes obviously travel the line of my body and maybe eventually end up at my face (assuming I'm looking at him at the time for some reason). I notice when I glance up at a tall guy in the elevator, see that he's looking at me, and he suddenly averts his gaze and thereafter won't even look slightly in my direction. It happens.

To be honest, while others apparently find it threatening, I find it....somewhere between confusing and funny. I have no idea how to deal with a person I don't know who has obviously just mentally undressed me. If they don't say anything, I just move on. If they do verbally express interest, I generally stammer something about being married and move on.

Most of the times I've felt like someone was just way over the top into making me feel uncomfortable happened at my few excursions to straight clubs. From what I can tell, every straight club has at least one guy who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to walk up to a woman on the dance floor he has not even said a word to and start touching her in incredibly inappropriate ways. I had a random guy whose face I hadn't even seen (because he came up from behind me) grinding so hard on my rear-end that I thought the friction was going to burn through my jeans. And I'm a pretty passive person, so I had no clue what to do about it. Luckily, a guy who had come in with us saw the look on my face and managed a relatively unobtrusive rescue. This is, by the way, largely the reason I prefer gay bars. Gay men will dance with me, but I don't feel like they're going to use it as an excuse to feel me up.

Ok, that might be a bit off-topic. I'm a little tipsy tonight. To bring it back into topic - I'm one of those clueless people who generally has no idea that people *might* be checking me out or hitting on me, and even I can notice it sometimes. So while I'm not going to suggest that no one has ever mistaken staring off into the distance for ogling, I know that ogling is sometimes glaringly obvious. And I don't get the impression that the men who do it are trying to hide it or think that they should.

They do happen at a not-infrequent rate, and women are IMO more likely to make a presumption of sexual attention from non-sexual attention than vice versa when dealing with men.


I can't speak for your experience, but the women I know (including myself) tend to assume non-sexual attention until it is made really obvious. I've had guys hit on me for quite a while before finally catching on. A guy pretty much has to go through the "Wow, I can see where your eyes are going and there is no question that you're checking me out," routine before we even notice him. Interestingly, one of my gay male friends is far, far more likely to notice a guy checking any of us girls out than we are. :shrug: Maybe it's the crowd I run with.
"If I poke you with a needle, you feel pain. If I hit you repeatedly in the testicles with a brick, you feel pain. Ergo, the appropriate response to being vaccinated is to testicle-punch your doctor with a brick. It all makes perfect sense now!" -The Norwegian Blue

"In fact, the post was blended with four delicious flavors of sarcasm, then dipped in an insincerity sauce, breaded with mock seriousness, then deep fried in scalding, trans-fat-free-sarcasm oil." - Flameswroth

User avatar
Dempublicents1
Senator
 
Posts: 3963
Founded: Mar 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Dempublicents1 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:Which is also why, if you mean "No, and go away," you shouldn't forget to omit the second part of that sentence, because most of us reading this do come from cultures where it's traditional for women to string out several rejections first while "testing" a man. [And, of course, never approach the man herself. The scandal! :blink: Which means that men may reflexively reject a woman advancing on them a time or two before they're really sure what's going on.] "You leave her alone" is a nice modern idea, but unfortunately, it's not very compatible with the very traditional game of playing "hard to get," which remains a popular strategy.


If you took no as the answer and went away, those girls might learn that saying no is a silly thing to do when you mean yes. Maybe?

Of course, some guys won't even take the obvious not-stringing-you-along-I-really-mean-it "no". I've had guys persist in hitting on me after I point blank stated, "I'm married," which I would hope would be the ultimate in "No dude, I'm not going to fuck you.
"If I poke you with a needle, you feel pain. If I hit you repeatedly in the testicles with a brick, you feel pain. Ergo, the appropriate response to being vaccinated is to testicle-punch your doctor with a brick. It all makes perfect sense now!" -The Norwegian Blue

"In fact, the post was blended with four delicious flavors of sarcasm, then dipped in an insincerity sauce, breaded with mock seriousness, then deep fried in scalding, trans-fat-free-sarcasm oil." - Flameswroth

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

Postby Zaras » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:34 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:In some circumstances, repeated rejection is part of the traditional method of courtship, and that's just the way things work.

