It’s blazingly hot. After several weeks of light exercise as I coped with grief over Matilde and my father, I’m easing back into regular working out. I’ve boxed and Pilate-ed today, and am ready for a long, steamy run up some local mountain tomorrow morning. And somehow, I need to work in time to watch tennis, cycling, and World Cup. Viva Italia and all that.
The comments below Wednesday’s post on the "sausage casing girls" article are revisiting familiar territory: the interplay of women’s dress and men’s "hardwiring". "Perplexed", for example, writing about men’s ability to control the urge to stare at women’s bodies, says
I think it’s more about a hardwired response in men - it’s an arresting sight - something men are compelled to view, often against their better judgement.
Just yesterday, I was talking to one of the guys I know well at my boxing gym. He’s just about my age, and is very, uh, single. He’s fond of rhapsodizing about the virtues of promiscuity, repeating over and over again that it’s "natural" for a man to want many partners and to become dissatisfied with monogamy. My boxer friend, like Perplexed and countless other folks, insists that male sexual behavior is rooted less in culture and more in biology. Rarely do any of these fellows have a sophisticated understanding of physiology, but they often will make noises about testosterone, the Y chromosome or some other aspect of our DNA. Regardless of the biological details they reference, the point is always the same: men are "hardwired" to stare, ogle, lust uncontrollably, cheat, what-have-you. Call it the "all men are dogs" or the "I can’t help it, it’s my nature" excuse.
I’m not a scientist. I have only a college-educated layperson’s understanding of hormones and genetics. But I have no intention in debating science with those whose understanding of the field is more sophisticated than my own. I may have a hubristic streak, but I know my limits! For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede that testosterone and the Y chromosome have a real impact on male sexual desire. I won’t question the hard-wiring.
What I do question as a pro-feminist man is whether our "nature" is ever an excuse for poor behavior. It’s one thing to acknowledge the very real presence of physiological factors that influence our wants; another thing altogether to suggest that men have little or no control over how they respond to those influences! What I find so exasperating is that so many men confuse an explanation for an excuse, denying their own ability (or that of the "average man") to resist and control those impulses.
I wasn’t born knowing how to control my bladder. It’s natural for me to pee on myself whenever the need occurs; it’s what I did for the first two years of my life (and, intermittently, a bit beyond, but that’s another story!) I drink lots and lots of caffeine these days; my bladder gets full quite often. The urge to pee isn’t in my imagination — it’s a biological reality! But from an early age, I was taught that there was an appropriate time, place, and manner for relieving myself. As a child, I was taught that I could master the very real, very powerful, demands of my body. I often go out to coffee with friends and colleagues, and sometimes they buy me very big ("Venti") drinks. It is natural that within under an hour after consuming all that liquid, I need to pee very badly. But it would be absurd if I blamed my friends, or Starbucks, for "making me need to pee"; I’d be laughed at if I wet myself and then claimed I had no control over my bladder. I am convinced that when my commenters suggest that men "can’t help but stare" at a woman’s exposed breasts or legs or bottom, they’re making just as indefensible an argument.
In my avocational work with teen girls and boys in youth groups, I never, ever try and talk them out of the reality of sexual desire. (Indeed, one important task of progressive youth work is acknowledging the biological reality of female lust, a subject that tends to unnerve a surprising number of young and not-so-young folks.) I’m happy to have "my kids" share what they’ve learned in science classes about hormones and chromosomes and their influence in our lives. Hear me on this, readers: a feminist theory of male accountability and an honest understanding of biology are not incompatible! But once we affirm the very real power of human desire, we work to refute the myth that desire alone justifies action. Even at sixteen, in the midst of the tempest of puberty, sexual self-control is as real a possibility for young men and women as control over urination. The difference is that they’ve been taught from near-infancy that the latter is a biological impulse they can master, while far too many young boys are taught that it is women who are responsible for managing male desire.
It would be absurd to deny that many young men are aroused by the sight of an attractive woman wearing revealing clothing. What pro-feminists deny is that women are somehow responsible for male arousal. A girl in a mini-skirt is no more responsible for her classmate’s lust than the barista at Starbucks is for my full bladder! I have as much control over where my eyes linger as I do over what I choose to drink; whatever physiological reactions I experience as the result of either activity (drinking coffee, ogling) are my responsibility and mine alone. While in other fora we can have long and interesting discussions about dress codes and "appropriateness", pro-feminist men ought to be adamant that whatever the imperious demands of our flesh, the human will is stronger still.
Right! Also, merely dressing more modestly does very little to change men’s thoughts or behavior. In some parts of the world, a flash of a woman’s ankle or wrists is said to drive men to uncontrollable lust. Even here in the U.S., I have gotten salacious comments or looks even when dressed quite conservatively and so have most women I know. Once we start holding women responsible for men’s responses to how we dress, it never ends.
As for whether women should be relieved of responsibility for how they dress: I believe that both sexes have a social responsibility to dress appropriately for whatever occasion they are participating in. I don’t think a woman should dress in sausage casing for church or court or the office or school but I don’t think a man should wear a muscle shirt or a plunging neckline on those occasions either. But even if someone dresses inappropriately for a particular event, we all have a social responsibility to pretend not to notice and to be ourteous to the individual even if he or she has made some unfortunate clothing choices. Certainly another person’s bad dressing does not relieve me of my responsibility to be kind and polite to that person and, as Hugo has observed before, to respect that person’s humanity. I look far more askance at someone who fails the responsibility to be polite than someone who dresses badly.
Good manners, people. It’s not that hard.
There is always common sense and parental involvement –
http://www.sydneyscloset.com/ourstory.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121608,00.html
Clothes provide signals to the viewer. It is up to parents, youth leaders and peers to help a young person understand what signal a young man or woman is sending. Whether it is modest, religious, skank, slob, goth or biker, your dress does tell a story. Might as well send the message you intend to send.
Or, rainbow, you can appreciate that you’re not what you wear and that there are better ways to judge what a person is about.
The other thing is that there is no reason to think that a woman sending a particular message with clothing ever gives a license to a man to do whatever he wants.
I bet most women on the planet have at some point or another dressed to send a message that “I’m pretty!” or “I’m sexy!” or “I have a nice body.” Certainly there have been many occasions when I have dressed to send those kinds of messages and I have enjoyed the fact that people, and men in particular, may have been thinking, “She’s pretty!” or “She’s sexy!” or “She has a nice body.” I don’t see how in any way that can be said to provide a license to someone to yell, “Nice rack!” or try to coerce sex or in any other way override my basic right to respect.
There is such a thing as community and culture. Clothing is part of belonging, not belonging to a particular milieu. Wear thigh high boots, a bra, no blouse, a miniskirt and stand on Hollywood Blvd. , proclaiming your right to express yourself. No one will mistake you for Julia Roberts filming a movie.
Since I’ve been, um, tempted to dress slightly more revealing these hot summer days and just in general for some reason, I find this post very, very insightful. Thank you! This post echoes the truthful lectures you shared in class, and I loved it.
“Perplexed”, for example, writing about men’s ability to control the urge to stare at women’s bodies, says
I think it’s more about a hardwired response in men - it’s an arresting sight - something men are compelled to view, often against their better judgement.
