Four new Matilde pictures are in her photo album.
My post below on propriety and display has me thinking. More specifically, I’m thinking about a question Tyler had in a comment on Jenell’s blog yesterday:
On the same note I was wondering your opinion on what us men do to
distract the body as well? by that I mean is there something similar,
but gender opposite, that men do to affect men and women from genuine
worship?
My post below was focused entirely on asking men to take ownership of their responses to sexually attractive women and revealing dress. But though I briefly acknowledged that women are also visual creatures, I didn’t address the flip side, largely because it doesn’t immediately seem to be as consequential a problem. But it’s worth thinking about.
Men, in general, underestimate how often women do "look." We like to assume that women aren’t visual creatures,largely because if we acknowledged just how visual women are, it might make us fellows feel decidedly insecure. I am not suggesting that all women are equally visual, or that they are visual in the same way as their brothers. But women do look, they do lust, and presumably, they can get distracted. Beyond those general remarks, I’m not going to dare and presume any more about my sisters’ libidos. Perhaps in the comments section below, a few women will volunteer some reflections on how women’s "visual sexuality" is similar to and different from men’s.
I’m going to put myself at tremendous risk of embarrassment here. (What else is new?) Judging from my evaluations and "rate my professor" reviews and other remarks, I acknowledge that for whatever reason, I am often regarded as a "hot" professor. I’m not suggesting that I am magnificently handsome, just that I tend to get more such responses than many of my colleagues. Presumably, this will begin to be less noticeable as I age. It certainly has been more embarrassing than flattering.
It’s difficult to write this without first overcoming the fear of
appearing narcissistic! But all of this talk about women’s bodies and
women’s dress means that it is right and proper that we focus on how
men’s bodies and dress affect those around them.
I know that when we teach, we bring our whole selves into the classroom. I bring my maleness in, a point I am quick to acknowledge in my gender studies classes. I bring in my whiteness, I bring in my Christian faith, I bring in many components of my culture and background. (Of course, I am always struggling towards that elusive objectivity!) I also, clearly, bring in my body. But what I try very hard NOT to bring is sexuality! All of us who teach (or preach) do our public work as embodied beings. It is natural that others will consider our bodies just as they consider our words. Sometimes, how our bodies appear may even enhance our words — or distract from our message.
I don’t dress up much for class. The tie makes a brief appearance the first week and then disappears. As the semester wears on, I head quickly for the realm of jeans and t-shirts. I don’t wear my old holey jeans, of course. And though my jeans are made to fit me (I loathe the baggy look), I am careful not to wear anything absurdly tight that might be construed as flagrantly sexual. I want to look good because I want to send the message that I take what I am doing seriously enough to be presentable. But I am aware that like all human beings, I have that unfortunate desire for validation! I have to be very careful not to allow that desire to affect my clothing choices. Praise and validation should be a one-way street in the classroom — it’s not their job to respond to my embodied self. The classroom will be safest when the teacher’s body is acknowledged but does not constitute a distraction.
As I’ve written before, I no longer buy leather belts or shoes. I still have some old leather belts and shoes I wear to class. When I was younger, I went through a very heavy "designer" phase. I had my Ralph Lauren year, my Donna Karan year, my Kenneth Cole year, and — naturally — my Hugo Boss year. (I was single and living in a small apartment and not yet in tithing mode.) I stopped spending so much on clothes a few years ago for three reasons. One was financial: as I bought a home and began tithing, my discretionary income for expensive clothes dropped. Two, I didn’t want to arouse envy — labels have a way of making other folks uncomfortable, and I didn’t consider that I could do that in good conscience. Three, some of my favorite clothing styles tended to be quite tight and relatively revealing (leading to much speculation about my sexual orientation). I realized that in the classroom, that distraction was not helpful.
I still care about clothes. I care a lot, frankly, about the health and fitness (and yes, the appearance) of my body. I don’t work out six days a week on trail and treadmill, bike and track and weight rack just for my own well-being! But what I really care about is not using my body to make others uncomfortable. I don’t want my clothes and my flesh to arouse others, I don’t want them to scare others, I don’t want them to inspire economic envy, and I don’t want them to distract others. There’s only so much I can do, of course. As I stressed below, we are all ultimately responsible for our own reactions to others’ bodies. But we can take reasonable steps to make certain that we don’t cause others to stumble in lust or fear or envy, and I am trying to take those steps today.
But though I briefly acknowledged that women are also visual creatures, I didn’t address the flip side, largely because it doesn’t immediately seem to be as consequential a problem.
Wow. This sentence stopped me cold. In what way could it possibly not be as consequential? Because women are presumed to be less likely to be visually stimulated? Because women are presumed to be less affected by visual stimulation? Because women’s distraction is less important than men’s distraction? Because women are sexual objects and men are sexual actors?
None of this makes sense to me with respect to who I imagine you to be, based on what I read. But Roman Catholic monastic rules often include “custody of the eyes” for a reason. What we see affects us. And I am left thinking that you either don’t think that women are affected as much, or you don’t think it matters as much when women are affected, or think that women are just “better” at dealing with distraction.
I don’t understand why the issue is not “Who owns the distraction and whose problem is it to modify the circumstances to reduce the distraction?” without reference to maleness or femaleness.
SorchaRei, note my adverb. I said it doesn’t “immediately” seem as consequential. Why? Because, like everyone else, I too am often blind to the reality of the female gaze. Like many men in particular, despite my years of feminist training, I don’t instantly acknowledge women’s “visualness”, simply because it isn’t talked about as much. The whole bleepin’ post, however, was a recognition that that initial, immediate response was incomplete.
Oh yeah, Hugo…we look too! Most definitely! We tend to be more discreet about it than men, but that’s a learned behavior…this society gives more cultural room to men to express appreciation of the female body (in both polite and obnoxious ways), but trust me—we are checking men out!
There is a difference in the way the male body and the female body is perceived—by either men or women. The female body is automatically sexualized in a way that the male body is not. And folks feel free to make sexual judgements on women’s bodies to a far greater extent…and I’m not just talking about attractiveness.
Your experience of having your sexuality questioned because of your dress isn’t really a common male experience, and IMHO didn’t have as much to do with your dress as with your bachelor/no kids status combined with your age, combined with your fashionable dress. You could have worn the same clothes and not had a single question had you been married.
I’d say another way in which the situation for men and women is different is that women are given more cultural room for clothing and other appearance choices; with the flip side being that we are ‘required’ to make those choices—proper dress, hairstyle, and grooming options for women practically must vary by age, by season, by situation (work? school? home? church?). And we are alternately ‘required’ to show skin/not show skin, in a way that men aren’t. I put the ‘required’ in quotes, because of course no one has a gun to our heads, but that yes, we do have repercussions for not making, or not knowing the “right” choice to make.
