|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Modesty is in the eye of the beholder
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Just dropping in to support Irish Lord
quote:
In which case, it is God that should be asked for mercy. After all, that's who will be punishing the sinner.
My sig says I don't believe that.
Sounds to me like you plan to eat that food offered to idols, just whenever you f****** well feel like it.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
OK, but I find it creepy when a guy apologizes to me for something I didn't even notice or give The Look to. It seems to be a weird way of making everything all about him and his lust (or, in this case, spiritual development). YMMV.
Personally I would also imagine there is a high chance of that apology coming out badly. If one is caught out doing that I think an embarrassed glance away would be communicative enough.
I also think one must be slightly proportionate about this. Sexual harassment is clearly beyond the pale and sexual harassment can take the form of body language including lecherous leers. On the other hand a glance that rests on the buttocks for a little too long than is seemly doesn't really seem like the worst infraction.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Here's the thing:
The vast majority of people pair up on a long-term basis, even for life. Prior to that lifetime pairing up, many of them "try out" various partners in shorter-term arrangements (and not all of these involve actual sex).
But most of the arrangements, however long or short, develop out of some initial mutual attraction, and attraction depends at least in part on appearance. Dress, as one aspect of appearance, is widely understood to be a form of communication. If a male dresses in tweeds he's communicating something about himself that is quite different from what the male wearing black leathers, tats, and chains is communicating. A female wearing a power suit sends a different message than a woman dressed like the girl from the OP.
And that message is a broadcast, not a private phone call. Every sighted individual within line of that person's sight receives (granting room for varying and mis- interpretations) that message. Some will see the OP girl and, if she's not already on a date's arm, will think, "That's the doughnut for me," walk over, and try to chat her up. Is this wrong? If so, why? If she likes what that individua seems to present, a conversation, at least, may ensue. If she doesn't like what she sees/hears in that initial encounter, she can, indeed, communicate her lack of interest by brushing him off with "Sorry -- I'm waiting for someone."
Brenda Clough's scenario seems to suggest that the male in this situation is dead wrong to so much as look at the unattached but attractive-to-him female; that he's to assume from the get-go that she's not for him; that he egregiously crosses some sort of line by even wandering over and offering a "Good evening" to see how the woman reacts. Rather, he's apparently supposed to hold up a wall and hope and wait until some woman wanders up and murmurs "Good evening" to him.
IME, this is, rightly or wrongly, not how most men and women are socialized to operate in the partner-search phase(s) of their lives, and does not square with how most people behave in situations where singles mingle.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I think what I am advocating is simple. We treat each other as human beings. Not a pair of breasts to which an ancillary support system is attached; not entertainment walking down the sidewalk.
I had not thought I would need to offer an example, but if you insist? Like this: street harassment
Don't do that, okay?
So -- you see her across the room, and she's attractive. You like that dress! Don't go up and comment on her rack. Address her, yes! as you would another human being. Talk about sports. Ask her if she comes here often. (Do not ask her her astrological sign.) Critique the sermon. And if she's not interested, give her the agency that you would (!) a man. She's busy, she's married, her sister is starting chemo tomorrow and she's frantic with worry -- for whatever reason, it's not clicking. Move on.
This is not difficult.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
OK, it is simple: don't assume. And be polite.
Do not assume the "message" you think you see is the one being sent or that you are the intended recipient.
Be polite in ascertaining that information.
(X-post with BC)
Second edit to add: a tad less hyperbole earlier would have, perhaps, been a more effective message?
[ 10. February 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Do not ask her her astrological sign.
What? That was my chat-up line throughout the 80's!
Me: "Hay babe, what's your star sign? Let me guess... virgo, the prettiest one!"
Her: "F**k off."
Seriously, do you need to define in detail what happens millions of times in millions of pubs, clubs and school discos around the world every Friday night? It seems like an attack of the bleedin' obvious to me.
I don't think men need to be told "don't be rapey". If you are rapey then no amount of telling will stop you, and if you are - like 99.999% of men on the planet - not remotely rapey then you don't need telling anyway.
And are you serious about expecting a man to walk up to a woman and say "Sorry pet but I was having a good look at your knockers from the other side of the park. Sorry about that"?
Because one of two things are going to happen. Either the bloke will get a smile, an invitation to buy her a drink and the chance of a bit more "looking" later on; or more likely he will end up on the sex offenders register! In fact the odds on either will change depending on whether it happens at 9 o'clock on Monday morning in Tesco, or at 1 am on Saturday morning in The Roxy nightclub.
