You know, in all honesty, I see more females around here making comments and such I view as innapropriate towards other females than males. Aside from a situation where alcohol is involved that has tended to be the case.
When you throw in a crowd at a bar, or just leaving one that tends to end up different. Most of those entering the bar scene are going there to pick someone up anyways.
Young girls and revealing clothes
Europe and US
I personally find the "european" dress sense far more appealing. Honestly it is sexy, alluring and very very classy. From what i have seen in NYC women tend to wear very very very short clothing. They strut their stuff and it looks rather sluttish. Its also the way you carry and hold yourself.
In Geneva the clothing is extremely tight....i mean extremely tight. It covers a majority of the body but it might as well not be there. But atleast it is classy. It doesn't come off as sluttish or at all as you want to be the center of attention. There are women who you can tell want you to look at their body. But are offended if you do look. Its a sort of a double standard.
Though i have a question for the women, what goes through your mind when you wear extremely revealing or short/small clothing. In the summer it is understandable. Its really hot and you rather have more freedom and sweat less. But that can also be with clothing that doesn't show your cleavage.
There are women at the UN that have clothes with such deep neck lines that nothing is left to the imagination. What would you think as women that she wears something like that?
I personally find the "european" dress sense far more appealing. Honestly it is sexy, alluring and very very classy. From what i have seen in NYC women tend to wear very very very short clothing. They strut their stuff and it looks rather sluttish. Its also the way you carry and hold yourself.
In Geneva the clothing is extremely tight....i mean extremely tight. It covers a majority of the body but it might as well not be there. But atleast it is classy. It doesn't come off as sluttish or at all as you want to be the center of attention. There are women who you can tell want you to look at their body. But are offended if you do look. Its a sort of a double standard.
Though i have a question for the women, what goes through your mind when you wear extremely revealing or short/small clothing. In the summer it is understandable. Its really hot and you rather have more freedom and sweat less. But that can also be with clothing that doesn't show your cleavage.
There are women at the UN that have clothes with such deep neck lines that nothing is left to the imagination. What would you think as women that she wears something like that?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
*nods* There's a difference between dressing in clothes that a girl may wear to feel "attractive" or "sexy" and the outfits some wear simply to attract attention as well. I'm not arrogant enough to believe someone is dressing a particular way for me, or anyone else, unless they say so. Yet, sometimes I have to wonder why some people wear certain things.
Such as shorts that have the end of them stopping right between the top of the thigh and the bottom of the rear with "Slut" on the back of them. Why wear something like that unless you thinking "I want to be viewed as a slut today"?
Such as shorts that have the end of them stopping right between the top of the thigh and the bottom of the rear with "Slut" on the back of them. Why wear something like that unless you thinking "I want to be viewed as a slut today"?
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=Fiona]As to living with the consequences of your actions, staring is not a consequence of the woman's action; it the man's action alone.[/QUOTE]
I heartily agree. That is the bottom line of this issue, and any other having to do with human interaction. A human being is responsible for their own actions and behaviors. The tendency to attribute to others the responsiblity for one's own behaviors is a relatively common culutural phenomenon, however. You'll find this in most societies.
It is true that most (not all, but most) human males respond primarily to visual and olfactory stimuli (in that order) in sexual arousal, due to physiological factors. I do believe that visual prominence in sexual arousal might be unique to primates, since other male mammals respond to olfactory stimuli provided by female mammals when the animal is in heat and fertile. If visual stimuli plays a role, it hasn't been researched sufficiently for any conclusions to be drawn. Male white-tailed deer, for example, have a sensory apparatus originating in their nasal cavitity (and exposed in the roof of their mouth, if I recall correctly) that is used to analyze chemicals found both in the air, and applied to surfaces such as grass and leaves. The buck licks at a scent applied by a doe to flora and the chemicals, carried in the saliva, are washed over the sensory gland for analysis. Rutting bucks are stimulated by the chemical messages of fertile does, which causes them to become aroused and engage in aggressive behavior towards other bucks, who have suddenly become their rivals in mating activity.
Bucks might not be able to control their change in behavior when confronted with fertile does in the vicinity, but human males, thanks to evolution and that often neglected bundle of nerves located between the ears, are admirably equipped to exercise conscious control over their sexual impulses. Our species has no definable mating season (unless you consider every 28 days or so the mating season), and we might be the only ones who engage in sex for reasons other than copulation. In short, our evolution has been leading to the ascendancy of the rational, conscious mind, which is capable of detaching itself from the environment and making decisions independently of the influences of external (and even internal) stimuli.
Okay, this was a ramble. In a nutshell, every human being has the ability to exercise control over their behaviors. Just because a female dresses in a manner which, to a male, could be considered provocative, does not equate that she invites unwanted behaviors from others. Control thyself, knave.
I heartily agree. That is the bottom line of this issue, and any other having to do with human interaction. A human being is responsible for their own actions and behaviors. The tendency to attribute to others the responsiblity for one's own behaviors is a relatively common culutural phenomenon, however. You'll find this in most societies.
It is true that most (not all, but most) human males respond primarily to visual and olfactory stimuli (in that order) in sexual arousal, due to physiological factors. I do believe that visual prominence in sexual arousal might be unique to primates, since other male mammals respond to olfactory stimuli provided by female mammals when the animal is in heat and fertile. If visual stimuli plays a role, it hasn't been researched sufficiently for any conclusions to be drawn. Male white-tailed deer, for example, have a sensory apparatus originating in their nasal cavitity (and exposed in the roof of their mouth, if I recall correctly) that is used to analyze chemicals found both in the air, and applied to surfaces such as grass and leaves. The buck licks at a scent applied by a doe to flora and the chemicals, carried in the saliva, are washed over the sensory gland for analysis. Rutting bucks are stimulated by the chemical messages of fertile does, which causes them to become aroused and engage in aggressive behavior towards other bucks, who have suddenly become their rivals in mating activity.
Bucks might not be able to control their change in behavior when confronted with fertile does in the vicinity, but human males, thanks to evolution and that often neglected bundle of nerves located between the ears, are admirably equipped to exercise conscious control over their sexual impulses. Our species has no definable mating season (unless you consider every 28 days or so the mating season), and we might be the only ones who engage in sex for reasons other than copulation. In short, our evolution has been leading to the ascendancy of the rational, conscious mind, which is capable of detaching itself from the environment and making decisions independently of the influences of external (and even internal) stimuli.