There’s a similar conversation at Amp’s on hairstyles; I observed that it was easy for a man to work within the cultural boundaries–that a man had to exert some effort to go outside those boundaries. For us, the boundaries themselves change by time, place, age, situation. A man can have the same hairstyle, and pretty much the same dress clothes from the age of five to the age of eighty-five and make it work (size changes allowed, of course!) in most situations. A woman cannot.
I think that impacts how men and women are viewed.
“Because, like everyone else, I too am often blind to the reality of the female gaze”.
Another reason for this may be that we in the U.S. are inundated with advertising at every turn, and most advertising is directed toward the male gaze….paradoxically, even when directed at female customers! We’re all taught to observe from the male POV.
Hugo - “But what I really care about is not using my body to make others uncomfortable. I don’t want my clothes and my flesh to arouse others, I don’t want them to scare others, I don’t want them to inspire economic envy, and I don’t want them to distract others.”
That’ll only happen when you’re dead, my friend. But before that, human bodies will always be sexual.
I teach high school biology and chemistry. It’s a sad place, mostly because those two courses which I relished taking as a high school student not 15 years ago have been replaced by shells of themselves. Regents Biology is about one-third of its former self. Regents Chemistry is about one-half of itself. And the saddest thing is that percent passing in both courses is the same as it was 15 years ago.
I started out as a nice teacher…but that didn’t work out so well. Now I believe that teaching at the high school level is a lot like putting a four-foot square peg in to a three-foot round hole. Does anyone have a sledgehammer?
The “sledgehammer” is one of three expensive suits I wear. My persona is, “Relax people and let’s leave all decision making to the expert.” It works, because it has to work. If it didn’t, I’d be out of a job.
I get flirted with on a regular basis. It’s probably the clothes. It’s also likely that many of the girls have no father figures, and are drawn to my tough exterior. (Case in point, it’s usually the goth / loner girls who are drawn to me.)
Unlike you, Hugo, I don’t have those desires that you have regarding your body and its effects on others. Bodies will always be sexual, so trying to stem the tide is something like trying to walk to the moon. Nice idea - but don’t take it too seriously.
Hugo, your becomming very big-headed.
I think that as a professor your appearance is important. Personally, I think that although you obviously look terrific in jeans and a t-shirt, you should refrain from doing so if they are tight fitting. You are in front of the classroom and wearing tight jeans is distracting to your students.
Percy - If you willfully put as a major goal to not become distracting to your students, you’ve put way too much power in the students’ hands and not enough in your own. You are there to teach, no more no less. Hell, I even *tell* my students this - that my two jobs are to teach them a subject and to make sure the grades are fair.
After that…not my problemo.
MetaMataX,
Professor Schwyzer asked for our opinion. I gave him mine. Thats all, I’m not passing judgement on peoples’s dress codes. But I think that when you are in front of a classroom you are more visible than sitting in a desk. I think that professors need to be accountable too.
Ooops… I have put “the teacher is hot” on my evaluation forms for male teachers! For my Sports Economics professor (who is 27), I put “he needs to wear tighter shirts” in the space for suggestions! I also find myself checking out the boys in my class and having nasty thoughts. I’m an economics major, so my classes are about 75% male. I’m not complaining…
However, I’m engaged and haven’t cheated on my fiancee. I don’t even want to. It’s just fantasy, that’s all. Plus, my fiancee is hotter than the boys in my classes.
Embarassing story time (even related to the previous post’s church theme!):
The pastor at my church is hot. Every straight woman and gay man in the place is very aware of it (I’m one of the former). We mention it sheepishly to each other on occasion; make jokes about a fan club. The first couple of months I attended this church, I was quite distracted by it. Sermons were spent thinking about how the blue in his pastoral stole brought out his eyes. It was bad.
The thing about this pastor, though, is that he is also won of the most intellectually and theologically provocative people I’ve ever had the honor to know. When I finally got over the physical distraction, I found a wealth of wisdom there that my day dreaming had caused me to miss in the past. The fact that I found him attractive was impeding my spiritual growth.
I got over it, of course, as everyone at my church eventually does. (Seriously, it’s one of the first things new people mention at coffee hour: “oh, I just love this place, and Pastor X is just amazing, his sermons are incredible and…well…he’s kinda hot…) I’ve been going for a year and a half now, and it rarely crosses my mind. But I can assure you that women are also distracted by attractive men, even in situations where we clearly shouldn’t be. Maybe we hide it better…I don’t know. But it’s far from a rare occurance.
Hugo~
I love your dialogue and interest in this issue. I attend a church in Kansas City called Jacob’s Well which is Similar to Solomon’s Porch. I wanted to comment on a few things you had to say. First off about women (now I’m young and open to inexperience and incorrect observations). At one point I was engaged and will openly admit that you are right - women struggle with lust and physical temptation. Maybe in a different way then men but they still struggle. This may increase as our culture becomes a more sexual one. We shouldn’t ignore this - i believe if women are emotionally attracted it can become even worse. Another area they struggle with I believe is comparable to our ‘male’ version is in comparisons - to other women and comparing men to men. We as men, need to be aware of these thought processes. I am in agreement with you that we have to control ourselves as men…it’s time to step up to the plate as leaders. I commented again on Janelle’s (sp) blog. Like you said though, we all have the burden of not using our rights to hinder others. That’s basic. I always feel like there is an underlying question we aren’t facing with these kinds of things- are we answering that question? are we willing to face it? do we even know what it is? I’m not sure - any ideas? let me know i’m interested. I always feel like Christ could pick up these underlying questions in our hearts…where we were only interested in the ‘nipples’ or outward appearance. IS this issue creating a heart change in us…or only a change in our dress? I think God is very concerned with our hearts, not our penis, breasts, vagina, hips, etc, etc, etc.
I did want to throw in a defense to my sunday school teacher as you commented upon. Were his actions probably inappropriate? yes i would agree. But that was the type of teacher he was with us. We never wanted to ask or face the hard issues, so he stepped on the line to take some high school students out of their comfort zones to discover Christ in our midst. I mean in high school you’re concerned with such an outward world - and he wanted us to go deeper. In this case the girl he did this to was like a daughter to him…I believe it was his place. We were a tight group and he said this because he wanted this girl to realize, unfortunately and especially in a secular high school world where most guys just wanted sex with her, that she needed to try and make sure her thoughts and soul weren’t being valued only because she was “hot” and well endowed. This was an extreme way of showing it - but boy did it get the message across. I agree that this is typically a job for women - but as high school students none of us were really at a relationship with Christ to understand keeping each other accountable on such issues. I think the lesson he taught her was beyond a christian one…he wanted her to value herself…and be valued by others…because of who she is as a person. I liked it and would probably pull the same thing on my daughter. Espeically in a secular culture- us christian men may hold ourselves to a standard but I guarantee, and know for a fact, that non-christian guys don’t hold themselves to that standard. Like you said it’s not a safe world and girls need to realize that not all guys will treat them the way they deserve. It’s not fair but that’s the world we live in - we can’t talk about a world we don’t live in…this is it. Let me know what you think - I liked your blog, great thought. I’m sure you’re a good teacher. I myself teach elementary and love the fact that we always have room to learn.
