# If a woman dresses in "revealing" clothing does that emit a (misinformed) message?



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> It's that easy to ignore it... There are plenty of men that don't do it. It could be a lot worse. And it is in no way similar to stealing money... Whistling at someone doesn't take away anything or invade your space.


It's disrespectful. Wolf-whisting does not equal a friendly "hi".

Imagine walking, by yourself, along a path and you come across a _*group*_ of males conducting themselves in that manner. Ogling you, too.
From my experience, these males aren't the "nice" ones, either.

Intimidating or desirable? True, they might not have done so, which would have made the walk a lot more comfortable. 

However, say it's at a function and you're in a "safe" environment, it's just plain disrespectful to objectify a person like that.
There are exceptions that I can think of, though - that it's dependent on the relationship dynamics you have with the person who wolf-whistles.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> "Wolfwhistling" Happened long before 1923 and will happen long after 2923. Learn some history, missy. And some biology, too. We're still animals even if we try to deny it, and have primitive instincts/urges.


Yes.

But we've evolved, and mature, with brain capabilities that excel primitive functionality. Id, ego, superego - as one view and outline for my point.

People can feel whatever they please. Biology - got it. How about a bit of brain usage? Let's give some credit to brain power and self-control.

Culture has evolved since then and so has fashion.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Master Wolf said:


> When I walk around with my shirt off, women gawk, and some of them grab me.
> 
> Not sure what that does to your opinion or whatever..
> 
> ...


That was noted that in the OP.

If you wore it (shirtless) to your local shops for example, and if you're not living at a beachside, you're going to draw attention to yourself.

If a woman does the same to you, I find it disrespectful and don't agree with it.
It's not double standards.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Revealing skin sends no message other than, "Hey, look. I have skin!" If anyone reads anything else into it, then they are misinterpreting a message that really isn't there. 

Skin /=/ Sex. Hell, genitalia doesn't even equal sex. Sex equals sex, my friends. That is all.

If amount of clothes a person wore was a good indicator of how much sex they desired at the moment, I guess everyone's libido dies come winter... definitely nothing to do with the cold temperatures.

Can revealing clothing be sexy though? Sure, but it's all about the intention which you cannot know by looks alone. The intention is not always there. That's why we invented verbal communication because depending on body language and visual symbols alone is rarely enough.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

First thing first: Wearing certain clothes does *not* equal asking to be raped, asking for cat calls, asking for someone to be rude to you, ...

That being said, I think fashion, not just showing cleavage, does send messages ... If I am wearing a suit, it says "Hey, I'm ready for business" 
As far as showing revealing clothes, (American) society likes to hid women's breasts (it is a "private" part) and them more you hid something, the more people want to see it  ... and we are a sex crazed (and a sex hating ... boy do we have complexes lol) culture ... So I think our (Patriarchal) culture plays a role (especially when you add dating customs)

Now as far as revealing clothing, I would say it is like real estate: Location, Location, Location.
If you are at the beach, then clearly you are wearing beachwear (and it is probably hot) ... If you are at a hot, singles bar, I would say wearing something revealing would be saying, "Hey, I'm hot and single, why don't you flirt with me (in a respectful manner without harassing me ... if I turn you down, then I turned you down)? )
Now, in other place, it get confusing because women may want to wear something comfy, and cool (as in not warm), but we are a sex crazed culture where we expect men to do most of the initiating and some people (men and women) set the bar low for men by thinking men are basically sex zombies 

So, in conclusion ... I would say in most cases, it should not send a message, but in places that are considered places to "hook up", then it makes sense that it does send a message, but people should buy you a drink or whatever it is you whippersnappers do in a very respectful manner (and if you say you want to be alone, they should apologize and leave you alone)


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

wiarumas said:


> The root of this question is, do men and women have the same response when presented with visuals of the opposite gender.
> 
> Here is an article. Quick answer - men are more visual and women are more contextual.
> 
> ...


Yes, and thank you for doing so. I look, too. No unwanted (obvious) attention is given/received and no one is made uncomfortable.

Ugh.. the arrogance of some guys who *assume*.


----------



## yankeemofo (Feb 14, 2013)

Promethea said:


> My body temperature runs hot, and I start wearing shorts in 50+degree weather. I do it because I feel miserable if I wear anything more. It amazes me that grown men haven't matured past ogling to such an extreme that they make it a spectacle. You'd think that, if you have been looking at the female form all your life, you'd know what it looks like, and be familiar enough with it, that its not shocking anymore.
> 
> Its just a cultural thing, making them feel not only entitled, but like they aren't 'real men' unless they act piggish. I don't buy for a second that they are ruled by some primitive instinct. A person is as rational as they choose to be. Some men in our culture just bleat along, blindly follow the idea of how a guy should act, and it involves behaving this way. They just use this complete bullshit theory in evolutionary biology as a fucking excuse for it.
> 
> ...



Some amazingly broad generalizations here, bravo!

I have no problem with admiring the female figure as I find it to be one of the most beautiful works of art ever created...an attractive woman can brighten the darkest of moods. If you don't like it, eat some Bon-bons and get fat and unattractive or cover it up. I don't walk around without a shirt in public unless I'm at a pool or beach, so that argument ain't working. 

Women ogle men just like we ogle them, y'all are just more tactful and slick about it.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I think it's plainly obvious to everyone with a quarter of a brain that a woman wearing "revealing" clothing isn't really saying "I would like it a lot if you broadcast crude messages about your desire to enter relations with me." 

However, acknowledgement of that fact does not make her somehow instantly unattractive.

If a woman walks by who is really attractive, I might take a look -- I mean, what am I supposed to do. If I find her attractive, am I supposed to go "nope, that's wrong" and make a specific effort not to look? I'm under no illusions as to our (nonexistent) relations.

Whatever. I think I'll just go back to being a lonely alcoholic. It's a lot better than getting caught up in all this kind of thing. Alcohol is a lot more attractive than women, anyway.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Torai said:


> It's that easy not to wolf-whistle. We, as humans, can think beyond our base urges!


As I've said before, in a civilized society, animals that can't control themselves are kept in a zoo.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> The OP and thread title is a complaint about 'men' interpreting a message based on the kind of clothing you are wearing. And in the same post you said you are not one of those women who wear 'skanky/trashy' clothing.
> 
> If you don't want men to make a judgment about your sexuality because you are showing skin, then perhaps you shouldn't do the same to other women.


So during Summer what *should* I wear? [Rhetorical]

I put "modest" in quotation marks...
It was intended to encompass the general *idea* of "revealing" skin (of varying degrees).

If I wore a mini clubbing dress to my local supermarket, then I'd expect to not be so astounded by ogling eyes. Biology seems to be the main argument FOR. I get it.

But given the cultural context of 2013, my ("immodest") attire is a norm for Summer. I have a view that that is how men and women view it too, of today's newer generations. Some skin - not all.

Regardless, I'm curious because of the observed experiences, still.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

There are men and women who feel that revealing clothing is sending a "message." I think maybe it has to do with Fe. Jung's description of Fe reminds me of this.
For a long time I completely dismissed the existence of this kind of social clothing awareness. But it exists. 

One of the problems with this social understanding of what is appropriate is that not everyone has it. AND it's different for different generations/cultures/subcultures.

My grandma never wore shorts. She also didn't shave her legs (that was scandalous) and she always wore makeup (only proper).

Now, when I was younger, fashions existed such as wearing lace camisoles outside, wearing mini-skirts, wearing tank tops and short shorts. I grew up in California and a few years ago there was this fashion trend of wearing semi-transparent pants (I saw though that trend). Young people wearing these fashions might just be thinking they are dressing nice, normal, fashionable--whereas someone from another generation might be thinking that they are dressing like prostitutes (who, you know, you must cat call at and be crude to in order to prove your masculinity).

And so my point is that no--clothing is not a consistent, universal, and reliable language. Although some people do see it as a language.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

VeraH said:


> So during Summer what *should* I wear? [Rhetorical]


I've already said that I don't agree with how you were treated. 

But complaining about men viewing you a certain because of how you dress is hypocritical when you used the terms skanky and trashy to describe other women based on how they dress.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I've already said that I don't agree with how you were treated.
> 
> But complaining about men viewing you a certain because of how you dress is hypocritical when you used the terms skanky and trashy to describe other women based on how they dress.


Thanks.

On note of the second point, to clarify, I didn't refer to other women. I used "skanky/trashy" to 'quantify' the degree of revealing skin. 

Skank dress code is the norm for clubbing. (Here, complaints are to be expected and known prior)
Skank dress code (imo) is inappropriate for "family" places (of current 2013). 

My Q was more "is there" and to gather insights.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

VeraH said:


> Thanks.
> 
> On note of the second point, to clarify, I didn't refer to other women. I used "skanky/trashy" to 'quantify' the degree of revealing skin.
> 
> ...


I assumed you were referring to concrete examples from memory when you used the terms 'skanky/trashy' ie. women dressing in revealing clothing you disapprove of morally. I haven't known anyone use the term skanky/trashy as a 'neutral' term, it normally involves a judgment about a women's sexuality based on the clothes she's wearing. But if you weren't referring to concrete examples but only a hypothetical scale then I apologize.

(I personally make snap judgments based on people's appearance, but I also accept that people will make snap judgements based on my appearance. I remember being a black guy in 'stereotypical' inner city clothing that I liked, I'd have people act more defensive and aggressive to me than normal. It was fucking annoying going from point A to B and having people being shitty to me for no reason so I stopped wearing that clothing.)


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

VeraH said:


> That was noted that in the OP.
> 
> If you wore it (shirtless) to your local shops for example, and if you're not living at a beachside, you're going to draw attention to yourself.
> 
> ...


Yeah i wouldnt assume someone has a double standard, was just sharing my experience


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Your breasts and ass exist in their natural shape for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. If you wear clothing that accentuates your cleavage or your butt, YOU ARE ASKING TO BE STARED AT. That's like me walking around with a giant sign covering my face that says, "DON'T STARE AT ME."


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

So, on the 31st of December, I went to my brother's, for New Year's Eve, and it was fun, we played poker,watched the ball drop, anywho, getting there, I took metro rail. When I was waiting for the connector, whole bunch of people lined up, there was this woman, nothing really stuck out like a sore thumb about her, but..... This guy comes from behind, then says "Everybody, ain't this a fine looking woman, I mean damn she is hot, damn she is beautiful." This went on for at least 20 minutes. I would argue, we all have our decisions,and a will, we can make good decisions, and have a good will, or we can make bad decisions, and have a bad will. If a guy can't leave a woman alone in peace, who is just minding their business, has to draw attention to himself, to draw attention to her, it says more about the guy, than the girl. I think.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

yankeemofo said:


> Some amazingly broad generalizations here, bravo!


Speaking of which...



> Women ogle men just like we ogle them, y'all are just more tactful and slick about it.





> If you don't like it, eat some Bon-bons and get fat and unattractive or cover it up.


Other people don't exist for your personal entertainment and it definitely isn't anyone else responsibility to compensate for others' lack of control.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

yankeemofo said:


> Some amazingly broad generalizations here, bravo!
> 
> I have no problem with admiring the female figure as I find it to be one of the most beautiful works of art ever created...an attractive woman can brighten the darkest of moods. If you don't like it, eat some Bon-bons and get fat and unattractive or cover it up. I don't walk around without a shirt in public unless I'm at a pool or beach, so that argument ain't working.
> 
> *Women ogle men just like we ogle them, y'all are just more tactful and slick about it.*


Oh yeah, I'm the one generalizing. BRAVO!!111 herp derp derp. I knew at least one bro would pipe up and bark at me, threatened by my words. 

And what a useless response.


----------



## Fear Itself (Feb 20, 2013)

It can be annoying, but it is also unavoidable in many situations. Woman should know guys are possibly going to approach them if they wear revealing clothing. Men should know women aren't always dressing nicely for their attention. At the end of the day, that's just the way it is.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

I have been wolf whistled at while dressed for work, which was in a black pencil skirt (knee length), a modest blouse and a black cardigan. 

Some men are just REALLY immature.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Culture, environment, and upbringing do play a large role in these matters, but I think some people are chemically wired to more of an extreme than others, although I do believe that number is much more rare than some people believe. Is it illogical to apply the idea that what you look at is purely choice on a universal level? I happen to think that's a completely illogical idea. Sorry, but our eyes are always open. Even I notice women, what they're wearing, how big their tits are, how short their shorts are, and others such things, but that doesn't mean I'm a disgusting pig, lol. People might be looking at you, but that doesn't necessarily mean they lust after you. I think people flatter themselves too much. 

I've also noticed that some women do love the attention they get when they wear clothes that are revealing. That's their problem, and they can deal with it how they see fit. They are in charge of their own lives after all. Unfortunately, because some women do respond positively to that attention, some men get the idea that it's a good way to approach _all _women. Men are not the only ones to blame for this sexual fiasco! The positive reinforcement that men get from other women can definitely be a driving factor for the frequency of this issue. And you know what else, some men don't even actually take themselves all that seriously when giving you attention. "How you doin' shawty?" Right, like they actually think that's going to work, lol. And keep in mind that some men feel that they're doing well to comment on your lovely shapes. Some hope you find it flattering because they enjoy giving attention and making you feel good. What they don't realize is that it doesn't make every woman feel good. And yes, sometimes, men just do it to see if they can get some ass, but men are not as cut and dry as many would like to think. There is as much diversity to them just as there is to women. I've been friends with men of every kind, but that's the thing. There are too many kinds to just assume all of them are the same. There are so many factors that play into this that I'm not sure a simple discussion could cover it all. 

All of that said, allow me to clearly answer the original question. Can wearing revealing clothes send the wrong message? Yes, I believe it can. When women go out to the club, many look for cute, short-cut outfits. They want to look all cute and sexy. That's a cultural thing. That's a learned thing. If you're going to the club, it's assumed that you're going to get all prettied up and cute for the occasion. If women want to get all dressed up and sexy for hot nights with their men, they will likely wear sexy lingerie which is typically revealing. Because revealing clothes are tied into those sorts of things, some men will automatically assume that there's a sexual reason tied to it. Is it illogical for men to think of women on such a universal scale and see all women wearing such clothes as a potential mate for the night? Yes, but many women treat men on a universal scale as well. It is illogical to expect all men to understand that revealing clothing doesn't always mean "her boday is redday". I would not necessarily chalk it up to bad character on their part, but perhaps rather to lack of thought. Same thing goes for women who would view and treat all men as potential predators.


----------



## yankeemofo (Feb 14, 2013)

Promethea said:


> Oh yeah, I'm the one generalizing. BRAVO!!111 herp derp derp. I knew at least one bro would pipe up and bark at me, threatened by my words.
> 
> And what a useless response.



Yea, I don't know why I even bothered.

I'm hardly threatened by your words...more likely I'm disgusted by your pissy attitude. I have news for you, it ain't gonna stop. Men are men, end of story. Whining about it, whether in public or on a forum, won't help you, either.

My advice? Kindly sit back, STFU and enjoy the fact that you are at least attractive enough to be "ogled".

Thanks.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

devoid said:


> Your breasts and ass exist in their natural shape for the sole purpose of attracting a mate. If you wear clothing that accentuates your cleavage or your butt, YOU ARE ASKING TO BE STARED AT. That's like me walking around with a giant sign covering my face that says, "DON'T STARE AT ME."


Breasts' main function is to provide delivery of a food source to newborns and infants.
Your buttocks serve a function(s), too.

It is human culture that has overly sexualized them.

Let's say that there is a role of the breasts and ass in attracting a mate:
1. Are there equivalent male body parts? And if so...
2. ... do men/women need to stare, ogle, wolf-whistle, cat-call, harass?

