Woah Woah Woah. Okay, let's talk about women for a second.

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
ablac said:
I dont have a real problem with the former and with the latter I simply think girls who do arent doing guys a favour since they will get comeuppance from their better half for what they cannot help and if they dress like an object then they shouldnt complain when they are viewed as one.
How would someone dress like an object? Do you mean they dress up as a washing machine or something?
 

MomoElektra

New member
Mar 11, 2012
122
0
0
axlryder said:
MomoElektra said:
BloatedGuppy said:
MomoElektra said:
Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.
If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...
it's funny, because you assume that men almost automatically being distracted momentarily by cleavage equals being pro-rape. It's almost like you can't distinguish between basic concepts.
Not at all.

The similarity lies within the notion that the woman is responsible for the man's actions because she does or is XY, not the man himself.

I know very few people are actually pro-rape. But I also know very many people are happy to shift responsibility for what others do to women* on them (the women) for not being XYZZ enough (victim blaming).

* or people of color and other marginalized groups, for that matter (see the Martin case)
 

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
MomoElektra said:
axlryder said:
MomoElektra said:
BloatedGuppy said:
MomoElektra said:
Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.
If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...
it's funny, because you assume that men almost automatically being distracted momentarily by cleavage equals being pro-rape. It's almost like you can't distinguish between basic concepts.
Not at all.

The similarity lies within the notion that the woman is responsible for the man's actions because she does or is XY, not the man himself.

I know very few people are actually pro-rape. But I also know very many people are happy to shift responsibility for what others do to women* on them for not being XYZZ enough (victim blaming).

* or people of color and other marginalized groups, for that matter (see the Martin case)
The reality, however, is that there's a huge difference between taking conscious action and reflexively glancing. Drawing comparisons between momentary distraction that are actually rooted in reflex and rape is just in shit taste.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Revolutionaryloser said:
Regulating is never going to stop idiots ODing. You can't control people through regulation because the second the legal product doesn't meet their demands they revert to buying the illegal version for much less money.
No, but making drugs illegal doesn't stop people ODing either, so let's just put that off to the side and say "as long as we have drugs and fatty foods and alcohol there are going to be people who do stupid things with them, and that is beyond our control".

As for the cheaper illegal version, how on earth do you figure? Trying to undercut a regulated substance is fairly pointless. It's why we don't have a lot of illegal hooch dens now that alcohol isn't prohibited any more.

Revolutionaryloser said:
Seriously, how many guys that go out for hookers stop to think, is she doing this willingly, is she underage? Have a guess? I haven't met one of those guys. I have met a lot motherfuckers who just excuse themselves with "I didn't know. How could I have known?" Johns don't give a fuck what they have to do for a fuck.
I don't pretend to know or understand the motivations and/or thought processes of an entire demographic of randomly selected people, so I can't say. And neither can you.

And you get pretty emotional after this point, so I cut your quote off. There's not a lot of productive discussion to be had there. I might suggest you talk to someone though, because you sound like you're a bad day away from grabbing a rifle and climbing a clock tower.

Revolutionaryloser said:
There just is no end to the problems created by prostitution. STDs, unwanted pregnancy, physical abuse and psychological abuse, illegal abortion, rape, torture, kidnapping, slavery, extortion, murder... If people want sex they can go find willing people on Internet, go watch porn, actually become a better person and find someone you can love, go to an orgy, find some chick in a bar and have a one night stand... There are a lot of options. Why defend the one option that is obviously detrimental to society and puts so many people at risk?
What am I, the champion of prostitution here? I'm not advocating for parents to encourage their children to set up on a street corner. I'm saying it should be legalized and regulated to protect the prostitutes and to help repair 95% of the social ills you're detailing above. We both want the same thing, we just have different ideas of what the best way of doing it is.
 

mattttherman3

New member
Dec 16, 2008
3,105
0
0
I agree with everything the OP said, but as a rule, if I can fit a wrist in my hand whereas my index finger and thumb can touch easily, I generally assume an eating disorder(if they are fully grown people over 5 foot 5)
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Meh. I've always thought the whole fashion industry seems to be pretty good at making women feel inadequate. I think a lot of people feel the same way and the actual models are the eh... most visible part of the whole thing. Therefore they get resentment. Most resentment is unjustified or misguided. The media quite likes to try to amplify it so that they can sell more stuff.
Also, jealousy. People luurrv them some jealousy.

museofdoom said:
(and I'm not attacking men here, girls are perfectly capable of slut shaming and being sexist. It actually happens quite a bit.)
This seems to me to be an odd statement. Men (in my fairly limited experience) do not care if someone is a 'slut' very much. If you say to a guy, 'Sally slept with Jim at that party' he'll probably shrug and get on with his life.
There's a point where we get bothered. We don't want somebody we're with to just run off with someone else, out of jealousy, again attachment.