Hugo, to quote yourself before you contradict yourself further - quoted form here:-
Two girls in the back row began to whisper furiously, passing a note back and forth with great alacrity, all the while staring with undisguised hostility at the object of all of this attention. Of course, many others were carefully observing me, trying to see if I was “checking out” my scantily-clad student. It was distracting for everyone.
The blame, according to the article I quote, lies apparently not with the audience who seem subjected to an annoyance, but the woman who dressed inappropriately.
Yet, according to your latest post, it apears that everyone is wrong and the women dressing inappropriately has a right to dress inappropriately!
Another quote:-
What saddens me most is not the fact that my students tend to pay less attention to me in a situation like this one (though I confess that does bother me, naturally), it is that so many people - especially my female students - are left feeling uncomfortable.
More tellingly:-
When the warmer weather comes, and exposed flesh begins to appear in larger splashes and patches, the anxiety level can be palpable! Here at my immensely diverse community college, it is not uncommon for some women to snarl sotto voce “who does she think she is” when they see a fellow student on display. Meanwhile, many of my male students can barely focus on the work before them.
The bolded quote would appear that women’s reactions to bare flesh should be kept in check. What do you propose, Hugo? Surely they are at fault here, since the barer of flesh is not to blame.
The unequivocal contradiction to your latest article:-
I recognize as well that revealing dress fosters a culture of competition, even among college-aged women, and that competitiveness does irreparable damage to the already fragile bonds of gender solidarity that those of us in this field are working so hard to foster.
Where do you stand Hugo?
Perplexed, in the sisterhood article I’m acknowledging the sad reality created by a culture that does hold women accountable and lets men off scot-free. “Sisterhood” is the piece in which I acknowledge the problem — this piece is about the solution.
What creates the distraction is not the scantily clad woman per se; what creates the distraction is the collective reaction to her, a reaction that is culturally and socially conditioned. There is no contradiction.
And as far as other women reacting with hostility to a gal wearing a mini-skirt, women react with hostility because they have been taught it is their collective responsibility to police their sisters. And I do think that suspending judgment and condemnation of other women and their bodies/clothing choices is a key part of the feminist journey.
You’re tired of hearing about biology and nature, I realise that. But Hugo, you’re starting to sound like a social engineer now, Marxist even.
Nature is wonderful, but also cruel and arbitrary. It sometimes takes courage to look at nature with a naked eye and just accept it for what it is, and then decide how to deal with it.
But nature is also roughly half the equation of human behaviour, so get used to that fact, and build your worldview around that fact.
Refining and improving human behaviour is about controlling our natural urges, and not changing some imaginary behaviour patterns supposedly engineered by The Patriarchy for who-knows whatever reasons they had (if they ever existed).
To make it simple, I would point out that the “testosterone” argument may look like a “biology makes us do it”, but it’s a way of saying that a) only men have these urges and that b) therefore the instruction not to look is coming from women who have “penis envy”.
I find that analogies work only to explain to another something that that individual doesn’t understand and more then likely would be in agreement with the elucidation. The urinary sphincter is under voluntary control—hormones are not. But I agree with you, men should be responsible for their ogling.
I also agree with you that men should usually censor themselves and minimize their criticism of women (mentioned in not so many words). Say if feminist/ pro feminist were as concerned about hormonal changes during menstruation and the behavior they exhibit during such times, then I could lend an ear to their critiques of how men should get it under control during similar hormonal challenges.
If we should exhibit control of our hormones then your argument begs the next question. Why masturbate? In part, the drive to masturbate must be hormonal. What are the limits to control here? Do we do it for pleasure? I could take pleasure in staring at a fine woman and not blame her for her attire. Are we socially conditioned to believe an ogle or whistle is bad when it hurts no one? If it really does hurt someone, is that because of social conditioning? If we suspend the chicken and the egg argument, we are left with both needing to take some responsibilities.
I’d like to add to Happy’s comment about how the body part that supposedly creates “uncontrollable” lust in men changes from culture to culture. While the exact body part isn’t consistent across cultures, which eliminates the “nature” argument, the social meaning of showing it always is—the part that creates “uncontrollable” lust is always a part that is socially unacceptable in public and often illegal. The rapes that follow are often characterized explicitly as punishment for the woman for her defiance and her behavior of polluting a “male” space with her female body. She shouldn’t be *there* (male-defined space) looking like *that* (female).
What’s telling is that the reaction to a breast being taken out to breastfeed isn’t characterized as an uncontrollable response, due to the social status of mothers of newborns. With the testosterone excuse stripped from them, we can see what is motivating men who abuse women for having female body parts in public. They get *angry* with these women. Ask any woman who’s had a man bitch at her for this.
There’s not really any male body parts that are equivalent to female thighs or breasts, in that they get exposed and the result is an angry/violent reaction. It’s either just appropriate or inappropriate, but it’s never an excuse for that man to be raped.
I believe the pathology of one who rapes is beyond an exposed breast or mini skirt.
Paul: Our hormones are not under control, but both our eyes and hands are; I, for one, have managed to nicely curb my urge to masturbate wildly in public.
I also believe the pathology of one who rapes is beyond an exposed breast or mini-skirt. Especially since the men I care about would stop having sex even if nearing orgasm if the women they were with suffered a sudden leg cramp or banged her head or whatever.
I happen to love this analogy, Hugo…it makes perfect sense, and includes a sense of shame for people who say they can’t help peeing on themselves in public (chortle). I know, I know. Shame. But somehow, I’m annoyed at men’s usage of the “just can’t help myself” excuse. I regularly see men whom I find downright HOT (it’s a perk of gym membership, right?). But, even if I want to steal a glance here and there, I ensure any interaction I have with the man is respectful — maybe a compliment, not a catcall.
Paul, masturbation is for pleasure. It is not hurting me to go and play with myself.
It is hurting someone to turn them into an object. That’s the difference.
Sure
It is hurting someone to turn them into an object. That’s the difference.
He’s not turning anyone into an object. It’s just your social conditioning that causes you to reach that conclusion. You have control over it.
Antigone,
What do you mean by turning someone into an object? If you are attracted to someone and you are interested in being with them, that is not turning them into an object is it? Is looking at them with lust turning them into an object? I don’t know, I’m not from this country so I do not unserstand American thinking. What is turning into an object?
Quentin; I’m sure you have very good ideas, sweetheart; but man. Look at the Q on you. It’s hot.
Hah?? You got me man. What’s hot about a Q?
C’mon bill. I can’t go there without getting rude. Just look at it. So capitalized. So round. With that little tail…
Why Arwen, I don’t have one of those, I don’t even have a tail! You’re silly! I’ve never had one of those. But thank you for saying so anyway.
Regardless of the biological details they reference, the point is always the same: men are “hardwired” to stare, ogle, lust uncontrollably, cheat, what-have-you. Call it the “all men are dogs” or the “I can’t help it, it’s my nature” excuse.
Hugo, I know I’m repeating myself here, but in your “sisterhood is easier in winter” thread, you use words like “distraction”, “uncomfortable”, “inappropriate attire”, when talking of both men and women reacting to another women wearing revealing clothing. In this thread, you talk of “ogling”. Two different takes on the same subject. One sympathises with those who suffer a distracton in an inappropriate setting, the other is talking of people suffering aggressive lechery, for which I am 100% against.
