Is it just me or do teen females who have not gone through majority dress inapprops? I mean I admit I'm a bit sensitive on the topic...but here is a good example. There is a teenaged girl who is in some kind of program so she is a TA in my son's transitional kindergarten. She is 16-17 at a guess. She daily wears skin tight clothing. Nothing is exposed per say, but nothing is left up to the imagination. I fully admit to being clueless to fashion. But come on! Every day I pull up at TK I see her bent over kids equipment in, wiping off the dew so the kids can play. I avert my eyes as I do not want to ogle a teen (or anyone really), nor teach such bad behavior to my son. But come on!
To my way of thinking dressing like that is "hunting for a husband" type attention seeking. And forget about it when it gets warmer...daisy duke cut off jean shorts cut so low that the pocket linings bottoms stick out!
Now I'm happily married, and I put forth effort to not let my eye wonder, but it is difficult. Not because I'm not fully and utterly devoted to my best friend, life partner, mother of my children, wife...more like my brain is telling me *look over here*...like trying to concentrate and drive when there is a eye catching sunset in the background. It's distracting!
Or is it just me?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's just you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Until the Clive alt shows up, that is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What it is ultimately is that whether or not a woman is dressing "appropriately" is best left untended by the metric of whether it is distractingly appealing to a man or leads men to temptation. That's the logic of dumb religions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just learn some self-control, man. I can't and shouldn't eat every lasagna I see, either, but I don't complain about encountering delicious-looking lasagna everywhere I go simply because I can't help but imagine -- or wish, or daydream -- that it's been set out for me to eat. The lasagna isn't all about me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Something to consider: perhaps the way her choice in clothing makes a random male passing by feel should have less input into her clothing choices than you appear to think it should?
Also, unrelated matter. Even though the effect of this statement will be mitigated by making it: if I were halfway as hostile towards you, now or in the past, as you have sometimes felt I am, you would be hearing at great length about terms like sexism, self control, fear of women, entitlement, well the list would go on at length and none of it would be flattering and most of it would take the form of extremely critical personal observations/attacks.
But, you asked the question and I believe you asked it honestly, so the last paragraph isnt asking for credit or anything, it's just to address a recurring point.
Anyway, I'll admit to incredulity that this woman-and it's likely she's older, I suspect, high school students not often serving as teacher's aids outside their own school to my knowledge-actually wears daisy dukes as short as you describe. Were you exaggerating?
Anyway, what your post has basically said is that it somehow is inappropriate for this woman to reveal the shape of her body where you might see it, even without exposing skin...because you will look and it will make you uncomfortable. Do you see the common factor there? Which is the more valuable lesson to learn? That women who dress 'inappropriately' are to be shunned and criticized and made to feel bad because of how their fashion makes men feel? Or would it be more valuable to exert some willpower in the long term and teach yourself not to stare and check her out?
I guarantee you it's possible. It is *certainly* possible to teach yourself not to deliberately stare or check her out when she's not looking. It is not in fact an involuntary reaction, to see someone attractive and stare. It feels pleasant to do, but then again so does shooting up some junk or so I'm told.
You should expect some reactions much more hostile than this from others, particularly women, and take some advice: just go with it. Don't get defensive. You put this question out there, take what comes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To DB: Considering you believe that -literally anything you say to me-, offensive or not, will be taken as hostility...you said so...you are still talking to me...comparing me to the most misogynistic poster on the board. Without bothering to even explain.
Buy a clue dude...they are not expensive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To answer another question, though, it's not just you-there are a *ton* of men and women, girls and boys, who feel the exact same way. Which is a helpful thing when it comes to the endurance of this kind of thinking.
How many others think it is a poor reason to start or stop doing something, though. Even though it's a very common one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What it is ultimately is that whether or not a woman is dressing "appropriately" is best left untended by the metric of whether it is distractingly appealing to a man or leads men to temptation. That's the logic of dumb religions.
I specifically state not women, but teens who do not have the right to have sex yet, those who the law will prosecute their partners (unless they are similarly aged) regardless of consent.
If you're of age and want to catch eyes, I don't blink...that's an adult decision, by an adult.
Physically (likely not mentally or emotionally) 16 year olds are ready for sex, but in my state, are not legally able to do so.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Just learn some self-control, man. I can't and shouldn't eat every lasagna I see, either, but I don't complain about encountering delicious-looking lasagna everywhere I go simply because I can't help but imagine -- or wish, or daydream -- that it's been set out for me to eat. The lasagna isn't all about me.
It isn't self control...I -don't- look. And it isn't lasagna...because eating lasagna isn't illegal or immoral.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To DB: Considering you believe that -literally anything you say to me-, offensive or not, will be taken as hostility...you said so...you are still talking to me...comparing me to the most misogynistic poster on the board. Without bothering to even explain.
Your question seems to be asking if anyone here shares your view about teenage girls dressing "inapprops". To which I reply: no, probably not until Clive manages to crawl out from until his rock and register another account here as he invariably does whenever these discussions arise. Then it won't just be you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Something to consider: perhaps the way her choice in clothing makes a random male passing by feel should have less input into her clothing choices than you appear to think it should?
So, if it's hot, and you are a young woman (18 or older) and say you are in SanFran...you decide to go out starkers. It's legal. Is this really about freedom or eliciting a response?
quote:Also, unrelated matter. Even though the effect of this statement will be mitigated by making it: if I were halfway as hostile towards you, now or in the past, as you have sometimes felt I am, you would be hearing at great length about terms like sexism, self control, fear of women, entitlement, well the list would go on at length and none of it would be flattering and most of it would take the form of extremely critical personal observations/attacks.
But, you asked the question and I believe you asked it honestly, so the last paragraph isnt asking for credit or anything, it's just to address a recurring point.
Recurring in the past...the only thing that I claim of you is that at times you lack perspective on me personally because of our heated history. And I of you. I don't think your hostile...anymore. Did you read my apology on the former "Dog Fight" thread?
quote:Anyway, I'll admit to incredulity that this woman-and it's likely she's older, I suspect, high school students not often serving as teacher's aids outside their own school to my knowledge
I don't know the details, but she (and others, they switch off) were introduced to the parents as high schoolers...student aids.
quote:...-actually wears daisy dukes as short as you describe. Were you exaggerating?
