posted
My perception was that posting "hunk" pictures of her sons while telling girls that if they don't meet her standards they won't be allowed to be friends with said sons is using her son's sex appeal in a creepy manipulative way. She's probably completely oblivious to it, though.
And that she subscribes to a double standard where traditional male mugging for the camera (shirtless muscle poses) is harmless but traditional female mugging for the camera (hip out, pouty lips) is horrible.
And that publicly commenting on your teenagers' friends underwear choices is inappropriate, whether you "can't help but notice" or not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My personal reception was
BTW, this was my reception to the article only. I saw no pictures of boys in bathing suits when I read it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking about this a fair bit for other reasons recently.
I agree with a lot of the content of the piece in that I won't want my (future) young teenage sons or daughters looking at intentionally sexual pictures of their friends and classmates (e.g. a selfie in a towel) and I think it is probably a mistake for their friends and classmates to post such pictures, but I'm pretty sure I'm strongly opposed to where the writer is coming from.
I'll try to get into that first part later. On the disagreement to me, this hinges on the line: "You don’t want our boys to only think of you in this sexual way" (emphasis mine).
The only there sticks in my craw. If your kids only think of someone in a sexual way after seeing somewhat provocative pictures of them, that sounds like they have a problem. And, in as much as this statement seems to legitimize this and think that there is nothing wrong with this, I think a large part of it comes down to a failure in parenting.
porter or anyone else who approves of the whole posting, could you explain why I shouldn't see that as a problem?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciated your whole post, Rabbit, but I especially wanted to highlight this part:
quote:I don't even know how to explain what I'm saying here. There is nothing inherently sexy about the naked body and women shouldn't have to keep covered up to be seen as something other than a sex object. But in every culture there are styles, fashions and body language that will be widely viewed as sexually inviting. Posting sex kitten selfies of yourself on the web qualifies.
posted
Teenaged girls have more innate sexual appeal than many women in their 30s or 40s. I'm not saying this is true of a baby faced 13 year old girl, but many teenaged girls are quite womanly and arguably at the beginning of their peak years of attractiveness, a period where they will be sexually appealing to hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of men. This mother, then, is merely urging these teenaged girls to not exploit their sexual power against her helpless sons.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
And presumably when those sons are at the peak of their earning potential, she'll ask them not to exploit their financial power against helpless teenage girls?
posted
Sa'eed's endorsement of this letter ought to serve as a warning to think twice for anyone, heh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no equivalence between earning potential and the basic biological sexual appeal of young women. Female teenagers have significant sexual power over their male peers, and urging them to be modest and not to exploit this power is hardly in the wrong.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how much more often teenage boys sexually assault teenage girls than the other way around, that's a profoundly ignorant yet unsurprising opinion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: There's no equivalence between earning potential and the basic biological sexual appeal of young women. Female teenagers have significant sexual power over their male peers, and urging them to be modest and not to exploit this power is hardly in the wrong.
I don't think it's implausible that attraction, or power, can manifest itself in different ways, and sometimes can be confusing and interpreted as a quasi-quantifiable disparity.
Years ago, my brother and I went to see Up, and there were girls lining up to kiss a Twilight poster. But I've never seen a guy influenced into doing that.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sa'eed operates on the sexual theory of profound desperation eliminating free will and personal responsibility (for men), so I'm not sure that will be a convincing argument.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sa'eed operates on the sexual theory of profound desperation eliminating free will and personal responsibility (for men), so I'm not sure that will be a convincing argument.
What they do in Saudi Arabia and similar countries in basically covering up women entirely is a solution to a problem. Yes, a bad and inhumane solution, but an attempt at a solution nonetheless. There must surely be a middle road between that and the skankiness this thread endorses.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread doesn't endorse 'skankiness' (go ahead and use the word you want to). What it endorses is the idea of male dignity and self control and abandoning the absurd idea of the enormously more socially powerful sex being the*victim*.
