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
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27811
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:25 am

Des-Bal wrote:
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?

Still not absolving you of your responsibility to behave. Sorry. Not doing it. You can talk about all the crazy costume parties you want.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
EnragedMaldivians
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8445
Founded: Feb 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby EnragedMaldivians » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:27 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Zaras wrote:
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.


It can just be accumulated frustration sometimes.

My country is pretty conservative when it comes to how women dress and my sister, having lived abroad most of her life, isn't really wont to indulge traditional notions of modesty in a tropical country with average temperatures of about 33 degrees celsius.

When she goes out, she usually wears shorts, and without exception, gets Oogled at by pretty much every male she encounters; sometimes a cursory glance is just the straw that breaks the camels back.
Taking a break.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28703
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:28 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:Still not absolving you of your responsibility to behave. Sorry. Not doing it. You can talk about all the crazy costume parties you want.


Right so that responsibility doesn't just disappear if you happen to be wearing an 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
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27811
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:29 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
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".

He's using the Potter Stewart standard, a standard so shit that even Potter Stewart rejected it. "I'll know it when I see it" is shittier here because it's essentially holding women as a whole to a random and shifty standard held by a bunch of strangers. Fuck that. I said before, and a few just drove it home again, I'm not about to surrender my agency to my genitals. I managed impulse control a long time ago, it's why I get to sit at the grown up table.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27811
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:31 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:Still not absolving you of your responsibility to behave. Sorry. Not doing it. You can talk about all the crazy costume parties you want.


Right so that responsibility doesn't just disappear if you happen to be wearing an SS uniform?

I'll entertain your bizarre fascination with SS uniforms when you tell us what you think the analog here is that keeps this constant refrain of yours not total bullshit.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28703
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:31 am

Northern Dominus wrote: 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".


It's not exactly subjective, the reason behind the design is an inflexible thing.
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
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:32 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
You just said that no matter what someones wearing you have to treat them with respect, is that conditional or absolute?

Still not absolving you of your responsibility to behave. Sorry. Not doing it. You can talk about all the crazy costume parties you want.

Bingo.

If you're not capable of controlling whether you leer at people or not, then don't go out in public without a chaperone. If you can't refrain from harassing people or touching people or otherwise behaving inappropriately, make sure you have adult supervision whenever others are around. If you genuinely can't tell the difference between looking at people and staring rudely, or between talking with somebody politely and being an offensive asshat, there are counselors who can help you sort through those problems.

If you're old enough to be posting on this forum, then you're old enough to be capable of self control.

Now, you can choose not to control yourself if you want. You can choose to behave like a jerk. Just kindly don't whine when people point out that you're being a jerk. There is no shortage of entitled brats in the world, so your contribution is not necessary.
"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 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:33 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote: 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".

He's using the Potter Stewart standard, a standard so shit that even Potter Stewart rejected it. "I'll know it when I see it" is shittier here because it's essentially holding women as a whole to a random and shifty standard held by a bunch of strangers. Fuck that. I said before, and a few just drove it home again, I'm not about to surrender my agency to my genitals. I managed impulse control a long time ago, it's why I get to sit at the grown up table.
Oh I got the implication early on. I'm just curios to see where the rabbit hole goes exactly.

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote: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.


It can just be accumulated frustration sometimes.

My country is pretty conservative when it comes to how women dress and my sister, having lived abroad most of her life, isn't really wont to indulge traditional notions of modesty in a tropical country with average temperatures of about 33 degrees celsius.

When she goes out, she usually wears shorts, and without exception, gets Oogled at by pretty much every male she encounters; sometimes a cursory glance is just the straw that breaks the camels back.
And does she apologize for the outburst if it was a harmless glance and not oogling, or does she go about her merry way? Because taking your frustration out on somebody who glanced because...well hey, attractive person... rather than stared and imagined all sorts of sundry things that were obvious on their face isn't exactly fair to the poor guy who didn't do the damage in the first place.
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: 28703
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:33 am

Cannot think of a name wrote:I'll entertain your bizarre fascination with SS uniforms when you tell us what you think the analog here is that keeps this constant refrain of yours not total bullshit.


There's no analogy here. You're saying "respect people regardless of what they're wearing" I'm asking you if that applies to 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 5:33 am

Bottle wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:Still not absolving you of your responsibility to behave. Sorry. Not doing it. You can talk about all the crazy costume parties you want.

Bingo.

