quote:Whereas I view buttcracks as the place where toxic waste exits the body, and therefore I want to be as far away from it as possible with as much protecting me from such exposure. And that includes - and no, I can think of no delicate way of expressing this so deal - not being exposed in any way to remnants of any such toxic waste as may have been left behind.
I have three objections to this particular argument:
1) The genitals themselves are very close to that area, so any act of copulation will, of necessity, take place in the same neighborhood.
2) Wiping one's butt after depositing waste is very basic hygiene, and it is neither difficult nor time-consuming to do so.
3) Fecal coliform bacteria are everywhere. Even on your toothbrush. Even if you keep your toothbrush in the kitchen. It's not like you can ever really be "safe" from it, and it's not like the fact that a butt crack is visible is going to increase the amount to any noticeable degree.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the frustrating things about reading this thread is that it seems like people are reading things into the situation that aren't really there. They are prejudging people based on their own expectations or prejudices, not on the person they are observing.
It seems like the basic lesson to be drawn from this thread is that even though it might be perfectly natural for us to have our own tastes and to look at someone a certain way for how they dress, it probably behooves us to realize that we are inferring certain qualities about them that we have no evidence for in that particular person, and that even if we have known one person with 'bad' qualities who dressed a certain way, that doesn't mean that everyone who dresses that way is like that person. Isn't that logical?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that people HERE are basically judging people by their dress - I'm mostly hearing they *might* be judged by their dress, or some might judge them this way.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, see, it's exactly NOT like that. I chose my analogy very carefully. Because choosing to drive on bald tires impairs your own ability to drive, whereas wearing revealing clothing does not impair your own moral judgement.
I see where you disagree with my analogy; that makes sense. I still don't understand what you're trying to say though.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An incident today at work, vividly illustrates Storm Saxon's point.
Weightlifter Bob gave me a compliment that I looked nice and dressed up today. My response was, I'm wearing the same thing I always wear.
It bugged me at a level that Weightlifter Bob would never comprehend and it isn't worth even attempting to explain to him (*see footnote at end for the other go round we had)
I wasn't wearing any less "niceness" of clothing than I wore yesterday. However most of the time whatever I'm wearing on top, is covered up with a fleece pullover cause I'm so dang cold at work. Today it was actually warm enough in the morning that I dive into on a pullover the instant I walked into the lab. So, today because you can actually see my figure, I'm attractive. Yesterday I wasn't.
* Other go-round with Weightlifter Bob. (may indirectly tie into Stormy's point also, but not as closely) I have an x-ray scanner that has a holster that goes on your waist if you need to carry it around, since it's a bit heavy. I had to carry it to the back today, to scan some parts and so I put on the belt. Well I had to cinch it in significantly to the amusement of both myself and the guys. Partially as a joke, although I was also curious, I measured the length of the adjusted belt (it had a backpack-like adjustment slide and clip), to get my waist size since it was easy to do, and probably a better measurement using a wide webbing than when you'd get from the infamous piece of string.
Anyway later on during the belt size discussion Weightlifter Bob (he was a world champion powerlifter for his age class several years ago) makes the comment, "Yeah, well not many guys my size who weigh 250lbs have a 36" belt size."
My response was, yeah so, what does it matter? And... why are you comparing yourself to everyone else? Most football players that aren't linemen would be the same way, so in that case you're average for an athlete your size. He got all upset. To me, an athlete, comparing himself to the 250lb overweight guy down the street demeans both him and them. If you were comparing yourself to other athletes of similar body structure or BMI then it might be a significant comparison. And his build and waist dimensions for an athlete his size is ordinary.
Comparing yourself with a group you don't actually belong to, makes no sense, even if you might have one superficial statistic (in this case weight) in common. And it's demeaning to the other people in the group, because what you are really saying is "Well I'm not that fat schumuck over there." Obviously he's not a fat schumck, so pointing it out is totally unecessary, and why bother? We got into a 10 minute argument while I attempted to explain, and he still doesn't get my point.
