# The Cleavage Debate



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

Is it morally justified for males to glimpse at cleavages? I'm not talking about starring at them for a minute and drooling but to glimpse at them.

I feel like this is a justifiable debate but if it belongs elsewhere or this topic is considered inappropriate please delete however I am just curious to see how people view this topic.

I'm not going to lie I love boobs. Whenever I see a girl with a low cut shirt I always glimpse but if I'm having a conversation with them I do make eye contact. Then again my eyes end up wondering about every now and then.

So my question to the femme fatales is this do you consider glimpses impolite or do you half expect them to occur?


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

Olympus said:


> Is it morally justified for males to glimpse at cleavages? I'm not talking about starring at them for a minute and drooling but to glimpse at them.
> 
> I feel like this is a justifiable debate but if it belongs elsewhere or this topic is considered inappropriate please delete however I am just curious to see how people view this topic.
> 
> ...


If the boobs are showing, they want them to be looked at and are lying if they act in any contradictory way. Men like boobs, how are we not going to even glance? Its not classy, and acting classy with your boobs hanging out doesn't make you any less of what you _really_ are. (I can feel the heat of the flames already!)


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I think that it depends on the culture. In some cultures, the concept of showing cleavage would be horrifying whereas, in others, it's not such a big deal. Just as long as you are looking politely and not ogling the lady.
But it doesn't sound as if you are ogling, so I'd say that you're fine.



Olympus said:


> Is it morally justified for males to glimpse at cleavages? I'm not talking about starring at them for a minute and drooling but to glimpse at them.
> 
> I feel like this is a justifiable debate but if it belongs elsewhere or this topic is considered inappropriate please delete however I am just curious to see how people view this topic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

Waiting said:


> If the boobs are showing, they want them to be looked at and are lying if they act in any contradictory way. Men like boobs, how are we not going to even glance? Its not classy, and acting classy with your boobs hanging out doesn't make you any less of what you _really_ are. You're a ho if you show! (I can feel the heat of the flames already!)


yes i feel the heat already....however i feel like this should be discussed. I don't like lying about my nature and I am more interest in hearing if glances are expected or if it's kind of like a morality trap.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

This might sound funny, but when another woman is showing cleavage, I even look for a second... not because I'm sexually interested, more just like, "wth is she doing this?" and then comparing hers to mine, out of curiosity.

So I know I'm forgiving with guys; it's only when you forget where my face is when I'm talking that I run the risk of getting a bit perturbed.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

I don't see it as requiring justification at all.

Is it morally justified to _even care?_

It's made too big a deal from all directions: looking vs. not looking and covering vs. not covering. Seriously - stop caring. Worrying about averting your eyes is just as bad as looking. Worrying about covering the body is just as bad as being overly concerned with flaunting it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

When someone exposes skin, male or female, I think many people notice because its a kind of wtf in the environment. Its the norm to walk around covered up, so when someone is letting more hang out, I think it gets attention, and not necessarily in a sexual way. I have seen straight guys notice the dude wearing short ass shorts in the grocery store and glance at his thighs -- but it wasn't morally questionable in any way, of course. People notice things. How they feel about what they are seeing is something they need to deal with personally, and decide what their internal reactions mean, and if they truly feel that way, or want to feel that way. Those can be positive, negative, or what some would consider neutral: disgust at a handicapped person, fear of a person of another race, a superficial attraction to something fake and trampy. I think a lot of that for many people can be handled with enough understanding of oneself and the genuine desire to deprogram. 

In tribes where women go bare chested regularly, all the mystification has been taken out of the breast and its not considered a sexual object. The men don't get aroused looking at it. Its hard to reconcile this _fact_, and the _claim_ by evo psych that breasts attract male attention as sexual objects. 

I think that in our culture as well, if it wasn't so immature about the naked body, that there wouldn't be as much excitement yielded from a little peep. They don't seem to go nuts over it as bad in a lot of European countries either where nudity isn't as banned from public, and from television. 

Evo psych is very backwards in my opinion. It just picks things that seem to be one way, and tries to find an excuse for them; then calls it human nature. It seems that culture is what has the impact here.

Anyway, gazing at the clevage with that O_O look and shifting around = pretty immature, but immoral, no. I blame the culture.

Happening to notice that my tits are hanging out of my top, then happening to notice the guy running down the street in spandex, the lady walking her dog in heels, a squirrel fall out of a tree, a car go by with no muffler -- normal shit.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Don't expose what you don't want seen. If you expose it, people will look.


----------



## progBOT (May 4, 2011)




----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

I'm fine with glimpses because it's not like I don't glimpse at others. I don't like long-hard stares at my chest, that's just awkward. I also have to sort of deal with it when creepers are looking. I've learned that posting pictures anywhere online, even Facebook, will get unwanted comments about breasts or cleavage. For the most part, I'm not even trying. I just like v-neck shirts because they're more flattering.

I will admit that I liken good chest hair to good breast cleavage. I will stare at chest hair because I know men don't realize how much I love it. Though I don't usually stare at other women's cleavage unless it's magnificent.


----------



## ingenii anima (Jan 6, 2012)

My eyes wander, so I used to fear that I'd be caught looking at some body part that I wasn't supposed to be looking at for too long even though I didn't mean to be looking at it in the first place, nor noticing that I was even looking at it. But, as the years pass, and never having females mention anything, I don't care where my eyes go.
A glimpse, though, must be expected, especially if she is wearing cleavage-revealing attire. Staring at breasts for anything longer than a second would be too obvious, but just moving your eyes quickly from one place to the next, pausing slightly as you reach the breast area - who'll notice?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

progBOT said:


>


I loled. I don't really find anything particularly interesting about them, but sometimes I look anyway.


----------



## Kittann (Apr 12, 2010)

Ok before I begin I'll just preface my thoughts by saying that I do not see anything inherently wrong with 'checking someone out'. Women as well as men are guilty of having a peek at someone's assets (breasts, bum, etc) and it's usually harmless.

But should it go beyond a glance (leering, making a comment) - then yes, that is wrong.

But far more dangerous then the glances are some peoples twisted attitudes.The problem lies in objectifying, and judging people (i.e. women) because of one feature being 'on show' (Thereby assuming that they are dressing for your personal gratification). Also, saying 'I love looking at cleavage', whilst simultaneously making statements such as 'women should keep it covered' smacks of misogyny. It doesn't matter if you'd rather women dressed in burkas or bikinis, because women don't exist to please male whims.

It pisses me off when people say a woman should modify her behaviour to avoid harassment from men. The whole 'men can't help themselves' bit is seriously tired and undermines men as well as women. (And it is dangerously similar to justifications of rape).

I have large breasts, if I wear a top with even a small dip in it there will be cleavage. If I wear a t-shirt/ top with a high collar they look even larger (the higher the neckline the larger breasts look). Am I 'unclassy' because my breasts are prominent? Should I get a reduction so as not to be judged and catcalled? After all, according to some of you men can't control their behaviour, so their unwarranted attention is somehow my responsibility. 

/Essay over 

*TLDR: 1. There is a distinction between a quick glimpse, and leering/ harassment. 2. Some of your comments are more than a little misogynistic. (I see you modified your 'You're a ho if you show!' statement Waiting, which is a shame because it summarised your attitude towards women excellently.)*​


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

I glimpse and even unintentionally stare sometimes. Boobs are awesome! They're so fun and jiggly ^.^' Then again, when I "check someone out" I can honestly say that it's not in a sexual manner. I'm simply exploring details and unique qualities that are special to that person. I appreciate the unique shapes of peoples faces, arms, legs, tits, butts, ankles, hands, etc. but I do not derive any sexual pleasure or have any sexual ideology about any body parts. I appreciate the differences in shapes from person to person because the differences are what make everybody so perfect in their own ways. 

As far as women who show the cleavagezzzz... it's completely senseless to have them falling out of your shirt and expect people not to look. Women who show off their jumblies have no justified reason to get angry about people who do stare (even if it's the gross, creepy stare) because they are the ones who are putting them on display in the first place. If you don't want people looking, cover them up... simple


----------



## Curiously (Nov 7, 2011)

I probably shouldn't share my two cents on this matter because I don't have cleavage in the first place (I am but a humble A cup but thank goodness my boobs are perky), but I reckon if a woman is wearing something that shows a bit of her goods, then wouldn't she somewhat expect men and other folks to steal a glimpse of her beautiful bosom? I mean, I'm a straight female, and I sometimes catch myself admiring another woman's lovely bosom, but then again, I consider myself an aesthete, so go figure: beauty is everywhere and if it happens to be found on a fellow woman's chest area, then I'm gonna look and admire. BTW, I must stress I will "admire" and I certainly don't mean oogle like some creep or envious person (I'm actually quite happy with my small boobs, but I can and do appreciate ample cleavage/boobage as well).


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

If you're a beautiful woman, I'm going to look at you. If you're going to expose your cleavage, thereby giving me something particularly interesting to look at, I'm going to thank you kindly. From me, it's a genuine compliment, not objectification, and if you confront me about it, I'm going to tell you the same. You won't get me to apologize for finding you attractive.

There are womanizers out there, but for a lot of men, the following adage holds true: "Men look at beautiful women like women look at pretty butterflies."


----------



## she_sells_seashells (Nov 13, 2010)

If your tits are having their own party out of your shirt people will stare. I don't think it's a big deal really. You generally get pretty much what you ask for. 
Ladies with low cut shirts, I WILL stare at your boobs.


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

@Kittann

You make really great points. I never thought of it that way and I can see how it is a hassle. Sometimes you just can't help but glance at them and I can only imagine how detrimental it can be to have someone gawking at them. Anyways thanks for sharing your experience it definitely gave me a new perspective and more empathy to what that can be like.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

geekofalltrades said:


> There are womanizers out there, but for a lot of men, the following adage holds true: "Men look at beautiful women like women look at pretty butterflies."


This assumption leads to a double-standard, and it pigeonholes women as less sexually driven, but ok to be objectified sexually. The words are subtle but the meaning is all misogyny. 

First lets explore the difference between a butterfly and a woman -- i.e. why that quote reeks of objectification. An "attractive" human being is still a human being, but when they are being objectified, it dehumanizes them, and cuts them down to merely an object. I started thinking about this back when I was in college and a friend of mine who looked like a victorias secret model had to take shots of vodka to even be able to make it to class every day. She was so sensitive to the fact that guys would stare at her that she felt like a piece of meat. Yes it can be a huge problem. It also sends women the message that all the emphasis is on their appearance, and that thats what they are primarily valued for. 

A butterfly doesn't care. Those things can't be compared. It also seems to flavor women as these whimsical harmless little girls, while men are the predatory sexual beasts. Again, a filthy thing in our culture, and a mindset that oppresses women.

Women are sexual. Men are sexual. They are both capable of objectifying others, and its a societal issue, not something that you can blame merely on biology.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Women have a way of checking men out too, they are just more discreet about it because they look out of the corners of their eyes.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

crazyeddie said:


> I am aware of this, but I weep for these cultures....


Why? They'll find other parts of each other's bodies to be aroused by.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> If you don't want people looking, cover them up... simple


Trust me, that doesn't always work. <coughs, straightens non-existent tie>


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Why? They'll find other parts of each other's bodies to be aroused by.


Yeah, but... boobs! Boobs, I tell you! Sure, it might be like me not liking football or something, but.... boobs! They're, like, better than sushi! Y'know... sushi that just happens to be attached to a person. <cough>


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

crazyeddie said:


> Yeah, but... boobs! Boobs, I tell you! Sure, it might be like me not liking football or something, but.... boobs! They're, like, better than sushi! Y'know... sushi that just happens to be attached to a person. <cough>


Its two lumps of fat that make it easier to get a nipple into a baby's mouth in order to feed it. *shrugs* This culture and its odd fetishes.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Its two lumps of fat that make it easier to get a nipple into a baby's mouth in order to feed it. *shrugs* This culture and its odd fetishes.


<shrug> What can I say? As far as I can tell _all_ cultures are equally fucked up, just in new and exciting ways.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

crazyeddie said:


> <shrug> What can I say? As far as I can tell _all_ cultures are equally fucked up, just in new and exciting ways.


I don't know about equally, but sure, they all have their quirks. I want to create my own. None of the current ones are to my liking.


----------



## Moon_Child (Jan 2, 2012)

I expect it to happen if I'm wearing a semi-revealing shirt. Boobs aren't like whales, needing to surface inorder to breath. Girls that say they like how cleavage looks, and that's why they do it, they're... lying hahaha. It's obvious they want men looking. The only reason I can think of them getting angry is if the "wrong" man stares. Oh gawd, the "wrong" man. Tis quite silly, some women. 

When it happens to me, I'm rather, "Well, this is awkward. Then again, I can justify this awkward moment with science." Now, if you are staring at them the whole time we're talking, I'm going to be worried that your constant gazing is going to create a black hole in my chest, causing me to implode. Worrying for my survival, I will excuse myself and continue with my life.

Edit: In my opinion showing cleavage is to appeal to the opposite sex. If I don't want to be stared at, I'm going to wear more modest clothing. I like looking attractive, and I know that cleavage is sexy. For a reason my more modest friends, especially those that are religious, wear shirts that cover that area. I'm just stating from my experience. THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Some of my tops are low cut, and ******** in tennessee looking at my tits are the very last motivation I have for wearing them. It's sad that someone can't do something because -they- like it. No, it has to be for men. Whatevs.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

corgiflatmate said:


> View attachment 31780
> 
> 
> It's true.


I've caught my friends looking before.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Is this really an issue that needs justification? The look itself isn't the problem, it's the thought behind it that would be. I see nothing wrong with looking in and of itself: I check people out all the time, and I fully expect to be checked out in return.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Eerie said:


> Some of my tops are low cut, and ******** in tennessee looking at my tits are the very last motivation I have for wearing them. It's sad that someone can't do something because -they- like it. No, it has to be for men. Whatevs.


Yeah, and wearing a burqa in a Tennessee summer could be a bit problematic.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Yeah, and wearing a burqa in a Tennessee summer could be a bit problematic.


lulz, it's a lose/lose situation!


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

crazyeddie said:


> Yeah, and wearing a burqa in a Tennessee summer could be a bit problematic.


I would think a summer in the Arab peninsula or North Africa would make a Tennessee summer feel like a cool spring.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I would think a summer in the Arab peninsula or North Africa would make a Tennessee summer feel like a cool spring.


haha, this is true! but the humidity is killer, especially for someone like me who is basically allergic to their own sweat. 

(it's not an allergy, it's a gland disorder, but uh that's the only way to explain it and have anyone understand)


----------



## Moon_Child (Jan 2, 2012)

Eerie said:


> Some of my tops are low cut, and ******** in tennessee looking at my tits are the very last motivation I have for wearing them. It's sad that someone can't do something because -they- like it. No, it has to be for men. Whatevs.


Why do you show cleavage? Usually when a woman shows cleavage, I can only think they're trying to attract the opposite sex. I've always connected the idea of feeling to sexy to the ability to attract the opposite sex. High heels and cute bras make me feel powerful because it makes me more appealing, sexually... to either sex. This is me though. 

Perhaps you're doing it for your boyfriend? Though, on the way, you happen to attract other males? I know that's what's happened to me in the past.

My friends show cleavage, but they too admit it's to feel sexy. And their definition of sexy it the ability to attract the opposite sex. Saying we do it for men is putting things bluntly and not sugar coating. IN MY OPINION.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Moon_Child said:


> Why do you show cleavage? Usually when a woman shows cleavage, I can only think they're trying to attract the opposite sex. I've always connected the idea of feeling to sexy to the ability to attract the opposite sex. High heels and cute bras make me feel powerful because it makes me more appealing, sexually... to either sex. This is me though.
> 
> Perhaps you're doing it for your boyfriend? Though, on the way, you happen to attract other males? I know that's what's happened to me in the past.
> 
> My friends show cleavage, but they too admit it's to feel sexy. And their definition of sexy it the ability to attract the opposite sex. Saying we do it for men is putting things bluntly and not sugar coating. IN MY OPINION.


My boyfriend lives 700 miles away. I wear shirts that I think are cute. I don't and never have even considered while buying my clothing "aww yeah someone's gonna wanna sex me now i'm so hot omg my tits." My tits are tits. They are not some secret obscene thing that I show off because I want attention. They are just part of my damn body. When people make comments like "they just do it for men" they are the ones sexualizing the woman, not the woman who is wearing the low cut shirt.


----------



## quadrivium (Nov 6, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I've caught my friends looking before.



Yeah me too. And I've probably sneaked a glance myself. Such is life.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> I would think a summer in the Arab peninsula or North Africa would make a Tennessee summer feel like a cool spring.


I figured it might have developed as way to keep the sun off - if it's made of a light material, it might actually be cooler than going around in a bikini. But if that's the case, _why the hell are they black_?  

I can sorta see the appeal, if it's worn by free choice and not enforced by society or the morality police. I do remember that one lingerie commercial about what a married woman might wear underneath the burqa ^_^ But if the cost of it is baking your brains out in the desert heat... :/

I sorta feel the same way about high heels. "Lady, I'll admit it's attractive, especially with what it does to your stride <wolf whistle>, but would you mind not stabbing me in my mirror neurons? Ow, my feet, ow ow!" T_T


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> I figured it might have developed as way to keep the sun off - if it's made of a light material, it might actually be cooler than going around in a bikini. But if that's the case, _why the hell are they black_?
> 
> I can sorta see the appeal, if it's worn by free choice and not enforced by society or the morality police. I do remember that one lingerie commercial about what a married woman might wear underneath the burqa ^_^ But if the cost of it is baking your brains out in the desert heat... :/
> 
> I sorta feel the same way about high heels. "Lady, I'll admit it's attractive, especially with what it does to your stride <wolf whistle>, but would you mind not stabbing me in my mirror neurons? Ow, my feet, ow ow!" T_T


HA! if I wore heels, it def wouldn't be to impress men, I'd be like 6'5" 

but I do wear them on occasion, cause I love them


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Eerie said:


> HA! if I wore heels, it def wouldn't be to impress men, I'd be like 6'5"
> 
> but I do wear them on occasion, cause I love them


Hey, some men are into mountain climbing! 6'5" would be pretty impressive indeed! But I think some women wear them because they're shorter than men, and need the height advantage if people are going to take them seriously :/ (And there's that sadness again - I like short women (and tall women, and medium height women...) but it hurts to see a short woman have to deal with a world made for an average height man.)


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Hey, some men are into mountain climbing!


I was talking @timeless about this. I said I don't want to go out with him in public and tower over him and his response was "I love you no matter how freakishly tall you are" HAHAHAHA!


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Eerie said:


> I was talking @timeless about this. I said I don't want to go out with him in public and tower over him and his response was "I love you no matter how freakishly tall you are" HAHAHAHA!


How smooth of him! But seriously, tall athletic women are joy to the eyes  It's like watching a gazelle! I worked with such a woman - she was on the basketball team - and she complained that other women said she was 'awkward.' She wasn't awkward, she's one of the most graceful women I've seen!


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> How smooth of him! But seriously, tall athletic women are joy to the eyes  It's like watching a gazelle! I worked with such a woman - she was on the basketball team - and she complained that other women said she was 'awkward.' She wasn't awkward, she's one of the most graceful women I've seen!


Trust me, I'm not gazelle like. Or graceful. You have no idea how many times I've run into the same wall in my apartment. :tongue: You'd think that after 4 years I'd know it was there ....


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Eerie said:


> Trust me, I'm not gazelle like. Or graceful. You have no idea how many times I've run into the same wall in my apartment. :tongue: You'd think that after 4 years I'd know it was there ....


clumsy can have its benefits too ^_^


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

corgiflatmate said:


> Yeah me too. And I've probably sneaked a glance myself. Such is life.