It is not the (observed) person's responsibility to have to ward off obscene attention. You can look, but don't touch, don't assume that the other person is "asking" for your attention, and don't make the person uncomfortable. 

Maybe men and women need to wear full head-to-toe veils, then? ... No.

Society is taking steps backward if women are going to be objectified like that. You can admire the female form all you want (in secret at worst).


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

VeraH said:


> Breasts' main function is to provide delivery of a food source to newborns and infants.
> Your buttocks serve a function(s), too.
> 
> It is human culture that has overly sexualized them.
> ...


Not saying it's okay to shout obscenities. But staring or even low-key commenting is just... to be expected? Doesn't matter if they have another function; the brain is programmed to respond a certain way to certain stimuli. Our culture did not sexualize breasts; they have always been and will always be representational of female sexuality, and the only reason ours are so unnecessarily large is that they evolved to look similar to a butt. It's just human nature to stare.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

yankeemofo said:


> Kindly sit back, STFU and enjoy the fact that you are at least attractive enough to be "ogled".


So you'll be pleased to have men ogling, cat-calling, wolf-whistling, harassing your (if existing) GF/wife?
Further, you'll assume that she's to enjoy that attention from all the males (that's not you).

You're disgusted at a poster's "pissy" attitude, and it's the attitude that you display toward a view of women that is what this thread has discussed.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

devoid said:


> Not saying it's okay to shout obscenities.


There's a difference between thinking it and acting it, as Devoid pointed out. 

Naturally men who find woman attractive will then look at the woman (even if she isn't dressing liberally). Men are VERY visual creatures, whereas woman are not, so it would make sense why they wouldn't understand why. 

If you want men to stop looking, then take away their eyes. Granted, people should be able to develop self control, but I find this issue with my own younger brother and sister.

Brother has an anger issue, and my sister has an instigation issue. Both are in the wrong and in the right at the same time.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

devoid said:


> Not saying it's okay to shout obscenities. But staring or even low-key commenting is just... to be expected? Doesn't matter if they have another function; the brain is programmed to respond a certain way to certain stimuli. Our culture did not sexualize breasts; they have always been and will always be representational of female sexuality, and the only reason ours are so unnecessarily large is that they evolved to look similar to a butt. It's just human nature to stare.


I understand, but what I want to convey is that if it is "expected" (as in the way that the brain is programmed, then) that a person will have their attention focused on that "stimulus" (that invokes a physiological reaction/response), the action (staring) can still be subordinate/stopped under the power of self-control.

They just need an education on how to be respectful towards another.

Agreed. Breasts are a distinctively female feature. They can be naturally small. The reason why women now "enhance" their size is due to the over-sexualization of the breasts as a sex organ.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Ace Face said:


> Even I notice women, what they're wearing, how big their tits are, how short their shorts are, and others such things, but that doesn't mean I'm a disgusting pig, lol. People might be looking at you, but that doesn't necessarily mean they lust after you. I think people flatter themselves too much.
> 
> I've also noticed that some women do love the attention they get when they wear clothes that are revealing. That's their problem, and they can deal with it how they see fit. They are in charge of their own lives after all.


That's true. It's not so much that women "flatter" themselves by thinking that because a male pays attention to them that they're (the women) is desired. Some may. The more important focus of that situation, in my view, is that it shouldn't be the responsibility of that female to have to dress in a restricted manner, given today's current fashion trends, to be able to exist as she pleases. 

Say it is known that the male brain is programmed a certain way, they don't need to display primitive urges so explicitly such that it may cause discomfort to the female and vice versa.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

KilljoyKoala said:


> 2.) Weather! Men walk around all summer with no shirt at all. But somehow when women wear bikini shirts, they're sending off messages that they want sex? No way, it's just too warm for them to wear other clothes!


How do you know that's not what the men want from wearing no shirt? :tongue:


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

yankeemofo said:


> Yea, I don't know why I even bothered.
> 
> I'm hardly threatened by your words...more likely I'm disgusted by your pissy attitude. I have news for you, it ain't gonna stop. Men are men, end of story. Whining about it, whether in public or on a forum, won't help you, either.
> 
> ...


Just have to say I am siding with Promethea here. And not out of fear for her words--lol.

Men are men, but not all of them ogle and act like the most important aspect of a woman is her body. Men are men, which means that they are individuals. 

LOL--and even though the post wasn't directed at me, I certainly won't be sitting back and STFU. Sorry if you don't like it.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Breasts' main function is to provide delivery of a food source to newborns and infants.
> Your buttocks serve a function(s), too.
> 
> It is human culture that has overly sexualized them.


Nope. Men have loved breasts since before we were even human. Everybody's butt serves a function(s), so I fail to see your point.



> Let's say that there is a role of the breasts and ass in attracting a mate:
> 1. Are there equivalent male body parts? And if so...
> 2. ... do men/women need to stare, ogle, wolf-whistle, cat-call, harass?


Are these legitimate questions? Seriously? Breasts DO play a role in attraction, there are male equivalents and woman ogle men all the fucking time, and some even whistle, so it's not like this is just a guy thing.



> It is not the (observed) person's responsibility to have to ward off obscene attention. You can look, but don't touch, don't assume that the other person is "asking" for your attention, and don't make the person uncomfortable.


If we lived our lives worried about never making anybody "uncomfortable", we would not live at all. There will ALWAYS be someone that doesn't like you or what you do. Obviously some random dude can't come up and start touching you, but a fucking whistle isn't going to harm you in any way.



> Maybe men and women need to wear full head-to-toe veils, then? ... No.
> 
> Society is taking steps backward if women are going to be objectified like that. You can admire the female form all you want (in secret at worst).



No. Men and women just need to stop taking everything so seriously. It's a fucking WHISTLE! OMG OH NO A WHISTLE I'M MELTING!!

Society is actually taking small steps forward, sexually. Obviously some men take it too far, but compared to time when people were fucking stoned for having premarital sex, we've come a long way. I'm not saying women should be harassed, touched, etc, but a freaking whistle as you walk by is not going to affect you, or anybody else, in any way.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

I don't know why there is an abject intolerance to guys looking at gals. At any rate, every woman out there can do something about it. If you notice, guys wear non-revealing clothing to stay cool in warm weather all the time. It works. If you don't believe me, look at the clothes women wore in the '80s. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we have all been conditioned to view revealing, form-fitting clothing as feminine (and only very recently has it become more masculine), so you could condition yourself to feel good in clothing that isn't revealing. 

Part of guys looking is socialization, but another part is simply the visual aspect. I see no reason for men to be shamed because of this.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Nope. Men have loved breasts since before we were even human.


Then those weren't men... and I doubt *it* would be able to conceptualize what a "breast" is without human cognition.



ISFjosue0098 said:


> Are these legitimate questions? Seriously? Breasts DO play a role in attraction, there are male equivalents and woman ogle men all the fucking time, and some even whistle, so it's not like this is just a guy thing.


There is no double standards. There is no need for women/men to display such disrespect (in the case that the attention is unwanted/unwarranted).



ISFjosue0098 said:


> If we lived our lives worried about never making anybody "uncomfortable", we would not live at all. There will ALWAYS be someone that doesn't like you or what you do.


Firstly, discomfort is imminent (e.g. awkward conversation). Second point is unrelated to disrespectful behaviour; liking/disliking someone is a personal opinion/feeling and can arise from anything (including from judgement of someone's behaviour).



ISFjosue0098 said:


> Men and women just need to stop taking everything so seriously. It's a fucking WHISTLE! OMG OH NO A WHISTLE I'M MELTING!!


So can I assume that you like that attention? That's fine. But not everyone may. 



ISFjosue0098 said:


> Society is actually taking small steps forward, sexually.


We're more liberal and open to it.

Fashion has evolved, and modern culture has, to a degree, too. Women were seen as objects in the past. So... we need to move past it to be "forward".



ISFjosue0098 said:


> Obviously some men take it too far, but compared to time when people were fucking stoned for having premarital sex, we've come a long way. I'm not saying women should be harassed, touched, etc, but a freaking whistle as you walk by is not going to affect you, or anybody else, in any way.


Just a hypothetical: a woman, in very modest attire, who had a history of being raped/sexually assaulted walks by a group of men who wolf-whistles at her.

It's not safe to assume.

Edit: Spelling correction.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> If we lived our lives worried about never making anybody "uncomfortable", we would not live at all. There will ALWAYS be someone that doesn't like you or what you do.


I agree with this ^__^ ... Just an add, I would say that there is a scale of to what degree do you go to to try and make sure no one is uncomfortable and neither end is good ... One end is not a reasonable expectation and one would fail while the other one show blatant disregard for other's feelings ... moderation is important ... I tend to be on the more "respectful side", except when I am messing with friends  ... Nah, just kidding, I'll hurt all your feelings  //jk *hugs*



> Obviously some random dude can't come up and start touching you, but a fucking whistle isn't going to harm you in any way.
> 
> No. Men and women just need to stop taking everything so seriously. It's a fucking WHISTLE! OMG OH NO A WHISTLE I'M MELTING!!
> 
> Society is actually taking small steps forward, sexually. Obviously some men take it too far, but compared to time when people were fucking stoned for having premarital sex, we've come a long way. I'm not saying women should be harassed, touched, etc, but a freaking whistle as you walk by is not going to affect you, or anybody else, in any way.


I agree that society is getting better and I agree that many people seem to take things too seriously (whether they actually are or not is a different story) .... but, for many women, I don't think we are talking about one guy being rude once in a blue moon ... I think many women are experiencing a pattern of experiencing sexual harassment from many strangers ... The bombardment of sexual comments and sexual objectification is not right to them 

I know, as a biological male who does feel as though "he" gets much attention, I don't feel sexually objectified enough, because it rarely happens (that I notice), but if it happened all the time, I would be sick of it.

Here is an example of something that is not nearly as rude as cat calling, but, over time, can make me be very annoyed ... I know someone that makes a disgusted face and noise whenever he looks at what I eat ... not just when I eat sushi or something weird ... but whenever I even put ketchup on something normal ... at first it was not so bad, but day in and day out it becomes frustrating (I want to feel relaxed and free of judgement in my own home lol), but constant bombardments can wear a person out


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

VeraH said:


> A pair of shorts (not knickers) and a tank top... arms and legs - not tits and ass. Summer.
> 
> Women have libidos, too. I don't need to lick my lips when I see a hot guy. "Wow, hot." OK, next.
> 
> ...


Yes, but, there are men who will do these things and women who enjoy and reinforce that pattern in the men. Therefore it will continue because even men who might not be predisposed to do it see its effectiveness at least some of the time. This is fixed interval training at its worst backed up by some pretty primal stuff as well. I am not excusing the behavior, only explaining why it absolutely will continue. 

So as with any situation in life that amounts to a conflict of some sort it comes down to how both sides handle it. The low brow whistle meets the offended eyes roll, so be it. The low brow whistle meets the turn around butt wiggle, so be it. Expression on both sides of the table. Communication. Excellent. The high brow polite greeting meets a warm reception, so be it. The high brow polite greeting meets a woman that can't respect a man who treats her too politely so she gives the cold shoulder, so be it. Expression on both sides of the table. Communication. Excellent. 

Choose not to offend, choose not to be offended. Choose to offend, choose to be offended. So be it. Communication. Excellent.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

series0 said:


> Yes, but, there are men who will do these things and women who enjoy and reinforce that pattern in the men. Therefore it will continue because even men who might not be predisposed to do it see its effectiveness at least some of the time. This is fixed interval training at its worst backed up by some pretty primal stuff as well. I am not excusing the behavior, only explaining why it absolutely will continue.
> 
> So as with any situation in life that amounts to a conflict of some sort it comes down to how both sides handle it. The low brow whistle meets the offended eyes roll, so be it. The low brow whistle meets the turn around butt wiggle, so be it. Expression on both sides of the table. Communication. Excellent. The high brow polite greeting meets a warm reception, so be it. The high brow polite greeting meets a woman that can't respect a man who treats her too politely so she gives the cold shoulder, so be it. Expression on both sides of the table. Communication. Excellent.
> 
> Choose not to offend, choose not to be offended. Choose to offend, choose to be offended. So be it. Communication. Excellent.


Sad, really.

Still, it creates a dire view of *those* males in my view. If I ever have a son, I will never let him conduct such disrespectful behaviour. Guys with self-control (using higher brain functions) and are respectful (considerate and taught well) are so damn attractive. 

I hate pigs - my view - and this thread stems from another recent experience.


----------



## KilljoyKoala (Mar 22, 2013)

Signify said:


> How do you know that's not what the men want from wearing no shirt? :tongue:


I just asked my brother if he was asking for it when he had his shirt off, he looked at me like I was nuts and put his shirt back on.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

VeraH said:


> If a young woman dresses for comfort and for herself, but it just so happens that those clothes are not of a "modest" style, does that send a (misinformed) message to males?
> 
> I've seen women get wolf-whistled at and have been subject to the same. I'm not even talking about trashy/skanky revealing or bikini-level showy. Just summer/beachy clothes.
> 
> I'm going to add that I think it's okay to LOOK (not ogle someone up and down, or stare) so long as it doesn't cause discomfort to the watched person, and is applied to both men and women.


I've heard a lot of women say that it works this way. Dress light or tight and you will get male attention, stares, whistles etc. 

Men are in some way socially/culturally programmed to respond to such stimuli in certain ways. I can't relate at all, I seldom find the kind of looks typically percieved as sexy as sexy. And the appearances I find sexy is not usually concidered sexy by the average male.

I would never ogle, stare or whistle. I'm sure most men don't, but enought men do it to make it a very common (and often uncomfortable) experience for women.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

KilljoyKoala said:


> I just asked my brother if he was asking for it when he had his shirt off, he looked at me like I was nuts and put his shirt back on.


Exactly.

People shouldn't assume.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

IMO, however a woman dresses is not a message that it is ok to disrespect her or do something to her. Men who can control themselves belongs to the zoo, where the irrational animals are. Humans are evolved enough to be able to control their own impulses.

However, I think that women should be conscious of what impacts their way of dressing has. I find it silly whenever I read things like "why do men only look at my body??" when some women are really dressing too revealing, like wearing mini skirts and really low cut tops(wearing a tank top and shorts are not really as revealing and sexual). Even I as a woman would see "sex" all over, so if someone is oozing sex appeal all the way, then how can we ignore that anyways?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

VeraH said:


> Exactly.
> 
> People shouldn't assume.


Thanks, next time I'll ask if it's okay to look.

Charming devil that I am.

:mellow:



> Anyway, I'll see males walking shirtless down the street and he doesn't need to worry about being sexually harrassed.
> Though, I think that's intentional attention seeking if not at the beach/pools.


And I hope the irony isn't lost on you.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

VeraH said:


> Anyway, I'll see males walking shirtless down the street and he doesn't need to worry about being sexually harrassed.
> Though, I think that's intentional attention seeking if not at the beach/pools.


I've always thought about that too. If the guy does get sexually harassed, maybe he was asking for it in the first place LOL. If he wasn't then... maybe he should think twice about going shirtless down the street next time. If he has something good to show, then he'll get whistled at and looked at from top to bottom too. Maybe he'll even be stared at for some time by some women and men LOL. It's a learning experience. 

In some societies men getting harassed or raped isn't that prevalent. It probably is... but it doesn't count if the man enjoyed it, or so I'm told... Because of the way society may look at men who would even report it, shame may cause the individual to keep quiet about it for a long time. If I were ever sexually harassed against my will, I honestly wouldn't know what that would feel like and if I'd even tell anyone about it.