We just aren't on the same wavelength. I genuinely like Weightlifter Bob and consider him a friend, but sometimes it floors me as to how we *could* be on different planets. It isn't a masculine-feminine thing particularly, nor would I call him dumb. It's more that my brain takes statements two more steps to what I percive to be the logical endpoint if you follow the statement to it's true conclusion, while he thinks making the statement is an end in itself.
I wouldn't consider him to have a flawed character. He's not deliberately rude or mean, or anything else, but it's like the elastic of his brain can't quite stretch to comprehend ideas I consider ordinary, even though he genuinely tries to understand. If anything the majority his actions rise far above the perspective which is brain is locked into, which is part of the reason why we get into these discussions at all.
quote: For example, if I met a girl who dressed in ankle length skirts, wore no makeup, and had really long hair I would be surprised if I found out she was a slut (sorry if that language is appropriate).
I'm Kate. Nice to meet you. Surprise! And I even wear my really long hair in a bun most of the time!
Verily, great post earlier. As to the most recent one - eeewwww.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually try to be complimentary to women when I think they look nice. While I appreciate your backing me up, Banna, it makes me nervous on the other hand because I wonder how many women I've offended when I've said they've looked nice. I mean, I like it when people compliment me on my appearance....
I would also like to say that I think it's natural to have personal quirks and idiosyncracies. I think people who dress in a, um, urban style look like total dorks, for example. Even moreso if I hear them speak that way. It just sounds so...meh.
What I think is important for me to do is to recognize the truth of the fact that I am not really attuned to the signals they want to give out with their clothing and speech. To them and others who understand that whole thing, they might very well be the height of taste and style.
The question becomes, though, should we advocate for a certain style or mode of fashion or speech in society by letting our feelings be known about those things that we find distasteful?
Subjectively, I have to say that I think that we should. I think, for instance, that it's good to advocate for proper English, restrained elegance, and not talking in movie theaters. I thin these things are worth keeping in society and I'm afraid by not saying anything they're going to have less of a standing in society and disappear.
Objectively, though, I think that it is almost impossible for people to build up by tearing down. Saying that something sounds ignorant, or looks slutty, or looks lazy, is almost gauranteed to raise hackles and to cause the recipient to become defensive and ignore what the other person is saying and dig in. On the other hand, just praising certain things can cause the same reaction. I wonder, though, whether even if someone becomes defensive, they still aren't absorbing some of what's being said?
I don't know what the answer is. Maybe if we want to advocate for a certain kind of society, we should expect that those who don't fit in whatever category we're advocating for are going to be pissed off. Maybe we shouldn't advocate at all and just live our life the way we want to and lead by example. Maybe we should just accept that we're just one small fish in the big pond, that we really have no effect on society at large, and not try at all and just be happy with who we are and not worry about other people.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stormy, don't worry about offending them with compliments.
It's just in this particular case the *only* thing that changed is how much of my body you actually see, because I'm wearing a layer less of clothing. I'm wearing the identical kind of jeans, a similar fitting top, the same kind of socks etc. The only thing that is different is that you can see my uninteruppted figure without the baggy fleece. (I'm still wearing long underwear underneath the top but I always do that too in the winter.)
The correllary implied is that I *can't* look "nice" without showing my figure. And that's the part that bothers me for some reason.
Even the orthdox Jewish women, who have the most stringent regulations on dress, can dress attractively, and still follow the letter of their law (at least rivka does).
But short of burkas and occasional denim jumper, "nice" and "attractively" actually equal flattering one's figure, for maximum effect, as the detailed analysis in "What Not to Wear" shows us. So, regardless of the culture at the moment it *all* goes back to biological instinct for what is defined attractive in *either* gender. Symmetry in both genders and waist to hip ratios in women. And we *are* judged on something, that we for the most part can't change due to biology. And I think the inevitablitiy of that part of the whole thing sucks. Cause I *don't* like being judged on how I look. It's only the smallest fraction of who I actually am.