To be crystal clear: I also do not think it’s right to OGLE at a woman; I did not say it was OK to ogle at women, and never have said this, so you should retract that from this post (you strongly infer I am saying this). I am explaining how men are DISTRACTED and put ill at ease by women who wear mini-skirts and revealing clothing in an inappropriate setting (do we really need to see this in the morning at work, for example?). I’m basically saying it’s an unwanted and unasked for distraction for many men and women.
Being distracted and made to feel uncomfortable is not ogling. Example: in my previous work, there was a woman there who wore very revealing clothing - no bra, her tops were a thin material, short skirts etc. Left nothing to the imagination. When talking with her, I had to practically avoid looking at her, because even if I looked her straight in the eye I got an ‘eyeful’ of her breasts in my peripheral view. I felt annoyed by this because of the way I had to alter my behaviour just because she chose to wear highly inappropriate clothing, for whatever reason I do not know. Most of us don’t want the distraction in the first place - who enjoys a break in their concentration? I certainly don’t.
But nature is also roughly half the equation of human behaviour, so get used to that fact, and build your worldview around that fact.
Refining and improving human behaviour is about controlling our natural urges
Strangely enough, I thought this was exactly what Hugo said in his post.
Perplexed, I regret implying that you endorse ogling.
Again, the “sisterhood” post recognized the reality of the distraction, but it didn’t place the onus of blame for the distraction on women and their bodies. I do sympathize with the distracted as well — we are all so darned uncomfortable (for cultural, not biological reasons) with the human body that we are often nonplussed and disconcerted (if not aroused) when presented with a woman whose clothing reveals more than we think it should. But our discomfort is not because the wearer has violated some objective standard. To paraphrase the oft-used line from Julius Caesar, “The fault is not in the stars, or in the miniskirt, but in ourselves.”
Ok Hugo, sit down: I happen to agree with you on this (except for your comment that our culture “hold(s) women accountable and lets men off scot-free” - that’s absurd and you should know it).
I think that you had it right in your “sisterhood” article and that you have it right here. Putting it together, we have: Women should be responsible for dressing appropriately for a given situation and men should be responsible for their reaction to women’s dress. What I think is happening here is that our definitions of an ‘appropriate reaction to women’s (or men’s) dress’ are different. Some men think it’s Ok to whistle, catcall, etc. in reaction to a nicely-dressed woman, and some women think a long look is the dreaded “male gaze” and a visual rape. Both are unreasonable.
Let’s look at what I consider a comparison of the extreme case: The topic of breastfeeding in public has been raised and it’s an interesting one that I’ve thought about. The argument in favor of it is that the breast is not primarily a sexual organ (not an argument that I entirely agree with), that it’s function is to feed infants, and therefore there should be nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public. I happen to agree that breastfeeding in public should be allowed, but I also believe that women should take reasonable steps to shield themselves from view (contrary to Amanda’s biased viewpoint, many women complain about this and get men to do the dirty work vis-a-vis asking women to cover up). I think this is a reasonable compromise. Now, let’s look at the male equivalent: Hugo, you discussed your frequent peeing, something that I - who am in my 50s - can relate to more and more as I age. Let’s say you’re on a run and those 3 cups of coffee you had when you got up come due. It’s my opinion that you should be able to whip it out and pee on a bush or tree if you wish, but the law and social mores say that you can’t. Why not? Your cock is not primarily a sexual organ any more than a breast is. We use our cocks to pee with a hell of a lot more than we do to screw (or I should think that at least most of us do!). Sure, we should take care to shield our cocks from being viewed by other people, but what the f-ck, dogs are allowed to pee on bushes in the park, so why not us? Unless one has a bladder infection, urine is sterile (moreso than breast milk) so public health arguments don’t wash. I walk several miles every day to and from work and often need to go to great lengths to find a place to pee so that I don’t get arrested for “exposing myself” or “sexual harrassment” to some woman with an over-active imagination and thus doesn’t realize that I’m just a dumpy-looking older man who has absolutely no interest in her, sexual or otherwise, and simply has to pee. And there’s the crux of the problem.
What we have here is a conflict in definitions of ‘reasonable reaction.’ Depending on the woman and her mood, a man simply looking is “sexual harassment” - I say bullshit to that. IMO in such cases the woman is demonstrating extreme arrogance in that she thinks she can read the man’s mind and know with certainty that his gaze is sexually motivated. I find myself staring at women in “sausage outfits” not with lust in my mind but more with disbelief. Yes, I know that my reaction may be based on social conditioning - just like in the case of exposed breasts and penises, even in non-sexual contexts. Yet in some cases, especially when women seem to be on a mission to be offended, my look or stare is interpreted as leching. Heh, dream on girl, whatever makes you feel better.
Sure, women should be able to dress in ’sausage suits,’ expose their breasts in public, etc., but if/when they do I’m going to stare, whether they like it not. Again, acting out by making remarks, etc., is another story, but IMO looking - even staring - is reasonable and appropriate if the man thinks so. It should be his decision, just like it should be her decision to pick her clothes, etc., and get offended if she wants when a man looks or even stares. She has made the decision to get offended, but her acting out on it is no more appropriate than if a man does. We all, men and women, should act like adults and be responsible for ourselves.
We see here yet another classic example of a double standard that favors women. Feminists tell us that women are supposed to be able to dress however they want, or perhaps not at all, while men are entirely responsible for their own reactions to the sight of such women. However, if men dare to look at such women in their scanty clothes, then men are responsible for women’s alleged feelings of being objectified.
The pink elephant in the living room that feminists want everyone to ignore is that feminists treat women as children who are not capable of being responsible for their own reaction. In general, MRAs have a lot more respect for women as a group than do feminists.
Lust is not inheirantly objectifying. That, is not turning a woman into an object. Making them feel like they have no purpose beyond YOUR sexual gratification, that is making them feel like an object.
Context is important: if you are in a relationship, a little lustful gazing can be quite nice. If I don’t know you from Adam, and you don’t know me from Eve, ogling me is objectifying. It means you don’t care enough about me as a person, I’m just a prop in your fantasy.
Context is important with other types of relationships as well. That means professional relationships as well: it doesn’t matter what I wear, you should be able to control your fantasy when there’s work to be done. Woman must do the same thing with men as well.
And feminists do not treat women as children. What a stupid thing to say, especially considering many feminists are *gasp* woman. (We treat ourselves like children? What?) Pointing out that your reaction to OUR bodies is objectifying IS being responsible for our own reaction. I don’t deserve to be catcalled, at, groped, or yelled at. I especially don’t deserve to raped because of wearing “inappropriate” attire. What you are basically saying is these are okay social punishments for acting outside of the accepted norm, and I do not agree with that. Why don’t you try having some responsibility for YOUR reaction.
Come on baby, why do you have to be so angry? Why can’t you just smile and go with the flow than being so pissy?
Antigone: check out Quentin’s Q. It’s so cute when he gets angry, hey?
Lust is not inheirantly objectifying. That, is not turning a woman into an object. Making them feel like they have no purpose beyond YOUR sexual gratification, that is making them feel like an object.