To answer your question; I do see something different when women wear less clothing. There are certain images and possibly even ideas conveyed by it (well not that she'd like to have sex; that's not something I'm perceiving about them, but the thought may come depending on how the woman walks, acts, and on her general demeanor). For example, the idea that may be conveyed is that she feels the intensity of the heat of the sun and wants to wear less clothing for better ventilation. If the woman is pretty attractive and has those curves... then my imagination might go a little wild, but I never act on it. Some men would; that's why rape is a problem in some societies.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

KilljoyKoala said:


> I just asked my brother if he was asking for it when he had his shirt off, he looked at me like I was nuts and put his shirt back on.


Interesting. I never go in public shirtless aside from a beach or a pool so I'd assume if I were, I'd likely be desperate for it or under the influence of a drug. But then again, I'm a skinny white boy, so my chances would probably be best with one on.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Erbse said:


> Thanks, next time I'll ask if it's okay to look.
> 
> Charming devil that I am.
> 
> :mellow:


haha, please do.
You misinterpreted. I was referring to the ogling/cat calling/wolf whistling, leering, etc...
Don't assume that a female wants to be the recipient of such vile behaviour.

How would you feel if some random male ogles you up and down, then licks his lips?
All that you were wearing was a singlet and boardies/shorts.

Consider a hypothetical: a woman who had been raped/sexually assulted walks down a street in very modest attire. A group of men nearby sets their eyes on her and wolf whistles. What dickheads.

Even for someone to wear more "revealing" clothing (e.g. for summer), it's not warranted to wolf whistle etc...



Erbse said:


> And I hope the irony isn't lost on you.


"Summer/beachy" attire is a description for women's wear as a casual "look". It's quite the norm now for summer season. It's not skimpy. To me, it's the equivalent of a male wearing a tank and shorts.

Do females need to wear full curtains over their heads, with two cut-out holes for the eyes, to exist as they please, then?
Men should do the same - don't want the women to sexually harrass you guys, either.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Gettingacrossthebridge said:


> ... my imagination might go a little wild, but I never act on it. Some men would; that's why rape is a problem in some societies.


And that's why zoos were constructed. So that we could put those animals in it.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

VeraH said:


> And that's why zoos were constructed. So that we could put those animals in it.


That is true. I remember the case in India. It's horrible that people could do things like that. Zoos allow animals to roam free within a limited area. I don't think it would be wise to have such people roam free like that.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

VeraH said:


> How would you feel if some random male ogles you up and down, then licks his lips?
> All that you were wearing was a singlet and boardies/shorts.


Well, you asked the wrong person.

I'd go all gay on him and hope he'd be more disturbed than I - praying that he in fact isn't gay.

Granted, I've quite a special way to deal with people :tongue:

I however do get your point, but the world is what it is.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

yankeemofo said:


> Yea, I don't know why I even bothered.
> 
> I'm hardly threatened by your words...more likely I'm disgusted by your pissy attitude. I have news for you, it ain't gonna stop. Men are men, end of story. Whining about it, whether in public or on a forum, won't help you, either.
> 
> ...


My attitude just comes from too much of dealing with senseless bullshit on the internet. 










Just because someone postquotes me doesn't mean I have to take the utter derp seriously. Sick of it. Get the last word in. I'm tired of wasting my time on bullshit like this.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I think a distinction needs to be made between looking at someone and ogling them.

I notice attractive women's bodies sometimes and I'm probably less discreet about it than most heterosexual men (because I probably don't notice women as much and so have less experience, being a heterosexual woman). 

But I think that ogling is an aggressive way of looking at women. It's staring at a woman despite her discomfort. Have you ever had a man stare at you for a long time, even while you are trying to ignore him? Now a lot of women have experienced this kind of thing frequently since they were preteens--having men the age of their grandfather stare at them in an aggressive way and then leer when they catch the girl's eye. It doesn't surprise me that many women don't appreciate that kind of attention.

Looking at a woman is different from ogling a woman in the way that asking a girl out is different than stalking her. (You can look at someone with some concern for their comfort/feelings just as you would consider a person's feelings when you ask them out---but the ogling I'm talking about is an aggressive disregard for the object's feelings--and some men seem to enjoy upsetting a woman by ogling her.)


----------



## Alumina (Jan 22, 2013)

kudi said:


> We are sex crazed culture and its become acceptable and sometimes expected to hit on woman who expose any kind of skin. I'd say its a type of cultural programming. So, for women if you are attractive and expose skin expect the programming to take effect. *Part of maleness is defined as openly flaunting your sexuality and them being rude towards you may not have nothing personally really to do with you*, but them being able to claim their masculinity and feeling like a dominant male. As for males exposing skin, there is no uniform cultural expectation as to how women should respond to it. The fall back expected response is distaste as women are expected to have a stronger moral compass, to be more modest and to be softer/sensitive than males.


Have to agree with this one. There is nothing personal. It is all down to just "the idea of seeing a revealed woman"" 

Ethically it is uncomfortable. Generally it is ones responsibility to handle it. Sometimes I am dressed full - simple and even in boy clothes. The perverts still look, it is very piss-taking. Then again they are looking at hundreds of other girls and that is how i know that it is not personal. So they seem easily avoidable.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

The animal man is extremely well rewarded for being an animal. In far more cases than not. Behaving like a strong loud alpha chimp is very much more likely to get a man a positive response. If the man can twist this still animal behavior into more and more subtle ways of still being a loud alpha chimp it is even more effective. I venture to say, and I do not intend to offend by saying this, that many women who object to the behavior in general nonetheless are attracted to it on some level in more subtle variations of the same behavior. I have also seen this to be true a hell of a lot so it is not mere conjecture, but experience talking. The very same women who decry the pattern accept it when it spins out just a hair more subtly.

This means its only a matter of where that line is drawn, exactly which model of loud alpha behavior is used, that makes the distinction, and not the behavior itself at its core. That is an extremely subtle mixed message. It actually causes men who are not predisposed towards those types of behaviors to change themselves to the worse behaviors in order to become more successful with women and guess what - in terms of quantity - it damn sure works. The line moves in the quality direction as you get older for several reasons (but one of those is laziness, not just refinement and you may guess freely as to which factor moves more men). 

If I could have gone shirtless to get women to ogle me as a younger man I would have. I would have welcomed the interest. The socio-cultural role of women and the biological underpinnings of behavior that give rise to them along with social pressures result in men being in the desirous role and women the desired role most of the time. With respect to sexual interaction women can get quantity if they want it. They can sift through that and get quality with just a little diligence. Most men cannot. Almost every man I know with the exception of a few heartthrobs or charmers is inundated with a sex screaming culture and gets very little actual sex. 

If you starve someone they become an animal to get food. Even the best of us in a high brow sense has their behavior swing to a more animalistic manner. It is controllable by choice but the more you ramp up the pressure the fewer people that can resist the impulses. I think men, on the whole, are amazingly polite and controlled. The manner in which they conduct themselves with restraint given their starved natures and the hormones running through them is nothing short of spectacular. 

I disagree with any statement saying an attempt to be noticed non violently is bad behavior. Ogling and whistling are fine. If they don't appeal to you ignore them. What I would say is inappropriate is any kind of touching or getting in the way, surrounding type actions that I have seen some men do. Also continued ogling and whistling when the woman makes it clear by her reactions that she is not interested is actually provocation and bad behavior. 

But be careful here. A lot of women turn up their noses but still give the men subtle clues that they are interested. It's part of courtship behavior. _Pretending _to be uninterested. Now a perceptive fellow will continue to press. Is he being bad? Nope. So then unperceptive guys witness this. They do not see that she is being coy. They see her snubbing the guy. And he continues. And eventually the two end up together. So now these less perceptive guys think, 'oh boy, if I just keep at it, she will come around, Sweet!' And behold!, a stupid pattern is born. 

Integrating personality and maturing involves several processes that occur simultaneously. Learning your demons and leashing them, to me describes the moral war within yourself. Another point of view is the high brow vs low brow continuum. The low brow Morlocks among us need to integrate up an understanding of high brow behavior and ritual. But a less understood vector also exists. The Eloi need to integrate the low brow behavior as well. Trickier I think. A deeper intuition is required to get that. Do not cast out your animal! Learn to live with it.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

The way you chose to dress like say something about you, especially when you go out at night.

I understand why people expose their skin under 40ºC because I live in a dry and hot area but dressing the same clothing in the winter and summer makes absolutly no fucking sense nor is it comfortable.
Imagine this: You're in the bus, it's 8.30 am and it's about -3ºC and it's almost night outside not to say that hasn't rain for about 2 months which means that is as dry as always, and you see this girl wearing tights with shorts on top, red All Stars, a t-shirt and a short jacket while you're shaking from the cold while wearing a long winter jacket. You know that she's suffering with the cold, but she chose to do so and it's not feel comfortable. I hate having a lot of clothes on, but I rather do that than freeze in the middle of the freaking winter, she's doing it because she wants to be pretty and show her body because that gives her attention of men, that gives her confidence and makes her believe she's pretty, not to say that it is fashionable to dress that way. Her friends wear it, so why shouldn't she?
At night it's even worse. I understand that it's hot in clubs and bars, but dresses so short you can't get something from the floor without showing your panties and heals so high you can't walk decently isn't being comfortable, I'm sure, especially not in the motherfucking winter. Unless your country has no winter. If that's the case LUCKY YOU, I wish I was that lucky, but nope. Europe.

I'm not excusing people who say that she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed, but young girls (and not so young girls) should learn that some behaviors and ways to dress are seen as invitations even if they're not inviting men (or other women) in.
I think the same would apply to men, but they still dress pretty well for winter last time I checked.

EDIT: I remembered that maybe I should say something because if answer I saw here about what young males think of females and say that females are starting to do the same thing.
When they see a pretty male, like their favourite assassin vampire hunter butler anime or video game character they objectify him in the same way males do with women.
I was in a fandom where women liked x band based on the beauty or attractiveness of the members. It didn't matter if the band was actually filled with good musicians or not, they would listen and buy highly expensive merch from Japan just because the guitarist is cute and they would like to fuck him. It's perfectly alright to find someone attractive because it's our nature and part of our sexuality but liking something as objective as music because of it? I do not approve this. (And I know males do it and I do not approve it either)
This is even worse in the anime community where girls love characters based on their pretty female looking faces and idealize their boyfriends to just like that one character they liked and 5 minutes later they're saying western men are ugly because EW BEARD AND HAIRY LEGS AND SQUARE JAWS. DISGUSTING. They idealize it so much that when they date their male counterparts it all goes beyond wrong because they are like they idealized each other to be, so both go back to fapping to cartoon characters. And I'm the who's unhealthy for fapping to a woman who wants to do a sex change operation.
My point is. Women do the same that man do, they just hide it between their little walls with their little friends and saying _that guy is really asking for it_. Because everyone talks about how women are objectified everywhere but they never talk on the objectification that women does, especially that of homosexual couples. It is beyond me why some girls say that they would hire two male prostitutes just to watch them have sex and write fanfics about it. Go figure that one out.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> IMO, however a woman dresses is not a message that it is ok to disrespect her or do something to her. Men who can control themselves belongs to the zoo, where the irrational animals are. Humans are evolved enough to be able to control their own impulses.
> 
> However, I think that women should be conscious of what impacts their way of dressing has. I find it silly whenever I read things like "why do men only look at my body??" when some women are really dressing too revealing, like wearing mini skirts and really low cut tops(wearing a tank top and shorts are not really as revealing and sexual). Even I as a woman would see "sex" all over, so if someone is oozing sex appeal all the way, then how can we ignore that anyways?


Really? The men are animals who belong in a zoo and the women are silly?

Here's an ethical question: should one demographic suppress their urges to look or should the other one suppress their annoyance? My answer is neither and that we should just learn to accept reality.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Really? The men are animals who belong in a zoo and the women are silly?
> 
> Here's an ethical question: should one demographic suppress their urges to look or should the other one suppress their annoyance? My answer is neither and that we should just learn to accept reality.


Yes, really. But I'm not talking about just looking anyways, but acting upon your impulses and disrespect or even rape women for it. Looking is fine anyways - people should realize that the way they dress can draw attention anyways.

But what is this annoyance that must be repressed? They are not exactly coming towards men and tease them... They are just in the same space, minding their own business. Annoyance would be those kids with music playing loudly or screaming loudly or does things that truly annoys.
But as for accepting reality, I agree in one thing - that we should be aware of how we draw attention. If it is dangerous to draw certain attentions, then we can't simply go "I have rights!" and expect that there won't be danger. Raping is not alright, thought it's up to us to avoid danger, like not dressing rich and pass by dangerous zones at nights for example (danger of getting robbed).


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Yes, really. But I'm not talking about just looking anyways, but acting upon your impulses and disrespect or even rape women for it. Looking is fine anyways - people should realize that the way they dress can draw attention anyways


Raping is not alright, but girls (and boys) should be aware that their behavior might invite someone in.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

AyaSullivan said:


> Raping is not alright, but girls (and boys) should be aware that their behavior might invite someone in.


Yep, that is what I said in my last paragraph. It's also important for people to be careful and aware of the consequences of their own actions.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Yep, that is what I said in my last paragraph. It's also important for people to be careful and aware of the consequences of their own actions.


So it's _only_ not men's fault. Unaware little girls do their share of damage. And bad parenting.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

AyaSullivan said:


> So it's _only_ not men's fault. Unaware little girls do their share of damage. And bad parenting.


Hmm I don't really know how to think about unaware little girls, they are probably following the trend of their friends, thought yeah parents should intervene and guide them if they are too young to be aware. But when you have older girls and adult women that are aware, they should be responsible when they know what they dress can cause. Again, with the robbery example, if you are aware that a neighborhood is dangerous, and you decide to pass there dressing rich and showing off your iPhone, then while robbery is wrong, you are the one getting yourself in such situations. Another example would be traveling to dangerous countries. If you get killed, the murderers are wrong but then you are the one who decided to go there.
When we are aware, we should be responsible. Specially for adults who are expected to have some awareness.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Hmm I don't really know how to think about unaware little girls, they are probably following the trend of their friends, thought yeah parents should intervene and guide them if they are too young to be aware. But now you have older girls and adult women that are aware, so they should be responsible when they know what they dress can cause. Again, with the robbery example, if you are aware that a neighborhood is dangerous, and you decide to pass there dressing rich and showing off your iPhone, then while robbery is wrong, you are the one getting yourself in such situations. Another example would be traveling to dangerous countries. If you get killed, the murderers are wrong but then you are the one who decided to go there.
> When we are aware, we should be responsible. Specially for adults who are expected to have some awareness.


 Little girls should be guided by their parents. Parents shouldn't let their go out with their expensive phones and tight jeans to clubs when they're just 14. I know that, but again parents should be more aware of what they get their children and what they're doings with their friends.
I live in a small town, there is no real distinction between a dangerous zone and none dangerous zone, until recently there was, but now you can go anywhere and be robbed, even if you're wearing Pull and Bear clothing and have a Nokia that's old as the stones in my walls. I went out at night, they assume I have money even if I don't have any. And if you go to dangerous area, don't go alone, especially if you don't live there. What happens in neighborhoods is that they usually don't rob the ones who live there (believe me, I lived in one).
If you travel you must be ready for it or simply don't travel to that country. Problem solved.
Adults are even worse than children. Most of them are just cold people with a straight face who have been killed inside by stress or overgrown children (take in consideration that this is a generalization of my expressive with that thing they call adults).


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

VeraH said:


> Okay, firstly, to clarify, this was just a discussion. Ideas and differing points of views were exchanged. I've gathered a lot, much appreciated (everyone).
> 
> Please don't make such assumptions. Of course I "deal" with it lol. To iterate, this was an exchanging of ideas. I'm not "miserable" over it.
> 
> ...