In other words, like Batman I want it to be what I *do* that defines me. But even there Batman *wouldn't* have been Batman without the costume and the look.
posted
And you're a girl, so your supercostume consists of a short skirt or hot pants, bustier, and high-heeled boots, anyway. Silly.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recall you saying something along the lines of "What's a little bondage among friends?" quite vividly, and so I have a good idea of what that supercostume might just be.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My superhero alter-ego is Slug Girl and my costume is a t-shirt and flannel pants. My super power is napping.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't think a lot of guys notice detailed changes in what people wear day after day. It has to be a fairly significant change to make them notice. I rarely notice haircuts unless they are significantly different, and I honestly couldn't tell you in detail what anybody I work with is wearing today because I just don't notice those details.
So if a guy does compliment you on how you look, chances are he's noticed that something's changed and he wants to acknowledge it. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think the wording although complimentary was along the lines of "you dressed up today". When I really *didn't* when compared to the dress level from the previous day. Only one variable changed, and apparently that's the only variable that actually matters in order for me to look attractive.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Confession: Banna, whenever I read your name, I read it as "BananaOj," and I am *CONSTANTLY* correcting myself.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 've always liked your style, Stormy, and this is an excellent example of why.
How very kind of you to say.
quote: In other words, like Batman I want it to be what I *do* that defines me. But even there Batman *wouldn't* have been Batman without the costume and the look.
*laugh*
You totally need to make that your signature or something.
Have I mentioned how the forum needs a quote of the day at the top? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ersomniac, that is totally ok, reading it either way is fine. Heck I'd probably answer to either in person! It is a convolution of my real names and nicknames which have included Banana and O.J. at various times.
posted
I agree with Storm Saxon's position exactly. It seems totally clear to me that everyone has different standards, depending partly on age and partly on religious culture or country of origin or other culture. It's no more right for me to make sexual inferences here in the U.S. about someone who dresses differently than I would dress, than it is for someone on the streets of Kuwait or New Delhi to do the same for us (or than it would be for our ancestors to judge us by the standards of their time.)
If you work in an industry where guys wear silk shirts unbuttoned to below the chest, I guess the equivalent would be for women to show cleavage. If it's appropriate for one, it's appropriate for the other.
But it has been traditional for men to wear ties and jackets. What is the female analog of that? Historically men have worn clothes that hide their bodies, more so than women do. When's the last time you saw a business man dressed in shorts? Yet women have been expected to wear clothing that accents their sexuality. It's not uncommon to see a business woman wearing a skirt above the knee, or showing cleavage. That's a double standard.
Yet on this thread the accusation is that it's a double standard to judge a woman as slutty if she wears revealing clothing. I see it as exactly the opposite. Women have historically been treated as sex objects, so society has demanded that they "dress it up." Whether it's cleavage and butt cracks or corsets and bustles, society has made women feel inferior if they aren't dressed like women. Remember the expression "Who wears the PANTS in the family?"
On the other hand, men working on a road crew can walk around shirtless, but women are expected to keep their breasts covered. What sense does that make? If a woman is spreading hot tar on a road and feels that it's more comfortable to take off her shirt, that has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with practicality, yet society doesn't allow it. That's also a double standard.
If there's a generational change that I don't understand, it's the lack of recognition of the appropriateness of the situation. If I go to a fancy restaurant, I don't want to sit across from someone wearing a sweaty t-shirt and jogging shorts. Sure the jacket and tie requirement is arbitrary, but comfort goes both ways. Nowadays I don't know whether I'm going to feel stupid because I'm overdressed when I wear a jacket and tie. Dress codes, whether written or merely customary, provide comfort in that respect because you know what to wear in a particular situation. But we don't seem to have that anymore.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
AJ
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