The problem is that one cannot really make another person feel like an object. That alleged feeling of being objectified is a response to the behavior you dislike, but you don’t have to feel that way. It’s a double standard because you are seeking to hold men accountable for women’s reactions.
Context is important: if you are in a relationship, a little lustful gazing can be quite nice. If I don’t know you from Adam, and you don’t know me from Eve, ogling me is objectifying. It means you don’t care enough about me as a person, I’m just a prop in your fantasy.
How you choose to react is your choice and your responsibility. It works both ways.
Context is important with other types of relationships as well. That means professional relationships as well: it doesn’t matter what I wear, you should be able to control your fantasy when there’s work to be done. Woman must do the same thing with men as well.
And it doesn’t matter how I look at you, you should be able to control your emotional reactions to a degree that it does not affect negatively your work performance or my work performance. Further, don’t go complaining to the HR people that you don’t like the way I look at you. You’re responsible for your emotional responses, I am not.
And feminists do not treat women as children. What a stupid thing to say, especially considering many feminists are *gasp* woman. (We treat ourselves like children? What?)
You do treat yourselves like children because you don’t want to take responsibility for your reactions. You expect to hold men responsible for them.
Pointing out that your reaction to OUR bodies is objectifying IS being responsible for our own reaction. I don’t deserve to be catcalled, at, groped, or yelled at. I especially don’t deserve to raped because of wearing “inappropriate” attire. What you are basically saying is these are okay social punishments for acting outside of the accepted norm, and I do not agree with that. Why don’t you try having some responsibility for YOUR reaction.
Reread what I wrote earlier, since you obviously are so full of feminist dogma that you can’t see much of anything but your own paranoid projections onto the world. I was talking about looking. All your other bluster is just a set of straw men, falling over in the summer breeze.
Come on baby, why do you have to be so angry? Why can’t you just smile and go with the flow than being so pissy?
Are you talking to yourself? While you’re at it, you can tell yourself to take responsibility for your feelings and not try to foist that liability onto men. If you want to be treated like adults, act like adults.
Mr. Bad, I am tempted to stare when someone is dressed badly too– whether it is tight clothing or the guy who came to my wedding in shorts and a t-shirt. But I don’t stare because it’s rude to do so. So when you stare, whether it’s out of lust or stunned disbelief that someone is dressing so badly, you’re being a rude jerk. The other person’s clothing choices don’t get you off the hook.
Your argument that men should be allowed to pee by the side of the road is interesting — but why do I think that if we allowed it, there would be a double standard by which it would acceptable for men but not for women? Besides, peeing, unlike breastfeeding, leaves behind smelly waste product. That’s the real problem with it not the exposure of sex organs.
And again Mr. Bad starts up with that insipid “dream on girl, whatever makes you feel better” business. Those of us who don’t fit societal standards of attractiveness and still get stared at know quite well that staring isn’t about lust. It’s about women’s bodies being considered public property.
Whatever the motivation, staring is rude. It is aggression and pretty much universally recognized as such among primates. Directing aggression at women whose outfits you consider ugly is bullying, plain and simple. This is something that Mr. Bad — and it’s obvious, by the language he uses — knows very well. He’s pretty upfront about using staring as a “punish the ugly slut” tool — if you as a woman dress in clothing he deems too tight for your body shape, he will use aggression to intimidate you. Every time he weighs in on this topic, that much is crystal clear.
But nature is also roughly half the equation of human behaviour
Which means that the other half is free will and socialization. Get over that.
The ‘nature’ excuse is just that–an excuse. “Nature” also prepares us to run around in the nude, crap in the bushes at the park, and die in childbirth. I don’t think any of Hugo’s buddies would give an enthusiastic rah-rah to any of those things.
Hugo, have you pointed out to these buddies that the ‘nature’ they believe in also ‘hardwires’ women to cheat on them, have another man’s baby and pretend it’s theirs, and select mates based on income? Are they as supportive of those choices as they are of their ‘hardwired’ need to ogle?
Oh yeah Arwen. That little Q…so sleek and sexy yet round and playful. Mmm, I’d like to sink my teeth into that. It’s so cute they way he babbles on and on, whatever, the more times he posts, the more times I get to see that sexy little handle.
“But somehow, I’m annoyed at men’s usage of the ‘just can’t help myself’ excuse.”
So am I, and I’m a dude.
“Look at the Q on you. It’s hot.”
Hmmm…
Qoy Qenteel
Mr. Bad -
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a woman’s “right to expose her chest.” It has to do with a baby’s right to eat, and to do so in a place more sanitary than a bathroom. Please, drop that old, tired (and inaccurate) comparison.
THF wrote: “Besides, peeing, unlike breastfeeding, leaves behind smelly waste product.”
So, you think that people shouldn’t be able to let their dogs pee outside too then, right? Or do you consider men less worthy than dogs?
As for smelly, babies stink all the time, regardless of whether they’re feeding or not. So should I be able to tell you that you shouldn’t be able to take your kid out in public because it stinks?
Allison, if it’s a matter of baby eating, then there are plenty of places in private that you can take your kid to breastfeed, and probably the vast majority are more sanitary and thus much safer and healthy than a park bench or other public space where people regularly put their hands, sneeze, etc. So please drop that old, tired argument.
I don’t know, Mr. Bad. I lived in Africa in a place where peeing on the city streets was acceptable and I can tell you the smell of urine was at times overwhelming. Anyone who has lived in NYC can tell you the same thing. Maybe I am wrong, but it doesn’t seem as though dogs cause quite the same problem, perhaps because there aren’t as many of them out and about on the city streets.
But be that as it may, it seems that you would advocate a double standard. (Do you consider men less worthy than dogs?) I strongly suspect that if peeing on the street were legalized, it would be considered appropriate for men only.
Hugo said:
What pro-feminists deny is that women are somehow responsible for male arousal.
Of course women are causally responsible for male arousal. They are also morally responsible for male arousal, if they intentionally dress in a way that they are aware will be arousing to men (though this means that I think women are not morally responsible for arousing men if they are deliberately dressing down). Yet as you point out, women are neither causally nor morally responsible for male reactions to how they dress, and desire is not a justification for action.
A girl in a mini-skirt is no more responsible for her classmate’s lust than the barista at Starbucks is for my full bladder! I have as much control over where my eyes linger as I do over what I choose to drink; whatever physiological reactions I experience as the result of either activity (drinking coffee, ogling) are my responsibility and mine alone.
The difference is that you choose to go to Starbucks. Since the barista isn’t forcing you to drink, you are of course morally responsible for your full bladder. The male classmate of the girl in the mini-skirt has no choice but to be aroused, so it’s impossible for him to be morally responsible for his arousal. That is why many males experience females dressing in a sexualizing manner as psychologically intrusive. Can males suppress their arousal? To a large degree, yes. Still, this takes energy that could be better spent on other things (like work).
The cultural variation over specifically what level of female exposure is considered sexual doesn’t mean that males can easily change what they are turned on by. The fact that males in another culture (who have received years of very different types of conditioning) may not be aroused by a certain stimulus, like bare breasts, doesn’t mean that males in this culture can wake up one day and decide to not be turned on by bare breasts anymore.
Erin C. said:
Whatever the motivation, staring is rude. It is aggression and pretty much universally recognized as such among primates.
