This is topic Please give me your honest interpretation and personal reception of this article in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
No, this isn't AMBUSH TOWN, not trying to goad people into saying something I can disagree with. I just want straight up and without personal judgment people's sincere take on this article, because it has become a subject of great cultural interest in terms of the response and debate over it, and what they stem from.
My immediate impression was that Mrs. Hall's message might be somewhat undermined by the pictures of her boys in bathing suits.
[ September 05, 2013, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think there are a few interesting points, such as that the girls in question probably don't realize that their pictures are being viewed by the parents of their facebook friends. Or maybe they only realize it in the abstract. I think many would be uncomfortable being confronted by this fact.
But, the whole thing is wrapped up in a package of considering female sexuality shameful that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
I hadn't considered Kate's point about posting topless pics of her own male teenagers. It definitely puts the author's biases front and center.
Edit: The girls can "run" to take revealing pics down from their facebook page (or never post them in the first place), but trust me Mrs. Hall, your teenage boys are still going to fantasize about them sexually.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kate's point is interesting but I don't necessarily blame the mother a great deal for it. Boys in swim trunks are not overly sexual images, though I admit that's shaky ground.
Ultimately the biggest problem with this isn't the double standard in what pictures boys can share and what pictures girls can share, it's about personal responsibility and shame, like Xavier said. This woman wants women to take total responsibility not just for themselves but also for the boys as well.
Can Mrs. Hall's boys not control themselves? Do they only value women as sexual objects and cannot dissociate a Facebook picture from the person? Rather than teach her boys that they need to simply look away and that any girl who posts something like that isn't worthwhile, they should teach a bit more nuanced view of women and sexuality. Also like Xavier said, some on, she has three or four teen boys but clearly doesn't understand how a teenage male thinks. That girl was already in the sexy funtime imagination zone, the question is, what will those boys do with that fantasy? Mrs. Hall can try to teach them to channel that constructively. Or she can teach her boys that the girls they're already fantasizing about are damaged goods. Because THAT always leads to good places.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This woman wants women to take total responsibility not just for themselves but also for the boys as well.
Many people have made a similar inference from the article, but I don't know that it's justified. Just because she didn't post about her efforts to instill a sense of self-control in her boys doesn't mean she thinks their girl friends should take total responsibility for the boys actions/thoughts. To me, the question raised by the post is whether the girls are responsible in any way for unwanted sexual behaviors that they intentionally provoke through their exercise of public speech. Liberalism, taken to it extreme, would probably say 'no'; the boys are wholly responsible for their own actions because they are agents unto themselves. Personally, I'm willing to admit a sufficient level of determinism to say that a fundamental part of being a member of society is recognizing the effect you have on others, and sometimes curtailing activities you have every right to engage in so as not to offend/provoke/incite others.
<edit>And the issue of the bathing suits (which I've seen other people besides Kate raise as evidence of hypocrisy) is, in my opinion, a red herring. As Lyrhawn said, the mom wasn't complaining about pictures of girls at the beach in standard beach attire; she was complaining about pictures of them posing like sex kittens in their bedrooms while in various states of undress. That's a whole different thing.</edit>
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
While I agree with some of the sentiments in the article, I don’t agree with its rhetorical nature.
No, I don’t want my boys thinking of girls they know that way. If, when my boys are old enough to have Facebook (and other social media) accounts, they get pictures of that nature posted from anyone, that friend is likely to get blocked. If enough of it is happening that many friends are being blocked, the accounts themselves will be reconsidered. All of this would go for my girls as well.
That said, my kids will have the benefit of the doubt, as will their friends. The influence I have with my kids should be leading them to learn how to make good decisions on their own as they grow older, not hiding behind me as a shield. Their friends will know (and already do) that we expect similar maturity from them when they’re around and interacting with our family.
Perhaps most notably in my case, social media is just one aspect of my kids’ lives, not the center. I have fewer qualms about exerting a little stricter control over a Facebook account. If it turns out to not be very beneficial to my kids, it has a good chance of being gone, the same way the TV gets turned off if it’s becoming too much of a distraction from family time and homework. It can be a fabulous thing, but it can also turn into a big burden, and we have to keep it disposable.
I don’t consider myself very controlling, nor my wife. While we do have strong values we’re trying to teach our kids, we’re trying to do it in a loving, trusting way, mainly by example, and in a home that’s an oasis of peace and caring in a world that often is not. We’re not in the business of telling the world how to treat our family, but we do have the responsibility of helping our kids prepare to deal with the world. My kids’ friends are certainly not going to get a pre-emptive open letter of this nature from us.
The author of this post comes off sounding like Mrs. Umbridge. She is, IMO, demonizing young women in general as potential temptresses for her precious boys, and on top of that she is writing it less for her boys’ benefit but for the accolades she knows she’ll receive from her audience. This is, I assume, an open letter to all the girls her boys are eventually going to run into. Already I want to tell them to stay away from these boys, as their mom is out for their blood. But just reading the letter is fair warning.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, it seems to me that "you need to respect this girl who has chosen to pose sexily in a bathing suit as much as you respect your brothers posing alongside you in their bathing suits, and recognize that showing off your breasts on Facebook is no more an invitation to be treated poorly or objectified than showing off your muscles" is a far better lesson than "girls should avoid doing things that provoke sexual thoughts in you because you can't control yourself and, moreover, it means those girls are cheap and probably only worth being used for sex in the first place."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, it seems to me that "you need to respect this girl who has chosen to pose sexily in a bathing suit as much as you respect your brothers posing alongside you in their bathing suits, and recognize that showing off your breasts on Facebook is no more an invitation to be treated poorly or objectified than showing off your muscles" is a far better lesson than "girls should avoid doing things that provoke sexual thoughts in you because you can't control yourself and, moreover, it means those girls are cheap and probably only worth being used for sex in the first place."
Perhaps it's just me, but I think you may be flavoring things with a bit of rhetorical bias here.
Or, less pedantically, nice strawman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think it's a strawman at all. The clear point of her article is:
1) My boys are too tempted by pretty women to be reasonably expected to behave to my standards when confronted by them. 2) Pretty women flaunting themselves have something wrong with them, and disrespect themselves by exhibiting awareness of sexuality.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?
Neither do we.
Here's a thought, maybe they do! They just hadn't considered the possibility that the boy at school who seems so confident and capable would require online babysitting ala his judgmental parents. And maybe, just a teeny tiny maybe, they are better for experimenting with their sexuality (which teenagers don't get handed until their eighteenth birthday of course) in the safety of their own bedroom where no one can force them to do anything. Imagine that... a whole generation of women who learned how to compensate for, mitigate and judge male attention without getting drugged at a party by a good christian boy who couldn't be expected to control himself and have a healthy sexual identity that does not involve sex with an unconscious body or an unwilling one at that.
But that would be anarchy.
So they will be judged by sex-negative people, and they will be over attended by sexually immature and predatory males. But what about the other ones? The ones who don't judge women for having sexual feelings and wants. Who don't think she is a craven animal in need of a master. Who don't distinguish between those poses and towels and her colorful lens, or all that other stuff about her that someones mother wouldn't want her morally better offspring to ever know.
quote: We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.
So... she hopes to raise all three of her sons to be gay?
Is she so ignorant as to think that she can out-shame a teenage libido without the use of medical procedures and beatings? Regardless of gender, sex is human, get over it already so you can teach your kids how to be safe and have a healthy relationship with their own sexuality before they see a hard nipple and lose all control.
Wait, there is another option... but what is the typical christian American stance on asexuality?
P.S. For a lot of teenage girls, and about ten percent of the teenage boys, those pictures of her sons who aren't even wearing towels are quite interesting. And they can't unsee that either.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's a strawman at all. The clear point of her article is:
1) My boys are too tempted by pretty women to be reasonably expected to behave to my standards when confronted by them. 2) Pretty women flaunting themselves have something wrong with them, and disrespect themselves by exhibiting awareness of sexuality.
I don't think that's a fair summary of the points of the article at all. In fact, it's so far from a fair summary that I'm having a hard time believing you honestly believe it is either, and aren't just trying to color the discussion with your preferred conclusions.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote: You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?
Neither do we.
Here's a thought, maybe they do! They just hadn't considered the possibility that the boy at school who seems so confident and capable would require online babysitting ala his judgmental parents. And maybe, just a teeny tiny maybe, they are better for experimenting with their sexuality (which teenagers don't get handed until their eighteenth birthday of course) in the safety of their own bedroom where no one can force them to do anything. Imagine that... a whole generation of women who learned how to compensate for, mitigate and judge male attention without getting drugged at a party by a good christian boy who couldn't be expected to control himself and have a healthy sexual identity that does not involve sex with an unconscious body or an unwilling one at that.
But that would be anarchy.
So they will be judged by sex-negative people, and they will be over attended by sexually immature and predatory males. But what about the other ones? The ones who don't judge women for having sexual feelings and wants. Who don't think she is a craven animal in need of a master. Who don't distinguish between those poses and towels and her colorful lens, or all that other stuff about her that someones mother wouldn't want her morally better offspring to ever know.
quote: We hope to raise men with a strong moral compass, and men of integrity don’t linger over pictures of scantily clad high-school girls.
So... she hopes to raise all three of her sons to be gay?
Is she so ignorant as to think that she can out-shame a teenage libido without the use of medical procedures and beatings? Regardless of gender, sex is human, get over it already so you can teach your kids how to be safe and have a healthy relationship with their own sexuality before they see a hard nipple and lose all control.
