My friend Isky sent me an email this week that revisits, yet again, the subject of women, clothing, and the male gaze. I asked him to look at the posts in the modesty category, particularly these (one, two, three) that summarize my views fairly well. Still, Isky seemed to want a specific reply to his situation. As the whole discussion may be triggering or repetitive for some, it’s below the fold.
Today was Day 1 back at the gym. I arrived at 24 hour fitness, said my good mornings to my exercise partners, and proceeded downstairs to my favorite elliptical machine. I began my training.
As the minutes passed, I remarked at the number of very attractive females that traveled down the stairs and walked past me. (interestingly, not one of them appeared to pay me even the slightest bit of attention. I can only attribute this to their possible insanity, or perhaps, poor vision.)
I was unfazed. The workout progressed and a few minutes layer, a new woman approached and made her way over to the floor mats.
Attractive….and with ginormous breasts.
Now, this is Los Angeles, and large breasts are not in short supply. But these stood out, mainly because they were already 25% “out” of this leotard type top she had on.
Allow me to be even more precise: Not only was I seeing “top cleavage”, but I was also getting a glimpse of the coveted “side hang”, and the TINIEST view of some of the lower cleavage.
Now I am a man… but I am not an animal. I have seen breasts before. I felt no need to stare.
She took to the mat and began her stretching. Mostly back stretch stuff. Mind you, I’m not really paying that much attention.
But then… here comes those “down stretches”. And I ventured that I sensed their arrival before even she did. She stretched down, bending towards me…… and voilà…
Christmas in October!
They were “out”. For me to see. And for anyone and everyone to see, within a miles distance.
Alas, as she was pulling back up, we momentarily locked eyes!! And the jig was up.
I got “the look”.
Now let me take a second to describe the look, as it wasn’t an evil scowl, or anything like that.
It was more of that “disappointed smirk” look…..kind of like the face Helen Hunt makes in all of her movies when she is upset.
Nonetheless, it effectively served its purpose.
I quickly averted my glance, embarrassed.
About a minute later, I snuck a peek over at her.
She was looking at me, as if watching to see if I was going to look again. I made sure not to glance over again, finished my workout, and left.
As I drove home, my embarrassment turned to anger! Why did I feel bad about what I saw?
She was obviously wearing a revealing outfit because she was looking for attention, and I only obliged her request! She could have mouthed “thank you!” or perhaps, gave me the thumbs-up!
Hugo, I come to you for your counsel. I believe I did nothing wrong! I don’t stare at breasts in my day to day life. (Thanks to the internet, I am able to do this in the privacy of my home.) But dangle them in front of me, and I am drawn to at least sneak-a-peek before they are put away! I did not ask to be drawn to breasts, I just am! It is inside of me. I am also quite fond of HAIR, but I don’t see any women getting uptight when I admire their bangs!
Explain how the myth of male weakness applies in my case! Doesn’t my very existence dis-prove it as myth? If there is any “slap on the wrist” to be had, should the media, a sexually repressed society, and women themselves, not get the first slap?
Thank you for reading, and thank you in advance for your response.
I know and like Isky, and he did want a public rather than a private response, so here goes:
Isky, I honor your candor, and I trust that you’re genuinely eager to do the right thing. The sections of your email I’ve put in bold are the ones I find most problematic.
First of all, it’s dangerous to attribute intent to the clothing choices others make: whatever you may believe (or whatever some other sympathetic women may tell you), you can’t possibly know for certain why the woman at the gym wore what she wore. Saying that “if she wore a revealing top, she should expect to be looked at” is the equivalent of telling a black man that if he wears cornrows and walks in a white neighborhood, he shouldn’t complain about being stopped over and over again by the police. Thoughtful, rational people don’t tell black men who are racially profiled that they need to “dress more white” to avoid getting harassed, after all.
What is “revealing” is a moving target, defined differently by different groups in different places. There are no public places other than beaches where you would expect to see more exposed flesh than at a gym. For reasons of both comfort and practicality, both women and men will wear less while working out than they will virtually anywhere else. And when you’re a well-endowed woman committed to vigorous exercise, the number of clothing choices that aren’t going to be perceived as revealing “too much” are, in fact, quite limited. I reject the assumption that any of us can “know” with certainty why a stranger wears what she wears.
