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

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
axlryder said:
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 realize it. If you noticed the cleavage, then you looked.
Or depending on distance it was there anyway. Regardless, looking at things is not 'inherently physiologically distracting'.

Now, your entire rebuttal is based in the assumption that I have a problem.
If you find something like that distracting enough to mention, you do have a focusing 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.
You're the one who claimed it was inherently physiologically distracting. That would presumably be a problem if it actually is distracting.

If a woman wants to ***** about it, fine, I'll call her on wearing a shirt that intentionally shows of a lot of skin.
Call her on it? What, she made you look? Don't be stupid, she can't control your reaction.

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.
What's with that idiotic 'your right' thing? Why are you bringing rights into this? Is anyone calling for someone else to be handcuffed and thrown in jail? No? Then rights aren't relevant.
I feel there's a disconnect here then. I consider something to be physiologically distracting if you reflexive look at it. I mentioned it because I've had woman get angry about that very thing (turned around, noticed her cleavage momentarily, she got angry about it). Honestly, again, with the reflexive bit, she had influence over my reaction. Was it mind control? No, not at all. However, there's more to it than "I think I'mma look at some tittays now".

The rights thing was in response to OP saying "you have a responsibility to be nice" or something to that effect. It is pertinent.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
MomoElektra said:
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.
Obviously not clear enough for Axlryder. =P

I don't know that I've ever really been on board with the concept of "The Male Gaze". I understand that in an atmosphere of sexual violence it could be perceived as threatening, but that would make it a symptom of a problem, and not an actual problem in and of itself. I'm not sure we can rally against "looking at things" without blurring the lines of a discussion to the point where it becomes comical.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
I really have doubts about that. I do not turn around and reflexively look down. Sounds like you're just trying to assign responsibility for your actions to someone else. It's really quite ridiculous.
You guys both have points. We have agency and volition, and if we decide to look at something, that's our choice, and there's no "calling someone out" on their fucking outfit. I'm 100% with you.

But some things are sort of inherently attention grabbing. If I dressed up like a duck, and went outside, and everyone had a good stare at me, it would be fairly disingenuous of me to radiate outrage at all the attention I was getting.
 

dorkette1990

New member
Mar 1, 2010
369
0
0
Op, you stole the words from my mouth. I hate when people turn it into a battle of "I love real women with curves" or calling each other fat. There's concern for health and then there's being nonjudgmental and recognizing that just because it doesn't tickle your fancy doesn't mean it's wrong. And I absolutely detest the belief that women can't have a sex drive - it's not only misogynistic, it makes no sense and creates an unrealistic and unhealthy model for girls to aspire to.
 

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
axlryder said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
axlryder said:
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 realize it. If you noticed the cleavage, then you looked.
Or depending on distance it was there anyway. Regardless, looking at things is not 'inherently physiologically distracting'.

Now, your entire rebuttal is based in the assumption that I have a problem.
If you find something like that distracting enough to mention, you do have a focusing 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.
You're the one who claimed it was inherently physiologically distracting. That would presumably be a problem if it actually is distracting.

If a woman wants to ***** about it, fine, I'll call her on wearing a shirt that intentionally shows of a lot of skin.
Call her on it? What, she made you look? Don't be stupid, she can't control your reaction.

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.
What's with that idiotic 'your right' thing? Why are you bringing rights into this? Is anyone calling for someone else to be handcuffed and thrown in jail? No? Then rights aren't relevant.
I feel there's a disconnect here then. I consider something to be physiologically distracting if you reflexive look at it. I mentioned it because I've had woman get angry about that very thing (turned around, noticed her cleavage momentarily, she got angry about it). Honestly, again, with the reflexive bit, she had influence over my reaction.
I really have doubts about that. I do not turn around and reflexively look down. Sounds like you're just trying to assign responsibility for your actions to someone else. It's really quite ridiculous.

Also, allow me to rephrase: you're allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want. There will be consequences, yes, but you can do it. Thus, when OP implied "it's your responsibility" I called BS.
Allowed by...? Oh right, nothing says that. If you want to be all "There's no real morals" then you can't go and call it acceptable either. It just is.
Listen, how it sounds to you doesn't matter. If you think it's such a ridiculous claim that a man might reflexively look at cleavage when being caught off guard, fine, but you are not everyone, and you finding it ridiculous doesn't undermine it. The biological and psychological components are undoubtedly there. I know others would likely confess to a similar experience. Perhaps you are immune to your own hormones or possess extraordinary, unconscious self control when it comes to not looking at cleavage. Good for you.