If you're not capable of controlling whether you leer at people or not, then don't go out in public without a chaperone. If you can't refrain from harassing people or touching people or otherwise behaving inappropriately, make sure you have adult supervision whenever others are around. If you genuinely can't tell the difference between looking at people and staring rudely, or between talking with somebody politely and being an offensive asshat, there are counselors who can help you sort through those problems.

If you're old enough to be posting on this forum, then you're old enough to be capable of self control.

Now, you can choose not to control yourself if you want. You can choose to behave like a jerk. Just kindly don't whine when people point out that you're being a jerk. There is no shortage of entitled brats in the world, so your contribution is not necessary.


I must sig this. 'tis made of win and awesome.
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 5:34 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote: 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".


It's not exactly subjective, the reason behind the design is an inflexible thing.
So what you're saying is you have no answer, you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

As Cannot Think said, you're using the Potter-Stewart standard, so what's your standard of "spectacle" then? Define it or you have no argument, 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
Zaras
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7415
Founded: Nov 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:35 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:I'll entertain your bizarre fascination with SS uniforms when you tell us what you think the analog here is that keeps this constant refrain of yours not total bullshit.


There's no analogy here. You're saying "respect people regardless of what they're wearing" I'm asking you if that applies to the SS uniform.


No, you're shifting the goalposts and clutching at straws. If you can't understand the contextual difference between Nazis and women, you shouldn't be trying to debate.
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: 27811
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:36 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:I'll entertain your bizarre fascination with SS uniforms when you tell us what you think the analog here is that keeps this constant refrain of yours not total bullshit.


There's no analogy here. You're saying "respect people regardless of what they're wearing" I'm asking you if that applies to the SS uniform.

Well, the subject of the thread is not costume parties but objectification.

If your obsession with SS uniforms has nothing to do with women or objectification I'll ask you to get back on topic and no longer entertain this threadjack.
Everything for the cat.

User avatar
Cannot think of a name
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27811
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:38 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
It's not exactly subjective, the reason behind the design is an inflexible thing.
So what you're saying is you have no answer, you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

As Cannot Think said, you're using the Potter-Stewart standard, so what's your standard of "spectacle" then? Define it or you have no argument, period.

Dammit...people don't usually do that when they're agreeing with me :p
Everything for the cat.

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

Postby Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:38 am

Northern Dominus wrote:And does she apologize for the outburst if it was a harmless glance and not oogling, or does she go about her merry way? Because taking your frustration out on somebody who glanced because...well hey, attractive person... rather than stared and imagined all sorts of sundry things that were obvious on their face isn't exactly fair to the poor guy who didn't do the damage in the first place.

From a woman who lives in cities and is harassed routinely:

If some woman snaps at you for a "glance," just let it go, okay? Don't expect her to apologize and worry about your feelings.

For one thing, you may not have just "glanced." You might not have realized that you were staring, or that you had a weird look on your face, or whatever else. Give her the benefit of the doubt and just say "sorry" the way you would have if you bumped into somebody on the street and you weren't sure who's fault it was.

And even if she was totally 100% wrong, you know what? Cut her a break. Odds are, she's been harassed a lot more than you. You don't have to apologize to her for that (because it's not your fault if other people are jerks), and you don't have to feel guilt on behalf of your gender or anything like that. Just let it go, the way she's probably let it go dozens of times when other people harassed her, and the way she will probably have to do dozens of time in the future. Consider it a form of paying it forward.
"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: 28703
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:41 am

Northern Dominus wrote:So what you're saying is you have no answer, you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

As Cannot Think said, you're using the Potter-Stewart standard, so what's your standard of "spectacle" then? Define it or you have no argument, period.


No? I'm saying if the clothing was designed to draw attention that's the standard.

Regardless this has gone pretty far off topic, back to the original data I'm interested in knowing whether this is a conditioned or natural behavior. The article makes it clear that there's more than just "looking" going on here, women are being assessed at a local level rather than a global level.
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 5:41 am

Bottle wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:And does she apologize for the outburst if it was a harmless glance and not oogling, or does she go about her merry way? Because taking your frustration out on somebody who glanced because...well hey, attractive person... rather than stared and imagined all sorts of sundry things that were obvious on their face isn't exactly fair to the poor guy who didn't do the damage in the first place.

From a woman who lives in cities and is harassed routinely:

If some woman snaps at you for a "glance," just let it go, okay? Don't expect her to apologize and worry about your feelings.

For one thing, you may not have just "glanced." You might not have realized that you were staring, or that you had a weird look on your face, or whatever else. Give her the benefit of the doubt and just say "sorry" the way you would have if you bumped into somebody on the street and you weren't sure who's fault it was.