I meant no offense. Like you, I'm here to have a discussion. I have a right to state my opinion whether or not is valued or liked by anyone. I made statements that I saw fit for the discussion at hand. You don't have to like it and I don't expect you to. All is fair.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Dude summed it up in two lines.
> 
> Both sides - women who complain about men ogling them more when they show more skin, and men who make crude compliments when body language and context doesn't indicate receptivity - lack social intelligence.


haha, okay.

Like I said, I wanted to ask for other points of view in search for "is there" (given answer), then insights. Thanks for your view.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Ace Face said:


> I meant no offense. Like you, I'm here to have a discussion. I have a right to state my opinion whether or not is valued or liked by anyone. I made statements that I saw fit for the discussion at hand. You don't have to like it and I don't expect you to. All is fair.


I've read your standpoints and you've made very valid ones. I "like" your arguments and presented ideas. I "don't" like the assumptions.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

VeraH said:


> I've read your standpoints and you've made very valid ones. I "like" your arguments and presented ideas. I "don't" like the assumptions.


Well, there's nothing you can do about what you didn't like, is there? If you want to continue to make this a personal matter, I am always open to private messaging. I do rather dislike derailing threads over petty matters, and I refuse to derail any further past this post.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Ace Face said:


> Well, there's nothing you can do about what you didn't like, is there? If you want to continue to make this a personal matter, I am always open to private messaging. I do rather dislike derailing threads over petty matters, and I refuse to derail any further past this post.


No need. You're right. Thank you for point.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Dude summed it up in two lines.
> 
> Both sides - women who complain about men ogling them more when they show more skin, and men who make crude compliments when body language and context doesn't indicate receptivity - lack social intelligence.


I think that this summed up what most actually agrees on. Both sides has to be aware and responsible of their own actions and consequences.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

AriesLilith said:


> I think that this summed up what most actually agrees on. Both sides has to be aware and responsible of their own actions and consequences.


I have a genuine question: what *should *​(not could) women wear, then, when it's just so hot for Summer?

Edit: That's "current/comfy", unless that is not an option (due to a certain reason)


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

VeraH said:


> I have a genuine question: what *should *​(not could) women wear, then, when it's just so hot for Summer?
> 
> Edit: That's "current/comfy", unless that is not an option (due to a certain reason)


Depends on the kind of summer you're talking about. If you live under 40ºC like I do, a top and shorts are totally normal even though we are far from the sea.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

AyaSullivan said:


> Depends on the kind of summer you're talking about. If you live under 40ºC like I do, a top and shorts are totally normal even though we are far from the sea.


Thanks - shorts and top = the norm.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Well, I know that my girlfriend sometimes dresses herself specifically to get attention and compliments from others; not necessarily men, when she goes out in public. There are indubitably social, perhaps even sexual, motives for this type of behavior. Some women want to get compliments and like to 'feel beautiful'. In and of itself there is not much wrong with this. And I do think that dressing yourself in a certain way provokes certain reactions from others (which are to be anticipated in certain cases); this is also true for non-revealing ways of dressing yourself. How you dress yourself is how you present yourself, so to say. People do treat each other differently on the basis of how they present themselves to each other; sometimes this is even justified. However, when people start seeing this simple social reality as a warrant for all sorts of unaccaptable or criminal behaviors, then it becomes problematic. I believe it is as simple as that. If you cross social, moral or legal boundaries, then you should not expect to get away with the "but she provoked me" argument.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

VeraH said:


> Thanks - shorts and top = the norm.


I guess that it also depends on the culture and how things are perceived where we live. For example, in occidental countries, showing a bit of cleavage is not even a big deal, but where I was born, in Eastern Asia, you get tons of attention by showing some cleavage (and their looks on their faces are priceless lol), and you don't see women showing cleavage while they wear shorts and shirts during Summer.
Another example of different perceptions of what is norm is, where I was born, women don't really use the normal bikini, but rather some sort of shorts and short top, while in occidental countries, bikinis that are bra and panties types are the norm. You dress the bikini that is the norm in occidental countries, in where I was born, and you get attention or even stupid comments (not directed towards you thought, since they are shy and reserved there).

So it's important to be aware of what is the norm where we live or travel to.


----------



## LoveAshley (Mar 31, 2013)

If a woman dresses revealingly, it may attract more attention. Men will notice and be aroused and women will notice and feel competitive.

The important thing is though, that no one has a right to act on what they see and feel if we are talking about harassment. No one has a right to harass a woman for what she is wearing, period.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

I don't get why women want to dress that way, can you shed any light on it?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

tine said:


> I don't get why women want to dress that way, can you shed any light on it?


I don't get it either :/ I find a modestly dressed woman a lot more attractive...


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> I don't get it either :/ I find a modestly dressed woman a lot more attractive...


What makes you think they are trying to impress you? :happy:


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> What makes you think they are trying to impress you? :happy:


Where did I say they are trying to impress me? 

Read what I said. That's exactly what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

tine said:


> I don't get why women want to dress that way, can you shed any light on it?


Attention, self-confidence, social approval.


----------



## noteworthy (Feb 6, 2013)

KilljoyKoala said:


> I always find it ridiculous when people are like "now she's just ASKING for it" when referring to ladies in revealing clothes. They know better.
> 
> 1.) *Check the clothes in stores. If you don't have a lithe, small breasted figure, the clothes you get are going to look awkward and probably show cleavage and cling to your waist.* And what about the jeggings, leggings, and skimpy skinnies being sold everywhere? If you've got even a little badonkabonk, those are going to mold around your body like a second skin and show off everything. This does NOT mean the girl is asking for attention, she's probably just buying clothes in style at normal stores.


This is so true. In America if you buy a nice blouse and you have at least average sized breast you will have cleavage, that's just how our clothes are made. 

And back on topic, if someone is wearing something (or nothing) people will have opinions on it and that's fine. What's not fine is acting disrespectful towards them because of it. If you think someone is attractive go talk to them like a person, not a piece of meat. If you don't approve of what their wearing don't treat them like they're inferior because no one has to follow your dress code. I didn't read all 12 pages of this, but I'm sure most people will agree with that. 

And also the men being visual thing, I'm so sick of hearing it. Yes, men are _more_ visual, ok, but women are visual too. We find people attractive, looking at things turns us on, that's just how people work. (someone said that women weren't visual, sorry I can't find their post to quote them)



Darth Nihilus said:


> women of impossible proportions in *"armor", that covers nothing*.


This is my video game pet peeve. I hate it, I will not play a game with that nonsense. Except KOAR because I didn't know before I bought it and the character seems pretty insignificant.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

ISFjosue0098 said:


> Where did I say they are trying to impress me?
> 
> Read what I said. That's exactly what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.


The art of emoticons is lost on you. :tongue:


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

There was a thread similar to this not too long ago... here's my take on this subject:

..........*BLEARGH!!!* ......................................................*YUM!* :kitteh::kitteh::kitteh:









And here's me...


----------



## aus2020 (Jun 29, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Of course context matters, but...
> 
> Elegant;
> 
> ...



Both very nice and interesting images!

Polka dots are often chosen by entertainers and performers, which I think shows a sense of fun and frivolity, well suited to Kate's personality. In the second image, the ship tattoo above the breasts, which complements the rest of her attire, is meant to show that she has lived a life of adversity and adventure.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> Is it really fair or reasonable to say that the girls who wear more elegant dress are not asking for certain attention, whereas the girls who wear less elegant stuff are?


Maybe it's the kind of people they're aiming at and how difficult that attention might be to get. It has to do with the place they're in as well.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> The last one is rather an example of elegance start being lost lol  was just browsing random casual style thought. XP
> 
> By the way, as a guy, what would you define as elegant or too revealing?


Since you asked for a "guy's" opinion:
I hate the word trashy as it implies a sense of judgement that I don't have ... So I will use the term sexy.

I mean, elegant can be sexy, but, to me, elegance is more about being "beautiful"/pretty/aesthetically pleasing is the main focus, while "sexy" is more about showing skin for the sake of showing skin (not showing skin because you are too hot, more that you are trying to emphasize certain areas of the body because, presumably, you are aware of your cultural norms and attitudes about those body parts) ... So when there appears to be no sense of aesthetic or deep, meaningful message (of course one can never be sure of their own perception, but it is about how we perceive people)

Elegant:

* *













Dresses are elegant and purple is pretty :kitteh:

















Fashionable ^__^








Cleavage can be elegant ^__^
































I may not agree with everyone's sense of aesthetics, but I think all these ladies are elegant ^__^




"sexy":

* *













You don't have to show cleavage to be in this category (although I may be tainted by her possess/body language), but it certainly does help (see below) 








^^ Actually, that is a nice shirt and, if I saw the rest of her outfit, I suppose I see it as elegant, but with the limited information I have, and the close up of her chest, I would say she is dressing "sexy"
















^^ I put her here because I don't see her cleavage adding anything to her outfit. I like the style of her corset ... If instead of a corset, it was a dress with a similar style and less cleavage, I would probably call it elegant





I suppose elegant comes with not being rough around the edges, smooth ... So, I will put this in the "Fashionable" category

* *













Although, I think this picture is sexy, ... to me, she is going for a bad girl look and I think she is probably appealing to some sort of aesthetic ... Some sort of beauty













Neither of the above

* *













^^ To me, her clothes (not her face and her pose for the camera) seem to me that they could be more for warm weather and that she just has a large chest ... Clothes good for keeping cool in








Although she is attractive to me, she is making a political statement ... Although at least one of her ideals matches with mine which makes her hotter 





Um ... if I'm not consistent, them oops lol



meltedsorbet said:


> But I still have to question whether the girls who know how to dress smart are warranting a different response from the girl who could be wearing a mini-skirt but fortunately isn't.
> 
> Is it really fair or reasonable to say that the girls who wear more elegant dress are not asking for certain attention, whereas the girls who wear less elegant stuff are?
> 
> I know you're not saying one way or the other, but just trying to tie it back into the original post. Just because a girl seems more revealing doesn't mean she is asking for a certain attitude about women to be directed at her.


I agree that no matter how you dress, you should be treated with respect (no cat calling, no touching, no yelling out dirty things to someone, ....)

But, another question, that I think is very similar, is "Should we treat others differently, based on how they dress?"
My feeling is no we should not and that we all have different aesthetics and that we should not be judged for that. ... But, why don't I look at it from other angles.

Since we are talking about strangers, we have very little information on them. We may pick up on facial expressions, words (assuming they have said something), some of their mannerisms, and how they are dressed.
A wedding ring can tell you that someone is probably married (two other "likely" options if not that might be that something recently happened to their spouse or that they wear it so they don't get the attention ... but I think the married part is much, much, much more likely) ..... "Nice" and/or expensive clothes probably mean that they are doing something that they should dress up for, because I don't think most people would wear something pricy (that could get ruined) for just anything (although there are a few people that would).
I might be wrong on this, but don't hookers dress a certain way to let people "know" what they do? (I really don't know, this is just something I heard ... Could just be a stereotype that helps people not see prostitutes as real people, even though they are real people, who may not even be a consenting prostitute ... but I'm getting off topic)
If someone looks older, but appears in kid's clothes, we judge them for that.

And, depending on how we judge someone, we may treat them differently.

At the same time, we judge people in the workplace for how they dress. ... I mean, if it is not Friday, don't dress casual lol
Is this fair?
If no, then it is probably not fair in the casual environments either
If yes, Then why is it not fair?
Can the reasoning be applied to some or all casual environments?
If yes, then it is fair
If no, then I'm going to say that unless someone finds another reason, it does not appear to be fair 

I suppose I did not answer your question, but I hope I said something lol
That being said, I think that if you do judge people based on how they dress, you should do nothing more than talk to them and they may even correct you
Well, I suppose if someone wears a mask into a bank, it is okay to assume they are suspicious and potentially dangerous (compared to others) people ... but if Batman (or just about any other movie with hostages) has taught me anything, it is that the people in the masks may be the people that need to be saved


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Since you asked for a "guy's" opinion:
> I hate the word trashy as it implies a sense of judgement that I don't have ... So I will use the term sexy.
> 
> I mean, elegant can be sexy, but, to me, elegance is more about being "beautiful"/pretty/aesthetically pleasing is the main focus, while "sexy" is more about showing skin for the sake of showing skin (not showing skin because you are too hot, more that you are trying to emphasize certain areas of the body because, presumably, you are aware of your cultural norms and attitudes about those body parts) ... So when there appears to be no sense of aesthetic or deep, meaningful message (of course one can never be sure of their own perception, but it is about how we perceive people)
> ...


I see your point about batman (well, not totally). But it's easier for me to see that I have my own biases than to see that there are invisible rules that one must follow, that everyone agrees on. Actually, I agree with some rules that most people agree on, but I don't get the rules of fashion a lot of the time. Do you think that a lot of people are just creating patterns of what seems "normal" and safe to them and then they are somehow combining all the patterns (I forgot the actual name for these patterns, but they are based on experience)?

Also, that last girl was hot IMO because she chose to really say something with her fashion (and yet, I disagree with the idea that fashion is "saying something" or communicating some other message.) Lol


----------



## userslon (Jan 29, 2013)

Hell no, I do it to be comfortable, beauteous and sexy...all for myself. just cuz I can. If I'm supposedly sending out signals, they are not conscious. But if i was purposefully trying to communicate through my choice of attire, then sure it's a form of communication. My point it: its not communication if it's one way.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> I see your point about batman (well, not totally). But it's easier for me to see that I have my own biases than to see that there are invisible rules that one must follow, that everyone agrees on. Actually, I agree with some rules that most people agree on, but I don't get the rules of fashion a lot of the time. Do you think that a lot of people are just creating patterns of what seems "normal" and safe to them and then they are somehow combining all the patterns (I forgot the actual name for these patterns, but they are based on experience)?
> 
> Also, that last girl was hot IMO because she chose to really say something with her fashion (and yet, I disagree with the idea that fashion is "saying something" or communicating some other message.) Lol


The Batman thing was more of a joke. Maybe I should have specified that because I like to joke randomly, but it I thought it pointed out that you can not trust appearances  
Well, I'm going to tell you what I think (since you asked), and note that I have very little to no basis for my opinion, just what I observed.
I can't really say that I know the "rules" of fashion, because I can be oblivious, but I think that it is a very, very ambiguous language and that not everyone is speaking the same dialect. ... I agree that everyone has their own biases and I think that comes from their own environment (both from local sources, like face to face conversations ... and from more global sources, like television) and from their own interpretation of what is going on (really, if I wanted to be rigorous, I could question whether you and I interpret the words on this page in the same way or do we take it by assumption that these words are interpreted in much the same way). I would say this "language" has no real definitions, which makes things very ambiguous ... and there may be many things that most people in a culture agree upon, there are many things that individuals will not.