[ 10. February 2015, 13:55: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think men need to be told "don't be rapey". If you are rapey then no amount of telling will stop you, and if you are - like 99.999% of men on the planet - not remotely rapey then you don't need telling anyway.
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I would agree most men are not looking to grab women off the street and force sex. But the number goes up for pushing the boundaries. Date rape for instance. Lewd comments, grabbing, "accidental" contact, etc. It isn't just rapists and good people out there, a lot of room for in-between.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I would agree most men are not looking to grab women off the street and force sex. But the number goes up for pushing the boundaries. Date rape for instance.
In particular, surveys of US college men reveal that s significant number of men have used force to obtain sex, or had sex with someone who was drunk to incapacity and not able to consent. A very much smaller number of men claim to have raped.
So we have a significant number of rapists who don't think that what they have done is actually rape. That's a problem that is, at least in principle, fixable with education.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Brenda Clough writes:
quote:
Address her, yes! as you would another human being. Talk about sports. Ask her if she comes here often. (Do not ask her her astrological sign.) Critique the sermon. And if she's not interested, give her the agency that you would (!) a man.
Aside from the obvious answers (1) Deuteronomy 10.12, 2) Augustine on Christian Teaching, 3)the canons of Niceaea, and 4) general lameness), why on earth would one not ask a person their astrological sign?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is not difficult.
Well it isn't in that post, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I tell you, women are able to communicate. We are quite smart. When we are interested, we will tell you. You don't hear an invitation? A clue.
I would have read that as rather more stark advice then you subsequently gave. On the face of it waiting for an invitation is different from making an overture and then being sensible about the response.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
4) general lameness
I think it's no. 4. And the dangers of deliberate sleaziness which could come across as purposely crass and border on harassment in some cases.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
So, gone are the days of 'Is that a gun in your pocket or are you pleased to see me?' it would seem.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ditto segues from star signs to the big dipper.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Astrology dates you, terribly. But as in all social situations, it's, y'know, situational. It may be perfectly appropriate for the chicks you hit on and you may enjoy a roaring success every time. There is no accounting for taste.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think men need to be told "don't be rapey". If you are rapey then no amount of telling will stop you, and if you are - like 99.999% of men on the planet - not remotely rapey then you don't need telling anyway.
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I would agree most men are not looking to grab women off the street and force sex. But the number goes up for pushing the boundaries. Date rape for instance. Lewd comments, grabbing, "accidental" contact, etc. It isn't just rapists and good people out there, a lot of room for in-between.
Exactly, like the guy who felt me up during the passing of the peace at church. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
But I'm with deano on the undesireability of trying to police every interaction at watering holes on Friday nights.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I too had thought guys understood the "obvious" boundaries until I saw a survey of male college students where about half said that if you buy a woman a dinner she has agreed to have sex with you generally. Now even if she has agreed, she is allowed to withdraw consent obviously, but people have weak self control, and to have almost half those college men think they had gotten consent already....
The dinner survey I saw was done with 11-14 year olds and a large portion of both the male and female kids thought that (thanks porn and hookup culture!).
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In particular, surveys of US college men reveal that s significant number of men have used force to obtain sex, or had sex with someone who was drunk to incapacity and not able to consent. A very much smaller number of men claim to have raped.
So we have a significant number of rapists who don't think that what they have done is actually rape. That's a problem that is, at least in principle, fixable with education.
Being a government guinea pig, I have sat through way way too many surveys where the ideology of the survey designer was apparent in the framing of the questions and the options they gave you for answering (I've also sat through a bunch where I couldn't even understand the survey question and the person administering it said they weren't allowed to rephrase the question into something I might be able to answer). It's made me suspicious of them.
On every college campus I've ever been on, the only thing more education about sexuality and consent would do is lead to the sororities holding a march where they're chanting 'no means yes and yes means anal.' Linguistically speaking, right now the word rape means somewhere between nothing and 'some kind of violation'.
Also, none of the surveys I've seen asking about this kind of stuff have asked whether or not the person thought that was morally acceptable behavior. I suspect people who have gotten yelled at by girls who were too drunk to consent and somehow expected them to know that are skewing the results. This is why they're now joking about having to accept that women have no agency whatsoever and about having to carry around a breathalyzer and a written consent form.