Once again, Hugo puts the onus on men for pretty much everything. Men are responsible for their responses to how women dress. Men are responsible for women’s reactions to how men dress. This is really “patriarchy lite.” You’re giving men extra burdens, quite without the added “benefits” that “patriarchy” offers. Note that I reject the term “patriarchy” as it is commonly used (or, more appropriately, misused) by feminists, but I’m using it here to present terminology that even your ideologically-brainwashed mind might understand.
Perhaps in the comments section below, a few women will volunteer some reflections on how women’s “visual sexuality” is similar to anddifferent from men’s.
You won’t dare to presume things about women’s “visual” responses. On the other hand, you’ll ask women to make a comparison that requires them to presume things about men’s “visual” responses. More of the self-loathing, “women are superior to men” crap!
It’s difficult to write this without first overcoming the fear of appearing narcissistic!
Do you fear reality? You’re a classic narcissist.
But what I really care about is not using my body to make others uncomfortable. I don’t want my clothes and my flesh to arouse others, I don’t want them to scare others, I don’t want them to inspire economic envy, and I don’t want them to distract others.
Can you say “grossly exaggerated sense of self-importance”? I hope so because it applies to you, dude. And here you go again, demanding that you, as a man, take a great responsibility for how others respond to your choice of clothing. Yet, when women dress like sluts, they aren’t really responsible for their behavior, at least not to the same level that you demand responsibility from men.
Just my thoughts, man.
Mark
Mark~
good thoughts - I mean there is some truth and almost self - fulfilling prophecy that what I exude will set a definition on how others perceive, think, react, and respond towards me. Basically put, if I dress like a clown…red nose, balloons, big shoes, etc. odds are people that don’t know me will assume I am a clown. If I dress like a mail man the same will happen. And so on and so on. As women and men we must realize that certain actions (in this case outfits) carry certain representations, maybe stereotypical maybe not, with them. I agree that if a woman or man dresses in a certain light then they need to be prepared to possibly be treated in that light. Like your example - if you dress like a prostitue then you need to be open to the fact you may be treated as one. Hopefully, men will hold them to a higher standard - but again, not always. Each one of us can only be in control of our own thoughts and actions - not other peoples. And, we must be prepared to realize that our actions will elict certain thoughts and feelings from others…if we dress like a ’slut’ we need to acknowledge or at least come to grips with the fact that certain people may treat us in accordance with our style of dress. I can challenge men and women to rise to a higher standard in terms of their actions and their reactions to others’ actions - but in the end only we can control the thoughts and actions of ourselves. But I agree - act a certain way…then be ready to face the consequences, reactions, and cultural norms that go alone with those actions, whatever they may be.
And you know…as we sit here and argue this petty detail to death, has anyone considered the woman on the street outside your house that can’t even afford a bra? let alone a decent pair of warm clothes? or a meal? or just someone kind to talk with? I hope petty problems aren’t overshadowing the bigger picture of the purpose of our lives…
they usually do mine, and I know God’s disappointed in me because really - i’m focusing in more on my own pride, and being right in an argument, than Him walking past me to help that woman who I was blind to and did not see
“Judging from my evaluations and “rate my professor” reviews and other remarks, I acknowledge that for whatever reason, I am often regarded as a “hot” professor. I’m not suggesting that I am magnificently handsome, just that I tend to get more such responses than many of my colleagues.”
Okay Hugo… you wrote me an email on Feb 2nd that said “As for ratemyprofessor, how on earth am I responsible for my appearance?” Its very ironic that a few weeks ago, you were denying that you should have any responsibility for how students react to you based on your appearance. Why are you now even questioning it?
As for your colleagues… I can give you several reasons why they may not receive as many such comments. First, they dress more professionally than you claim to… and therefore create an image that the classroom is a formal, respectable learning environment. Secondly, many are probably married… or simply don’t see the need to bring their personal life into the classroom. Thirdly, as you also admitted before… you have a certain reputation on campus (no need to go into that again)…. And finally, some professors actually stick to the topic that they teach… and it just doesn’t have much to do with sexuality.
If you’ve ever noticed… your office mate also has a “chili pepper” next to his name on ratemyprof. But if you read his comments… they are strictly academic evaluations. Why? You guys are both pretty much the same age and teach the same subject… something to think about… What is E.Z. doing right that you may be doing wrong?
But I agree - act a certain way…then be ready to face the consequences, reactions, and cultural norms that go alone with those actions, whatever they may be.
Hey Tyler,
I certainly don’t think that dressing provocatively can justify abuses like rape, assault, etc. of either women or men. What bugs me is the duplicity that underlies Hugo’s comments. Despite all his railing and wringing his hands over “sexism” and “patriarchy” (with their implicit “ain’t men awful attitude), he holds men to a higher standard of conduct than he holds women. That’s blatant sexism and misogyny. It’s sexism in that it discriminates between men and women unfairly. It’s misogyny because it belies a subtle form of contempt for women. That contempt is the foundation for the demand that men act at a “higher” of conduct; it essentially says that men should act better than women because they are somehow better.
I don’t buy that kind of nonsense. I believe both men and women are created in God’s image and likeness. (Actually, I believe all of creation reflects God to varying degrees, but that’s another topic for another time.)
Tyler, what you have here in this post by Hugo is misogyny in “pro-feminist” clothing.
Mark
Point taken - I see that…but I also see a sense where men do need to act at a higher standard, which maybe helps this point all the more. I guess I am picking up a hint of superiority in the female sense. As though men are unable to control their responses and women have all the power over men. Which, as I look at many relationships - may be the case. Perhaps Hugo is calling men to a higher standard to equalize that argument. I don’t think so, but none the less I’m picking up these undertones. Basically, men rise up to a higher standard - don’t you see how women are controlling you with everything they do, and all you can say in response is “I’m helpless against you. Can you not do that?” I don’t agree with this argument but am picking it up a bit along with what you say.
I agree with what you said. “I certainly don’t think that dressing provocatively can justify abuses like rape, assault, etc. of either women or men.” I was not discussing this idea to this degree. But I do believe the way we dress will elicit certain attitudes and behaviors and we are ‘playing stupid’ if we don’t realize or think ahead about this. And I know women think about this, as most agonize over every detail of their outfit for the day - primarily if they believe they will be being watched.