I think one of the least ambiguous languages would be a formal language called mathematics. Words are strictly defined with no fuzziness in meaning. Words mean the same thing in just about all contexts (although word order and grammar is very important to the meaning ... Oh grammar, I forgot about that, let me put that on the backburner. I mean there is no grammar to how you were clothes... although, there is context i.e. wear you wear them and you put your underwear under your outerwear ... idk I have to think about this more)
Then there are the slightly more ambiguous natural languages, such as English ... where words can have multiple meanings, definitions can offer some wiggle room as to what a word actually means, ... And then there is also how we use language in the informal sense which has all these hidden words that are not there. For instance, let's say I ate exactly six slices of pizza. If I said "I ate one slice of pizza", in the literal sense, that would be true, but how we (or at least how I interpret that sentence when I am thinking informally) interpret that sentence as "I ate *exactly* one slice of pizza" and that hidden exactly renders the meaning as false. ... Mathematicians that write books for the laymen use this all the time to say people don't understand probability instead of wondering if there is an interpretation error. ... For instance they may use an example such as: Is a random bank teller more likely to be "female" or "female and under the age of 30"? Many people will pick (according to their books) "female and under 30" and then the author will go on about how they don't understand probability because the set of people who are "female *and* under 30" is a subset of the people who are "female", but, perhap once you added the "under 30" after the word "female" which already existed as an option, people interpreted it as "females 30 and over" ... this is just a guess based on how I use language though
Don't forget about even more ambiguity as we add in tone of voice, since "it is not about what you say, but how you say it", which, at least for me, how someone says something (such as tone of voice) can complete change how I interpret the meaning.

Let's add to this body language ... which can be very ambiguous. Two people can see a touchy-feely person, and one person may read flirtation, while someone else may read friendliness and supportive.
Also, I feel as though, if you break a social norm that isn't even important, people with read into that: "That man likes to cook? Men don't cook! I bet he is gay!!"  (okay an exaggeration and a joke, but it had a point lol)


And there is art too. Maybe it is just me, but when you really and openly look at a painting, do you feel like you are having a conversation with that painting (maybe I am just crazy :crazy. I mean you see a shoe and it starts to tell a story. Then you see some mud, and then a twig with a leaf on the shoe ... and to each person it may tell a different story depending on how that person converses with the painting, if the choose to converse .... I hope you understand what I mean 
I know my ex wrote her thesis stating that fashion is an art form of self expression, so, if I say art is a language, then I might have to say fashion is one 
I know I've said this before on PerC (and the link on beauty in my signature will expand on this), but I think the beauty we see in art, nature, people, the pursuit or our perception of truth, ... all come from ideas. I think beauty comes from ideas that we like and we associate certain ideas with certain physical forms, I think ... Maybe we see an open road and associate that with personal freedom and it looks beautiful. I'm not saying that is true, just what I think is true. I think that is how we experience beauty. ... I'm not sure if that was relevant, but it felt relevant, so I'm going to pretend it was lol 

I suppose the real question is if fashion is a valid form of communication? ... Most of the time, it is not explicit what is meant, if anything at all. I would think showing a lot of skin at a singles bar (man or woman) would indicate that they want attention ... I suppose I see nothing wrong with interpreting information from how someone dresses, but I would note that there is a large enough chance that the person is not trying to communicate what you are interpreting and that fashion may not only not a language (there is no grammar lol), but also a very weak (ambiguous) form of communication and that everyone has an at least slightly different "dialect", so you should respectfully talk to the person to clarify anything you may have interpreted wrongly (if you think they are asking for your attention that is)
Um, does that answer your question?


Yay, I don't feel bad about thinking she is hot ^__^ ... and, in your defense, she had words written, explicitly, on her body and I think she was trying to get people to see that as she had a message


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Mr. Meepers said:


> But, another question, that I think is very similar, is "Should we treat others differently, based on how they dress?"
> My feeling is no we should not and that we all have different aesthetics and that we should not be judged for that. ... But, why don't I look at it from other angles.


I know I shouldn't and I honestly try not to treat people differently but I can't help but react badly when I see things like that bimbo I posted earlier on the thread or this:









Seriously... my first reaction is thinking "Disgusting person!" and run the hell away before I feel tempted to throw something at his head...


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

Woman wearing revealing clothing is wearing it for a reason and is intelligent enough to know about what type of message is being sent. I don't think she can control others reactions. But at the same time shouldn't be surprised by them if she chooses to wear revealing clothes.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> I know I shouldn't and I honestly try not to treat people differently but I can't help but react badly when I see things like that bimbo I posted earlier on the thread or this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the same! I find that so disgusting and stupid! I understand why you wear your jeans a little lower than your belly (for me is highly uncomfortable to use jeans on my belly not to say that I cannot eat much while doing so), but showing off your hole butt? It's not sexy, it's not fashionable, it's nothing. Though I would steal his belt and give it a better use any day.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

ilphithra said:


>


I get mad bitches with that look.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I get mad bitches with that look.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

AyaSullivan said:


> I think the same! I find that so disgusting and stupid! I understand why you wear your jeans a little lower than your belly (for me is highly uncomfortable to use jeans on my belly not to say that I cannot eat much while doing so), but showing off your hole butt? It's not sexy, it's not fashionable, it's nothing. Though I would steal his belt and give it a better use any day.


Sagging was to emulate the style of fit in prison where clothes were big and belts were not allowed. 

Then continued to be a signal for gay sex availability in prison.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

wiarumas said:


> Sagging was to emulate the style of fit in prison where clothes were big and belts were not allowed.
> 
> Then continued to be a signal for gay sex availability in prison.


I was trying to avoid mentioning this as some people seem to think this "fashion" is oh so great...








That's fine, I can accommodate to those gay wannabes. I have just the thing they need shoved "up there"... 










Maybe it will teach them to dress properly too.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> I was trying to avoid mentioning this as some people seem to think this "fashion" is oh so great...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that a gay basher?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

wiarumas said:


> Sagging was to emulate the style of fit in prison where clothes were big and belts were not allowed.
> 
> Then continued to be a signal for gay sex availability in prison.


Oh. Thanks!


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

No. Women should be able to wear whatever they want, or even nothing at all without fear that they are communicating anything other than a desire to wear (or not wear) something.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

All in Twilight said:


> No, I wasn't joking. I was exaggerating perhaps (of course she doesn't need to die) but her statement is pointless. I seriously detest these forms of protesting because you're missing your goal. I do like to peek a female body but I would never do so in a disrespectful way. She is just attention whoring. I just know these things when I look at a person and I can't take her seriously.
> 
> And yes, I do think she has a very unattractive body and should be covered asap. And look how stupid she looks with her lame cigarette and her hippie attitude. I think she is actually weak and pathetic and an insult to any woman that takes herself seriously.


How would you have preferred her protest/what changes would you have made to her image?

People have bodies, we see bodies every day. Maybe they're covered up, but seriously guys, it's just skin...We attribute values and emotions to bits of us, too many I think. Bodies _can_ be sexy, but I find it kinda bizarre that people talk about finding their responses to the female form or otherwise, so strong, even distressing.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Liminality said:


> People have bodies, we see bodies every day. Maybe they're covered up, but seriously guys, it's just skin...We attribute values and emotions to bits of us, too many I think. Bodies _can_ be sexy, but I find it kinda bizarre that people talk about finding their responses to the female form or otherwise, so strong, even distressing.


It's not just skin. It's my body and many people have issues with their bodies, I have issues with my body and I don't want it to be show around like society wants me to show it. It's not just body, it's _my _body. You talk like there aren't people who don't have issues and we should just all show it around like a flag of pride. Nonononononono, I refuse to do so unless I'm actually proud of it which I'm not.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

AyaSullivan said:


> It's not just skin. It's my body and many people have issues with their bodies, I have issues with my body and I don't want it to be show around like society wants me to show it. It's not just body, it's _my _body. You talk like there aren't people who don't have issues and we should just all show it around like a flag of pride. Nonononononono, I refuse to do so unless I'm actually proud of it which I'm not.


My point is we attach these notions to it and that seems to become an issue, as we attach negative ones, and they do not contribute in a healthy, positive way to our life, only perpetuate conflict, unhappiness, and a warped view of the world.

The notion that some women (or a person of any sex) dress in 'revealing' clothing suggests something negative to me, that the body ought to be covered up, as if she is/they are loosing value in doing that.

If you (general) wonder why some women/men do that, think of it as her/his relationship with her body. You dress in a certain way because you see your body in a certain way/place a certain set of values and associations on it, just as the person wearing revealing clothes does. Maybe your associations are rather negative. Maybe they're not, but I think it's more likely that a person's feelings about bodies are negative, and unnecessarily so, if they feel bodies should be covered up.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

wiarumas said:


> Wanted to share a story this morning that reminded me of this topic.
> 
> On my way to work this morning, I drive through this suburban neighborhood with a 45mph speed limit. Things were unusually backed up going about 25mph. After about a half a mile I saw the cause of the slow speed. A beautiful woman enjoying the 2nd nice day of spring in a rather skimpy athletic outfit jogging along the side of the road. All the men on their commute to work slowed down a bit to check her out. No advancement - just visual attention - the same level as people rubbernecking an accident or any other site that deserves attention.


Seriously, humanity? WTF.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

AyaSullivan said:


> Seriously, humanity? WTF.


Does it make you feel better or worse knowing that my neighborhood is mostly made up of wealthy businessmen, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and diplomats and considered one of the most educated areas of the world (40% hold degrees higher than bachelors).


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

wiarumas said:


> Does it make you feel better or worse knowing that my neighborhood is mostly made up of wealthy businessmen, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and diplomats and considered one of the most educated areas of the world (40% hold degrees higher than bachelors).


It makes me feel like jumping off a window.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

wiarumas said:


> Wanted to share a story this morning that reminded me of this topic.
> 
> On my way to work this morning, I drive through this suburban neighborhood with a 45mph speed limit. Things were unusually backed up going about 25mph. After about a half a mile I saw the cause of the slow speed. A beautiful woman enjoying the 2nd nice day of spring in a rather skimpy athletic outfit jogging along the side of the road. All the men on their commute to work slowed down a bit to check her out. No advancement - just visual attention - the same level as people rubbernecking an accident or any other site that deserves attention.


Here in Portugal, traffic can be greatly slowed, but for other reason - people like to look whenever there is some accident on the road. I guess that @AyaSullivan and @*ilphithra* can understand this.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Here in Portugal, traffic can be greatly slowed, but for other reason - people like to look whenever there is some accident on the road. I guess that @AyaSullivan and @*ilphithra* can understand this.


Yeah, that's the slang word I used - rubbernecking.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> Here in Portugal, traffic can be greatly slowed, but for other reason - people like to look whenever there is some accident on the road. I guess that @AyaSullivan and @*ilphithra* can understand this.


Oh yes. IT IS ANNOYING. Especially near Lisbon or Porto.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

wiarumas said:


> Wanted to share a story this morning that reminded me of this topic.
> 
> On my way to work this morning, I drive through this suburban neighborhood with a 45mph speed limit. Things were unusually backed up going about 25mph. After about a half a mile I saw the cause of the slow speed. A beautiful woman enjoying the 2nd nice day of spring in a rather skimpy athletic outfit jogging along the side of the road. All the men on their commute to work slowed down a bit to check her out. No advancement - just visual attention - the same level as people rubbernecking an accident or any other site that deserves attention.


Misogynists.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Here in Portugal, traffic can be greatly slowed, but for other reason - people like to look whenever there is some accident on the road. I guess that @AyaSullivan and @*ilphithra* can understand this.





AyaSullivan said:


> Oh yes. IT IS ANNOYING. Especially near Lisbon or Porto.


Oh yes... going from the Amadora-Sintra area to Lisboa in any way at rush hour, getting from the Margem Sul to Lisboa, IC19, 2ª Circular, Marginal, Ponte 25 de Abril, VCI, IC20, going from Matosinhos to Porto in any way... just some of the few things that spring to my mind that can get chaotic to boot.
I lost count to how many hours I spent stuck in traffic at IC19 (I lived in Amadora).

And then on top of the traffic, you get an accident and you go from snail pace to no pace... because on top of the bottleneck to get past the accident, you have everyone and their mothers looking at it... to the point they lean out of the car window to poke their nose at the accident... bleh... :dry:


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

It doesn't send a message in and of itself, but certain truly ignorant males may like to think it does. I think it's important to note that the way a women dresses has very little influence on whether she will be sexually harassed. They have done research on the issue of rape and whether the way women dress had any influence on it occurring, they found no correlation. The choice for a male to sexually harass or assault a women, is completely independent of what clothes she is wearing and purely caused by his own ignorance and predatory nature.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

VeraH said:


> May I ask which study this is? If it is confounding the view that the perpetrators have a vindictive intent, does it propose, then, that the blame rests on the shoulders of the victim?


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

And to clarify again, I am not saying that rape is never motivated by power. I am also not saying that power is not a component. I am saying that stating categorically that power must be motivation to commit rape is fallacy because there are many different plausible theories out regarding the motivating factors of rape. There is no empirical evidence that I have ever seen that confirms that theory.



> Let's say that the perpetrator "didn't" intend to wield power over the victim. Regardless, the victim loses their sense of control/power over their situation for being the recipient of abuse/harassment. Moreover, the perpetrator has gained control over the situation, whether or not s/he intended it, that's become the situation. The power scale has tipped in favour of the perpetrator.


I never said that this wasn't the case. I would also like to point out that intention is different from motivation.



> I note that there is a difference between the initial purposeful intent of the perpetrator vs the impact on/perception of the victim/recipient.
> 
> Regardless, it is *never* okay.


Agreed.



> As with Shazzette, and having been a victim myself, it is not an ideal situation to be in. Whether or not the perpetrator(s) intended on wielding power over me or not, initially, the eventual carry out of sequence of events would have enabled them that control and sense of it. They would have known and felt it. It was their fun and not the victim's.
> 
> *The less educated seriously need to be educated.*


Look, I have never experienced what you have, and I am sorry that happened to you. Really, I am. However, none of this is what I was talking about. If you think I need to be educated, I am open to any research that you have handy. I did preliminary research because @Shazzette said something that jogged my brain, and I decided to see if it was substantiated. It turns out that the motivation is more nuanced than that. I would imagine that any victim of rape feels powerless, but that doesn't mean that power was the motivating factor behind the act.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

@MegaTuxRacer: That study you cited seemed to be talking about whether social inequality is correlated with rape. Because it's an abstract, it's actually difficult to tell which variables were being tested, how they were being tested, or if the study is actually valid. Even if it is a valid study, social inequality is not really a measure as to whether rape is being motivated by power. There could be no difference in social status between the perpetrator and the victim, but the perpetrator could still be attempting to assert power over the victim. 

I think there could be many different motivational variables involved in rape and many of them correlated with each other, as is the case for most social and psychological variables. For example, you could find that sexual gratification, is correlated with rape, but that sexual gratification is also correlated with attempts to gain power. So although there are other variables involved, power could be related to most of them and be an underlying cause. 

Most correlational models actually discard many variables that are related to what they are trying to predict, but aren't strongly related. It simply adds needless complexity to the model to include all the weakly related variables. So if power was a strong enough predictor of rape, you can have a model that includes power and only a couple of other variables that are only included as controls, not because they are the main variables of interest. So you could very well have a model that predicts rape as being motivated by power, even though there are also other variables at play.

I agree that power is most likely not the only motivation for rape, but I suspect that it would be one of the most prominent motivations, so I wouldn't nit pick at people who claim that rape is motivated by power, because it could be one of the most useful motivational variables for predicting its occurrence. In that case although it may be more technically correct to say that "rape is largely motivated by attempts to assert power over the victim" rather than "rape is motivated by attempts to assert power over the victim" in day to day conversation, I don't think it is necessary to be so pedantic.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Luke said:


> @MegaTuxRacer: That study you cited seemed to be talking about whether social inequality is correlated with rape. Because it's an abstract, it's actually difficult to tell which variables were being tested, how they were being tested, or if the study is actually valid. Even if it is a valid study, social inequality is not really a measure as to whether rape is being motivated by power. There could be no difference in social status between the perpetrator and the victim, but the perpetrator could still be attempting to assert power over the victim.


The point was not to deny that power is not a component, rather to say that stating that it is the only motivation does a disservice to the goal of actually addressing the issue.

