Bullshit.
Advertisement
by Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:41 am
Northern Dominus wrote:And what if they get that kind of attention without dressing to "get noticed" as you've postulated? What then?Mini Miehm wrote:
If a person dresses to secure attention, they shouldn't object to wherever that attention comes from. I may not WANT looks from a fat hairy woman with three chins, but if I get it, I did dress to grab it, so it is my fault. I can't exactly yell at her when I went out looking for looks.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:41 am
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Big Jim P » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:42 am
Zaras wrote:Old Erisia wrote:Yes, because people think to themselves "this dress is gonna make guys just stare at my ass." Revealing clothes makes some people feel sexy on a personal level. It's not all about your penis.
The fact that some people keep compulsively trying to make it all about their dicks says very bad things about them.
by Neo Art » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:43 am
Mini Miehm wrote:If a person dresses to secure attention, they shouldn't object to wherever that attention comes from.
by Mini Miehm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:44 am
Old Erisia wrote:Mini Miehm wrote:
If a person dresses to secure attention, they shouldn't object to wherever that attention comes from. I may not WANT looks from a fat hairy woman with three chins, but if I get it, I did dress to grab it, so it is my fault. I can't exactly yell at her when I went out looking for looks.
Yes, because people think to themselves "this dress is gonna make guys just stare at my ass." Revealing clothes makes some people feel sexy on a personal level. It's not all about your penis.
by Old Erisia » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:44 am
Grainne Ni Malley wrote:Hey now that give-a-fuck wasn't free. I expect a check in the mail. ;)
Ryadn wrote:Oh ffs. That's pathetic. If I can manage not to gag with a dick in my throat, you can manage to keep it together with a freaking HAIR on your tongue.
The Parkus Empire wrote:Then stop getting everyone excited, Mr. Human Viagra.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I'm a Bignostic Cross-sexual Nondresser. :)
Lackadaisical2 wrote:rofl.... goddesses are weak sexually, Men are so much more appealing.
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:44 am
Except the "validity" of your argument is subjective and contextual. What of women's running attire? Are they still subject to your standards because they had the gall to pick out clothing that allows them to be cool and move freely rather than running in a niqab?Mini Miehm wrote:Northern Dominus wrote:And what if they get that kind of attention without dressing to "get noticed" as you've postulated? What then?
In that case I would suggest objection to be acceptable. Personally I enjoy people looking at me, but some people may find it uncomfortable, and if they did not go seeking such attention they would be validated in objecting. However, my argument has hinged largely on clothing as social cue to desire for attention. I do not feel that my position is invalid, as I use my own clothing as social cue for attention.
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:45 am
Mini Miehm wrote:Northern Dominus wrote:And what if they get that kind of attention without dressing to "get noticed" as you've postulated? What then?
In that case I would suggest objection to be acceptable. Personally I enjoy people looking at me, but some people may find it uncomfortable, and if they did not go seeking such attention they would be validated in objecting. However, my argument has hinged largely on clothing as social cue to desire for attention. I do not feel that my position is invalid, as I use my own clothing as social cue for attention.
The Marginalised Person™ you’re dealing with has been subjected to this “othering”.
This means that their body is viewed as public property and the personal, intricate details of their lives and being are perceived as free information.
You must nod patiently as the Marginalised Person™ tries to gain your understanding of the many complicated and subtle ways this othering impacts their lives until they come across a point that seems particularly grating for them. Then you must say “oh, but I experience that too!”
For example, people of African descent often express outrage and irritation at the fact many white people believe they can freely touch their hair. This invasion of their personal space is dressed up as flattery - “oh, what beautiful hair you have!” and permission is not sought or granted before the action is taken. “That happens to everyone!” you must exclaim. “My child has beautiful white-blonde hair and people are always touching it!”
What this demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of what “othering” means in a practical sense. You’re ignoring the way your life is otherwise entirely immersed in a state of absolute privilege and revealing the fact you fail to comprehend the process of objectification and marginalising they go through all the time. When you are Privileged®, “similar” experiences simply do not happen on an equal footing because they do not otherwise reflect marginalisation. This obliviousness is highly insensitive and trivialising and will definitely cause them to grind their teeth!