Anne (or whatever pseudonymn you care to use these days) the whole point was that I DON’T dress or act provocatively; I do teach an enticing subject, and for that I make no apologies.
Sigh, it’s a little dispiriting to have my comments section nearly entirely in the hands of my detractors, particularly the MRA trolls who are convinced that I am filled with a strange cocktail of self-righteousness and self-hatred. It’s amazing, really, that I get anything done –considering I am struggling to balance both intense nsarcissism and self-loathing. Whew. I think I better go back to bed, and think up some more ways to bash my fellow males and patronize my sisters. Cripes, folks, get a new angle, will ya?
I don’t believe men are superior to women; if you read my body of work on the subject, that ought to be clear. I DO believe that ultimately, men ought to police other men and women ought to police other women around matters of sexual propriety. But when you call men to accountability, it tends to inspire rage in those who see women and the women’s movement as the real problem in contemporary American society.
Hugo, if I’m distracted by an attractive man (as I often am), that is largely my problem. It is always my job to act morally toward the man — to treat him as a human being rather than a sex object, and to refrain from sexually abusing him. His job, as I see it, is mostly an engineering one: to make sure that women don’t behave immorally toward him. He’s not really morally to blame if he dresses in a sexually arousing manner and gets hurt because of it — the only person at fault in such a situation is the one who’s doing the hurting. But as Tyler points out, it’s really imprudent to dress in a manner that’s likely to bring harm on your person, even if that harm is morally unjustified. In all honesty, this doesn’t seem like a hugely difficult engineering problem for men; I don’t hear many stories of them getting raped for dressing provocatively. So I’m not really sure what it is that’s got you so worked up. I enjoy my harmless drooling over the hot clerk at the record store as much as the next person, and as long as I don’t treat the clerk badly, there doesn’t look to be much of a problem.
This whole concept of getting treated as a mailman, getting treated as a clown, getting treated as a slut, doesn’t anybody else think that this is a problem? If I’m having a professional transaction with a mailman, like getting my mail, I treat him as a mailman, or if I’m hiring a clown to do a party, or being entertained by a clown and laughing, I’m treating him as a clown. But I hope that the rest of the time (and also in that time as well) I’m first treating him like a human being.
The idea that it’s appropriate to speak differently to different people, to put on different personas for different people, is disturbing. I worked with a guy in a camp and we had breaks at the same time and were often using the phones at the same time and I could always tell (even without the words, just the tone of voice) when he was talking to his girlfriend and when he was talking to his family. It was like he was two completely different people. I don’t see anything to respect in that.
Yes, it’s a matter of real world pragmatism that a lot of people think they can treat another person badly, rudely, abusively, disdainfully, etc, if that person visually appears to be a certain way (slutty, whorish, stupid, disabled, ugly, fat, hispanic, elderly, etc). Yes, for a woman who is wondering how she can be treated more like a human being, it might be helpful to consider dressing/dieting/making-up/walking a certain way. But that is a SHAME. And honestly I think people who think it’s fine to decide which persona to put on based on superficial aspects of another person have nothing to be proud of.
All of this doesn’t have much to do with attraction and looking, I think. Because I am talking about how you treat people, and in that sense the question of whether or not they perceive you as “looking” (leering? objectifying? talking to the chest?) is most important. If you are a great actor, you could probably pull off being an asshole inside and a decent guy outside - which is definitely preferable to being an asshole on both sides, but hey, you’re still an asshole!
The problem is that all sorts of women’s clothing choices are likely to be seen as sexual whereas I can’t even think of anything that would constitute overtly sexy clothing for a man (maybe a plunging neckline with gold chains, but who would wear that?)
For example, I may think a man in a business suit is sexy (and trust me, I often do) but a man’s business suit will never be seen as inherently sexual; it will be seen as a mark of professionalism and power first. The sexiness is incidental. As a woman though, I have to think about whether my business suit is too short, too fitted, the wrong color, too low cut, blah, blah, blah. And what about my make-up, my hair, my shoes, my jewelry? There seem to be a lot more pitfalls for women, then men. There is a post at feministing. com about a suit Condoleeza Rice wore recently– severe dark jacket, knee length skirt,knee high boots with heels, and a long dark coat. The outfit was certainly modest and covered up but some columnist still read a primarily sexual message– that of a dominatrix!!
The other problem is men can be both credible professionally and sexy at the same time whereas women are perceived as either/or. My efforts to tone down my sexuality at work often result (I fear) in a frumpy or matronly look, completely unsexual. Whereas a man in a Brooks Brothers suit can be completely professionally credible and sexy at the same time (yum).
You won’t dare to presume things about women’s “visual” responses. On the other hand, you’ll ask women to make a comparison that requires them to presume things about men’s “visual” responses. More of the self-loathing, “women are superior to men” crap!
The difference is that men feel freer than women to actually verbalize what their response is to visual stimulation. You don’t have to presume if they’re actually telling you what they’re thinking.
Actually, I tend to look more at other women than men, but that may be because I’m not all that straight. I’m certainly more likely to find an attractive woman distracting than an attractive man, in a purely visual sense - though either way I consider it my business to manage the distraction and keep my mind on work when I need to.
“Ooops… I have put “the teacher is hot” on my evaluation forms for male teachers! For my Sports Economics professor (who is 27), I put “he needs to wear tighter shirts” in the space for suggestions! I also find myself checking out the boys in my class and having nasty thoughts. I’m an economics major, so my classes are about 75% male. I’m not complaining…
However, I’m engaged and haven’t cheated on my fiancee. I don’t even want to. It’s just fantasy, that’s all. Plus, my fiancee is hotter than the boys in my classes.”
Red-
There’s an old saying: It don’t matter where you get hungry as long as you eat at home.
Cheers!
Hugo - wearing jeans and t-shirt to work is not provocative (though it is unprofessional). I don’t know how you act because (thankfully) I have never seen you.
There is a big difference, however, between a teacher who is “hot” and one who is “cool”. A “cool” teacher is one who engages their students and sparks an interest in what they are teaching. They connect on a mental level - not physical. A “hot” teacher is usually someone who tries to use thier physical body to entice their students into thinking they are “cool”.
Just because you teach an “enticing subject” does not mean that you have to sexualize yourself. (which obviously you have done- at least in the past)
If you do not like having your comments section in the hands of detractors, are you only interested in the self affirming compliments of your adoring fans? Is this an opinion site or the “Hugo Schwyzer Fan Club”?
Lastly, DO NOT make the assumption that I have ever used a pseudonym. I know who has… but it was NOT ME. Face it Hugo… you DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING !!!