Wait, there is another option... but what is the typical christian American stance on asexuality?
P.S. For a lot of teenage girls, and about ten percent of the teenage boys, those pictures of her sons who aren't even wearing towels are quite interesting. And they can't unsee that either.
I do agree that this letter is pretty heavy on the shaming, to the drowning out of any value that it may have for the boys.
However, I don’t see how acknowledging and even celebrating your sexuality can only be done by letting things take the course they will. The boys can become better from learning self-control along with learning to be comfortable with who they are. I also don’t think teenagers posting provocative pictures of themselves is some necessary expression of their sexuality and to inhibit the practice of both sending and viewing them is to repress and harm them. It’s simply a poor decision.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: And the issue of the bathing suits (which I've seen other people besides Kate raise as evidence of hypocrisy) is, in my opinion, a red herring. As Lyrhawn said, the mom wasn't complaining about pictures of girls at the beach in standard beach attire; she was complaining about pictures of them posing like sex kittens in their bedrooms while in various states of undress. That's a whole different thing.
I didn't accuse her of hypocrisy. I do think it shows a double standard, but that doesn't come from just her.
Explain the difference. I have some ideas but would be interested in hearing yours.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Everything that a person exposes to other people has a reaction and a potential price. We are all judged for stranger things than having nipples on a daily basis.
I would rather that a young woman that I care about get to learn about who she is and what she wants without being called names by adults let alone women, or far more importantly, that despite being raised in a christian home and being cute and being really sweet that not all boys will accept the word "no."
Should minors endanger themselves with their online activities? Of course not, but that responsibility lies with the legal guardian of any said minor, not me or that lady. Teaching a kid how to be safe and appropriate online should start long before they take "sexy selfie" (mom sure is up on her lingo ain't she?) pics in their room in *gasp* poses! And I don't know where the best place is to begin, but then again I don't have access to a gigantic compendium of immediately distinguishable knowledge to help me decide how I could do just that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I appreciated a vaguely open minded outlook, and a reluctance to engage in *direct* shaming but disapproved strongly of the broader point on which I don't see how anyone can disagree: a young woman expressing her sexuality is a shameful thing to be criticized, and good boys should t like it and good mothers should reject it-in fact good boys must be protected from it.
In 21st century America. Even assuming the broader point-that these girls whom she thinks are so great! (But too slutty for her sons) but are regrettably shameful...even if we assume its true, the horse is out of the barn and miles away now and maybe we should stop insisting that if we just close that barn door, our other horses will be safe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, I suspect if you asked a healthy heterosexual young woman (or homosexual young man!) just how sexual a picture of a young athletic man flexing in a bathing suit is, the answers would expose some of this double standard.
Put another way, a woman in a bikini that may very well clothe *more* skin than many (not just Speedos) male swimsuits is deemed more sexualized.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Things I don't like:
I definitely noticed the double standard. Flexing is roughly equivalent to the arched back and pout, and being less than fully clothed is what it is.
I dislike the shaming and reinforcement of the harmful concept that girls are responsible for the sexual virtue of boys.
Distant third: I'm slightly put off by the implied message that all the girls should want to please and preserve the friendship of her boys.
I think the positive things are: - the mother is paying attention - There is a conversation about how parents are paying attention - The idea that there are other ways to portray oneself besides trying to be sexy - There was immediate and vocal discussion about the negative stuff
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I think the author of the article blamed the girls too much, I can understand her MOTIVATIONS behind it.
I can understand that she does not want her sons to objectify women. I can understand that she wants them to respect women. I can understand why she would have her sons block the posts.
What I don't get is why she had to write an article shaming the girls. If you don't think something is good for your family, fine. There is no sense in blaming others for it.
The bigger conversation should be why girls in high school feel they have to post sexually driven pictures at all, especially online. I had a cousin that did some "modeling" in a bikini. All fine and good, except most of the pictures were pretty damn explicit (bordering on simulated sex with objects). While they are ok by Facebook's standards, I wouldn't want my children seeing those.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
What I don't get is why she didn't mention the dangers of teenagers posting sexually provocative pictures of themselves online for every sexual predator on the planet to see.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
How dangerous is that, do you think?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I can see having a stick up ones arse isn't a class feature limited to Paladin's. Also how am I supposed to learn female anatomy for my art if girls stop posing on facebook (I joke, I google clothing models)
Less tongue in check, I think the mother probably means well but didn't fully think through the implications or had the self awareness to realize the double standard she used.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
If she is cute and her self shots are only slightly sexy, they will appear on porn sites and blogs within weeks. Guaranteed.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: How dangerous is that, do you think?
Considering it gives a staggering amount of information to savvy predators (not the least of which is what you look like, where you live, and a lot of other hidden information that exists in pictures taken with the average GPS enabled smartphone), I'd say pretty dangerous. Also, how much information do you think a predator could use when looking at a picture of the average teenage girl's bedroom?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I guess we're assuming that the pictures are public. Even so, I wonder if it's a significant danger. I think online predators almost always groom victims through chat rooms.
Note: I'm not saying it's definitely safe. However, unless the danger is really significant, I don't think it's a very healthy thing to tell girls to avoid posting such pictures in order to keep themselves physically safe.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I guess we're assuming that the pictures are public. Even so, I wonder if it's a significant danger. I think online predators almost always groom victims through chat rooms.
Note: I'm not saying it's definitely safe. However, unless the danger is really significant, I don't think it's a very healthy thing to tell girls to avoid posting such pictures in order to keep themselves physically safe.
The default security settings of Facebook generally make everything you post there public and usually searchable. A lot of predators use chat rooms, but remember that Facebook has a messaging system that allows messages to reach you from people who aren't friends. It would not be difficult for a predator to see those pictures, get a whole hell of a lot of information from them, and then use it to lure an unsuspecting teenager into a really bad situation.
(I'm speaking here as a security specialist, not as someone trying to tell people not to post sexually suggestive pictures. The sexually suggestive thing could, however, increase the likelihood of a teenage girl or boy being specifically targeted, though).
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
This girl is a great example of what can happen. She never took any nude shots or anything even remotely pornographic yet she's a porn star.
quote:The bigger conversation should be why girls in high school feel they have to post sexually driven pictures at all, especially online. I had a cousin that did some "modeling" in a bikini. All fine and good, except most of the pictures were pretty damn explicit (bordering on simulated sex with objects). While they are ok by Facebook's standards, I wouldn't want my children seeing those.
There's a lot at work, but it's pretty fair to say a big part of it is: forbidden fruit, stretching boundaries against authority, and pressure applied more to women than men to couple up. Forbidden fruit: the girl who posts a picture of herself (gasp!) without a bra stands out. Society sexualizes her right away but also chastises-something men are expected to leer at but simultaneously shun (especially in the eyes of others). People often want what they're told not to want. Stretching boundaries: it's natural as someone matures to begin to strain to some extent against parental authority. Sexual behavior (in the broadest possible terms) is one effective way, in terms of stretching boundaries, to do this-especially given our often shame-oriented approach to sexuality. Then there's the pressure to couple up, which will always encourage the party most pressured to do more.
Anyway, that's some of the factors I see at work. Unfortunately nowhere in that woman's story do I see anything about 'how to begin to understand your own sexuality' for her sons, much less 'how to begin thinking about the sexuality of others'.
I also didn't see anything to indicate: why girls should give a damn if they have the resort much less admiration of her sons, or why she is such a moral authority in the first place. Everything proceeded from the point of: I am a profoundly good person, and you must measure up or be judged wanting. Why? Because they take a good picture?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Mrs. Hall's response to people pointing out how sexy her little boys are when half naked.
And, Jezebel has picked up the story.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Link seems to be down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Odd, I just clicked on the link and it worked fine.
[ September 05, 2013, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: I think the boys notice other things. For one, it appears that you are not wearing a bra.
I get it – you’re in your room, so you’re heading to bed, right? But then I can’t help but notice the red carpet pose, the extra-arched back, and the sultry pout. What’s up? None of these positions is one I naturally assume before sleep, this I know.
quote: Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t quickly un-see it? You don’t want our boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?
So.... does she always make sure to wear a bra and never let her kids see her pajamas? We all know that they can't unsee that. And she wouldn't want them to only see her as a sexual object.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Odd, I just clocked on the link and it worked fine.
It's working now. Your link must have overloaded their server, haha. Good article.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I.... did not realize this was not satire.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Oh... hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha
I don't care if that was satire or earnest, you just made so very happy.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I have no argument about a woman's right to be viewed as a person, no matter what she's wearing. This is where the messages are getting jumbled, however: in a perfect world, what's supposed to be going through your head when she shows up in a deliberately provocative picture?
First, shame is bad. That's been pretty consistent. You're not going to shame her for showing off that aspect of herself. And there's certainly no shame in coming across such a picture or feeling the feelings it's bound to provoke.
Does that mean you're free to look all you want? Or, does looking at all constitute sexualizing her, because it's just her picture you're interacting with, and it's obviously designed to provoke sexual desire? Should you feel any shame for looking anyway?
Is it possible, just with this picture, to simply affirm the sexual aspect of her humanity and thus making her even more human to you? Or is it impossible to look at the picture without objectifying her?
That's what's confusing me. It's clear what a "good Christian boy" would do, but what about a boy who's earnestly trying to do right by everyone?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It seems like there are a couple different conversations to be having at different times. If the girl is doing something like that and she's 18 and the boy is 18, then they are both consenting adults and she must have an incredibly good idea as to what her intentions are. I think at that point the best advice you can really give both genders is, be actively aware of what you're doing, what it means to both parties, and have at it.