And even if she was totally 100% wrong, you know what? Cut her a break. Odds are, she's been harassed a lot more than you. You don't have to apologize to her for that (because it's not your fault if other people are jerks), and you don't have to feel guilt on behalf of your gender or anything like that. Just let it go, the way she's probably let it go dozens of times when other people harassed her, and the way she will probably have to do dozens of time in the future. Consider it a form of paying it forward.
Look I've been yelled at for staring without realizing it, and I've taken my medicine in stride.

By the same token I have been yelled at for looking in one direction for something when a woman happened to be in my field of view looking in the opposite. Apparently she took it to mean that I was staring at her rather than trying to figure out what damn floor I had to deliver a package do and decided to try and berate me in the lobby of an office building without letting me explain edgewise.

So if I inadvertently make somebody uncomfortable, no harm, I'll apologize. But being called out for something I didn't do in the first place, sorry, no apologies, I'm standing my ground.
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
EnragedMaldivians
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8445
Founded: Feb 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby EnragedMaldivians » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:42 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Cannot think of a name wrote:He's using the Potter Stewart standard, a standard so shit that even Potter Stewart rejected it. "I'll know it when I see it" is shittier here because it's essentially holding women as a whole to a random and shifty standard held by a bunch of strangers. Fuck that. I said before, and a few just drove it home again, I'm not about to surrender my agency to my genitals. I managed impulse control a long time ago, it's why I get to sit at the grown up table.
Oh I got the implication early on. I'm just curios to see where the rabbit hole goes exactly.

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
It can just be accumulated frustration sometimes.

My country is pretty conservative when it comes to how women dress and my sister, having lived abroad most of her life, isn't really wont to indulge traditional notions of modesty in a tropical country with average temperatures of about 33 degrees celsius.

When she goes out, she usually wears shorts, and without exception, gets Oogled at by pretty much every male she encounters; sometimes a cursory glance is just the straw that breaks the camels back.
And does she apologize for the outburst if it was a harmless glance and not oogling, or does she go about her merry way? Because taking your frustration out on somebody who glanced because...well hey, attractive person... rather than stared and imagined all sorts of sundry things that were obvious on their face isn't exactly fair to the poor guy who didn't do the damage in the first place.


Less outburst, more, "what are you looking at?" kind of deal.

Perhaps it's not fair on the guy but, to be honest, I'd rather blame the people who go out of their way to ogle my sixteen year old sister for how she dresses and pissing her off in the first place, than her for being in a testy mode for getting that kind of treatment.
Taking a break.

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

Postby Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:42 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:So what you're saying is you have no answer, you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

As Cannot Think said, you're using the Potter-Stewart standard, so what's your standard of "spectacle" then? Define it or you have no argument, period.


No? I'm saying if the clothing was designed to draw attention that's the standard.

Regardless this has gone pretty far off topic, back to the original data I'm interested in knowing whether this is a conditioned or natural behavior. The article makes it clear that there's more than just "looking" going on here, women are being assessed at a local level rather than a global level.
So you have no standard and are just being contrary for the sake of it. Good to know, that would have helped from the outset if the rest of us had known.
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: 28703
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:44 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
So you have no standard and are just being contrary for the sake of it. Good to know, that would have helped from the outset if the rest of us had known.


Wow that takes some blatant ignorance, either way we've strayed pretty far from what is admittedly a very interesting topic.
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
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:45 am

Northern Dominus wrote:
Bottle wrote:From a woman who lives in cities and is harassed routinely:

If some woman snaps at you for a "glance," just let it go, okay? Don't expect her to apologize and worry about your feelings.

For one thing, you may not have just "glanced." You might not have realized that you were staring, or that you had a weird look on your face, or whatever else. Give her the benefit of the doubt and just say "sorry" the way you would have if you bumped into somebody on the street and you weren't sure who's fault it was.

And even if she was totally 100% wrong, you know what? Cut her a break. Odds are, she's been harassed a lot more than you. You don't have to apologize to her for that (because it's not your fault if other people are jerks), and you don't have to feel guilt on behalf of your gender or anything like that. Just let it go, the way she's probably let it go dozens of times when other people harassed her, and the way she will probably have to do dozens of time in the future. Consider it a form of paying it forward.
Look I've been yelled at for staring without realizing it, and I've taken my medicine in stride.

By the same token I have been yelled at for looking in one direction for something when a woman happened to be in my field of view looking in the opposite. Apparently she took it to mean that I was staring at her rather than trying to figure out what damn floor I had to deliver a package do and decided to try and berate me in the lobby of an office building without letting me explain edgewise.