Which is also why, if you mean "No, and go away," you shouldn't forget to omit the second part of that sentence, because most of us reading this do come from cultures where it's traditional for women to string out several rejections first while "testing" a man. [And, of course, never approach the man herself. The scandal! :blink: Which means that men may reflexively reject a woman advancing on them a time or two before they're really sure what's going on.] "You leave her alone" is a nice modern idea, but unfortunately, it's not very compatible with the very traditional game of playing "hard to get," which remains a popular strategy.


You live in a culture more fucked up than Afghanistan under the Taliban. Stop trying to use lame comebacks to Nadkor's argument, it's damn pointless.
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
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:35 am

Nadkor wrote:I mean, seriously. This whole thread is like having to explain the basic rules of human social interaction to a group of visiting aliens or something.


It's interesting that this time I'm part of the group explaining, instead of my usual role as the visiting alien.

Goes to show how pathetically terrible their arguments are.
Last edited by Zaras on Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:35 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
Forster Keys
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19584
Founded: Mar 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Forster Keys » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:00 am

Zaras wrote:
Tahar Joblis wrote:In some circumstances, repeated rejection is part of the traditional method of courtship, and that's just the way things work.

Which is also why, if you mean "No, and go away," you shouldn't forget to omit the second part of that sentence, because most of us reading this do come from cultures where it's traditional for women to string out several rejections first while "testing" a man. [And, of course, never approach the man herself. The scandal! :blink: Which means that men may reflexively reject a woman advancing on them a time or two before they're really sure what's going on.] "You leave her alone" is a nice modern idea, but unfortunately, it's not very compatible with the very traditional game of playing "hard to get," which remains a popular strategy.


You live in a culture more fucked up than Afghanistan under the Taliban. Stop trying to use lame comebacks to Nadkor's argument, it's damn pointless.


Wha?
The blue sky above beckons us to take our freedom, to paint our path across its vastness. Across a million blades of grass, through the roars of our elation and a thousand thundering hooves, we begin our reply.

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

Postby Zaras » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:05 am

Forster Keys wrote:
Zaras wrote:
You live in a culture more fucked up than Afghanistan under the Taliban. Stop trying to use lame comebacks to Nadkor's argument, it's damn pointless.


Wha?


Rhetorical exaggeration.
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
Forster Keys
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19584
Founded: Mar 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Forster Keys » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:08 am

Zaras wrote:
Forster Keys wrote:
Wha?


Rhetorical exaggeration.


Ah okay. :lol:
The blue sky above beckons us to take our freedom, to paint our path across its vastness. Across a million blades of grass, through the roars of our elation and a thousand thundering hooves, we begin our reply.

User avatar
Molested Sock
Diplomat
 
Posts: 672
Founded: Apr 13, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Molested Sock » Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:05 am

Olthar wrote:Are you saying women like nice tits?

...

Because I honestly can't say anything against that. :p

Totally.
100% 80% of the time.

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9232
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:03 am

Dempublicents1 wrote:If you took no as the answer and went away, those girls might learn that saying no is a silly thing to do when you mean yes. Maybe?

Possibly; but probably not. They've been told that by people they trust - advice columnists, magazines, older relatives, and/or friends - and it's likely to have either worked or appeared to work before for them.

Refusing to play the game is a lonely choice. Not an easy one to make; and since exactly how persistent someone is supposed to be is going to vary wildly from [sub]culture to [sub]culture, there are going to be lots of mistakes made about what's appropriate behavior.