I've mentally noted who I've caught and haven't caught yet. It's like a game I'm playing but no one else knows it's going on. I glance at my own sometimes to keep them in check.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I've mentally noted who I've caught and haven't caught yet. It's like a game I'm playing but no one else knows it's going on. I glance at my own sometimes to keep them in check.


I like how you put that - haven't caught _yet_!


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> I like how you put that - haven't caught _yet_!


Hey, I know they're looking but they're just good at hiding it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Moon_Child said:


> Why do you show cleavage? Usually when a woman shows cleavage, I can only think they're trying to attract the opposite sex. I've always connected the idea of feeling to sexy to the ability to attract the opposite sex. High heels and cute bras make me feel powerful because it makes me more appealing, sexually... to either sex. This is me though.
> 
> Perhaps you're doing it for your boyfriend? Though, on the way, you happen to attract other males? I know that's what's happened to me in the past.
> 
> My friends show cleavage, but they too admit it's to feel sexy. And their definition of sexy it the ability to attract the opposite sex. Saying we do it for men is putting things bluntly and not sugar coating. IN MY OPINION.


I realize this member has retired, but I'm addressing this in general. I often wear very short shorts. I don't do it to 'look sexy' but because I'm not natured and usually burning up. Being hot sucks. Theres nothing you can do about it. The radiators in this building get rockin' and it feels like I'm wearing fleece in the Sahara even if I have on regular pants. So, I wear short shorts. People eyeball my legs all the time, and some of the girls aren't very nice to me, probably because they think i want their boyfriend's attention. I don't. 

My shirts are also fitted, because I just don't like the look of a big bag draped over me which is exactly the effect a loose shirt has on a girl with large ta-tas. My clothes are form fitting, and cool (temperature wise. I am probably not cool as in fashionable in the least).

I get stared at, checked out, whatever, I don't particularly enjoy this.. but I'm not going to dress frumpy and sweat.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

@Promethea I have the same problem with the loose fitting t-shirt style. It's just not flattering on women with large breasts. It looks frumpy on the figure and unattractive. I also have a propensity for v-necks, so better fitting shirts with a deeper collar sort of accentuate a lot. It's just what I prefer and it's not an attempt to be sexy. I honestly don't like that kind of attention because it's cheap.

I only care to look good for my partner, not piss off other women or attract randoms.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

crazyeddie said:


> My, what fascinating hands you have....


Thank you


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm an A cup so I can't relate to women who catch guys staring at their boobs. I have no cleavage to speak of, and if I wear a low cut shirt, all that happens is I can't bend over or I flash my tiny chest at people.

The only way I can relate to this issue is being checked out in general. I'm flattered when someone keeps looking my way...generally _at_ me, not at a body part of mine.

However, I've had people who simply just leered at me or stared at my body as though I was an object. In those cases, I felt insecure and frankly unsafe. This may be because I had to deal with a rape attempt when I was very young, but I tend to think it's just that I find that kind of attention highly uncomfortable.

If I'm dating someone, they get to stare and that's when I find it completely appropriate.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

I accidentally flashed one of my TAs my junior year of college. Awkward? Yes.

For those curious how the hell that happened, I was wearing a v-neck shirt and leaned over ... and the TA was walking into the classroom while I was bent over my bookbag trying to tug books out of it. So he got a full view of 34D titties, a somewhat sexy bra and some jiggling. I noticed a shadow in the door that stayed there for a full minute before I looked up at my TA (whose mouth was wide open) and then I looked down my shirt and realized I'd flashed him. 

Kind of slid into my chair after that happened and felt like dying, since I don't really let my boobs hang out like that ... ever.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

meh. if you show boob, expect people of all genders to look. it's not like they don't make clothing that covers that up. and if your boobs are gargantuan then you will get looked at whether you're wearing a turtle neck or not because lets face it....everyone really is thinking "wow those are huge boobs"

i dress modestly, but i have C cups. sometimes it's hard to wear a cami or a scoop neck shirt without something showing. if it's showing, then it's ok to look. i will cover up what i don't want looked at. its my body and i'm responsible for it.


edit: Speaking of which, i had a guy at work do a double-take at my boobs the other day. i found it humorous. i bought a new camisole and it was much lower cut than i realized. but by the time i realized, i was already out the door. so i wore it all day and yeah i had cleavage bursting out all day. i came around the corner and so did the guy and he double-taked it. I didn't see it as his fault...he was just walking down the hall minding his own business when a pair of breasts came around the corner and popped up in his face. lol.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

josue0098 said:


> Thank you


<stares obsessively at josue's hands> such.... nice.... hands....


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

dejavu said:


> I'm an A cup so I can't relate to women who catch guys staring at their boobs. I have no cleavage to speak of, and if I wear a low cut shirt, all that happens is I can't bend over or I flash my tiny chest at people.
> 
> The only way I can relate to this issue is being checked out in general. I'm flattered when someone keeps looking my way...generally _at_ me, not at a body part of mine.
> 
> ...


Um, 'thanking" this post doesn't seem particularly appropriate... I guess I'd just like to say that I'd like to apologize on behalf of my gender?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I accidentally flashed one of my TAs my junior year of college. Awkward? Yes.
> 
> For those curious how the hell that happened, I was wearing a v-neck shirt and leaned over ... and the TA was walking into the classroom while I was bent over my bookbag trying to tug books out of it. So he got a full view of 34D titties, a somewhat sexy bra and some jiggling. I noticed a shadow in the door that stayed there for a full minute before I looked up at my TA (whose mouth was wide open) and then I looked down my shirt and realized I'd flashed him.
> 
> Kind of slid into my chair after that happened and felt like dying, since I don't really let my boobs hang out like that ... ever.


Er, don't feel too bad? When you teach, you do often see a fair amount of cleavage. I mean, you're standing up, and you've got an entire classroom of undergrads sitting down. The angles can be... interesting. You just can't let it throw you, got to keep your game face on. If your TA kept staring for a full minute, either he was more of a lout than normal, or he was seeing a sight that was... more interesting than normal? Hope that makes you feel better... afraid it might not, but I hope it does.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Er, don't feel too bad? When you teach, you do often see a fair amount of cleavage. I mean, you're standing up, and you've got an entire classroom of undergrads sitting down. The angles can be... interesting. You just can't let it throw you, got to keep your game face on. If your TA kept staring for a full minute, either he was more of a lout than normal, or he was seeing a sight that was... more interesting than normal? Hope that makes you feel better... afraid it might not, but I hope it does.


LOL. Thanks. My senior year I actually became fairly good friends with him, and he's not really a lout. I just don't think he was expecting to see a girl's tits and bra and some jiggle going on at the same time while walking into a classroom. The experience was really awkward for the entire semester, and a year later it was kind of funny. Many years later, it's rather hilarious.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> LOL. Thanks. My senior year I actually became fairly good friends with him, and he's not really a lout. I just don't think he was expecting to see a girl's tits and bra and some jiggle going on at the same time while walking into a classroom. The experience was really awkward for the entire semester, and a year later it was kind of funny. Many years later, it's rather hilarious.


Yes, I suppose seeing that as you walk in the door could catch you off guard!


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Yes, I suppose seeing that as you walk in the door could catch you off guard!


I'm pretty sure he knew me as "That Girl With The Huge Tits That I Didn't Mean To Stare At" until I introduced myself to ask a question about grades.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I'm pretty sure he knew me as "That Girl With The Huge Tits That I Didn't Mean To Stare At" until I introduced myself to ask a question about grades.


Well, at least you can be sure that he remembered your name! I really hope my students don't analyze whose names I remember and whose I didn't - the results could be rather embarrassing.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Of course if they're showing you're allowed to glimpse. If I don't want "glimpses" I wear a shirt that doesn't show my breasts.

In earlier times, very moral times mind you, women drew attention to their breasts because they were considered feminine and motherly (even while wearing skirts that covered their ankles, because of course anything to do with the legs or buttocks was another matter entirely, and might provoke thoughts of the vagina that had nothing to do with mothering). 

Staring and making unwanted comments, though, is of course rude.

Any woman who doesn't have the sense to cover her cleavage if she doesn't want it "glimpsed" at is just as stupid as a man walking around without his shirt on complaining that women are looking at his body.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Waiting said:


> If the boobs are showing, they want them to be looked at and are lying if they act in any contradictory way. Men like boobs, how are we not going to even glance? Its not classy, and acting classy with your boobs hanging out doesn't make you any less of what you _really_ are. (I can feel the heat of the flames already!)


The "class" of showing one's cleavage is entirely dependent on context of culture. I'm sure Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, would beg to differ.










So your opinion on it being "classy" may have to do with where you live or what culture you're from.

I can't believe you said "what you really are" like it was an objective fact, lulz.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Yeah, in Victorian times, showing boobage was a sign of innocence. _Legs_ on the other hand.... apparently, they made sure that the table-clothes went to the floor because they were afraid of men raping the furniture!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I would think a summer in the Arab peninsula or North Africa would make a Tennessee summer feel like a cool spring.


There is this thing in Tennessee called HUMIDITY.

Geography, much?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Boxter9 said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> In the Western world there's a sense that guys are innately hornier than girls. As a fairly docile male I find this incredibly annoying. If I run around with girls, I'm manly, but the girls who I'm running around with are sluts. Wtf. They're not having any more sex than I am. Plus we're both the same amount human, last I checked.
> 
> Boobs are squishy and wonderful, and I'm only sexually attached to them because I'm American, which is because we _make a big deal out of boobs._ We do! Janet Jackson has a "wardrobe malfunction" on national television and our whole society throbs and boils. Meanwhile, France whacks a giant facepalm. luls America. Breasts only matter because of the person they're attached to.


Yep, all of this. 

I am a sexual being, when I see an attractive man wearing no shirt, or pulling up his shirt and his pants are sagging a little bit, I am going to look at his stomach and/or chest.

However, I even contend with the idea that if women were topless more that breasts would be less sexy. I grew up in the South. Men walked around shirtless constantly, because it was not only hot, but humid, and it was considered healthy to get sun. I still can get a little turned on by seeing the RIGHT man with his shirt off...just not all men. I am not personally attracted to men who are a lot older than me, or who carry a lot of weight, so I'm not turned on at all by those guys with their shirts off. When I see that, it's more of a matter-of-fact thing. I imagine its similar in cultures where its more common for women in general to go topless and/or breastfeed openly in public.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

@fourtines is on a roll


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

fourtines said:


> There is this thing in Tennessee called HUMIDITY.
> 
> Geography, much?


I'm in Missouri, much the same here. Lady I know lives in New Mexico... living in a dessert sounds _wonderful_, tbh. August in MO sucks ass - it's actually a bit cooler in NM, usually, and no humidity to speak of. Swamp coolers actually _work_ there!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> I'm in Missouri, much the same here. Lady I know lives in New Mexico... living in a dessert sounds _wonderful_, tbh. August in MO sucks ass - it's actually a bit cooler in NM, usually, and no humidity to speak of. Swamp coolers actually _work_ there!


Ah, we had a swamp cooler when I lived with my ex in Vegas. It was so, so nice. 

However, I actually do not like extreme desert temperatures, though it can be more practical there to technically walk around covered in a breezy sheet to simply protect your skin and head...it's actually crucial to protect your head in the summer months in the desert, as you can have a heat stroke.

It's not "heaven."

HOWEVER, I have noticed that when living in Nevada and now living in California I have less respiratory infections (I'm genetically inclined to bronchitis and have had near-death respiratory infections especially in West Virginia because of the high altitude up in the mountains, and many members of my family have had illnesses like "walking pneumonia").

North Carolina is flatter, and I did better there with the respiratory illnesses, but it does get so humid especially in July that you can practically swim through the air. It's impractical to wear clothing, the less clothing, the better. I actually miss the summer evening thunderstorms. I think if I ever live in the South again I'd go back to Eastern North Carolina near the coast.

What I love about living in Southern California is that there's less humidity and the heat isn't *as bad* as Nevada or Arizona deserts (at least where I am) ...but primarily that it never gets very cold, the weather is rarely extremely bad even when its colder, it breaks and we have a few nice days _always _here and there.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

I think I could get to like the temperature extremes.... and how in the hell did this conversation go from boobs to the weather?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> I think I could get to like the temperature extremes.... and how in the hell did this conversation go from boobs to the weather?


Weather is an apt topic in relation to clothing worn! Simply put, it's actually smarter for people in hot humid climates (like the SouthEastern U.S. or parts of Central/South America) to wear less clothing. This also applies to Mediterranean climates in Southern Europe and Southern California, which as close to the Mediterranean as anywhere else in the world (which is why they make wine here, apparently). 

I still don't think forcing women to wear a BLACK outfit in the desert is sane, though, no matter how it may protect skin from UV rays and the head from extreme dry desert temperatures, unless it's assigned as an oppressive item to keep them in the house. Black is not a good color to wear in the sun.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Any negative feeling experienced from someone looking at you for too long is a product of your own thoughts.

Eyes do not burn or have invisible lasers shooting out of them. If a person looks, they look. The rest is just your opinion.

I think there's a degree of intimacy with the human race that many people miss out on by avoiding looking at people at all costs.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> Any negative feeling experienced from someone looking at you for too long is a product of your own thoughts.
> 
> Eyes do not burn or have invisible lasers shooting out of them. If a person looks, they look. The rest is just your opinion.
> 
> I think there's a degree of intimacy with the human race that many people miss out on by avoiding looking at people at all costs.


I don't know if I agree with that. One of my roommates, this guy who is older and kind of creeps me out honestly, kept looking at me and at first I thought he was looking at me, and then I confirmed that he was basically LEERING at me in a creepy way, as he told this old lady here something about liking my legs.

Leering is creepy and impolite and it's not okay when you live or work near a person. 

I'm all for hugging, kissing, and looking at people, but no I don't need creepy guy staring at me. It's bad enough to have random guy trying to get me into his car 3 out of 5 times I walk to the grocery store in broad daylight wearing jeans, a tee shirt, and no make-up. 

That's why my argument is that if I am showing my cleavage, then looking is okay, but staring or making lewd comments is not. And it sure as fuck is not okay if I'm NOT showing my cleavage.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Why are you responding to my comment?
I'm saying that staring actually does not have any physical effect. The negative feeling you/I get from someone staring at me comes from the/my mind.
You are telling me your opinion... Which is fine...
Oh wait never mind. I just read your post again. You are saying you don't agree with me. What I said is true independent of whether you or I agree with it though. If I had to share my opinion then technically I disagree with myself because I become uncomfortable when someone stares at me so it occurs like they really are doing something negative to me but I know it's all just electrons triggering off somewhere in my brain. Doesn't mean I don't feel uncomfortable and it also doesn't justify the behavior. I'm just saying lols.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> Why are you responding to my comment?
> I'm saying that staring actually does not have any physical effect. The negative feeling you/I get from someone staring at me comes from the/my mind.
> You are telling me your opinion... Which is fine...
> Oh wait never mind. I just read your post again. You are saying you don't agree with me. What I said is true independent of whether you or I agree with it though. If I had to share my opinion then technically I disagree with myself because I become uncomfortable when someone stares at me so it occurs like they really are doing something negative to me but I know it's all just electrons triggering off somewhere in my brain. Doesn't mean I don't feel uncomfortable and it also doesn't justify the behavior. I'm just saying lols.


Actually what you said isn't necessarily true - you can feel other people looking at you, it can be what is emanating from them, and if you're oblivious to what is emanating from people, then maybe it's true for you, but there IS an effect that comes FROM a person when they are intensely projecting emotion or thoughts toward you in an unpleasant way, which is why some of us can even feel some people looking at us seemingly from behind. People project energy. It's not all in the mind. 

And what do you mean why am I responding to your comment? This is a forum, you know.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Actually what you said isn't necessarily true - you can feel other people looking at you, it can be what is emanating from them, and if you're oblivious to what is emanating from people, then maybe it's true for you, but there IS an effect that comes FROM a person when they are intensely projecting emotion or thoughts toward you in an unpleasant way, which is why some of us can even feel some people looking at us seemingly from behind. People project energy. It's not all in the mind.
> 
> And what do you mean why am I responding to your comment? This is a forum, you know.


Oh I just thought we were talking about two different things initially.

I also experience what you say is emotions and thoughts being projected and also being able to sense when someone is looking at you from behind but I'm suggesting that this is really just a subtle paranoia of sorts. Can we _really_ know if someone behind us is looking at us? Maybe one day I will not look at someone on purpose and then ask if it felt like I was looking at them


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> Oh I just thought we were talking about two different things initially.
> 
> I also experience what you say is emotions and thoughts being projected and also being able to sense when someone is looking at you from behind but I'm suggesting that this is really just a subtle paranoia of sorts. Can we _really_ know if someone behind us is looking at us? Maybe one day I will not look at someone on purpose and then ask if it felt like I was looking at them


No, it's not paranoia, because I can also feel love.

Maybe it's actually an Se thing, because you seem to be second guessing your senses very strongly. 

I don't know, though, because my ESFJ ex was very good at picking up on vibes, and I'm beginning to question it even being a "feeling" thing, since I've experienced the weirdest sensation of my ISTP projecting feelings, kind of walking through it, as it were.

I've seen the argument that it's a feeling thing, or even that it's a thing that people with tertiary Ni do, experience their insights as feeling almost "psychic." 

Except it's not "psychic." I feel it, point blank. "Psychic" is more like knowing someone needs you or is trying to contact you from a distance. When they're physically in the room, or the feelings are emanating from what just occurred in the room, that's physically present energy.

It may serve you personally to ignore or question these feelings because you're stronger in other areas, but they've gotten me through life quite effectively.


----------



## Seeker99 (Jan 13, 2010)

About the whole attractiveness of the starer thing...

"Look, let me just say it: He was hot. A non-hot boy stares at you relentlessly and it is, at best, awkward and, at worst, a form of assault. But a hot boy… well." - John Green, The Fault in Our Stars

(I can't believe I'm using a TFiOS quote in a thread about boobs...)

Anyway, it's a pretty common idea that it is more acceptable for an attractive person to stare than a less attractive person. Fair? No. But understandable, sure. If an attractive person stares at you (and by attractive, I mean someone whom the individual is attracted to. I'm not suggesting there are universally attractive people for whom it is acceptable to ogle people), you think 'Well hey there, I'm flattered. You're extremely hot. Let's make babies together.' (What, is that not what runs through a normal person's head?  I'm tired, excuse my lack of coherence.) But when someone that you're not attracted to stares, then they're a creep. Maybe it's some sort of superiority complex of the staree, or just a natural defensiveness that is ignored for someone more attractive.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Seeker99 said:


> About the whole attractiveness of the starer thing...
> 
> "Look, let me just say it: He was hot. A non-hot boy stares at you relentlessly and it is, at best, awkward and, at worst, a form of assault. But a hot boy… well." - John Green, The Fault in Our Stars
> 
> ...


Or it's really that some starers are creepier than others. A guy can stare at me, and if I don't find him attractive, but he's a nice person, I won't be creeped out by it.

There's something particularly grody about the way some people leer. It's an ugly thing. 

Especially when the grody leer-er has no shame; like you look up at him and he looks back defiantly like you're going to say "oh yeah hey baby" if he's grody enough in a confident way.

It's like, dude, get some humility or at least be a nicer person if you're going to stare at me like that, otherwise I'm going to have to get my mace.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Promethea said:


> In tribes where women go bare chested regularly, all the mystification has been taken out of the breast and its not considered a sexual object. The men don't get aroused looking at it. Its hard to reconcile this _fact_, and the _claim_ by evo psych that breasts attract male attention as sexual objects.
> 
> I think that in our culture as well, if it wasn't so immature about the naked body, that there wouldn't be as much excitement yielded from a little peep. They don't seem to go nuts over it as bad in a lot of European countries either where nudity isn't as banned from public, and from television.
> 
> Evo psych is very backwards in my opinion. It just picks things that seem to be one way, and tries to find an excuse for them; then calls it human nature. It seems that culture is what has the impact here.