Okay, this was a ramble.
In a nutshell, every human being has the ability to exercise control over their behaviors. Just because a female dresses in a manner which, to a male, could be considered provocative, does not equate that she invites unwanted behaviors from others. Control thyself, knave. CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
-
Fiona
@ CM and Magrus.
I haven't managed to quote your posts (not very skilled with computers, sorry.) However you both have interesting views. What is a slut, in your opinion ?
@ Magrus and Boo's Daddy.
You both use the so-called overt sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls to justify your ideas of provocation etc. All children like to dress up like people they admire. Little girls have very few role models for reasons which you both rightly deplore. They dress up like famous people, and what they are doing is no different from little boys who wear football strips. Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one. Would you stop little boys from wearing batman suits or team strips? If not, why not?
I haven't managed to quote your posts (not very skilled with computers, sorry.) However you both have interesting views. What is a slut, in your opinion ?
@ Magrus and Boo's Daddy.
You both use the so-called overt sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls to justify your ideas of provocation etc. All children like to dress up like people they admire. Little girls have very few role models for reasons which you both rightly deplore. They dress up like famous people, and what they are doing is no different from little boys who wear football strips. Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one. Would you stop little boys from wearing batman suits or team strips? If not, why not?
[QUOTE=Fiona]@ CM and Magrus.
I haven't managed to quote your posts (not very skilled with computers, sorry.) However you both have interesting views. What is a slut, in your opinion ?
@ Magrus and Boo's Daddy.
You both use the so-called overt sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls to justify your ideas of provocation etc. All children like to dress up like people they admire. Little girls have very few role models for reasons which you both rightly deplore. They dress up like famous people, and what they are doing is no different from little boys who wear football strips. Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one. Would you stop little boys from wearing batman suits or team strips? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]
First part, it's not my view that's important, is it? It's the general consensus of those you are parading around in front of. If someone wear's an article of clothing with the word "slut" on their butt in public, chances are people will treat that person as one, most likely defined as something along the lines of:
1.
a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
IMHO it is frankly, quite dangerous for a woman to wear something of that nature.
Second part, "Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one." You're assuming, and wrongly doing so, which is quite irritating and insulting. Instead of paying attention to the fact I continually point out that I've no problem with the clothing themselves, it's the extremes I view as a problem. Girls of the age of 5 or 6 should NOT be dressed up in outfits that are skin-tight and revealing.
This isn't an issue of a teenager begging her family to buy her clothes to look like Britney Spears, this is the mother or father dressing their children as such, like my little sister is having happen with her mother. I find it disgusting and frightening.
Again, with the extremes. An attractive young lady with very revealing clothing with a term on her rear that expresses to everyone that she is a slut is inviting all sorts of trouble from people who lack morals and self-control. A skirt that ends above the knees with a low-cut shirt isn't at all a problem, it's when things are taken way too far that you then instigate problems.
You can't simply say "men need to control themselves" and leave it at that. Granted, what each person does is their own responsibility, and rightly so. The flip side of that is when a person does something that invites dangerous consequences onto themself.
Now, to forestall another misunderstanding and assumption, no, I'm not saying every young lady that plays dress up or dresses in a provocative manner is "inviting trouble". However, realistically there are simple common sense things that people do correct? You don't wave a gun at someone, or shout "I have a million dollars in my pocket" in the middle of a dangerous neighborhood, right? Dressing in a manner that is slightly revealing and provocative is fine and to be expected. Dressing in a manner that clearly states you simply don't care what people see of you, or think of tends to give the impression no one else should either.
There's a time and a place for everything, I won't strut around town in bikini underwear on my way to do shopping and out to a movie. It's just silly. Why should it be anything different for a girl doing something similar? Because she's "female" and "guys need to control themselves"? No, that's not the point. Some things go beyond common sense and decency. If I were to wear an outfit that was extremely hateful and discrimitory, like a shirt that said "I hate 'n-word'" in the middle of Harlem, I'd definately be expecting trouble. Do you see my point?
I haven't managed to quote your posts (not very skilled with computers, sorry.) However you both have interesting views. What is a slut, in your opinion ?
@ Magrus and Boo's Daddy.
You both use the so-called overt sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls to justify your ideas of provocation etc. All children like to dress up like people they admire. Little girls have very few role models for reasons which you both rightly deplore. They dress up like famous people, and what they are doing is no different from little boys who wear football strips. Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one. Would you stop little boys from wearing batman suits or team strips? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]
First part, it's not my view that's important, is it? It's the general consensus of those you are parading around in front of. If someone wear's an article of clothing with the word "slut" on their butt in public, chances are people will treat that person as one, most likely defined as something along the lines of:
1.
a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
IMHO it is frankly, quite dangerous for a woman to wear something of that nature.
Second part, "Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one." You're assuming, and wrongly doing so, which is quite irritating and insulting. Instead of paying attention to the fact I continually point out that I've no problem with the clothing themselves, it's the extremes I view as a problem. Girls of the age of 5 or 6 should NOT be dressed up in outfits that are skin-tight and revealing.
This isn't an issue of a teenager begging her family to buy her clothes to look like Britney Spears, this is the mother or father dressing their children as such, like my little sister is having happen with her mother. I find it disgusting and frightening.
Again, with the extremes. An attractive young lady with very revealing clothing with a term on her rear that expresses to everyone that she is a slut is inviting all sorts of trouble from people who lack morals and self-control. A skirt that ends above the knees with a low-cut shirt isn't at all a problem, it's when things are taken way too far that you then instigate problems.
You can't simply say "men need to control themselves" and leave it at that. Granted, what each person does is their own responsibility, and rightly so. The flip side of that is when a person does something that invites dangerous consequences onto themself.
Now, to forestall another misunderstanding and assumption, no, I'm not saying every young lady that plays dress up or dresses in a provocative manner is "inviting trouble". However, realistically there are simple common sense things that people do correct? You don't wave a gun at someone, or shout "I have a million dollars in my pocket" in the middle of a dangerous neighborhood, right? Dressing in a manner that is slightly revealing and provocative is fine and to be expected. Dressing in a manner that clearly states you simply don't care what people see of you, or think of tends to give the impression no one else should either.