Idk. Perhaps that's just me. College has kinda burned away all my sensitivity to these things. I don't care what people do with themselves unless I'm very close to them. And even then, I'm not in the habit of telling people what to do.

The point I'm trying to make is that women are perhaps more prone to slut shaming. Look at it logically. If you say to most straight men 'I know a girl who's fairly attractive and would quite happily have sex with you with no strings attached' his first response is unlikely to be 'she must be a terrible human being.' Unless the world has gone mad. Or I've gone mad.

Actually no. I do think that some men probably resent the fact that they can't get any, or resent the fact that attractive women can easily manipulate them, or whatever. Idk.

ToxicOranges said:
What? Why is it banal that we allow people to shame society like they do? Would you rather I didn't care at all, and had no opinions about anything? Why is it a problem that I care about the dark hole that our generation is slowly slipping into?
People are gonna look back on teens today and laugh at us. At least I care.
Our generation is slipping into a black hole? Da fuck? You haven't noticed that most all of the people making all the stupid decisions that have fucked up things like the economy are adults?
Young people have a pretty good reason to be pissed off...

If you're opinion is that young people having sex is wrong, then yes, it probably would be better if you had no opinion.
People dressing like that isn't a symptom of a crumbling society. It's a symptom of human nature. People want to be liked, people want them to find them attractive. It doesn't take a genius to see that people at an age where they're at or approaching a physical and hormonal peak are going to accentuate whatever nature gave them, even more than usual.
For the first time in recent Western history, people can actually get away with showing some skin. We're finally escaping from idiotic Victorian-era prudery and Christian morons condemning anyone who has sex. Don't drag us all back again...
 

MomoElektra

New member
Mar 11, 2012
122
0
0
axlryder said:
MomoElektra said:
axlryder said:
MomoElektra said:
BloatedGuppy said:
MomoElektra said:
Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.
If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...
it's funny, because you assume that men almost automatically being distracted momentarily by cleavage equals being pro-rape. It's almost like you can't distinguish between basic concepts.
Not at all.

The similarity lies within the notion that the woman is responsible for the man's actions because she does or is XY, not the man himself.

I know very few people are actually pro-rape. But I also know very many people are happy to shift responsibility for what others do to women* on them for not being XYZZ enough (victim blaming).

* or people of color and other marginalized groups, for that matter (see the Martin case)
The reality, however, is that there's a huge difference between taking conscious action and reflexively glancing. Drawing comparisons between momentary distraction that are actually rooted in reflex and rape is just in shit taste.
Of course there is a huge difference between the two.
I did not draw the comparison you are pissed about.
 

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
axlryder said:
museofdoom said:
Revolutionaryloser said:
I posted earlier but I really want to know this. Why isn't it OK to slut shame a woman who chooses to walk around looking like a hooker? I mean literally looking like a hooker. I really wish I knew the answer to that.
Because people should be allowed to dress how they want to dress without being chastised for it. If a woman wants to show off a lot of skin, let her. She's comfortable enough with her body to show it off and that's great. So what if she wants to wear fishnet leggings and stilettos? If it makes her happy, then so be it. It's not affecting you personally, so why do you have the right to be a jerk and try to make someone feel ashamed of the way they choose to dress?
a.) as a straight man, it is inherently physiologically distracting to me when a woman has a plunging neckline or other equally revealing attire.
As a straight man I'm going to call you on you bullshit. You have the problem and it isn't inherent to straight men. Your inability to focus is your problem, not some inherent physiological thing. Trying to deflect responsibility like that is pathetic.

What's more, it "makes her happy" because she likes the attention she gets from strangers.
You're saying that because it makes you sad to admit that you're responsible for your own problem. See, I can make up motives for people too.

It's the only possible reason she would dress overly revealingly in public "just because", otherwise she could just do it in private.
Ah, got me there. You said it was the only possible reason. How can we ever argue with the bullshit that spews from your lips? I mean, you said it was true. How can we refute evidence like that? Wait... what evidence?

While I normally wouldn't just point this out (why would I?), I would be happy to do so if said woman somehow retaliated to glance or something. You can call it "slut shaming", I just call it honest retaliation.
More like you're trying a pathetic denial of your own responsibility for your actions and then pretending that no one should dare react.

I bring it up only because woman who dress this way ARE going to be treated differently. That's just the reality.
Which doesn't justify anything. Yes, because people like you exist, they will be treated differently. That does not make it correct.

Those who have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise are often the ones I see crying foul.
No, it's those who are smart enough not to think "It happens" is a reason to not object to it happening. Murder happens. It's just reality. So let's not complain about murder. Your logic when applied to murder.