Isky, surely you’re aware that men’s attraction to breasts is not a universal. Plenty of cultures (did you not take anthropology or read National Geographic?) expect women to go around topless most of the time. Female breasts are not always a source of sexual arousal — their power to stimulate is culturally conditioned, as even the most fervent hack defender of evolutionary biology will admit. It’s not “inside of you”, it’s a learned behavior. To continue the racism parallel from an earlier paragraph, lots of white folks were raised to fear and loathe black people. That cultural conditioning doesn’t justify bigotry, and the cultural condition we American men have to be fascinated with female breasts doesn’t justify our ogling.
I’m not trying to talk you out of your desires, Isky. But we have a responsibility to keep our desires (or our curiosity) from making others uncomfortable. And that responsibility, my friend, is in no way contingent on how they dress or carry themselves. The Golden Rule is NOT “Do unto others as they seem to deserve by the way they look.” The Golden Rule that applies here is “Treat everyone with respect and dignity regardless of the perceived provocation.”
Let’s suppose that this woman at the gym did expect men to look at her. (That’s a theoretical concession for the sake of this discussion only.) The fact is, your gaze made her uncomfortable. Even if she was sending an ambiguous, contradictory message with her clothing, that doesn’t erase your responsibility to avoid sexually objectifying her. Women are not the guardians of our thoughts and behaviors, Isky. No matter how powerful our acculturation or how strong our hormones, our will is always, always, sovereign over our actions. And “looking”, an action controlled by the eye muscles, is entirely at the service of the will. Even if I were to concede, for the sake of argument, that the woman at the gym ought to have concealed more, her lack of discretion in no way vitiates your responsibility to exercise self-control.
Men and women do not live together in some sort of perverse social contract, in which male respect for women is contingent upon female modesty. We live together, I suggest, in a community where each of us has a responsibility to treat our neighbors with dignity and kindness — whether or not our neighbors hold up their end of the bargain. What this means in the end is that the obligation not to objectify another human being is the same whether she’s in a bikini or a burka.
Isky, I know the office in which you work. I know that several of your female co-workers have taken your side. I hear “through the grapevine” that many of them are fervent believers in the “myth of male weakness”, the lamentable and indefensible doctrine that suggests that men are unable to exercise sexual self-control without considerable assistance from women. Call it the “all men are dogs” thesis if you prefer. A great many women have suffered much as a consequence of male irresponsibility. After so many repeated bad experiences, they’ve given up believing in the possibility that men can have the same degree of control over their desires and their actions as women. Women adopt a cynical view of the possibility for male transformation as a hedge against disappointment; if you have very low expectations, after all, you’re unlikely to be let down. It’s easier for women to police each other, holding their sisters accountable for “allowing men to look”, than to do the difficult but vital work of demanding better from men.
I’m not a dog, or a wild beast, Isky. Neither are you. We are men (young men still, I’d like to think) filled with passion and desire and excitement for living. But whether those passions are rooted in our testosterone or in television, they are always, always, entirely under our control. Sexual longing is not a bad thing. But when we express our desire or our curiosity, even by “just looking”, we can make other people feel bad. Ask the women in your life how it feels to be leered at; the male gaze has, in certain instances, the power to wound, to frighten, and to shame. And I’ll say it again: we are responsible for that gaze no matter what the provocation, no matter what the temptation. No matter what, no matter what. Not because we are superhuman, but because we are adult human beings who are, at all times, masters of our longings — and our lookings.
Female breasts are not always a source of sexual arousal — their power to stimulate is culturally conditioned…
I have wanted to ask you this for awhile, but it did not occur to me the last time you posted about “going topless in public.” Now, from a “Bradshaw” perspective, would it be dysfunctional for a mother to go walk around topless in her home in front of her children? In many of the cultures featured in National Geographic, the answer is no. But in American culture, you said in our class that parents who do not cover themselves properly are “acting in a dyfunctional way.” I know this is a bit of a tangent and doesn’t have to do with male sexual transformation, but I am just curious what your take on this is. Even though breasts are not in them of themselves sexual, in our culture, would it be dysfunctional for women to walk around topless in public?
Hugo, I think you are giving this woman - and perhaps women in general - too little credit for the control we exercise over our sexuality.
First of all, as a large-breasted woman training for a marathon, I have no trouble covering my breasts while I exercise or at any other time.
