posted
Muffin tops and whale's tales. I will be glad when these "fashion" trends are gone.
Awoman never asks to be raped, I think. By definition, if she asks for it, it isn't rape. I think.
Anyway, ifa guy leaves his keys in his car and somebody steals it, it is probably true that he was behaving in an unwise manner. But whoever took the car is still a car theif.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't believe you are even comparing these two things. But even more, I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does. Are you saying that men just can't control themselves when they see certain parts of a woman's anatomy, so it's the woman's responsibility to act a certain way if she doesn't want to be harassed? Or maybe that the men are stupid enough to think that a woman dressed that way is giving them permission to comment on her body? Regardless of how the woman is dressed, the man's actions are not acceptable. But the woman has to just accept that if she's dressed that way that's what's going to happen?
That view is not very flattering to men, you know.
This topic has clearly been rehashed so many times that you have jumped to several different conclusions about what I said, and have read all sorts of misinformation out of what I said.
I never once said the woman is at fault, for EITHER situation.
I'm going to repeat that.
I never once said the woman is at fault, for EITHER situation.
I am saying that I am not SURPRISED. We live in a world where these things happen, and that certain actions and behaviors increase the probability of other actions and behaviors occuring. I don't LIKE that this is how the world works, but it is how I've seen the world work: hence, I am not surprised when it happens.
Don't like the rape example? Fine, I'll use another. Let's say you leave your purse or backpack or briefcase in a public area. You leave it open, unlocked, and anyone coming within 5 feet can see that there is a wallet and cell phone inside. Are you going to be surprised if, in 24 hours, you return and the purse isn't there? Are you going to be surprised if you never see it again?
quote:And if rape victims are "almost never at fault for what happened," when exactly are they at fault?
I believe there are situations in which "fault" becomes hazy, but these have more to do with how we define rape than whether a woman was "asking for it." I'm not going to get into it now, since the subject is sure to set this board on fire, as I'm sure it has in the past.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I firmly believe that rape victims are almost never at fault for what happened.
quote:I never once said the woman is at fault, for EITHER situation.
I'm going to repeat that.
I never once said the woman is at fault, for EITHER situation.
Please tell me how I read misinformation into what you said. How can you say a woman is almost never at fault without saying she is sometimes at fault? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to understand why you think my post deserves the response you gave me. If you misphrased the first quote, fine, but that doesn't explain the denial of it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're quoting from two different posts, and the post in which you said "I can't believe..." etc. etc. had nothing to do with rape - it talked about nothing but my earlier post, in which I said that I am not surprised that women receive unwanted attention for dressing the way they do, and AM surprised that women ARE surprised.
In that post, I never once said, nor implied, that it was the woman's fault.
In the rape post, I said that the woman was not at fault, but that situations do exist where I think differently. You put the two together. You should not have.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm referring to more than two posts, actually. First you said that you looked at it the same way as Dave Chappelle, that is woman dress provocatively they should expect to be treated like hookers. Then you said you think of it the same way you think of rape. You made the link there.
I responded first to you making that link. I don't think that's a fair link to make. The rest of my first paragraph talks about what I think about your statements about the way women dress -- that they shift responsibility for a man's actions onto the woman. I do not talk about rape there, I do not say that you were saying women ask to be raped. I specifically talk about harrassment and unwelcome comments, both of which you brought up. (Harrassment in clubs, catcalls on the street.) I do not talk about fault there at all.
My next, single sentence paragraph finishes that topic.
In my next paragraph, I quoted your statement from when you talked about rape. I did not relate it to the discussion about clothing. I was asking for for clarification on your statement.
When you responded, you said that you never once said the woman is at fault for either situation. Quite clearly. I had no intention of combining the two issues, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Would you rather I had responded to the two issues you brought up that I wished to comment on in two seperate posts?
But that aside, even if I had put the two together, your response said that you hadn't said that for either situation, when clearly you did, and said in your last post that you do believe there are situations where you think differently. Then why would you say you had never said it?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I dress, I would not be surprised if I got raped while out at night. I take tons of precautions to make sure things like this don't happen, and that includes selecting outfits appropriate for certain areas/activities/groups of people. Women have the right to dress provocatively if they please, but to expect men to ignore it is stupid. If I want to be noticed by men, I dress up, show a little cleavage, whatever. It works. If I catch the attention of a rapist, who is probably ON THE PROWL, I wouldn't be surprised. And I'd have to feel just a little bit of regret for wearing those sexy heels and that skirt.