As far as the article goes, I will disagree with you on one point: I don't think the point was to find social inequality to link rape to those with power. I think it was attempting to see if there was a connection between rape and a cultural emphasis towards power and dominance. However, I agree that it's just an abstract.



> I think there could be many different motivational variables involved in rape and many of them correlated with each other, as is the case for most social and psychological variables. For example, you could find that sexual gratification, is correlated with rape, but that sexual gratification is also correlated with attempts to gain power. So although there are other variables involved, power could be related to most of them and be an underlying cause.
> 
> Most correlational models actually discard many variables that are related to what they are trying to predict, but aren't strongly related. It simply adds needless complexity to the model to include all the weakly related variables. So if power was a strong enough predictor of rape, you can have a model that includes power and only a couple of other variables that are only included as controls, not because they are the main variables of interest. *I agree that power is most likely not the only motivation for rape, but I suspect that it would be one of the most prominent motivations, so I wouldn't nit pick at people who claim that rape is motivated by power, because it could be one of the most useful motivational variables for predicting it's occurrence.* In that case although it maybe more technically correct to say that "rape is largely due to attempts to assert power over the victim" in day to day conversation, I don't think it is nesscary to be so pedantic.


Do you have any evidence for this?


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> The point was not to deny that power is not a component, rather to say that stating that it is the only motivation does a disservice to the goal of actually addressing the issue.
> 
> As far as the article goes, I will disagree with you on one point: I don't think the point was to find social inequality to link rape to those with power. I think it was attempting to see if there was a connection between rape and a cultural emphasis towards power and dominance. However, I agree that it's just an abstract.
> 
> ...


I don't think whether the article is referring to social status or cultural emphasis on male dominance is very important, because even if there is not a cultural emphasis on male dominance, rape could still be used to assert power over the victim. Trying to find a link between cultural norms and rape, would be a very indirect way of testing the relationship between rape and power, so is disputable.

Here's a study that found a direct link between urges for power and sexual aggression. They also did a replication that found the same results. Increased desire for power, predicted increased sexual aggression.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.795


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Revealing clothing as in... reveals more of the body? Or does the clothing have some sort of secret that they have written on it?


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Luke said:


> I don't think whether the article is referring to social status or cultural emphasis on male dominance is very important, because even if there is not a cultural emphasis on male dominance, rape could still be used to assert power over the victim. Trying to find a link between cultural norms and rape, would be a very indirect way of testing the relationship between rape and power, so is disputable.
> 
> Here's a study that found a direct link between urges for power and sexual aggression. They also did a replication that found the same results. Increased desire for power, predicted increased sexual aggression.
> 
> http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.795


That's extremely interesting that anger is also one of the components. I wonder if there is any correlation with testosterone levels. Recent research has shown that lower testosterone levels leads to greater levels of aggression and lower temperence in men and women. That would link nicely to the anger and disinhibition in the study.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> That's extremely interesting that anger is also one of the components. I wonder if there is any correlation with testosterone levels. Recent research has shown that lower testosterone levels leads to greater levels of aggression and lower temperence in men and women. That would link nicely to the anger and disinhibition in the study.


It would be an interesting study. It wouldn't surprise if there are some genetic components to urges to commit these kind of acts. I'm always cautious in how I interpret these kind of findings, because the relationships are always complex. Increased testosterone could be associated with increased aggression, which could also be associated with specific forms of aggression, such as sexual aggression, but I would be interested to see how strong the associations are when you control for other variables such as the attitudes of sexually aggressive males towards women. It could be that once you control for the variable of "having a disrespectful attitude towards women", that the links between testosterone, aggression and sexual aggression become small.

I'm also interested in associations between predictor variables. Such as if aggression and urges for power are both predictors of sexual aggression, but that power and aggression are also correlated. So that men who are aggressive could be aggressive due to the sense of power the aggression gives them, which could account for the association between the variables, if it exists.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Luke said:


> It would be an interesting study. It wouldn't surprise if there are some genetic components to urges to commit these kind of acts. I'm always cautious in how I interpret these kind of findings, because the relationships are always complex. Increased testosterone could be associated with increased aggression, which could also be associated with specific forms of aggression, such as sexual aggression, but I would be interested to see how strong the associations are when you control for other variables such as the attitudes of sexually aggressive males towards women. It could be that once you control for the variable of "having a disrespectful attitude towards women", that the links between testosterone, aggression and sexual aggression become small.
> 
> I'm also interested in associations between predictor variables. Such as if aggression and urges for power are both predictors of sexual aggression, but that power and aggression are also correlated. So that men who are aggressive could be aggressive due to the sense of power the aggression gives them, which could account for the association between the variables, if it exists.


Higher testosterone levels relative to estrogen levels has been correlated strongly to temperence of aggression in general in men and women. I would say that sexual aggression would fall under a subset of aggression in general. I have seen studies (that I can't remember right now, sorry) that have shown that men and women tend to express aggression in different ways to varying degree. For example, men tend to express aggression more overtly while women tend to express aggression more covertly. I would also imagine that what the specific act is would be related to other psychological factors and environment.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Higher testosterone levels relative to estrogen levels has been correlated strongly to temperence of aggression in general in men and women. I would say that sexual aggression would fall under a subset of aggression in general. I have seen studies (that I can't remember right now, sorry) that have shown that men and women tend to express aggression in different ways to varying degree. For example, men tend to express aggression more overtly while women tend to express aggression more covertly. I would also imagine that what the specific act is would be related to other psychological factors and environment.


I agree that sexual aggression could be thought of as a subset of general aggression, but it's interesting because general measures aren't necessarily good measures of particular subsets of what they are measuring. For example, let's suppose testosterone was a moderate predictor of general aggression and general aggression includes physical, psychological and sexual aggression. It could be that testosterone is a strong predictor of physical aggression a moderate predictor of psychological aggression and a weak predictor of sexual aggression, but when you put all the subset together to get a measure of general aggression, they average out to indicating that testosterone is moderately predictive of general aggression, even though for the subset of sexual aggression, it is weakly predictive.

I think the difference in aggression levels between males and females is due to social and genetic factors. Males and females are socialized very differently, and there is particular emphasis on physicality in the socialization of males. Males are more encouraged than females to engage in competitive physical games. I actually remember a study which showed that parents perceived their male children as being better physically coordinated than their female children, regardless of the actual physical abilities. I think these kind of social messages contribute to the development of personality.

It's also interesting because although males have been found to be more aggressive than females, cross culturally, there is a large overlap in the aggression between the genders, to the point where although you could say that males are on average more aggressive than females, it wouldn't be a good description of what the data indicates, because a large proportion of females are more aggressive than a large proportion of males. This overlap between the genders, is true for most traits. There are differences between the genders, but we tend to have an exaggerated view of these differences and the differences that do exist, we exacerbate through socialisation.


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

I feel like I'm a hypocrite- admitedly- in this topic. As I get older, I am more and more appalled by the overt over-sexualization of women in media- in fashion- hollywierd, all of it. I think women use their sexuality too much to get what they want. (A mom of 3 just recently said to a group of us she was proud to get out of a speeding ticket for wearing a short skirt. I wanted to throw up.) I am becoming more interested in modesty and more envious of women who purposely dress modestly- especially when they are "hot" and can very well choose to "flaunt it" but don't. I have a high sex drive and am a fairly sexual person- and I have worn revealing clothing before. It has garnered male attention. Sometimes- unwanted attention. I do feel it was my fault becasue of how I dressed. (c'mon! men are pigs!)  When I have dressed conservatively, I seem to get more respect from the onset with men.

I do believe we are treated the way we allow ourselves to be (not saying women bring on physical harm to themselves- no way.) What I'm trying to say, if you do not want to be objectified sexually- then don't dress provacatively. If you dress that way, expect some male reaction.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Luke said:


> I agree that sexual aggression could be thought of as a subset of general aggression, but it's interesting because general measures aren't necessarily good measures of particular subsets of what they are measuring. For example, let's suppose testosterone was a moderate predictor of general aggression and general aggression includes physical, psychological and sexual aggression. It could be that testosterone is a strong predictor of physical aggression a moderate predictor of psychological aggression and a weak predictor of sexual aggression, but when you put all the subset together to get a measure of general aggression, they average out to indicating that testosterone is moderately predictive of general aggression, even though for the subset of sexual aggression, it is weakly predictive.


That's fun to theorize about, but to be more specific, lower testosterone levels have been shown to lead to higher aggression and lower temperence as a general conclusion derived from demonstrations of increase in anger, dishonesty, disinhibition, and other factors associated to aggression. Of particular interest to our discussion are anger and disinhibition, which are two of the motivating factors to rape that were identified in the study you cited.



> I think the difference in aggression levels between males and females is due to social and genetic factors. Males and females are socialized very differently, and there is particular emphasis on physicality in the socialization of males. Males are more encouraged than females to engage in competitive physical games. I actually remember a study which showed that parents perceived their male children as being better physically coordinated than their female children, regardless of the actual physical abilities. I think these kind of social messages contribute to the development of personality.


Why men and women have different expressions of aggression is irrelevant to the fact that they do in this instance. That men and women could express aggression in different ways is distinctly separate from whether or not men and women do express aggression in different ways.



> It's also interesting because although males have been found to be more aggressive than females, cross culturally, there is a large overlap in the aggression between the genders, to the point where although you could say that males are on average more aggressive than females, it wouldn't be a good description of what the data indicates, because a large proportion of females are more aggressive than a large proportion of males. This overlap between the genders, is true for most traits. There are differences between the genders, but we tend to have an exaggerated view of these differences and the differences that do exist, we exacerbate through socialisation.


The studies that I have seen pointing to males as being more aggressive primarily focus on overt acts of aggression. When all forms of aggression are accounted for, the studies are mixed between women being equally or more aggressive than men. The difference is that women inherently express aggression in ways that do not physically harm others or pose physical harm to themselves.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Signify said:


> Speaking of genital pain-causing, is it safe to assume all women take an excruciating amount of pain from being punched in the boob? You know, just for self-defense purposes (And causing maximum pain is always preferable to the bat-shit crazy ones it will be inflicted upon).


Usually. Yes. It's like if someone grabs your balls out of nowhere. You're both scared and in pain.


----------



## aus2020 (Jun 29, 2011)

ilphithra said:


> you live in the country where people sue a coffee shop when* they spill hot coffee on themselves* and get burnt... :dry:


That happens quite often in the US.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free ************

A childhood friend of mine started as a struggling, single mother of two, who was continually knocked back by the banks because of her marital status. She eventually created a retail food business franchise of 30 stores and sold a majority holding for $30 million. When I talk to her next, I'm going to ask her why various Australian food franchises don't set up business in the US? The high cost of business insurance, legal expenses and business regulations could be possible reasons for this.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Signify said:


> Speaking of genital pain-causing, is it safe to assume all women take an excruciating amount of pain from being punched in the boob? You know, just for self-defense purposes (And causing maximum pain is always preferable to the bat-shit crazy ones it will be inflicted upon).


It wouldn't hurt much more for being punched anywhere else on my body. I can't speak for other women.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> It wouldn't hurt much more for being punched anywhere else on my body. I can't speak for other women.


Well there goes that theory. I've heard from a few that it apparently hurts like hell. I guess it is not a universal thing.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

Signify said:


> Well there goes that theory. I've heard from a few that it apparently hurts like hell. I guess it is not a universal thing.


being punched in the clit would hurt like hell though so that's something.
maybe women are purposely spreading misinformation so their actual weaknesses are hidden? jk, I think it really does hurt some women to be punched in the boob.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

adverseaffects said:


> being punched in the clit would hurt like hell though so that's something.
> maybe women are purposely spreading misinformation so their actual weaknesses are hidden? jk, I think it really does hurt some women to be punched in the boob.


It's a very sensitive part of most women's body. If you get hit too hard and many times you can develop breast cancer.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

part of the inherent nature of revealing clothing is that it REVEALS part of your body to the public. if you, man or woman, have a problem with other people, men or women, looking at parts of your body that are revealed to the public view, you shouldn't wear REVEALING clothing. 

if I didn't want people to ever have the chance to look at my legs, I wouldn't wear shorts. if women have a problem with people SEEING, ie, BEING ABLE TO LOOK AT, things like butts and cleavage, then you shouldn't put them on display.

one if my girl friends once asked me why I had been looking at her butt. I wasn't oogling her butt, she walked past me in yoga pants and I looked at it. in my head I said DAYUM GIRL GOT BUTT but I didn't say it.

i asked her why she wears yoga pants and she said they feel good and make her butt look good. IF YOU WEAR CLOTHES BECAUSE THEY MAKE YOU LOOK GOOD DON'T FAULT ME FOR AGREEING!


----------



## Jessy Lashway (Jun 11, 2011)

VeraH said:


> If a young woman dresses for comfort and for herself, but it just so happens that those clothes are not of a "modest" style, does that send a (misinformed) message to males?


I think men need to be aware that most girls dress for other girls. Of course it sends a message to males. Most men aren't going to look at a scantily clad female and wonder why she's dressed the way she is. 



VeraH said:


> It's 2013 and not 1923.


Do you know how women dressed in 1923? (As opposed to 1922 and 1924, of course)



VeraH said:


> Anyway, I'll see males walking shirtless down the street and he doesn't need to worry about being sexually harrassed. Though, I think that's intentional attention seeking if not at the beach/pools.


Of course not. Women aren't as vocally judgemental as men. But you know damned well that he is mentally being judged by everyone who looks at him. Are you saying that you want to walk around shirtless? Clothes have become a funny thing. Weren't they supposed to just keep us warm and protected from the elements?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Watch this, people.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> Lady, you live in the country where people sue a coffee shop when* they spill hot coffee on themselves* and get burnt... :dry:


I have a feeling that is a small percentage of the population that does that though 

But as much as it is fun to make fun of what happened I think people forget that:
- The woman's medical expenses were $160,000
- She tried to settle with McDonald's for $20,000
- McDonald's was aware of 700 prior cases to people burning themselves on their coffee
----- "McDonald’s had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee. "
- Other coffee shops sell coffee at a much lower temperature
----- "McDonald’s served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard."
----- "coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees"
- "Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."
----- "However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving."
- At that temperature skin will burn within two seconds, but if it was 155 degrees F she could have avoided serious burns
- "She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed."
- "She has permanent scarring on 16% of her body"


Now, when you think about it McDonald's probably sells millions of cups of coffee per year. If we were to think about this as a probability problem, I would imagine that the expectation values of people spilling on themselves would be at least several people per year (so it is not unreasonable for McDonald's to expect that people will accidentally spill on themselves) ... But that is neither here nor there as the company admitted that they were aware that there was a problem (it is not like they had not idea).

So the question, imo, should be: Was the temperature of the coffee beyond reasonable expectations? ... When their quality assurance manager admitted that when it is first poured that it is not fit for consumption, so I would say that it was probably above a reasonable expectation of hotness ... Especially since it seems that many coffee shops serve coffee about 20 degrees Fahrenheit less 


I'm just saying that the lawsuit may not have been so frivolous as we like to think it was
- Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free ************
- The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
- McDonald


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Mr. Meepers said:


> I have a feeling that is a small percentage of the population that does that though
> 
> But as much as it is fun to make fun of what happened I think people forget that:
> - The woman's medical expenses were $160,000
> ...


I would never look at coffee the same way...


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Mr. Meepers said:


> (snip snip)


What do American tourists do in Portugal? We serve all "hot" drinks, really hot. Coffee for example, is usually served almost boiling hot. Lost count to all the times I burnt my tongue on hot coffee... never went after the coffee shop because it's my own problem if I'm too stupid to just drink it down like that.