Second, I agree that no clothing gives men the right to touch, talk to, or look at women in an inappropriate manner. I do not think, however, that all forms of noticing a woman are inappropriate. Isky was not eyeing a sixteen-year-old, or ogling during a religious service, or actively making a nuisance of himself. He was observing an adult woman in an environment where many people meet their partners (and where some people go for exactly that reason) as she performed actions that made her an object of interest. The look she gave him was not an “I have been victimized” look; it was an “I have sexual power over you and you have none over me” look.
Adult women control their sexuality. We know how to keep our breasts inside our clothing. Sometimes we don’t want to be objects of the male gaze, and sometimes we do. In trying to protect women from abusive attention, I think you are going too far. Sometimes being looked at is solicited and welcome; sometimes it is unsolicited and welcome; sometimes it is unwelcome - but if nobody ever noticed anyone for fear of making a nuisance of themselves, sexual coupling would end entirely.
Capella, in your experience is having your breasts stared at EVER welcome? Meeting and mating can happen just fine without ogling, and we can look at each other, even convey warmth and potential interest, without staring at specific body parts below the chin.
And I’m amazed by how many folks seem certain that they “know” what this woman’s intent was. A shared biology and a shared acculturation does not a mind-reader make.
Adapted from Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa
Until very recently, it was a mystery to evolutionary psychology why men prefer women with large breasts, since the size of a woman’s breasts has no relationship to her ability to lactate. But Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe contends that larger, and hence heavier, breasts sag more conspicuously with age than do smaller breasts. Thus they make it easier for men to judge a woman’s age (and her reproductive value) by sight—suggesting why men find women with large breasts more attractive.
Alternatively, men may prefer women with large breasts for the same reason they prefer women with small waists. A new study of Polish women shows that women with large breasts and tight waists have the greatest fecundity, indicated by their levels of two reproductive hormones (estradiol and progesterone).
You’re right, I don’t know what her intent was or what the look she gave him really meant. But nonverbal signaling is an important part of every aspect of our society, and just because signals aren’t universal or intentional doesn’t invalidate their usefulness as a first approximation. Nonverbal language is language too, and in our language revealing skin means “go ahead and notice me”. Learning to speak the language is an important part of being a member of society; for an adult woman to wear revealing clothes and expect not to be looked at is to expect by sheer force of will to vocalize the word “volcano” and have people understand she means “cat”.
In answer to your question: Yes. Being noticed/looked at/stared at, if it’s not threatening or overly intense, is occasionally irritating but usually flattering. It surprises me to be typing that because I don’t generally dress in a way to invite it, but that’s how I feel, even if it means I am somehow complicit in my own repression.
As a petite woman with truly “ginormous” breasts attached to my bird-boned frame, there is absolutely nothing, nothing that I can wear to conceal the physical fact of my body. My body is simply my body. It is not a test for political correctness, an indicator of my intelligence, or a display of my willingness to mate with a particular male, and I am thoroughly tired of anybody who thinks otherwise.
Thank you, Hugo, for addressing the issues that you do.
I believe in the “one free bite” rule. Isky’s gym-mate was wearing more-than-usually revealing clothing, he made the reasonable assumption (not the only possible one, but reasonable) that she wouldn’t mind a little admiration, he was corrected and he backed off. I wouldn’t give him the above lecture unless he had persisted in staring, *after* she showed that she didn’t like it.
At the risk of appearing like an anti-feminist skag, I would be flattered if guys noticed my boobs at the gym. I certainly check out their butts. (Then I blame it on my novel characters. “Research!”)
Capella and Jendi, I hear you when you say you’d feel flattered if men stared at your breasts while you were in the gym. Are you aware of how that might be interpreted by readers of both sexes? I’m worried about setting up the “see, I told you all women are really asking for it” dynamic here. At the same time, I’m not trying to limit your freedom of expression — just as I’m instinctively adverse to telling women to cover up if they don’t want to be looked at.
Kimmijo, word.
Isky is clearly a tool of the pornstirocracy. He cannot separate his boner from his social construction and thus continues to dole out stare-rewards* to those who, either intentionally or unintentionally, fit a prepackaged mold as prescribed by our nearest Pharma-Patriach.
Blech.
*Rewards as prescribed by the P as well. There is something immensely distressing about validating an invasive “gaze” that really has f*** all to do with how it makes women feel.
it’s almost hard to believe that that letter is not made up.
and, to voice the other side, i certainly would not be flattered by any men staring at my breasts at the gym. or commenting on my physical appearance in general.