I haven't read through the thread because I don't have time right now but will come back later. You made some good points Promethea. I agree that evo psyche tends to overlook culture, but not that evo psyche is wrong altogether. In a culture where everything hangs out, the breasts may not arouse a man consciously because he sees them all the time, but that doesn't mean there is no sexual cue there at all. There are a thousand ordinary things that can signal sexual vitality/compatibility- a nice face, a pleasant voice, a nice scent, symmetrical features, attractive behaviors, etc. These things in themselves may not usually draw sexual attention but we still look at them when evaluating a potential sex partner. And in an intimate setting, the non-sexual parts like the back, ears, neck, etc. can become erogenous areas. The breasts are unique to the female body and they are quite sensitive. Makes sense as an erogenous area, no?

If not sexual selection, then what other explanation why human females have the unique trait among animals (as far as I know) of developing breasts that remain large/swollen all of the time and not just when pregnant/lactating, that are bigger than needed for their function, and even _normally_ grow large enough to become cumbersome? 

(As a side note, the human male has a penis much larger than other primates- also an effect of sexual selection I think.)

Edit: I should have asked, how do you _know_ men are not aroused by the sight of breasts in cultures where all breasts hang out? That ties into the points I made above- people are aroused by some stimuli some of the time in some people.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I'm just reminded of what another poster said, men have smaller eyes than women, and if they spot something like cleavage, they might need to do a double take just to figure out what it is they are looking at, whereas women have the advantage of doing it at a safe distance. I know I look just to see what it is my eyes have caught hold on to.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Waiting said:


> What exactly is "feeling sexy"? For me personally, it isn't something dependant on me showing body parts.


Feeling sexy is feeling beautiful, and no its not soley dependent on showing body parts. Do you think women only buy clothes that are revealing ? NO. Women by clothes because of the color, style, how is feels on their skin. If those clothes happened to be revealing, then great, we can expose parts of our body that we love...yes that WE love, because we LOVE our bodies. It has nothing to do with being dependant on the actually revealing, and all about loving ourselves and ALL OUR BODY PARTS.

We can feel just as sexy and beautiful in a turtle neck, a snowsuit, or anything that covers us completey. Just as we can feel that when showing skin. 

Mabye we like to look down at our boobs and say " Oh yeah, i love them, i love how they look, i love to be able to see them, yes, women shouldn't be ashamed to love themselves and reveal themselves for THEMSELVES, not you.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Feeling sexy is feeling beautiful, and no its not soley dependent on showing body parts. Do you think women only buy clothes that are revealing ? NO. Women by clothes because of the color, style, how is feels on their skin. If those clothes happened to be revealing, then great, we can expose parts of our body that we love...yes that WE love, because we LOVE our bodies. It has nothing to do with being dependant on the actually revealing, and all about loving ourselves and ALL OUR BODY PARTS.
> 
> We can feel just as sexy and beautiful in a turtle neck, a snowsuit, or anything that covers us completey. Just as we can feel that when showing skin.
> 
> Mabye we like to look down at our boobs and say " Oh yeah, i love them, i love how they look, i love to be able to see them, yes, women shouldn't be ashamed to love themselves and reveal themselves for THEMSELVES, not you.


Oh come on Mucha, didn't you know that everything we wear is just to entice his penis? lulz.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Waiting said:


> Lol, a persons opinion of themself doesn't make anything about them less or more true.


You seem to believe you have some objective moral standard or some objective standard of class, and I really think someone with Te in a prominent position should really know better than that. It's pretty silly.




> Nor does an outside opinion, lest it be based on facts which then to varying degrees may be worth consideration.


There's no fact based world wide, timeless standard of class. While you may have some sort of religious belief that there's some objective standard of morality about showing breasts or not, that's really an entirely subjective, culturally-biased judgement on your part, and you should at least be made aware of that. 



> Aside from that you should really do a brief study on "courtly love" you'll find some interesting facts about those "classy" nobles.


Ugh, "classy" means just that...of the upper class. I'm not sure what you think it is. It's a compliment meaning you know the social standards and mores of the higher classes in your particular culture.

For all intents and purposes you seem to believe that cultures other than your own lack "class" which is a logical fallacy. It's one thing to speak of your own moral beliefs, it's another to pretend that you're the person who can determine whether someone is classy or not in any given culture or time period. 



> It's been my observation that the vast majority of the time, women who want to be respected for what's in their head, tend not to feel a need to draw attention to other places. But then again the fashion bug is quite contageous...


Oh whatever. Could you please be a little more morally judgmental of people without a good, solid objective reason?

You'd think we were talking about something really heinous the way you're going on about showing cleavage of all things. You know, breasts, all women have them, and they use them to nurse their children.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Waiting said:


> Its all about what you want. If you throw your boobs in my face I'm assuming you want me to be more easily coerced by your words, or attracted to you (though most often those are one in the same) which then may suggest that you don't feel they have enough merit to stand on their own. Don't blame me, perhaps instead blame the way women have been treated in the past. Level the playing field, boobs are sexual to men and women for that matter. So would it be weird for me to walk around with the base of my dick showing? A difference shouldn't be argued just because more of your body is considered sexual, in fact, that should give me the freedom even more so to expose some cleavage of what I have. So pretending society actually made sense, what would the difference be? How would you view that? I'm looking for an honest opinion, whether you agree or not isn't my concern, I only ask that you consider what I say with an unbiased mind.


That seems to be your problem right there, you assume too much. I can't ever remember a time i threw my tits in anyones's face. It's attitude like this that leads you to making such generalizations and assumtptions. How about if i told you that some women are confindent in their own skin? Now what? Would you still assume we leave our homes with the hope of runnining into men who assume we dressed to attract them. No dear, we dress because we feel comfortable enough in our own skin that we don't need your approval. Whether you think it looks sexy or unattractive isn't the goal. The goal is for us to feel beautiful as women, and if men don't have enough willpower to be able to accept that, this is not our responsibility. We're only responsible for how it make us feel, not you.

And to answer your question about society and dicks. Personally dicks aren''t really appealing to my eyes, only what they can do for me ...so, if you want to walk around showing all or some of your dick, you won't get my attention ...i'd rather be staring at another womens cleavage than a mans penis. Yes, i find the female body to be much more appealing than that of a man.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Boxter9 said:


> In the Western world there's a sense that guys are innately hornier than girls.


Not to derail the thread, but I was reading backward starting from the most current posts I responded to. Well, first you have to understand that, at one point in history, it was asserted that women had no sexuality at all:



> In ancient times men blamed women for concupiscence or praised them for chastity, but it seems to have been reserved for the nineteenth century to state that women are apt to be congenitally incapable of experiencing complete sexual satisfaction, and peculiarly liable to sexual anesthesia. This idea appears to have been almost unknown to the eighteenth century. *During the last century, however, and more especially in England, Germany, and Italy, this opinion has been frequently set down, sometimes even as a matter of course, with a tincture of contempt or pity for any women afflicted with sexual emotions*.
> 
> In the treatise _On Generation_ (chapter v), which until recent times was commonly ascribed to Hippocrates, it is stated that men have greater pleasure in coitus than women, though the pleasure of women lasts longer, and this opinion, though not usually accepted, was treated with great respect by medical authors down to the end of the seventeenth century. Thus A. Laurentius (Du Laurens), after a long discussion, decides that men have stronger sexual desire and greater pleasure in coitus than women. (_Historia Anatomica Humani Corporis_, 1599, lib. viii, quest. ii and vii.)
> 
> ...


Of course, if women had a lesser or completely absent sexual impulse, then that meant that there was no need for a man to attend to a _woman's_ sexual needs, because she had none to attend to, thus meaning a man could sexually use a woman as he pleased. So it was in men's best interest to assert this. And if you were a woman who lived during this time in which this was considered as "fact," and socialized to believe so, of course you would never learn anything about your own sexuality.

To relate this back to the subject of this thread, if, as I have illustrated, it was considered "fact" that women were not sexual, and you had numerous authorities of the time saying so in order to further their agenda, I would caution against men attempting to use biology as justification for their actions (disregarding the fact for the moment that human beings are not slaves to biology anyway, and have attributes which separate us from the non-human animals), seeing as how people also once said that men being more sexual than women was biology, and were socialized to believe this "truth," but we now know (and I have several studies on this on my computer as I type this) to be false.



Boxter9 said:


> As a fairly docile male I find this incredibly annoying. If I run around with girls, I'm manly, but the girls who I'm running around with are sluts. Wtf. They're not having any more sex than I am. Plus we're both the same amount human, last I checked.


Madonna/Whore dichotomy. I myself detest double standards.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Jawz said:


> Perspective is a beautiful thing to have. It all depends on the point of view in the end .. whether it's right or wrong, good or bad ... it's highly subjective and debateable. But still judgements are perspective and opinions.
> 
> Even in Pakistan there are women who readily show skin and cleavage .. However, I've noticed that hips, legs and navels are more eroticized than breasts in much of the Indian/Pakistani Culture. So even the eroticization is culture dependent for the most part.
> 
> Anyways, I loved this cartoon when I saw it, I think it's appropriate for this thread. Don't see it as an East vs West, or Burqa vs Bikini thing .. look at it from the perspective of how differing opinions/cultural ideals lead to different judgements.


It's truth and its not always an "East vs. West" thing, either. Victorian Christian women showed decolletage in England, and it's been more acceptable for longer periods of time in places like Italy and France, that unsurprisingly had warmer climates. These countries were also very Catholic at that time.

On the other hand, the Puritans were covered head to toe in a stifling, oppressive manner. 

It has NOTHING to do with being respected for one's mind, either. Even Hillary Clinton did a Harper's Bazaar cover showing quite a bit of her decolletage in an age-appropriate dress when she was about five years younger than she is now. 

There's a lot of gray area between walking around the street in a bikini and wearing a burqa. It's very continental European for women to be topless in a non-exploitative or non-sexual manner, and I seriously take offense to someone suggesting their cultures are less "classy" because of it, especially when they themselves have actively chosen to live in those cultures.

I grew up in the South, which also very protestant Christian religious, and I was in beauty pageants and went to proms where I wore GOWNS (not sexy little dresses) which showed my cleavage, and so did other girls and women. That goes all the way back to before the Civil War.

I mean it's not even a symptom of some kind of current degenerate culture to show cleavage. It's pretty much a Western standard in some regions and countries, and has been for hundreds of years apart from the presence of religion or even strong moral controls placed upon women.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I think it's fine. I just find it amusing when I notice it happening.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Waiting said:


> If you throw your boobs in my face* I'm assuming *you want me to be more easily coerced by your words, or attracted to you (though most often those are one in the same) which then may suggest that you don't feel they have enough merit to stand on their own.


Well that's where you went wrong.. with this whole assumption bit into the brain of the female subset of out species, maybe you should stop that? Here, how about this, don't put words in women's mouths and then use your own viewpoint to back up what OTHER people or OTHER gender's think, you aren't a woman so you don't know what our intentions are. Less assumptions, more learning!

That's where you are getting it wrong, even if a woman dresses in a way that provokes sexual interest, yeah, dressing sexy will make peopel pay attention to you sexually, but that's it. Stop reading into our motives--here this part, right here--



> I'm assuming you want me to be more easily coerced by your words or attracted to you (though most often those are one in the same)


If I wasn't secure in myself to know how totally wrong this is, I'd be super offended, and so would most women I imagine.

Here's a question, why do you think a sexy confident women NEEDS to coerce you with her BODY into believing her WORDS? Her words stand on their own, as a reprsetnative of a being with a brain and free will. The sex issue is there, but it's there to attract some guy who will respect her sexiness and her brain, not some jerk who conflates the two into thinking we use our bodies to manipulate men and compensate for our inferior brains. If a guy is walking around looking fine as hell, I think, wow, he's sexy and sneak a look, I don't think, Oh, he's only dressing so hot cause he's insecure in himself and trying to make himself look more masculine and win my approval so his words will have more backing.

And of course you see the girls in the movies who seduce with their bodies to get what they want, and they are real in real life too, but only weak/stupid men a) fall for that and confuse a women's body with who she really is because of over-sexualizing a woman and taking her sexuality as her person and b) take that outlier and use it against the female gender as a whole.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

fourtines said:


> There's a lot of gray area between walking around the street in a bikini and wearing a burqa. It's very continental European for women to be topless in a non-exploitative or non-sexual manner, and I seriously take offense to someone suggesting their cultures are less "classy" because of it, especially when they themselves have actively chosen to live in those cultures.


It's called *ethnocentrism*.



> Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. … Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> That seems to be your problem right there, you assume too much. I can't ever remember a time i threw my tits in anyones's face. It's attitude like this that leads you to making such generalizations and assumtptions. How about if i told you that some women are confindent in their own skin? Now what? Would you still assume we leave our homes with the hope of runnining into men who assume we dressed to attract them. No dear, we dress because we feel comfortable enough in our own skin that we don't need your approval. Whether you think it looks sexy or unattractive isn't the goal. The goal is for us to feel beautiful as women, and if men don't have enough willpower to be able to accept that, this is not our responsibility. We're only responsible for how it make us feel, not you.
> 
> And to answer your question about society and dicks. Personally dicks aren''t really appealing to my eyes, only what they can do for me ...so, if you want to walk around showing all or some of your dick, you won't get my attention ...i'd rather be staring at another womens cleavage than a mans penis. Yes, i find the female body to be much more appealing than that of a man.


Penises are like vaginas, not breasts. 

Also, it really bears pointing out that some men like bodacious ta-tas more than others. Some men are relatively unmoved by breasts, while others go crazy over them. I compare it to the way I am about men's stomachs...I mean there are women who are more concerned with things like arm and chest muscle. I like a little bit of lean muscle, yes, but it's not as erotic to me as men's stomachs. 

Men in some cultures (many, most) have been trained to think that women pretty much exist FOR THEM and so everything that women do must naturally be about them. It's a perception and it's very hard to break themselves from it, even in cases where it's clearly not true.

It's weird for a man to assume, also, that just because a woman may dress a certain way to feel pretty or to look attractive for her partner, that she actively wants the attention of ALL men. 

WTF. 

Also fashion is rarely actually about men. Women usually follow fashion because they like it individually, or even to impress other women rather than men. Sometimes men HATE what is fashionable, other times they don't even _notice. _

I mean I seriously doubt Coco Chanel was thinking of men when she started wearing pants, suits, and tanning her skin. Same with that whole idea of women bobbing their hair in the 20's and wearing shapeless dresses...that was NOT about men.

However, men may become very attracted to women who represent their generation through certain looks, or fetishize women from their own generation in the way they dress, but that's a by-product.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

@Master Mind

I would even say that it's possible to go besides culture-related criteria used to evaluate the world, but personal or gender-dominated outlook of the world to rate other people as well. I think that's what it is when men say, "Women dress like this to get a reaction from me!" when in reality they are the one's having the reaction to women dressing a certain way so they put the motivation onto the women. If that makes sense.

What would one call that? Projection? not sure.

@fourtines
yeah, exactly, and there's cultuers where breats aren't even sexualized at all! I was reading about an some culture, I want to say the masaii (but that could be totally off-base?), and the women thought it was hilarious that men in western cultures are fascinated with breasts. "Like a *baby*?" they asked. They all go around topless and it ain't no thing. The reason breasts are sexualized is because they are hidden, or hidden because they are sexualized. Whereas we could sexualize male nipples but for some reason we don't so it's ok to show those.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

adverseaffects said:


> @Master Mind
> 
> I would even say that it's possible to go besides culture-related criteria used to evaluate the world, but personal or gender-dominated outlook of the world to rate other people as well. I think that's what it is when men say, "Women dress like this to get a reaction from me!" when in reality they are the one's having the reaction to women dressing a certain way so they put the motivation onto the women. If that makes sense.
> 
> What would one call that? Projection? not sure.


Yes, that's exactly it.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

Many valid points made toward me, I still in personal experience have found mostly what I originally stated, though It should go without saying nothing is a death sentence. My initial post is what I stand by, and you can all be angry at the last part of it if you want.


----------



## shadowofambivalence (May 11, 2011)

There are girls out there who make it look good and tasteful, but for some reason i think man boobs are sexy and i don't really know why


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

shadowofambivalence said:


> There are girls out there who make it look good and tasteful, but for some reason i think man boobs are sexy and i don't really know why


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

This one time, I saw this random lady and she has these BIG ASS BREASTS, and was wearing this ultra-mega push up bra and a friggin diamond necklace. WHAT THE HELL! I was staring at them with my mouth open in awe.

I seriously hope she doesn't take offense to it, because she SERIOUSLY advertised her boobs in the most dramatic way! XD


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)




----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I definitely agree that breasts are over-sexualized and the reaction many have to them is more cultural than biological. That said...

If something is a bit extraordinary (whether in a good or bad way), then it tends to draw attention, and people will shoot a glance or two at it. Appreciating beauty is a rather normal human reaction, but I think there's a vast difference between ogling and a brief glance that simply notes something which stands out.

I can tell you as a small busted woman that a low neckline with small breasts does not get much attention; it's just not noticeable. Bustier women often do get a lot of attention, possibly because their cleavage is simply more noticeable (I, as a straight woman, notice it also in a non-sexual way; it's just something that is THERE). Conversely, being tallish & somewhat long legged, a short skirt or shorts may get some glances, whereas shorter legs in the same clothes may not be noticed. There's just MORE of them & so they stand out. I can't blame someone for subtly noticing something a bit out of the ordinary or exceptionally nice (or sometimes, er, exceptionally ugly), but I can blame them for having a socially inappropriate response that makes the other person uncomfortable. Even if the clothing in question is not appropriate for a situation, then that doesn't excuse an inappropriate reaction (two wrongs don't make a right, etc).

Which brings me to the next point: there's also a difference between showing some cleavage in a culturally tasteful way vs in a way that your culture will deem as too sexually suggestive or vulgar; this is very much a _cultural standard_. As others have noted, what skin is acceptable to show, the way its shown, and the message associated with it varies greatly throughout time & culture. However, these cultural standards _do_ exist & I doubt most women don't know what kind of attention their dress & body can attract (I personally don't see a small amount of cleavage in some settings as outside the norm in the USA though). When someone flaunts basic standards of appropriateness, then I don't think they have much right to complain about the attention it garners, even if their intent is not to get that attention. However, I don't think it means it's okay to be equally rude & gawk at such people. Individuals need to take responsibility for their behavior & their part in maintaining civilized interactions, so saying someone is "asking for it" or that you "can't help" staring boorishly & having a hormonal reaction is a poor excuse. It's also a poor excuse to claim no awareness of what skin is culturally appropriate to display in public.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Waiting said:


> Many valid points made toward me, I still in personal experience have found mostly what I originally stated, though It should go without saying nothing is a death sentence. My initial post is what I stand by, and you can all be angry at the last part of it if you want.


I'm not angry. I just think it's your own culturally biased personal opinion, and you should be aware that it's not objective.


----------



## NotedBook300 (Sep 24, 2011)

Spades said:


> I think it's fine. I just find it amusing when I notice it happening.


 A man's ability to mentally undress a woman is every bit as uncanny as a woman's ability to catch him doing so.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Spades said:


> Maybe I should create a poll asking women if they "feel" sexier when they wear less *without anyone seeing*. I'm quite confident this is a real phenomenon.