So you are saying that women have a hardwired response to staring from males? Interesting (and correct, although this response is moderated by culture). I think Mr. Bad’s argument is “so what: it’s your responsibility to deal with any feelings of discomfort you get from men staring at you.” He is not advocating bullying women, because he is claiming that staring is not a form of bullying unless women insist on perceiving it that way.
I am not sure I completely agree with him and Quentin: if a man deliberately stares (for more than an amount that is considered acceptable in their culture) at a woman, he is morally responsible for any discomfort she feels (because, as you imply, she will often have a semi-hardwired feeling of discomfort). Although there is cultural variation in how women respond to male stares, they cannot just decide to not feel uncomfortable about them.
Still, I think the argument that Mr. Bad and Quentin made above is simply the reverse of the argument that women aren’t responsible for arousing men. Just as men are responsible for any feelings of discomfort in women they deliberately stare at in a manner that is more aggressive than the cultural norm, women are responsible for feelings of arousal and discomfort in men that they cause by deliberately dressing in a manner that the culture defines as sexual.
If men staring at women is considered inappropriate because it makes women feel uncomfortable, they why shouldn’t women dressing in a sexual manner be considered inappropriate in contexts where it makes men feel uncomfortable? How can we say that one gender’s feeling of discomfort are more valid than the other’s?
(For ideological feminists, of course, the answer is obvious: women’s feelings are always more important than men’s.)
Perplexed said: “But Hugo, you’re starting to sound like a social engineer now, Marxist even.”
I confess to being a bit perplexed myself by this derogatory use of the term ’social engineer.’ Of course societies have been engineered to work in certain ways. In fact, I’m certain if you think about it a bit more, you’ll find that much of what you call ‘nature’ is simply antique engineering. (If Hugo decides to channel his inner medievalist, he can give you about 7 books-worth of examples of this engineering that reads as ‘nature’now. And these merely from the past 1500 years or so.) We weren’t born as a race into a habit of binary thinking, for example; that had to be created and nurtured over millenia.
Aegis, women are not morally responsible for male arousal. Not at all. Think about this practically for a moment. How many different sorts of sexual quirks do we all have? For instance, let’s imagine that I’m attracted to men who are slightly chubby. Does that mean that every time a man eats a brownie he’s morally responsible for the lascivious thoughts I’ll be having about using his body for a nice, soft pillow? No. I’m responsible for having and entertaining those thoughts, and I’m responsible for any action I take based on them.
The paradigm you suggest would place women in the untenable position of having to anticipate EVERY fantasy ANY man could come up with about her, and then dress and behave in ways which would eliminate any chance of male arousal. So, if a woman were in a room with a man who inordinately lusted after shy women and one who inordinately lusted after outspoken women there would be absolutely NO WAY for her to avoid arousing one of them. Should anybody have to use their intellectual and emotional energy this way? I mean, seriously, some of us have stuff to do. Isn’t the moral onus on the individual with the uncontrollable lust?
One more thing. We’ve had an awful lot of comments about “dressing appropriately.” But absolutely nobody has defined what is “appropriate.” Appropriate for the weather? Then how, precisely, is slight clothing inappropriate for southern California in the spring and summer? Appropriate for the classroom? I’ve had students show up to class in pajamas, workout gear, giant snowsuits, torn denim, nasty unwashed fraternity pledge outfits … you name it. I even had one kid show up in an ascot and a driving cap, tapping at his pipe. (He was not yet 20, and this was not long ago.) So, before we can discuss “appropriate attire,” I think we need to come to some sort of consensus as to what that means.
THF said: “But be that as it may, it seems that you would advocate a double standard. (Do you consider men less worthy than dogs?) I strongly suspect that if peeing on the street were legalized, it would be considered appropriate for men only.”
Happy, yours is a strawman argument - I never said anything about peeing in the street. I said that men should able to discretely pee on “bushes and trees,” specifically implying that I advocate 1) shielding my cock appropriately so as not to deliberately expose myself, and 2) peeing on porous and/or absorbent substrate. I’m not advocating peeing in the street, even if much of the rest of the world does so. What feminists do when they advocate for breastfeeding in public - with no responsibility of the woman to exercise any discretionary modesty whatsoever - while objecting to men being able to pee in the park while exercising appropriate modesty is the double standard.
Heo, you are also engaging in strawman arguments by taking examples of the extreme as if they are the norm.
As I said before, what we seem to be disagreeing about is the definition of “appropriate.” I recognize that certain kinds of stares are inappropriate, and perhaps even “aggressive,” but to suggest that they are equivalent to some sort of assault is IMO patronizing. Such things might be aggressive to some people, but if we allow ourselves to be traumatized by simply a look or stare then to me suggests that the ‘traumatized’ person is not particularly strong. I’ve been stared at aggressively on the subway, etc., by street people, and I simply look away and ignore them. I am more in control than an animal and thus choose to behave apppropriately, like a well-adjusted human being who is not devastated or even “bullied” or feeling “punished” by something as minor as a look or stare; by the same token, I don’t act-on on lust like animals do. One choses to either act like an adult who is control of themselves or not do so and thus be viewed as childish. It’s being responsible for myself. End of story.
Feminists seem to want to be able to define “appropriate” for dress, looking, etc., at whatever point suits their purposes, and I suppose they have the right to do so. However, I also have the right to not take them seriously if I believe they are acting in a capricious and childish manner.
I said that men should able to discretely pee on “bushes and trees,”
Said like a man who lives in a high-rise. And I suppose you think women have no biological need to pee?
deliberately dressing in a manner that the culture defines as sexual
There is virtually no female clothing that does not carry a sexual message, even if it’s “I am downplaying my sexuality”.
mythago said:
Said like a man who lives in a high-rise. And I suppose you think women have no biological need to pee?
Nope, they don’t. Seriously, where has Mr. Bad said anything to imply that he wouldn’t support women peeing in public also?
There is virtually no female clothing that does not carry a sexual message, even if it’s “I am downplaying my sexuality”.
If you define “sexual message” so broadly as to include the message of “I am downplaying my sexuality,” then yes. In a trivial sense, all clothing does say something about the sexuality of their wearer. Still, wouldn’t you agree that some types of female clothing carry different types, and different degrees of sexual messages? If you say that this outfit conveys a sexual message, then I believe you (though I’m not seeing it myself!), but I think you will agree that the message is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the sexual message that an outfit like this one conveys.
I know this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I just had to tell you: I’m interested to hear your response to the article in the LA Times today titled, “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins” by Charlotte Allen. I couldn’t help but think of what you’d say while reading it.
Heh. Myth, I’ve never lived in a high-rise. As the saying goes, I’m a hand-spanked country boy - born, raised, and still living in the sticks. However, apparently you’re a city girl, else you’d know about peeing on bushes and trees, i.e., treetrunks, which are very good for hiding behind when peeing. Also keeps people from stepping in pee, assuming that they’re smart and/or sober enough not to walk into bushes and tree trunks.
And as Aegis suspects, I do believe that women should be able to pee in the bushes as long as they can be appropriately discreet about it; my wife does it all the time when we’re out on hikes, etc.