The letter is not made-up, though it does have a tone of the fabulous (in the original sense of the word).
And I have never heard the term “stare-rewards” before, pisaquari; I’m stealing it right now. Love it!
Lame, Hugo.
I thought Pharma-Patriarch was much cooler.
Jendi,
I agree with your “one free bite rule,” even if it involves a curious porting of tort law into the discussion. :-)
Hugo,
I noticed you did not chastise Jendi for checking out men’s butts at the gym. Oh, I know, you’ll trot out that old canard about how we can’t hold our sisters accountable for anything. But you know what? That’s really a self-contradicting cop-out.
First, you wrote:
What if a woman’s staring at a man’s posterior causes that man to become uncomfortable? After all, you can’t discern anything about a man’s intent or background based on what he is wearing. How do you know whether he is sensitive to that part of his body being the object of the female gaze?
Then you said to Capella and Jendi:
What about men’s freedom of expression? You certainly see fit to try to limit that. Freedom of expression means the freedom to send and to receive information. It includes looking and being able to appreciate beauty. Why is it OK for Jendi to check out men’s asses, but not OK for your friend Isky to look at a beautiful woman at the gym he attends?
Jendi’s approach is reasonable. She allows for some ambiguity in nonverbal communication where, sadly, you do not. Jendi considers that someone might make a mistake of etiquette, whereas you don’t. I agree with her approach. If your friend had persisted in staring after he received a nonverbal (and hence potentially ambiguous) cue that his stare was unwelcome, then you’d be on firmer, though still questionable, ground in giving him a lecture.
I also think Jendi’s rule does not discriminate on the basis of sex. She seems like a very reasonable and kind person. I can’t speak for her, but I would guess she’d apply it to both women and men. If she was checking out a man’s rear end and perceived that he was uncomfortable, she would most likely avert her gaze.
Despite all your preaching to others about so-called gender equity, you don’t practice what you preach. You engage in double standards fairly consistently. You hold men to higher standards than you hold women. The irony is that your behavior betrays a subtle, but still offensive, misogyny. You’re saying that men are somehow better than women; they need to be treated as adults who take responsibility for their actions, while you think women are more like children who cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Why do you demand that men take responsibility for women’s feelings (something over which men really have no control anyway) and not demand that women take responsibility for men’s feelings?
Jon, I didn’t endorse Jendi’s butt-checking. Jendi didn’t write me an email asking me to comment on her butt-checking.
The freedom of expression to which I referred in the comment was the freedom to admit that yes, she likes being checked out. My concern is that that admission could easily be misconstrued as a general “women like being objectified.” Despite that concern, I didn’t edit her comment.
I just gotta say that one thing men don’t get is that we have a history and pattern of men attacking women sexually. The reverse is much less common.
To a woman, especially a woman that has been followed home by drunk men on my way back from work (I used to bartend and waitress throughout college), there is nothing that helps discern possible dangerous men from the non-dangerous ones. and it often starts with a guy staring at you, or the reverse- refusing to look at you. Most of the guys that followed me home without my consent were very average looking that they would blend in perfectly. Rapists and molesters don’t wear a tag that identifies themselves as one.
To a woman, ogling and staring is sometimes a precursor to something possibly going bad. That’s one of the reasons women get uncomfortable. Just because we’re dressed in a certain way does NOT mean we want to be stared at, nor that we want to be raped or molested or sexually approached.
Bottom line: the best course of action for both men and women is to be respectful of others, period- and not assume things out of other people. Staring at a man’s ass or a woman’s tits, nor assuming anything about their intentions, does not make for good behavior.
Jon, I didn’t endorse Jendi’s butt-checking.
Nor did you complain about it or express even the slightest concern about it vis-a-vis the men she looks at.
Jendi didn’t write me an email asking me to comment on her butt-checking.
She’s a lawyer and a writer. She probably has better things to do with her time than to send e-mail messages asking for opinions on such things. Of course, that’s all beside the point because, as I explain below, you have tried to spin Jendi’s comments into generalities that do not reasonably follow from what she said.
The freedom of expression to which I referred in the comment was the freedom to admit that yes, she likes being checked out.