Even if erosomniac made a misstep in how he said it, I agree with what he's saying.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I asked my rabbi, and he said "cover your feet". So, no sandals for the Shvester. Your rabbi is probably less uptight, rivka.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I agree with rivka. And I like low-rise jeans! MUCH more flattering... when you are standing up.
Luckily, the fashions have turned towards longer shirts. If they are showing midriff and/or buttcrack they are so five minutes ago and you should be getting on their case for that as well ... Kindly inform them that crack kills, and it is also quite passe.
Edit: Oh, I take that back. Socks with sandals is also a no-no!
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted MandyM's available goods comment in an entirely different way: not that women who dress in revealing clothing give up the right to control who, if anyone, touches them, but rather that such clothing is making a statement about the type of person wearing the clothing.
Not so much "I will have sex with you" as "I will have sex with somebody of my choosing."
I think it's especially appropriate to teach 7th graders that clothes send messages, and that sometimes those messages say something uhnintended. There's a fine line between that and blaming clothing choices for sexual assault, but it's possible to teach the lesson without crossing that line.
That said, the message as interpreted by dkw is one I also find barbaric.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I seldom wear shoes at all (in fact, I'm sitting at my desk in my office with my shoes slipped off as is my wont), never socks, and all of my shoes are really what most people would call sandals...
But I never go sleeveless, show any midriff or cleavage or wear a skirt above the knee. Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that aside, even if I had put the two together, your response said that you hadn't said that for either situation, when clearly you did
No, I didn't. You're still misreading.
I wish that instead of telling me that I am misreading, you would tell me how I am misreading. What did that repeated, bolded sentence mean, if it wasn't how I am interpreting it?
I am also trying rather hard to avoid a Brokeback Mountian situation. I am trying to do it by asking for clarification and explaining what I meant when I think I'm being misinterpreted. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, and will try to understand where you're coming from, because right now I honestly don't. If you are too irritated to continue civilly or don't think it's worth the effort, that is certainly your call. I just want you to know that I am not mad, and am willing to continue to try to understand each other if you do decide you wish to continue the conversation.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Porteiro Head can wear whatever he wants, really. I don't think the normal rules apply there because his feet are all plastic and the socks and sandals are probably stuck together and fit neatly into a small hole on his underside.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am uncomfortable unless securely shod. A strange proclivity, I'll admit. But get me without shoes and socks, and I feel exposed. Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahahah sorry I deleted it, because I misread the post! But... I would like one of those. Do you know where I can find one...
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clothing XP Server editon has Access Control Lists, as well as a soft and friendly UI.
Unfortunately for some users, it cannot be installed without completely covering the place where it is installed.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: Probably later tonight, when I'm not dealing with customers at the same time, which puts me in the best mood ever.
For the record, I'm not mad either - but if I keep talking right now, something's going to come out that sounds like it.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad for the longer shirt trend. I'm very tall. Normal people shirts just look...rather ridiculous on me. They cut off at around the navel, and it's not very flattering. At least the longer shirts show like, a lower, much flatter part of my abdomen.
posted
I don't mind showing stomach, but I have a rather high belly button. What is the point of showing your stomach if you can't see the cute little belly button?! Is this something I want on the internet for all the world to see? Answer me, anyone.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, that is exactly what I meant and what I try to teach to my students. I never said anything about anyone asking for it. I just said if one doesn't want to be seen as a hoochie, one should not flaunt too much. If women choose to wear revealing clothes, they are not asking for people to touch them but they ARE allowing people to judge them by standards, which are lower than what they may want. I am not saying that if someone is dressed like a hooker, she SHOULD be treated like one. No one SHOULD be judged on the way they look, but it does happen everyday.
If you are wearing dirty clothes and seem unwashed and slovenly, I might think you are a homeless person. That may not be the case, but that is what people will see when they look at you. I am not being mean or judgmental, just observant.