Fine, Mr. Bad, you win. You can pee in the bushes with my blessing– as long as you let me and Mythago do the same and breastfeed in public if we so choose. (Aegis, Mr. Bad’s support of equal opportunity peeing was far from clear since he said, “ I said that men should able to discretely pee on “bushes and trees” and “Or do you consider men less worthy than dogs?“)
I still think you’re being a rude jerk if you stare at people who make clothing choices of which you disapprove.
Aegis: “If you say that this outfit conveys a sexual message, then I believe you (though I’m not seeing it myself!), but I think you will agree that the message is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the sexual message that an outfit like this one conveys.”
I don’t think it’s so much the outfit the older woman was wearing that isn’t sexual, it’s the person. Find me a picture of a young attractive shapely woman wearing clothes that no one could construe as saying “do me now.”
I will readily concede that a woman can wear clothes that quite obviously say “I want you to think I’m sexy,” such as the picture you linked. Such dress is often inappropriate, and/or rude. The other end of the spectrum, however, is not as clear. Consider the plight of a large chested woman who simply cannot find clothes that are not tight across her chest. Her options are to wear a potato sack, or have a shirt that is a little tight across her chest. A common complaint of large chested women is that they are treated as though they are trying to be provocative when their clothing choice indicates nothing of the sort. In their case the shape of their body prevents their clothing choices from changing whether or not their dress is ’safe.’
My main point is, simply being good looking, having a pretty face, being athletic, having a particular body shape, or whatever can be enough for someone (even someone who would be considered reasonable) to think you are sexy, even sexy enough to be distracting, no matter what you wear. I had a man honestly tell me that I would be sexy in a wholesome frock. So, yes, it isn’t always a person’s fault if someone else’s clothing is distracting to them, but in our society a woman cannot be guaranteed to not distract simply by dressing appropriately. I think it is those who insist on being distracted by an otherwise appropriately dressed woman that we are discussing.
else you’d know about peeing on bushes and trees
Having lived in the city and had bushes and trees that people apparently felt was God’s designated site for their dogs to piss in, believe me, I know about peeing on bushes and trees.
What you’re deliberately conflating is a) penis exposure and b) leaving urine behind. If the discreet public urination were into a sanitary receptacle, nobody would care; the issue isn’t that somebody might see your penis, it’s that you’re depositing piss. Breastfeeding mothers who squirted puddles of milk all over park benches or bus seats would be your analogy here, and I don’t think anyone would support their right to subject other people to their bodily fluids.
Interesting dissusion.
What it has got me thinking is that does it make a difference if the recipient of the look finds the looker attractive?
As at times I feel that some individuals dress to attract but then get offended that those they attract are not what they want!
Also what consitutes a stare? when does a look become a stare? how much longer is a stare to a look?
We also need to take into account, that the dating game, for all the changes we have had in our society, still relies on men making the first move the majority of times (I am sure that there are some enlightend women here that take the first move, but they are still not the norm) What this means is that men may stare more at women, they need to try and get eye contact, or attract their attention, to see if it is worth taking the risk of rejection (a fear that a lot of men have to deal with on a regular occasion) They need to get those passive signals that women make to part of the way inform the guy that she may be receptive to his apporaches. And some guys are just usless at this (due to anxiety, low self-esteem, lack of practice or just dicks) and can make a mess of it.
It would be great if we live in a world with no body making judgements about us based on how we dress, but I am afraid that is not the case. We all have to think about the message we send out in how we dress. If I turn up to work in my baggy jeans and T-shirt my work will suffer as client will not take me as seriously and I will lose buisness, that is my fault not the clients. The same goes if you dress to impress and to atract the attentions of the opporsite sex, you cannot complain when you attract those who you are not atractted too, as clothing is not a presice weapon it is more a scatter gun.
It goes without saying that what I have writtern has not included such things as shouting out offensive things or bullying individuals through imtimidation. All individuals within society need to know where these boundries are and that this type of behavour is not appropriate.
The problem comes with trying to set where these boundries are, ensuring that we do not make it too subjective (ie it offends me, so therefore it is offensive.
This kind of relates to the discussion. I read once on a feminist comments board that if a man walking home at night finds himself walking behind a women, he should cross the street so that she is not scared.
This is like the whole looking discussion, we are imposing the responciblity onto men to be protective of female senciblities and fears, this too me is like treating women as children not as fall fledged adults.
Earth to myth, reality check time: We’re not talking about pissing downtown, we’re talking about Hugo and other men (or women) running on mountain trails and/or in parks. Big difference, or least for reasonable people. YMMV.
And yes, I’m afraid it is about exposing breasts and penises. As I said, urine is sterile so there’s nothing inherently pathologic about it, any more than breast milk. Once it soaks into the ground - a matter of minutes, or seconds in porous soil - it’s gone.
THF said: “I still think you’re being a rude jerk if you stare at people who make clothing choices of which you disapprove.”
I agree, which is why I don’t stare at people. That said, some women are walking around with huge chips on their shoulders just looking for an excuse to get pissed off and go off on a man (e.g., the “Code Blue” chicks in NYC) even though he hasn’t actually “stared” at anybody or otherwise done anything ‘wrong.’ In those cases, like the guy who deliberately stares, they’re just being assholes.
Men certainly don’t hold a monopoly on rudeness in these situations.
Wookie said: ”
This kind of relates to the discussion. I read once on a feminist comments board that if a man walking home at night finds himself walking behind a women, he should cross the street so that she is not scared.
This is like the whole looking discussion, we are imposing the responciblity onto men to be protective of female senciblities and fears, this too me is like treating women as children not as fall fledged adults.”
Wookie, I’ve also heard this suggested for men who find themselves alone in an elevator with a woman. I don’t see it as so much insulting to women as it is to men.
I know you’re British so let me explain something abouut U.S. history: In the southern part of the U.S. during a period in our history where we had what were called “Jim Crow” laws, African Americans were required to step off of the sidewalk and into the street (usually muddy, soiled with horse manure, etc.) when a white person - especially a white woman - was on the same sidewalk. During that time period African Americans were viewed as not fully human, i.e., animalistic and thus, dirty and not in control of themselves. What the feminists you read were suggesting is a new type of Jim Crow, except this time it’s men who are considered not fully human and thus not in control of emotions like lust, etc., and therefore untrustworthy. This attitude is what I like to refer to as “Jane Crow.” Such thinking is antithetical to civilized and decent society and thus should be rejected by one and all.
Oh, c’mon, Mr. Bad, the coy act does not suit you. You didn’t start off the discussion talking about peeing in the woods–you challenged Hugo about peeing while on one of his 3-mile runs which don’t take place in Yellowstone Park, as far as I can tell. A mountain trail is not a public park, and–can you believe it?–there are parks in urban areas. And, of course, we were talking about women breastfeeding in public, not along mountain trails or in secluded parks. SO perhaps we could stick to a fact pattern instead of constantly changing it and then getting indignant?
I don’t think you’d especially appreciate stepping in somebody else’s pee, and I can assure you from experience that you wouldn’t want to live near a bushy area that was constantly used as a public restroom, whether or not you ever saw any of the ’sterile’ deposits made on the ground, the bushes, the nearby sidewalk, etc. And, again: breastfeeding doesn’t involve spraying bodily fluids around, sterile or otherwise.