For younger people, maybe explain that experimentation is a part of growing up, but you need to be wary of how far you go in your experimentation, that posting or sending a picture like that is sort of inherently both sexual in inviting.
Deliberately dressing up sexy and taking on a sexy pose and then actively sending that pictures to others is anything but a benign act. It's done with the intent of eliciting a response. But young teen girls may or may not be fully aware of what that response is, and young teen boys may not be aware of how to respond when their bodies clearly tell them one thing that may contradict their heads. When they're older, the signs and signals for that sort of thing are pretty clear cut, when they're young, it can be mixed.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
All right, that's a practical perspective, but there's been enough talk here centered on "why protect the boys from those pictures at all?" that I'm wondering what right-minded boys should be thinking in this situation.
On another note, if teenagers aren't quite clear yet on what kind of response they're inviting or how to respond to such pictures, isn't it a good idea for the parents to be filtering what comes through on their Facebook accounts?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would say no, because it buys into the illusion that parental Facebook censorship, or really media censorship in general, can shield teens from confusing images and concepts. It's not even a stopgap, it just gives the parents piece of mind but doesn't actually teach the child anything at all.
The focus shouldn't be on "protecting boys from the images," the focus should be on "GUIDING the boys through the images," because whether they do it on their own, whether they see them at a friends' house with less strict parents, or whether girls text the pictures directly, they are GOING to see these images. Learning how to do with something like this is a necessary aspect of emotional development in the technological age and it needs to be confronted directly (perhaps with allowances changing depending on very young age), not labeled with the Scarlet Letter and ignored.
Because this is EXACTLY the age we want to confront young boys about how they react to these images. If we don't do it during those formative years when they are forming and cementing their sexual identities and personalities, then bad behavior will be locked in place for years to come.
Censorship might feel like good parenting, because anything that involves nuzzling their precious innocent little boys feels right, especially to a mom. But they aren't precious little boys anymore, and censorship is doing more harm than good at an age when they require guidance more than castle walls.
ETA: As for what they SHOULD be thinking about? Well, I would probably start by asking what they actually feel. When they look at something like that, how do they view it? Then start some parenting. It's okay to have sexual feelings, especially when someone is coming on to you, but you can't let those feelings run wild. You control your feeling and actions, sexually, they don't control you. Then make sure they understand that while sex is perfectly natural and fine, it's not like going for a job. It's a more serious act that requires forethought and planning to be safe if undertaken at all, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Finish up by making sure they understand it's an act between two consenting adults when they're mature enough to undertake it, and it's more meaningful when there is a real emotional bond. Sex is special, the teen in question is valuable and so is their prospective partner, so neither should throw themselves away cheaply. Don't make it taboo, and don't make it overly fun and easy.
And that's just the first of a series of conversations. I would imagine you can't just throw that out there and then see what comes of it, kids aren't an experiment you leave running in the lab. But that's the start, you have to get all that out there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
...the first comment on that page...
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I would say no, because it buys into the illusion that parental Facebook censorship, or really media censorship in general, can shield teens from confusing images and concepts. It's not even a stopgap, it just gives the parents piece of mind but doesn't actually teach the child anything at all.
The focus shouldn't be on "protecting boys from the images," the focus should be on "GUIDING the boys through the images," because whether they do it on their own, whether they see them at a friends' house with less strict parents, or whether girls text the pictures directly, they are GOING to see these images. Learning how to do with something like this is a necessary aspect of emotional development in the technological age and it needs to be confronted directly (perhaps with allowances changing depending on very young age), not labeled with the Scarlet Letter and ignored.
Because this is EXACTLY the age we want to confront young boys about how they react to these images. If we don't do it during those formative years when they are forming and cementing their sexual identities and personalities, then bad behavior will be locked in place for years to come.
Censorship might feel like good parenting, because anything that involves nuzzling their precious innocent little boys feels right, especially to a mom. But they aren't precious little boys anymore, and censorship is doing more harm than good at an age when they require guidance more than castle walls.
ETA: As for what they SHOULD be thinking about? Well, I would probably start by asking what they actually feel. When they look at something like that, how do they view it? Then start some parenting. It's okay to have sexual feelings, especially when someone is coming on to you, but you can't let those feelings run wild. You control your feeling and actions, sexually, they don't control you. Then make sure they understand that while sex is perfectly natural and fine, it's not like going for a job. It's a more serious act that requires forethought and planning to be safe if undertaken at all, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Finish up by making sure they understand it's an act between two consenting adults when they're mature enough to undertake it, and it's more meaningful when there is a real emotional bond. Sex is special, the teen in question is valuable and so is their prospective partner, so neither should throw themselves away cheaply. Don't make it taboo, and don't make it overly fun and easy.
And that's just the first of a series of conversations. I would imagine you can't just throw that out there and then see what comes of it, kids aren't an experiment you leave running in the lab. But that's the start, you have to get all that out there.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree--the thing to do is help them know how to handle these experiences when they come, because you're right, they will. I'm glad you emphasized that.
While I don't think you're turning your boys into monsters who end up as date-rapists later if you censor provocative images in your home instead of letting them view them as part of an educational experience, you do need to prepare them for what's going to come at them and help them know what to do with it--and that while the feelings they bring are natural and not shameful to feel, they're also powerful. The boy needs to learn how to channel and govern those feelings.
On the occasion that a friend posts a picture that is clearly provocative, I don't think I would keep it around--but I would definitely use the whole event as an opportunity to get their feelings about it and help them understand what's going on. No, I don't think it's OK for this hypothetical girl to be posting suggestive pictures, and no, just because they showed up on Facebook doesn't make viewing them any more right. It's still a poor choice and a potentially harmful one all around. But this is a great time to reaffirm that it's never right to objectify a woman, and that every person deserves to be thought of and treated with respect.
I do not see preventing such events from reoccurring in my home as somehow shaming the girls who are posting the images. In fact, I see it as helping them be able to correct their own poor choices--along with the contact I would certainly be making with their parents if I had a way to contact them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Simply preventing them after a thorough and open, unabashed conversation-I wouldn't say that's shaming either. In the case of the letter in question, though (I don't think you meant your statement to apply to it), the conversation as well as the letter itself were rife with shaming and male privilege.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yes, they definitely were.
There's a difference, IMO, between writing such a letter and posting it for comment, and taking steps to prevent the reoccurrence of that situation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can't argue with that.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
In a way I’m glad your first post made everyone all uptight. It means it got SHARED and READ a lot! Which is a wonderful thing! I actually think women are the keepers of standards in our society so I do believe the primary burden of modesty falls on girls and not boys. It’s interesting to me how people were so knee-jerk about it. (I didn’t even notice it until I read the comments.) Please don’t let that keep you from continuing to write your truth. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Well, the Hall boys' street cred is now in the crapper.
Luckily, "street cred" is something that doesn't/shouldn't matter much past 9th grade.
And hopefully by the time they're in their 20's this will be a hilarious story at the thanksgiving table.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
My personal reception was... Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's an excellent article but I can't help but wonder what I would say that would be half as good for a teenage daughter. To me, this is the harder part of the discussion, because I wouldn't want a daughter of mine to be ashamed of her body or her sexuality but I also wouldn't want her to feel pressured to look and act sexy or to unintentional communicate things that were sexually provacative.
If we women want to be treated with respect rather than viewed as objects, we need to stop sending mixed signals. It isn't fair to put the full burden on men. If we are publicly advertising our our sexuality, we can't expect the public to ignore it. If we don't want to be seen primarily as sex objects, then we shouldn't be cultivating that image. And in my experience, lots of young women are rather naive about the image they are presenting to the world. (and by young I mean well into their twenties.)
I've seen too many women graduate students give presentations at scientific meetings wearing necklines that were so low and skirts that were so short that most of audience was embarrassed for them. As a senior woman a field of mostly men, it's often fallen to me to explain to these young women (much to their shock and horror) that the men are calling them 'the girl who is dressed like a hooker'. Young women tend to rather thoughtlessly wear whatever the fashion industry pushes and they have too few roll models for fashionable professional dress.
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. There is nothing inherently wrong with being sexually inviting, in the right time and place -- but a public forum is probably not the right place.
There is nothing inherently wrong with sex and wanting to be sexy, but women deserve to be recognized for more than that and wanted for more than sex. When the first thing that attracts others attention about you is that you are sexy, many of them won't ever see beyond that.
I think what I'm saying is I'd want my teenage daughter to understand what messages she was sending so she could send the messages really wanted when she wanted to, and to whom she wanted. I'd want her to understand that if she attracted attention to herself by being sexually provacative, she would be less likely to be seen for her other virtues. I'd want her to believe that she had assets far greater than being sexy. I'd want her to attract the kind of friends and lovers who valued her personality and talents more than the superficial sexiness.
[ September 08, 2013, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My personal reception was Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
what-a-stud
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
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 Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Sheesh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sa'eed's endorsement of this letter ought to serve as a warning to think twice for anyone, heh.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Considering how much more often teenage boys sexually assault teenage girls than the other way around, that's a profoundly ignorant yet unsurprising opinion.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Teenaged girls blah blah creepiness blah
And then the thread went to hell.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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 by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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,
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
jesus christ
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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?
Christ.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yes it is crazy
do you know why it is crazy
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you unaware of the notion that women find men sexually attractive? Yet, somehow, we manage.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Because you're a different sex with different sexual wiring.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
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).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Because you're a different sex with different sexual wiring.