I think that my issues here are along the lines of trying to figure out why, after noting that you had dismissed women’s visual responses as an issue, and suggesting that you ought to repair that, what I would really have liked to see would have been some consideration of how that happened. How did you come initially to dismiss women-as-seers? What might that say about how your entire take on this issue might be skewed by whatever caused that lapse in the first place?
Instead, you moved right on to questions about your dress and your behavior. And while I don’t presume to think that I should tell you what to write about, I do confess that I would be far more interested in reading about your thoughts on why the initial glossing-over happened than on what you actually wrote about.
Part of this is because I believe that humans beings are innately sexual beings, and that lust, attraction, and sexual energy between people are normal and expected. The thing is not to try to avoid being aroused by other people, but to avoid acting inappropriately.
There’s a bumper sticker in my neighborhood that says “Don’t believe everything you think”. Along those same lines, my experience is that I am capable of noticing someone’s physicality and then putting it aside and focusing my energy elsewhere. From my perspective, the attempt to dress so that NO ONE will EVER respond to me as a sexual being is ridiculous, and distracts from more interesting and useful activities.
I, for instance, find hands to be quite compelling. A beautiful pair of hands can elicit an appreciative or even lustful response form me on occasion. I do not think that this means the rest of you need to wear gloves all the time. This is about me, and managing that response (developing the ability to laugh at myself and move on) is my problem.
To more or less summarize this rambling comment, I think that in noticing your initial response as having been dismissive of women’s visual responses and their import but then moving on to consider your level of responsibility for those responses, you avoided some actual adaptive work. Your first post seemed to suggest that male responses to female dress are the property and concern of the men having the responses. Why then, having noted that your first pass at the problem failed to address female visual reactions, did you then segue into a discussion of your responsibility as a wearer of clothes?
To Tara - “The idea that it’s appropriate to speak differently to different people, to put on different personas for different people, is disturbing. I worked with a guy in a camp and we had breaks at the same time and were often using the phones at the same time and I could always tell (even without the words, just the tone of voice) when he was talking to his girlfriend and when he was talking to his family. It was like he was two completely different people. I don’t see anything to respect in that.”
You mean you don’t see the taste, discretion, intellect, and appreciation for differences inherent in someone who can treat what really *ARE* different situations in truly different ways? Your loss, I guess.
CMC, your point about the suit was excellent, thank you.
Anne, the fact that I have neither banned you nor deleted your comments ought to answer your question as to whether I am only interested in affirmation.
Sorcharei, the dismissal of women as subjects of visual desire (rather than as objects) is a widespread problem, and you’re right, it is worthy of reflection. It also was not the subject of the post.
Blog posts are not journal articles. They are musings, edited only for spelling and not for content. I post often, and freely admit I may come to think better of what I have written a day or two after I’ve posted it. Please understand — my blog reflects what I’m thinking NOW, not what I regard as immutable truth. I don’t teach the way I blog! Thus, it is likely that my posts will wander a bit. It is almost certain that they will contain logical contradictions. I don’t admire consistency as the highest of all virtues anyway!
“Your first post seemed to suggest that male responses to female dress are the property and concern of the men having the responses. Why then, having noted that your first pass at the problem failed to address female visual reactions, did you then segue into a discussion of your responsibility as a wearer of clothes?”
I don’t necessarily agree with your earlier point that we as humans are inherently sexual creatures, but I think your concluding question here sums it up pretty well.
Haha, thanks for the old saying, craichead!
Anne, have you ever thought that some people are “hot” without even trying? My Sports Economics teacher didn’t TRY to be hot… he just was. Futhermore, he was teaching to mostly men, and he’s definitely straight. Some people just have a physique that can’t be hidden, no matter how hard they try to play it down.
I have been catcalled at the gas station wearing sweats, no makeup, and my hair pulled back. I was certainly not trying to look hot (and frankly, I can’t see how anyone thought I was). But you never know what will tickle some else’s fancy.
La Lubu wrote: Oh yeah, Hugo…we look too! Most definitely! We tend to be more discreet about it than men, but that’s a learned behavior…this society gives more cultural room to men to express appreciation of the female body (in both polite and obnoxious ways), but trust me—we are checking men out!
I had to laugh. This could be me given a few changes in wording. I’ve had more than one thought about a male professor or two (and some dressed casually, some formally, some slobbily/some handsome, some not–sex appeal is always on odd thing), and keeping contact with the eyes was a must in speaking with them after class or during office hours: “Must not look down…Must not notice that bicep bulging with the t-shirt…Must not notice that cute sweater…Must not stare at his ass…Please don’t get hard!” Most times, I’ve just had to laugh at myself afterwards at how funny attraction is, own the attraction, work at not playing with the attraction in my fantasy, and strive to relate in a professional manner even if at the moment I’m bulging in my pants… Thankfully, as I get older, this has diminished somewhat…
I wonder how most heterosexual men would react to know that in any given locker room setting, some homosexual or bisexual man is taking notice–discreetly. We learn that responsibility for our own eyes is important in such settings in order not to get the crap beat out of us or worse. This learning can be quite useful at times though, say given those office hours with sexy professor so and so…
And women do talk about hot prof. so and so; I’ve been in on more than one such observational debriefing after class, or advised non-pursual in a couple of situations, including an instance when a female friend wanted to pursue a RC priest…
I wonder how most heterosexual men would react to know that in any given locker room setting, some homosexual or bisexual man is taking notice–discreetly.
Hey Christopher,
I can’t speak for “most” heterosexual men, but I can speak for myself. It doesn’t disturb me at all. There are different sexual orientations. For whatever reason, it’s how we’re made. Just because I can’t understand the feelings of same-sex attraction from my own experience is no reason to feel uncomfortable.
We learn that responsibility for our own eyes is important in such settings in order not to get the crap beat out of us or worse.
That really stinks and, more than once, I have stood up against heterosexual harassment of homosexual and bisexual men. I suppose any impact of my going to the defense of those men was quite small; the world hasn’t changed because of it. But it’s the right thing to do and, maybe, it have the heterosexual men second thoughts about harassing someone else.
On the other side, I have also once come to the aid of a heterosexual man who was being abused by a group of guys who claimed to be homosexual. (I say “claimed” because I have no way of knowing for sure and I don’t want to create any negative stereotype for a group that has already suffered a lot.) In that situation, the other heterosexual man and I were significantly outnumbered, so the best I could do was create enough of an interruption and distraction to allow us both to run away.
A guy does what he has to do.
Mark
I have been catcalled at the gas station wearing sweats, no makeup, and my hair pulled back. I was certainly not trying to look hot (and frankly, I can’t see how anyone thought I was). But you never know what will tickle some else’s fancy.