Allowed by your own brain, really. As long as your are physically capable of it, you can do it. Also, I didn't call it acceptable (acceptable by who?), I was just making the point that it's the perceived reality of our existence (as far as anyone can tell, anyway).
 

MomoElektra

New member
Mar 11, 2012
122
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
MomoElektra said:
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.
Obviously not clear enough for Axlryder. =P

I don't know that I've ever really been on board with the concept of "The Male Gaze". I understand that in an atmosphere of sexual violence it could be perceived as threatening, but that would make it a symptom of a problem, and not an actual problem in and of itself. I'm not sure we can rally against "looking at things" without blurring the lines of a discussion to the point where it becomes comical.
I consider it kind of a thing that gets incouraged in guys ("boys will be boys", men are more sexually active/interested than women") and discouraged in girls ("don't seem like a slut (being too interested)", "girls don't really like sex (so why do you look)", "men are not sexually attractive (so she's only looking at his purse)"), with many possible consequences and implications.

So I agree, it's more part of the problem than a big problem itself. Looking shouldn't be a problem unless someone does to to actively make someone uncomfortable (edit: well, it can, as you say, also happen unintentionally and still be a problem, how do I mix this in, oh heck; and what makes someone uncomfortable is of course the sole decision of the person looked at).

I don't like the male shaming implication it sometimes comes with, like men shouldn't look at women at all, for a look would always objectify women. I don't agree with that assessment (especially in this superficial way), but it's a rare one.
 

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
I really have doubts about that. I do not turn around and reflexively look down. Sounds like you're just trying to assign responsibility for your actions to someone else. It's really quite ridiculous.
You guys both have points. We have agency and volition, and if we decide to look at something, that's our choice, and there's no "calling someone out" on their fucking outfit. I'm 100% with you.

But some things are sort of inherently attention grabbing. If I dressed up like a duck, and went outside, and everyone had a good stare at me, it would be fairly disingenuous of me to radiate outrage at all the attention I was getting.
That's a fair point, and make note that I wouldn't call them "a total slut", but if they're getting angry that I glanced, I'm going to ask "if you didn't want people to look, why did you wear that?" I feel it's an honest inquiry. At the time she didn't seem to have a decent answer. Perhaps someone else could provide a better one?
 

MomoElektra

New member
Mar 11, 2012
122
0
0
axlryder said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
I really have doubts about that. I do not turn around and reflexively look down. Sounds like you're just trying to assign responsibility for your actions to someone else. It's really quite ridiculous.
You guys both have points. We have agency and volition, and if we decide to look at something, that's our choice, and there's no "calling someone out" on their fucking outfit. I'm 100% with you.

But some things are sort of inherently attention grabbing. If I dressed up like a duck, and went outside, and everyone had a good stare at me, it would be fairly disingenuous of me to radiate outrage at all the attention I was getting.
That's a fair point, and make note that I wouldn't call them "a total slut", but if they're getting angry that I glanced, I'm going to ask "if you didn't want people to look, why did you wear that?" I feel it's an honest inquiry. At the time she didn't seem to have a decent answer. Perhaps someone else could provide a better one?
A glance is okay, staring is not. But what is what may depend on the individual (and what they are comfortable with).
 

DevilWithaHalo

New member
Mar 22, 2011
625
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree, guy. I think it's demonstrable that certain terms are not so easily divorced from intent, or the implication of intent, and I think it's kind of ridiculous that you're suggesting otherwise, but I don't forsee us reaching amicable consensus on this point, as you've gone on to make it the focal point of 90% of this post, so the likelihood of you abandoning that position is next to zero.
Given the pliable nature of the English language, I wouldn?t disagree with the notion that many various words were intentionally created with a specific connotation in mind. However, the reverse is also true where the original context behind a word is lost or altered through the ages. And of course we have many words with far too many definitions it?s tough to know exactly what they mean outside the context they are being used in. Had there been a demonstrable lack of a counter use of the word slut, I would be inclined to agree with your position. But I simply can?t overlook the context I?ve used it in without negative intent and the various current crusades to reinvent the nature of the word in the slut-parades. One only has to look at the word ?gay? to realize it bounces around like a volleyball in a game of appropriate use.