In other words, it endorses the idea that men are responsible for male behavior.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A girl/woman who wears skimpy and skanky clothing in public is sexually displaying herself, and will elicit involuntary mental processes/urges in many men who glance at her. That's not a kind thing for a woman/girl to do unless she intends to satisfy those urges personally. Otherwise, it's a form of mental assault.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're not involuntary, but even if they were by this helpless-men (you speak only for yourself-stop thinking with your genitals) it's 'mental assault' to ingest a pain relief pill in front of someone who has been an addict, or bake cookies around someone trying to lose weight,
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A girl/woman who wears skimpy and skanky clothing in public is sexually displaying herself, and will elicit involuntary mental processes/urges in many men who glance at her. That's not a kind thing for a woman/girl to do unless she intends to satisfy those urges personally. Otherwise, it's a form of mental assault.
posted
it's mental assault for sa'eed to post this shit if he doesn't intend to amputate his tongue and fingers personally, because it elicits mental processes and urges in sane people who read his posts
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: They're not involuntary, but even if they were by this helpless-men (you speak only for yourself-stop thinking with your genitals) it's 'mental assault' to ingest a pain relief pill in front of someone who has been an addict, or bake cookies around someone trying to lose weight,
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it's mental assault for sa'eed to post this shit if he doesn't intend to amputate his tongue and fingers personally
This is so crazy. Do you really bare me so much ill-will?
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A girl/woman who wears skimpy and skanky clothing in public is sexually displaying herself, and will elicit involuntary mental processes/urges in many men who glance at her. That's not a kind thing for a woman/girl to do unless she intends to satisfy those urges personally. Otherwise, it's a form of mental assault.
I rather enjoy the urges it elicits even if I choose not to do anything about them. I would feel quite deprived living in a world where I could not enjoy the beauty of women. Also, I suspect that if I did grow up in such a world, my self control would be much less well developed but I could be wrong.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
it is crazy because it is directly imitating and applying the logic you use to judge how others present themselves. yes, that makes it crazy.
even if i bore you no ill will at all, even if you were a completely blank slate with no history here I had any remark on, that post — that individual post alone — would elicit the exact same response. For anyone, unless it seemed really out of character and I thought they were parodying a ridiculous MRA misogynist. Because it's terrible slutshaming garbage, what you just wrote.
Anyway, back to sitting back and listening, in the hopes you aren't allowed to completely flatline this thread, you hopeless nut.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sa'eed, it's a (dangerous, bad) lie that men are somehow victimized by feeling tempted by attractive sights that they can't fully exploit. It teaches men to act like they are helpless slaves to their urges, and objectifies (hence limiting respect and empathy for) women.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A girl/woman who wears skimpy and skanky clothing in public is sexually displaying herself, and will elicit involuntary mental processes/urges in many men who glance at her. That's not a kind thing for a woman/girl to do unless she intends to satisfy those urges personally. Otherwise, it's a form of mental assault.
I rather enjoy the urges it elicits even if I choose not to do anything about them. I would feel quite deprived living in a world where I could not enjoy the beauty of women. Also, I suspect that if I did grow up in such a world, my self control would be much less well developed but I could be wrong.
The skankiness which hatrackers are promoting puts men and boys in a position where they have to exercise self-control, where they have to urge themselves to look away, and fight against mental processes. It puts the burden entirely on men to control themselves, and none on women in helping with that self-control by restraining their tendency towards sexual display. In Saudi Arabia, a very male-centric society, they deal with the problem by placing the burden entirely on women. In the United States -- a gynocentric society -- we deal with the problem by placing the burden entirely on men. There must surely be a middle way.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This "burden" is a product of a dysfunctional view of sexuality and/or women.
If you are allowed to see things and find them attractive, and well trained enough to know that you can then go about your life no worse for the wear, this isn't a burden.
That you are required to control your actions, regardless, doesn't rise to the level of a "burden" any more than any other part of living in a society. Taxes, not-raping-people, and placing your trash in an appropriate receptacle. We just have to cope somehow.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A woman who wears skimpy/skanky clothing is encouraging men to have sexual thoughts about her, and those thoughts that men will have will often be involuntary and unasked for. And it is, in fact, not too hard to disregard those feelings and go about your day, but it would also be easy to discourage skanky exhibitionism in society at large. It's an inevitable burden to pay your taxes and collect your trash. Society would collapse otherwise. However, society would not collapse if we redistributed some of the burden of sexual self-control away from men and to women by discouraging the latter from displaying themselves as sex objects in public.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you unaware of the notion that women find men sexually attractive? Yet, somehow, we manage.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to chime in here and say that despite being the same sex as Sa'eed, I do not share his reaction to scantily-clad women.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, society would not collapse if we redistributed some of the burden of sexual self-control away from men and to women by discouraging the latter from displaying themselves as sex objects in public.