I'm going to choose to interpret this as saying that women have solo-lingerie parties the instant my back is turned. This makes my world so much better ^_^


----------



## C6RUSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Ridiculous statement.





Promethea said:


> "sounds like a *mentality in general* that gets guys put in prison for unwanted advances. I guess some just dun kno any betta! Oh well, one less to deal with."
> 
> The "I don't care what she wants, I'm doing what I want anyway" mentality when he knows a woman doesn't want something. I would be careful with that if I were you.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I try to avoid looking at cleavage. Anyone else ever got the intention that the chick they were conversing with way implying "Hey! My boobs are down there!"


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I try to avoid looking at cleavage. Anyone else ever got the intention that the chick they were conversing with way implying "Hey! My boobs are down there!"


Actually, yes, I'm somewhat uneasy about the whole 'very exposed' cleavage thing, so I do avoid to look at them to the best of my ability, but sometimes it almost seems like they bump their chests up slightly as I try to just look into their eyes, not all of them of course, but this stuff happens.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

C6RUSA said:


> Ridiculous statement.


Not nearly as ridiculous as saying that you'll do things to women even if they don't welcome it - especially something sexual; even if its just a look. Its not classy at all. I think people who do that against someones wishes should grow up and stop trying to prove something because all they're proving is that they have no class.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Nitou said:


> There is truth in what you say about being responsible for your own thoughts and feelings.
> But if you are wise enough to understand that, then you are also wise enough to understand that your actions DO effect other people and that you are responsible for that as well... right?


Yes. and? Do you think i'm somehow justifying my (non-existent) habit of staring at women?



> And you also understand that we are social animals whose behavior _automatically_ influences each other.


Elaborate. Have you tested this yourself?



> In our culture and in the animal kingdom, staring is often considered an aggressive act. If a man stares at a woman it is reasonable for her to interpret it as an aggressive act and become uncomfortable.


What about in an Alien culture? They might think it's absurd. It's a made up human concept which society agrees is a given.

What if a human child grew up in isolation for years and then came into society and stared at everyone? Is he being aggressive or is he just curious? What if he's trying to connect with people and the only way he feels or thinks is the way to do so is to maintain eye contact?

I stare at my cat all the time. He doesn't seem to think I'm doing anything aggressive. Most of the time he just purrs and stares back... blinks occasionally... it's cute :3


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Waiting said:


> I've lived in America my whole life lol. I know it cannot be considered objective and it wasn't intended to be (though I admit my wording gives that appearance), but this isn't culture based for me.


So you know you can live in the U.S. and be culturally biased? There are Mormons, Hasidic Jewish communities, Amish people, and communities of Muslims can live rather isolated lives from the mainstream West.

Furthermore, my own culture of birth - the American South - is quite different from the culture of New York City, and indeed different from much of what goes on in the rest of the U.S.

I live with an Argentinian family who still have aspects of Argentine culture - like dining VERY late at night on holidays, birthdays, and special dinners - in their lives.

I'm not sure, then, why you think you don't have a cultural bias because of your own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and community even if you were born in the U.S. 

I also realized today that you've typed yourself now as INFJ rather than INTJ, and being an Fe type makes tremendously more sense for you, I was seriously wondering how a Te type could make the mistakes in logic that you were about "objective" social standards.


----------



## C6RUSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Not nearly as ridiculous as saying that you'll do things to women even if they don't welcome it - especially something sexual; even if its just a look. Its not classy at all. I think people who do that against someones wishes should grow up and stop trying to prove something because all they're proving is that they have no class.


Tell you what, if I ever see you in person, i promise not to look in your direction. Feel better?
Needless to say, you seem to have a few issues.


----------



## Abyss Soul (Jul 11, 2010)

Well, I didn't read through the entire thread but, here goes.

I think it's fair to tell a man to grow-up if he stares and drools over a woman's cleavage for extended period of time. But if a woman has a problem with a natural, quick glance, then I think it's fair to tell her that she needs to grow some thicker skin.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

C6RUSA said:


> Tell you what, if I ever see you in person, i promise not to look in your direction. Feel better?
> Needless to say, you seem to have a few issues.


You're the one resorting to personal attacks after I simply made a point that its not classy to stare at someone who doesn't welcome it. How would you feel if a homosexual man was checking out your ass even after you gave him a sign that you aren't into it? Well not every woman who you persistently ogle is going to feel any less creeped out.

And perhaps you -should- make the mistake of gawking at someone who like me, would put you in your place for it irl and have you feel just as humiliated as you would have her feel, when you're openly staring at her like shes a freak just because she has female parts. 

No buddy, I'm not the one with issues -- I think that grown men can exercise a little more self-control than what you're talking about. I stand by my earlier point about region and intelligence level.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> What if a human child grew up in isolation for years and then came into society and stared at everyone? Is he being aggressive or is he just curious? What if he's trying to connect with people and the only way he feels or thinks is the way to do so is to maintain eye contact?


You seem intent on pretending like people don't send off vibes, energy and intent with their body language and the way they stare, etc. We discussed this earlier in the thread. There's a different feeling to the way a child or a curious person stares, and the way someone leers. 



> I stare at my cat all the time. He doesn't seem to think I'm doing anything aggressive. Most of the time he just purrs and stares back... blinks occasionally... it's cute :3


That's because he's your cat and that's how you guys bond. You're also not thinking about doing anything sexual to your cat. I can assure you if you stared at your neighbor's pit bull like that, it would be a different story.

There's a difference between staring at a loved one, and staring at a stranger. There's a difference between staring with curiosity and/or love, and staring with invasive sexual intent.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Promethea said:


> You're the one resorting to personal attacks after I simply made a point that its not classy to stare at someone who doesn't welcome it. How would you feel if a homosexual man was checking out your ass even after you gave him a sign that you aren't into it? Well not every woman who you persistently ogle is going to feel any less creeped out.


Yeah I think this is a fantastic argument to put forward. I'm sure most rational men wouldn't feel bothered by a gay guy looking their way casually, but might even become angry if he was too persistent or continued staring invasively after he was told to stop through either words, facial expression, or body language.

Same way with guys. I don't have a problem with guys looking. But I have a problem with men who are really creepy and invasive about leering and staring. And there's even a different vibe to some sweet humble guy who looks at you a lot because he has a crush, and some creep LEERING...I cannot emphasize enough how much difference things like intention, body language, facial expression, projection of humility (or lack thereof) and relationship to the person matters. Anyone who pretends like a look is generically a look must have some serious issues with non-verbal communication with other human beings.


----------



## C6RUSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Did you even read the original post by @Olympus? No one here mentioned anything about staring, gawking, or ogling, except you. That's something you simply stated to try and get your point across, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with my answer or duck_of_death's response to my answer. My original post was in response to the original question. 




Promethea said:


> You're the one resorting to personal attacks after I simply made a point that its not classy to stare at someone who doesn't welcome it. How would you feel if a homosexual man was checking out your ass even after you gave him a sign that you aren't into it? Well not every woman who you persistently ogle is going to feel any less creeped out.
> 
> And perhaps you -should- make the mistake of gawking at someone who like me, would put you in your place for it irl and have you feel just as humiliated as you would have her feel, when you're openly staring at her like shes a freak just because she has female parts.
> 
> No buddy, I'm not the one with issues -- I think that grown men can exercise a little more self-control than what you're talking about. I stand by my earlier point about region and intelligence level.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

fourtines said:


> Yeah I think this is a fantastic argument to put forward. I'm sure most rational men wouldn't feel bothered by a gay guy looking their way casually, but might even become angry if he was too persistent or continued staring invasively after he was told to stop through either words, facial expression, or body language.
> 
> Same way with guys. I don't have a problem with guys looking. But I have a problem with men who are really creepy and invasive about leering and staring. And there's even a different vibe to some sweet humble guy who looks at you a lot because he has a crush, and some creep LEERING...I cannot emphasize enough how much difference things like intention, body language, facial expression, projection of humility (or lack thereof) and relationship to the person matters. Anyone who pretends like a look is generically a look must have some serious issues with non-verbal communication with other human beings.


Yes. If someone notices, but doesn't continue -- fine. But the attitude like "I don't care if she dun like it, shit yea hold mah beer I'm gunna concentrate starin at this one jesco!" is effing -creepy-. I dealt with it a ton in myrtle beach. One instance I remember off the top of my head, I was in a mall, and this guy was telling his friend to come on, well he said "hold on man, I'm looking at this girl" (me), and he was walking like he was going to walk into me. Why on earth do they think they have the right to treat me like I'm a freak show simply because I'm "attractive."

I think it was you or maybe it was someone else who made a point earlier that sometimes more busty women can't help but have some cleavage. Indeed. And even if mine are completely covered, because they're larger, I still get gawked at. For the longest time I didn't understand "its cuz yeur hawt lols!11" -- I was a clueless young nerd who thought zomg, I must look like a side-show freak because these men just leer! 

Anyway, just a quick look even makes me curious sometimes, like does he recognize me, or maybe I seemed genuinely interesting.. but when someones doing the up and down gaze and drool, it conjures thoughts of being eyehumped by rapeyapes. And no, I'm not letting it all hang out, I just happen to have an hourglass figure, and even clothed from head-to-toe it's going to happen. x_x


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

C6RUSA said:


> Did you even read the original post by @Olympus? No one here mentioned anything about staring, gawking, or ogling, except you. That's something you simply stated to try and get your point across, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with my answer or duck_of_death's response to my answer. My original post was in response to the original question.


By thanking dod's post in response to your original bro battle-cry for rights to leer at clevage, you are endorsing the idea that "us bros don't give a shit what women want, we're lookin' anyway!" - And my point was, and is: _when a woman doesn't want it, stop._ And plenty in this thread made it a point to say that they aren't looking for men to stare at them simply because they dress a certain way.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

fourtines said:


> You seem intent on pretending like people don't send off vibes, energy and intent with their body language and the way they stare, etc. We discussed this earlier in the thread. There's a different feeling to the way a child or a curious person stares, and the way someone leers.


So much this.


There is a predatory stare that says "Your flesh belongs to me." It is very deliberate. 
There are quick inadvertent glances that happen largely out of instinct.
There is a look that says "lookin' good," which is often coupled with a smile. If it's not reciprocated, it doesn't persist.

If you male-folks have experienced cleavagy women freaking out over the latter two, I'd agree that those women were overreacting. But the first one is both insulting and designed to make you feel like someone's prey. It is not remotely OK.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

chimeric said:


> So much this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That does make me feel better. Are young teenagers prone to the first kind, or is that kind never innocent?


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> That does make me feel better. Are young teenagers prone to the first kind, or is that kind never innocent?


It's not innocent. People who leer like that know full well what they're doing.

A lot of communication happens nonverbally. If you're persistently staring at a woman and she clearly isn't enjoying it, then your stare is hostile and aggressive. When I get that look from someone, I throw them one of these:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> That does make me feel better. Are young teenagers prone to the first kind, or is that kind never innocent?


I've never met a young teenager (because by "young" teenager I'm presuming you mean 13 or 14 years old) who had mastered a "predatory stare" and it looks a lot more like them sitting there in shock with their mouths hanging open, lol.

I've met guys in their older teens who are quite predatory, and they certainly aren't innocent. 

I don't know how being predatory could ever be innocent. There's a difference between a longing stare from a humble awkward young person and a predatory leer.

I'm honestly curious as to why several males in this thread don't read facial expressions or body language well, or simply that they are pretending not to, or can't put themselves in a similar situation and imagine what it feels like when other people look at them in different ways.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

chimeric said:


> It's not innocent. People who leer like that know full well what they're doing.
> 
> A lot of communication happens nonverbally. If you're persistently staring at a woman and she clearly isn't enjoying it, then your stare is hostile and aggressive. When I get that look from someone, I throw them one of these:


Yes, exactly that face. I've also physically turned my chair around, moved around, I've even kind of shook my head "no" and in extreme situations or if I felt particularly irritated actually told the guy to fuck off.


----------



## dejavu (Jun 23, 2010)

PhoebeJaspe said:


> I guess people tend to take things the wrong way


Lol. Welcome to the internet.


----------



## PhoebeJaspe (Apr 17, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> First you really need to stop generalizing types and attention seekers, not cool. Second you need to stop generalizating the motives of women. Women have choices, and if they choose to wear push up bras and low cut shirts doens't make them attention seekers. Maybe they love how they look, it makes them feel good, makes them feel sexy. Don't be so quick to judge what motivates them . First of all , do you know for a fact they are SJ women? So i can only assume you were there when they tested, right ? Have you asked them what their motives were ? Did they tell you it was merely for attention ? Because if you answered No to the questions, your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
> 
> I'm not an SJ, and let me tell you I LOVE wearing push up bras, yes very sexy ones too. And if i wear that with a shirt that shows cleavage, sweet, looks even sexier. Am i doing it for attention, yes, i get my own attention. I can look down at anytime and say " Hey, i have amazing breast, i look sexy, i feel sexy, i love being a confiendent women. I don't complain if men are glancing or staring because like some women, i don't care. Although if for some reason it made me feel uncomfortable to have a man drool over my body, i certainly wouldn't except blame or feel i have to cover up in order to make that go away. I would simply tell the guy " Hey, haven't you seen a tit before, a bumb of skin. You don't have willpower enough to speak to my face, perhaps you need to get laid or feel some boob.


That's true that we all have our own motives but I was just stating one of them... T__T I don't get why people take things so seriously, Perc seems to be so Nazi nowadays. No freedom of speech, I think I'm allowed to say what I want and people shouldn't take offense. I mentioned everyone is mixed up to an extent that I cannot generalise everything to its full potential. I'm just targeting a small dimension, a microcosm, and you guys are stamping on this small dimension with your macrocosm. I am just defining one small part of what people are like, of course, this may not apply to everyone with what I say. But no need for your hate. =(


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

PhoebeJaspe said:


> That's true that we all have our own motives but I was just stating one of them... T__T I don't get why people take things so seriously, Perc seems to be so Nazi nowadays. No freedom of speech, I think I'm allowed to say what I want and people shouldn't take offense. I mentioned everyone is mixed up to an extent that I cannot generalise everything to its full potential. I'm just targeting a small dimension, a microcosm, and you guys are stamping on this small dimension with your macrocosm. I am just defining one small part of what people are like, of course, this may not apply to everyone with what I say. But no need for your hate. =(


Who's hating on you ? Why are you taking it so personal and serious? Didn't you just say that you don't understand why people take these things so serious, and this is exactly what you're doing. Making sweeping generalizations about what motivates women will cause people to react, not because anyone is insulted, merely because we don't know what motivates women.

Try and look at it from this angle. If you were to go out and buy a new car today , saw one on the parking lot that you really loved. This car is plain jane, no added features. Once you step inside the building and review the manual you notice all sorts of added features you can purchase. You decide to add cruise control, an navigator, tilted steering wheel , padded seats, lots of features to make it feel comfortable, or practical. Who are you trying to impress ? Youself, because you love the car, therefore you want to make it your own. Or, are you trying to impress people who will see it ? If you said you did this for yourself because you loved the car and wanted it to be special for your own personal needs, then great. This is no different than women and their bodies. They add features to impress themselves, because they love how it feels, how it looks.

Are there women out there who do it for attention, well of course there are, that is a given. Although for the most part i would say women do it to impress themselves, not other people, not men or women, for them and them alone.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Nitou said:


> There is truth in what you say about being responsible for your own thoughts and feelings.
> But if you are wise enough to understand that, then you are also wise enough to understand that your actions DO effect other people and that you are responsible for that as well... right?





Vasili Syrakis said:


> Yes. and? Do you think i'm somehow justifying my (non-existent) habit of staring at women?


It crossed my mind.



Nitou said:


> And you also understand that we are social animals whose behavior automatically influences each other.






Vasili Syrakis said:


> Elaborate. Have you tested this yourself?


30+ years of life experience have confirmed it. Much of our behavior is on auto-pilot because it improves the efficiency of our activities. While there are individual differences in behavior due to temperament and other factors, people are generally predictable. Whatever attitude you project, you are most likely to get a similar attitude in response. Much of people's behavior is not entirely volitional unless they have practiced being mindful and deliberate in their actions.

If life experience is not adequate, you could look into social biology, but it is a science in its infancy and I don't even know if it has a name. Look into mirror neurons. Look into the devastating effects of rearing infant mammals in isolation. Look into studies on how environmental factors influence men's testosterone levels and women's menstrual cycles. No one is an island. We DO effect one another psychologically and biologically.



Nitou said:


> In our culture and in the animal kingdom, staring is often considered an aggressive act. If a man stares at a woman it is reasonable for her to interpret it as an aggressive act and become uncomfortable.





Vasili Syrakis said:


> What about in an Alien culture? They might think it's absurd. It's a made up human concept which society agrees is a given.


Whatever some hypothetical aliens might think of us is irrelevant. Psychology, biology and culture all tie into each other. If the culture agrees that an act is aggressive, then it will be interpreted as such by the mind and body, such as with the flight-or-fight response. 



Vasili Syrakis said:


> What if a human child grew up in isolation for years and then came into society and stared at everyone? Is he being aggressive or is he just curious? What if he's trying to connect with people and the only way he feels or thinks is the way to do so is to maintain eye contact?


Improbable. Human infants reared in isolation almost inevitably die. It doesn't matter if they're fed and bathed. If you don't interact with them, they die. But assuming for a moment it's true, then obviously if the child has not been taught that staring is rude then s/he will not know it.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

PhoebeJaspe said:


> That's true that we all have our own motives but I was just stating one of them... T__T I don't get why people take things so seriously, Perc seems to be so Nazi nowadays. No freedom of speech, I think I'm allowed to say what I want and people shouldn't take offense. I mentioned everyone is mixed up to an extent that I cannot generalise everything to its full potential. I'm just targeting a small dimension, a microcosm, and you guys are stamping on this small dimension with your macrocosm. I am just defining one small part of what people are like, of course, this may not apply to everyone with what I say. But no need for your hate. =(


PerC is no more "nazi" than it always has been. As for freedom of speech, this is a website and freedom of speech is not a right which anyone has. People can say as they like within the confines of the forum rules and these rules have always been there. 

I certainly don't think anyone is hating on you. Mostly they are giving you friendly advice.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> That's true that we all have our own motives but I was just stating one of them... T__T I don't get why people take things so seriously, Perc seems to be so Nazi nowadays. No freedom of speech, I think I'm allowed to say what I want and people shouldn't take offense. I mentioned everyone is mixed up to an extent that I cannot generalise everything to its full potential. I'm just targeting a small dimension, a microcosm, and you guys are stamping on this small dimension with your macrocosm. I am just defining one small part of what people are like, of course, this may not apply to everyone with what I say. But no need for your hate. =(


Because you sound embarrassingly ignorant doing it, and help perpetuate negative stereotypes to the more suggestible crowds out there. Why is your observation about "Si types" supposed to be meaningful anyhow to this topic at hand? Is there some correlation between sexual naivete and being an Si type? In my own experiences, I HIGHLY doubt it. You sound like you're projecting inferior Si onto them or something, if anything (assuming you're an ENFP).


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

fourtines said:


> So you know you can live in the U.S. and be culturally biased? There are Mormons, Hasidic Jewish communities, Amish people, and communities of Muslims can live rather isolated lives from the mainstream West.
> 
> Furthermore, my own culture of birth - the American South - is quite different from the culture of New York City, and indeed different from much of what goes on in the rest of the U.S.
> 
> ...