Sorry, I could see how you would be confused...daisy dukes were a general comment about how teens dress in the heat...not about this particular person.[/quote]
quote:Anyway, what your post has basically said is that it somehow is inappropriate for this woman to reveal the shape of her body where you might see it, even without exposing skin...because you will look and it will make you uncomfortable. Do you see the common factor there? Which is the more valuable lesson to learn?
It's not only my comfort level I'm concerned with. This person regularly works, with the authority of the school, with five year old kids. And is a student herself. I think she is dressed inappropriately for both.
quote:You should expect some reactions much more hostile than this from others, particularly women, and take some advice: just go with it. Don't get defensive. You put this question out there, take what comes.
I am fully committed to keeping my cool or walking away. Thank you for the concern. Honestly.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
It seems like there are a couple of questions baked into the one you asked.
1. Is there such a thing as "innapropriate clothing? 2. If so, what is it? 3. What is an acceptable reaction to clothing and does it matter if it's innapropriate clothes?
So, answers: 1. Yes. If nothing else, you need enough clothing to avoid charges of public indecency. 2. It depends on the situation. Booty shorts are not appropriate for a meeting with the customer. In this situation? No idea, though anything that seriously impedes movement would be a bad idea. 3. As a general rule, it's not your business to pass judgement on what other people wear. In the absence of communication, it's best to assume you aren't the target audience and therefore should pretend not to notice. Unless you're somehow responsible for what someone wears, the obligation to ignore it becomes stronger the less appropriate the clothes.
I find that "it's not my fault", "it's not my problem," and "it's not my job" are useful reactions to avoid getting worked up over other people's personal decisions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To DB: Considering you believe that -literally anything you say to me-, offensive or not, will be taken as hostility...you said so...you are still talking to me...comparing me to the most misogynistic poster on the board. Without bothering to even explain.
Your question seems to be asking if anyone here shares your view about teenage girls dressing "inapprops". To which I reply: no, probably not until Clive manages to crawl out from until his rock and register another account here as he invariably does whenever these discussions arise. Then it won't just be you.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath (yesterday): Really, it's fairly clear that if I post *anything* here... he's going to perceive it as deeply antagonistic...
Either you don't believe this or you do and really are antagonizing me...which is it?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I will say if Stone_Wolf turned out to be Sa'eed, I'd be impressed with his new found ability to blend in more.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look, as a question of fact, it's likely Dog is right, SW. Clive or a 'new member' *is* one of the only posters in this community who would reply to your question 'it's not just you'.
By itself that's obviously not reason to abandon your opinion. But it may be a reason to reconsider.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Now there's a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess, I'm not really sure if there is a graceful way to transition from child to adult. I know it wasn't easy for me, I can only imagine it must be a million times more difficult for a female to do the same, especially given how sexually fueled our culture is, not to mention the near obsession with youthful features (understandable given the short window of human fertility and only slightly longer window of human lifespan). I just wish sometimes they would wear clothing that was appropriate to their status, i.e. unavailable. Not that I'm looking. But my daughter is four. I'm not sure given only a decade I'll be okay with this before she is dressed similarly.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I will say if Stone_Wolf turned out to be Sa'eed, I'd be impressed with his new found ability to blend in more.
Certainly playing the long game for sure.
But to be clear, I by no means meant to imply that to be the case. Just predicting the (very likely) scenario that a new user will appear sometime in the next 2 days and start posting in this thread using terms like "Female Erotic Capital" and so forth.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not only my comfort level I'm concerned with. This person regularly works, with the authority of the school, with five year old kids. And is a student herself. I think she is dressed inappropriately for both.
Is there a dress code? Is she violating the dress code (keeping in mind that both dress codes and enforcement of them can be overtly gendered)? If not, then she's not dressed inappropriately according to the school standards. And if she is violating a dress code, it's still not your place to point it out.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dogbreath...please answer my question. You can't have it both ways. Either I'm calm and not reactionary or you are deliberately provoking me? Perhaps that's confusing...let me explain.
You said yesterday that literally *ANYTHING* you said to me would be considered hostility by myself. This is you saying I'm not rational, I'm not calm, I'm gunna think that if your lips are moving that it's personal...but your "lips" are still moving. So it's clear that either you A) don't believe that *ANYTHING* you say to me will be taken as hostility OR you are antagonizing me.
Which is it?
You can't have it both ways!
Either I'm reasonable or stop talking to me.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I can only imagine it must be a million times more difficult for a female to do the same,
A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I just wish sometimes they would wear clothing that was appropriate to their status, i.e. unavailable.
She's not dressing for you. She's likely wearing trendy clothes that are fashionable for teens and yeah, those trends may be more sexy then some of us old fogeys would like. Them's the breaks. Get over it. Also, the idea that clothes can indicate whether a woman is available or not is pretty damn appalling - because that's pretty close to someone saying, "It wasn't rape! She was wearing clothes that indicated she was available!" (Yes, I know you didn't say that - but judging women by their clothing has a long unfortunate history).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not only my comfort level I'm concerned with. This person regularly works, with the authority of the school, with five year old kids. And is a student herself. I think she is dressed inappropriately for both.
Is there a dress code? Is she violating the dress code (keeping in mind that both dress codes and enforcement of them can be overtly gendered)? If not, then she's not dressed inappropriately according to the school standards. And if she is violating a dress code, it's still not your place to point it out.
I don't believe she is violating the dress code. However, if she were to, it would be my place as a father of a five year old child she works directly with to report that. For silly administrative reasons, (I hear one teacher has an entire classroom as their "office" in the brand new elementary school) the Transitional Kindergarten in the town I live is located on the High School campus.
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: It seems like there are a couple of questions baked into the one you asked.
1. Is there such a thing as "innapropriate clothing? 2. If so, what is it? 3. What is an acceptable reaction to clothing and does it matter if it's innapropriate clothes?