There's a time and a place for everything, I won't strut around town in bikini underwear on my way to do shopping and out to a movie. It's just silly. Why should it be anything different for a girl doing something similar? Because she's "female" and "guys need to control themselves"? No, that's not the point. Some things go beyond common sense and decency. If I were to wear an outfit that was extremely hateful and discrimitory, like a shirt that said "I hate 'n-word'" in the middle of Harlem, I'd definately be expecting trouble. Do you see my point?
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
[QUOTE=Chanak]A human being is responsible for their own actions and behaviors.[/QUOTE]
This is about the only thing in your message that I agree with, aside from your examination of sexual stimuli, which I am not qualified to comment on one way or the other.
[QUOTE=Chanak]I do believe that visual prominence in sexual arousal might be unique to primates, since other male mammals respond to olfactory stimuli provided by female mammals when the animal is in heat and fertile. If visual stimuli plays a role, it hasn't been researched sufficiently for any conclusions to be drawn.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is correct. Just out of the blue, why do you think birds have such brilliant plumage?
[QUOTE=Chanak]Our species has no definable mating season (unless you consider every 28 days or so the mating season), and we might be the only ones who engage in sex for reasons other than copulation.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that any animal deliberately intends to reproduce when it has sex; it is merely responding to its own drives. The same can be said for most humans who aren't actively trying to have a baby. Pregnancy usually seems to be an unintended consequence rather than a primary motivation, unless of course a couple (or one member of a couple) is deliberately trying to have a baby. And there are a lot of species--bonobos and the previously mentioned dolphins, for example--that engage in sex solely for pleasure.
[QUOTE=Chanak]In short, our evolution has been leading to the ascendancy of the rational, conscious mind, which is capable of detaching itself from the environment and making decisions independently of the influences of external (and even internal) stimuli.
n a nutshell, every human being has the ability to exercise control over their behaviors.[/QUOTE]
Well, humans might be capable of rational decisionmaking--theoretically--but I think you give people way too much credit for their ability to control their own behavior. Bad habits are VERY hard to break, and there isn't any "rational" reason why people develop them in the first place. They're things that people "just do". Even the use of vulgarity, once it becomes an established part of a person's speech habits, can never be fully eradicated.
[QUOTE=Dottie]I don't think you can demand to walk unseen in public areas either, regardless of clothes.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree. I don't think that in itself is the problem. I think most people realize that they will be seen when they go out in public.
I don't think that people can help looking at each other. It's in our nature. The problem is when people treat other people in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. Personally, I'm resentful when someone acts as if I exist solely for his or her pleasure. But if a stranger gives me a polite, admiring look, I really don't mind.
This is about the only thing in your message that I agree with, aside from your examination of sexual stimuli, which I am not qualified to comment on one way or the other.
[QUOTE=Chanak]I do believe that visual prominence in sexual arousal might be unique to primates, since other male mammals respond to olfactory stimuli provided by female mammals when the animal is in heat and fertile. If visual stimuli plays a role, it hasn't been researched sufficiently for any conclusions to be drawn.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is correct. Just out of the blue, why do you think birds have such brilliant plumage?
[QUOTE=Chanak]Our species has no definable mating season (unless you consider every 28 days or so the mating season), and we might be the only ones who engage in sex for reasons other than copulation.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that any animal deliberately intends to reproduce when it has sex; it is merely responding to its own drives. The same can be said for most humans who aren't actively trying to have a baby. Pregnancy usually seems to be an unintended consequence rather than a primary motivation, unless of course a couple (or one member of a couple) is deliberately trying to have a baby. And there are a lot of species--bonobos and the previously mentioned dolphins, for example--that engage in sex solely for pleasure.
[QUOTE=Chanak]In short, our evolution has been leading to the ascendancy of the rational, conscious mind, which is capable of detaching itself from the environment and making decisions independently of the influences of external (and even internal) stimuli.
n a nutshell, every human being has the ability to exercise control over their behaviors.[/QUOTE]
Well, humans might be capable of rational decisionmaking--theoretically--but I think you give people way too much credit for their ability to control their own behavior. Bad habits are VERY hard to break, and there isn't any "rational" reason why people develop them in the first place. They're things that people "just do". Even the use of vulgarity, once it becomes an established part of a person's speech habits, can never be fully eradicated.
[QUOTE=Dottie]I don't think you can demand to walk unseen in public areas either, regardless of clothes.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree. I don't think that in itself is the problem. I think most people realize that they will be seen when they go out in public.
I don't think that people can help looking at each other. It's in our nature. The problem is when people treat other people in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. Personally, I'm resentful when someone acts as if I exist solely for his or her pleasure. But if a stranger gives me a polite, admiring look, I really don't mind.
-
Chimaera182
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:00 am
- Contact:
(In a narrator's voice) And here, we see a full-sized Chanak grazing the field while in search of his next conquest. But a competitor, a giant bull Magrus, has just wandered into his territory. The female gamers watch with anticipation, knowing the battle which is about to take place. The victor will be given the chance to procreate, while the loser, broken and beaten, will leave and try his luck at another field another day.
LoL Chanak that was far too much like a biology program on Discovery Channel. Haven't monkeys masturbated? I remember seeing a very disgusting video on Animal Planet one time where a male lion was rubbing his stuff on the bars, and he shot all over a cameraman. That's terribly graphic and probably should--and will--be edited out, but it is an example of one instance where an animal did something sexual for the sheer gratification of it.
As for women dressing for men, it's sad but it is the style, whether the women like to admit it or not. They may think they're dressing that way because they want to, because it makes them look good, because it's the style, but who exactly said it was the style? And yes, there are men who will leer at women no matter what they wear, but why invite them to look by serving it up on a platter? Yes, you might make the arguement that I'm blaming the victim, but, essentially, yes, I am. Girls should dress plainly, instead of wear revealing clothes, short skirts, tight shirts, etc. It's less of an invitation for men to stare at them. But enough about men staring at women.