I never said anything about objectivity, nor stated I was being objective, please stop saying that. If you look at my initial post, I was aware of was being somewhat overbearing on my accusation as seen by my comment of "feeling the flames already." I do not see fault in expressing my exact thoughts, however. I have personal experience in this area that leads me to have a slight bias of experience; as I said before though I notice that this is still true more often than not. As for where I live, more specifically I live 5 minutes outside of Providence, Rhode Island and moved here 17 years ago. In providence, the vast majority of women dress this way, it is a norm, so it would be thought that as most people have a degree of reflexivity, my bias would be in favor of this. If in fact cultural biases can also work in the opposite direction, ie. a persons cultural surroundings disgusting them and thus turning them in the opposite direction, then I may be culturally biased. I don't know if the term works that way though. Regardless I really have tried to sum the meaning of my posts for the final time on this subject, I have no ill will against you, nor do I fault you for having a different opinion or understanding than my own, but I think we've discussed this to its end.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

sifting through the responses there seems to be a big miscommunication on what it means to "look:" defining it seems helpful. i would agree with this post:



chimeric said:


> So much this.
> 
> 
> There is a predatory stare that says "Your flesh belongs to me." It is very deliberate.
> ...


it seems as if one half of this thread are arguing about one thing and the other side about another. an intrusive, aggressive, deliberate sexual you're-a-piece-of-meat stare is NOT the same as a glance or an absentminded look which mayn't even register in the bloke's mind.
*
disclaimer: i am going to talk about the latter; the glance / harmless look, as the OP specifically detailed:

*


> I'm not talking about starring at them for a minute and drooling but to glimpse at them.


now that that's out of the way...



Duck_of_Death said:


> This isn't a moral issue--it's a biological one.
> A nice rack is a nice rack. It is even better when it is partially exposed.


 slightly more along the lines of what i'm talking about.

there's a big difference between glancing at something that naturally attracts your attention / gaze and using it to as a poor excuse to justify harrassment or aggressive body language.

really, now. when a bit of a dude's legs or the bottom of his stomach shows or his pants are a bit tight, i take a peek. i like it. all right? have i broken any laws? i cross that strictly-kept moral boundary because i'm curious about his body and it's cheeky. am i sub-human, Id-ridden, unable to control my urges to *gasp* gaze upon someone's physical form as nature intended?! lord oh mighty, i think i need a glass of holy water..



MuChApArAdOx said:


> Mabye we like to look down at our boobs and say " Oh yeah, i love them, i love how they look, i love to be able to see them, yes, women shouldn't be ashamed to love themselves and reveal themselves for THEMSELVES, not you.


so... only you're allowed to look at the skin you show in public, and no-one else?
who are women revealing themselves *to*? think about it.



MuChApArAdOx said:


> Cover it up, i totally disagree, if you don't have the willpower to not look, that becomes your problem, not theirs.


 you chose to reveal this part of your body, as you say - that makes it your problem. you feel insecure about the way you present yourself (and the attention you draw as a result) - it's up to you to change it.
what you choose to make seeable is your choice & responsibility.
it doesn't vanish from existence once you put a turtleneck over it.

there's a line to be drawn here; it is not "asking for it" (a poor justification and yes, the talk of rapists) but it will attract attention even subtly. then again, i don't need to expose certain parts of myself to get into that entanglement as it seems i can barely speak to a bloke without being accused of leading him on anymore.
funny, that. when i was an overweight tomboy and a bit fugly i might as well've been asexual in boys' eyes but now i'm slim & decent-looking even just saying hello is apparently leading them on. *grumble*



Waiting said:


> Its all about what you want. If you throw your boobs in my face I'm assuming you want me to be more easily coerced by your words, or attracted to you (though most often those are one in the same) which then may suggest that you don't feel they have enough merit to stand on their own.


 Waiting, while i do agree with the gist of your opinions the way you worded this comes off a little misguided. women don't always try to use their bodies to manipulate or impress, but i certainly won't deny that_ some_ do. and regardless, women are very aware of the influence our bodies have on others.
yes, in an ideal world, women wouldn't have to be sexually this or that to be powerful, but the sad fact is that a select few girls will gladly objectify themselves because it gets them what they want.

but i stand firmly by the idea that if you disliked being looked at so much you'd cover up more rather than demand that everybody avoid looking at what YOU made clearly visible. if i decide i'd like to feel sexy and show cleavage, then that is MY choice, nobody forced me, i won't suffocate if the crack between my boobies doesn't meet fresh air. and you know what, regardless of intent or who it's for or blah blah blah, it doesn't matter anymore: it's still seeable, therefore, will be seen. that's life.

besides, i can enjoy the awesomeness of my breasts in private.

@OrangeAppled bravo! you nailed it completely, one hundred per cent agree. i also agree with @Sovereign and i do not see his perspective as skewed, it makes perfectly realistic sense.



fourtines said:


> I also realized today that you've typed yourself now as INFJ rather than INTJ, and being an Fe type makes tremendously more sense for you, I was seriously wondering how a Te type could make the mistakes in logic that you were about "objective" social standards.


 ad hominem is not objective nor validation of one's own argument. let's keep the typism on a nice short leash, shall we?

personally, i can't help but sense an implicit element of control or domination in deliberately exposing yourself sexually ("to feel sexy") and then berating someone who does not adhere to your demands to deny an automatic human response to your being "sexy" and anxiously avoid offending you at all costs. and it doesn't sit well with me.
it's like putting a steak in front of a dog's nose and then shouting at it when it glances at the plate, just to make sure it knows its place. (and before anybody infers this from my post, no, i am not comparing women to food; i'm comparing sexual tension [or rather, interest in the opposite sex] to hunger [interest in food] as a biological need, which both are.)


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Of course everyone knows that all men are dogs, and so really can't help themselves, which is why this particular simile is _apropos_. It's necessary to clarify that women are not being equated to food—which we all know is bad, but I find it interesting (and revealing) that it never even came to mind to comment on the fact that men are equated to dogs in this analogy. Because there's an unspoken understanding, which is really why we shouldn't blame those poor creatures, because they can't help themselves. 

That's (as I've expressed on several occasions now) just as sexist as men treating women like pieces of meat. Men are not Pavlovian dogs and women are not pieces of meat. The sooner we understand this, the better off this society will be, and the better the people in it will be.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Reicheru said:


> ad hominem is not objective nor validation of one's own argument. let's keep the typism on a nice short leash, shall we?


Ad hominem? What are you talking about? I'm talking about the difference between Te and Fe, and Te is highly unlikely to believe that cultural norms are "objective" while it's frequently a harbinger of Fe for a person to shape their morality by external moral standards.

That doesn't mean that all INFJs or Fe types share the specific opinions of @Waiting, but to observe that it makes more sense for an Fe type to define morality by some kind of external "objective" standards (Fe is referred to as "objective subjectivity" while Te is "objective objectivity").



> personally, i can't help but sense project an implicit element of control or domination in deliberately exposing yourself sexually ("to feel sexy") and then berating someone who does not adhere to your demands to deny an automatic human response to your being "sexy" and anxiously avoid offending you at all costs. and it doesn't sit well with me.
> it's like putting a steak in front of a dog's nose and then shouting at it when it glances at the plate, just to make sure it knows its place. (and before anybody infers this from my post, no, i am not comparing women to food; i'm comparing sexual tension [or rather, interest in the opposite sex] to hunger [interest in food] as a biological need, which both are.)


Speaking of functions, sounds like projection of inferior Se. I think MULTIPLE people have pointed out in this thread that in varying cultures cleavage and breasts aren't even as sexualized as they are in the U.S. for example.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> Of course everyone knows that all men are dogs, and so really can't help themselves, which is why this particular simile is _apropos_. It's necessary to clarify that women are not being equated to food—which we all know is bad, but I find it interesting (and revealing) that it never even came to mind to comment on the fact that men are equated to dogs in this analogy. Because there's an unspoken understanding, which is really why we shouldn't blame those poor creatures, because they can't help themselves.
> 
> That's (as I've expressed on several occasions now) just as sexist as men treating women like pieces of meat. Men are not Pavlovian dogs and women are not pieces of meat. The sooner we understand this, the better off this society will be, and the better the people in it will be.


 i take it then that you completely missed my analogy, in reference to authority/control (owner to pet, woman to man in this case). please, though, do feel free to reclaim your projections.

it's about a VISUAL INVITATION. fuck, i'm including myself in that; when i see a bare chest it'll catch my eye for a split second even before i consciously realise it. i probably won't linger, because that's rude, but i do look. why should i have to control an automatic, harmless eye-movement? because i might burn lasers into your form? because i'm a dog and i should be kept in my place?

equally, i find it interesting & revealing that you talk about 'blame.'

p.s. i'm a girl. so then i guess then i must have no self-control.. over an optic muscle, for half a second. lol.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

confusedone said:


> Not sure which is worse: those who see women exposing cleavage and label them as "sluts", or those who see women exposing cleavage and label them as automatic "SJs"


Argument I actually saw once on a forum (roughly paraphrased) "An ISFJ is a fashionably dressed, attractive woman who flirts with you all night but then refuses to go home with you."


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

> Reicheru said:
> 
> 
> > so... only you're allowed to look at the skin you show in public, and no-one else?
> ...


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

If it's wrong to look at cleavage it's wrong to show cleavage. If it's okay to look at cleavage then it's okay to show cleavage. This isn't rocket science, people.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Ad hominem? What are you talking about? I'm talking about the difference between Te and Fe, and Te is highly unlikely to believe that cultural norms are "objective" while it's frequently a harbinger of Fe for a person to shape their morality by external moral standards.


and this is relevant to the debate how? a Fe-user can still remain objective and it does not invalidate their argument. you are bringing types into a debate that is not about types and comparing who's more "logical" based on their type. ad hominem; "to the man."



fourtines said:


> That doesn't mean that all INFJs or Fe types share the specific opinions of @Waiting, but to observe that it makes more sense for an Fe type to define morality by some kind of external "objective" standards (Fe is referred to as "objective subjectivity" while Te is "objective objectivity").


i'm aware.



fourtines said:


> Speaking of functions, sounds like projection of inferior Se. I think MULTIPLE people have pointed out in this thread that in varying cultures cleavage and breasts aren't even as sexualized as they are in the U.S. for example.


 thanks for the psychoanalysis, Doc. again, not sure at all how pointing a finger my inferior function is relevant in the slightest. i would make some sort of comment about inferior Te but i'd rather debate without picking at personality types.

yes, but in the U.S, they are still sexualised and emphasised as a sexual symbol. whether it's right or wrong, men in Western society like boobies. (well, unless you're an arse man... )


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Why are you quoting me, and who are you talking too ? Why are you whinning to me about all this ? Much of what you're saying here is all gibbirish....me don't speak gibbirish, nor understand it. It's my problem ? Since when did we confirm i had problems at all. I don't take issue with any man who wants to stare at my tits. You must have me confused with someone who gives a shite, as it isn't a problem for me, nor did i ever suggest it was. The problem is that you can't grasp that not all women care, or give it any thought as to what men like, dislike, precieve whatever you want to call it. So i have no idea why you are implying that women should take responsibility, for blab blah blah. The only person i'm responsible for is MOI, i don't give any thought to how its making him/her/them/ feel or think. I don't think about it, so therefore it doesn't exist.


i was referencing your statement: "if you don't have the willpower to not look, that becomes your problem, not theirs." didn't realise it was so difficult to follow a simple quote. 9_9 you seem awfully defensive...

and when did i ever state that "_all_ women care"? i was referring to those who do, those who feel even a glance was objectionable. i stated this, over and over, i used the word, "if."



MuChApArAdOx said:


> I resent myself > ...i have no idea what angle you're comning from or your train of thoughts. Are you making weird generalizations ? Never mind don't answer that, seriously, i don't understand your language. I don't want to get into a Te-Fe debate, or Ti/Fi so i'll ignore this post. Please dont quote me, trust me when i say we are from different planets, and don't take that as an insult, just trust it
> We're in different books on different chapers reading different things.


too bad. yes, i think that's pretty evident.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

I like how a thread originally about boobs has devolved into a typist pissing match. Could we class this thread up with some more boob-talk?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

fourtines said:


> I think MULTIPLE people have pointed out in this thread that in varying cultures cleavage and breasts aren't even as sexualized as they are in the U.S. for example.


I think this thread definitely needs a reminder of that. I see a lot of invincibly ignorant ignoring the fact that its more cultural than biological, which I demonstrated in my first post. I cringe every time I see someone try to use a half-cocked biology claim to support it, like they are incapable of admitting that they do what they do because they are immature and not very bright in order to have been so deeply brainwashed by the media's messages of objectification. I know why they won't give it up and why they refuse to admit that biology isn't forcing their hand (or eyes as the case may be) -- because for some people, objectification is a fun and addicting hobby once it starts. There is nothing in human nature that naturally causes men to stand around and ask each other which strippers ass you could better bounce a dime off of. The fetishistic nature of objectification has gotten extremely detailed and surreal, where guys actually have weird preferences in women down to what cup size her breasts should be -- as if theres actually some kind of biological reason for that sort of preference. Theres not, yet they will argue until they are blue in the face that biology is making them crave very detailed and sometimes unnatural things. They won't see it as an actual problem, because its been treated like a fun and harmless drug ever since they started masturbating to internet porn as little boys. Telling them that their attractions have a warped fetishistic nature to them feels like you're threatening to take their orgasm away -- which they have linked to sometimes surreal airbrushed images online, and irl body parts stored away in memory. 

The more intelligent and mature males I have known do not view attraction the way those aforementioned do. Once in a while I can help one to understand, and deprogram a bit -- but for the most part, those who are strung out on McSexuality just want their cheap, easy, artificial thrill and they don't see it as damaging.

They don't see it as damaging because they _don't_ see the bigger picture. Again, I think here its tied to intelligence. The ones I have explained it to who can at least see that seem to consider it. It makes the quality of attraction suffer because its treated as something cheap. 

I have been accused of being religious over these facts, which baffles me. Its like any suggestion that something popular is probably not ok is considered a wholly moral agenda. The actual fact of the matter is that I had a childhood that was for the most part free of media, and once I observed media, I was old enough to be objective instead of grow up blindly thinking that I should be attracted to only men who are 6'2, have a strong jawline, and abs. I grew a better quality to my attractions stemming from the fact that I wasn't -taught- to go about it in a prescribed and superficial way.

I am a heterosexual human being, and I am not the only one who isn't hung-up on thinking that every other human being out there is participating in a beauty pageant that I am entitled to judge. I am not a late-bloomer, and I am not a person who doesn't enjoy sex/sexuality in general.. I simply wasn't indoctrinated with the cultural ideals that make most people participate n the objectification game. I have seen enough, and read enough to know that biology alone does not drive physical attraction, and the fetishistic nature of attraction to body parts is as fickle as fashion, and just as culturally motivated. 

In rural mexico, chubby women are considered attractive, in Italy, small breasts are in fashion, In Mauritania its obesity, and centuries ago in our own culture it was chubby and pale in contrast to emaciated and tan today. The people throughout all of these cultures have something in common -- they are human beings with human biology, and they do not agree on what that biology drives them to feel attraction for, because its not whats doing it. Not completely. If it was, and there was some universal and objective standard, then you would see it appear throughout all cultures, because human biology would dictate it. Instead it seems motivated by status. In the poorer cultures, extra weight means more access to resource, and pale skin was a symbol of not being a poor field worker. In our culture these days, status means a personal trainer, botox, and breast implants. 

Anyway, I'm sick to death of the ignorant "biology makes me a horny objectifying pigdog lunatic" claim. Its hard to have any patience for it when my own understanding has so far surpassed that. Its like having to go back and teach someone the alphabet when you desperately want them to understand your novel.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Promethea said:


> I am a heterosexual human being, and I am not the only one who isn't hung-up on thinking that every other human being out there is participating in a beauty pageant that I am entitled to judge.


I remember some Lazarus Long quote, to the effect that, "Any set of features can support beauty. Sometimes, the man just has to learn how to see it, is all. But ugly goes straight to the bone."


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Reicheru said:


> i take it then that you completely missed my analogy, in reference to authority/control (owner to pet, woman to man in this case). please, though, do feel free to reclaim your projections.


This topic, last I was aware, was about men looking at female cleavages. You said that you sensed an element of control or domination in a woman "deliberately exposing herself" (to men, as that's the topic of this thread), and then berating someone (a man, as, again, that's the subject of this topic) who didn't adhere to her demands "to deny an automatic human response," after which you immediately went into the Pavlov's dog analogy. I noted that you made sure to point out that you weren't comparing women to food, but said nothing about men being compared to dogs, as men looking at women is the topic of this thread. You even said yourself prior that you can "barely speak to a bloke without being accused of leading him on anymore" (This is due to misattribution, as men have a lower threshold for labelling "interested" behavior than women do, which is why many men perceive simple friendly behavior as a sign of sexual interest), and don't even need to expose certain parts of yourself to get into that entanglement, which I said a couple pages back.



Reicheru said:


> p.s. i'm a girl.


I'm aware of that.



Reicheru said:


> funny, that. when i was an overweight tomboy and a bit fugly i might as well've been asexual in boys' eyes but now i'm slim & decent-looking even just saying hello is apparently leading them on. *grumble*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


This kinda clued me in, if I wasn't sure. It's unnecessary to point out that which is readily evident.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Anyway, I'm sick to death of the ignorant "biology makes me a horny objectifying pigdog lunatic" claim. Its hard to have any patience for it when my own understanding has so far surpassed that. Its like having to go back and teach someone the alphabet when you desperately want them to understand your novel.


I think part of the problem is that men would like some reassurance that they can be something other than a "horny objectifying pigdog lunatic" and still be _men._ For example, I don't think the "horny" part is going to budge any time soon. Or, if it does, that would not be a Good Thing! :laughing: If they're forced to choose between been men and being moral, one reaction might be to argue that they have no choice but to be men. Positive reinforcement of the gender norms you do want might work better as a tactic than punishing gender norms you don't want. "Look, but don't drool; look, but don't be a predator" might be a good way of putting it? That would help reassure them that checking out the eye candy is consistent with being a 'good' man.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> I remember some Lazarus Long quote, to the effect that, "Any set of features can support beauty. Sometimes, the man just has to learn how to see it, is all. But ugly goes straight to the bone."


I've known people who society would consider beautiful, who were, in actuality, ugly people. But of course, many seem unable to get past a person's exterior (or don't care about anything else).


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> I think part of the problem is that men would like some reassurance that the can be something other than a "horny objectifying pigdog lunatic" and still be _men._ For example, I don't think the "horny" part is going to budge any time soon. Or, if it does, that would not be a Good Thing! :laughing: If they're forced to choose between been men and being moral, one reaction might be to argue that they have no choice but to be men. Positive reinforcement of the gender norms you do want might work better as a tactic than punishing gender norms you don't want. "Look, but don't drool; look, but don't be a predator" might be a good way of putting it? That would help reassure them that checking out the eye candy is consistent with being a 'good' man.


So (and I ask this as someone who actually studied masculinity in college), what exactly _is_ "being a man" to you?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> So (and I ask this as someone who actually studied masculinity in college), what exactly _is_ "being a man" to you?


Good question . And as a philosopher who does a lot of conceptual analysis, I appreciate how hard a concept is to define in words - our understanding of a concept is tacit, not explicit. I would say that a "man" is definitely a sexual being, but a "man" is also a "gentleman." A rapist is not man; a rapist is an animal. A man is not abusive either - he protects those under his care. Hardly a complete account, this, but it's a starting point, perhaps. And I have said one thing already that a straw feminist would object to. I wonder how the actual feminists in this thread will respond to it? How would actual feminists define "man" in a normative way?