Our approach to this is like this: If you dump on yourself, it's your problem. BE CAREFUL.

And no, our espresso cups don't come with warnings about how hot the coffee is.

I remember the tourist idiot that tried to sue some shop because he slipped on the stairs leading to it on a rainy day... got laughed on the face. That should tell you what we think of such "law(l) suits"... 

Our approach is: If you're too stupid to walk without slipping on a rainy day, then stay home.

In other words: Take care of yourself because you can't sue people over your own stupidity.



AriesLilith said:


> I would never look at coffee the same way...


Aren't you happy that Portugal doesn't pander to this crap?


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

ilphithra said:


> What do American tourists do in Portugal? We serve all "hot" drinks, really hot. Coffee for example, is usually served almost boiling hot. Lost count to all the times I burnt my tongue on hot coffee... never went after the coffee shop because it's my own problem if I'm too stupid to just drink it down like that.
> 
> Our approach to this is like this: If you dump on yourself, it's your problem. BE CAREFUL.
> 
> ...


As a fellow Portuguese, I agree with you on this. It's weird to me too to sue the coffee shop or the local place owner for something I could be careful with... unless for something that I couldn't really have expected (like food poisoning?). I'm not sure how hot is the coffee there, thought I've always been careful to not to spill hot stuffs or drink them fast before testing the temperature.

Thought the 160.000$ bill for burnt skin made me wonder... I mean, I've never thought that being burnt by coffee could ever lead to such medical bills!! Hence my "I would never look at coffee the same way".


----------



## aus2020 (Jun 29, 2011)

America has the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world. With over a million lawyers, that supposedly represents half of the world's lawyers. It's no surprise that many lawsuits originate in America. 

12 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits - Oddee.com (frivolous lawsuits)

America's 9 craziest lawsuits of 2012 - The Week

The 8 craziest lawsuits of 2011 - The Week

New Jersey Woman Tova Gerson Drops Lawsuit for $5 Million Over 80-Cent Coupon Dispute


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

AriesLilith said:


> As a fellow Portuguese, I agree with you on this. It's weird to me too to sue the coffee shop or the local place owner for something I could be careful with... unless for something that I couldn't really have expected (like food poisoning?). I'm not sure how hot is the coffee there, thought I've always been careful to not to spill hot stuffs or drink them fast before testing the temperature.
> 
> Thought the 160.000$ bill for burnt skin made me wonder... I mean, I've never thought that being burnt by coffee could ever lead to such medical bills!! Hence my "I would never look at coffee the same way".


Portugal is like Heaven. We don't sue unless we really feel we should.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

lol, can't believe there's still people dumb enough to take the side of McDonald's in that coffee case. Apparently if you buy a food product from a company that markets that product as safe for consumption and then using the product results in $160k worth of medical bills and years of medical treatment, its your own fault. Way to fall hook line and sinker for corporate propaganda about "personal responsibility."


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

- no, it's called being a sexual person. it doesn't mean you want to be sexual with _everyone_, it's just self expression. assuming someone wants to sleep with you because you have sexy clothing on is stupid
- as for the whistling bit. who cares? if you think that's sexual harassment, grow up. (I can guarantee you if a woman whistled at a guy, the vast majority would be flattered)


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Shahada said:


> lol, can't believe there's still people dumb enough to take the side of McDonald's in that coffee case. Apparently if you buy a food product from a company that markets that product as safe for consumption and then using the product results in $160k worth of medical bills and years of medical treatment, its your own fault. Way to fall hook line and sinker for corporate propaganda about "personal responsibility."


 Idk if people know anything about Tort law, but this is actually a really plainly cut case against McDonalds. A company has a duty of care to its customers. 

Do people know what a third degree burn looks like? I was going to post a picture, but I think I might get banned - only google it if you think you can deal with it. 

Go ahead and type "third degree burn into google images."

Now do you think that it is reasonable that drive-thrus serve drinks that are capable of inflicting this kind of wound *within two seconds of contact with skin*? 

I don't drink McDonalds coffee but if I did I would be glad that this lawsuit took place because it has drastically reduced the chance that I might be the person who accidentally spills their coffee and has their fucking leg burned off.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - as for the whistling bit. who cares? if you think that's sexual harassment, grow up. (I can guarantee you if a woman whistled at a guy, the vast majority would be flattered)


I must learn to whistle then.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

AyaSullivan said:


> I must learn to whistle then.


I just make an "mmm!" sound. not like "mmmm! dayum girl!", more like the kind of sound one would make after sipping a surprisingly delicious cup of tea, with in a slightly more suggestive touch of "oo, what's that? :wink: "


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I just make an "mmm!" sound. not like "mmmm! dayum girl!", more like the kind of sound one would make after sipping a surprisingly delicious cup of tea, with in a slightly more suggestive touch of "oo, what's that? :wink: "


I like the sound of that...


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

wiarumas said:


> The root of this question is, do men and women have the same response when presented with visuals of the opposite gender.
> 
> Here is an article. Quick answer - men are more visual and women are more contextual.
> 
> ...


Correlation doesn't imply causation.
If a woman is taught from a very young age to keep her eyes to herself, and save her catcalling for other women, she probably will. If a man is told that women are sensitive, annoying creatures who know nothing of what is best for them, and that talking will never solve their problems and will cause them bullying then that is what they're going to do.

We can't really go biologically, until we realize many things that people quote such as 'pack instinct' causing bullying, and 'fear of difference' causing hate of homosexuals and 'men being animals' (though apparently women aren't animals with sex drives? and wants to procreate) are usually fabricated and pseudo-scientific ways to justify things that don't garner intellectual conversation.


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - no, it's called being a sexual person. it doesn't mean you want to be sexual with _everyone_, it's just self expression. assuming someone wants to sleep with you because you have sexy clothing on is stupid
> - as for the whistling bit. who cares? if you think that's sexual harassment, grow up. (I can guarantee you if a woman whistled at a guy, the vast majority would be flattered)


In our society, male and female roles are very differently. So while a man may be flattered if women whistled at them, maybe that would be due to the fact that they've been seeing women as nonthreatening for their whole lives. Whereas a woman, who has been told that men are dominant and strong and can hurt her, is a lot more physiologically tied in with that, and her own sense of self worth, which is pretty sad, some random men have completely changed her feelings towards herself, and what she can wear out.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

BlueSeven said:


> In our society, male and female roles are very differently. So while a man may be flattered if women whistled at them, maybe that would be due to the fact that they've been seeing women as nonthreatening for their whole lives. Whereas a woman, who has been told that men are dominant and strong and can hurt her, is a lot more physiologically tied in with that, and her own sense of self worth, which is pretty sad, some random men have completely changed her feelings towards herself, and what she can wear out.


The whole "classical male and female" roles can go die in a pit of burning tar. If a guy lifts his hand at me, I'll kick him in the teeth. I won't cower in the corner and cry for mommy. 

Women nowadays dress in certain ways due to all the sexual objectification that is occurring. Seems that unless you dress like a slut and behave like one, guys won't look at women. At the same time, the more women dress and act like this, the less respect they get from guys as they're increasingly objectified.

Women, being women will lose years of their life obsessing over their looks, their clothes, their nails and whatever _(for reasons that I'll never understand)_. Then they complain when men see them as nothing more than objects, heckle them as they go on the street looking like some porn star and want men to stop doing such things. 

In this case, who's fault is it? I call it women's for pandering to the sleazy fad that is going about and moaning about it without putting a stop to it because _"oh noes, if I don't look like a slut, men don't look at me"_. Who's fault is that, ladies? Who's dressing like that? 

Vicious circle comes to my mind. Want to break it? Stop pandering to the objectification that is going on. Dress what you like instead of what others like... but that's asking too much, I guess.

Personally, if people don't like the way I dress or look, the door's over there -------------->

Unfortunately, like I said in an earlier post, I can't really dress only what I like due to the tendency chavs here have to beat up people that stand out for one reason or another... be it looks, clothes or anything. That still doesn't get me wearing hoodies, track pants or slut-o-rama clothes though.





[OT]



Shahada said:


> lol, can't believe there's still people dumb enough to take the side of McDonald's in that coffee case. Apparently if you buy a food product from a company that markets that product as safe for consumption and then using the product results in $160k worth of medical bills and years of medical treatment, its your own fault. Way to fall hook line and sinker for corporate propaganda about "personal responsibility."


What propaganda? If you need propaganda to remind you that you're responsible by your actions, you're truly a lost country.

Now, If I take a hot beverage that I know can burn me and proceed to dump it all over me, who's fault is it? The products are safe to be handled but brainless people will end up doing crap. Always was and always will be like that.

Like I said, coffee in Portugal is served pipping hot and in* heated* cups. If touching the pipping hot cup and seeing the hot vapor isn't enough to tell you that it will burn if it lands on you, you need a brain... end.



Diphenhydramine said:


> Now do you think that it is reasonable that drive-thrus serve drinks that are capable of inflicting this kind of wound *within two seconds of contact with skin*?


Don't drink hot beverages while driving... end of issue. If you get a hot beverage and spill it all over yourself, it's your fault, not the company's.
[/OT]


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> Don't drink hot beverages while driving... end of issue. If you get a hot beverage and spill it all over yourself, it's your fault, not the company's.
> [/OT][/SIZE]


 Tort law suggests and has suggested for many years that consumer goods have to fall within specific standards, i.e. that ordinary goods can't cause terrible damage to somebody if used in a reasonable manner. Millions of people have hot drinks when they drive -- the difference is they're not at random prepared at vastly higher temperatures than how they are ordinarily prepared. This is how tort law works - I don't know if people realise that this kind of thing is a fundamental requirement in the law. All you need to do is read tort common law and it becomes really obvious that it is.

Ever found a snail in your coke?


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

[OT]



Diphenhydramine said:


> Tort law suggests and has suggested for many years that consumer goods have to fall within specific standards, i.e. that ordinary goods can't cause terrible damage to somebody if used in a reasonable manner. Millions of people have hot drinks when they drive -- the difference is they're not at random prepared at vastly higher temperatures than how they are ordinarily prepared. This is how tort law works - I don't know if people realise that this kind of thing is a fundamental requirement in the law. All you need to do is read tort common law and it becomes really obvious that it is.
> 
> Ever found a snail in your coke?


In Portugal, snails are a delicacy... which I actually miss. Need to eat some when I go there this summer. For me, finding snails in random food is no cause of horror. 

And I've found random stuff in food here and there. And no, I didn't sue anyone because shit happens, that's life. No one is perfect and the controls aren't perfect. LIVE WITH IT.

And... I don't drink Coke.

[/OT]


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

MY LORDS,

The facts of this case are simple.

On August 26th, 1928, the Appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by the Respondent, which a friend had bought from a retailer and given to her. The bottle contained the decomposed remains of a snail which were not and could not be detected until the greater part of the contents of the bottle had been consumed. As a result she alleged and, at this stage her allegations must be accepted as true, that she suffered from shock and severe gastro enteritis. She accordingly instituted the proceedings against the manufacturers which have given rise to this appeal.

The foundation of her case is that the Respondent, as the manufacturers of an article intended for consumption and contained in a receptacle which prevented inspection owed a duty to her as consumer of the article to take care that there was no noxious element in the goods, that they neglected such duty and are consequently liable for any damage caused by such neglect. After certain amendments which are now immaterial, the case came before the Lord Ordinary who rejected the plea in Law of the Respondent and allowed a proof. His interlocutor was revoked by the second Division of the Court of Session from whose judgment this appeal has been brought.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

BlueSeven said:


> In our society, male and female roles are very differently. So while a man may be flattered if women whistled at them, maybe that would be due to the fact that they've been seeing women as nonthreatening for their whole lives. Whereas a woman, who has been told that men are dominant and strong and can hurt her, is a lot more physiologically tied in with that, and her own sense of self worth, which is pretty sad, some random men have completely changed her feelings towards herself, and what she can wear out.


the simple act of a man whistling at you =/= danger. if they're following you, making aggressive gestures at you or touching you, that's different, but simply whistling is nothing more than saying "you're hot". 
yes, society conditions us to think some pretty dumb things, but it's up to us to eventually learn to think for ourselves and say "whatever, fuck what society tells me". society has tried to condition me to like cars, play sports, get in fights, not think about my feelings, try to prove my manliness and be attracted to women, but that doesn't mean I have to let it.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

[OT]



Diphenhydramine said:


> MY LORDS,
> 
> The facts of this case are simple.
> 
> ...


Right... send those people to see how beer is made and then come back to me... way more gross than the remains of a snail, I tell you.

Listen, we're not going anywhere because of a huge gap between mentality sets. Let's agree to disagree... 

[/OT]


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the simple act of a man whistling at you =/= danger. if they're following you, making aggressive gestures at you or touching you, that's different, but simply whistling is nothing more than saying "you're hot".


Given that she lives in UK or "Chavland" as I like to call it (closely followed by Ireland, Chavland 2), I find it quite believable that she feels threatened by an idiot whistling at her. In Chavland, it may mean that the Chavs will soon land on you and do nasty stuff to you... 

And on the other hand, you have Essex and a couple other places in UK... when you see those places, you have to wonder if there's anything other than sluts and chavs in UK...











Swordsman of Mana said:


> yes, society conditions us to think some pretty dumb things, but it's up to us to eventually learn to think for ourselves and say "whatever, fuck what society tells me". society has tried to condition me to like cars, play sports, get in fights, not think about my feelings, try to prove my manliness and be attracted to women, but that doesn't mean I have to let it.


Society says I should be having 10lbs of makeup caked on my face, fake hair, fake boobs, fake ass, fake nails, fake nose, fake hair color, fake eye color, dress like a slut, be anorexic, fake tan, like guys and have sex with them like a porn star. 

Here's my take:

No fake hair, no makeup, no fake nails, no boob jobs or any kind of "jobs" done to my body, I randomly put a couple of nuances on my hair because I like it, my eyes go anywhere from hazel to amber so why would I put lenses on them, normal weight for my height (oh look, my inner tights touch! ON NOES!!!), no fake tan, no dressing like a slut, I like girls and I sure as hell didn't and don't learn sex from porn.

Don't like it? Boo Fucking Hoo, "Society". Here, have a finger on me.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> Don't drink hot beverages while driving... end of issue. If you get a hot beverage and spill it all over yourself, it's your fault, not the company's.
> [/OT][/SIZE]


You do realize that McDonalds predominately sells these hot coffees in the drive through to people already in their cars on their way to work? They are very aware that they are selling these dangerously hot beverages to people who are driving. The issue is not the person spilling it on themself, but the fact that its selling a dangerous product under normal use.

Lets use a similar story and product where people using laptops on their laps have batteries that explode and literally have their balls blown off - is it their fault for allowing the battery to overheat to that level under normal use or should the company be responsible for the safety of a product under its intended use?


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

wiarumas said:


> Lets use a similar story and product where people using laptops on their laps have batteries that explode and literally have their balls blown off - is it their fault for allowing the battery to overheat to that level under normal use or should the company be responsible for the safety of a product under its intended use?


If you clog the vents, even your desktop will blow up on your face. Who let the vents clog up like that? Just because the name is "laptop", it doesn't mean that it won't overheat if you don't have the vents free. That's why the vents are there... or do people think they're decoration?

I use laptop every day (don't have a desktop) and I have a board to put on my lap, on top of the board is a ventilation board for laptops (has a fan on it) and on top of it is my laptop. It's one of those funky gamer laptops that heat up like all hell. Imagine if I put it on my bare lap with the vents clogged... BOOM!

I clean out the laptop's fan and vents once a month and you won't believe the crap that piles there even like this. And yes, I clean it at home because if I had to take it to a shop, I should stop working in IT.