So, answers: 1. Yes. If nothing else, you need enough clothing to avoid charges of public indecency. 2. It depends on the situation. Booty shorts are not appropriate for a meeting with the customer. In this situation? No idea, though anything that seriously impedes movement would be a bad idea. 3. As a general rule, it's not your business to pass judgement on what other people wear. In the absence of communication, it's best to assume you aren't the target audience and therefore should pretend not to notice. Unless you're somehow responsible for what someone wears, the obligation to ignore it becomes stronger the less appropriate the clothes.
I find that "it's not my fault", "it's not my problem," and "it's not my job" are useful reactions to avoid getting worked up over other people's personal decisions.
Hello NobleHunter! I believe this is my first interaction with you. Forgive me for not commenting earlier...perhaps I had little to say as what you said is so right on...I guess at the end of the day this is just something I should change in myself, but it isn't easy for me to do so.
It's kind of like if someone were wearing a clown suit in a business meeting. Is it every single person's god given right to dress like a clown if they feel like it, you betcha! But it still might quirk a few eyebrows.
My wife agrees with me that we won't be allowing our daughter to dress like this, but I think she shares yall's frustration with me. Perhaps part of my frustration is that our standards for what is "good" and "bad" are confusing...sex with an underage teen...WRONG...underage teen dressed similarly to adult female seeking male attention...right?
I don't want em wearing the whole hooded get up, just not jeans that people can tell how much money you have in change in your pocket from being skin tight maybe. I'd say the same to a boy. Dress appropriately to the role you are in. It's not a rule per say, but it's a good idea! Because not all fathers are putting forth effort to look the other way. And my children sees that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps part of my frustration is that our standards for what is "good" and "bad" are confusing...sex with an underage teen...WRONG...underage teen dressed similarly to adult female seeking male attention...right?
Other than the issue of your weirdly dehumanizing use of the term "adult female" here (by which you mean "woman") which has already been addressed, you seem to believe that a girl choosing to dress a certain way is to seek "male attention."
No. Simply put, she isn't dressing for you, and you don't get to decide what is or isn't appropriate for her to wear because you feel vaguely guilty about ogling a teenager. You don't know why she chose to dress the way she does, and more importantly it's not at all your business to find out.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: ]A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
I'm not sure how to respond to this, it seems a nitpick of nanite proportions. Is "female" really offensive? Or is this a grammatical concern? I am sincerely confused.
quote:She's not dressing for you. She's likely wearing trendy clothes that are fashionable for teens and yeah, those trends may be more sexy then some of us old fogeys would like. Them's the breaks. Get over it.
I totally get where you are coming from...it's just difficult and frustrating.
quote:Also, the idea that clothes can indicate whether a woman is available or not is pretty damn appalling - because that's pretty close to someone saying, "It wasn't rape! She was wearing clothes that indicated she was available!" (Yes, I know you didn't say that - but judging women by their clothing has a long unfortunate history). [/QB]
Oh my yes! I agree about the history part. And it is disgusting. No means no even if your naked and gyrating. Seriously.
However I disagree that people don't dress differently (both genders) when seeking a mate and when in a committed relationship.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps part of my frustration is that our standards for what is "good" and "bad" are confusing...sex with an underage teen...WRONG...underage teen dressed similarly to adult female seeking male attention...right?
Other than the issue of your weirdly dehumanizing use of the term "adult female" here (by which you mean "woman") which has already been addressed, you seem to believe that a girl choosing to dress a certain way is to seek "male attention."
No. Simply put, she isn't dressing for you, and you don't get to decide what is or isn't appropriate for her to wear because you feel vaguely guilty about ogling a teenager. You don't know why she chose to dress the way she does, and more importantly it's not at all your business to find out.
I'm not going to ignore the part where you declared me too unreasonable to even address dude. Take it back and we can talk about anything you like.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Yo.
I think it would be easier if you took refuge in generalities. It doesn't matter how old she is or why she's wearing those clothes. Unless you have reason to think you're the intended audience for the clothing (regardless of age, sex, or occupation) ignore it.
quote: Because not all fathers are putting forth effort to look the other way. And my children sees that.
Aha! Now there's someone doing something wrong: leering at a teenaged girl. Well, leering at anyone. I suggest you concern yourself more with the inappropriateness of the fathers' behavior rather than what the girl is wearing. Unless you're really worried that your kids will think skin-tight jeans are appropriate playground attire?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Good advice. No, my kids have more sense.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: ]A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
I'm not sure how to respond to this, it seems a nitpick of nanite proportions. Is "female" really offensive? Or is this a grammatical concern? I am sincerely confused.
Most of the time when I encounter someone who uses "female" instead of "woman", they're about to say something sexist - or they're using "female" as a euphemism for "bitch". Neither of which endear me to the term or people who use it. Plus, it is grammatically weird.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, you are just wrong here. People should be able to dress in whatever they feel is comfortable and becoming barring dress codes and safety issues. They may or may not be "seeking male attention" but as the male whose attention they may or may not be seeking is not you, mind your business. Certainly, if one wants to project a professional image, shorts wouldn't be the right choice, but for a playground with kids, shorts are just fine.
Whatever the age, women who are strangers are not dressing for you so use some self-control. Whatever the age and however they dress they are still not available to you.
What Tom, Rakeesh, and DB have stated is correct; You should pay attention. Your reaction is on you. Likewise, you don't get to bar people from conversation because they have pointed out that you react badly to them. Again, that is on you.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I totally get where you are coming from...it's just difficult and frustrating.
This seems to be a concern I've seen behind a lot of articles I've seen by concerned Christian women worried about their husbands being tempted into sin. (By such nefarious things as yoga pants, etc.) "It's just so difficult to look away" or "I try and remain pure and holy but the temptation is so difficult." I don't really buy it. If I, as a viral young man can handle going to a beach where girls and women frequently go topless (which I think would give aforementioned husbands a spiritual heart attack of sorts) without finding the experience difficult or frustrating, I'm not convinced men who are much wiser and older than I are so mentally fragile they can't handle the sight of middle-aged women in tight yoga pants. Or in this case, teenage girls in tight clothes. It helps to think of them as fellow human beings first rather than what you think their clothes say about their sexual availability.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder if you realize the perverse (not to say sexual, but that certainly ties in) injustice in the idea about 'dress to one's roles' actually is, when talking about the creepy things other people do?