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Good question . And as a philosopher who does a lot of conceptual analysis, I appreciate how hard a concept is to define in words - our understanding of a concept is tacit, not explicit. I would say that a "man" is definitely a sexual being, but a "man" is also a "gentleman." A rapist is not man; a rapist is an animal. A man is not abusive either - he protects those under his care. Hardly a complete account, this, but it's a starting point, perhaps. And I have said one thing already that a straw feminist would object to. I wonder how the actual feminists in this thread will respond to it? How would actual feminists define "man" in a normative way?


I'm not sure how feminists would define "feminist," let alone "man." For one thing, feminism is increasingly moving in "gender isn't binary" direction.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Reicheru said:


> and this is relevant to the debate how? a Fe-user can still remain objective and it does not invalidate their argument. you are bringing types into a debate that is not about types and comparing who's more "logical" based on their type. ad hominem; "to the man."


Yeah you're missing what I'm saying entirely. I never said INFJs couldn't be logical, I know a very logical INFJ female, and INFJ male who seems almost INTP-ish.

I'm saying that the reasoning that @_Waiting_ was using was NOT Te reasoning in the slightest, and then I checked and saw he had in fact changed his type to INFJ, which made more sense because his reasoning seemed Fe (and I already clarified that not everyone with Fe would specifically say what he did, implying that people "are" morally a certain way, no matter what think of themselves.) This is the kind of moral reasoning that comes from validating from external sources. 






> thanks for the psychoanalysis, Doc. again, not sure at all how pointing a finger my inferior function is relevant in the slightest. i would make some sort of comment about inferior Te but i'd rather debate without picking at personality types.


It does look like projection of inferior Se because you're "sensing" that someone has power tripping motives for showing their flesh, and furthermore reducing the people around them to victims of their senses. It's projection.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> This topic, last I was aware, was about men looking at female cleavages. You said that you sensed an element of control or domination in a woman "deliberately exposing herself" (to men, as that's the topic of this thread), and then berating someone (a man, as, again, that's the subject of this topic) who didn't adhere to her demands "to deny an automatic human response," after which you immediately went into the Pavlov's dog analogy. I noted that you made sure to point out that you weren't comparing women to food, but said nothing about men being compared to dogs, as men looking at women is the topic of this thread. You even said yourself prior that you can "barely speak to a bloke without being accused of leading him on anymore" (This is due to misattribution, as men have a lower threshold for labelling "interested" behavior than women do, which is why many men perceive simple friendly behavior as a sign of sexual interest), and don't even need to expose certain parts of yourself to get into that entanglement, which I said a couple pages back.


yes. it is, by and large most likely due to misattribution, but it's something that continues to occurr in my life and thus continues to annoy me. i have been stalked home before by somebody i did not know and refused to speak to because he was attracted to me. this is not sexism, this is a rational annoyance, and at my university this happens quite a lot.
i was on the train of thought regarding women "asking for it" and i was agreeing that yes, sometimes women _are_ blamed & projected-upon, that this also happens to me which i acknowledge personally, and that you don't need to have your breasts out for it to happen.
that guy _was_ a dog, but he is not all guys. and glancing at boobs is not in any way the same as stalking somebody home.

i was pre-empting a backlash of "women aren't pieces of meat" since much of this debate focuses on the objectification of women, but christ, if i'd have realised i'd needed to cover every wrong way my words could possibly be taken then i would've clarified "men aren't dogs" as well. it comes as no surprise that it's difficult to come up with an analogy about a controlling vs. controlled figure that does not entail similar images of ownership, control, inferiorisation and authoritarianism... that was kind of the point; "smelly dogs are beneath us, let's kick them."
the implied reference to the 'predatory gaze' so many were quoting was completely lost then in your (ironically, rather intrusive) psychoanalysis.

i would still like to know why you need to "blame" anybody for glancing at somebody's breasts, as if you believe it to be an offense or guilty injustice to direct your gaze to a place in clear view when nobody is harmed. granted, it's not very polite to keep it there for long, but the OP was not talking about intrusive ogling - just glances.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Nitou said:


> It crossed my mind.


I know it did.

You should know I find that offensive - you don't even know me yet you assume that I stare at women inappropriately.

I could be angry but instead I'm more interested in what it says about _you_... What are your thoughts?



> 30+ years of life experience have confirmed it. Much of our behavior is on auto-pilot because it improves the efficiency of our activities. While there are individual differences in behavior due to temperament and other factors, people are generally predictable. Whatever attitude you project, you are most likely to get a similar attitude in response. Much of people's behavior is not entirely volitional unless they have practiced being mindful and deliberate in their actions.
> 
> If life experience is not adequate, you could look into social biology, but it is a science in its infancy and I don't even know if it has a name. Look into mirror neurons. Look into the devastating effects of rearing infant mammals in isolation. Look into studies on how environmental factors influence men's testosterone levels and women's menstrual cycles. No one is an island. We DO effect one another psychologically and biologically.


A simple "no" would have sufficed.



> Whatever some hypothetical aliens might think of us is irrelevant. Psychology, biology and culture all tie into each other. If the culture agrees that an act is aggressive, then it will be interpreted as such by the mind and body, such as with the flight-or-fight response.


Do you think that things such as fight or flight can't be changed or influenced by the human mind?
For example a person could look at a situation where their reaction was 'flight' and decide that the next time they will opt for the fight reaction instead. Easier said than done but still possible.



fourtines said:


> You seem intent on pretending like people don't send off vibes, energy and intent with their body language and the way they stare, etc. We discussed this earlier in the thread. There's a different feeling to the way a child or a curious person stares, and the way someone leers.
> 
> That's because he's your cat and that's how you guys bond. You're also not thinking about doing anything sexual to your cat. I can assure you if you stared at your neighbor's pit bull like that, it would be a different story.
> 
> There's a difference between staring at a loved one, and staring at a stranger. There's a difference between staring with curiosity and/or love, and staring with invasive sexual intent.


In that case maybe I'm missing the entire context of this thread and argument because I do not and have not ever leered or stared at someone with invasive sexual intent period (Exception: when the other person has _already_ leered at me with sexual intent (rare occurrence in my experience))


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

chimeric said:


> I'm not sure how feminists would define "feminist," let alone "man." For one thing, feminism is increasingly moving in "gender isn't binary" direction.


Isn't feminism is the radical claim that women are people too? I would agree that gender isn't binary. That still doesn't mean that there aren't men - it might just mean that there are more genders than "man" and "woman." I think our society has gone a ways down the road towards "lesbian" and "gay" being distinct genders. (Now we just have to tweak the norms for those genders a bit... "men" should beat the crap out of "gays" is not a terribly good norm...)


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Yeah you're missing what I'm saying entirely. I never said INFJs couldn't be logical, I know a very logical INFJ female, and INFJ male who seems almost INTP-ish.
> 
> I'm saying that the reasoning that @_Waiting_ was using was NOT Te reasoning in the slightest, and then I checked and saw he had in fact changed his type to INFJ, which made more sense because his reasoning seemed Fe (and I already clarified that not everyone with Fe would specifically say what he did, implying that people "are" morally a certain way, no matter what think of themselves.) This is the kind of moral reasoning that comes from validating from external sources.


which, again, is relevant how? it seemed to me you were zeroing in on his type & functions as a way to deconstruct his argument by devaluing Fe:
"I was seriously wondering how a Te type could make the mistakes in logic that you were about "objective" social standards."
perhaps you were simply coming across to me as flippant, when in reality it was more directness which i mistook. i'm not quite sure. your sudden involvement of personality threw me. :/



fourtines said:


> It does look like projection of inferior Se because you're "sensing" that someone has power tripping motives for showing their flesh, and furthermore reducing the people around them to victims of their senses. It's projection.


 and if i'd have written "feeling" instead like i was going to it would've been down to auxiliary-Fe, right? 9_9
i provided this thought because otherwise i simply cannot understand why a woman would expose part of herself, and then feel offended when this exposed area is noticed, as if it were unexpected, and then continue to do so whilst displacing the blame onto others to the point of demonising them... words like unintelligent, immature, pigs, so on and so forth have been passed around within this thread.
if you want to play the projection game then all right, i'll play: i think your inferior Te is looking to structure me in a way that is logically faulty and focused on adjacent details (like "sensing" must be a definite reference to Se...)

this is really why i sometimes consider just selecting "unknown personality" and clearing my siggy. as another user said, it becomes "a type pissing match."


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Isn't feminism is the radical claim that women are people too?


 i'm sorry to go off on a tangent but LOL


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Isn't feminism is the radical claim that women are people too?


Heh, I'd agree with that. But you have men's rights activists saying feminism is about women being superior, radical feminists saying sex-positive feminism isn't real feminism, women prefacing what I'd consider to be feminist statements with "I'm not a feminist but," etc. Ultimately, it turns into a ridiculous quagmire, like any semantic debate. Sort of like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty -- "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."



crazyeddie said:


> I would agree that gender isn't binary. That still doesn't mean that there aren't men - it might just mean that there are more genders than "man" and "woman." I think our society has gone a ways down the road towards "lesbian" and "gay" being distinct genders. (Now we just have to tweak the norms for those genders a bit... "men" should beat the crap out of "gays" is not a terribly good norm...)


When you're asking how to define "man," the first thing that pops into my head is "according to what criteria?" If you're treating "man" as a biological sex, it's easier to define but still not completely straight-forward. "Man" as a gender is a social construct. What defines "man" in that regard is the extent to which the individual adheres to a set of characteristics that's deemed "masculine" in a certain culture (in other words, some men will be more "man-like" than others). You're seemingly taking that idea and applying morality to it -- splitting the category "man" into "man beasts" and "man ethical beings." Are you wondering how feminists would envision an ethical masculine person? Many feminists have a problem with the concepts of "feminine" and "masculine" to begin with. Others would propose a definition that's rather similar to yours. [[Sorry if this sounds irritating and meta and blahdeblah gross pretension.]]


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Reicheru said:


> i was pre-empting a backlash of "women aren't pieces of meat" since much of this debate focuses on the objectification of women, but christ, if i'd have realised i'd needed to cover every wrong way my words could possibly be taken then i would've clarified "men aren't dogs" as well. it comes as no surprise that it's difficult to come up with an analogy about a controlling vs. controlled figure that does not entail similar images of ownership, control, inferiorisation and authoritarianism... that was kind of the point; "smelly dogs are beneath us, let's kick them."
> the implied reference to the 'predatory gaze' so many were quoting was completely lost then in your (ironically, rather intrusive) psychoanalysis.


My apologies. I fully own up to it, and shall not intrude upon you any further.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Reicheru said:


> which, again, is relevant how? it seemed to me you were zeroing in on his type & functions as a way to deconstruct his argument by devaluing Fe:
> "I was seriously wondering how a Te type could make the mistakes in logic that you were about "objective" social standards."
> perhaps you were simply coming across to me as flippant, when in reality it was more directness which i mistook. i'm not quite sure. your sudden involvement of personality threw me. :/
> 
> ...


You really aren't getting what I'm saying at all you're taking this way too personally and apparently don't want to see where I'm coming from.

I can assure you that I do very much project Te on to people in order to logically hem them in, and I admit to it. 

Whether you realize it or not, a person's external construction of morality, when it is attempted to be painted as objective, is Fe. 

And no I did not say you were projecting inferior Se because you used the word sense. It just adds to the fact that you're projecting attention grabbing, sexual motives on the behalf of women as a form of power which unfairly leads to an attack on the male senses. It's projection because it's certainly not true in most cases. In most cases women probably dress as they do because they simply want to dress that way. In some cases men are also able to control themselves, and some men aren't even breast men. Also, admonishing these women to cover up if they don't want attention is like Fe lecturing Se to keep it hemmed in.

I find this conversation with you more and more amusing. I'm trying to explain to you why I'm seeing these things and you're accusing me of type prejudice, even after I've clarified that INFJs can be logical, I know a couple of very logical INFJs, and that all people's Fe doesn't mirror the guy with his overbearing moral opinions about those women who have no class and don't value their brains must be the ones showing their breasts.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

chimeric said:


> Heh, I'd agree with that. But you have men's rights activists saying feminism is about women being superior, radical feminists saying sex-positive feminism isn't real feminism, women prefacing what I'd consider to be feminist statements with "I'm not a feminist but," etc. Ultimately, it turns into a ridiculous quagmire, like any semantic debate. Sort of like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty -- "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."


So? If somebody is like that, then just say you're a 'gender egalitarian.' Means the same damn thing, afaict, and men might be better able to say that they're a 'gender egalitarian' with a straight face than to say that they're a 'feminist.' I think many men care about things like equal pay for equal work, but hesitate to weigh in since they don't have a right to speak on 'feminist' issues.



chimeric said:


> When you're asking how to define "man," the first thing that pops into my head is "according to what criteria?" If you're treating "man" as a biological sex, it's easier to define but still not completely straight-forward. "Man" as a gender is a social construct. What defines "man" in that regard is the extent to which the individual adheres to a set of characteristics that's deemed "masculine" in a certain culture (in other words, some men will be more "man-like" than others). You're seemingly taking that idea and applying morality to it -- splitting the category "man" into "man beasts" and "man ethical beings." Are you wondering how feminists would envision an ethical masculine person? Many feminists have a problem with the concepts of "feminine" and "masculine" to begin with. Others would propose a definition that's rather similar to yours. [[Sorry if this sounds irritating and meta and blahdeblah gross pretension.]]


Gender is a social construct, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Gender roles and norms helps simplify the problem of how to treat each other. Sure, the actual situation is more complicated, but gender roles and norms at least gives us a baseline to get started. I think half the trouble with LGBT issues is that "straights" just don't have a rule book to follow with them. They aren't straight men, they aren't straight women... how should we act around them?

I think part of it involves generic quantification. "Xs are Y." It's the default way humans make inductive claims. The problem is that there's a lot of propositions that can make a generic claim true, and once a human believes a generic claim, they're likely to deduce other propositions from it. Some small minority of a kind has a strange or dangerous property: "Mosquitoes carry the West Nile Virus" (despite the fact that less than 1% do). A majority of the kind has a certain property: "Cars have radios" A subset of the kind has a natural property, and no subset of the kind has a psychologically positive alternative to that property: "Ducks lay eggs" (despite the fact that male ducks don't lay eggs) Or you could have a normative claim: "Men provide for their families" Normative doesn't necessarily mean moral: "INTPs are smart" "Geeks like computers"

Racist ideologies seem to work like this: A few wookies steal -> "Wookies steal" -> Most wookies steal, wookies naturally steal.

You can appropriate a racial or genderist ideology: A "bitch" is a woman who is aggressive in a way that contravenes gender norms. Misogynist: Most women are "bitches" -> "Women are bitches"
Feminist: "Women are bitches" -> Women _should_ be aggressive!

Once a racist or genderist ideology has established a set of categories and generic claims about them, you can get a lot of mileage out of repurposeing them.... Just got to be careful about how you do it. Being aggressive is only a Bad Thing because it violates existing gender norms. Stealing on the other hand is, in some sense, objectively bad. Some of Hip-Hop culture looks like an attempt to appropriate racist ideology gone horribly wrong. "Bitch" can be appropriated; "slut," not so much. (Promiscuity has its objective downsides, it's not just a violation of gender norms.)

Be careful saying "men are pigs," it could boomerang. Most men are pigs -> "Men are pigs" -> Men should be pigs.

I'm not terribly interested in what feminists in general think. That's going to be too complicated. What do you, a feminist, think?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I think this thread definitely needs a reminder of that. I see a lot of invincibly ignorant ignoring the fact that its more cultural than biological...


I would say it's both. Biologically humans are programmed to respond to sexual (or other social) stimuli. If that wasn't true the species would not propagate. But the exact nature of the sexual stimulus is influenced by culture and individual preferences. Indicators of health and vitality are most likely to be universally appealing, although there is some variation between cultures and individuals there, too. There is innate variability in people's sensitivity to sexual cues, too. 

So for example, the basic biological program includes the instruction, "respond to sexual stimulus, commence breeding behavior." In that sense guys who say, "It's biology" are speaking the truth, especially if they are by their nature highly sensitive to these cues. Then culture and individual preferences determine what will be perceived as and responded to as sexual stimuli. Various social regulations set the parameters of acceptable "breeding behaviors." 

It is a wonder that some guys behave in such boorish ways. Women tend not to respond to that very well, so what is going on? Are they spamming low-quality sexual invitations, since maybe a few women do respond to it? Are they just immature? Retarded? I think you mentioned somewhere already that it may have more to do with establishing social status among poorly-socialized, juvenile males that with actually trying to attract women. 




Vasili Syrakis said:


> I know it did.
> 
> You should know I find that offensive - you don't even know me yet you assume that I stare at women inappropriately.
> 
> I could be angry but instead I'm more interested in what it says about _you_... What are your thoughts?


You get offended easily. I said it crossed my mind, not that I had made any particular assumption about you. If you say that people are responsible for their own reactions, I could make a number of preliminary assumptions pending more information. One possibility is that it is meant to be helpful. Another possibility is that it is intended to justify bad behavior by shifting responsibility. Given your next quote, it doesn't look like you are very interested in my thoughts: 



> A simple "no" would have sufficed.





Vasili Syrakis said:


> Do you think that things such as fight or flight can't be changed or influenced by the human mind?
> For example a person could look at a situation where their reaction was 'flight' and decide that the next time they will opt for the fight reaction instead. Easier said than done but still possible.


I didn't say that something like flight or fight cannot be consciously altered. I said,



Nitou said:


> Much of people's behavior is not entirely volitional unless they have practiced being mindful and deliberate in their actions.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Nitou said:


> It is a wonder that some guys behave in such boorish ways. Women tend not to respond to that very well, so what is going on? Are they spamming low-quality sexual invitations, since maybe a few women do respond to it? Are they just immature? Retarded? I think you mentioned somewhere already that it may have more to do with establishing social status among poorly-socialized, juvenile males that with actually trying to attract women.


Bros are pigs?


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Bros are pigs?


Boor. "A rude, awkward, or ill-mannered person."


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> Boor. "A rude, awkward, or ill-mannered person."


Careful, see what I said above about generic quantification. Most Bros are Boors -> "Bros are Boors" -> Bros should be Boors.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Careful, see what I said above about generic quantification. Most Bros are Boors -> "Bros are Boors" -> Bros should be Boors.


Sorry, I thought there was some confusion about the word. Evidently there was a misunderstanding on my part.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> Sorry, I thought there was some confusion about the word. Evidently there was a misunderstanding on my part.


To be fair, there probably is a good deal to confuse between the two words . Why would anybody be a bro when they could be a man instead?


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

A lot of people are saying it's a cultural vs biological thing. I was raised in Brazil and during carnaval every year this is what we get on our streets.










Carnaval 2012
(Picture archives of this year's carnaval, it is broadcasted live)

I've lived here in the U.S. for the last 10 years and there is a different perception. Women are more defensive about what they deem to be their rights while just as exhibitionist at times. I do feel like men do act out of line but in a culture that makes us have to deny our true feelings of lust while females can parade does distort both action and intent. On one hand you have one expressing their freedoms while on the other hand you have someone going agains't nature/nurture. I think it's a little silly overall and I started this thread to gain some insight into this. I have been berated for looking before and my sentiment used to be if you're showing it don't be mad if I look, but it's so much more than that. It's really about perception, women want to dress comfortably but they do not want to be sexualized, however our culture does a great job sexualizing women while labeling males as predators/rapist/murderers. 

Ultimately I think this problem is a cultural dissonance type of thing. A woman tries to sexualize herself by dressing in certain ways because she feels like it's cute and it is (keep in mind our culture sexualize all females) so when males fall into this cultural trap they'll either be admonished or she won't mind (since he meets her criteria) but if you fall in a grey area in which you aren't desired by the opposite person you become a creep or a weirdo because you ended up playing the male stereotype. 