Meaning what, exactly? That we have no impulses or urges?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
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)
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
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.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:so I just don't see what the problem is.
females
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
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.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
it's not really unasked for
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: it's not really unasked for
lol
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
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.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I'm reminded of this skit.
Warning, nsfw + Donald Glover in his underwear. Which you can never unsee and have no choice but to see him only as a sex object from now on.
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sa'eed,
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.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The other problem is women could dress very conservatively and still be extremely attractive.
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.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All those men are utilizing pornography and becoming more and more desensitized everyday.
Are you utilizing pornography, Sa'eed?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
"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."
So you realize that you would be taking those other indulgences away, where they would merely be at the disposal of men.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sa'eed,
quote: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.
So it's not just that you think women should behave themselves entirely with concern to how that behavior impacts men, you think they largely are already doing that. So I suppose what you're advocating isn't really so much a big change as a modification: skanks of the world, start conducting yourselves towards what men will think in the right way.
I'm just curious, is there anything that would cause you to rethink the universality of this outlook? I ask because for some reason, you've been convinced that this is true for some time. What would it take for you to reconsider the idea that a woman jogging has a large part of her mind devoted towards 'preening for men'? Somehow I doubt there is. I have a sneaking suspicion that you would continue to believe this no matter what actual women might say to you-they're skanks preening for men.
quote: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.
This is a rather abrupt, transparent attempt to shift the conversation onto other pet issues of yours which I'm afraid I can't let you do unremarked. You're talking about entirely different things with all of those examples. We're discussing whether or not women should be trained in schools for 'modesty', and just how much consideration they should take for the feelings they (supposedly) unavoidably trigger in the men around them, and why this means women need to spend so much time thinking about how men think about them. Each of the other issues you raised doesn't have anything to do with this question of how much each gender must think about how the other thinks about it.
Age of consent laws address actions, not thoughts. Prohibition of prostitution, likewise. Divorce laws involve what happens when a legal union is broken. Child support rules involve what actions must be taken with respect to the care of a child. There is a case to be made for reform with respect to many of these questions, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is your notion that women should be taught to obsess over how men think about them and behave accordingly, and the lack of a corresponding demand placed on men.
Or perhaps I missed the part where you advocated that men must be taught 'modesty' in schools, and vet every action they take or word they say through the lens of how women will respond to it, and if they make the wrong choice be deemed slutty? I didn't miss it-you don't advocate this. Stop attempting to change the subject.
quote: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.
All of them? It becomes more clear how you came to think this way. You have no way at all of knowing how many men utilize pornography, what kind of pornography, how often, and in what company much less whether they all do so. I'd be interested to hear how you claim to know this, though, and with what degree of certainty. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. All men are in a feeding frenzy of pornography ingestion by default. This then allows them to refrain without difficulty from leering, catcalling, or horndogging when a woman with the audacity to jog while comfortably clothed passes by. Or when they're teaching a high school class or something.
Multiple times in this and other conversations, you've insisted it is an enormous mental strain to refrain from doing these things, but here you're pointing out a pretty simple method to do so that according to you all men are doing so anyway.
Make up your damned mind.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sa'eed,
quote: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.
So it's not just that you think women should behave themselves entirely with concern to how that behavior impacts men, you think they largely are already doing that. So I suppose what you're advocating isn't really so much a big change as a modification: skanks of the world, start conducting yourselves towards what men will think in the right way.
I'm just curious, is there anything that would cause you to rethink the universality of this outlook? I ask because for some reason, you've been convinced that this is true for some time. What would it take for you to reconsider the idea that a woman jogging has a large part of her mind devoted towards 'preening for men'? Somehow I doubt there is. I have a sneaking suspicion that you would continue to believe this no matter what actual women might say to you-they're skanks preening for men.
quote: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.
This is a rather abrupt, transparent attempt to shift the conversation onto other pet issues of yours which I'm afraid I can't let you do unremarked. You're talking about entirely different things with all of those examples. We're discussing whether or not women should be trained in schools for 'modesty', and just how much consideration they should take for the feelings they (supposedly) unavoidably trigger in the men around them, and why this means women need to spend so much time thinking about how men think about them. Each of the other issues you raised doesn't have anything to do with this question of how much each gender must think about how the other thinks about it.
The thing is that you are trying to paint an equivalence between men and women so that if I say "women should be modest" I have to also say "men should be...x" as to remain consistent, you getting to be the judge of that consistency. But society asks different things from men and women and there needn't be equivalent burdens placed on the genders.
quote:All of them? It becomes more clear how you came to think this way. You have no way at all of knowing how many men utilize pornography, what kind of pornography, how often, and in what company much less whether they all do so. I'd be interested to hear how you claim to know this, though, and with what degree of certainty. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. All men are in a feeding frenzy of pornography ingestion by default. This then allows them to refrain without difficulty from leering, catcalling, or horndogging when a woman with the audacity to jog while comfortably clothed passes by. Or when they're teaching a high school class or something.
Alfred Kinsey found that 54 of men used to porn in the 50s. I'm betting that the usage is considerably higher today, and consists of far extreme stuff than the lads mags of that era.
quote: Multiple times in this and other conversations, you've insisted it is an enormous mental strain to refrain from doing these things, but here you're pointing out a pretty simple method to do so that according to you all men are doing so anyway.
It is a strain, but a tolerable one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sa'eed,
quote:The thing is that you are trying to paint an equivalence between men and women so that if I say "women should be modest" I have to also say "men should be...x" as to remain consistent, you getting to be the judge of that consistency. But society asks different things from men and women and there needn't be equivalent burdens placed on the genders.
That's mighty of you-'separate but equal'-given that you're advocating one gender has to orient itself entirely around the other gender's thoughts, or be deemed skanky. It's not some biased outlook on consistency that detects glaring hypocrisy and injustice in that outlook. And yes, the burdens placed on the genders absolutely need to be equivalent unless we're to accept and endorse fundamental social injustice.
I can see why you're happy with that, given your membership in the privileged gender, but thankfully as time passes your ideas grow ever more offensive and embarrassing.
quote:Alfred Kinsey found that 54 of men used to porn in the 50s. I'm betting that the usage is considerably higher today, and consists of far extreme stuff than the lads mags of that era.
So your 'evidence' for this sweeping generalization is part of a study performed over sixty years ago. Very rigorous.
quote:It is a strain, but a tolerable one.
It's not a strain except to weak willed misogynists. But in any event, if it's a tolerable strain, quit whining about it and insisting the other gender needs to run their every word and gesture by you for approval.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Here's a burden I would place on men, as a deal for urging young women to dress modestly: I would ban pornography. Women would be less sexually objectified in the culture at large, and men would be less agitated by the sexual preening of young women and would be less likely to seek out porn. Everyone wins.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You never did say whether you use pornography yourself to control your urges. Do you?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sa'eed,
quote:The thing is that you are trying to paint an equivalence between men and women so that if I say "women should be modest" I have to also say "men should be...x" as to remain consistent, you getting to be the judge of that consistency. But society asks different things from men and women and there needn't be equivalent burdens placed on the genders.
That's mighty of you-'separate but equal'-given that you're advocating one gender has to orient itself entirely around the other gender's thoughts, or be deemed skanky. It's not some biased outlook on consistency that detects glaring hypocrisy and injustice in that outlook. And yes, the burdens placed on the genders absolutely need to be equivalent unless we're to accept and endorse fundamental social injustice.
Who are they orienting themselves around when they compete with each other to sexually preen, or dress as sexy as possible? Yes, it's around men. The point is that they should orient themselves around men in a different way.
quote: So your 'evidence' for this sweeping generalization is part of a study performed over sixty years ago. Very rigorous.
Whatever, it's a forum debate, not a scholarly thesis. Here's a gizmodo entry on porn use.
quote: It's not a strain except to weak willed misogynists. But in any event, if it's a tolerable strain, quit whining about it and insisting the other gender needs to run their every word and gesture by you for approval.
A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You never did say whether you use pornography yourself to control your urges. Do you?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
Well, if it's effecting happiness, by all means, let's have more of it!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Yea, my grammar sucks. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sa'eed,
quote:Who are they orienting themselves around when they compete with each other to sexually preen, or dress as sexy as possible? Yes, it's around men. The point is that they should orient themselves around men in a different way.
You haven't demonstrated the first necessary part of this belief-that women already do these things intentionally towards men. You've simply submitted it as a given.
You don't get to do that and be taken seriously. But I do appreciate your giving such a nice quote to illustrate that despite your words, you do deem women as second class humans. 'Orient themselves around men in a different way'. I'll be sure to remember that for a few months from now, when you attempt to pretend you're not a misogynist in a different discussion, as you've done repeatedly.
quote:A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
It impacts your happiness. It's far from universal. Right here in this thread you've heard from men who take pleasure in this 'strain'. But in any event, for the sake of argument, sure, it's a strain. Even a nigh-unbearable strain. Alright. Why should this strain trump a woman's right to dress as she chooses, exactly?
Wait, I remember. It's because, "...they should orient themselves around men in a different way." Got it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
Good post. It is possible - even normal - for grown-ups to admire without objectifying. Or worse insisting that this puts the other person under some creepy obligation.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Good post. It is possible - even normal - for grown-ups to admire without objectifying. Or worse insisting that this puts the other person under some creepy obligation.
I get the impression from a lot of people in feminist circles that admiring is objectifying.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
There may be people that feel that way, stilesbn, but I'm guessing that most of the time, behavior that is found objectionable goes beyond the thoughts of the admirer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: There may be people that feel that way, stilesbn, but I'm guessing that most of the time, behavior that is found objectionable goes beyond the thoughts of the admirer.