Privileged People® are accustomed, after all, to it being “all about them”. Not used to simply sitting back and listening to othered people‘s issues, Privileged People® like to be the centre of attention at all times. It reminds them that they are important. By doing this, you will feel good about yourself and send a crucial message to the Marginalised Person™ (yes you really can diminish their experience by making it all about you, all the time!).
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:
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:45 am
This is pretty much the end of the whole matter. Assuming a woman is dressed in a particular matter because they want your attention and judgement is not only a fallacy, it probably points to a high degree of narcissistic tendencies as well.Neo Art wrote:Mini Miehm wrote:If a person dresses to secure attention, they shouldn't object to wherever that attention comes from.
Again, utter nonsense. And to even suggest that demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how humans interract. Just because you want one person to do something, doesn't mean you want ANYONE to do something.
I live in a major metropolitan area. I see women dressed provacatively ALL THE TIME. Is that an invitation to stare at them? of course not. Because even if they're dressed to impressed, even if they're wanting attention, I'm not going to assume that it's MY attention they want.
To assume otherwise is to place myself in some weird position that assumes every woman on the street with a low cut shirt wants me staring at their tits. And even I am not quite that egotistical.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:46 am
Zaras wrote:Mini Miehm wrote:
In that case I would suggest objection to be acceptable. Personally I enjoy people looking at me, but some people may find it uncomfortable, and if they did not go seeking such attention they would be validated in objecting. However, my argument has hinged largely on clothing as social cue to desire for attention. I do not feel that my position is invalid, as I use my own clothing as social cue for attention.
Yikes, your post reminds me of Derailing for Dummies. Not a good sign at all.The Marginalised Person™ you’re dealing with has been subjected to this “othering”.
This means that their body is viewed as public property and the personal, intricate details of their lives and being are perceived as free information.
You must nod patiently as the Marginalised Person™ tries to gain your understanding of the many complicated and subtle ways this othering impacts their lives until they come across a point that seems particularly grating for them. Then you must say “oh, but I experience that too!”
For example, people of African descent often express outrage and irritation at the fact many white people believe they can freely touch their hair. This invasion of their personal space is dressed up as flattery - “oh, what beautiful hair you have!” and permission is not sought or granted before the action is taken. “That happens to everyone!” you must exclaim. “My child has beautiful white-blonde hair and people are always touching it!”
What this demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of what “othering” means in a practical sense. You’re ignoring the way your life is otherwise entirely immersed in a state of absolute privilege and revealing the fact you fail to comprehend the process of objectification and marginalising they go through all the time. When you are Privileged®, “similar” experiences simply do not happen on an equal footing because they do not otherwise reflect marginalisation. This obliviousness is highly insensitive and trivialising and will definitely cause them to grind their teeth!
Privileged People® are accustomed, after all, to it being “all about them”. Not used to simply sitting back and listening to othered people‘s issues, Privileged People® like to be the centre of attention at all times. It reminds them that they are important. By doing this, you will feel good about yourself and send a crucial message to the Marginalised Person™ (yes you really can diminish their experience by making it all about you, all the time!).
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Old Erisia » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:47 am
Mini Miehm wrote:Old Erisia wrote:Yes, because people think to themselves "this dress is gonna make guys just stare at my ass." Revealing clothes makes some people feel sexy on a personal level. It's not all about your penis.
This shirt is gonna make people stare at my abs. And these jeans make more than just my ass look good. I like this. If you wear revealing clothes for any other reason than to seek attention, I think you're odd.
Grainne Ni Malley wrote:Hey now that give-a-fuck wasn't free. I expect a check in the mail. ;)
Ryadn wrote:Oh ffs. That's pathetic. If I can manage not to gag with a dick in my throat, you can manage to keep it together with a freaking HAIR on your tongue.