If you show cleavage, you are saying something about the kind of person you are. The fact that more revealing clothes are in style does not say much about our society as a whole. I think in general, morals and values have gone down and have been doing so for a long time. I challenge anyone over 25 to disagree with that. [edit: silly typos]
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: Well, I seldom wear shoes at all (in fact, I'm sitting at my desk in my office with my shoes slipped off as is my wont), never socks, and all of my shoes are really what most people would call sandals...
But I never go sleeveless, show any midriff or cleavage or wear a skirt above the knee.
posted
I'm 32, and I disagree. I think that morals and values are a lot more open today than in the past. However, I don't think they're that much different. I think there was just as much cheating going on before as there is now, the difference is that now people are more likely to divorce over it instead of to sweep it under the rug. Gay people are less likely to marry a "beard" to protect themselves. As that lowers the general amount of lying going on, I would consider it a plus on the morals and values side. I have relatives in their 70s who had very premature children shortly after their weddings, so I don't think premarital sex is unique to our times. Again, people are just more likely to accept it and talk about it.
I know you were talking primarily about sexual morals, but I would also like to mention that the decrease in racial violence and discrimination is a definite increase in morals and values instead of the opposite.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a teacher at my school who is very well endowed. She wears tight fitting t-shirts that are sometimes low cut. She is curvy everywhere else too but not necessarily what you would call a hottie. She is a little too old to be wearing this style and the clothes are not flattering to her. She is a nice person and from what I can see, not a bad teacher. But because she shows off "the goods", she is not taken as seriously as others. There are teachers who have taken offense to her clothing (not me but friends of mine) and they have spoken to the principal about it. (An aside: he is a bonehead and has done nothing about it, which is pretty much how he handles every problem, big or small. He wears plaid buttondowns and khakis but that is not what makes me think he is a bonehead.)
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I was talking about sexual morals. And while I agree that in some ways morals are better (in the case of race and women's rights) I disagree that sex has always been like this. Look at the media. Kids are exposed to so much more than they used to be, even from when I was a kid to now (I am 32). I mean MTV did NOT used to be as bad as it is these days. There were not a bunch of teenage dramas with nude scenes. I know I am older but it is not just that. It is also that society has lowered its standards on what is acceptable.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: If you show cleavage, you are saying something about the kind of person you are.
Or you live in an extremely warm climate. I know that I dressed in an entirely different manner when I lived in a colder climate. Not only because it was warmer, but because that part of the world has different (and more conservative) fashions that I found quite nice. Here, (Hawaii) even when I am not trying to be particularly attractive I'm in favor of wearing as little as possible.
That being said, I'm so glad that you are teaching your students to be aware of how they present themselves!!
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also that society has lowered its standards on what is acceptable.
Let me interject: society has revised its standards on what is acceptable. Whether those standards are lower or not is entirely opinion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah humbug with the morals. It's just that younger generations are so inexperienced in human relations, and yet they endeavor to master the most complicated of them (relationships with the opposite sex) before they are ready! This is because of the revised standards, which need further revision, IMO.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, of course, Tom. All my comments are my opinion. IN MY OPINION, standards are lower (and yes, they are revised at the same time).
In Tante's opinion tow cleavage is too sexy. In Jennabean's opinion it is ok to wear clothes according to the weather outside. It is ElJay's opinion that racial tensions are better now than they used to be. It is pH's opinion that there should be more long shirts available for tall people. It is rivka's opinion that socks are ok with sandals.
I happen to agree with some of these opinions and disagree with others. That is why conversations are interesting. Or at least that is MY opinion.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's just that younger generations are so inexperienced in human relations, and yet they endeavor to master the most complicated of them (relationships with the opposite sex) before they are ready! This is because of the revised standards...
Juliet was 14. Those particular standards have been all over the map.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
More recently, though, it's only in the last century that we've started to think that getting married in one's twenties is normal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I had no intention of combining the two issues, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Would you rather I had responded to the two issues you brought up that I wished to comment on in two seperate posts? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
... Kindly inform them that crack kills, and it is also quite passe.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ok, nylons. I actually wear knee-highs made of nylon, not cotton. Call them whatever you like.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Again, people are just more likely to accept it and talk about it.