Women stare at men just as much. Well-built men wear tight shirts to show off their muscles, or tight jeans to show off their butts and other stuff. Some men wear speedos at the beach to cover very little. And women stare at them all the same. For men, though, I think it's generally considered a compliment to them. They like showing off, and because they're men, they're supposed to; this isn't chauvinism or anything;it's either due to biology--males in several species show off to females to attract mates--or due to upbringing and society--males were supposed to show they were worthy of a woman, and women were supposed to just sit and judge whether they were, in fact, worthy (although a lot of the time the women didn't have any say, it was the parents who did the judging).
dragon wench mentioned us still holding on to Victorian mores, and that's probably true. Some people still believe it's inappropriate to have sex until you're married. But women should be the first to give up those mores; instead of being insulted when a guy notices you, maybe you should be flattered. Yes, being stared at like some girls is uncomfortable and guys should learn to restrain themselves better, but maybe they just can't. So maybe women just shouldn't be upset when they're gawked at, they should enjoy it. Of course, guys who check out women who are obviously with a man are just guys of bad taste, and it's probably best to ignore them. Or maybe just ignore the lot of them.
LoL Chanak that was far too much like a biology program on Discovery Channel. Haven't monkeys masturbated? I remember seeing a very disgusting video on Animal Planet one time where a male lion was rubbing his stuff on the bars, and he shot all over a cameraman. That's terribly graphic and probably should--and will--be edited out, but it is an example of one instance where an animal did something sexual for the sheer gratification of it.
As for women dressing for men, it's sad but it is the style, whether the women like to admit it or not. They may think they're dressing that way because they want to, because it makes them look good, because it's the style, but who exactly said it was the style? And yes, there are men who will leer at women no matter what they wear, but why invite them to look by serving it up on a platter? Yes, you might make the arguement that I'm blaming the victim, but, essentially, yes, I am. Girls should dress plainly, instead of wear revealing clothes, short skirts, tight shirts, etc. It's less of an invitation for men to stare at them. But enough about men staring at women.
Women stare at men just as much. Well-built men wear tight shirts to show off their muscles, or tight jeans to show off their butts and other stuff. Some men wear speedos at the beach to cover very little. And women stare at them all the same. For men, though, I think it's generally considered a compliment to them. They like showing off, and because they're men, they're supposed to; this isn't chauvinism or anything;it's either due to biology--males in several species show off to females to attract mates--or due to upbringing and society--males were supposed to show they were worthy of a woman, and women were supposed to just sit and judge whether they were, in fact, worthy (although a lot of the time the women didn't have any say, it was the parents who did the judging).
dragon wench mentioned us still holding on to Victorian mores, and that's probably true. Some people still believe it's inappropriate to have sex until you're married. But women should be the first to give up those mores; instead of being insulted when a guy notices you, maybe you should be flattered. Yes, being stared at like some girls is uncomfortable and guys should learn to restrain themselves better, but maybe they just can't. So maybe women just shouldn't be upset when they're gawked at, they should enjoy it. Of course, guys who check out women who are obviously with a man are just guys of bad taste, and it's probably best to ignore them. Or maybe just ignore the lot of them.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
What do you mean with "it's style"? And why on earth do belive what other people should wear should be dictated by you? Like I said before I am really bothered by the idea that integrity should be dependant on clothes, so I ask: why should it? And do you belive this should apply generarly? If a homosexual dresses in fashionable clothes does he then do wrong in provoking homophoebes to comit hate crimes?Chimaera182 wrote: As for women dressing for men, it's sad but it is the style, whether the women like to admit it or not. They may think they're dressing that way because they want to, because it makes them look good, because it's the style, but who exactly said it was the style? And yes, there are men who will leer at women no matter what they wear, but why invite them to look by serving it up on a platter? Yes, you might make the arguement that I'm blaming the victim, but, essentially, yes, I am. Girls should dress plainly, instead of wear revealing clothes, short skirts, tight shirts, etc. It's less of an invitation for men to stare at them. But enough about men staring at women.
Judgin from this thread it isn't "being noticed" that's bothering anyone, its being regarded as a piece of decoration put there for someone else personal enjoyment. This is not related to any Victorian notions of "no sex before marriage". It is a completely different thing.dragon wench mentioned us still holding on to Victorian mores, and that's probably true. Some people still believe it's inappropriate to have sex until you're married. But women should be the first to give up those mores; instead of being insulted when a guy notices you, maybe you should be flattered. Yes, being stared at like some girls is uncomfortable and guys should learn to restrain themselves better, but maybe they just can't. So maybe women just shouldn't be upset when they're gawked at, they should enjoy it.
Of course, guys who check out women who are obviously with a man are just guys of bad taste, and it's probably best to ignore them.
Why would it be more bad taste if she is in male company? Are you suggesting this is primarily an ownership issue? If so, I heartily object.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
-
Fiona
Actually it is your view which is important. You claim a consensus around your two definitions. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the notion (which you may or may not hold) that a "sexually promiscuous" woman (whatever that might be) is not likely to care who she has sex with; and is therefore not entitled to the respect other people get. Similarly a "woman prostitute" (who may be her own PR consultant, if I understand you right) might be interested in business or not. It doesn't follow she should have no rights. The danger is not intrinsic, it rests in the kind of view you seem to be defendingMagrus wrote:First part, it's not my view that's important, is it? It's the general consensus of those you are parading around in front of. If someone wear's an article of clothing with the word "slut" on their butt in public, chances are people will treat that person as one, most likely defined as something along the lines of:
1.
a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.
b. A woman prostitute.
IMHO it is frankly, quite dangerous for a woman to wear something of that nature.
I don't think you have answered the point in my first post. Who are you to decide what is extreme ? You say you have no problem with the clothes themselves. What exactly do you have a problem with ?Second part, "Once again you imagine that the male perspective is the only one or the only important one." You're assuming, and wrongly doing so, which is quite irritating and insulting. Instead of paying attention to the fact I continually point out that I've no problem with the clothing themselves, it's the extremes I view as a problem.
I understand that you believe this. I don't understand why. You have not answered my point about dressing up. If you think a child is doing more than that then I think it is your problem. I am sorry if you are insulted or irritated but this really is a male point of view, imo.Girls of the age of 5 or 6 should NOT be dressed up in outfits that are skin-tight and revealing.
I accept that there are times when parents do not act in accordance with their child's wishes and even act against their interests. However in my experience very young children do want to dress like that (others want to look like snow white and it is the same thing). You argue that there is a difference which does not relate to the clothes themselves. My point is that they are clothes. That's all they are. They are not sexual signals. they are clothes.This isn't an issue of a teenager begging her family to buy her clothes to look like Britney Spears, this is the mother or father dressing their children as such, like my little sister is having happen with her mother. I find it disgusting and frightening.