Your model of how this works practically forces one extreme or another. Right now, you're claiming that the burden is entirely on men, but that's pretty ridiculous - it's not like you're getting accosted by willing sexual partners as you walk down the street. A bit more clothing or less clothing wouldn't in fact change the equation at all -
- what you're finding is a target for appetites and attitudes that would exist regardless. If it's not cleavage and shoulders and tight shorts, it'd be ankles and lipstick instead. No seriously, look at what advocates of modesty were saying in different times about the effect of a neckline or hemline or the absence of petticoats.
In fact the only way to shift this burden is to enforce entirely uniform codes of dress and behavior so that nobody ever sees anything they find more distracting or attractive than anything else they've seen that day. So you quickly end up with the burqa solution.
What probably works out a lot better is to change attitudes about what people are supposed to feel and think about women based on what they wear or whether they sway when they walk. It's probably quite a bit harder to figure out the logistics - "everybody cover up" is pretty straightforward after all - but it has the nice side effect of not putting odious limits on liberty and encouraging people to take more responsibility for respecting others (not infantilizing or objectifying them).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've had my ass grabbed one too many times to believe that. (If you don't believe this happens, try being a 19 year old waiter in a restaurant full of drunk middle age women. You wouldn't believe the sort of things that happen)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a previous poster mentioned about girls kissing a Twilight poster, or the girls screaming at the Beatles or groupies shows, women have all the same urges as men. The difference is that women usually don't have the strength or ability to force themselves on men and society has conditioned them to keep those urges well hidden or they are labeled a slut. Yet they still have those urges and by your logic Sa'eed, those thoughts and feelings are still unwanted and being forced on them by the appearance of attractive men. Yet this doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find scantily clad women quite stimulating, perhaps more so than others. (How do you gauge that?) But it is no great burden to refrain from leering and continue about my business. We are sexual beings. We have sexual thoughts. We also have a highly evolved capacity to reason which allows us to modulate our base instincts with really very little difficulty.
Sa'eed, You've said yourself that "it is, in fact, not too hard to disregard those feelings and go about your day", so I just don't see what the problem is.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I appreciated your whole post, Rabbit, but I especially wanted to highlight this part:
quote:I don't even know how to explain what I'm saying here. There is nothing inherently sexy about the naked body and women shouldn't have to keep covered up to be seen as something other than a sex object. But in every culture there are styles, fashions and body language that will be widely viewed as sexually inviting. Posting sex kitten selfies of yourself on the web qualifies.
Hobbes
Actually, I beg to differ. I think there IS something inherently sexy about the human body.
Pretending there isn't seems like a bizarre attempt to make human bodies into neutral spaces, but hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution have left of wired to find either or both sexes sexually attractive.
The other extreme is to say that men and women can't control themselves because of the sexiness, which is even more ridiculous.
Yes, humans find other humans attractive. And no, we aren't powerless to stop our urges.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem is that some things get viewed as merely sexual. When it's also a celebration of freedom, boldness, style, personal health, discipline, youth, etc. I don't think sexiness is innately objectifying. But that doesn't make all of the concerns about it invalid.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: They're not involuntary, but even if they were by this helpless-men (you speak only for yourself-stop thinking with your genitals) it's 'mental assault' to ingest a pain relief pill in front of someone who has been an addict, or bake cookies around someone trying to lose weight,
What?
These reactions you speak of, they're not involuntary-not in the long run, certainly. As examples I give changing sexual expressions-pants on a woman were once deemed sexually scandalous for precisely the same sorts of misogynistic reasons you're expressing today. They're not anymore, so even if past cultures *were8 victim to irrepressible mental urges, they got over it.
But for the sake of argument, let's say it is 'mental assault' on a man to 'force' him to feel a sexual thought in an instant and manner not of his choosing, because he can't help what he thinks. Is it then to be 'mental assault' on an addict in recovery if you take some strong pain pills in front of them? Is the dieter mentally assaulted by the sight of someone large-sizing their fries? Or are these sexual urges men helplessly experience the ultimate in mental stress, greater than the meth addict trying to recover?