There are absolutely people who feel that way. I've seen men corrected for either staring at or commenting on a woman's beauty. I think it's pretty gross overkill, but a lot of people, a LOT of people (women mostly, but some men too), are hypersensitive on this issue. I never hear women being corrected for ogling men, however, which I find interesting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think you made my point...staring or making comments goes beyond what is happening in the thoughts of the admirer. I'd need more context to know whether I agree the behavior is (problematically) objectifying or in any other way offensive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Much depends on context. Criticism for noting someone's physical attraction? Sure, doesn't sound objectionable. First thing someone thinks of as a rule to compliment a woman for? Bit different. Brief passing glance? Sure, hard pressed to object to. Lengthy up and down look, perhaps not so much. Complimenting the woman you don't know on the elevator alone at night? Could be hair-raising. Remarking favorably on a woman's dress at a wedding, almost surely not. So on and so forth.
Of course there will be those who are too sensitive, no doubt, but I generally note that when I think that initially, after a little thought I can see a reason why it might actually be irksome.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
For almost anything, I can easily understand if someone is asked not to. And that doesn't mean that they think I'm objectifying them , although I can relate to what stilesb is saying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Isn't objectifying an internal thing though? How can you know if someone is appreciating or reducing a woman based solely on what they say or do? (Although some words and actions make it much more obvious than others).
I think telling a stranger they look nice isn't objectifying, it's just a little weird. Though some women would like that and some wouldn't. It would also depend on where its being said. If I said it to a friend standing next to me, is it just as objectionable? If I'm staring at a woman but she doesn't notice me at all, is that okay? Or is it only wrong when my staring is noticed and makes her feel uncomfortable?
And where is the line between all that and just plain social convention? None of that automatically implies objectification, it's really just the difference between rude and polite.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
If that's a response to me, I agree.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
Good post. It is possible - even normal - for grown-ups to admire without objectifying. Or worse insisting that this puts the other person under some creepy obligation.
Dogbreath, you have grown into a markedly healthy, interesting, and admirable man. I am so glad to know you and have you posting here. Thanks!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
CT: Awww, thank you. I really enjoy the conversations I've had with you here and at Sake. (though I'm currently on the 1 post every 6 months plan or something... :/)
As far as the conversation regarding objectifying/admiring... hmmm. Well I'll start by saying yes, everyone's standards are different. I think the line is drawn at "what makes a person uncomfortable?" I think a glace and a smile is socially acceptable just about everywhere, whereas staring or noticeably looking someone up and down might make a person feel uncomfortable or disrespected, so it's less acceptable. (Though everything has context, i.e, if a female friend asks you "how do I look in this new dress?", that would obviously be the appropriate time, I'm just talking in general here...)
In the cases of women I don't know, I think the whole "objectifying" terminology isn't very easy to define. I mean, if I'm passing a women and don't talk to her, the only things I'm going to be able to know about her is A) her aesthetic beauty (including clothes, posture, style) and B) her sex appeal. I don't think that counts as objectifying unless, say, she introduces herself and we get to know her, and I still think of her exclusively in sexual terms.
I think a big overreaction (or perhaps, miscommunication since a lot of guys here seem to think it's a common thing) is assuming that if someone thinks of someone in an explicitly sexual manner, it is by default objectification. This is obviously not true, as anyone in a relationship or marriage knows. I think of my girlfriend in a far more detailed and explicitly sexual way by far than any other woman I know, and I'd argue I also know her, understand her, and appreciate her more deeply and profoundly in nuanced and detailed and completely non-sexual ways than anyone else in my life.
So for that reason, I don't think appreciating or admiring someone's sexuality is wrong or objectifying until you allow that appreciation to overwhelm or block out other parts of them. I have plenty of female friends who I appreciate for their friendship, and if I see them at the beach or wearing a sexy dress, I might (ok, definitely will) find them very sexually attractive and enjoy that attraction. And I think that's perfectly fine and healthy - it adds to my respect and appreciation of them, not diminishes it.
It only becomes a problem when A) I start making remarks (to them or other men), staring, or acting in way that might make them feel uncomfortable (though some of them I know well enough to say "daaaamnn girl!" or something and have them appreciate it), or B) if I ignore other parts of their personality and character due to that attraction.
That's my take on it - it all has to do with how your reaction is received. Which is also mainly why catcalling, ogling, and sometimes even grabbing is more tolerated when it's woman-on-man: most men don't know what it's like to feel scared or physically intimidated by women, so most men generally enjoy being openly admired and hit on by women more than women enjoy being admired by men. There's an inherent, intense discomfort that comes with being stared at, yelled at or grabbed by a stranger who is physically larger and more powerful than you, even in situations where you know you're probably not going to get hurt. Probably the most intensely uncomfortable moment of my life was being aggressively hit on by a (probably well meaning) gay guy, so I can sympathize somewhat with what women feel.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I think "real" women aren't nearly as attractive as 2D women. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I think "real" women aren't nearly as attractive as 2D women.
You know those come in 3D now. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, deflatable girlfriends are certainly easier to store and transport.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
There is no refuting your subjective experience.
I wonder, though, if the effect is as benign as you claim.
quote: Kenrick et al.’s experiments demonstrate that men who view photographs of physically attractive women or Playboy centerfolds subsequently find their current mates less physically attractive and become less satisfied with their current relationships. What then would be the cumulative effect of being exposed to young, attractive women on a daily basis? Would there be any real consequences to the men’s dissatisfaction with their relationships? Secondary school teachers and college professors come in contact with more young women at the peak of their reproductive value than others do. The analysis of a large, representative data set from the United States indicates that, while men in general are less likely to be divorced than women, and secondary school teachers and college professors in general are less likely to be divorced than others, simultaneously being male and being a secondary school teacher or college professor statistically increases the likelihood of being divorced (p <.05). We contend that the contrast effect that Kenrick et al. find in their experiments is cumulative and has real consequences.
quote:Who are they orienting themselves around when they compete with each other to sexually preen, or dress as sexy as possible? Yes, it's around men. The point is that they should orient themselves around men in a different way.
You haven't demonstrated the first necessary part of this belief-that women already do these things intentionally towards men. You've simply submitted it as a given.
Somethings are basic. Posing suggestively and wearing sexy clothing = sexual display.
quote: It impacts your happiness. It's far from universal. Right here in this thread you've heard from men who take pleasure in this 'strain'. But in any event, for the sake of argument, sure, it's a strain. Even a nigh-unbearable strain. Alright. Why should this strain trump a woman's right to dress as she chooses, exactly?
Look at the finding that being male and a high school or college professor increases your chances of divorce (with no similar effect for female teachers/professors.) Those male professors might be made happy at the sight of young women but it's making them unhappy in the long run.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm perfectly satisfied with my relationship, thank you very much. You might be surprised to find that there's a lot more to sexual satisfaction than "oh no! I have laid eyes upon women hotter than my girlfriend, therefore I am no longer satisfied!" But why are you so afraid of the female body if you're not even in a relationship? What harm is it doing you? Jesus dude, you act like normal sexual attraction is a cancerous tumor or something. Benign?
I swear, women are nothing to be afraid of. You're not going to lose control or be dominated or diseased or weakened if you look at a woman without your strange mixture of fear, disgust, and longing. Just relax and have fun. I promise you, it won't hurt.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm perfectly satisfied with my relationship, thank you very much. You might be surprised to find that there's a lot more to sexual satisfaction than "oh no! I have laid eyes upon women hotter than my girlfriend, therefore I am no longer satisfied!" But why are you so afraid of the female body if you're not even in a relationship? What harm is it doing you? Jesus dude, you act like normal sexual attraction is a cancerous tumor or something. Benign?
I wasn't commenting on your personal relationships but your claims about the "vast majority of men." The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large: It makes men less satisfied with whomever they shack up for life. This is why we should teach young women modest behavior and urge them to wear conservative clothing: To save marriages. To save families. To save America.
quote: I swear, women are nothing to be afraid of. You're not going to lose control or be dominated or diseased or weakened if you look at a woman without your strange mixture of fear, disgust, and longing. Just relax and have fun. I promise you, it won't hurt.
Blah blah blah unanswerable condescending lecture. Whatevs.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious any more.
But you still haven't answered (and no, it's not unanswerable): why are you so afraid of women? What's so fundamentally awful about seeing their bodies? I *am* being serious with these questions - if you feel they're condescending, it's because you've put yourself in a position that is difficult to even address honestly without being condescending.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I'm not afraid of anything. I'm just defending the mother of blog post in the OP.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I think "real" women aren't nearly as attractive as 2D women.
You know those come in 3D now.
The '3D' CGI stuff comes off as really stiff and uncanny compared to more traditionally drawn 2D stuff, though there is the MMD animation stuff which is decent.
This way I can rest assured that No Women Were Harmed(tm).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
...startin' to get a lil creepy, Elison. I could be alone in thinking that, but if I'm not I thought you might like to know.
--------
Sa'eed,
quote:There is no refuting your subjective experience.
I wonder, though, if the effect is as benign as you claim.
Do you have, like, an irony-capable rebreather? Or did you seriously just brush off someone else's subjective experience on this subject?
quote:Somethings are basic. Posing suggestively and wearing sexy clothing = sexual display.