When you point out as one reason for your stance that other fathers won't be teaching their sons properly, and will in fact be leering, what you are actually saying is: men leering is bad and I want to avoid that; women's clothing somehow makes men leer; for their good and for that of my children, they should not wear improper clothing. It's very (that is to say exactly) similar to current arguments against adoption by homosexual couples or interracial marriage and procreation: 'what about how those children will be treated later in life? They'll face teasing and discrimination for having two moms or dads/having multiracial parents!'
It seems to skip over entirely the problem that this argument openly uses the discriminatory behavior itself as a justification for continuing the discrimination! Though few would mean it this way, it's like a protection racket.
As for how easy it is to not look, it's actually very, very easy not to look. You've got conscious control of both where your head points and where your eyes look. What is considerably more difficult is deciding whether or not you want not to look, or if it's unreasonable to ask it of you and so it can be safely ignored.
It shouldn't matter if you can read the year the coin was minted because her jeans are just *that* tight on her ass-we'll gloss over the question of just how much looking and thinking that actually implies-and it shouldn't even matter if she's an adult, actually. You're not an ape, Stone_Wolf. It is in fact up to you what you look at, and the fact is that it says much, much more about the person looking when they form opinions like this than it does about the complete stranger who doesn't know you, and wasn't thinking of you when she bought it or wore it.
'Her clothes make me uncomfortable, therefore she shouldn't wear them' is the heart of your argument. It's bad, sexist thinking and it's frankly lazy and asserting victimhood.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I just wish sometimes they would wear clothing that was appropriate to their status, i.e. unavailable.
They do not have such a "status" for you to assign to them any more than you should presume the purpose of their dress for them?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: ]A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
I'm not sure how to respond to this, it seems a nitpick of nanite proportions. Is "female" really offensive? Or is this a grammatical concern? I am sincerely confused.
Most of the time when I encounter someone who uses "female" instead of "woman", they're about to say something sexist - or they're using "female" as a euphemism for "bitch". Neither of which endear me to the term or people who use it. Plus, it is grammatically weird.
I find this confusing because I was specifically speaking of a person of the female gender in a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, therefore both the terms "girl" and "woman" do not apply. But to the larger point...Sure, I'll keep in mind that women don't like to be referred to as females from now on...thanks for the update. If ya don't update your files then you end up like grandpa who thinks "coloreds" is the PC version.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's another problem there, aside from the problem of middle-aged ( not sure your age, SW) unrelated adult men who are *themselves* unavailable, or should be, deciding on the 'status' and appropriate clothing for women.
That problem is this: what if there is a status and clothing that should apply? Alright, she's unavailable to you and so she somehow magically discovers the clothing that is completely nonsexual to all unknown adult men she encounters in a day (this is impossible). Well, she has a different status to her parents-she is their child. NOW she somehow has to reconcile these these different statuses and dress accordingly.
Somehow she manages this feat of sartorial mastery. She has a different status to her close friends-she wants to be comfortable and, perhaps, look good as well-not to say sexual, but well put together in a clothing sense. Alright, now her status is that of the unavailable young woman, daughter, and cheerful fun-loving buddy to her friends. But then what about the parents of those friends? Crap! Now she needs to look like someone of good morality and prospects who will enrich the lives of their children by being friends with her! And then maybe she has a boyfriend, or is flirting with a boy or three at school or after school or on the way to school. To them her status is quite different!
You're absolutely correct, Stone_Wolf. Your perspective on her, the least important and the least welcome to her among a dozen or more other people for whom she might vet her fashion choices (not excluding herself!) is the one that needs to be considered first.
Alright, I lied. There's like thirty problems. Strangely they all bear a lot of similarity to the problem of censorship in general.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I find this confusing because I was specifically speaking of a person of the female gender in a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, therefore both the terms "girl" and "woman" do not apply.
Your preschool kids probably are spending zero brainpower thinking about this young lady's outfit and 100% of it on whether she has good cookies at snacktime.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, you are just wrong here. People should be able to dress in whatever they feel is comfortable and becoming barring dress codes and safety issues.
Okay. I'm starting to get that.
quote:They may or may not be "seeking male attention" but as the male whose attention they may or may not be seeking is not you, mind your business.
Also, and more informative, they might be dressing for a school crush on a boy their age...that makes sense to me.
quote:Whatever the age, women who are strangers are not dressing for you so use some self-control. Whatever the age and however they dress they are still not available to you.
I have stated very clearly and multiple times that I am not seeking...so I find this rather offensive. Please stop with this line of discussion.
quote: ...Likewise, you don't get to bar people from conversation because they have pointed out that you react badly to them.
Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Also, do not discuss her appearance in front of your children AT ALL. They will repeat whatever you say to this young woman (a term that works just fine) to her face.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I take you at your word when you say you're not 'seeking', so to speak. But something to consider before you pull out the 'I'm offended!' card: you're using almost verbatim, and particularly in your first post, the precise kinds of language and ideas expressed by men who are most definitely, obviously 'seeking' so to speak, and who wish to exert a very clear and thorough control on women in all sorts of aspects of their lives.
Of itself that's not, perhaps, enough reason for you to slow your roll on being offended, but consider this as well: you're probably going to be hard-pressed to encounter a woman who has not heard, from a variety of sources, exactly that sort of thing a lot of times in their lives with the obvious intent to control. And they're probably really, really sick of hearing it.
Props to you for calmly accepting that she and other young women simply aren't dressing for you, and factor that in, and are also very possibly dressing for other people in an entirely appropriate way, etc., but people are allowed to be irked at toxic reasoning, no matter how well-meaning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, you are just wrong here. People should be able to dress in whatever they feel is comfortable and becoming barring dress codes and safety issues.
Okay. I'm starting to get that.
quote:They may or may not be "seeking male attention" but as the male whose attention they may or may not be seeking is not you, mind your business.
Also, and more informative, they might be dressing for a school crush on a boy their age...that makes sense to me.
Or it might just make them feel pretty. Might have been what was clean. Not your business and her choices don't need to make sense to you.
quote:
quote:Whatever the age, women who are strangers are not dressing for you so use some self-control. Whatever the age and however they dress they are still not available to you.