You've been so frequently dishonest and misogynistic around here over the years I really can't say which is likelier-that you're posing an argument even you know is absurd, or that your ego is such that you've decded all these sexy feels you get from all those 'skanks' are in fact impossible to resist, and you should be praised for not going Saudi on them. Which, by the way, lets not kid ourselves, if you oppose such a system at all, it ain't by much.
And stop shaming my gender by claiming to speak for it. You speak for weak-willed women-fearing men, not men in general. Abandon this idea in your head that a woman's every gesture and behavior is to be evaluated only through the lens of how it impacts men, and morally judged accordingly. Even if your arguments *were* true, which is more important to you-the First Amendment or mental protection from skanks?
Wait. I know the answer, you're a would-be censor.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I'd love to hear your thought on how much more sexually powerful young women are than young men, again given the much higher rates of sexual assault from men to women, and the enormously greater pressure on young women to pair up versus young men.
Oh-and if you're *ever* interested in not sexually repelling most women and drawing the contempt of not a few men as you're doing here, maybe try to rethink your sexual attraction to junior high and high school girls?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: [QB] [QUOTE] Your model of how this works practically forces one extreme or another. Right now, you're claiming that the burden is entirely on men, but that's pretty ridiculous - it's not like you're getting accosted by willing sexual partners as you walk down the street. A bit more clothing or less clothing wouldn't in fact change the equation at all -
As I said, if those girls/women were willing to satisfy the urges they deliberately try to provoke, then maybe there wouldn't be a problem. Men evolved to be attracted to certain things which the mother alludes to in that letter. The effect of the suggestive poses those girls assume is sexual arousal in men/boys. It's a cheap way of getting attention -- and asking men at large to endure those displays without gawking/catcalls/acting like horndogs etc is irritating, and it's especially irritating to those teenaged boys with raging hormones whose female peers are perhaps as beautiful as they'll ever be.
quote:- what you're finding is a target for appetites and attitudes that would exist regardless. If it's not cleavage and shoulders and tight shorts, it'd be ankles and lipstick instead. No seriously, look at what advocates of modesty were saying in different times about the effect of a neckline or hemline or the absence of petticoats.
It would be charming and sweet if men focused on ankles and necks instead of t&a, but there's a reason females choose to extenuate the latter, and it's because their prominent to male sexuality. It's not arbitrary, as you seem to be implying.
quote: In fact the only way to shift this burden is to enforce entirely uniform codes of dress and behavior so that nobody ever sees anything they find more distracting or attractive than anything else they've seen that day. So you quickly end up with the burqa solution.
No, just teach women in schools to be modest.
quote: What probably works out a lot better is to change attitudes about what people are supposed to feel and think about women based on what they wear or whether they sway when they walk.
We can't socialize away biology. A young woman acting suggestive and displaying herself sexually will make a fair amount of men think impure thoughts, and perhaps make them grow tumescent. This is involuntary and unasked for, and a burden should be placed on women to dress and behave in such a way as to only be that way to men they're in relationships with.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: a burden should be placed on women . . . [/QB]
Get over yourself. If you don't like the way people dress stay home or wear a blindfold when you go out. You're the one with the problem, the burden is one you to find a solution, not to burden other people with your angst.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading the discussion above me, this is what I think was ignored but shouldn't have been.
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Teenaged girls have more innate sexual appeal than many women in their 30s or 40s. I'm not saying this is true of a baby faced 13 year old girl, but many teenaged girls are quite womanly and arguably at the beginning of their peak years of attractiveness, a period where they will be sexually appealing to hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of men. This mother, then, is merely urging these teenaged girls to not exploit their sexual power against her helpless sons.
Did everyone gloss over that?
I'm not even going to say what I want to say, it should be pretty implicit.
Oh, and yeah underage girls have power over men, power they use to be mislead lied to and abused. Raped, shamed, bought and sold, filmed, distributed, copy and pasted and then downloaded. Yup, fourteen year old girls run the friggin' world.
Your sex is your problem. Don't blame someone else.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
So the biggest problem with this sexy, sexy middle school girls is that they aren't willing to follow through, thereby making you completely subject to your instinctive response. I know someone else with similar views.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said, if those girls/women were willing to satisfy the urges they deliberately try to provoke, then maybe there wouldn't be a problem. Men evolved to be attracted to certain things which the mother alludes to in that letter. The effect of the suggestive poses those girls assume is sexual arousal in men/boys. It's a cheap way of getting attention -- and asking men at large to endure those displays without gawking/catcalls/acting like horndogs etc is irritating, and it's especially irritating to those teenaged boys with raging hormones whose female peers are perhaps as beautiful as they'll ever be.