I just listed a variety of activities in which it wasn't a sexual display, to which your response was 'of course they're preening for men'. So no, some things are not 'basic'. You still haven't made an argument for these basic things. You don't get to simply say 'it's basic' and then have it taken as given.
quote:Look at the finding that being male and a high school or college professor increases your chances of divorce (with no similar effect for female teachers/professors.) Those male professors might be made happy at the sight of young women but it's making them unhappy in the long run.
Let's suppose for a moment that this study is absolutely conclusive and reveals undeniable facts about human sexuality: why is the inability of these male teachers and professors to resist temptation supposed to be the problem of the women themselves? Of their subordinate students, no less?
Well, I know the answer. You've brought up Saudi Arabia more than once so it's plain what your answer is, however much you head-fake towards finding a 'happy medium'.
quote:I wasn't commenting on your personal relationships but your claims about the "vast majority of men." The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large: It makes men less satisfied with whomever they shack up for life. This is why we should teach young women modest behavior and urge them to wear conservative clothing: To save marriages. To save families. To save America.
To save men from themselves, in other words. We need to make it the duty of women to change their behavior because men simply can't handle it currently.
OK, this answers my question about your irony-capable rebreather.
quote:I'm not afraid of anything. I'm just defending the mother of blog post in the OP.
Everyone's afraid of something, and it's obvious you're afraid of women. Why wouldn't you be? According to you, their slutty behavior causes men unhappiness. It causes you unhappiness, and also according to you there's little or nothing you can do to stop it. You're helpless before this onslaught of burden and unhappiness. Are you saying the thing that inflicts mental pain on you that you can't resist doesn't frighten you, even a little?
Wow, I guess you're an alpha after all! Way to go, bro.
On another note, you serve as an excellent example of the dangers and hypocrisy of censorship. It's revealing that once again, the person most concerned with censoring the behavior of others on moral grounds...well when you look at this person-you in this case, Sa'eed-you begin to discover that they're probably not the person that should be the moral watchdog at all. Or...tell us some more about how much you'd like to have sex with girls in high school. Tell us more about how women already orient themselves totally around men. Tell us more about 'erotic capital' and how much you want to be able to purchase it from prostitutes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I'm mainly confused as to why porn is worse than paying prostitutes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large
Or perhaps creepy guys seek out jobs where they get to oogle young women, so there's a higher than average percentage of men in such professions that will end up divorced. We don't have any idea about causality here, so jumping from "male teachers are slightly more likely than the average to be divorced" to "because the relentless sexual preening of their students makes them unhappy" is ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For my part, I'm mainly confused as to why porn is worse than paying prostitutes.
You lose that visceral satisfaction of ownership of an actual, human woman?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think he just wants to rent them.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] ...startin' to get a lil creepy, Elison. I could be alone in thinking that, but if I'm not I thought you might like to know.
I'ld argue there is a clear ethical point in favor of illustrated or otherwise animated adult materials in that at most, a woman only lends her voice to the production. As opposed to the 'live' porn industry where you can never be sure if that actress is there with her free will.
That and well, they are both fiction meant to satisfy the audience fantasies there's that basic equivalence.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Ah, I had assumed it was some sort of tentacle rape thing or something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I dunno, the 'no actual women have been hurt' thing took my mind to thinking 'women, animated or photographed, are being harmed etc etc.' with the virtue of artificial pornography being that no real women are being harmed.
--------
So I was driving home from taking my dogs to the groomers this morning, and passed a carwash. A place of business I mean, not a fund raiser or anything. Stopped at a light (a crappy, too-slow-on-Saturday-mornings-freakin'-light) I noticed that one of the employees was female. From a distance she appeared attractive, and was wearing some sort of sleeveless shirt and shorts, with a hat. Big surprise, right, Florida September morning on a sunny day and all that. I noted in my mind 'nice legs!'
But then I tried to imagine what it would be like if I were a man such as Sa'eed or a like-minded man, who would view such a thing as provocative 'sexual preening' that this woman should be criticized for not...validating or fulfilling or whatever to men who see her. I tried to imagine how it would be like to view her-from a distance, without knowing her, without hearing her voice or knowing any of her thoughts, without ever having even been to that car wash and knowing if they did a good job!-what it would be like to view her with antagonism, exclusively on the basis of her appearance to me personally.
I'm not sure I could complete the circuit in my mind. I don't think I did. I kept coming back to 'it's September in Florida, on a sunny day'. I could imagine her taking satisfaction in that clothing and looking attractive to the world at large, but I couldn't legitimately imagine (that is, imagine it and have it feel like my own thought) that she was engaging in 'sexual preening'.
I don't understand where you're coming from, Sa'eed. I can analyze other things you say and comfortably label you a misogynist, but this outlook of yours is alien to me. I suspect it's baffling to others too, when it's not offensive. You have done a poor job of making your case if after all this time I can't even imagine what it's like to feel that way.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Ah, I had assumed it was some sort of tentacle rape thing or something.
That's not my thing, but I can understand the argument and largely agree with the argument, "This fictional character unquestionably enjoys it, so its okay." It's a pretend world of pretend people doing pretend things, like reading a book.
I am not making the argument of "porn inherently demeans women" as certainly there are plenty of AV actresses who would likely strenuously disagree, and surely plenty who do enjoy and derive satisfaction from the work. The argument I make is instead a probabilistic one.
The possibility from randomly watching clips or movies on the internet containing content that likely contains actual exploitation or at least AV actors who truly aren't comfortable and rather not be there if it weren't for circumstances is sufficiently non-zero that I don't feel comfortable watching it.
The probability of anyone being harmed from the production of doujinshi manga is sufficiently near-zero that I think it should be understandable as a preference as any other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If your only concern is literally 'was anyone directly, personally harmed in the conception, creation, production, distribution, sale, etc. of this media', then sure it seems to me you've got a pretty solid argument.
But-and maybe it's just me again, so I may be misreading you-but if you're saying 'this drawn, fictitious woman unquestionably enjoys being assaulted by a many-appendaged creature, therefore it's unobjectionable'...well. I suppose before saying more I should ask if that is what you mean.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
People complain about "Walls of text" when I try to give nuanced answers, nonetheless! I will still attempt a satisfactory answer.
Perhaps I may be missing the point here but I'ld argue that such scenes are indistinguishable from say the 'reluctant but gets really into it' IYKWIM genre for AV films and no one seems to ever complain about those; which would strike me as a double standard.
I think it is also easier to maintain the distinction between production (as you say), and content with animated or doujinshi works than it is for 'regular' adult AV films. The production of the film is the sex they are having, that is how the film is made, which overlaps some with the content no?
But if we are to compare the two purely on matters of content, i.e, the fact that porn is largely seen as a mainstream thing all of its varied genres include, that healthy adults are expected to consume 'just don't talk about it at the family dinner table' and this is normal. That the content is just a fantasy to be consumed and there's a genre for anyone, then yes, I don't possibly see how they can be considered different in that one is objectionable and one isn't just because of medium on content alone.
Sure, you don't to my admittedly non-existent knowledge see or hear about the tentacle thing in AV films (and I am not googling it), but I would bet you real money that they would if it were practical. Sure you'ld roll your eyes at it, or tilt your head oddly but you wouldn't judge* someone for it.
*I know this phrase, and I am pretty sure this isn't the word but I am blanking out, I think it starts with 'r'.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Elison: I think the main objection to your "wall of text" is how painfully difficult it is to navigate your writing. I realize you probably don't mean to be so obtuse, but you really need to focus on clarity, precision and succinctness. I'm not trying to pick on you, though, so please don't take it the wrong way.
As far as the tentacle rape thing goes:
In theory, I have no problem with it. People get off on different thimgs, and some people like whips, chains, handcuffs, and dominance/being dominated in general. I've always thought the whole "violent video games/movies makes people more violent" argument to be bogus, and I guess the same could be said about unrealistic sexual fantasies. So long as you know it's just make believe, it's probably ok.
That being said... just about everybody knows murder is wrong, and it's pounded into our brain from the time we can first hit other people that hurting other people is wrong. Rape is a far more tenuous subject. I mean, everybody knows lurking in the shadows with a mask and raping an unknown woman is wrong. But a *lot* of young men don't really understand consent, or may be confused as far as what is and isn't acceptable. So the "reluctant at first, enjoys it later" type of porn might legitimately send the message "hey, this is ok! Women like being dominated/held down/roughed up at first, besides, she didn't fight me and she seemed like she enjoyed it"... which is prettty common amoung rapists. (Most of whom don't consider themselves rapists)
That being said, you clearly understand that is is just fantasy are concerned about women were hurt in the making of it, so I don't really think it's harmful for you to watch. But you can understand why rape fantasy porn can make people (including myself) feel extremely uncomfortable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I do want to get back to this (I came around last week, but Hatrack was down again), but I don't have full time right now. I'll put this here as a placeholder, because I want to bring that in. It might be interesting for people to read too.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade. You know way better than that Kwea.)
[ September 22, 2013, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I do want to get back to this (I came around last week, but Hatrack was down again), but I don't have full time right now. I'll put this here as a placeholder, because I want to bring that in. It might be interesting for people to read too.
I found it interesting, and was heartened at the proactive attitude towards the ideal of being an honorable, worthy man...but in the end I felt it was also more than a little patronizing and paternalistic towards women, and also openly in a few lines dismissive of their own capability to stand up for themselves. Lines such as 'spiritual leader', references to a woman's own morality being the last and often weak line of defense-against what it wasn't made expressly clear, but it was interesting to me to note that the blame was indirectly placed on the women when this last, weak line would often fail.