If you’re going to whine about the anti-male oppressors who won’t let you piss in public, it may comfort you to know that I’m not legally allowed to drop trou and piss in an alleyway, either.
For the record, every trail runner I know of either sex sooner or later must pee in the woods. You can’t be out in the backcountry for six hours and not do so; it simply isn’t possible.
Now, anyone who has ever seen a big-city marathon has also seen folks of both sexes peeing on sidewalks. I’ve had to pee in public in eight or nine of the dozen or so marathons I’ve done.
But let’s not let my analogy to urination drown the rest of the discussion.
If it were natural, and men truly couldn’t help objectifying women, instead of it being the social control that it is, we would be castrating males at age 13, just like our dogs and cattle.
In reality, women’s bodies are biologically wired in such a way that tells us that finding men that can and will mate successfully with them is a rather long shot — otherwise we wouldn’t need monthly menstruation. The fact that most of us are fertile once a month - and not getting pregnant non-stop — lets us know that men are *not* hardwired for sex and sexual attraction in the way that Playboy and Swank want us to believe.
*That* sexuality is socialized and used to dominate women.
I am glad that you don’t stare at people after all, Mr. Bad, but I have to agree with Mythago that you are changing the terms of the discussion. I was responding to your statement above that:
Sure, women should be able to dress in ’sausage suits,’ expose their breasts in public, etc., but if/when they do I’m going to stare, whether they like it not.
I hope that you have really changed your mind, rather than merely trying to bob and weave your way through this discussion.
And as for you Hugo: But let’s not let my analogy to urination drown the rest of the discussion. Heh heh. That’s just terrible.
mythago said: “Oh, c’mon, Mr. Bad, the coy act does not suit you. You didn’t start off the discussion talking about peeing in the woods–you challenged Hugo about peeing while on one of his 3-mile runs which don’t take place in Yellowstone Park, as far as I can tell.”
myth, are you be deliberately dishonest or are you really so clueless?
Hugo’s first paragraph was: “It’s blazingly hot. After several weeks of light exercise as I coped with grief over Matilde and my father, I’m easing back into regular working out. I’ve boxed and Pilate-ed today, and am ready for a long, steamy run up some local mountain tomorrow morning.”
Running up a local mountain. Not downtown, or as far as I know even in the city. Get it? He’s written about his runs plenty of times, so I know you know what he’s talking about.
The first paragraph (one sentence) in my first post was: “Ok Hugo, sit down: I happen to agree with you on this (except for your comment that our culture “hold(s) women accountable and lets men off scot-free” - that’s absurd and you should know it).”
Now if that sounds like disagreement to you then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You know an argument is in trouble when the person making has to resort to flat-out lying in order to support it. Give it up myth.
Point taken THF - I could have been more clear.
What I meant was that it’s cool with me if a woman wants to wear a sausage outfit - hey, knock yourself out. But if she does I’m going to look and probably do a double-take. I won’t stare as I define it, but depending on how (overly) sensitive to such things she is, she might consider it staring. And frankly, IMO that’s her problem, not mine.
Better?
So, another words, Mr. Bad if you stare at someone, and make them feel uncomfortable, as long as YOU think it’s not staring, than no harm no foul right? Everybody should just “Get over” their “sensitivity” and flex to your standards, because otherwise we are treating you just as poorly as the blacks did under the Jim Crow laws (although I haven’t heard anybody mention anything about legislation, just social actions).
And I reading you correctly? If so, your acting like an ass.
I will take your word for it that you don’t stare or leer, Mr. Bad.
But I don’t agree that the woman who believes she has been leered at is obliged to keep her sensitivities to herself. Don’t forget that women are often held accountable for failing to stop sexually inappropriate behavior before it escalates. If a woman claims rape or sexual harassment, she is often doubted if she failed to complain about prior inappropriate comments, leering, inappropriate touching etc. The refrain in favor of the defense is often, “Well, if she didn’t want me to tell dirty jokes, or leer at her, or grope her, why didn’t she SAY so sooner?”
I will grant you that a look can be ambiguous. I may mistakenly think you are leering when you have no intent to leer or cause me discomfort. But you’re not gonna be arrested or fired based on looking at someone wrong the way. The worst that will happen is that a woman will tell you that you made her uncomfortable. She may be mistaken about your intent. She may not be kind in the way she says it. But there may also be solid reasons in terms of her safety and (if this happens in the workplace) her job security to be upfront with you about what she considers to be inappropriate conduct.
And if she lets you know something is bothering her, and it’s easy for you to stop doing it, then the situation gets defused, and no one gets hurt. I posted my own personal experiences with this phenomenon here: http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/07/on_ambiguity_an.html
THF said: “But I don’t agree that the woman who believes she has been leered at is obliged to keep her sensitivities to herself.”
I personally believe that many women misinterpret looks from men, so that’s what I mean when I say that women need to take some responsibility for their feelings re. ‘leering.’ I’ve never met a person - man or woman - who can read minds, so IMO it’s serious hubris to just know that another person is lusting after you if they’re simply gazing at you. I’ve discussed this before, so I won’t go into it in this thread.
THF also said: “The worst that will happen is that a woman will tell you that you made her uncomfortable.”
And if she does this in a respectful manner I’ll be quick to apologize to her and not ’stare’ at her. However, if she’s walking around with a chip on her shoulder looking to be offended and possibly looking for a fight (like the “Code Blue” chicks in NYC) and gets in my face about it, I’ll definitely respond differently.
Aegis,
The male classmate of the girl in the mini-skirt has no choice but to be aroused, so it’s impossible for him to be morally responsible for his arousal.
It doesn’t matter if he is aroused. What matters is what he does about it. Blood flow to the pelvic region does not automatically cause movement of the eye muscles. The former is not under conscious control, the latter is.
Actually, Hugo, I think wearing “sausage casing” clothing and ogling are about on the same level. They’re like call-and-response. It’s hypocritical for women to flaunt themselves to provoke attention and then challenge men to pretend not to notice. There are degrees of provocation: some short skirts are merely attention-getting, while some skin-tight clothing could actually be considered rude. To my mind, the problem is when the response is disproportionate. Wearing “sausage casing” clothing and rough harassment, assault, or rape are NOT on the same level.
Flamethorn said:
It doesn’t matter if he is aroused. What matters is what he does about it. Blood flow to the pelvic region does not automatically cause movement of the eye muscles. The former is not under conscious control, the latter is.
It does matter if he is aroused, because the degree to which males are responsible for their arousal is one of the subjects under debate in this thread. I don’t dispute that males can try to inhibit their arousal; to quote what I said in a previous post: “Can males suppress their arousal? To a large degree, yes. Still, this takes energy that could be better spent on other things (like work).”
Personally, I don’t mind women dressing in sexy ways, even in environments where I am trying to concentrate. I have pretty strong concentration. Still, I realize that not all males are like me, and it would be unreasonable for me to expect them to be like me.
“But let’s not let my analogy to urination drown the rest of the discussion.”
That’s quite a visual.
Still, I realize that not all males are like me, and it would be unreasonable for me to expect them to be like me.
Why? I think men in suits are hot, but no one would suggest the men in my law firm are responsible for any gawking, wolf-whistling, or sweet cheeks calling I might do. It’s completely reasonable for people to expect me to keep my desires for a romp on top of the copier to myself. Why is it unreasonable to ask men to do the same? Keep your comments to yourself, don’t make a scene, and save the fantasy for later. What’s the problem?