I have stated very clearly and multiple times that I am not seeking...so I find this rather offensive. Please stop with this line of discussion.
I get that you aren't seeking. So why are you looking?
quote:
quote: ...Likewise, you don't get to bar people from conversation because they have pointed out that you react badly to them.
Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
What jail? You can criticize all you like (though, honestly, it is tiresome) but you can't order him not to respond to you. You (and here is the point so pay attention) can only control your reaction. And you can control that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's another problem there, aside from the problem of middle-aged ( not sure your age, SW) unrelated adult men who are *themselves* unavailable, or should be, deciding on the 'status' and appropriate clothing for women.
That problem is this: what if there is a status and clothing that should apply? Alright, she's unavailable to you and so she somehow magically discovers the clothing that is completely nonsexual to all unknown adult men she encounters in a day (this is impossible). Well, she has a different status to her parents-she is their child. NOW she somehow has to reconcile these these different statuses and dress accordingly.
Somehow she manages this feat of sartorial mastery. She has a different status to her close friends-she wants to be comfortable and, perhaps, look good as well-not to say sexual, but well put together in a clothing sense. Alright, now her status is that of the unavailable young woman, daughter, and cheerful fun-loving buddy to her friends. But then what about the parents of those friends? Crap! Now she needs to look like someone of good morality and prospects who will enrich the lives of their children by being friends with her! And then maybe she has a boyfriend, or is flirting with a boy or three at school or after school or on the way to school. To them her status is quite different!
You're absolutely correct, Stone_Wolf. Your perspective on her, the least important and the least welcome to her among a dozen or more other people for whom she might vet her fashion choices (not excluding herself!) is the one that needs to be considered first.
Alright, I lied. There's like thirty problems. Strangely they all bear a lot of similarity to the problem of censorship in general.
While all this was very amusing to read, it is all predicated on the central assumption that it was my relationship (almost zero) to her that I was referring.
While her attire was barely appropriate for a high school student, it was...appropriate.
Where it caused me pause is that she isn't just some random high school student, she is one (and the only one of many I might add) who dresses more on the provocative side as a student assistant of small children.
As a student aid for small children, she is inappropriately dressed. Not by much. But in my foolish, hot headed, egocentric, self congratulatory opinion (take that me!) a student aid should dress a little more conservatively than the average high school student given that they will be in close contact with small children.
Thanks for your help in discovering that my line in the sand was off by a large margin and needed to be moved and rethought out.
I love hatrack!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Also, do not discuss her appearance in front of your children AT ALL. They will repeat whatever you say to this young woman (a term that works just fine) to her face.
Best advice of this thread...duly noted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're welcome. Thank you for listening.
Also, something else to consider as an addition. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that her clothing was somehow (as impossible as this is) objectively offensive, and that your opinion that it was not sufficiently conservative was unassailably correct-because how could any opinion, not just yours, on such a matter be proven so thoroughly?...
Which would be the more valuable lesson to impart to your children: that her clothing is not modest enough, and that it is worth disapproving; or that even if someone else does or says or wears something offensive, your children have a responsibility to take charge of their own responses to it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ]Or it might just make them feel pretty. Might have been what was clean. Not your business and her choices don't need to make sense to you.
Okay.
quote: So why are you looking?
Better question: why do you think I'm looking despite having said that I do the exact opposite deliberately?
quote:... you can't order him not to respond to you. You (and here is the point so pay attention) can only control your reaction. And you can control that.
Ignoring him unless he retracts an untrue statement is my reaction. I didn't call for others to censure him. You demanding that I not ignore him is just as intrusive as me demanding he retract to false allegations he has made. So stop it already.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
What are you trying to get out of all this, Stone Wolf?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Also, something else to consider as an addition. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that her clothing was somehow (as impossible as this is) objectively offensive, and that your opinion that it was not sufficiently conservative was unassailably correct-because how could any opinion, not just yours, on such a matter be proven so thoroughly?...
Which would be the more valuable lesson to impart to your children: that her clothing is not modest enough, and that it is worth disapproving; or that even if someone else does or says or wears something offensive, your children have a responsibility to take charge of their own responses to it?
I'm not sure if I followed all of this, but let me respond and then we'll see. What I teach my children is that they are not allowed to dress inappropriately for their age, or watch shows that depict such. I am raising them to be responsible and level headed...to mine and my wife's standards, that is. I would not pull my children aside and point to a young lady as an example of what not to wear. Instead I might compliment someone whom I thought was dressed appropriately in front of my children. Did that answer the question?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
What are you trying to get out of all this, Stone Wolf?
Please acknowledge that I am calm, reasonable and worthy to speak to, and retract your statement I quoted from yesterday is all, and respond in the future if I bring a concern to you calmly. Or even simpler...don't ignore me, I won't ignore you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ]Or it might just make them feel pretty. Might have been what was clean. Not your business and her choices don't need to make sense to you.
Okay.
quote: So why are you looking?
Better question: why do you think I'm looking despite having said that I do the exact opposite deliberately?
Because you started with this, " I put forth effort to not let my eye wonder, but it is difficult..." I guess what I am asking is, why is not looking when you are not "seeking" a problem for you?
quote:
quote:... you can't order him not to respond to you. You (and here is the point so pay attention) can only control your reaction. And you can control that.
Ignoring him unless he retracts an untrue statement is my reaction. I didn't call for others to censure him. You demanding that I not ignore him is just as intrusive as me demanding he retract to false allegations he has made. So stop it already.
I am not demanding anything. I am just saying that your response is your responsibility, not his. (ProTip: telling someone that you are ignoring them is not the same as ignoring them.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ]Because you started with this, " I put forth effort to not let my eye wonder, but it is difficult..." I guess what I am asking is, why is not looking when you are not "seeking" a problem for you?
Science...not some failing in morality.
quote:I am not demanding anything. I am just saying that your response is your responsibility, not his.
And the sky is blue and grass is green...so what?
quote:(ProTip: telling someone that you are ignoring them is not the same as ignoring them.)