I do think it's rude to be overly persistent; but there's a very large difference between someone being persistent in attempting to persuade, and someone actually committing rape. That was my point in the beginning of this little digression - someone was seeming to confound being persistent in continuing to ask after an initial verbal rejection [but, perhaps, encouraging non-verbal cues] with committing rape.
Of course, some guys won't even take the obvious not-stringing-you-along-I-really-mean-it "no". I've had guys persist in hitting on me after I point blank stated, "I'm married," which I would hope would be the ultimate in "No dude, I'm not going to fuck you.

Yeah, there are plenty of people with open marriages; and infidelity in closed marriages isn't uncommon, either. It's not surprising.

I would like to think that most people would take "I'm married" as a rejection, but I wouldn't believe it without a study. Of men or women.
Dempublicents1 wrote:So while I'm not going to suggest that no one has ever mistaken staring off into the distance for ogling, I know that ogling is sometimes glaringly obvious. And I don't get the impression that the men who do it are trying to hide it or think that they should.

Not going to disagree at all.
I can't speak for your experience, but the women I know (including myself) tend to assume non-sexual attention until it is made really obvious. I've had guys hit on me for quite a while before finally catching on. A guy pretty much has to go through the "Wow, I can see where your eyes are going and there is no question that you're checking me out," routine before we even notice him. Interestingly, one of my gay male friends is far, far more likely to notice a guy checking any of us girls out than we are. :shrug: Maybe it's the crowd I run with.

Maybe so.

I've certainly experienced things from a different side than you do. Of course, it could simply be that I'm just an outrageous flirt even - well, especially, all things considered - when I'm not interested; but my experience has been that men and women are both very quick to ascribe sexual motivations to men, both in terms of me personally and when talking about other men. I can certainly recall some episodes where a woman's attitude towards me underwent a head-spinning reversal when it was revealed to her that no, I wasn't expecting - or even trying - to get in her pants, and those have stuck in my mind rather sharply, along with the cases where a woman was very clearly not getting the hint of my disinterest.

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

Postby Northern Dominus » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:19 am

Tahar Joblis wrote:Possibly; but probably not. They've been told that by people they trust - advice columnists, magazines, older relatives, and/or friends - and it's likely to have either worked or appeared to work before for them.

Refusing to play the game is a lonely choice. Not an easy one to make; and since exactly how persistent someone is supposed to be is going to vary wildly from [sub]culture to [sub]culture, there are going to be lots of mistakes made about what's appropriate behavior.

I do think it's rude to be overly persistent; but there's a very large difference between someone being persistent in attempting to persuade, and someone actually committing rape. That was my point in the beginning of this little digression - someone was seeming to confound being persistent in continuing to ask after an initial verbal rejection [but, perhaps, encouraging non-verbal cues] with committing rape.
And young men have been getting bad advice from Playboy, Maxim, Men's Fitness and other magazines as well. So shouldn't you be just as damning in regards to their behavior as well, or is it all the women's fault again?

And that over-persistence you mentioned, that is one of the hallmark signs of stalking behavior which to most of us is not only creepy as hell and unacceptable but illegal in all 50 states (although enforcement varies from state to state. It's behavior that is making a person uncomfortable in any sense and should be discouraged, period. By this point there is enough instructional material regarding attraction out there that states that if a person isn't interested, move along because somebody else might be, so the fault is still in the camp of the person being overly-persistent in the first place.

Tahar Joblis wrote:Yeah, there are plenty of people with open marriages; and infidelity in closed marriages isn't uncommon, either. It's not surprising.

I would like to think that most people would take "I'm married" as a rejection, but I wouldn't believe it without a study. Of men or women.
Um, the studies shouldn't matter. Most open marriages are advertised as such, and even if it is the blunt statement of "I'm married." without any other qualifier or opening is a pretty good indicator of a lack of enthusiasm on one persons part, and ignoring it is once again obsessive stalker-like behavior.