I don't agree. As I think was indicated by other women in this thread as well as me, it doesn't much matter what we do. The problem is far deeper than our individual actions. Many oppressed groups have tried a strategy of reclaiming negative words amongst other ways of challenging the status quo. Does it not occur to you that such a policy may be deliberately adopted by some women in the (clearly unsuccessful) hope that it will make people think. I am not saying I think this is the best way to go about it but it is a time-honoured tradition adopted by ethnic minorities and homosexuals amongst others.Again, with the extremes. An attractive young lady with very revealing clothing with a term on her rear that expresses to everyone that she is a slut is inviting all sorts of trouble from people who lack morals and self-control. A skirt that ends above the knees with a low-cut shirt isn't at all a problem, it's when things are taken way too far that you then instigate problems.
Yes I can. This is mere intimidation. There is an old saw which says that "men are afraid of women because they think they might laugh at them: women are afraid of men because they think they might kill them". Women are certainly not unaware of danger. Some of us are a bit fed up of appeasement, though. It doesn't seem to be getting us anywhereYou can't simply say "men need to control themselves" and leave it at that. Granted, what each person does is their own responsibility, and rightly so. The flip side of that is when a person does something that invites dangerous consequences onto themself.
So we can avoid trouble so long as we completely agree with your definition of common sense? Again, do we have to conform to those who say that we can avoid trouble so long as we wear a burqa ? All points in between. The point is that in each case the men decide what is dangerous because they make the danger. This isn't a case of women showing due prudence; it is a case of power and control outside the law. Respect for other people is surely not dependent on your view of their respect for themselves. Even if it were how can you judge and why does lack of respect lead to danger. You can hold someone in contempt if you like. It doesn't give you the right to hurt them.Now, to forestall another misunderstanding and assumption, no, I'm not saying every young lady that plays dress up or dresses in a provocative manner is "inviting trouble". However, realistically there are simple common sense things that people do correct? You don't wave a gun at someone, or shout "I have a million dollars in my pocket" in the middle of a dangerous neighborhood, right? Dressing in a manner that is slightly revealing and provocative is fine and to be expected. Dressing in a manner that clearly states you simply don't care what people see of you, or think of tends to give the impression no one else should either.
No, I don't really see your point. You compare an insult to someone with no insult to anyone. I don't get it. You don't want to wear bikini undewear in town ? Your choice. The difference, according to your own argument, is that it is dangerous for women to do so. That is not the same as silly. That is the difference I am challenging. As to your second point, the shirt you describe is insulting to someone else; the kind of clothes we are talking about are not. Where is the comparison ?There's a time and a place for everything, I won't strut around town in bikini underwear on my way to do shopping and out to a movie. It's just silly.Why should it be anything different for a girl doing something similar? Because she's "female" and "guys nee[d to control themselves"? No, that's not the point. Some things go beyond common sense and decency. If I were to wear an outfit that was extremely hateful and discrimitory, like a shirt that said "I hate 'n-word'" in the middle of Harlem, I'd definately be expecting trouble. Do you see my point?
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Sorry if I'm over reacting, but that sounds unpleasantly like defenses still given in rape trials. i.e " Men are just not able to restrain themselves, she was asking for it and she enjoyed it."Yes, being stared at like some girls is uncomfortable and guys should learn to restrain themselves better, but maybe they just can't. So maybe women just shouldn't be upset when they're gawked at, they should enjoy it. Of course, guys who check out women who are obviously with a man are just guys of bad taste, and it's probably best to ignore them. Or maybe just ignore the lot of them.
I realise that gawking at a woman is not the same as rape,and it should never be considered as such. However, both are violations, and in each case it is because the male in question does not perceive that he should control his urges, he lacks respect towards women, and, he wishes to dominate and control.
Moreover, being leered at is NOT in any way a compliment! How many times do we need to state this guys? It is extremely disrespectful, it is a violation of privacy, and it is intrusive. How much more clearly must we spell it out? Exactly what part of the words "no," and "not," are so difficult to understand?
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
Chimaera182
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:00 am
- Contact:
It's the style to wear the clothes women and young girls tend to wear. And no one said people should wear what I tell them, too; it's my personal opinion, nothing more. Everyone has an opinion, and the point of "Speak Your Mind" is to speak your mind. I said I think girls--everyone, really--should dress plainly. Frankly, I've always thought it was dumb to waste so much money on clothes and fashion. And so, I said that. You may not agree, but that's your opinion, and you're free to it. And given the blending between fashionable clothes being worn by homosexual males and heterosexuals, it's not exactly the same.
And it's being regarded as a piece of decoration I'm referring to. Many men don't seem to mind being regarded that way, but many women do. And as for the Victorian notions, I was only mentioning that one as an example of a Victorian more which has most definitely been passed over by most, but I said some people still believe in it.
It would be bad taste in the one example someone mentioned where he was with his girlfriend. It's rude to gawk at someone who is obviously taken, and if you want to call it ownership, then we'll call it ownership. But god knows that his girlfriend would feel similarly if women started fawning over him; he is hers and no one should be staring at him or giving him suggestive looks.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I understand that you believe this. I don't understand why. You have not answered my point about dressing up. If you think a child is doing more than that then I think it is your problem. I am sorry if you are insulted or irritated but this really is a male point of view, imo.[/QUOTE]
I'd have to say that, if I was a parent, I wouldn't want my 5-6 year old daughter dressing up like Britney Spears. I wouldn't want to encourage her to be dressing in tight clothes or clothes that show a lot of skin. It might encourage her, if a boy gets an idea, to do things early in her life. I certainly wouldn't want my little girl to be having sex at 12 or 13; I understand some people do, but the body is not ready for it. And I certainly wouldn't want to be encouraging her to be having sex at 14-15, either, where she might get pregnant. Be having her wear such revealing clothes, you can encourage girls to start having sex at a young age. You may not believe wearing such suggestive clothing would encourage them to have sex, but it's true. Guys would sit up and take notice of them early on, and might suggest they do something, and at a young age, those girls may not have any idea what's going on.