While how much of your body that catcallers can see factors into whether or not you’re going to get harassed, it’s not really the main thing. Cat-calling has little to do with the attractiveness of the woman being harassed and everything to do with guys demonstrating to their friends who the biggest asshole is. Apparently, that’s a fine thing to be in some circles.
Not to say that you aren’t attractive in your sweats, Redneck. I’m sure you are. But I have noticed that some cat-callers actually prefer to harass women who they perceive as uninviting–not smiling, not looking at others, wearing something comfortable instead of sexy–because if they can get her to look up, they “win”. It’s more of a challenge.
Cat-calling has little to do with the attractiveness of the woman being harassed and everything to do with guys demonstrating to their friends who the biggest asshole is. Apparently, that’s a fine thing to be in some circles.
Since you’re not a guy, this is all just your speculation. You’ve got some issues with strong men.
Mark
Cat-calling has little to do with the attractiveness of the woman being harassed and everything to do with guys demonstrating to their friends who the biggest asshole is.
P.s. Using profanity doesn’t impress anyone. It just makes you look like a resentful little girl, or even a PMS-crazed kook.
Mark
But I have noticed that some cat-callers actually prefer to harass women who they perceive as uninviting–not smiling, not looking at others, wearing something comfortable instead of sexy–because if they can get her to look up, they “win”. It’s more of a challenge.
More silly speculation. Ho hum.
Mark
Strong men find women perfect strangers to yell at so their friends laugh and then run off before they can be called out for their behavior? Wow.
Here I was thinking that real strength came from behaving with honor. I better dump my boyfriend right now and find a simple-minded bully to get with so I can get over my “fear” (no speculation whatsoever on your part–as a man, you know everything and have no need to speculate) of strong men.
Strong men find women perfect strangers to yell at so their friends laugh and then run off before they can be called out for their behavior? Wow.
Again, more of your idle speculation. Where do you live? A kindergarten?
Here I was thinking that real strength came from behaving with honor.
Perhaps it does. Why don’t you show us an example for a change instead of just running your silly potty mouth and posting anti-male trash?
I better dump my boyfriend right now and find a simple-minded bully to get with
You claim to have a boyfriend. I don’t believe your claim.
so I can get over my “fear” (no speculation whatsoever on your part–as a man, you know everything and have no need to speculate) of strong men.
You’re engaging in typical, but incredibly stupid and effective, feminist behavior: putting words in my mouth. I said you have “issues” with strong men. I did not use the word “fear.” Instead, you’re the one who is attributing all sorts of nefarious motives to men you don’t even know.
Quit with your anti-male trashing of my poor boyfriend, who doesn’t have “issues” with strong women. And sorry if my word to describe a bunch of men who pick on women because they have nothing better to do offended your strong male self. Weak men don’t faint at the idea of a woman using profanity, but strong men do. I’m learning so much from you:
Strong men: harass strangers, whine like babies at having to read words that describe them a bit too accurately, dislike women who observe (aka speculate), and feel free to suggest that because I don’t like being harassed on the street that means that I have “issues” with men.
Weak men: respect women as if they were fellow human beings.
Gotcha.
Why the heck, Mark, do you have a problem with the word “asshole” applied to a gang of men harrassing a woman on the street? I mean, I rarely use profanity, but harrassing a woman who’s innocently trying to fill her car with gas seems to me a much worse thing than calling the harrasser an asshole.
And no, I don’t have any “issues” with strong men. Just with men who harrass strangers in the street. I’d have thought you’d have understood the difference, since you wrote so thoughtfully about defending both gay and straight men from harrassment.
Quit with your anti-male trashing of my poor boyfriend, who doesn’t have “issues” with strong women.
Uhm, you really need to learn how to read. You show me where I “trashed” your “poor (alleged) boyfriend.” Go ahead. Where did I “trash” him? You can’t show it because I didn’t “trash” him. Like most feminists, you’re a liar.
And sorry if my word to describe a bunch of men who pick on women because they have nothing better to do offended your strong male self.
Who said I was “offended,” potty mouth? Another attempt at a straw man?
Weak men don’t faint at the idea of a woman using profanity, but strong men do.
It’s time for you to get a life, Amanda. Who is “fainting”? Your stupid blog is full of profanity. Why? Do you think it makes you look “butch”? I am not impressed. Of course, you’re exactly the kind of girl Hugo likes on his blog–one who can be abusive and push him around. What a bunch of losers!
I’m learning so much from you:
Are you always so caustic and abrasive, or is it just that time of the month?
Strong men: harass strangers, whine like babies at having to read words that describe them a bit too accurately, dislike women who observe (aka speculate), and feel free to suggest that because I don’t like being harassed on the street that means that I have “issues” with men.
Weak men: respect women as if they were fellow human beings.
It looks like Amanda is hallucinating now. She’s getting very defensive. Have the little green men already disembarked from the black helicopters that landed in your backyard?
Why so defensive, Amanda? Because I am not one of those “pro-feminist” men who will let your nonsense go unchallenged?
Keep crying, dude. You look stronger and more manly the whinier you get.
Why the heck, Mark, do you have a problem with the word “asshole” applied to a gang of men harrassing a woman on the street? I mean, I rarely use profanity, but harrassing a woman who’s innocently trying to fill her car with gas seems to me a much worse thing than calling the harrasser an asshole.
My complaint about the profanity was just one point that I made. Little Amanda runs around the blogosphere with her potty mouth, trying to act ‘butch’. I don’t particularly care whether she does or not, but I will point out how silly it appears.
And no, I don’t have any “issues” with strong men. Just with men who harrass strangers in the street.
With all due respect, that’s irrelevant to my points. You will note that I did not approve or condone any street harassment. The reason is because I don’t approve of it and I don’t condone it. It’s wrong.
However, it is also wrong for Amanda to claim she knows the men’s motivation when she clearly does not. It’s utter speculation on her part.
Hugo began this thread by obsequiously declining not to presume about his “sisters’” libidos. Yet he asked his “sisters” to do exactly the same thing concerning men! Can we all say “double standard”?
That’s absurd when Hugo requests it and it’s absurd when Amanda attempts it.
I’d have thought you’d have understood the difference, since you wrote so thoughtfully about defending both gay and straight men from harrassment.
I do understand! Furthermore, I have defended women from harassment, too. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not some kind of “defender of all people.” There’s no way I could pull that off. If I see people in trouble, I try to help them or to get help for them. I have accompanied women past construction sites when they have been harassed. The construction workers stopped the harassment immediately.
I did not once defend such harassment here. However, it’s silly to claim, as Amanda did, that men harass women they don’t find attractive as some kind of “challenge.”
Keep crying, dude. You look stronger and more manly the whinier you get.
Thanks for conceding my points so promptly.