Tahar Joblis wrote:I've certainly experienced things from a different side than you do. Of course, it could simply be that I'm just an outrageous flirt even - well, especially, all things considered - when I'm not interested; but my experience has been that men and women are both very quick to ascribe sexual motivations to men, both in terms of me personally and when talking about other men. I can certainly recall some episodes where a woman's attitude towards me underwent a head-spinning reversal when it was revealed to her that no, I wasn't expecting - or even trying - to get in her pants, and those have stuck in my mind rather sharply, along with the cases where a woman was very clearly not getting the hint of my disinterest.
If people automatically assume that every single one of your actions is dictated by the little head past your belt-line then the fault doesn't lie with society, it lies with you coming off as a lecherous creep in the first place. By making the statement that "all women assume that I'm only interested in sex" you make your own crass general assumption, that being "all women should be into me because I'm awesome in my own mind", or at least thats how much of your objections and scenarios have read.

Are there societal and cultural hang-ups stemming from misunderstanding between the sexes? Yes. Has the long-standing imbalance of power and perception between men and women been party to that? Yes. Does popular media contribute as well? Yes.

Is that excuse for anybody, anywhere, to be a lecherous narcissistic creep and make everyone else uncomfortable and annoyed by it regardless of their gender? Hell no.
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 » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:27 am

Nadkor wrote:I mean, seriously. This whole thread is like having to explain the basic rules of human social interaction to a group of visiting aliens or something.

The natural result of viewing women as non-human is that whenever you try to talk about normal human interactions you will instead veer into sounding like a National Geographic documentary about some never-before-seen exotic animal discovered in the depths of the rain forest.

"We have spent many hours observing these fascinating woman-creatures, and have noted that they often may vocalize when approached. We have, thus far, been unable to determine the meaning of these sounds, but top experts on female homo sapiens believe that the vocalizations may be part of an elaborate courtship ritual of some sort."
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

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

Postby Northern Dominus » Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:36 am

Bottle wrote:
Nadkor wrote:I mean, seriously. This whole thread is like having to explain the basic rules of human social interaction to a group of visiting aliens or something.

The natural result of viewing women as non-human is that whenever you try to talk about normal human interactions you will instead veer into sounding like a National Geographic documentary about some never-before-seen exotic animal discovered in the depths of the rain forest.

"We have spent many hours observing these fascinating woman-creatures, and have noted that they often may vocalize when approached. We have, thus far, been unable to determine the meaning of these sounds, but top experts on female homo sapiens believe that the vocalizations may be part of an elaborate courtship ritual of some sort."
Well, in today's dance-clubs that's almost the only way you have to conduct any sort of pre-interaction. The preponderance of boozed-up people flailing, seizure-inducing lights wheeling, and earthquake-inducing bass means that if somebody attracts your attention in some fashion you pretty much have to observe for a bit to make sure A. That they're of the gender you prefer and not somebody in some seriously garish makeup and clothing and B. See if they're potentially receptive or if there's a gaggle of friends around in a makeshift defensive line.

That being said being a lecherous creepy bastard under any circumstances still isn't cool but the bar scene does throw people a few monkey wrenches here and there.
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
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9232
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:02 am

Northern Dominus wrote:And young men have been getting bad advice from Playboy, Maxim, Men's Fitness and other magazines as well.

Yes.
So shouldn't you be just as damning in regards to their behavior as well, or is it all the women's fault again?

I'm not damning women - or men, men do it too - for playing "hard to get" when it seems like it works.

It's a fact of life. This is a thing that people do. Some more subtly and capably than others, but it's common enough that ignoring the existence of that strategy in pursuit of making grandiose statements about what men [or women] "ought" to do in their courtship attempts is being a royal dumbass.
And that over-persistence you mentioned, that is one of the hallmark signs of stalking behavior which to most of us is not only creepy as hell and unacceptable but illegal in all 50 states (although enforcement varies from state to state. It's behavior that is making a person uncomfortable in any sense and should be discouraged, period. By this point there is enough instructional material regarding attraction out there that states that if a person isn't interested, move along because somebody else might be, so the fault is still in the camp of the person being overly-persistent in the first place.