If my goal was to simply ignore him, I would. But I have other goals in mind....muwwhuhhahahahahah!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If my goal was to simply ignore him, I would. But I have other goals in mind....muwwhuhhahahahahah!
i try concertedly to not use eyeroll smileys because they are tools of the weak, lazy and puffed-up sort of internet demagogue. but today i am a weak, lazy, and puffed-up internet demagogue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't say it was a failing in morality. Might be a failure in self-control, but that is your responsibility, not hers.
Sky is blue and DB is not going to follow your orders.
Can't imagine what those goals are or how what you have been doing is getting you closer to them.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
You will pry my eyeroll smileys from my weak, lazy, puffed up hands when I'm dead.
I shall wallow in my weakness!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Frankly? I suspect there isn't a goal, and this antagonism stems more from Dogbreath's failure to accept Stone_Wolf's eventual apology after SW blew up at DB over a series of days a couple of weeks ago.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, SW, but that is really, really the smell of things to me. It seems like you're angry and have been.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've made my goals apparent...I mean I spent hours on a post he barely read...he asks a question that I explained an inch above on the screen...it's like he didn't bother to read it.
Which is fine dandy as long as you don't couple it with "if I only knew what this was about"
Roll your eyes all you like Samsecondary. I care little for your ocular redirectioning!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: You will pry my eyeroll smileys from my weak, lazy, puffed up hands when I'm dead.
You might have what it takes to challenge rivka as eye rollin queen of the 'Rack... Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Frankly? I suspect there isn't a goal, and this antagonism stems more from Dogbreath's failure to accept Stone_Wolf's eventual apology after SW blew up at DB over a series of days a couple of weeks ago.
As much sense as that makes, that actually isn't true. I accepted the apology and he acknowledged me accepting it. (unless you mean the second one from which my name is omitted, but yeah I accepted that one too)
You can read his replies in the Scott Walker thread if you want, but it amounts to Stone Wolf reading my questions to him, my defense of Orincoro to Gaal, and even my *silence* as evidence of hostile intent, even when it's obvious it's not there or I went out of my way to couch my responses as non-offensively as possible. My response to him ("No, I'm not attacking you. Don't read so much into every thing") was dismissed with a "well, I tried!" and a rant about laundry or something.
Honestly, I feel bullied.
It started with him mocking my personal life choices, then evolved to him cursing at me and making threatening statements. When that didn't work he moved to public grandstanding with his "dog pit" thread, trying to get people to take his side about how awful I am. *That* didn't work for him and now he's resorted to this victim complex, where my mere presence (even when literally everyone else is saying things far more inflammatory or pointed) is something he obsesses over and he grows *incensed* at my silence when I choose not to escalate the situation by replying. (and I have very good reason to suspect that any reply I make will simply be called a lie, and any conciliatory gesture will be strangely forgotten 2 weeks from now)
Like a bully, he tries to control my behavior and grows furious when I don't acknowledge the attempts and continue doing my thing. Like a bully, he grew absolutely livid when I asked him *why* he was singling me out. And I think this will continue for as long as he needs someone to take his insecurity and perceived lack of control out on. You'll notice this always happens when threads don't go his way - Orincoro started attacking him, and out of the blue he launched his tirade against me. He's running into a lot of opposition here, what does he do? Start up the grandstanding again.
I'm not sure if I'm being targeted here because he thinks I'm not very well liked and he'll gain more leverage from doing so, or if it's because he knows I won't bite back - I'm not going to swear at him or insult him or mock his personal life - so I'm "safe." It's pretty grating, and to answer your earlier question Stone Wolf, no I don't think it's very reasonable or acceptable behavior. I'm going to continue participating in discussions here, but I really hope this ends sooner rather than later.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I probably would have forwarded this thread to someone I had this "appropriate dress" discussion with (who was saying almost exactly what Stone Wolf was saying) if not for this weird Stone Wolf - Dogbreath thing
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I truly acknowledge my failure to reach you on ANY level and am HAPPY to never speak to again...if this is what you want simply don't address me and that's that.
I acknowledge my lack of perspective when it comes to you and honestly dislike you.
So now you have every single reason in the world to never speak to me again...let's see if you can pull it off.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
SW? I have no dog in this fight. But you don't get to tell people not to address you. It's just not how things work. If you want to stop the interaction, it's on you to stop interacting. And let what will be will be.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: SW? I have no dog in this fight. But you don't get to tell people not to address you. It's just not how things work. If you want to stop the interaction, it's on you to stop interacting. And let what will be will be.
I'm not telling him what to do...I'm offering this poor victim of bullying an easy way out of his torment. So easy all he has to do is nothing at all.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Even when there's no way to take the high road, there's always a way to choose whether to keep seeking a lower one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Very funny abd telling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Even when there's no way to take the high road, there's always a way to choose whether to keep seeking a lower one.
I was bullied for years. Bullied by words, bullied by laughter, bullied by fists. For years. DB knows this. DB knows I have a hair sensitive trigger when feeling bullied, because I've said so on many an occasion. In all my time here I have only ever called one person a bully and it was Orincoro, and he was...now he (Orin) lacks the ability to see me in any other way than dishonest and manipulative, which is what it is.
So...now DB is calling me a bully.
So, I know what a victim of bulling wants...the feeling of bulling to stop. I offered him an out so easy it he literally has to do nothing, not even accept.
Do I believe I bullied a marine with my polite insistence upon not being ignored? Not even a little bit. But hey, crazy things happen all the time and if DB says he's feeling bullied who am I to judge. It is what it is. Somethings you just need to accept and move on.
I'm not going to get along with Dogbreath, anytime soon if ever. If acknowledging that makes me the bad guy so be it. I really don't want to talk to him any more, and he's claiming I am a bully, so not talking to each other isn't me being bossy, it is the easiest and best answer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, cut the horseshit, SW. At this point you have engineered this so that if Dogbreath does what you want, it will be a profound victory for you, since you have demanded it repeatedly and attempted to cast him as a persecutor.