There was also what I felt was a patronizing attitude towards men, strangely enough. It was taken as a given that men would be the transgressors, that it was important that a grim, unpleasant warning be set over them. To my mind, a more effective, more rational, and more egalitarian method is to approach the problem without the implicit assumption 'men will be bad' and the subtle, sometimes spoken sometimes not permission to *be* bad that this implies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yea, my grammar sucks. Thanks for the correction.
Not just your grammar....
Whistled. I'm also advocating that you should be temporarily banned for this (as a long standing pattern of behavior in flagrant violation of the the rules here).
I doubt you'll get anything other than JB telling you to cut it out for the nth time, but God knows you deserve it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large
Or perhaps creepy guys seek out jobs where they get to oogle young women, so there's a higher than average percentage of men in such professions that will end up divorced. We don't have any idea about causality here, so jumping from "male teachers are slightly more likely than the average to be divorced" to "because the relentless sexual preening of their students makes them unhappy" is ridiculous.
It's quite misandrist to interpret the statistics that way, as if there are enough creeps out there (as to significantly impact divorce stats for the men in the teaching professions) who become teachers just to ogle young women. You're pretty much insulting male teachers.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I dunno, the 'no actual women have been hurt' thing took my mind to thinking 'women, animated or photographed, are being harmed etc etc.' with the virtue of artificial pornography being that no real women are being harmed.
--------
So I was driving home from taking my dogs to the groomers this morning, and passed a carwash. A place of business I mean, not a fund raiser or anything. Stopped at a light (a crappy, too-slow-on-Saturday-mornings-freakin'-light) I noticed that one of the employees was female. From a distance she appeared attractive, and was wearing some sort of sleeveless shirt and shorts, with a hat. Big surprise, right, Florida September morning on a sunny day and all that. I noted in my mind 'nice legs!'
But then I tried to imagine what it would be like if I were a man such as Sa'eed or a like-minded man, who would view such a thing as provocative 'sexual preening' that this woman should be criticized for not...validating or fulfilling or whatever to men who see her. I tried to imagine how it would be like to view her-from a distance, without knowing her, without hearing her voice or knowing any of her thoughts, without ever having even been to that car wash and knowing if they did a good job!-what it would be like to view her with antagonism, exclusively on the basis of her appearance to me personally.
I'm not sure I could complete the circuit in my mind. I don't think I did. I kept coming back to 'it's September in Florida, on a sunny day'. I could imagine her taking satisfaction in that clothing and looking attractive to the world at large, but I couldn't legitimately imagine (that is, imagine it and have it feel like my own thought) that she was engaging in 'sexual preening'.
I don't understand where you're coming from, Sa'eed. I can analyze other things you say and comfortably label you a misogynist, but this outlook of yours is alien to me. I suspect it's baffling to others too, when it's not offensive. You have done a poor job of making your case if after all this time I can't even imagine what it's like to feel that way.
There is a reason those car washes always use YOUNG WOMEN. And not young men.
It's to entice men to come nearer (by purchasing a car wash) so they can ogle the teenagers (they're often high schoolers) in a deniable fashion. That's the marketing strategy anyway. It's messed up.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: But you still haven't answered (and no, it's not unanswerable): why are you so afraid of women? What's so fundamentally awful about seeing their bodies? I *am* being serious with these questions - if you feel they're condescending, it's because you've put yourself in a position that is difficult to even address honestly without being condescending.
I'm not afraid of women. In fact, just today I asked one of them out for a date and she said yes. I'll report back how it goes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is a reason those car washes always use YOUNG WOMEN. And not young men.
It's to entice men to come nearer (by purchasing a car wash) so they can ogle the teenagers (they're often high schoolers) in a deniable fashion. That's the marketing strategy anyway. It's messed up.
Of the four people washing cars that I could see, exactly one was a woman. But it's a sign of how dishonest your style of discussion is-everything pivots back to your stance. One quarter women? They're lures. Not dressed in a provocative fashion? Doesn't matter, they're still lures. All women aren't sexually preening for men? You're a misandrist for wondering if perhaps the fault might lie with the much smaller, more powerful group that specifically chose to be there.
There isn't anything that would even potentially dissuade you from your misogyny. You'll accuse women of either lying of delusion if they say 'hey, that's not sexual preening'. Men who claim not to immediately render women into sexual objects in their brain are also either lying, or that's a sign that the only way they achieved that was by practicing sexual objectification of women through high doses of pornography.
In any event, asking one women out hardly demonstrates a lack of fear of women. But I'm curious: why do you expect anyone at all would trust what you say about yourself? Or do we need to revisit the thread in which Samprimary amply demonstrated how often and how thoroughly you lie?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: But you still haven't answered (and no, it's not unanswerable): why are you so afraid of women? What's so fundamentally awful about seeing their bodies? I *am* being serious with these questions - if you feel they're condescending, it's because you've put yourself in a position that is difficult to even address honestly without being condescending.
I'm not afraid of women. In fact, just today I asked one of them out for a date and she said yes. I'll report back how it goes.
Congratulations! I hope it goes well for you.
I don't know what kind of carwashes you go to, but I've always seen roughly the same number of guys and girls, except for the fundraiser ones on base, which are almost exclusively male.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Rakeesh...
Please elucidate for everyone else your damning evidence that I "often" and "thoroughly" lie. Let the evidence speak for itself, instead of your mere allusion to it which makes it appear more than it is...
In any case, I've personally seen those car washes from a distance, which are notorious in pop culture for using young women as lures. It's tacky. It gets at the heart of the thread's subject. Good of you to bring it up.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I bet your car is really dirty.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
...
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Huh. I wash my car all the time. There's an old Filippino woman sometimes, and then this stoner dude and his fat sister. I must be frequenting the wrong carwashes, because despite living all over the U.S. and driving everywhere I've *never* seen an all or mostly all female carwash. Heck, all the ones I've been to, the employees (male and female) wear polo shirts. I'm not even sure what "preening" is, exactly, but I think it's pretty hard to do in a baggy polo shirt.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Huh. I wash my car all the time. There's an old Filippino woman sometimes, and then this stoner dude and his fat sister. I must be frequenting the wrong carwashes, because despite living all over the U.S. and driving everywhere I've *never* seen an all or mostly all female carwash. Heck, all the ones I've been to, the employees (male and female) wear polo shirts. I'm not even sure what "preening" is, exactly, but I think it's pretty hard to do in a baggy polo shirt.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The idea I think you're talking past is that it goes both ways. If a man wears a tank top, goes shirtless, or probably even a figure hugging shirt, then she should be afforded the same grounds to claim "mentall assault". It's fine if you find it annoying. I'm not asking you not to. But the rules should be equal. Are you disagreeing with that?
I'm willing to conject that there is a female sexual assault victim somewhere in the world who finds the way a lot of men dress to be more annoying than your reaction to some women.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large
Or perhaps creepy guys seek out jobs where they get to oogle young women, so there's a higher than average percentage of men in such professions that will end up divorced. We don't have any idea about causality here, so jumping from "male teachers are slightly more likely than the average to be divorced" to "because the relentless sexual preening of their students makes them unhappy" is ridiculous.
It's quite misandrist to interpret the statistics that way, as if there are enough creeps out there (as to significantly impact divorce stats for the men in the teaching professions) who become teachers just to ogle young women. You're pretty much insulting male teachers.
No, I'm not. You're pretty much missing my point, which is not that this interpretation is the correct one, but that it's just as likely as yours. The statistics don't tell us what causes male teachers to divorce, only that they are more likely to be divorced. So making up an explanation that blames the students is just as insulting as making up one that blames the teachers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I must be frequenting the wrong carwashes, because despite living all over the U.S. and driving everywhere I've *never* seen an all or mostly all female carwash.
The car washes around here are predominantly staffed by 16-25 year-old males and the uniform is baggy shirts.
I assume either Sa'eed is experiencing a carwash gender ratio outlier in his part of the world or he is projecting a sexy carwash scene from a movie he once saw into reality.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sa'eed,
quote:Please elucidate for everyone else your damning evidence that I "often" and "thoroughly" lie. Let the evidence speak for itself, instead of your mere allusion to it which makes it appear more than it is...
I'm wondering just how far you'll commit to this. I'm referring to your many screen names over the past, your multiple past posts in which you claim not to be a returning poster, culminating in Sa'eed, where you denied again being other posters until you were caught out, along with all of the other deception and bad behavior wrapped up with it. I know you know the big thread I'm talking about. We can revisit it if you'd like.
quote:In any case, I've personally seen those car washes from a distance, which are notorious in pop culture for using young women as lures. It's tacky. It gets at the heart of the thread's subject. Good of you to bring it up.
'Those' car washes? Sheesh. Did you miss or simply ignore the part where I pointed out the observed ratio of women to men? Does your outlook just get to ignore the part where I mentioned the one woman I saw wasn't wearing anything provocative at all?
------
quote:The idea I think you're talking past is that it goes both ways. If a man wears a tank top, goes shirtless, or probably even a figure hugging shirt, then she should be afforded the same grounds to claim "mentall assault". It's fine if you find it annoying. I'm not asking you not to. But the rules should be equal. Are you disagreeing with that?
Of course he is. This is the guy who referenced Saudi Arabia as a culture from which we could learn a lot with respect to their attitude towards women.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] Sa'eed,
quote:Please elucidate for everyone else your damning evidence that I "often" and "thoroughly" lie. Let the evidence speak for itself, instead of your mere allusion to it which makes it appear more than it is...