So in a society which sexualizes a gender over the other there is an incredible dissonance between both genders. I do see a new trend of sexualizing males as much as females so in the future this issue may be of the past but right now it is very much black and white.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Olympus said:


> Ultimately I think this problem is a cultural dissonance type of thing. A woman tries to sexualize herself by dressing in certain ways because she feels like it's cute and it is (keep in mind our culture sexualize all females) so when males fall into this cultural trap they'll either be admonished or she won't mind (since he meets her criteria) but if you fall in a grey area in which you aren't desired by the opposite person you become a creep or a weirdo because you ended up playing the male stereotype.
> 
> So in a society which sexualizes a gender over the other there is an incredible dissonance between both genders. I do see a new trend of sexualizing males as much as females so in the future this issue may be of the past but right now it is very much black and white.


Well first of all, I don't anyone thinks you're a rapist or a weirdo for LOOKING. You're a creep if you LEER which is a predatory action, there's no other word for it. I've had men LEER at me when I was wearing a tee shirt and jeans. So no one is suggesting you're some kind of perverted rapist if you casually look, or glance in a more polite or understated way.

Also, showing a tiny bit of cleavage isn't exactly a sexual invitation, and for any man to argue that a woman wants sexual attention because she wore a reasonably conservative v-necked shirt, then it really is the guy's problem, not the woman's. If it's not a seriously plunging neckline that accentuates the breasts, then the man really has no argument.

There are cultures where men will rape or attack women for walking alone, or showing parts of their body as innocent as their shoulders or leg below the knee, and obviously she was "asking for it" if she dared to walk alone or not be covered practically from head to toe.

So just be careful how much responsibility you're putting on women. I, as a woman, realize that I have a reasonable responsibility to not expect men to not even look at me if I'm traipsing down the street in a mini dress, tube top, or bikini. On the other hand, it's absurd for men to say they can't control themselves past a certain point either - again, difference between glancing and leering, between being a regular guy appreciating the female form and truly being a pig.

Carnival has been around for a loooong, looong time and its rooted in European tradition. I'm not sure why it was even brought up.


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Well first of all, I don't anyone thinks you're a rapist or a weirdo for LOOKING. You're a creep if you LEER which is a predatory action, there's no other word for it. I've had men LEER at me when I was wearing a tee shirt and jeans. So no one is suggesting you're some kind of perverted rapist if you casually look, or glance in a more polite or understated way.
> 
> Also, showing a tiny bit of cleavage isn't exactly a sexual invitation, and for any man to argue that a woman wants sexual attention because she wore a reasonably conservative v-necked shirt, then it really is the guy's problem, not the woman's. If it's not a seriously plunging neckline that accentuates the breasts, then the man really has no argument.
> 
> ...


Way to distort my whole point. Can you tell me what the difference between glancing and leering is and how our definition may differ? Also if you didn't notice the carnaval picture was to illustrate my point that women are culturally sexualized. I really think you have some kind of vendetta agains't me and it's rather annoying, I chose my words very carefully to say that women don't do it to themselves however our *SOCIETY* sexualizes them on tv and they *EMULATE* the tv because they think that is *FASHIONABLE*. I never said they shouldn't dress a certain way. 

I was merelly stating that men are trained to sexualize women through the tv, and women are trained to be defensive towards men. For example: Spike TV and Lifetime TV. 

God just because I am being blunt doesn't mean I'm condoning certain behaviors but I'm sick and tired of people beating around the bush pushing blame on one another when our whole culture is to blame.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Nitou said:


> I would say it's both. Biologically humans are programmed to respond to sexual (or other social) stimuli. If that wasn't true the species would not propagate. But the exact nature of the sexual stimulus is influenced by culture and individual preferences. Indicators of health and vitality are most likely to be universally appealing, although there is some variation between cultures and individuals there, too. There is innate variability in people's sensitivity to sexual cues, too.
> 
> So for example, the basic biological program includes the instruction, "respond to sexual stimulus, commence breeding behavior." In that sense guys who say, "It's biology" are speaking the truth, especially if they are by their nature highly sensitive to these cues. Then culture and individual preferences determine what will be perceived as and responded to as sexual stimuli. Various social regulations set the parameters of acceptable "breeding behaviors."
> 
> ...


I do agree that sexuality is rooted in biology in ways. I just see more specific stuff like attraction to certain features and body types as cultural or driven by what the individual experiences in life. I realized for a long time I was attracted to dark hair because I'd somehow associated it with higher intelligence. This is when I was very young. I thought about it and realized its because I grew up around blonde ******** who weren't very smart, and I associated that look with stupidity subconsciously. I got rid of all of these biases in attraction though just thinking about it. And I'm rambling.

Anyway sure, biology and sexuality are linked.. I don't think they are completely separate, but when it gets into specific things, I think thats where socialization comes into play. People individually form weird preferences, and less independent-minded form the preferences that are popular in the culture at the time.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Olympus said:


> Way to distort my whole point. Can you tell me what the difference between glancing and leering is and how our definition may differ? Also if you didn't notice the carnaval picture was to illustrate my point that women are culturally sexualized. I really think you have some kind of vendetta agains't me and it's rather annoying,


This is outright paranoia. You don't even register on my radar as an individual, like seriously, I don't think of you like "that guy (girl?) Olympus!"

Sorry to disappoint, but there's no vendetta. 

I was clarifying the difference between looking and leering, because certain people seem to be under the impression that women are calling men who casually look "rapists" which is not true. Definitely not true in my case. 



> I chose my words very carefully to say that women don't do it to themselves however our *SOCIETY* sexualizes them on tv and they *EMULATE* the tv because they think that is *FASHIONABLE*. I never said they shouldn't dress a certain way.
> 
> I was merelly stating that men are trained to sexualize women through the tv, and women are trained to be defensive towards men. For example: Spike TV and Lifetime TV.


Okay, cool.



> God just because I am being blunt doesn't mean I'm condoning certain behaviors but I'm sick and tired of people beating around the bush pushing blame on one another when our whole culture is to blame.


There is still personal responsibility, even within the context of culture.


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

fourtines said:


> This is outright paranoia. You don't even register on my radar as an individual, like seriously, I don't think of you like "that guy (girl?) Olympus!"
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but there's no vendetta.
> 
> ...


From first hand experience I have seem women get visibly upset because someone glanced not even leer because the guy failed on whatever ridiculous double standard rule she applied to viewers. The reason I started this is I wanted to see how that is perceived by the general public because out in the real world it is very much up to her. Here's a historical example in Tulsa, Okla a woman yelled rape in an elevator because a blackman looked at her legs in the 1950s and an angry crowd killed him. It's not about who's right and who's wrong it's about every action has a consequence and getting dressed may feel like an intimate self serving purpose but once you step outside you'll deal with hundreds of people who do not think the same way as you. It's silly to think everyone will behave with common sense all the time. 

In high school I was a chubby kid and I would have girls berate me for looking because I fell outside of who they were dressing up for but at the same time if the HS quaterback came behind them and slapped their butt they'd be all giggles. That's the kind of double standard that makes me angry. To me they're obviously dressing a certain way for a reason and when their misdirected attempt of getting attention fails to be recognized by who they intended to, they end up resenting the attention they receive elsewhere. (I'm not saying they're dressing up to be leered at but what I have in mind right now is when they're single going to a club, not dressed in a blazer going to work)


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Olympus said:


> From first hand experience I have seem women get visibly upset because someone glanced not even leer because the guy failed on whatever ridiculous double standard rule she applied to viewers. The reason I started this is I wanted to see how that is perceived by the general public because out in the real world it is very much up to her. Here's a historical example in Tulsa, Okla a woman yelled rape in an elevator because a blackman looked at her legs in the 1950s and an angry crowd killed him. It's not about who's right and who's wrong it's about every action has a consequence and getting dressed may feel like an intimate self serving purpose but once you step outside you'll deal with hundreds of people who do not think the same way as you. It's silly to think everyone will behave with common sense all the time.


Okay, now, this is very extreme and off-topic and has a lot more to do with "fear of the other" and racism (a lot of white women in the U.S. really did think black men wanted to rape them back in those times, unfortunately, and they were taught this by their families and communities) than it does with a woman thinking you're a creep just because she doesn't find you attractive.

Women come in all kinds, and there are women who feel very violated by being looked at, and others who accept it as matter of fact. The only time I've EVER been offended is if it was obvious leering. I always knew men would look, I had no illusions about them merely looking. 



> In high school I was a chubby kid and I would have girls berate me for looking because I fell outside of who they were dressing up for but at the same time if the HS quaterback came behind them and slapped their butt they'd be all giggles. That's the kind of double standard that makes me angry. To me they're obviously dressing a certain way for a reason and when their misdirected attempt of getting attention fails to be recognized by who they intended to, they end up resenting the attention they receive elsewhere. (I'm not saying they're dressing up to be leered at but what I have in mind right now is when they're single going to a club, not dressed in a blazer going to work)


So you obviously have a personal stake in this, which is why you may think you're being personally attacked. 

I've actually made arguments, as a woman, that when I'm walking alone in a city I think it's more sensible for me to wear jeans, tee shirt, maybe hoodie, and athletic shoes ...particularly at night. But my thinking is very practical like this. On the other hand, I HAVE had men leer at me, say absolutely disgusting things to me, and even try to solicit me for prostitution on the side of the street when I was dressed relatively conservatively. 

That's different, I agree, than expecting not to be so much as looked at when dressed up as if you were going to a night club. 

I know the messages my appearance sends, though...on the other hand, I know that some men are going to feel an inappropriate and invasive sense of claims to me even if I'm just wearing shorts. Not even like booty shorts, just freaking shorts and a tee shirt.

Something for you to think about: if you don't like it when women treat you differently because of your weight or appearance, perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to them as well, within reason.


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Okay, now, this is very extreme and off-topic and has a lot more to do with "fear of the other" and racism (a lot of white women in the U.S. really did think black men wanted to rape them back in those times, unfortunately, and they were taught this by their families and communities) than it does with a woman thinking you're a creep just because she doesn't find you attractive.
> 
> Women come in all kinds, and there are women who feel very violated by being looked at, and others who accept it as matter of fact. The only time I've EVER been offended is if it was obvious leering. I always knew men would look, I had no illusions about them merely looking.
> 
> ...


I do and I'd never make an off hand comment due to their appearance in fact I am very much shy and you can imagine how debilitating it is for a shy person to be publicly berated for glancing at breasts on display. Now since HS I have shed most of my extra weight going from 220 to 180 and it has done a great deal about improving my self esteem but it has also revealed the hypocrisy of it all. Instead of me being a creep for glancing it is usually interpreted as an invitation for them to come talk to me. I also run quite frequently into people I went to hs with that tell me how I look great but at the same time I'm just like "no thanks". So I do feel like I have a different perception because I have experienced both sides of it. (from a male's perspective)

I don't think that little story was off topic. It's simply an example of how people would feel victimized by glances and it illustrates my point that when a male gives unwarranted glances to a female it is interpreted as a sexual assault when in reality we are appreciating the beauty of the female body.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Olympus said:


> I do and I'd never make an off hand comment due to their appearance in fact I am very much shy and you can imagine how debilitating it is for a shy person to be publicly berated for glancing at breasts on display. Now since HS I have shed most of my extra weight going from 220 to 180 and it has done a great deal about improving my self esteem but it has also revealed the hypocrisy of it all. Instead of me being a creep for glancing it is usually interpreted as an invitation for them to come talk to me. I also run quite frequently into people I went to hs with that tell me how I look great but at the same time I'm just like "no thanks". So I do feel like I have a different perception because I have experienced both sides of it. (from a male's perspective)


As have I, as I was used to be viewed as one of the cute girls until I temporarily put on some weight after a painful break-up with a long-term ex. I was also able to view the hypocrisy of men who treated me with more kindness and helpfulness when I was in better physical shape. The upside to it was being left alone, of course, except by the couple of men who found me genuinely attractive as an individual even at a heavier weight, and those guys liked ME and were more respectful anyway. Everything has its trade-off. 



> I don't think that little story was off topic. It's simply an example of how people would feel victimized by glances and it illustrates my point that when a male gives unwarranted glances to a female it is interpreted as a sexual assault when in reality we are appreciating the beauty of the female body.


Yeah...but no. It really is an extreme example of a very specific mass cultural fear. It's also surely to do with the fact that the woman was alone in an elevator with an African-American male in the first place, which probably made this woman terrified to begin with. To compare this kind of mass sick racism with someone being annoyed that you're not cute enough to drool over her boobs is more than a bit of a stretch. I don't think anyone is going to beat you death for not being her type. The following is a scene from a novel that pretty much realistically documents the mentality of that era in the U.S. (circa 1960) and the character speaking is a young black male:

"Look at that old gal," Jones mused to his psyche as the bus bounced and threw him against the woman sitting beside him. "She think cause I color I gonna rape her. She about to throw her grammaw ass out the window. Whoa! I ain gonna rape nobody." He moved discreetly away from her, crossing his legs and wishing he could smoke on the bus. ~ _A Confederacy of Dunces_, John Kennedy Toole


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

@fourtines, I didn't read all of the last posts but I would just like to share with you as a 22 year young gentleman that in my experience thus far in life tells me that <generalization>women don't like being looked at *at all* (or <100ms) unless they find you attractive on a superficial level.</generalization>

It's almost soul-destroying. It's like society hates men and masculinity.



Nitou said:


> You get offended easily. I said it crossed my mind, not that I had made any particular assumption about you. If you say that people are responsible for their own reactions, I could make a number of preliminary assumptions pending more information. One possibility is that it is meant to be helpful. Another possibility is that it is intended to justify bad behavior by shifting responsibility. Given your next quote, it doesn't look like you are very interested in my thoughts:


There is more depth to my reaction than simply being fundamentally easy to offend. 

Sure, human behavior is not all a conscious decision, did you know that men looking at a woman's breasts is not volitional in the same way that being offended by it isn't?
We have done a good job of going in a circle so far. Back to my original point where I was saying something about how people can be responsible for their thoughts and feelings.
At this point I can see that it's pointless for me to say anything further to you about this. You are perfectly content to endure the uncomfortable feeling of a man staring at you whilst waiting for the world of men to change. You could be okay with it for the rest of your life.
Why would you change? It's easier to complain.

If I look at people at all, I will look into a woman's eyes for however long _they_ are comfortable with it. You're arguing with the wrong person here. It's like trying to convert a Catholic to Catholicism because you think they're an Atheist.


----------



## Reicheru (Sep 24, 2011)

fourtines said:


> You really aren't getting what I'm saying at all you're taking this way too personally and apparently don't want to see where I'm coming from.
> 
> I can assure you that I do very much project Te on to people in order to logically hem them in, and I admit to it.
> 
> ...


 yes, in most cases, but i wasn't referring to most cases. as i was trying to get across, i was referring to:
- women who take_ much _offense;
- a short automatic glance that is _unggressive_ (not a stare).

and as i repeatedly stated, i acknowledge, wholly, that a woman doesn't have to take a offense and that some men _do_ act aggressively (but then i'm sure they would anyway regardless of skin showing).

i don't feel that it has anything to do with being breast men or arse men - i catch myself looking at breasts on occassion because they are noticeable, they are a symbol in our society, and they stand out as such.

i think we're completely crossing lions here. i dispute why you are bringing type into a debate not about type, as if it has anything to do with it - whether or not it's about INFJs or me is not the point; attack (well, let's say disagree with ) the argument, NOT the person, and an arguer's personality type is the person, not the argument. that is called ad hominem. if this thread were about personality types then it would be relevant to the discussion, but it isn't.
we're all quite aware that the theory goes that INFJ projects Se and ISFP project Te.

of course, you're also assuming that Jungian psychology is also true and valid, and that by this you know everything there is to know about me, or Waiting, or any other person already by glimpsing at their personality profile and attributing what they say to what personality type they are _if th theory's even true at all in the first place_. that's putting people into boxes, going on nothing but their personality type, which is along the same lines as taking one look at a black person and the rationalisation to them that they must be violent merely because they are black and there's a "theory" that there are more black people incarcerated than white. *it's irrelevent.

*edit: whoa, a Lion King quote totally found its way in there.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> @fourtines, I didn't read all of the last posts but I would just like to share with you as a 22 year young gentleman that in my experience thus far in life tells me that <generalization>women don't like being looked at *at all* (or <100ms) unless they find you attractive on a superficial level.</generalization>
> 
> It's almost soul-destroying. It's like society hates men and masculinity.


Which society is that? The society where the vast majority of state and national leaders are men? The society where women are sexualized and objectified for men's pleasure constantly in advertisements, movies and television shows? The society where men are still paid more than women for doing the same job? The society where it's easier to get a promotion at Wal-Mart if you're male? The society where we've NEVER had a female president?? That society? Seriously? _Are you out of your mind?

_I'm very sorry if your experience as a young 22 year old man has been that you are sexually rejected by women. However, this is not the experience of all 22 year old men. 

It's very sad for you that you feel like no woman would like your attention. However, this does not mean that society hates men and masculinity. It means apparently that for whatever unfortunate reason, you are not getting dates with the frequency you want and/or may need.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

@fourtines

The leader of my country is female. Everybody hates her.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> @fourtines
> 
> The leader of my country is female. Everybody hates her.


Then why are you saying "society" as though you and I live in the same society? For example, we're definitely not going to say society hates men if you happen to reside in Pakistan - I'm fairly certain they have a much higher opinion of masculinity than femininity there. Same goes for China, where sons were the preferred children to the point of totally screwing themselves out of girls. They've got some kind of marriageable women shortage now, and they did it to themselves.

There's no one way "society" is in the world - some societies are very patriarchal, others more equal, and very few are truly matriarchal.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Lol be careful Phoebe! Don't make me spank you.

I just want to throw out there that cleavage isn't that important anyway to leg people.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Then why are you saying "society" as though you and I live in the same society? For example, we're definitely not going to say society hates men if you happen to reside in Pakistan - I'm fairly certain they have a much higher opinion of masculinity than femininity there. Same goes for China, where sons were the preferred children to the point of totally screwing themselves out of girls. They've got some kind of marriageable women shortage now, and they did it to themselves.
> 
> There's no one way "society" is in the world - some societies are very patriarchal, others more equal, and very few are truly matriarchal.


What if you knew that at some point in the future shortly after you die the world would turn matriarchal? Would you relax on these issues? My guess is no because you want it to happen now for your own interests.
I personally believe the world will be led by females pretty soon in the future. Maybe not for a couple of decades, who knows? I don't care who runs things as long as they do it well.
I can tell you in my country (Australia by the way) if a girl went for my job and had the same technical skills as me, she would get the job over me probably due to being overly friendly as girls are typically friendlier than men. There's a stigma here that a man who is friendly or nice is a ****.

Why a matriarchal world or even society though? Why can't politics, moral authority and leadership be based independently of Gender?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

@Vasili Syrakis, 

Now who is making assumptions? Where have you seen me complaining about men? If you had read my posts on this thread and elsewhere on PerC, you would know that I am consistently sympathetic toward a "masculine" point of view. 

If you aren't the kind of person who tells people, "you're responsible for your own feelings" into order to excuse your own bad behavior, then never mind. It isn't about you. But if you are the kind of person who acts like a jerk and excuses yourself by holding others solely responsible for the effects of your behavior, then maybe you need to work on that. If someone is pushing your buttons, then it is because you have buttons to push. And on the flip side, you should be compassionate and avoid pushing other people's buttons.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Vasili Syrakis said:


> What if you knew that at some point in the future shortly after you die the world would turn matriarchal? Would you relax on these issues? My guess is no because you want it to happen now for your own interests.