Try going at least one contentious discussion without addressing him yourself, and then if he is still talking to you, *then* your 'all he has to do is not talk to me!' position will have a credibility.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, it is untrue that Orincoro is the only person you've called a bully here, Stone_Wolf.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Literally nobody in this thread talk to me ever again ever!!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Stone Wolf:
Disliking me is fine - I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't find me very pleasant. Demanding that I stop participating in threads here because you dislike me isn't a reasonable request, attempting to coerce that with threats of continued antagonism (which admittedly is a step up from your earlier threats of physical violence) makes you a bully. You don't get to control me, but you do get to control your own thoughts and actions and reactions. And I'm confident that you're more than capable of acting like an adult and exercising restraint.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mmmmm...warm fuzzy condisention blanket...hey, it's entirely up to you who you talk to...I was doing you the one favor you have never done for me, paying attention to what you were saying and taking it seriously. I just want it plain for the record that if you choose to associate with someone who has stated in no uncertain terms they dislike & distrust you that is your choice and those are my feelings. I'm not going to candy coat it. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, it is untrue that Orincoro is the only person you've called a bully here, Stone_Wolf.
Show me & I'll conseed the point. Never happened. Urban myth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, it is untrue that Orincoro is the only person you've called a bully here, Stone_Wolf.
Show me & I'll conseed the point. Never happened. Urban myth.
I can almost admire your willingness to be a hypocrite here in defense of your own narrative. How many times did you assert how nasty and offensive Dogbreath had been to you over years, and that you would prove it, even he would have to admit it once you laid out your proofs in the form of posts shown? Remind me again, whatever did happen with that?
Nothing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well it was obvious that db never actually read my explanations, but I had rather hoped other people would read them for themselves...or at least pay enough attention to remember that the explanations exist...but no matter...it is what it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your explanations having any merit hinged on-by your own words, mind you-your being able to show an extensive history of the sort of treatment you were describing and that would be obvious to everyone once shown, by you.
That never happened, and alright, you kind of patched things up with Dogbreath or at least stopped attacking him for a couple of weeks, and that claim of yours went as though it had never been made.
Fast forward a couple of weeks later and you're claiming Orincoro is the only person here you've ever labeled a bully. I point out that's not true, that you've called *me* a bully in the past-and you demand proof.
Well, it's a ridiculous double-standard, Stone_Wolf, and you can take it personally if you like but I would say the same thing to anyone who repeatedly claimed they would provide proof of bad behavior and then never did-and then later demanded proof of something themselves. You took a lot of pleasure in telling Dogbreath he couldn't have it both ways? Back at ya.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
All that's fun and dandy, except those explanations exist, I know because I wrote them. So, read up, or drop it, cause you are wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, just checking on something here: I am wrong when I say you claimed you would prove the accuracy and fairness of your explanations by referencing past conversations and statements made by Dogbreath to you? Because that is what I am actually saying.
No snark here, I am really asking. If you did that I might have missed it, in which case I would happily and with apology drop my objection.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: All that's fun and dandy, except those explanations exist, I know because I wrote them. So, read up, or drop it, cause you are wrong.
You have, on several occasions, justified your repeated personal attacks, insults, threats, etc. against me as revenge for "unfounded personal attacks" I made against you at some unspecified time in the past. The closest you've come to identifying a time frame for these attacks is sometime before you "left the last time" (2013?), and you responded to my (and everyone else's) bafflement by assuring us that you have all sorts of evidence that just *proves* it actually happened. Indeed, you repeatedly called me a liar and swore at me and threatened to "bitch slap" and "donkey kick" me for denying it happened.
You've yet to actually post any of this evidence. So where is it, Stone Wolf? If it's important enough for you to spend so much of your time on this paranoid obsession you have with me, surely you have a minute or two to share this evidence with us.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why would I bother? You haven't listened yet...why start now? I haven't delated anything. My posts aren't hard to find. Try reading them instead of skimming them for sound bites to be taken out of context.
I'm kinda over it...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Please be over it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Show me & I'll conseed the point. Never happened. Urban myth.
--
Why would I bother? You haven't listened yet...why start now? I haven't delated anything. My posts aren't hard to find. Try reading them instead of skimming them for sound bites to be taken out of context.
I'm kinda over it...
So after prolonged and numerous claims that you had evidence and you would provide it and everyone would agree because it is so compelling...well, not only do you never provide it but when someone *else* makes the same type of claim-in this case, pointing out you have called more than just Orincoro a bully before-your reply is a demand for proof or it didn't happen.
This isn't a threat or anything, it's a genuine plea for acknowledgment: can you *please* explain how these two things fit together in a way that isn't openly hypocritical?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because I posted lengthy explanations...not hard to find...im at brunch w family...do your own homework
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, I've been quite a lot more polite and considerate on this than is usual for me, but your behavior on this is nakedly hypocritical, and your snark with remarks such as 'do your own homework' is laughable considering the double-standard you're insisting on.
I'm not nor have I, or anyone else for that matter, beenm asking about your 'explanations'. They always hinged on your having this history with Dogbreath you could (indeed, did) promise to 'prove' with evidence so compelling it couldn't be denied. Your explanations which *refer* to this evidence but don't actually show it don't amount to squat.
A charitable explanation would be that you simply don't realize you're behaving this way, but it happens so often (and guess what? I don't have to offer references, you've established that standard!) that I am just about worn through this deliberate benefit of the doubt I've been giving. When you claim to have evidence and say you'll offer it, but don't and then switch that claim to "I've explained myself", well you've changed your claim. Alright.
When you *then* attempt to suggest to everyone that your 'explanations' and the evidence you promised is the same thing, and sneer at them with remarks such as 'do your own homework', well it's ridiculous. You're being a hypocrite. Dogbreath is correct: you *are* being the bully here, and you're doing such a bad job at it it would be funny if it weren't so obnoxious.
Oh, and a little note: these claims of 'I don't have time right now' seem to be awfully flexible. You don't have time to vote, or inform yourself about your own government, or provide evidence you claimed was easy to find and would prove your arguments, but damned if you don't have time to think up and post endings to a fanfiction story!
We don't have to do this, man. Obviously I disagree but if Dogbreath is so unbearably awful, if his presence is so toxic, you don't have to talk to him. Pretend he doesn't exist. You don't have to talk to or about him, and you certainly don't have to do this little dominance dance where you insist HE shouldn't be talking to YOU.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Stonewolf, your problems with women's clothing choices and your problem with Dogbreath's posts both have the same solution. Repeat to yourself "it's not about me" and go about your business.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sorry for the homework comment...I'm very frustrated about not being read and out in the world with full family.