Keep your comments to yourself, don’t make a scene, and save the fantasy for later. What’s the problem?
Well, the thing is, if men don’t loudly call attention to their arousal, it might go unnoticed.
I mean, if a pretty girl in tight clothes walks by, and she turns you on, and you just sit there being quietly turned on like a normal person, she won’t know about your erection. Think how tragic that would be.
I’ve discussed this before, so I won’t go into it in this thread.
Going into it in this thread, and then announcing you’re not going into it to try and stifle discussion?
The problem is that women have a choice between what you label ‘hubris’ and stupidity. If that guy is leering at you, you figure “nah, I shouldn’t flatter myself” and then he comes on to you in a rude fashion, well, hey, it’s your fault for not having noticed he was leering in the first place. We can’t win, but that’s what makes the game fun for you, eh?
You know an argument is in trouble when the person making has to resort to flat-out lying in order to support it.
That’s funny–I would think an argument is in trouble where the person who made it stops even pretending it has substance, and starts accusing everyone who disagrees with him of lying.
I confess to being a bit perplexed myself by this derogatory use of the term ’social engineer.’ Of course societies have been engineered to work in certain ways. In fact, I’m certain if you think about it a bit more, you’ll find that much of what you call ‘nature’ is simply antique engineering. (If Hugo decides to channel his inner medievalist, he can give you about 7 books-worth of examples of this engineering that reads as ‘nature’now. And these merely from the past 1500 years or so.) We weren’t born as a race into a habit of binary thinking, for example; that had to be created and nurtured over millenia.
So a heterosexual man’s instinctive horomonal response is somehow socially engineered is it? Nature isn’t an excuse, it’s an explanation.
Heo Cwaeth, you’re on thin ice here - next you’ll be saying homosexuality is a socially engineered sexual preference. Next time you here about a female murderer who was suffering from post-natal depression, I’m guessing you’ll be saying that ISN’T mitigating circumstances right? Choose the syampthetic answer to that question and your double-standard is lit up in neon.
Play this game. You can take 3 paths. Only one of them leads you to the truth:
1. The Marxist path where we’re all made from dough and can be 100% molded.
2. The deterministic path where our nature determines all our behavioural traits - wheeeeee - we’re not responsible anymore!
3. The nature/nurture path where our environment AND our nature ultimately shapes who we are.
I think you’re a few kilos down path 1.
One more thing. We’ve had an awful lot of comments about “dressing appropriately.” But absolutely nobody has defined what is “appropriate.” Appropriate for the weather? Then how, precisely, is slight clothing inappropriate for southern California in the spring and summer? Appropriate for the classroom? I’ve had students show up to class in pajamas, workout gear, giant snowsuits, torn denim, nasty unwashed fraternity pledge outfits … you name it. I even had one kid show up in an ascot and a driving cap, tapping at his pipe. (He was not yet 20, and this was not long ago.) So, before we can discuss “appropriate attire,” I think we need to come to some sort of consensus as to what that means.
The word ’sociopath’ describes someone who is incapable of empathising without others’ feelings. I say that we (men and women) are responsible for the distress in others if we provoke it (this is where I disagree with some guys upthread) - whether it is sexy, revealing clothing being worn at an inappropriate time (like work, where it’s not conducive to work or a general congenial atmosphere), or staring at someone. Clothing that is distracting when people are concentrating (such as education or work) should not be allowed. It is up to individual establishments to judge what is and what isn’t distracting. By bearing this responsibility, we actually learn to co-exist in the same room/class/office a lot better rather than live in our own little bubbles and damn everyone else.
perplexed, I was with you right up until you said: “Clothing that is distracting when people are concentrating (such as education or work) should not be allowed.”
Here’s where we part ways - I believe that clothing of any type should not be banned per se because we all should be given the benefit of the doubt that we are responsible enough to be able to choose appropriate clothing for a given situation. However, if someone insists on wearing inappropriate clothing for given settings then IMO they have proven that they don’t exercise good judgement and thus open themselves up to disciplinary action, dismissal, and certainly a stare (in disbelief) or two.
myth, the only person I’ve accused of lying is you because frankly you did so. Further, the reason I’m not going to go into detail re. my thoughts on women’s ‘mind reading’ abilities vis-a-vis men ’staring’ is because 1) I’ve already done so in other threads here, and 2) due to respect for Hugo’s wishes to keep these threads on-topic. If you care to read the archives then by all means do so, and if you disagree with Hugo re. thread drift, take it up with him, not me.
evil_fizz said:
Why? I think men in suits are hot, but no one would suggest the men in my law firm are responsible for any gawking, wolf-whistling, or sweet cheeks calling I might do. It’s completely reasonable for people to expect me to keep my desires for a romp on top of the copier to myself. Why is it unreasonable to ask men to do the same?
In my posts above, I said very clearly that “women are neither causally nor morally responsible for male reactions to how they dress, and desire is not a justification for action.” So I would say that I would say that you responsible for your reactions to men wearing suits. What I am saying is that nobody is morally responsible for any feelings of arousal they have that they cannot control. They are, of course, responsible for the actions they take based on those feelings. When I said that it’s unreasonable for me to expect other men to be like me, I meant that it is unreasonable to expect them to be comfortable with getting aroused in situations when they are trying to focus; I do not think it’s unreasonable to expect other men to control their reactions to their arousal.
I think part of the confusion here is that “responsibility” is used in at least a couple different ways:
1. X is “responsible” for Y if X caused Y and can be held accountable for doing so.
2. X is “responsible” for Y if X has a duty to deal with Y.
When I say “men are not morally responsible for their arousal,” I am using the first meaning of the word “responsible” not the second.
Why is this such difficult work, anyway? By the time your three years old, you have (or shoud have) already been taught it’s impolite to stare. My boyfriend and I have had perfectly non-sexual conversations when both of us are butt-ass naked. My doctor doesn’t see to have a problem maintaining a professional attitude or concentration during a pap exam or a breast exam. I’ve babysat children who went flying around naked except for underware on their head and not batted an eye. I’ve worked in envirnments with extrodinarily sexy guys in extrodinarily sexy uniforms (pretty much the only thing I like about the military) without staring or making them uncomfortable.
So why is it that the average guy is SO OVERCOMING with the sight of me in a tank-top that he cannot HELP but stare? Where’s the effort?
Funny, I think a young woman in a hijab looks quite sexy. Beautiful woman make the world go round! But let’s get a few things straight.
1. Many women view ogling as intimidating;
2. Staring at women reduces them to objects, instead of people;
3. Trying to make out women who look sexy are responsible for amoral or immoral behaviour is, frankly, pathetic.
I look out the corner of my eye, sure, and I’m pleased God made beautiful women. But it doesn’t make me treat ladies different - okay, I might smile a bit more at the pretty ones! But all this chasing skirt. It’s based on a delusion.
The delusion is that casual sex ‘for fun’ makes it worth being a lieing, manipulating, one-track minded jerk. It doesn’t. Be a nice person, fall in love, and you’ll find the Earth really DOES move!
Wasalaam
The Muslim Anarchist
Thanks for this!