The other reality is that Americans as a whole simply do not agree on what sexual ethics are or should be and I have my doubts that that will ever change. (Subgroups agree - but with Obama's new plan to make everyone in the country a college student I have a hunch the fighting is about to ramp up another notch).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Well, no worries - the definitive moral guidebook (50 shades of Grey) is now widely available.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think what I am advocating is simple. We treat each other as human beings. Not a pair of breasts to which an ancillary support system is attached; not entertainment walking down the sidewalk.
I had not thought I would need to offer an example, but if you insist? Like this: street harassment
Don't do that, okay?
So -- you see her across the room, and she's attractive. You like that dress! Don't go up and comment on her rack. Address her, yes! as you would another human being. Talk about sports. Ask her if she comes here often. (Do not ask her her astrological sign.) Critique the sermon. And if she's not interested, give her the agency that you would (!) a man. She's busy, she's married, her sister is starting chemo tomorrow and she's frantic with worry -- for whatever reason, it's not clicking. Move on.
This is not difficult.
I would affirm every syllable of that post, but it's miles away from what you posted up until now, in content and in tone.
The personal, internal conflict I described earlier in this thread was worded (I thought) to indicate that I don't view the women in yoga pants as "a pair of breasts to which an ancillary support system is attached; [or] entertainment walking down the sidewalk."
If there were something I was doing or wearing that elicited an undesireable and involuntary response from a majority of women (or men, for that matter), I would feel compelled to stop. That, in my mind, is treating each other like human beings.
I can't imagine that I would cling so tightly to my 'right' to do or dress as I please and so disdain those with the unintended, undesired, hormonal response so as to ask quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why? Why should I oblige weak-minded [cunt]dick-enslaved [wo]men in any way? [snip] The filth is all yours. I am pure.
We're all just sinners on this planet: me more than anyone else I know, including anyone on these boards, I'm sure. Why is it that we find it so hard to help each other out, just a little bit?
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The dinner survey I saw was done with 11-14 year olds and a large portion of both the male and female kids thought that (thanks porn and hookup culture!).
11-14 year olds are buying each other dinner these days? Wow - they are advanced! Thanks, porn and hookup culture!
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
But do you see what you are saying? It is the job of all women, everywhere, to help you manage your overwhelming lust, by wearing long sleeves/high necklines/burquas/whatever. And the corollary is that when we do not do this, we deserve the bad things that ensue. This is a slippery slope, because men's actions cannot be controlled in this way; the turn-on continually shifts -- from short skirts to ankles to hair to foreheads, which had better be veiled lest we be soliciting rape.
I deny that that is our job at all, in any way. What we wear has nothing to do with it. It is your job to manage what is in between your ears, or between your legs. It is not any woman's responsibility.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
I never said it was your 'job' or 'responsibility'.
I'm simply asking if you can be empathetic, and if so, what do you do with that empathy?
How does 'meat sacrificed to idols' play into this situation?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the corollary is that when we do not do this, we deserve the bad things that ensue.
Just to add, if you think I'm saying that, then you're reading my posts through some pretty distorted blinders.
[ 11. February 2015, 02:29: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
.. I'm simply asking if you can be empathetic, and if so, what do you do with that empathy? ...
OK, so let's say we all agree to not wear tight yoga pants because we empathize with one guy. Oh, but the next guy is crazy for long hair, so we have to cover that. And then there's the leg guys, so down go the hemlines. And then there's the ones turned on by bare arms and shoulders and necks - here come the long-sleeved turtlenecks cough*fashion*crime*cough*. And so forth and so on. Who gets to say when there's been enough freaking empathy?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
This should take care of it.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Matthew 5:29 should solve your problem in a Christian way. No demands on other people's fashions. If that seems too drastic, opaque sunglasses should solve your problem.
[ 11. February 2015, 06:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Actually, for guys who are *forcible* and *extreme* about keeping women extremely covered up, I've thought blindfolds might be a solution.
I have mixed feelings about...chaste?...dress codes. For an American woman, who doesn't belong to any group with a strict dress code, I dress modestly. I think of the human body as both wonderful and fairly private. Society and the media are sooooo sexualized, even kids. And many clothes for women are designed for sexy dolls, not real women.