Also, I have every right to be a jerk.
And they have every right to call you on it and try to ostracize you socially.

Your own subjective views don't somehow undermine those rights.
Aww, how cute. It's the stupid "It's my right!" defense. When you grow up a bit you might learn that just because people say you shouldn't do something doesn't mean they're trying to take away your rights. They're not restraining you or imprisoning you.

No one is trying to undermine your rights, take off the tinfoil hat, kiddo.
First of all, it's true that the reaction is not pure reflex, but it is influenced by such. If you turn around and there's a woman with a lot of cleavage starting at you, you may just look without realizing it. If you noticed the cleavage, then you looked.

Now, your entire rebuttal is based in the assumption that I have a problem. How is looking at cleavage a problem? I don't see it as such. If my reaction is actually getting in the way of communication or shows a complete lack of self control, I would personally see it as a problem, however a glance really doesn't do either of those things. If a woman wants to ***** about it, fine, I'll call her on wearing a shirt that intentionally shows of a lot of skin. You're correct that they have every right to try and ostracize me, and I have every right to retaliate. Otherwise, we'll go on our merry ways. Also, the OP implied it's someone's "responsibility" to be anything. That's BS, and that's what I was pointing out. Just as your own behavior can be seen as uncouth, it is your right to be that way.

Also, please, if a woman says she wears revealing clothes just because it "makes her happy", please give me a rationale for that other than trying to get people to notice. If you can, I'll rescind my statement that "there's no other reason" or whatever I said.
 

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
MomoElektra said:
axlryder said:
MomoElektra said:
axlryder said:
MomoElektra said:
BloatedGuppy said:
MomoElektra said:
Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.
If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.
The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...
it's funny, because you assume that men almost automatically being distracted momentarily by cleavage equals being pro-rape. It's almost like you can't distinguish between basic concepts.
Not at all.

The similarity lies within the notion that the woman is responsible for the man's actions because she does or is XY, not the man himself.

I know very few people are actually pro-rape. But I also know very many people are happy to shift responsibility for what others do to women* on them for not being XYZZ enough (victim blaming).

* or people of color and other marginalized groups, for that matter (see the Martin case)
The reality, however, is that there's a huge difference between taking conscious action and reflexively glancing. Drawing comparisons between momentary distraction that are actually rooted in reflex and rape is just in shit taste.
Of course there is a huge difference between the two.
I did not draw the comparison you are pissed about.
I know that, I was just clarifying. Sorry if you felt like I was blowing up at you. I didn't mean it to come off that way. My apologies.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
MomoElektra said:
Of course there is a huge difference between the two.

I did not draw the comparison you are pissed about.
Technically you did, intentionally or not, create an analogue between my offhanded rape comment and the "male gaze". Axlryder has a point, he's just being unnecessarily confrontational about it.
 

ablac

New member
Aug 4, 2009
350
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
ablac said:
I dont have a real problem with the former and with the latter I simply think girls who do arent doing guys a favour since they will get comeuppance from their better half for what they cannot help and if they dress like an object then they shouldnt complain when they are viewed as one.
How would someone dress like an object? Do you mean they dress up as a washing machine or something?
I was thinking an ironing board or a basketball.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
You are reading too much into this, inserting a Women's Lib angle where one isn't necessary. Bulimia and anorexia should not be acceptible, lest we be fair and give a pass to obesity and self-harm as well. Intentionally harming yourself has always been a societal taboo. As for your other arguments, take it easy. Modeling is an honest career, by all means do it, but don't hurt yourself to do it. Skinny women are fine, but to make yourself unhealthy to fit a dangerous view of beauty is literally insane (ignoring personal well-being and safety to the point of harm is psychologically abnormal). As for models being stupid, who knows who actually holds this opinion? Also, no one here is saying anyone is any less of a person for wanting to model clothing. That's just silly.
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,865
0
0
the only problem I have with models is that once they sign that modelling contract they HAVE to continue looking a certain way and for some that is what makes them anorexic/bulimic and the fact that society is ok with that bothers me a lot. Forcing a woman to have an eating disorder to do something she wants to do such as modelling is wrong. Of course the airbrushing and photoshop afterwards in the photos doesn't help either. And it's the same problem as barbies on young girls. Terrible idea because then they get the whole mindset of "if i don't look like this then i'll never be attractive" it's bullshit.
 

MomoElektra

New member
Mar 11, 2012
122
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
MomoElektra said:
Of course there is a huge difference between the two.

I did not draw the comparison you are pissed about.
Technically you did, intentionally or not, create an analogue between my offhanded rape comment and the "male gaze". Axlryder has a point, he's just being unnecessarily confrontational about it.
But only because they share the similarity of blame shifting in those postings, not because the actions themselves are similar. I thought I'd made that clear.

Well, maybe not so much.