This conversation is _over. _You've got some serious issues with women, and I would prefer you not take them out on me. I prefer the world to be balanced, as I am studying the Tao.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

@Nitou

You focused a lot on the word complain and not much on the important things I said.

I don't use it to excuse my own behavior.
I also do not act like a jerk and excuse myself while placing responsibility on others regarding my behavior.
I will always have buttons to push as far as I'm concerned and I already am compassionate about the buttons that I could be pushing by the actions that I do.
I feel like this isn't the first time I've explained myself in this thread. I was only trying to give my limited wisdom and/or power. Fuckit.


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

If I'd been involved in this thread I'd of stopped caring WAYYYYY before now.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

fourtines said:


> People with borderline personality disorder don't have healthy personal boundaries and also don't respect the boundaries of others. "People with borderline personality disorder often do not have a very effective or emotionally mature understanding of boundaries."
> 
> Respecting the privacy of your lovers (or ex-lovers) is a fucking boundary issue, as is the insane claim that we live in a society where privacy no longer exists. People with borderline personality disorder often have NO sense of personal boundaries.
> 
> I see no reason to reply to the rest of your absurd assertions about people who share photographs of themselves (male OR female) with lovers.


So you read this website on Borderline Personality Disorder (or perhaps you just Googled it up in an attempt to back up your remarks), and that makes you informed enough to take some characteristic of the disorder that is not even one of its core features, twist it, blow it out of context, and apply it to this discussion the way you did? No. Borderline Personality Disorder has little or nothing to do with privacy or lack thereof.

In any interpersonal relationships, people ought to be respectful of other's boundaries. That needn't be stated at all. But getting involved in emotionally or sexually intimate relationships always involves a little to risk (to your heart, at the least) and not every man is a gentleman. If you're not respecting yourself, others might less inclined to respect you too. Perhaps a rule of thumb could be, if you wouldn't give a man your bank account number, don't give him your naughty pic either. Hmm?

And in cyberspace, you really do need to be careful about your expectations of privacy. That isn't a moral judgement, but is the way it IS. There is quite a bit a variation internationally between laws and expectations of cyber privacy. In the US, most of it is not regulated except by civil law. You could bring on a lawsuit because you gave the wrong person access, or someone got into your phone and put your naughty pics on the Internet without your permission. OR, you could refrain from putting that stuff on your/his phone in the first place. 

Or practice safe-pics: keep your naughty pictures encrypted or secured on a home computer so they won't be so easy for a McD's employee or cop to grab. Be careful about transmitting over networks, ie. don't transmit anything over McD's WiFi that you wouldn't want everyone to see. I don't know very much about phones or their networks so I can't comment on that.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Nitou said:


> So you read this website on Borderline Personality Disorder (or perhaps you just Googled it up in an attempt to back up your remarks), and that makes you informed enough to take some characteristic of the disorder that is not even one of its core features, twist it, blow it out of context, and apply it to this discussion the way you did? No. Borderline Personality Disorder has little or nothing to do with privacy or lack thereof.


Yes, actually, it does. Because people with Borderline Personality Disorder tend to be invasive of other people's space, and allow other people to invade theirs. I'm actually quite familiar with BPD, as my ex has it. 



> In any interpersonal relationships, people ought to be respectful of other's boundaries. That needn't be stated at all. But getting involved in emotionally or sexually intimate relationships always involves a little to risk (to your heart, at the least) and not every man is a gentleman. If you're not respecting yourself, others might less inclined to respect you too. Perhaps a rule of thumb could be, if you wouldn't give a man your bank account number, don't give him your naughty pic either. Hmm?


You know what, you really must not trust men in general (ironic to your wild claims about despising extremist feminists) or truly believe them to be animals. You also have some odd morals about what constitutes "respecting one's self" that imply that no one who would give nude or lingerie photos to a lover would do so if they had self-respect.

Do you also believe that women who are raped are asking for it? Do you really believe that the way one person behaves, as well, excuses the way the other person behaves? I mean, really. 

@Olympus I really can't read your posts, and I don't care enough about what they say to even click "view post" as I've put you on ignore. For you to even continue replying to my posts is either trolling me, or a silly waste of your own time, as you are talking to yourself.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Yes, actually, it does. Because people with Borderline Personality Disorder tend to be invasive of other people's space, and allow other people to invade theirs. I'm actually quite familiar with BPD, as my ex has it.


The boundary issues with BPD are a consequence or symptom of the disorder, but do not define it. It is also characterized by a fractured sense of self, seeing others as all-good or all-bad, suicidal thoughts, mood instability, impulsiveness, and a distorted perception of reality. 



> You know what, you really must not trust men in general (ironic to your wild claims about despising extremist feminists) or truly believe them to be animals. You also have some odd morals about what constitutes "respecting one's self" that imply that no one who would give nude or lingerie photos to a lover would do so if they had self-respect.


Interesting. Now I am suspected of hating women and believing men to be animals. Maybe I am a tad misanthropic, but not to an abnormal degree. I am not trusting enough to put vulnerable information about myself out where it is likely to be exploited. Are you even reading my posts though? It seems you are responding to a phantasm in your mind that represents me. I have nothing against sharing pictures with a lover, just don't be a dumbass about it. Does that hit a nerve with you?



> Do you also believe that women who are raped are asking for it? Do you really believe that the way one person behaves, as well, excuses the way the other person behaves? I mean, really.


What a unique ad-hominem. How clever. People ought to be respectful of others' boundaries. Men ought to behave like gentlemen and women like ladies. People ought not steal, etc. etc. But in the real world, there are bogymen. Some men are pigs. Some women are pigs. You can advocate for social change, kudos for you. But you cannot change other people. You can only be responsible for yourself and those under your care, if applicable.

I was a foolish young woman once. Sometimes I forget to have empathy for young women acting foolishly because they don't know any better. But I came of age before the internet was widely used. There is more potential for self-destructive behavior with cameras, webcams, etc. To say that it is okay to flaunt your sexuality indiscriminately is irresponsible. It can result in heartbreak and humiliation, feeds the lawyers, encourages the objectification of women, and could be regretted years later.



> @Olympus I really can't read your posts, and I don't care enough about what they say to even click "view post" as I've put you on ignore. For you to even continue replying to my posts is either trolling me, or a silly waste of your own time, as you are talking to yourself.


Obviously not true. You keep responding to posts you cannot see.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Nitou said:


> The boundary issues with BPD are a consequence or symptom of the disorder, but do not define it. It is also characterized by a fractured sense of self, seeing others as all-good or all-bad, suicidal thoughts, mood instability, impulsiveness, and a distorted perception of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Now I am suspected of hating women and believing men to be animals. Maybe I am a tad misanthropic, but not to an abnormal degree. I am not trusting enough to put vulnerable information about myself out where it is likely to be exploited. Are you even reading my posts though? It seems you are responding to a phantasm in your mind that represents me. I have nothing against sharing pictures with a lover, just don't be a dumbass about it. Does that hit a nerve with you?


No it does not hit a nerve with me in the slightest. I am simply wondering what it is about a woman sharing pictures with a guy she's seeing that makes you believe that she's disrespecting herself in such a manner that she should outright EXPECT that guy to share those pictures on the world wide web, or to show all his friends, if they aren't officially in a committed relationship.

I'm really just questioning your logic on this. On one hand I can see "yeah don't send nude pictures to a guy who you don't know who you have a crush on, as he may display pictures of you to his acquaintances like omg look what this crazy beotch sent me" but on the other hand, I think within reason, it's perfectly normal to expect a certain level of discretion even in more casual relationships or friends and certainly I don't think exes automatically have rights to attempt to humiliate their partner. 

I don't think the behavior should be excused on the behalf of the person who has no respect for the people they sleep with. As if nude photos in and of itself signify anything about someone's overall level of self-respect. That's why I said it should be judged individually, on a case-by-case basis. 




> What a unique ad-hominem. How clever. People ought to be respectful of others' boundaries. Men ought to behave like gentlemen and women like ladies. People ought not steal, etc. etc. But in the real world, there are bogymen. Some men are pigs. Some women are pigs. You can advocate for social change, kudos for you. But you cannot change other people. You can only be responsible for yourself and those under your care, if applicable.
> 
> I was a foolish young woman once. Sometimes I forget to have empathy for young women acting foolishly because they don't know any better. But I came of age before the internet was widely used. There is more potential for self-destructive behavior with cameras, webcams, etc. To say that it is okay to flaunt your sexuality indiscriminately is irresponsible. It can result in heartbreak and humiliation, feeds the lawyers, encourages the objectification of women, and could be regretted years later.


Yes, I know there are bad people in the world. That's why I wear running shoes and relatively unisex clothing when I walk alone at night.

However, I don't presume to excuse the behavior of people who don't respect the privacy of others, particularly when those others are practically loved ones.

I've read articles about this, about people capturing images of people dying with their cell phones, that sort of thing. I refuse to excuse it on any level, like it's just boys being boys.

It's not boys being boys. It's fucking sick for a person to say that it's within the range of normal to show pictures of exes to other guys so they "see what they're getting into." 

These are people I do not want to know. 




> Obviously not true. You keep responding to posts you cannot see.


It obviously is true. He's responding to posts which are not directed to him and then they are going into my inbox and I'm being notified. So it is true. He could reply to your posts or just post in general without attempting to get my attention. How absolutely gauche.


----------



## Diamondeyes (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm going to chime in with a comment, as I; the other day had an exercise programme booked in with this girl. I had inducted her into the gym the previous week, so I had talked to her. (edit; don't know why I felt it important to mention that, oh yeah, I kinda like her!) So ye we were standing next to each other, signing her gym key in, she was looking at the screen I glanced at her boobs! She was wearing a vest so you could see some of her cleavage. I don't know if she was aware of my glance through her periphery
In that quick glance I did quickly notice how soft her skin looked.
Obviously not just based on her breasts but I wanna go out with this girl!!


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

MyName said:


> If I'd been involved in this thread I'd of stopped caring WAYYYYY before now.


Well, the creator is banned, so I don't think he really cares anymore...


----------



## Seeker99 (Jan 13, 2010)

Awww, are we done with this now? I was enjoying it.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

If a woman is wearing a shirt that obviously shows off her cleavage, she's wearing it on purpose. She could have worn a turtleneck. She likes the way she looks in it and wants others to admire her curves! Staring is rude and creepy, but a casual glance is a flattering acknowldgement of her attractiveness.

Or if you've been dating her and are a bit drunk and half staring down her shirt, she might find it cute and feel sexy and jump you.


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

I miss my cleavage


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

JohnGalt said:


> If a woman is wearing a shirt that obviously shows off her cleavage, she's wearing it on purpose. She could have worn a turtleneck. She likes the way she looks in it and wants others to admire her curves! Staring is rude and creepy, but a casual glance is a flattering acknowldgement of her attractiveness.
> 
> Or if you've been dating her and are a bit drunk and half staring down her shirt, she might find it cute and feel sexy and jump you.


That is a very sexist and chauvinistic comment.If a woman stares at your groin area or ass, is it your fault because you have on tight jeans.A woman may wear a tight shirt because it makes her feel confident,not because she wants to show off her boobs to other people.Yes she likes the way she looks but it is for her benefit only.I very rarely wear tight revealing blouses,hell I'm not the most confident person in the world anyway.I have had plenty of compliments about my boobs,but it doesn't mean that I am going to show them off so that people can leer at them.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

AussieChick said:


> That is a very sexist and chauvinistic comment.If a woman stares at your groin area or ass, is it your fault because you have on tight jeans.A woman may wear a tight shirt because it makes her feel confident,not because she wants to show off her boobs to other people.Yes she likes the way she looks but it is for her benefit only.I very rarely wear tight revealing blouses,hell I'm not the most confident person in the world anyway.I have had plenty of compliments about my boobs,but it doesn't mean that I am going to show them off so that people can leer at them.


I'm sorry that you perceived it that way. It sounds like you're venting at traditional chauvanist comments (or the BS some men say when they say women are "asking" to get raped by dressing a certain way), but that's not actually what I said at all and I don't appreciate being straw-manned into such an offensive position. I even said that staring was rude and creepy, so clearly I was not implying that she was asking for staring or that that is her "fault". You are responsible for your own actions! If you stare or leer, that is on you, the starer! I simply said a casual glance is appropriate, NOT a stare. 

Would women wear low-cut tops or would men wear sleeveless shirts if they also had to wear a cardboard box over themselves? Would people wear fashionable clothes at all if they were hermits? I highly doubt it (although some extreme narcissists might). People wear clothes for themselves because they like how they feel in them, but it's also connected to how they feel about how others perceive them in those clothes. No person is an island. If other people REALLY had nothing to do with it, then people wouldn't dress differently in public than in their bedrooms or dress differently for different social occasions or depending on who they're out with. This applies to both sexes. Obviously the most important thing is how the person wearing the clothes feels, but I don't think it's sexist to assume that how those clothes look to others is also part of the equation. 

If a man is wearing a sleeveless shirt, staring would be creepy, but he probably does want you to notice his arms. A tight shirt is one thing, but a low-cut shirt with obvious cleavage is another. Certain articles of clothing accentuate certain features. Choosing to wear them implies you like that part of yourself and want to accentuate those features (although that doesn't excuse rude behaviour on other people's part!!). Men who wear tight skinny jeans generally want to show off some aspect of their lower physique. That never excuses leering, but I think it does mean that they like how certain parts of them look in those clothes and want to accentuate them.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

I love how the thread about boobs has gotten almost 400 posts, but threads about things like crimes against humanity get 20. 

I think we can all agree. Boobs are amazing..... and get far too much attention, on or off of forums.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

If she's showing it, she wants it to be seen. If she says otherwise, tell that bitch to put some clothes on.

This is coming from a woman who works at hooters.


----------



## AussieChick (Dec 27, 2010)

@JohnGalt if I misread your comments I apologise,but I don't think all women dress to impress others.I may on occasion do so to please my partners but for the most part I do it for myself to make me feel better when I am feeling low.I was in an abusive relationship for 18 years,although most of that time I was separated from my ex husband.He did use sex as a means to manipulate and control me and did rape me several times,so I guess that I take certain comments to heart.It just sounded to me like you were saying that if you want to look a certain way or wear certain clothes that you are asking to be treated a certain way.I never encouraged my ex husband to rape me or belittle me in any way whatsoever,but that is just how he was.He had a sex addiction and he treated me more like a sex object and slave, more than a wife and lover.So I do get very annoyed when people imply certain things that aren't true for me and others.


----------



## Seeker99 (Jan 13, 2010)

JohnGalt said:


> If a woman is wearing a shirt that obviously shows off her cleavage, she's wearing it on purpose. She could have worn a turtleneck. She likes the way she looks in it and wants others to admire her curves! Staring is rude and creepy, but a casual glance is a flattering acknowldgement of her attractiveness.
> 
> Or if you've been dating her and are a bit drunk and half staring down her shirt, she might find it cute and feel sexy and jump you.


Turtlenecks actually make boobs look bigger.

Just saying. :tongue:


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

JohnGalt said:


> If a man is wearing a sleeveless shirt, staring would be creepy, but he probably does want you to notice his arms.


This is something I can comment on. I've worn sleeveless shirts before, and I can say that it had absolutely nothing to do with wanting anyone to notice my arms. I only wore them when the weather got hot, and they were a way for me to keep cool when the temperature rose. Sometimes I wore them when I was going to the gym to work out. Other times I wore them when I was going to play basketball. Other people had nothing to do with it. This is why it's annoying when people attempt to say why other people do something rather than just speaking for themselves, the only person anyone can accurately speak about the motives of with any real certainty.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

I spoke of egocentrism before, and people continue to do so, saying what other people intend. So it's time for me to bring up a pertinent fact here.

There was a study conducted in the late 80s which revealed that, on average, only 36 percent of viewers accurately perceive the intent of why a person wears what they chose to wear. 36 percent. Meaning *64 percent* _in_correctly perceive the intent of a person's choice of clothing. Yet all these people want to speak for why other people wear what they do?

:dry:

The level of egocentricity people exhibit is astounding. I can only shake my head.


----------



## JohnGalt (Nov 5, 2011)

Master Mind said:


> I spoke of egocentrism before, and people continue to do so, saying what other people intend. So it's time for me to bring up a pertinent fact here.
> 
> There was a study conducted in the late 80s which revealed that, on average, only 36 percent of viewers accurately perceive the intent of why a person wears what they chose to wear. 36 percent. Meaning *64 percent* _in_correctly perceive the intent of a person's choice of clothing. Yet all these people want to speak for why other people wear what they do?
> 
> ...


Well, calling all these other people egocentric presumes something about their thought process, so I will return the favor and thank you for falsely generalizing and pretending you can read other peoples' minds ;-). By your own terms, you should be only speaking about yourself. By your own philosophy, all you can safely say is " I MasterMind am being egocentric by making claims about what all these other people want". Maybe the pot shouldn't judge the kettles? 

Interesting study. How was the study was conducted, have any other more recent studies have shown similar results, and how wide is the margin of error (confidence intervals)? That is a lot more important than the numbers produced. If the study just compared what "viewers" thought to the self-reported reasons given by the people wearing the clothes, that is not a very accurate study. A lot of psychological and cognitive behavioural studies have already shown the reasons people give (rationalizations) are often very different from underlying motivations. Finally, that study was from the 80s, so it would not be a huge leap to guess that some of those "incorrect" guesses were sexist men thinking "that dress means she wants me to do her" while hopefully such interpretations would be less common today.

I will flip the question around and ask why there is a social taboo about people wanting some level of approval from others? Why must it be perceived as a negative thing, a sign of weakness or insecurity or vanity or shallowness? Seeking approval from the group is a part of social functioning. Not caring about how others perceive you may be avant garde chic right now, but not caring AT ALL how others perceive you reflects some level of sociopathy or psychological dysfunction. Why is it so offensive to suggest that for a majority, clothes choices could have to do with BOTH other people AND themselves?

As for the sleeveless shirt thing, note that I said "probably" not "always". I do not intend to generalize for everyone. Clothes can be worn for functional purposes only. A sports bra, for example, may or may not be worn for only functional purposes. That said, if the article of clothing did not have a functional purpose, then would you wear that same outfit if you had to wear a box around you or if you were in complete social isolation with no human contact? If not, then how other people see you DOES factor in to some level.


----------



## Solrac026 (Mar 6, 2012)

If a woman shows off cleavage, she may or may not want them to be look at. However, due to the nature of man and woman (I've caught my supervisor looking at my crotch before, lol), she must accept that she will be looked at because men instinctively look at cleavage. I don't know about everyone else, but I always find myself glimpsing automatically. It's after the first glimpse that I can make a conscious decision whether to look at them again or not and if I choose not to, I have to fight the inclination to look at them. In fighting that inclination, I'm effectively repressing my feelings.

So here's a question to the original question posed. Is it moral to repress men's feelings to look at (.)(.)?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

NK said:


> hahahaha!!! That was awesome!! :laughing:


They have names and stuff. It gets weird, honestly


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> whooooaaaaa there chainsaw. Lets back this wagon up.
> 
> I want less government. I want equal rights for everyone. I like boobs.
> 
> ...


You didn't want to listen to her talking and looked down her top to look at her nipples and you complain about women not being decent?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> You didn't want to listen to her talking and looked down her top to look at her nipples and you complain about women not being decent?


smiles, but for the record, i was sitting across the room. She flopped her breasts up on the bar, and her nipples rolled out. she knew it. 

seck see.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> smiles, but for the record, i was sitting across the room. She flopped her breasts up on the bar, and her nipples rolled out. she knew it.
> 
> seck see.


I'm sure she did. Then you woke up.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> I'm sure she did. Then you woke up.


Some bars clientele are really "classy" like that so I don't think he's lying.


----------