So if I inadvertently make somebody uncomfortable, no harm, I'll apologize. But being called out for something I didn't do in the first place, sorry, no apologies, I'm standing my ground.

Your choice if you want to act that way. I gave my $0.02, nobody's gotta listen.
"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 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:52 am

Bottle wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:Look I've been yelled at for staring without realizing it, and I've taken my medicine in stride.

By the same token I have been yelled at for looking in one direction for something when a woman happened to be in my field of view looking in the opposite. Apparently she took it to mean that I was staring at her rather than trying to figure out what damn floor I had to deliver a package do and decided to try and berate me in the lobby of an office building without letting me explain edgewise.

So if I inadvertently make somebody uncomfortable, no harm, I'll apologize. But being called out for something I didn't do in the first place, sorry, no apologies, I'm standing my ground.

Your choice if you want to act that way. I gave my $0.02, nobody's gotta listen.
Act what way? Being cognizant of the fact that women get a raw deal when it comes to putting up with pervy wanker asshats but refusing to take a certain degree of reaction under certain circumstances?


Des-Bal wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:
So you have no standard and are just being contrary for the sake of it. Good to know, that would have helped from the outset if the rest of us had known.


Wow that takes some blatant ignorance, either way we've strayed pretty far from what is admittedly a very interesting topic.
Ignorance? You're the one that started making parallels between "provactive" women's dress which you refuse to outline in any way shape or form and playing dress-up in public in your Waffen SS uniform. You're the one that distracted from the topic with that line of thought so guess what, you're stuck with it until you come up with a clear reasoning for your comparison.
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
Mini Miehm
Diplomat
 
Posts: 785
Founded: Apr 15, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:53 am

Bottle wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote:And does she apologize for the outburst if it was a harmless glance and not oogling, or does she go about her merry way? Because taking your frustration out on somebody who glanced because...well hey, attractive person... rather than stared and imagined all sorts of sundry things that were obvious on their face isn't exactly fair to the poor guy who didn't do the damage in the first place.

From a woman who lives in cities and is harassed routinely:

If some woman snaps at you for a "glance," just let it go, okay? Don't expect her to apologize and worry about your feelings.

For one thing, you may not have just "glanced." You might not have realized that you were staring, or that you had a weird look on your face, or whatever else. Give her the benefit of the doubt and just say "sorry" the way you would have if you bumped into somebody on the street and you weren't sure who's fault it was.

And even if she was totally 100% wrong, you know what? Cut her a break. Odds are, she's been harassed a lot more than you. You don't have to apologize to her for that (because it's not your fault if other people are jerks), and you don't have to feel guilt on behalf of your gender or anything like that. Just let it go, the way she's probably let it go dozens of times when other people harassed her, and the way she will probably have to do dozens of time in the future. Consider it a form of paying it forward.



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.
Mallorea and Riva should resign

Don't reward the trolls.

User avatar
Terruana
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1789
Founded: Nov 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Terruana » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:54 am

There's a difference between looking at someone and thinking "They look really good", then going on with your day, and staring at someone to the point of making them uncomfortable. Apparently some people in this thread don't seem to appreciate the distinction. Clothes designed to look nice are not invitations to stare and drool, they're just there to make the person wearing them look and feel good.
Political Compass Score:
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

User avatar
Des-Bal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28703
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:55 am

Northern Dominus wrote: Ignorance? You're the one that started making parallels between "provactive" women's dress which you refuse to outline in any way shape or form and playing dress-up in public in your Waffen SS uniform. You're the one that distracted from the topic with that line of thought so guess what, you're stuck with it until you come up with a clear reasoning for your comparison.


My definition cannot be clearer, if the clothing was designed with the express purpose of drawing attention attention has been invited.

But seriously that isn't what this thread is about. I tend to go off on tangents and when I go places people generally follow, in a forum setting that often manifests as threadjacking- something I take responsibility for. The fact remains the topic at hand is this study and it's an interesting one so this bitch is going back on the rails.
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

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bombadil, Chernoslavia, Dooom35796821595, Dumb Ideologies, Fractalnavel, Infected Mushroom, Kubra, Miami Shores, Nakena, Neanderthaland, Necroghastia, Ranoria, Samadhi, Stellar Colonies, Telconi, The Alma Mater, The Republic of Fore, Uiiop, Valentine Z, Washington Resistance Army, West Ourons

Advertisement

Remove ads