You want women to have the freedom to dress how they want, and that is not an unworthy goal. But freedom has always had its price. You may not like that price and you can complain about it until you're blue in the face, but this is the real world. Guys are not going to stop leering at you, and if you wear clothing that accentuates your body, you are inviting them to look. Maybe if this were a more enlightened age, men wouldn't be so rude and gawk at women who dress with minimum coverage. But this is the real world, and it's not going to change any time soon. So maybe that should be taken into consideration before anyone--guys or girls--get dressed. You have the freedom of religion, but then you whine when Jehovah's witnesses knock on your door. You have the freedom to own a gun, but you fear being mugged by a gun-toting lunatic. Those freedoms have their price, and so does the freedom of how to dress.
And it's being regarded as a piece of decoration I'm referring to. Many men don't seem to mind being regarded that way, but many women do. And as for the Victorian notions, I was only mentioning that one as an example of a Victorian more which has most definitely been passed over by most, but I said some people still believe in it.
It would be bad taste in the one example someone mentioned where he was with his girlfriend. It's rude to gawk at someone who is obviously taken, and if you want to call it ownership, then we'll call it ownership. But god knows that his girlfriend would feel similarly if women started fawning over him; he is hers and no one should be staring at him or giving him suggestive looks.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I understand that you believe this. I don't understand why. You have not answered my point about dressing up. If you think a child is doing more than that then I think it is your problem. I am sorry if you are insulted or irritated but this really is a male point of view, imo.[/QUOTE]
I'd have to say that, if I was a parent, I wouldn't want my 5-6 year old daughter dressing up like Britney Spears. I wouldn't want to encourage her to be dressing in tight clothes or clothes that show a lot of skin. It might encourage her, if a boy gets an idea, to do things early in her life. I certainly wouldn't want my little girl to be having sex at 12 or 13; I understand some people do, but the body is not ready for it. And I certainly wouldn't want to be encouraging her to be having sex at 14-15, either, where she might get pregnant. Be having her wear such revealing clothes, you can encourage girls to start having sex at a young age. You may not believe wearing such suggestive clothing would encourage them to have sex, but it's true. Guys would sit up and take notice of them early on, and might suggest they do something, and at a young age, those girls may not have any idea what's going on.
You want women to have the freedom to dress how they want, and that is not an unworthy goal. But freedom has always had its price. You may not like that price and you can complain about it until you're blue in the face, but this is the real world. Guys are not going to stop leering at you, and if you wear clothing that accentuates your body, you are inviting them to look. Maybe if this were a more enlightened age, men wouldn't be so rude and gawk at women who dress with minimum coverage. But this is the real world, and it's not going to change any time soon. So maybe that should be taken into consideration before anyone--guys or girls--get dressed. You have the freedom of religion, but then you whine when Jehovah's witnesses knock on your door. You have the freedom to own a gun, but you fear being mugged by a gun-toting lunatic. Those freedoms have their price, and so does the freedom of how to dress.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
[QUOTE=Chimaera182]You want women to have the freedom to dress how they want, and that is not an unworthy goal. But freedom has always had its price. You may not like that price and you can complain about it until you're blue in the face, but this is the real world. Guys are not going to stop leering at you...[/QUOTE]
Okay, go ahead and gawk. But accept the price for that freedom and admit that you're a chump.
Okay, go ahead and gawk. But accept the price for that freedom and admit that you're a chump.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I have a question for the guys who have posted here.
How would it make any of you feel, if you were lasciviously looked up and down by a gay male?
How would it make any of you feel, if you were lasciviously looked up and down by a gay male?
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
[QUOTE=VonDondu]Okay, go ahead and gawk. But accept the price for that freedom and admit that you're a chump. [/QUOTE]
*snickers*
[QUOTE=Fiona] It doesn't follow she should have no rights. The danger is not intrinsic, it rests in the kind of view you seem to be defending[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending it, or saying it's right, I'm saying it IS. There's a difference. My disregarding that there is a problem does not make it go away. As you ladies have pointed out there IS a problem with how many men deal with women. While that is the fact the men are not acting in an appropriate manner and that it isn't right, some women do dress in a manner that is just indecent and inviting danger.
I believe your taking my comment of "some" as all, or a majority, unless I'm wrong, which leads me to the next bit.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't think you have answered the point in my first post. Who are you to decide what is extreme ? You say you have no problem with the clothes themselves. What exactly do you have a problem with ?[/QUOTE]
I have no right to decide what is "extreme", yet, I'd have to say anything that in more cases than not would generate a dangerous situation in an average day is extreme. My problem isn't the majority of the women, or a majority of the clothes out there. The problem lies in people (men and women) blowing things out of proportion. The girl that freaks out because she's barely dressed and someone happens to simply look at her, not stare and drool, but look before moving on. The guy that does stare and oggle as well. Neither is appropriate or warranted.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I understand that you believe this. I don't understand why. You have not answered my point about dressing up. If you think a child is doing more than that then I think it is your problem. I am sorry if you are insulted or irritated but this really is a male point of view, imo.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between a young girl wandering into her mother's room and trying on her clothes and a mother deliberately buying a number of outfits that are showing off a young girls body in a manner that doesn't fit her age. I mean, realistically, young kids will run around in their diapers, that's fine. Clothes are clothes though. There is no reason to get your 6 year low cut shirt and jeans with a low waist which happen to be skin tight IMO. It's ridiculous, and instilling in a person too young the idea they SHOULD dress like that.
If a person happens to be older, wander by a store and say "I'd look pretty in that, and I want to buy it" that's her decision, and I'm all for that. A young girl cannot make that decision and is being forced into those clothes every day. That is my problem.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't agree. As I think was indicated by other women in this thread as well as me, it doesn't much matter what we do. The problem is far deeper than our individual actions. Many oppressed groups have tried a strategy of reclaiming negative words amongst other ways of challenging the status quo. Does it not occur to you that such a policy may be deliberately adopted by some women in the (clearly unsuccessful) hope that it will make people think. I am not saying I think this is the best way to go about it but it is a time-honoured tradition adopted by ethnic minorities and homosexuals amongst others.[/QUOTE]
You're right, there are guys who don't care and do what they want. You know what, they'res girls who do that too. I just heard of a friends brother of mine being drunk at a party, passed out and waking up to have a girl on top of him and having her way with him. That's rape, isn't it? It's not a one way thing. Females DO take advantage of males. There has always, ALWAYS been a history of such things going on between the two genders. Humans as species tend to be selfish and greedy individuals.