Besides the discussion in regards to words themselves, I still stand by the idea one can only feel disgraced by actions they are ashamed they made. This is probably a personal thing, but I just don?t understand how someone can be shamed by others. I?ll continually chalk it up to my inexperience with the emotion.
BloatedGuppy said:
Dude, have you looked at the definition for imbecile? There's not a lot of room for interpretation there. You were tossing out an insult and couching it in a faux "experiment" to deter moderation. You can prevaricate about it until you're blue in the face, but it's profoundly unconvincing.
Interpretation was the point my good man. I try quite hard to insure my intention is to insult when I so choose to do so. Someone else using a term may have a differing interpretation of it; perhaps one should ask why they are using it. I also felt the term was more appropriate than others I could have used, while redundantly demonstrating the concept.
BloatedGuppy said:
Alright, that's my bad. If I took that out of context, I apologize. I also clipped an n somewhere out of this post copy/pasting the quote text down, so if you read a word with a missing n, you know what happened.
Might be why the next quote was squirrely.
BloatedGuppy said:
Covered up above. You can call an obese person obese all day long and defend it as appropriate description. The word 'slut' carries with it implied insult. And we can argue all day whether all words are free from the implication of intent, and you're going to say they are, and I'm going to say they're not, and there's absolutely no fucking way either one of us can actually substantiate anything we're saying beyond the volume of our own opinion, so what do you say we call it a day?
Actually, I?d inquire as to your position on the term obese within the distinction between definition and implied insult. Many people do find that to be offensive, in addition to the various alternatives that generally mean the same thing; obese, very fat, overweight, corpulent, fatty, plump, well-fed, portly, pudgy, stout, large and in charge, BBW, etc. While the definition remains the same, would you think that the implication behind each word carries its own weight (pun), or that it becomes, as I suggested earlier, a personal issue the person in question has with their own stature? After a while it surely can?t be the implication anymore right?
 

Relish in Chaos

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,660
0
0
museofdoom said:
1) Just because a woman is thin, doesn't mean she's anorexic.
Yeah, some people just have naturally fast metabolisms. My brother's skinny, but he eats a shitload of junk food and never puts on weight.

museofdoom said:
2)Some women are anorexic or bulimic, and that doesn't mean they are a bad person, they are suffering terribly.
Yeah, rather than insult them, people should help them. And no, don't say, "But people in Third World countries are starving, and she's just taking her food for granted!" Anorexia/bulimia is an eating disorder; it isn't as easy as just telling a woman (or man, for that matter) that they should think of other people that don't even affect them and eat something that they're physically disgusted or terrified by.

museofdoom said:
3)Being pretty doesn't mean they lack a personality, or kindness or intelligence.
Exactly. I know loads of pretty girls that aren't boring, bitchy or dumb.

museofdoom said:
4)There is nothing wrong with girls who make a living from modeling. If they love doing it, then that's perfectly ok!
Yeah...well, I will admit that I might be somewhat skeptical of a model, due to her motivations, lack of talent that goes into the job, and the fact that, yes, a lot of models, male or female, are self-entitled bitches. I'm a human being; I can't help but stereotype. It's the same problem many people have when they see a woman in a hijab; they think she must be ultra-conservative and/or homophobic.

museofdoom said:
5)A thin woman isn't any less of a woman than a woman who has curves or is larger. All women are equal and all bodies are good bodies.
Well...no, not all women are equal and not all bodies are good bodies. If you're obese, then that's an unhealthy weight, which isn't good. But that doesn't make you a bad person, although some women, regardless of weight, are bad people. Some humans, male or female, are bad people.

museofdoom said:
Also, while we are on the topic of women, I would like to say that people need to stop slut shaming. Like, it's a problem. People seem to think that how much skin a woman chooses to show is directly proportional to how much self respect they have. People also like to shame women who enjoy having sex. STOP IT. Girls can enjoy having sex, casual sex, kinky sex, and if they want to show boobs on the internet that's fine too. Not everyone has to uphold the same morals.