OTOH, when I was growing up, showing a particular amount of skin could be allowed or not, depending on the circumstance. E.g., you could wear a modest swimsuit for swimming, but you wouldn't show that much skin elsewhere. You might wear short shorts for PE class; but not to your other classes, and probably not around town.
Maybe a middle ground of dress--*especially in the media*--might ease the atmosphere a bit? NOT that someone's clothes cause someone to harass or rape them. (Genders purposely kept neutral in that sentence, because men get harassed and raped, too.) But if more people treat each other as equal human beings, and the media treats all people as more than sex objects, then maybe everyone can relax a bit, and have more breathing room.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, so let's say we all agree to not wear tight yoga pants because we empathize with one guy. Oh, but the next guy is crazy for long hair, so we have to cover that.
While there might be an ideological aspect to the slippery slope argument here, I don't think it's difficult to argue that tight yoga pants are in a different league from long hair. And we already accept certain standards in society regarding dress.
If I turn up to work naked that is considered unacceptable. It might be true that the people I work with are in charge of their own reactions to my frontal nudity, but that isn't the way our society operates.
I think it would be perfectly possible to have a world in which adopting a certain standard of dress did not inexorably lead to totalitarian requirements regarding dress.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
.. I'm simply asking if you can be empathetic, and if so, what do you do with that empathy? ...
OK, so let's say we all agree to not wear tight yoga pants because we empathize with one guy. Oh, but the next guy is crazy for long hair, so we have to cover that. And then there's the leg guys, so down go the hemlines. And then there's the ones turned on by bare arms and shoulders and necks - here come the long-sleeved turtlenecks cough*fashion*crime*cough*. And so forth and so on. Who gets to say when there's been enough freaking empathy?
There's a major difference between something that 95% of men find provocative, and individual turn-ons.
The slippery slope from yoga pants to burkas is not as steep as the one you've painted.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I had to laugh when someone (Brenda?) said 'this is not difficult'. I think judging signals about sexuality is pretty difficult, because people are shy, confused, unconscious, and so on. I mean, many people are not even sure about the signals that they are putting out - and I don't mean just women here.
I used to get hit on by women, and then realized that I was putting out something, which I wasn't all that aware of. Long pause for reconsideration of that, leading to a kind of retrenchment.
All the men in my family were (somehow or other), trained in being ultra-charming, and I picked that up. And I learned to let go of it. But I think some men can't let go of it, as it is part of their self-image.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
It seems like there's an aspect to modesty which doesn't have anything to do with sexual attractiveness but for want of a better phrase, "public decency". I think we're losing this as we become less formal generally but you do still see it.
I think the desire to set limits to public nudity for example have less to do with fear of unrestrained sexuality than with a desire not to be embarrassed or repulsed. Same reason we make jokes about builders bumcracks or certain establishments refuse service without a shirt.
Or a tie. Think about that for a second. Would you ever feel uncomfortable or unsettled in a restaurant because another patron wasn't wearing a tie? But that's the implication.
Clearly when "modesty" is used as code for "religious dress rules" this is probably not what's going on (although there's probably some interesting non-sexual stuff there too - conformity of expression? making dress a uniform?) but I think it's interesting. Especially if we're saying that "everyone should have the right to wear whatever they like". Well maybe that's true but worth considering that the pushback against that might be wider than "you're turning me on"
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
Tie in a restaurant, that is a good point. Dress codes are about control.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
One of the problems (so common in life) is that Bad People Have Spoiled It For All Of Us.
Yes, men appealed to women to help. Cover your hair/boobs/ankles/foreheads, lest we feel lust! OK, so we read St. Paul, and we did. And it turned out that not only did it not help with the lust (now wrists are sexy! No more short sleeves, girls), but then all this bad follow-on happened. Women who were not covering their (long list of body items here) were Not Nice. They were asking for it. Surely the safest thing for us men is that you women do not go out at all? If we don't have to look at you then we will not feel lust! But then women could not work, could not drive, etc. Why do you need to read, anyway? Saudi Arabia, here we come!
And so we realize this is a dead end. It not only does not serve the purpose, it leads to much worse things. (I do not want to load up this board with examples, but here is just one:
Eve Teasing
We need to achieve this in some other way. And so we come to the It's On You, Guys philosophy. It is not the victims who need to be controlled and confined. It is the aggressors.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
Tie in a restaurant, that is a good point. Dress codes are about control.