The Parkus Empire wrote:Then stop getting everyone excited, Mr. Human Viagra.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I'm a Bignostic Cross-sexual Nondresser. :)
Lackadaisical2 wrote:rofl.... goddesses are weak sexually, Men are so much more appealing.
by Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:47 am
by Ecans » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:47 am
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:49 am
Des-Bal wrote:1st of all if that book is where you got "priviliged" from burn the fucking thing.
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:
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:49 am
Nadkor wrote:
Except that, as we know, men don't get the same type or degree of attention or staring.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:49 am
Neo Art wrote:Mini Miehm wrote:If a person dresses to secure attention, they shouldn't object to wherever that attention comes from.
Again, utter nonsense. And to even suggest that demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how humans interract. Just because you want one person to do something, doesn't mean you want ANYONE to do something.
I live in a major metropolitan area. I see women dressed provacatively ALL THE TIME. Is that an invitation to stare at them? of course not. Because even if they're dressed to impressed, even if they're wanting attention, I'm not going to assume that it's MY attention they want.
To assume otherwise is to place myself in some weird position that assumes every woman on the street with a low cut shirt wants me staring at their tits. And even I am not quite that egotistical.
by The Republic Of Ardenhelm » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:51 am
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:52 am
Plus here's another wrinkle; he makes the assumption that all "revealing" womens clothing is worn for the expressed purpose of inviting attention.Old Erisia wrote:Mini Miehm wrote:
This shirt is gonna make people stare at my abs. And these jeans make more than just my ass look good. I like this. If you wear revealing clothes for any other reason than to seek attention, I think you're odd.
Yes, your choice of clothing had absolutely nothing to do with your personal satisfaction with your physique. It's all about other people and nebulous "attention."
I don't care if you think I'm "odd."
by Nadkor » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:52 am
by Old Erisia » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:52 am
Nadkor wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Again, utter nonsense. And to even suggest that demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how humans interract. Just because you want one person to do something, doesn't mean you want ANYONE to do something.
I live in a major metropolitan area. I see women dressed provacatively ALL THE TIME. Is that an invitation to stare at them? of course not. Because even if they're dressed to impressed, even if they're wanting attention, I'm not going to assume that it's MY attention they want.
To assume otherwise is to place myself in some weird position that assumes every woman on the street with a low cut shirt wants me staring at their tits. And even I am not quite that egotistical.
Yup, that pretty much covers it.
I should just let Neo Art argue for me from now on.
Grainne Ni Malley wrote:Hey now that give-a-fuck wasn't free. I expect a check in the mail. ;)
Ryadn wrote:Oh ffs. That's pathetic. If I can manage not to gag with a dick in my throat, you can manage to keep it together with a freaking HAIR on your tongue.
The Parkus Empire wrote:Then stop getting everyone excited, Mr. Human Viagra.
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I'm a Bignostic Cross-sexual Nondresser. :)
Lackadaisical2 wrote:rofl.... goddesses are weak sexually, Men are so much more appealing.
by Big Jim P » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:52 am
The Republic Of Ardenhelm wrote:I can almost guarantee that none of the people on this page have girlfriends and have no skill with girls.
(and the people who quote this message are just admitting to it)
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:53 am
But that means no more sexy sexy combacks for me to oogle...Nadkor wrote:Neo Art wrote:
Again, utter nonsense. And to even suggest that demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how humans interract. Just because you want one person to do something, doesn't mean you want ANYONE to do something.
I live in a major metropolitan area. I see women dressed provacatively ALL THE TIME. Is that an invitation to stare at them? of course not. Because even if they're dressed to impressed, even if they're wanting attention, I'm not going to assume that it's MY attention they want.
To assume otherwise is to place myself in some weird position that assumes every woman on the street with a low cut shirt wants me staring at their tits. And even I am not quite that egotistical.
Yup, that pretty much covers it.
I should just let Neo Art argue for me from now on.
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:53 am
The Republic Of Ardenhelm wrote:I can almost guarantee that none of the people on this page have girlfriends and have no skill with girls.
(and the people who quote this message are just admitting to it)
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:
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Tungstan
Advertisement