"Wanna go out?"
"No..."
"Sure?"
"Yeah."
"Any way I can change your mind about that?"
^^ That exchange isn't stalking.

Yes, stalking can be a problem. [For the peanut gallery, I should remind everyone that while we stereotype stalking as a male behavior, both men and women stalk with considerable frequency.] However, what distinguishes stalking isn't just being persistent: It's being persistent when the persistence itself - not just the idea of the stalker as a bedmate or whatever - is unwelcome.

I can have a good friend who periodically - yet always unsuccessfully - tries to get me to sleep with her; but if I don't mind her company in non-sexual contexts, we can continue to be friends, and as long as she's not obsessive about it, there's no problem. The problem is not persistence; it's being overly persistent, with "overly" being context-dependent.
Um, the studies shouldn't matter.

The last study I read on the subject of mate-poaching indicated that:

A. Men, on average, do not care whether or not a woman is already taken.
B. Women, on average, are more likely to pursue a man who is already taken.

Now, the study wasn't looking specifically at marriage, but with that in mind, I'm not going to blithely make assumptions about what "I'm married" is going to be taken as by the average person, and I'm going to hold out for real evidence before accepting the claims of someone else on the subject.
If people automatically assume that every single one of your actions is dictated by the little head past your belt-line then the fault doesn't lie with society, it lies with you coming off as a lecherous creep in the first place.

If I'm not a lecherous creep, and people assume I'm one based on the fact that I'm friendly and male? And find me pleasant company once they get past their own presumptions about my motives, without my changing the least bit?

Then it's not my fault. Not at all. When people jump to conclusions, jumping to the wrong conclusions is generally their own damned fault. And what I see is a lot of people jumping to conclusions of that sort when it comes to men - both myself and others - when they really don't have a good reason at all.
By making the statement that "all women assume that I'm only interested in sex"

Can you fucking read and reply to what I wrote instead of beating up on the Tin Man and Cowardly Lion's brainless buddy? I'd appreciate it.

I actually said that both men and women ascribe sexual motives to men too often. That's not "all," that's not "only," and that's not just women. Pedophile panic is the front and center example of importance here, globally, though that's not one I've been on the wrong end of particularly often.
Last edited by Tahar Joblis on Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Alikhaa
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 358
Founded: Mar 27, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Alikhaa » Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:37 am

Tahar: I generally agree with your analysis of this situation, I think, insofar as the facts on the ground go.

However, it seems like you're arguing "this is the cultural norm and most people don't mind it, so it's okay."

Culture is an extremely good brainwashing tool, so yeah, most people don't mind it. As thinking people, though, it's up to us to realize when a cultural practice is morally degenerate. In this case, it being morally degenerate is caused by the unnecessary amount of strife it brings to inter-gender relations. When those people who don't enjoy behaving like baser animals dislike an aspect of culture, it can generally stand to undergo change.
Last edited by Alikhaa on Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
May God forgive me if I've written anything incorrect, rude, or harmful in any way.

User avatar
Tahar Joblis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9232
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tahar Joblis » Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:35 pm

Alikhaa wrote:Tahar: I generally agree with your analysis of this situation, I think, insofar as the facts on the ground go.

However, it seems like you're arguing "this is the cultural norm and most people don't mind it, so it's okay."

Culture is an extremely good brainwashing tool, so yeah, most people don't mind it. As thinking people, though, it's up to us to realize when a cultural practice is morally degenerate. In this case, it being morally degenerate is caused by the unnecessary amount of strife it brings to inter-gender relations. When those people who don't enjoy behaving like baser animals dislike an aspect of culture, it can generally stand to undergo change.