Whether or not a number of the population will do whatever they want and ignore the consequences of their actions is irrevelant, that's reality and it's a constant. The thing is, the female opinions presented here tend to be from those of a mature, older group. Not those of a group in the teenage years.
A LOT of teens don't quite appreciate the gravity of their actions yet because of lack of experience in the world. This is both boys and girls. When girls dress in that manner, a lot of simply don't realize exactly the kind of attention they will recieve and end up VERY uncomfortable when they do end up getting all sorts of attention.
As Cuch pointed out, that girl he saw was very uncomfortable. She shouldn't have had to be, I agree with that. A person should be able to dress as they want, within reason, and not feel threatened or uncomfortable. However, what "should be" isn't what "is". Food "should" be available to all, but it "isn't". Reality is what "is", and believing anything else is delusion no?
There are males who, whether they realize it or not make a lot of women uncomfortable. I was with my friend Rachel the day of our friend's mother's funeral. Now, you can't really tell from her picture in my avatar, she's all drunk and in clothes trying to stay warm and such, but she is a very attractive young woman. She had on a skin tight pair of pants, with a tight, low-cut blouse. We were leaving a place where I took her out for pizza and stopped to talk about what we were doing in the parking lot. Traffic stopped on the road in front of the building from guys slamming on their brakes to oggle her. She was not expecting that, and it made her very uncomfortable.
Those guys were wrong in doing what they did, but she knows very well the reactions she gets from males. She's discussed with me how to avoid getting into the trouble she does. She's got the same problem as me, she's flirty, a tease and says whats on her mind. She's also a 5' beautiful young woman, which has led to me having to remove her from different places before situations got nasty with the reactions men have given her from her playful actions. She's asked 'what am I doing to instigate these actions? My other friends don't get them?' and I had to tell her what she was doing. She's yet to stop, and has yet to have the problems stop. It's her choice, but she's made it.
The outfit she was wearing wasn't innapropriate in any way, she was simply standing there, so she wasn't doing anything innapropriate either. Yet, she still was made to feel uncomfortable. That's not her fault. It IS a problem though. Why? She felt she HAD to wear an outfit like that to feel "pretty". The young girls are being brought up that they need to dress in outfits that show off their bodies, and they have to be 6' tall, blonde, with a huge chest and thin in order to be "beautiful" and they scramble to fit that stereotype. That, is a serious problem.
I've no problem with a girl wanting to dress in a manner she enjoys. Yet, it should be because she enjoys it, for her own reasoning. NOT becuase the media says she should, or anyone else say they should. Among a younger crowd a lot of girls do dress the way they do for the wrong reasons. The girl in my example in my class didn't dress and act the way she did for herself, she admitted she did that simply for the young man in front of me to her friends later that week. She shouldn't have to feel she should need to do that in order to catch the attention of a guy she happens to like, should she?
[QUOTE=dragon wench]I have a question for the guys who have posted here.
How would it make any of you feel, if you were lasciviously looked up and down by a gay male?[/QUOTE]
I'd be flattered. I've had it happen in fact. So long as it's just them doing so once, and not a constant thing, I've no problem with it. The same with women. I've been hit on by gay males as well, and as long as they take the answer of "no" and move on, I have no problem with them. Why?
[/QUOTE]*snickers*
[QUOTE=Fiona] It doesn't follow she should have no rights. The danger is not intrinsic, it rests in the kind of view you seem to be defending[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending it, or saying it's right, I'm saying it IS. There's a difference. My disregarding that there is a problem does not make it go away. As you ladies have pointed out there IS a problem with how many men deal with women. While that is the fact the men are not acting in an appropriate manner and that it isn't right, some women do dress in a manner that is just indecent and inviting danger.
I believe your taking my comment of "some" as all, or a majority, unless I'm wrong, which leads me to the next bit.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't think you have answered the point in my first post. Who are you to decide what is extreme ? You say you have no problem with the clothes themselves. What exactly do you have a problem with ?[/QUOTE]
I have no right to decide what is "extreme", yet, I'd have to say anything that in more cases than not would generate a dangerous situation in an average day is extreme. My problem isn't the majority of the women, or a majority of the clothes out there. The problem lies in people (men and women) blowing things out of proportion. The girl that freaks out because she's barely dressed and someone happens to simply look at her, not stare and drool, but look before moving on. The guy that does stare and oggle as well. Neither is appropriate or warranted.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I understand that you believe this. I don't understand why. You have not answered my point about dressing up. If you think a child is doing more than that then I think it is your problem. I am sorry if you are insulted or irritated but this really is a male point of view, imo.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between a young girl wandering into her mother's room and trying on her clothes and a mother deliberately buying a number of outfits that are showing off a young girls body in a manner that doesn't fit her age. I mean, realistically, young kids will run around in their diapers, that's fine. Clothes are clothes though. There is no reason to get your 6 year low cut shirt and jeans with a low waist which happen to be skin tight IMO. It's ridiculous, and instilling in a person too young the idea they SHOULD dress like that.
If a person happens to be older, wander by a store and say "I'd look pretty in that, and I want to buy it" that's her decision, and I'm all for that. A young girl cannot make that decision and is being forced into those clothes every day. That is my problem.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't agree. As I think was indicated by other women in this thread as well as me, it doesn't much matter what we do. The problem is far deeper than our individual actions. Many oppressed groups have tried a strategy of reclaiming negative words amongst other ways of challenging the status quo. Does it not occur to you that such a policy may be deliberately adopted by some women in the (clearly unsuccessful) hope that it will make people think. I am not saying I think this is the best way to go about it but it is a time-honoured tradition adopted by ethnic minorities and homosexuals amongst others.[/QUOTE]
You're right, there are guys who don't care and do what they want. You know what, they'res girls who do that too. I just heard of a friends brother of mine being drunk at a party, passed out and waking up to have a girl on top of him and having her way with him. That's rape, isn't it? It's not a one way thing. Females DO take advantage of males. There has always, ALWAYS been a history of such things going on between the two genders. Humans as species tend to be selfish and greedy individuals.
Whether or not a number of the population will do whatever they want and ignore the consequences of their actions is irrevelant, that's reality and it's a constant. The thing is, the female opinions presented here tend to be from those of a mature, older group. Not those of a group in the teenage years.