Sorry for ranting, I just had a lot of feelings. (and I'm not attacking men here, girls are perfectly capable of slut shaming and being sexist. It actually happens quite a bit.)
I only have inner disapproval if they're dressed in hardly anything. It depends, to be honest. If a woman's just wearing a miniskirt or something, or is wearing a top that happens to show her cleavage, then that's fine. Women are women, and we shouldn't try to oppress their bodies or whatever just because some guys might get an erection (shock horror). It's not their fault they have more to expose than men.

But if they're walking around wearing what barely passes for clothing (of course, that's subjective, but seriously, some of the shorts you see especially teenage girls wearing these days are really fucking tiny...and no, I'm not conservative or religious, I'm a liberal Atheist who encourages women to embrace their sexuality), I probably would judge them. Obviously, I wouldn't walk up to them and insult them or something, but it's just...those kind of people. You know what I mean? A lot of them do just act as if it's nothing.

If they want to show boobs on the internet? Well, if it's someone like Minxy, who's just an attention-whore who gets money for showing her tits on camera and not saying anything of substance in her videos. And she acts as if she's fucking oblivious to it! At least porn stars (many of whom do have talent) actually make it clear what they're doing. But her? That's insulting to people who earn their cash.

But both men and women can have sex all they like, and it doesn't bother me. If people want to get their knickers in a twist over it, then that's their problem and they should probably see what their problem. Cheaters, however? People who say one thing and do another? People who misuse their partner's trust and can subsequently fuck them up long-term? That's shameful.
 

Rikomag132

New member
Dec 26, 2011
53
0
0
The whole "no matter how fat/skinny you are" should have some limitations. When it gets to the point where the person is so ridiculously obese that they can't run 5 meters without getting exhausted, then it's a problem.


When it gets that far, then it's just ridiculous.

(If you have some disease that makes it really hard to avoid obesity then I suppose it's okay, but when you just cba, COME ON!)
 

axlryder

victim of VR
Jul 29, 2011
1,862
0
0
MomoElektra said:
axlryder said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
I really have doubts about that. I do not turn around and reflexively look down. Sounds like you're just trying to assign responsibility for your actions to someone else. It's really quite ridiculous.
You guys both have points. We have agency and volition, and if we decide to look at something, that's our choice, and there's no "calling someone out" on their fucking outfit. I'm 100% with you.

But some things are sort of inherently attention grabbing. If I dressed up like a duck, and went outside, and everyone had a good stare at me, it would be fairly disingenuous of me to radiate outrage at all the attention I was getting.
That's a fair point, and make note that I wouldn't call them "a total slut", but if they're getting angry that I glanced, I'm going to ask "if you didn't want people to look, why did you wear that?" I feel it's an honest inquiry. At the time she didn't seem to have a decent answer. Perhaps someone else could provide a better one?
A glance is okay, staring is not. But what is what may depend on the individual (and what they are comfortable with).
Well I expressed earlier that staring is not okay (to me anyway). However, that wasn't what was being taken issue with at the time.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
axlryder said:
That's a fair point, and make note that I wouldn't call them "a total slut", but if they're getting angry that I glanced, I'm going to ask "if you didn't want people to look, why did you wear that?" I feel it's an honest inquiry. At the time she didn't seem to have a decent answer. Perhaps someone else could provide a better one?
This is silly. I doubt any woman wakes up in the morning and thinks `What can I wear so dudes on the street I dont know will stare?`.
When I wear something nice it's because it makes me feel nice (not because I want attention, but because I think I don't look hideous), or maybe I'm doing it because I want to look nice for a certain person like my boyfriend.

If I'm wearing something nice and somebody looks, I don't get mad, but I don't really like it.
 

GLo Jones

Activate the Swagger
Feb 13, 2010
1,192
0
0
I had a friend throughout college (high school) who was so ridiculously skinny, she looked really unhealthy. Everyone that knew her, however, was aware that that was just her. She ate just as much as any of us, never showed any signs of being malnourished (eg, exhaustion, fatigue, dizziness), and was by all means perfectly healthy.

Unfortunately, everyone else just saw the smiley skeletal figure. She'd developed a thick skin to it, and often joked about it herself. But it was quite difficult seeing the way some people would glance over at her sometimes. Definitely made me re-evaluate the way I judged others by their appearance, anyway.