And by the way, it's not the battery that overheats... *any battery that overheats is faulty.* I have my battery out because I have the laptop on mains and it still heats up like hell. *The components that heat up are the same components that overheat in your desktop if ventilation is poor.* 



If you put the laptop on top of your balls (which kills sperm because of the heat by the way...) and clog up the vents, you have it coming.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> If you clog the vents, even your desktop will blow up on your face. Who let the vents clog up like that? Just because the name is "laptop", it doesn't mean that it won't overheat if you don't have the vents free. That's why the vents are there... or do people think they're decoration?
> 
> I use laptop every day (don't have a desktop) and I have a board to put on my lap, on top of the board is a ventilation board for laptops (has a fan on it) and on top of it is my laptop. I clean out the fan and vents once a month and you won't believe the crap that piles there.
> It's one of those funky gamer laptops that heat up like all hell. Imagine if I put it on my bare lap with the vents clogged... BOOM!
> ...


I said they have exploded under NORMAL use. Not clogged vents. The laptop overheats through poor engineering and blows the volatile lithium ion battery. Plenty of recalls about it a decade ago. I believe it was Dell and Sony.


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

Not sure if this is the same story/recall, but similar:


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

wiarumas said:


> I said they have exploded under NORMAL use. Not clogged vents. The laptop overheats through poor engineering and blows the volatile lithium ion battery. Plenty of recalls about it a decade ago. I believe it was Dell and Sony.


A decade ago... back when laptops had barely stopped being bricks... and Dell... Dell of all things... ROFL!!!! Dell is just a pile of... something unmentionable. 

Now... realize this as I have through years of IT work... "normal use" for the average person means tossing the laptop everywhere, from their lap to their beds and they expect the laptop to never overheat even when the blanket is all cozy around the vents.

Back in the day, laptops weren't as safe as they are now but unfortunately even today, you can't make them "brainless safe". 

A lot of people don't take basic precautions with their laptops and then they blame the problems on the company. Most of the laptop problems coming through my hands boiled down to people not caring if the laptop had enough airflow or not. They simply think that laptop means they can put it anywhere... unfortunately, that is not the case. 

Even with the most safe laptop, if you don't take basic precautions, it will go to hell. This is true with every single product out there. No matter how safe the product is, some idiot will find a way to bork it and then sue the company over his stupidity. 

Just think of those retard kids poking their tongues into bottles and creating vacuum to the point their tongues get swollen and stuck in there... who's fault is it? The company's or the dumb kid that created the vacuum?

Or those morons eating cinnamon powder... is it the fault of the companies making cinnamon powder that idiots try to eat spoons full of it with the obvious consequences?

As for the batteries... please do tell me which product you find to be completely perfect and safe, never had glitches or problems? 

Spoons: can bend, break, get up your nose, eyes or body if you fall while holding one.
Straws: can have holes in them.
Metal: can rust even with coating because coating disappears over time.
Cars: How many cars have been recalled over time because of this or that problem?
Buildings: once in a while, there goes one while being built because of some fault. 
Planes: look at the latest crap that is going on with the batteries of the 787 dreamliner
mobile phones: how many have gone boom from being faulty?

My point is... nothing is perfect and shit happens. I had a laptop that decided to overheat to hell and melt half the components on me. I took it to the company, got a new one and end of story. 

And if I didn't get a new one? I'd file a complaint pointing out what went wrong and go about with my life... no lawsuits over shit that can happen to anything or anyone. NOTHING IS PERFECT.

And I'm thinking we should ask a mod to grab all these posts about what to sue or not sue and put them in some different thread or something...


----------



## wiarumas (Aug 27, 2010)

Its not about making perfect or foolproof products but about giving power to the otherwise powerless consumer to recuperate any damages sustained during normal operation of said product and as a market force for continual improvement through financial incentive. These aren't trivial cases like a person slipping and falling. They have reasonable liability and are being held accountable for something that is their responsibility dictated by the court of law. Then, it literally takes a lawsuit for a company to stop serving retardedly hot coffee or a company to stop selling defective batteries. We have better batteries now thanks to crap like that - better coffee because of crap like that. Better cars, safer food, meds, and loads of other stuff. It's this conflict that keeps the world going, not "oh well, it is what it is, it's on you for using my shoddy product, I see nothing wrong with what I did." It's ridiculous to just be passive and powerless to anything you use or do, having to settle for subpar products and services under the excuse of "that's life". You have rights as a consumer.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Let's agree to disagree because different mentalities are clashing here and we won't get to an agreement. Where I come from, we don't sue for every little thing. Where you live, you sue for every little thing. That's it.


----------



## Mysteryman (Apr 21, 2012)

It draws attention, but if a guy says it sends an invite to sex, he's either a dumbass, a dick, or both. I mean, if a woman's wearing revealing clothing, it gets my attention. I'll admit, I'm not a monk, but I don't do any whistling or any objectifying of women. I've met guys who think like this and I've beaten down the few that tried to make unwanted advances while I was around. Truth be told, if a guy acts like that, no woman should have anything to do with him, at least when it comes to relationships. And I was raised around guys that act like this.


----------



## youngspectrum (Mar 29, 2013)

If I see a girl with short shorts too short to be considered short (a recurring theme) - two thoughts go through my head: 
What type of parents does she have? (obviously age dependent)
What type of girl would want to emit that kind of message? 

Regardless of whether you like it or not, what you wear emits a message. I'm actually not sure of what the argument is here? Are we talking about rape or just a 'misinformed message'? Nobody likes to use the big dirty 'R' word anymore.


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the simple act of a man whistling at you =/= danger. if they're following you, making aggressive gestures at you or touching you, that's different, but simply whistling is nothing more than saying "you're hot".
> yes, society conditions us to think some pretty dumb things, but it's up to us to eventually learn to think for ourselves and say "whatever, fuck what society tells me". society has tried to condition me to like cars, play sports, get in fights, not think about my feelings, try to prove my manliness and be attracted to women, but that doesn't mean I have to let it.


I don't know, whistling happens to a lot of very, very young girls. And while I think it's awesome that you're going 'fuck society'  It's also important to look at what society is teaching, because the majority won't be doing it. If society is conditioning everything to do something that's negative, maybe it's important to look at it and say, 'Should we stop saying this?' rather than just saying to not listen to society. Also, Wolf-whistling is very dangerous to self esteem, and can be dangerous to someone's physical, and they would right to think such, after all if you're walking down a dark street at night and someone wolf whistles at you (let's assume you don't see them), it's quite a toss up if they're then going to be 'controlled' enough to actually stop themselves from coming over, being aggressive, make you feel uncomfortable.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

AyaSullivan said:


> That dressing style. HNG HNG HNG.


I'll assume you're asking about tumblr and not telling me I'm the other thing HNG can mean. =P
Sso.... sorry, no tumblr. Those come from my Photobucket.
I was at a company cocktail party... hardly the place to hop on in jeans or something. Incidentally, this was the party me and my SO were heading to when we had to stop at Tesco and had a bunch of chavs looking at us as if we were aliens...


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> I'll assume you're asking about tumblr and not telling me I'm the other thing HNG can mean. =P
> Sso.... sorry, no tumblr. Those come from my Photobucket.
> I was at a company cocktail party... hardly the place to hop on in jeans or something. Incidentally, this was the party me and my SO were heading to when we had to stop at Tesco and had a bunch of chavs looking at us as if we were aliens...


No, I'm just expressing how much I like that clothing style.


----------



## CrystallineSheep (Jul 8, 2012)

That is a misconception. There are women who are covered head to toe who get sexually assaulted. Women can be harassed just for being women.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

IndustrialClef said:


> That is a misconception. There are women who are covered head to toe who get sexually assaulted. Women can be harassed just for being women.












Tell me more things that I'm already aware of.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

@_VeraH_
Yea but if you throw out the biology you got nothing to support your argument... Why should men have to restrict their ogling toward women rather than women restrict their reaction to the ogling of men? Because women's response is bio programmed?

(And social constructs aren't justifications, they're fictions)


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Peripatetic said:


> @_VeraH_
> Yea but if you throw out the biology you got nothing to support your argument... Why should men have to restrict their ogling toward women rather than women restrict their reaction to the ogling of men? Because women's response is bio programmed?
> 
> (And social constructs aren't justifications, they're fictions)


Social constructs... are constructs arising from real-life observation/phenomenon/theory/analysis. Fiction... is fiction and constructed from [insert anything].

Because the ogling is unecessary and can be controlled via the brain. The reason/excuse for ogling arises from biological urges/tendencies.

I can get *where* such behaviour is arising from, but it's a behavioural action that can be controlled. Stop. Simple, no? If you feel a sexual urge on public transport, are you going to masturbate? If so, that person needs professional help lol.

Anyway, if a woman dresses truly provocatively, inappropriate for occasion/environment, and complains about the extra attention, she can stop dressing like that in the future, no? It's her behavioral action (selecting attire). With that said, going back to OP, this was not the kind of attire/situation I was referring to.

If a man (creep) can win a high-value, pretty girl via ogling and degrading behaviour, I would be interested to hear the story/account. There are more respectful ways check out a lady.

I have an inkling that the ladies who are of this view are the ones who get inundated with attention from males and understand my point. The blame does not rest on the "target" lady's shoulders. As some have shared, ogling occured even when she dressed modestly. It's the pig at wrongdoing.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

VeraH said:


> ... at wrongdoing.


But none of this address my question I asked in the post above... Why do the men have to do the restricting of themselves, why not the women of theirselves?


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Peripatetic said:


> But none of this address my question I asked in the post above... Why do the men have to do the restricting of themselves, why not the women of themselves?


What did you have in mind?

A lady in modest work clothes walks down a street and gets degrading treatment from a pig.

What should (could) the lady "restrict"? And if so doable... Why did she need to?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Peripatetic said:


> But none of this address my question I asked in the post above... Why do the men have to do the restricting of themselves, why not the women of theirselves?


It's funny how that role is changing. Honestly, I don't like it.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

VeraH said:


> What did you have in mind?
> 
> A lady in modest work clothes walks down a street and gets degrading treatment from a pig.
> 
> What should (could) the lady "restrict"? And if so doable... Why did she need to?


you're still missing my point. There is no "degrading" in reality, and a pig is a member of the family suidae. That reaction and interpretation of events is what could be restricted.



AyaSullivan said:


> It's funny how that role is changing. Honestly, I don't like it.


Why? It's empowering. Control your fate.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Peripatetic said:


> But none of this address my question I asked in the post above... Why do the men have to do the restricting of themselves, why not the women of theirselves?


Do you realize that you're saying that if a woman dresses more "provocatively" and gets raped, it's her fault?
Do you realize you're saying that men shouldn't have to control their dicks and be free to rape women if they want to?


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

----- forum decided to double my post ------


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> Do you realize that you're saying that if a woman dresses more "provocatively" and gets raped, it's her fault?
> Do you realize you're saying that men shouldn't have to control their dicks and be free to rape women if they want to?


Lol I didn't realize that, care to enlighten me?


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Peripatetic said:


> Lol I didn't realize that, care to enlighten me?


Throughout the discussion, we have spoken not only about guys leering at women because of their clothes but also about guys that rape women because of their clothing. Most of the time, they go around saying that it's the woman's fault because of how they dress.

You ask why should the men restrict themselves... so, if a man sees a woman and wants to rape her (regardless of clothes), he shouldn't stop himself from doing it?


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

ilphithra said:


> Throughout the discussion, we have spoken not only about guys leering at women because of their clothes but also about guys that rape women because of their clothing. Most of the time, they go around saying that it's the woman's fault because of how they dress.
> 
> You ask why should the men restrict themselves... so, if a man sees a woman and wants to rape her (regardless of clothes), he shouldn't stop himself from doing it?


Maybe they should maybe they shouldn't, that's not the point I'm making. What I'm getting at is, by what argument can we tell other people what they should and shouldn't do? What is our justification for saying "you should not do x"?


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Peripatetic said:


> you're still missing my point. There is no "*degrading*" in reality, and a pig is a member of the family suidae. That reaction and interpretation of events is what could be restricted


So... wolf-whistling and honking from a car signifies respect?
Ogling is respectful? 

I'm really against it because, personally, it makes me uncomfortable when a man looks at me like I'm a piece of meat. It's damn right threatening when I have to walk home alone at night. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Just interested, because of your viewpoint, do you happen to be an "ogler"?
Besides, there really is no justification for ogling and other degrading/disrespectful behaviour.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Peripatetic said:


> Maybe they should maybe they shouldn't, that's not the point I'm making. What I'm getting at is, by what argument can we tell other people what they should and shouldn't do? What is our justification for saying "you should not do x"?


You were saying how women should restrict themselves from reacting!

What is the justification for that?


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Peripatetic said:


> Why? It's empowering. Control your fate.


I like equality, not empowerment.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

ilphithra said:


> Do you realize that you're saying that if a woman dresses more "provocatively" and gets raped, it's her fault?
> Do you realize you're saying that men shouldn't have to control their dicks and be free to rape women if they want to?


That's what I've thought too. I mean, women has to be careful not to dress in a way that can draw unwanted attention to protect herself, just like a person would avoid flashing his/her riches (phone, wallet, cash...) in some suspicious neighborhood at night... Do we defend and justify the action of the thieves? I don't think so, stealing/attacking someone else just coz you want something from them is still wrong.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

@_VeraH_


> So... wolf-whistling and honking from a car signifies respect?
> Ogling is respectful?


Again...respect is just a construct, it doesn't actually exist in reality.



> I'm really against it because, personally, it makes me uncomfortable when a man looks at me like I'm a piece of meat. It's damn right threatening when I have to walk home alone at night. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


& that's your choice



> Just interested, because of your viewpoint, do you happen to be an "ogler"?p


No, emotional attraction is a necessary condition for physical attraction with me.




VeraH said:


> Besides, there really is no justification for ogling and other degrading/disrespectful behaviour.
> 
> You were saying how women should restrict themselves from reacting!
> 
> ...


I never said anything of the sort, I asked a question, which you still haven't answered: if men are not justified in ogling, why are women justified in their reaction to ogling? I'm pointing out an error in your reasoning is all, that your being inconsistent. I haven't taken a stance.


----------



## VeraH (Mar 27, 2013)

Peripatetic said:


> Hmm. Well, I already predicted and addressed your response in the preceding and very post you're quoting (hard wired vs soft wired), but your pretending like I didn't, which means one of two things happened. Either you're willfully choosing to ignore my points to "win" the discussion, or you lack the degree of understanding to grasp my point. Whichever is the case, I couldn't fix either of those problems so it's obviously pointless to continue. Last post.


Hard-wired vs. Soft-wired? Yeah, okay. That's your unique interpretation.

In all honesty, I really have no idea what you're trying to say in the latter parts of discussion. The other posters seem just as fazed. You're just broadcasting words without valid logical flow or demonstration of logical consequence.




Peripatetic said:


> why is behavior not justified by biology?



All Ogling is Behaviour. Some Behaviours are Acceptable. Therefore, some ogling is acceptable? ... No. Not justified.
All Ogling is Behaviour. All Behaviours are Prompted by Physiological Response. Therefore, all ogling is prompted by physiological response. Justified.
etc...

I'm not trying to "win". I'm trying to express my points and have demonstrated so quite clearly via textual flowchart, in my belief.

Your arrogance is astounding. 

If you read back to a few other posts... Look at what the other posters have said at your points and at you. You don't have to try to "win". That's not the point.

No worries. You probably can't. "fix problems"? lol. That I won't adopt your view? That's not a problem, nor my problem.

The direction is leading toward logic now,and deviating from main OP topic.


----------