Lots and lots and lots and lots of speculation on your part when you diagnose me as trying to be “butch” when you don’t know me from Adam. Or Eve, as the case may be. Also, the diagnosis that I have some sort of issue with men of the “strength” that is weak-minded bullying that I saw through in high school. I’m glad that adult men find it all so compelling still to watch a bunch of adolescents honk and yell and drive off before the woman they are harassing can look them in the eye.
Of course, you can speculate about my motives all you want, and why I might use the language on my blog that people use on the street. God knows that something like a stylistic choice couldn’t be involved; that’s all brainy and thoughtful and writerly, and we know women can’t make conscious choices like men can. I have to write like some stranger named Mark has decided I must write. Beginning and end of story. If not, I am stepping out of line and stealing “butch”, aka masculine-identified language that doesn’t belong to my sorry girl ass, and need to be harangued for it. Why stop at profanity, Mark? Why not forbid women to use language at all?
I can’t believe that Lenny Bruce has been dead for half a century and people are still fighting the battles that killed him.
I’m still amused that anyone thinks my girlie girl self is trying to be “butch” in any way. Anyone who’s lived with me and tolerated my shoe collection would laugh you out the door.
Amanda, some people have a lot of trouble controlling their hormones, and this prevents them from arguing reasonably. They try to act all butch instead, and they get really insecure when confronted with strong members of the opposite sex. You shouldn’t let those people get to you, though, ‘cuz you’re cool.
Amanda, some people have a lot of trouble controlling their hormones, and this prevents them from arguing reasonably. They try to act all butch instead, and they get really insecure when confronted with strong members of the opposite sex. You shouldn’t let those people get to you, though, ‘cuz you’re cool.
Yep, you’re both afraid of strong men. What’s wrong? A little too much PMS?
Mark can’t be real. Or else he’s an 8th grader. I hope.
Regardless of whether he’s a performance artist or not, he’s given me and mine a huge laugh today, so he’s spreading a little good in the world with all his bile.
Mark can’t be real. Or else he’s an 8th grader. I hope.
Tara can’t be real. Or else she’s an 8th grader. I hope.
Regardless of whether he’s a performance artist or not, he’s given me and mine a huge laugh today, so he’s spreading a little good in the world with all his bile.
The joke’s on you, Amanda. You’re just a man-hating bigot who has found an ally in Hugo, who is also a man-hating bigot.
Hugo~
This has been a great dialogue - but as I look back at the question I originally posed…I think I wasn’t necessarily referring to outward appearances. It’s more than true that men are easily influenced by the appearance of females around us. God made us that way and everything affirms this idea - culture, relationships, television, ourselves, etc. Men are naturally visual creatures. Women on the other hand are not necessairly un-visual creatures, but I think most women would agree that they are more attracted to emotional connections, conversation, character, etc. than visuals. Not that visual isn’t a factor but I believe most women would say it’s secondary. They are typically more attracted to a man’s character and personality then his rating on a 0-10 physical looks scale.
Therefore, I wonder if there is something we men do on a regular basis that affects them the way their looks affect us. Obviously if a woman walks into a room wearing something revealing it can create a distraction. One because it’s possibly inappropriate and two because we, as men, have a tendency to look first and think later. We are naturally attracted to this revealed body. SO, is there something men do, outside of the physical, that creates this same kind of distraction and attraction for women? I don’t know - that’s why I’m asking. In history men have toyed with women’s emotions and “played” them. This I know is a distraction or stumbling block to them…this is not what I’m talking about but is a hint. What do we do that affects them the way their outfits can affect us. I hope this makes sense. We are naturally different as men and women and affected in different ways. I just don’t believe looks affect women the way it does men, I’m sure you know this, so what does? I want to know so we can be sure to look out for women the way they are looking out for us.
Mark, if you disagree with Amanda, why can’t you just say you disagree? Why the personal attacks?
You did imply that a ’strong’ man is one who harasses others. I don’t think that’s what you intended, but that’s what was implied. I think almost everyone here (including you) can agree that harassing someone is a sign of insecurity and weakness– not strength.
Tyler said: “They are typically more attracted to a man’s character and personality then his rating on a 0-10 physical looks scale.”
I mean no disrespect to you, but… I don’t know if that’s true. Some women just say that so the guys don’t feel bad. It’s also not as socially acceptable for us to talk about men in a naughty way (which is why we resort to tactics such as anonymous teacher evaluations).
I think if men started wearing revealing clothing, we too would be much more distracted than we currently are. Look on the bright side… you could use that to your advantage and get some female chivalry out of us. :)
Mark, if you disagree with Amanda, why can’t you just say you disagree? Why the personal attacks?
I denounce hate speech directed at men.
You did imply that a ’strong’ man is one who harasses others.
No, I did not imply that. Sorry. You inferred something from what I said, but I did not imply what you inferred.
I don’t think that’s what you intended, but that’s what was implied.
Perhaps to an I’m-a-victim feminist, but not to a reasonable person. Again, what you infer is your responsibility, not mine.
I think almost everyone here (including you) can agree that harassing someone is a sign of insecurity and weakness– not strength.
So basically you’re saying Amanda and the other man-bashers here, including Hugo, are weak. I’m glad you at least admit it.
In answer to Tyler’s restatement of his original question, I find that cologne can be a big distraction for me in non-romantic settings. I have some scent memory with some of the more popular scents going back to my first days of dating and necking when guys would splash it on pretty heavy, so it is hard for me to stay focused when I get a good whiff, especially of some of these old favorites. On males within my age group generally, never happened with someone much older. But I manage to stay on task. Like Hugo said in the previous post, I recognize that it is my responsibility to do so.
I think if we all, male and female, agree that our responsibilities in this arena are to try not to be disruptive to others and accept responsibility for not being disrupted by others no matter how they look, we would all bear equal loads in making everyone more comfortable.
Anna
They are typically more attracted to a man’s character and personality then his rating on a 0-10 physical looks scale.
That’s certainly how I tend to think of myself, but then, isn’t nearly everyone more attracted to character and personality in the long run? Also, saying I care more about character, while you horny men care more about looks, sounds kind of like reassuring everyone that I’m a good person, doesn’t it? When actually my sexual attractions, if not perfectly correlated with a 0-10 looks scale, aren’t perfectly correlated with saintliness either :-).
SO, is there something men do, outside of the physical, that creates this same kind of distraction and attraction for women?
I’m not sure I can speak for women in general, since some women are more visual than I am. I like to look at good-looking men, and even more at good-looking women, and can find physically attractive people mildy distracting. Especially physically attractive women who are showing a lot of cleavage. But to really get me sexually drawn and distracted, my ears need to be engaged: the right conversation, the right laugh, the right song sung in the right voice, that sort of thing. That and a person’s expression and demeanor toward me. I’m not sure I can be more specific than that.