A bunch of assumptions here, as is common with your arguments. One, that any teenage girl who dresses 'skanky' (I'll note again that what you actually mean to say is 'slutty' as you have in the past-it seems likely to me this change is only a head-fake towards being less offensive) is doing so with the intention of 'deliberately trying to provoke urges' which they would then not 'satisfy'. That isn't always the primary motivation or even in some cases any element of motive at all-particularly when the bar for what is 'skanky' is so low as it often is with misogynistic, frightened men such as yourself. For example: a woman going to the beach or pool in a bikini. Doing so on a hot day can be enjoyable entirely for its own sensory merits-a little sun worship, breeze and water on much of the skin, perhaps tanning a bit or reading or something, and in some cases a woman wearing a bikini will actually be concealing more skin than her male counterparts. Or perhaps the woman jogging-she's wearing shorts and perhaps a sports bra or a sweat-wicking tight shirt. Showing lots of leg and arm and perhaps bare shoulder, but again clothing about as much skin as her male counterparts-perhaps less in some cases.
In either of these not-uncommon types of scenarios, a woman is thinking of her own comfort or of practicality, and 'deliberately provoking urges' is secondary or even non-existent in a list of motives. But in your ideal, Saudi-fied world, that wouldn't matter. A woman's first consideration when interacting with the world around her would be 'what will men think? How will this make them feel? How can I limit myself and my choices to make life easier for men?'
It quickly becomes apparent why this sort of thinking is repellent to anyone who values women as their own human beings. That's because, in your world, there is no matching consideration on the other end of things. Show of hands, has anyone ever seen Sa'eed express an interest in the idea that men need to limit themselves and their choices in order to make the lives of women easier, in any particular? That Sa'eed has ever expressed the thought that men need to interact with the world with concern for women being their primary consideration? When no one can remember such a time, Sa'eed, you're welcome to share one yourself.
Second assumption: that 'enduring' these displays is nearly as difficult as you describe. It's not, especially when the bar for endurance is set so low as 'gawking, catcalling, or acting like a horndog'. For pity's sake, that's only a level or two below immediately giving in to the basest animal urges, and for you that's endurance. It says a lot about you that not catcalling at an attractive and (in your mind) deliberately provocative female is an exercise in irritating endurance. Nothing surprising, mind you, but that says a lot.
It's not as difficult as you claim. There are men here who rise to the level of this endurance not as a matter of difficulty, but as the minimum acceptable level of basic human civility, and they come from all walks of life. There are the men you'd call 'alphas', there are shy nerds, there are portly married men who had the grave misfortune of marrying a low integer, there are those you would say aren't getting their share of 'erotic capital'. These kinds of men don't view it as an imposition to refrain from catcalling or gawking, they view it as an ordinary exercise of self-discipline or even in many cases little or no exercise at all, because they've exercised control over their sexuality and utterances to the point where it's not difficult to see something sexually exciting and not immediately have their mind rut in the gutter of female objectification.
Third assumption: that it's some biological fact that teenage girls are the pinnacle of female sexual attractiveness. The less said about how much you'd like to have sex with high school girls the better I think, so I'll just point out that it's quite possible not to think that way.
quote:It would be charming and sweet if men focused on ankles and necks instead of t&a, but there's a reason females choose to extenuate the latter, and it's because their prominent to male sexuality. It's not arbitrary, as you seem to be implying.
Of course it's arbitrary. There are societies on Earth this minute where bare breasts are a cultural norm, and in these societies a female breast isn't a mentally crippling sight for men. If it's impossible to overcome what you call biology, how on Earth do you explain this?
quote:No, just teach women in schools to be modest.
What you want to teach women in schools isn't modesty but subservience. That women are responsible for the feelings men have about them, and should be required to fulfill them or be deemed some sort of harlot or tease. It's a strange twist on thought crime you're advocating-that women aren't to be condemned for what they think in the privacy of their minds, but rather be condemned for what goes on in the privacy of the minds of others.
quote:We can't socialize away biology. A young woman acting suggestive and displaying herself sexually will make a fair amount of men think impure thoughts, and perhaps make them grow tumescent. This is involuntary and unasked for, and a burden should be placed on women to dress and behave in such a way as to only be that way to men they're in relationships with.