I'm all the way over it..DogBreath who?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Stonewolf, your problems with women's clothing choices and your problem with Dogbreath's posts both have the same solution. Repeat to yourself "it's not about me" and go about your business.
Thanks dkw!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey everyone! New poster here. Great forum! This is a really interesting issue you are posting about. It is pretty clear that women are at fault though. I don't know why "PC culture" is causing men to flag in their responsibility to appropriately moderate their clothing for them. This is causing long term social problems due to the oppression of men.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
you forgot to switch accounts
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Samp is Clive. hmmmmm
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hey everyone! New poster here. Great forum! This is a really interesting issue you are posting about. It is pretty clear that women are at fault though. I don't know why "PC culture" is causing men to flag in their responsibility to appropriately moderate their clothing for them. This is causing long term social problems due to the oppression of men.
I am posting in this high quality OH MY GOD!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sam was clive the WHOLE TIME
there's your twist, shyamalan Posted by Men's Rights Forever (Member # 13269) on :
We are animals. Stone_Wolf was bothered by a basic physiological reaction to that nubile teen's appearance. We human beings all have responsibility to each other, and the responsibility of women to men is to not unnecessarily provoke lust in males. This teen was unintentionnaly doing that to Stone_Wolf. This is the basis of his objection.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, Clive, I no longer believe that you even believe this crap. You're pretty much a straight-up troll.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
before the string of alts reached end stage performance art (at which point it might as well be shigs/obama/heisenberg masterfully playing as clive whatev) well we honestly got enough juicy information on his shell of a life that there's no point in worrying if he might actually even be that odious unfiltered for reals
Posted by Men's Rights Forever (Member # 13269) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The thing is, Clive, I no longer believe that you even believe this crap. You're pretty much a straight-up troll.
Who is Clive?
Also: My opinions and convictions are sincere.
Did you see that film "American Beauty"? Stone_Wolf is Lester Durnham. The teen in question is the Thora Birch character, except she's merely arousing him unintentionally rather than deliberately.
I believe young women should be taught about the power of their sexuality and should be encouraged to be modest for the sake of their own dignity and for the sake of not provoking urges in males who would rather not have those urches toward young females.
Suppose there's a continuum of socially enforced female sexual modesty, with -10 being absolute lack of female modesty, and, say, +10 being Saudi Arabia. All I mean to say is that, here in the United States, in these modern times, the situation is -4. We need to move towards the median between Saudi Arabia and utter degeneracy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Modesty' is not the word for what goes on with women in Saudi Arabia, but rather oppression and a species of slavery. Nor is it 'socially enforced' either. Of course it's no surprise to me that that sort of subjugation of women is appealing and probably exciting to you.
-----------
You know what's weird? My favorite holiday cookie is a from-scratch variety of M&M cookies my mother makes. Delicious is an understatement. But the weird thing is that my grandmother, her mother, also makes 'em on the holidays but they are like two standard deviations worse in quality. I think she even uses the same recipe.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
That is weird.
You should watch each make their cookies.
I had a friend help me bake once, and she didn't know that you are supposed to level off measuring cups and spoons.
Ingredient temperature supposedly makes a big difference. You use softened butter with cookies, and it's easy to over-do it with the microwave.
I think we need to cater to the weakness of ever beastly male who literally needs women to cover their bodies because they can't control their own sense of entitlement to women who aren't wearing petticoats or something. We should definitely force women to account for men who can't handle what they consider 'immodesty' and will use it as an excuse for their own degeneracy.
Wait! no. that's ridiculous. Instead we'll eat lemon cookies and thin mints.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Butter vs margarine makes a huge difference in how cookies taste. Some people will substitute one for the other in a recipe without even thinking about it. Perhaps your mother uses one and her mother the other.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
On the subject of M&M cookies, growing up my dad would occasionally make Monster Cookies (picture), which are these crazy and delicious oatmeal/peanut butter/chocolate chip/M&M cookies. For some reason they were so "out there" that I assumed he had invented them (none of my friends had ever had them), and was actually really disappointed when I found out that other people made them too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man i miss those white chocolate macadamia nut cookies i could get back where i used to live
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You know what burns me up? You can't find peanut butter cookies anywhere anymore. I remember how they used to be: those delicious cookies with the fork shape scorched into them- so lovely with a glass of milk or :gasp: even a latte. Perhaps dipped in chocolate.
No more! Now that the allergistas have seized power, we can no longer enjoy the beauty that is the peanut butter cookie. For shame!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Men's Rights Forever:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The thing is, Clive, I no longer believe that you even believe this crap. You're pretty much a straight-up troll.
Who is Clive?
Also: My opinions and convictions are sincere.
Did you see that film "American Beauty"? Stone_Wolf is Lester Durnham. The teen in question is the Thora Birch character, except she's merely arousing him unintentionally rather than deliberately.
I believe young women should be taught about the power of their sexuality and should be encouraged to be modest for the sake of their own dignity and for the sake of not provoking urges in males who would rather not have those urches toward young females.
Suppose there's a continuum of socially enforced female sexual modesty, with -10 being absolute lack of female modesty, and, say, +10 being Saudi Arabia. All I mean to say is that, here in the United States, in these modern times, the situation is -4. We need to move towards the median between Saudi Arabia and utter degeneracy.
I think we should just do away with clothing completely and walk around naked. Problem solved.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: man i miss those white chocolate macadamia nut cookies i could get back where i used to live
Do you remember the Girl Scout cookie version of these? Good times!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Men's Rights Forever: Who is Clive?
You're about as convincing as Lego Batman.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I feel I have a similar problem to Rock Dawg but much worse; in that I find very modestly clothed women to be extremely aesthetically pleasing/ Like, the urge to stop and pick up a mechanical pencil and some paper and just draw them to be so overwhelmingly powerful that I have to spend a considerable amount of will power to avoid asking them "Hey can I draw you?". These women, with their perfect proportions and complexion and excellent fashion sense, I'm at a loss with what to do with myself and these urges.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If ya don't update your files then you end up like grandpa who thinks "coloreds" is the PC version.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)