Let me put my post in context. What I'm objecting to is not that some people disapprove of some courtship strategies. What I'm objecting to is the boy who cried "Wolf!", or in this case the poster who cried "Rape!"

As far as I'm concerned, this is the conversation I just had involving talking about how many people play "hard to get":

Nadkor: Doing anything but walking away when someone turns you down is RAPE LOGIC!
Me: No, that would be fucking them after that, just being persistent is totally different from being a rapist.
Northern Dominus: But being persistent is STALKING!
Me: No, seriously, just persisting after an initial rejection isn't the same as stalking, either, though being persistent is required to be a stalker.

A quick search will show you that rape has come up a lot in this thread; as soon as someone says "Look, what's the big deal about ogling women," some so-called "feminist" with more dogmatic ideology than common sense steps in to say that ogling women causes them to be raped, or is the same as raping women [only with, like, EYES instead of PENISESES!], or any number of hyperbolic statements. Ogling isn't rape, trying to persuade someone to like you isn't rape, sex without consent is rape.

The rape problem is not people who think that "No" sometimes means "Not yet" - heck, those people are right often enough. The rape problem is people who think that "No" actually means "Yes." They're related rather like a lion is to a chihuahua - they're both of order Carnivora, but we are advised not to treat them as being the same animal.

As far as the idea that objectification causes rape? If you buy this study, which claims that both men and women objectify women just the same way and don't objectify men, the relative rarity of female-on-female rape pokes one hole in it, and the frequency of female-on-male rape pokes another hole in it if you remember that "made to penetrate" means rape.

I do actually think that objectification is tied into rape. I don't think this study's definition of "objectification" - or its questionable results - have any bearing on the forms of objectification that we need to be concerned with.
Last edited by Tahar Joblis on Sat Aug 18, 2012 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alikhaa
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 358
Founded: Mar 27, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Alikhaa » Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:15 pm

On the contrary, I think this study sheds light on the fact that our culture has degenerated to the point that women objectify themselves as much as men do. This is an example of sociobiological evolution. We sorely need to mutate some new trends in order to dig ourselves up out of this quandary.

Again, my opinion is that one of these new trends should be that women cease wearing clothing that emphasizes them as a collection of parts.

Another should be to conduct our courtship rituals in a more straightforward and honest manner.

And of course, the obvious one is to really encourage the sort of inter-gender interaction where two people are behaving towards each other as humans instead of male or female.
May God forgive me if I've written anything incorrect, rude, or harmful in any way.

User avatar
ThirdPrizeYoureFired
Envoy
 
Posts: 231
Founded: Mar 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby ThirdPrizeYoureFired » Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:39 am

Occupied Deutschland wrote:1: In a very simplified form, that is what I'm saying. Social interactions are going to occur and I feel the need to point out to people, regardless of gender, that misinterpretations, misreadings, and the like are going to occur no matter how polite people are brought up to be. When every person holds different standards of what is acceptable and what is not, the problems produced by these misinterpretations and misreadings are only going to multiply. Plus, there is a problem of teaching everyone to be "polite" when the standards of politeness are different.

I don't think anyone is arguing that mistakes never happen. I'll give you an example of the worst time I fucked up in this arena. Back when I was a young lass, I went to a strip club with some friends. We're sitting right up at the bar, watching the girls and chatting amongst ourselves. At some point we got to laughing, not at the girls, just that's how conversations usually went between us. We were the type of friends that just laugh hysterically no matter where we are because we knew how to get each other going. It didn't even cross our minds that this might not be the appropriate time or place to be going into fits of laughter. Anyway, the stripper on stage though we were laughing at her, yelled at us that we were assholes and getting up on stage and taking off your clothes is hard enough without people making fun. Then she ran off the stage in tears. She was gone before we had a chance to apologise, so we talked to the DJ, asked if he could apologise for us and if there was anything we could do to make it better. He said he didn't know, but he'd be sure to pass along our apologies.