Dress codes are sometimes very useful for different reasons - nurses, school uniform, hard hats etc.
Modesty dress codes are not useful in any shape or form.
Why not just do away with clothes entirely? I honestly see no need for them except for safety and warmth.
Let's all join the naturists ![[Smile]](smile.gif) interesting that they don't complain of constant, unremitting lust.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Impractical if you happen to live anywhere other than the equator. Plus I don't fancy having to look at fat hairy naked bodies. Yuck!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Impractical if you happen to live anywhere other than the equator. Plus I don't fancy having to look at fat hairy naked bodies. Yuck!
And here's me thinking you lot up there were never out the sauna except for the rolling naked in the snow. Which would be why you're fat and hairy, on account of needing the insulation.
So there you go - saunas make you fat.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the problems (so common in life) is that Bad People Have Spoiled It For All Of Us....
Nice soap box piece. Is it directed at anyone on the thread?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
On every college campus I've ever been on, the only thing more education about sexuality and consent would do is lead to the sororities holding a march where they're chanting 'no means yes and yes means anal.' Linguistically speaking, right now the word rape means somewhere between nothing and 'some kind of violation'.
How very, very odd. In Europe it is quite the reverse - the more sex ed. the more young peope are able to say no until they feel it is right.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Nope. None of this is personal in any way, shape or form. Planaria, remember. Brine shrimp.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
If you're trying to say "inhuman," why not just come out with it?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
I agree with your first sentence but I'm mystified by your second. I was trying to widen the discussion, perhaps introducing an unwanted tangent, but I wasn't making an argument really. What is it that you think I'm arguing that I've failed to make the case for?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
Tie in a restaurant, that is a good point. Dress codes are about control.
Dress codes are sometimes very useful for different reasons - nurses, school uniform, hard hats etc.
Modesty dress codes are not useful in any shape or form.
Why not just do away with clothes entirely? I honestly see no need for them except for safety and warmth.
Let's all join the naturists interesting that they don't complain of constant, unremitting lust.
It's just semiotics, isn't it? Humans love signs, so they turn themselves into signs. This year, I will be mainly wearing a purple tutu.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This year, I will be mainly wearing a purple tutu.
What will you be doing with it the rest of the time?
But true about the semiotics. When More says his Utopians go around in undyed homespun you think Yeah. Right. I don't believe there's a culture known to either archaeologists or anthropologists that doesn't make significant use of dress as a way of communicating status (rank, wealth, virility, marriageability and all-round coolness).
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[on yoga pants]
Nope, sorry, they're ultra comfy. And, as you pointed out, one man's shapeless object is another man's stumbling block.
This guy thinks that yoga pants and speedos should be illegal, and wanted to make them illegal in Montana. Seems like the Montana House wasn't having any of it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Nope. None of this is personal in any way, shape or form. Planaria, remember. Brine shrimp.
I'm not getting what sort of engagement might be possible. If it's simply to impersonally state a view and then move on to impersonally state another view then I guess we're stuck with the planaria and brine shrimp metaphor.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let's all join the naturists interesting that they don't complain of constant, unremitting lust.
It's just semiotics, isn't it? Humans love signs, so they turn themselves into signs. This year, I will be mainly wearing a purple tutu.
I've taken to wearing bamboo - chafes a bit mind you ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Pssst...you're supposed to make the bamboo into fabric, first!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
You have no idea what bamboo and purple tutus do for me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Carnival has started already?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
There's a major difference between something that 95% of men find provocative, and individual turn-ons.
Right. So now we're quantifying the number or proportion of men required to demand women cover up a particular body part. What's the threshold? 95%? 80%? 50% plus 1? And it's not just buttocks; we'll need to quantify the percentage of men turned on by each and every part of the female body to determine if it should be covered.
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The slippery slope from yoga pants to burkas is not as steep as the one you've painted.
Then why have so many cultures in so many times and places slid so far down that slope? In most places, women are trying to climb back up. Fifty years ago, my grandmother was a rebel for not wearing a hat.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And this happens every day:
Ban Yoga Pants!!
In justice, would it not be fair if men also were forced to adopt these demeaning, expensive and uncomfortable fashion choices? If random unexpected boners are the issue, there -are- solutions, some of them very invasive indeed. (If you are feeling bold, are not at work, and can keep in mind that some things cannot be unlearned and unseen, put the phrase 'Prince Albert Piercing' into a search window.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