Keep contorting, Mark, one day your Escher-like logic will start making sense. If you think my criticisms of men who cruise around and bully women on the street for laughs is hatred aimed at all men, then you do seem to have a low, low, low opinion of men. Believe it or not, some men don’t need to pointlessly harass women in order to feel big and strong.
To Tyler: I definitely drool over men with nice bodies. Other factors that distract me are graceful movement (dancers and martial artists drive me wild) and a certain amount of sexual brazenness when it’s presented in a non-threatening way. The last clause is very important.
I’m pretty sure one reason people think that women are not visual/sexual creatures is that male sexual attention to women is often read as harassing, and that therefore it’s often unwelcome. There’s a lot of precedent for reading male sexual attention as harassing: given the amount of assault and coercion of women that still goes on in this country, it’s understandable to err on the side of caution rather than get seriously hurt. Also, for whatever reason, some men see brazen female sexual attention as a free pass to hurt the woman who doles it out, which might account for the reluctance of women to betray too much interest in attractive males. In situations where it’s expected that explicit consent will be given before any sexual act takes place, and where failing to seek consent will result in quick social ostracism, I find that women seem much happier to give and recieve lascivious looks. I know that I act very differently at geek/S&M conventions than I do on the street, mainly because I feel safer.
To Mark: I apologize for the below-the-belt attack. It wasn’t intended to make you angrier, though I may have been a bit addled in the tact simulator at the time I posted it. But now that I’ve got your attention, please think for a moment about how the things I wrote made you feel. You were trying to say something which you no doubt believed correct, and I just dismissed you as hormonal, insecure, and therefore beneath consideration. It’s very frustrating to be dismissed in that way when one wants to have a conversation.
Now go back and read your remarks to Amanda. Notice yourself dismissing her as hormonal, insecure, and therefore beneath consideration. She’s surely a thick-skinned lady with plenty of experience in handling flames, but even so, she’d be well within her rights to find your dismissals a tad annoying. Your dismissal also makes her unlikely to respond to anything substantive you’ve got to say, since it broadcasts the message that you’re primed to attack no matter what she says rather than to listen and respond appropriately.
I bet that if you calm down a little bit and extend an apology, you can civilly question her remarks on catcalls and expect a civil answer.
Keep contorting, Mark, one day your Escher-like logic will start making sense. If you think my criticisms of men who cruise around and bully women on the street for laughs is hatred aimed at all men, then you do seem to have a low, low, low opinion of men. Believe it or not, some men don’t need to pointlessly harass women in order to feel big and strong.
This is just one instance of your ongoing campaign of disparagement of men. But please go ahead and pretend it’s something else, if you like.
I see. My place as a woman is nothing more than simpering praise, no matter how much in the inside I know that you are mean and make no sense. Alrighty, then.
My Mark, you are so big and strong! You can yell, “Slut” at me and then drive away whenever you like. I’ll just blush and giggle, glad that you and your friends paid attention to lil ol’ me!
Jenny, your kind, well-thought responses make me feel small for mocking Mark here. But then again, I gotta find my fun where I can.
Come on, Amanda, work with me! As feminists, we don’t really need any more enemies than we’ve already got.
Actually, to tell you the truth I’m a bit ambivalent about the whole making nice thing in general. On the one hand, there’s a definite double standard that I don’t want to play to: as a woman, I’m “supposed” to be all sweet and smiley and nurturing and non-profane, even when somebody outright insults me or says something ludicrously sexist/racist/classist. On the other hand, aggression usually gets terrible results (in part because of the double standard, but in part because people tend to shut down and get defensive when attacked by anyone, male or female). So I don’t quite know what’s the right thing to do.
As for making nice between you and Mark, I guess that’s up to you guys. I’m already starting to sound like the third-grade playground monitor, which indicates that it’s time for me to bow out.
Mark and Amanda, I understand it’s tempting, but try not to hijack the thread into the old MRA/feminist debate. It does get old, folks.
Tyler, thanks for the clarification — I suspect I interpreted your concerns too closely with the original story about visual temptation.
I see. My place as a woman is nothing more than simpering praise, no matter how much in the inside I know that you are mean and make no sense. Alrighty, then.
If that’s how you feel, that’s how you feel. Simper away!
My Mark, you are so big and strong! You can yell, “Slut” at me and then drive away whenever you like. I’ll just blush and giggle, glad that you and your friends paid attention to lil ol’ me!
Are you trying to turn the following feminist tactics into some kind of art form?
1. Changing the subject?
2. Using straw men?
Gosh Mark, I’m not a victim! I don’t many victims who own an AK-47. No, that’s not a threat to you. (Unless you infer it– I’m not implying it, haha.) I’m just using that as one example in which I empower myself.
But this is what you said: “Since you’re not a guy, this is all just your speculation. You’ve got some issues with strong men.”
The speculation was referring to men who harass– NOT men in general. Then you said Amanda has issues with strong men– when, again, she was ONLY referring to men who harass. Therefore, it’s reasonable to infer that you were saying strong men are men who catcall. But like I said, I DIDN’T think you actually MEANT that! (Or did you infer that I DID think you meant it? Hmmm.)
It is, of course, one’s own responsibility what they infer. But if one wants his intentions clear, he too has the responsibility to clarify.
I’m still laughing at the victim thing. Sorry you inferred that about me.
P.S. Are you hot? Just to get the tread back on track…
I understand the situation, I have a teacher who always comes in wearing tight trousers and expressing his sexuality very VERY blatently. He makes inappropriate comments often, he looks at my chest everytime he thinks I am not looking, he checks out girls, he checks out boys! He gets really really close to everyone he fiddles with himself when he thinks noone can see, he plays with himself after school (Accidentally walked in on him) he is crude however he is one of the best teachers I have ever had and I respect him and love him coz he’s a lot of fun. It’s only like being with a man. Men are perverts especially him it doesnt bother me though I mean yes sometimes it can be distracting but I think that he is more interesting because of it and I listen to what he says rather than dozing off. He is very sexy yes but it makes no difference to me all men are this way really you can’t just turn it on and off like a tap. Its the quiet ones you have to worry about!! lol. p.s. I like the way you think that people would be distracted by you wearing clingy clothes lol r u really that hot?
Hugo is def hot. His photos dont do him justice, though he is handsome in them. But he is hotter in person esp when he teaches.
He is not inappropriate the way your teacher is, Lisa.
Hugo, I had not read this post before but I think you need to reconsider whether or not you are really honest about how your clothes look on you. You sometimes wear some pretty hot pants.
Hot pants, Liesl? I’ve never worn spandex to school in my life.