Maybe it helped and maybe it didn't. However, after that, we most certainly modified our behaviour. Not just in regards to that specific scenario, but in general. I became a lot more aware that people around me can and do react to my behaviour, regardless of what my intent was. And while I'd like to say that's the last time I accidentally made anyone feel bad, it's not. I apoligise where I can, and instead of whining that things get misinterpreted, I was misunderstood, ect, ect, I use those instances as an opportunity to retune my social awareness. Because I'd rather not come across as an asshole.

Neo Art wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:Women can read people's minds now?

Fascinating. Why exactly do we not have an all-female police force and court system?


You seem to be under the false conception that it requires some form of psychic powers out of the pages of the latest X-Men comic to tell the difference between a guy staring out into space, and a guy staring directly at your breasts. Furthermore, you seem to hold this belief under the erronious assumption that somehow, these two things look pretty much the same.

They don't.

In fact, the reason most women can tell the difference is because these women, by virtue of being people, who, like most people, posess modicrum of social awareness and the ability to actually read facial expressions, recognize that these two things don't look remotely alike.

If you have trouble discrening the differences, don't assume the vast majority of the rest of us do as well. So, in response to your nonsensical assertion that these women must be psychic, the obvious answer is no, they're just not fucking blind.

I think what's not being understood by OD is that the ability to read body language is a very common ability in people.
Conscentia wrote:Those were no hobbits. They were goblins in disguise. You just sold NZ to Mordor.

User avatar
Xeng He
Minister
 
Posts: 2753
Founded: Nov 14, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Xeng He » Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:34 am

Nadkor wrote:
Xeng He wrote:But what if a woman, through her body language, conveys interest? According to the logic of that blog, that conveyance goes above even what she actually says.


What the shitting fuck.

"I know she said 'no', but her body language said yes so I went ahead anyway".

What is it with people in this thread and using the actual logic and excuses that those who commit sexual assault and rape use?


Oh my god.

Might it bother you to actually view my argument?

Right in the freaking post wrote:
I don't understand why "if she says stop, stop" is insufficient for this purpose, however. It's pretty easy for women to do...








The blog explicitly speaks of body language as a way to gauge whether a woman might be open to your approaching her. It then goes on to explicitly say that if her body language is receptive and you do approach her then she might still say "no". If this happens then you leave her alone.

What is so difficult to understand about this?


It isn't.

What is so difficult for you about refraining from straw men and personal attacks?

Perhaps you lack the social skills required to avoid that.

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

Postby Bottle » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:33 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Bottle wrote:The natural result of viewing women as non-human is that whenever you try to talk about normal human interactions you will instead veer into sounding like a National Geographic documentary about some never-before-seen exotic animal discovered in the depths of the rain forest.

"We have spent many hours observing these fascinating woman-creatures, and have noted that they often may vocalize when approached. We have, thus far, been unable to determine the meaning of these sounds, but top experts on female homo sapiens believe that the vocalizations may be part of an elaborate courtship ritual of some sort."
Well, in today's dance-clubs that's almost the only way you have to conduct any sort of pre-interaction. The preponderance of boozed-up people flailing, seizure-inducing lights wheeling, and earthquake-inducing bass means that if somebody attracts your attention in some fashion you pretty much have to observe for a bit to make sure A. That they're of the gender you prefer and not somebody in some seriously garish makeup and clothing and B. See if they're potentially receptive or if there's a gaggle of friends around in a makeshift defensive line.

That being said being a lecherous creepy bastard under any circumstances still isn't cool but the bar scene does throw people a few monkey wrenches here and there.

There are many locations and situations in which courtship is difficult or impossible, for any of a number of reasons.

A reasonable individual might conclude that one should not seek out those locations and situations when one is interested in pursuing courtship.
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Google [Bot], Jack Thomas Lang, Loben The 2nd, MSN [Bot], Neu California, Philjia, The Blaatschapen, The Holy Therns

Advertisement

Remove ads