Yes we can, which isn't surprising since your definition of 'biology' in this case is absurd. What is deemed suggestive on the levels you're discussing has much more to do with a given culture than biology. In past cultures, a woman wearing pants would be considered scandalously provocative and furthermore this would've been deemed a fundamental fact of life-women wearing pants are dressing like harlots. We've done away with this idea in the United States.
Given that and so many other examples-bare shoulders, toes, necks, uncovered hair, navels, cleavage, ankles, calves, lipstick, on and on and on-how on Earth do you cling to this notion that you can't socialize away 'biology'? This is an issue that's been raised with you before, and I suspect again you'll simply ignore it only to present it later as though it's a compelling argument.
Stop blaming women for what goes on between your own ears and legs. Take some responsibility for your own biology, and give up the cowardly notion that your own biology is someone else's responsibility. Drop the selfish, misogynistic notion that women must consider your feelings first and foremost and act accordingly. Shake off your obsession with the sexual desirability of teenage girls.
Freaking grow up and stop doing such a good job of shaming the gender.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And just find other things to salivate over, one interview in a show about boobs I recall with a Arabic man said he was very attracted to a women's ankles.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A bunch of assumptions here, as is common with your arguments. One, that any teenage girl who dresses 'skanky' (I'll note again that what you actually mean to say is 'slutty' as you have in the past-it seems likely to me this change is only a head-fake towards being less offensive) is doing so with the intention of 'deliberately trying to provoke urges' which they would then not 'satisfy'. That isn't always the primary motivation or even in some cases any element of motive at all-particularly when the bar for what is 'skanky' is so low as it often is with misogynistic, frightened men such as yourself. For example: a woman going to the beach or pool in a bikini. Doing so on a hot day can be enjoyable entirely for its own sensory merits-a little sun worship, breeze and water on much of the skin, perhaps tanning a bit or reading or something, and in some cases a woman wearing a bikini will actually be concealing more skin than her male counterparts. Or perhaps the woman jogging-she's wearing shorts and perhaps a sports bra or a sweat-wicking tight shirt. Showing lots of leg and arm and perhaps bare shoulder, but again clothing about as much skin as her male counterparts-perhaps less in some cases.
Those times are the perfect occasion for sexual display while having a pretty good excuse for it. Multiple things could be going on at the same time -- she is just exercising/enjoying the sun, while at the same time engaging in a status competition with other females to show off her body and preen to males.
quote: It quickly becomes apparent why this sort of thinking is repellent to anyone who values women as their own human beings. That's because, in your world, there is no matching consideration on the other end of things. Show of hands, has anyone ever seen Sa'eed express an interest in the idea that men need to limit themselves and their choices in order to make the lives of women easier, in any particular? That Sa'eed has ever expressed the thought that men need to interact with the world with concern for women being their primary consideration? When no one can remember such a time, Sa'eed, you're welcome to share one yourself.
Society limits men's choices in all sorts of ways. Age of consent laws which keep millions of young women out of the sexual marketplace. The prohibition of prostitution. Unfair divorce laws...child support (for a child they didn't want)...etc etc. Men don't have to make choices...it's made for them.
quote: It's not as difficult as you claim. There are men here who rise to the level of this endurance not as a matter of difficulty, but as the minimum acceptable level of basic human civility, and they come from all walks of life. There are the men you'd call 'alphas', there are shy nerds, there are portly married men who had the grave misfortune of marrying a low integer, there are those you would say aren't getting their share of 'erotic capital'. These kinds of men don't view it as an imposition to refrain from catcalling or gawking, they view it as an ordinary exercise of self-discipline or even in many cases little or no exercise at all, because they've exercised control over their sexuality and utterances to the point where it's not difficult to see something sexually exciting and not immediately have their mind rut in the gutter of female objectification.
All those men are utilizing pornography and becoming more and more desensitized everyday. What's an average 20 who is jogging and showing off a lot of skin, when you've been exposed to thousands of images of naked prettier women. It's not civility, but men getting off elsewhere.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