A LOT of teens don't quite appreciate the gravity of their actions yet because of lack of experience in the world. This is both boys and girls. When girls dress in that manner, a lot of simply don't realize exactly the kind of attention they will recieve and end up VERY uncomfortable when they do end up getting all sorts of attention.
As Cuch pointed out, that girl he saw was very uncomfortable. She shouldn't have had to be, I agree with that. A person should be able to dress as they want, within reason, and not feel threatened or uncomfortable. However, what "should be" isn't what "is". Food "should" be available to all, but it "isn't". Reality is what "is", and believing anything else is delusion no?
There are males who, whether they realize it or not make a lot of women uncomfortable. I was with my friend Rachel the day of our friend's mother's funeral. Now, you can't really tell from her picture in my avatar, she's all drunk and in clothes trying to stay warm and such, but she is a very attractive young woman. She had on a skin tight pair of pants, with a tight, low-cut blouse. We were leaving a place where I took her out for pizza and stopped to talk about what we were doing in the parking lot. Traffic stopped on the road in front of the building from guys slamming on their brakes to oggle her. She was not expecting that, and it made her very uncomfortable.
Those guys were wrong in doing what they did, but she knows very well the reactions she gets from males. She's discussed with me how to avoid getting into the trouble she does. She's got the same problem as me, she's flirty, a tease and says whats on her mind. She's also a 5' beautiful young woman, which has led to me having to remove her from different places before situations got nasty with the reactions men have given her from her playful actions. She's asked 'what am I doing to instigate these actions? My other friends don't get them?' and I had to tell her what she was doing. She's yet to stop, and has yet to have the problems stop. It's her choice, but she's made it.
The outfit she was wearing wasn't innapropriate in any way, she was simply standing there, so she wasn't doing anything innapropriate either. Yet, she still was made to feel uncomfortable. That's not her fault. It IS a problem though. Why? She felt she HAD to wear an outfit like that to feel "pretty". The young girls are being brought up that they need to dress in outfits that show off their bodies, and they have to be 6' tall, blonde, with a huge chest and thin in order to be "beautiful" and they scramble to fit that stereotype. That, is a serious problem.
I've no problem with a girl wanting to dress in a manner she enjoys. Yet, it should be because she enjoys it, for her own reasoning. NOT becuase the media says she should, or anyone else say they should. Among a younger crowd a lot of girls do dress the way they do for the wrong reasons. The girl in my example in my class didn't dress and act the way she did for herself, she admitted she did that simply for the young man in front of me to her friends later that week. She shouldn't have to feel she should need to do that in order to catch the attention of a guy she happens to like, should she?
[QUOTE=dragon wench]I have a question for the guys who have posted here.
How would it make any of you feel, if you were lasciviously looked up and down by a gay male?[/QUOTE]
I'd be flattered. I've had it happen in fact. So long as it's just them doing so once, and not a constant thing, I've no problem with it. The same with women. I've been hit on by gay males as well, and as long as they take the answer of "no" and move on, I have no problem with them. Why?
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
-
Chimaera182
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:00 am
- Contact:
[QUOTE=dragon wench]I have a question for the guys who have posted here.
How would it make any of you feel, if you were lasciviously looked up and down by a gay male?[/QUOTE]
I'd be flattered, too. Granted, it's not the usual reaction you might expect, but Magrus and I understand the situation for what it is. If a gay guy was ogling either of us, we'd be flattered by their interest, but Magrus wouldn't get upset or feel uncomfortable by it. As for me, not many people--gay guys or girls--have or would want to check me out, but considering I happen to be one, I certainly wouldn't be overly upset by it.
How would it make any of you feel, if you were lasciviously looked up and down by a gay male?[/QUOTE]
I'd be flattered, too. Granted, it's not the usual reaction you might expect, but Magrus and I understand the situation for what it is. If a gay guy was ogling either of us, we'd be flattered by their interest, but Magrus wouldn't get upset or feel uncomfortable by it. As for me, not many people--gay guys or girls--have or would want to check me out, but considering I happen to be one, I certainly wouldn't be overly upset by it.
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I asked because most of the straight men I know really dislike being ogled by gay men. In essence, they say it makes them feel objectified.
However, if you and Magrus are honestly okay with that happening, and it doesn't in any way make you feel that your masculinity is being threatened, then kudos to both of you
However, I still think it is extremely offensive to stare, regardless of whether you are straight, gay or somewhere in between.
I have been known to make very cutting and below the belt remarks to men who do this, even better if it is in public, because as far as I'm concerned they deserve all the humiliation they receive, and then some.
If I were taller and stronger, I'd likely place a few well aimed boot kicks to the groin as well.
However, if you and Magrus are honestly okay with that happening, and it doesn't in any way make you feel that your masculinity is being threatened, then kudos to both of you
However, I still think it is extremely offensive to stare, regardless of whether you are straight, gay or somewhere in between.
I have been known to make very cutting and below the belt remarks to men who do this, even better if it is in public, because as far as I'm concerned they deserve all the humiliation they receive, and then some.
If I were taller and stronger, I'd likely place a few well aimed boot kicks to the groin as well.
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
So long as it's just a look, and not someone making comments, or groping, or hitting on me I'm fine. If the look happens to be repeated or a very extended one that turns into staring for some time, I do the same. As I've mentioned before, my tongue gets me into trouble and I've been known to make grown men cry from as young as 9 years old or so from the remarks I've made.
I just don't like the fact a lot of young women seem to think they HAVE to dress that way to feel attractive. It's demeaning to them IMO. A pretty girl is a pretty girl, whether naked or wrapped up from head to toe. You don't need a special outfit to feel good abour yourself.
[QUOTE=Chimaera182]As for me, not many people--gay guys or girls--have or would want to check me out, but considering I happen to be one, I certainly wouldn't be overly upset by it.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you meant you happen to be the first, and not the second?
I just don't like the fact a lot of young women seem to think they HAVE to dress that way to feel attractive. It's demeaning to them IMO. A pretty girl is a pretty girl, whether naked or wrapped up from head to toe. You don't need a special outfit to feel good abour yourself.
[QUOTE=Chimaera182]As for me, not many people--gay guys or girls--have or would want to check me out, but considering I happen to be one, I certainly wouldn't be overly upset by it.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you meant you happen to be the first, and not the second?
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"