I'm wondering just how far you'll commit to this. I'm referring to your many screen names over the past
Vague. List them. Also: I've owned up to every one.
quote: culminating in Sa'eed, where you denied again being other posters until you were caught out, along with all of the other deception and bad behavior wrapped up with it.
Why the reluctance to link to your evidence for your claims that I tell "thorough" lies "often"? I mean I'm sure you have your brilliant case for your accusations that aren't totally small and petty...
quote: 'Those' car washes? Sheesh. Did you miss or simply ignore the part where I pointed out the observed ratio of women to men? Does your outlook just get to ignore the part where I mentioned the one woman I saw wasn't wearing anything provocative at all?
I was speaking about my observations.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large
Or perhaps creepy guys seek out jobs where they get to oogle young women, so there's a higher than average percentage of men in such professions that will end up divorced. We don't have any idea about causality here, so jumping from "male teachers are slightly more likely than the average to be divorced" to "because the relentless sexual preening of their students makes them unhappy" is ridiculous.
It's quite misandrist to interpret the statistics that way, as if there are enough creeps out there (as to significantly impact divorce stats for the men in the teaching professions) who become teachers just to ogle young women. You're pretty much insulting male teachers.
No, I'm not. You're pretty much missing my point, which is not that this interpretation is the correct one, but that it's just as likely as yours. The statistics don't tell us what causes male teachers to divorce, only that they are more likely to be divorced. So making up an explanation that blames the students is just as insulting as making up one that blames the teachers.
I've emailed those researchers with your claims about how they totally discounted other likely possibilities such as many creepy and calculating men becoming teachers just to ogle young women and then divorcing their wives. We'll see how they respond.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Vague. List them. Also: I've owned up to every one.
No you didn't. It was dragged out of you, after repeated denials.
quote:Why the reluctance to link to your evidence for your claims that I tell "thorough" lies "often"? I mean I'm sure you have your brilliant case for your accusations that aren't totally small and petty...
That's not what you were doing, and it's not what you do in discussions about women either. In those discussions, your own observations are universal-as was the case here. You've never observed the car wash I was speaking of unless I'm mistaken, yet your own 'observations' were sufficient for you to say that you've been to 'those' car washes and knew what was going on.
quote:I've emailed those researchers with your claims about how they totally discounted other likely possibilities such as many creepy and calculating men becoming teachers just to ogle young women and then divorcing their wives. We'll see how they respond.
What a blunt radical restatement of her objection. And yes, we'll see how they respond, these 'researchers'.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Huh. I wash my car all the time. There's an old Filippino woman sometimes, and then this stoner dude and his fat sister. I must be frequenting the wrong carwashes, because despite living all over the U.S. and driving everywhere I've *never* seen an all or mostly all female carwash. Heck, all the ones I've been to, the employees (male and female) wear polo shirts. I'm not even sure what "preening" is, exactly, but I think it's pretty hard to do in a baggy polo shirt.
Come to Las Vegas in August and September. You will see numerous car washes with high school cheerleading teams trying to raise money. They are almost always wearing very short shorts, which admittedly is understandable when it is 105 degrees outside.
There is also a car wash here in town that has.... russian women... in bikinis... That wash your car.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Vague. List them. Also: I've owned up to every one.
No you didn't. It was dragged out of you, after repeated denials.
That's Samp cataloging my other threads/posts. It doesn't substantiate your accusations about me lying "thoroughly" and "often." Often. OFTEN. Means it should be easy for you to come up with with just more than one instance of my lies...
quote: That's not what you were doing, and it's not what you do in discussions about women either. In those discussions, your own observations are universal-as was the case here. You've never observed the car wash I was speaking of unless I'm mistaken, yet your own 'observations' were sufficient for you to say that you've been to 'those' car washes and knew what was going on.
I've seen plenty of them to notice a pattern. I'm sorry I privilege my observations over yours.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
(Post Removed by JanitorBlade)
[ September 22, 2013, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
...
Really?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Of course. They also added that they've been reading hatrack for a long time and were not so surprised by Rakeesh being so petty and small.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I honestly don't know if you're making a joke or are legitimately having a psychotic break, but either way this is getting way out of hand.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I hate to defend Sa'eed in any way but there is a difference between a commercial car wash which is usually mostly guys and the typical high school fundraiser car wash that is extremely common and almost always features skimpily clad teenage girls, at least in warmer climates. Maybe some parts of the country don't do those but in my travels throughout most of the southeast U.S., they are everywhere.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think Sa'eed is majorly wrong (and dkw's observation about correlation/causation was a good one, but appears to have gone over his head).
But re: his last few posts I think it's clear he's just screwing around having a laugh. Even people with woefully wrong attitudes on genetic determinism and an inability to distinguish correlation from causation can crack a joke.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Wingracer: Do they also feature skimpily clad teenage guys? And do you think said girls are dressing that way to use their bodies to pump sales, or just because that's how teenage girls dress on hot days? Not that it really matters, anyway. It's pretty tangential. But Rakeesh was clearly describing an actual carwash establishment, not a fundraiser.
Dan: Yeah, most likely. We've had enough legitimately crazy people here as of late that I'm not always sure.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Wingracer: Do they also feature skimpily clad teenage guys? And do you think said girls are dressing that way to use their bodies to pump sales, or just because that's how teenage girls dress on hot days? Not that it really matters, anyway. It's pretty tangential. But Rakeesh was clearly describing an actual carwash establishment, not a fundraiser.
1. One or two at most. 2. Probably both.
As for Rakeesh, yes but Sa'eed was not. Rakeesh was coming off as if saying carwashes of any kind featuring skimpily dressed young girls is unheard of which is just not true. Hell, not far from me is a commercial carwash featuring strippers, but at least they are not teenagers.
As for the rest, I agree completely that none of this really serves to prove any of Sa'eed's wild claims, just want to set the facts straight.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think Sa'eed is majorly wrong (and dkw's observation about correlation/causation was a good one, but appears to have gone over his head).
But re: his last few posts I think it's clear he's just screwing around having a laugh. Even people with woefully wrong attitudes on genetic determinism and an inability to distinguish correlation from causation can crack a joke.
I sense that this thread is losing steam, so I'm going to let your insults about me not understanding that correlation isn't causation go.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: But you still haven't answered (and no, it's not unanswerable): why are you so afraid of women? What's so fundamentally awful about seeing their bodies? I *am* being serious with these questions - if you feel they're condescending, it's because you've put yourself in a position that is difficult to even address honestly without being condescending.
I'm not afraid of women. In fact, just today I asked one of them out for a date and she said yes. I'll report back how it goes.
Update: She cancelled on me via text message. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Wingracer: Do they also feature skimpily clad teenage guys? And do you think said girls are dressing that way to use their bodies to pump sales, or just because that's how teenage girls dress on hot days? Not that it really matters, anyway. It's pretty tangential. But Rakeesh was clearly describing an actual carwash establishment, not a fundraiser.
1. One or two at most. 2. Probably both.
As for Rakeesh, yes but Sa'eed was not. Rakeesh was coming off as if saying carwashes of any kind featuring skimpily dressed young girls is unheard of which is just not true. Hell, not far from me is a commercial carwash featuring strippers, but at least they are not teenagers.
As for the rest, I agree completely that none of this really serves to prove any of Sa'eed's wild claims, just want to set the facts straight.
I'm not sure what I said to indicate I thought car washes that used sex to sell stuff were unheard of. I was speaking of one particular car wash, and while Sa'eed (eventually, sort of) clarified he was talking specifically about certain kinds of car washes, it was clear I wasn't-but that's what he was responding to. In fact he even spoke as though the car wash I saw, which he never did, must necessarily be one of 'those' car washes.
------
So was she being a deceitful woman, and never meant jt? Perhaps some alpha came along and scooped up the portion of 'female erotic capital' she possessed? Did her father take lessons from Saudis and teach her 'modesty'?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think Sa'eed is majorly wrong (and dkw's observation about correlation/causation was a good one, but appears to have gone over his head).
But re: his last few posts I think it's clear he's just screwing around having a laugh. Even people with woefully wrong attitudes on genetic determinism and an inability to distinguish correlation from causation can crack a joke.
I sense that this thread is losing steam, so I'm going to let your insults about me not understanding that correlation isn't causation go.
If it makes you feel any better I think most people would do the same. Everyone admits correlation isn't causation until there's a correlation they really want to use to prove something they care about.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So was she being a deceitful woman, and never meant jt? Perhaps some alpha came along and scooped up the portion of 'female erotic capital' she possessed? Did her father take lessons from Saudis and teach her 'modesty'?
I acknowledge that you read my last post and typed a response.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's fun the way you reject having your own words applied to you.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Okay. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Update: She cancelled on me via text message.
I'm sorry, that's a really shitty (but also unfortunately common) way to get let down. If it makes you feel any better, it's happened to me too, and just about every guy I know. And it's more considerate (and less humiliating) than standing you up.
If you want my advice (I realize it's unsolicited): just forget about her and ask a different women. Keep trying, keep going on dates, figure out what works and what is a turnoff, adjust your behavior, and try some more. Don't get angry or resentful over rejection, never act as if a woman owes you something, and you'll be just fine.
And just talk to them! I mean, seriously, they're just people, same as you. You don't need to try and be a pickup artist or manipulate or analyze them. You can just talk to women, engage them in conversation, ask them questions, and then listen to and respect their answers. You'd be surprised by how well this works.
Best of luck!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Also how am I supposed to learn female anatomy for my art if girls stop posing on facebook ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(I joke, I google clothing models)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)