Freedom of expression is a very broad topic. As I explained, it includes the freedom to receive information as well as to transmit it. You mentioned one form of freedom of expression; I mentioned another.
My concern is that that admission could easily be misconstrued as a general “women like being objectified.”
I understand the concern. Indeed, I agree with the premise that people generally, women and men, do not like being objectified. However, I really don’t think that’s a valid concern in this case because Jendi did not say she was speaking for all women. She didn’t say all women would want men to stare at or even notice their breasts. Far from saying anything like that, in the previous paragraph of her comments, Jendi specifically considered the possibility that some women, perhaps even most women, would not like a man to stare at their breasts. I don’t think it’s fair to try to spin her comments into something they are not.
Despite that concern, I didn’t edit her comment.
So?
A key bit of information here is how long this fellow looked at this woman’s chest: how long BEFORE she had her wardrobe malfunction and then how long AFTER. If he was sitting on his mat with his eyes transfixed on her breasts for thirty seconds, then, yeah, that’s kind of skeevy. If the “mishap” (assuming it wasn’t intentional) just caught his eye for a few seconds, then it might not be lechery on his part. When a body part that’s usually covered up in our culture is exposed, people notice, whether they’re aroused or not. Anyone walking through the supermarket naked would turn heads. People would be surprised, and stare for a few seconds, and then decide to look away or not. If someone had a large hole behind the knee of his/her pants, it would catch our eye. If someone walks into a room barefoot, you notice, because you’re used to people wearing shoes. You likewise notice when someone has a distinctive-looking body part — if someone has unusually large ears, you pick up on it. It’s rude to keep on staring, or comment on it, but you can’t be faulted if it catches your attention.
“I just gotta say that one thing men don’t get is that we have a history and pattern of men attacking women sexually. The reverse is much less common.”
I won’t put numbers and percentages to it, but I’d say it’s more common than we realize. Remember the stereotype that men are expected to be constantly turned on, whereas women aren’t sexual beings. So when a woman goes after a man, sexually, it’s expected that he automatically would enjoy it (whether he does in reality or not), and so people are less inclined to treat it seriously, which is often a mistake. Chalk one more way stereotypes screw everybody over.
She was obviously wearing a revealing outfit because she was looking for attention, and I only obliged her request! She could have mouthed “thank you!” or perhaps, gave me the thumbs-up!
Is this guy somewhere on the autistic spectrum? This is not a slam at autistic people; I have often been told that they experience a range of difficulties interpreting everyday human behavior that “neurotypicals” find astonishingly hard to believe or understand.
If he is not autistic, is he some kind of sociopath?
I know and like Isky
Why?
Oh, forget it, I know why. Because he doesn’t do this shit to you.
No, he’s not autistic; he’s an asshole. Autistic people have trouble interpreting social signals, it is true. But they tend not to misinterpret them in the “women should all want me and be grateful for my attention” manner that Isky does.
And what sophonisba said at the end.
There’s something very, very creepy about that message. His level of detail about various angles and sight-lines, his fictional alternative rendering of the “encounter” where he becomes a hero, dwelling on the whole thing long enough to write up a a long message pleading for validation…there’s something really off about this.
Following on from djw, I think the entitlement that comes through in the langauge of the message is what is disturbing here.
I think that most people, of whatever gender, enjoy catching the odd glimpse of what we might find sexually attractive. And, as Hugo eloquently points out, the onus is on the glimpser to make sure that we don’t cross a line where we could make someone else uncomfortable– if we DO cross that line, then that’s our own fault. Generally my personal rule (and I am a heteosexual female, btw) is to avoid paying someone extra attention simply because I find them attractive, unless it is CLEAR that they’d be okay with that attention (ie, I can pay that sort of attention to my boyfriend).
Back to the topic, however– this narrative is much more than “I saw an attractive woman, I looked at her a bit too long, and she seemed to be uncomfortable with it.” Isky’s language makes it quite clear that he sees no difference between “I saw an attractive woman” and “I saw an attractive object”– as djw points out, the level of detail in the description indicates that this was going on, but the objectification becomes particularly salient with the expression “Christmas in October!” Isky sees a woman’s body as a gift that he is entitled to as the result of her clothing– the implication here is that he is able to assert ownership over a body because of his ability to see it. And then, of course, he has the audacity to suggest that a mere “diappointed smirk” was an inappropriate reaction…
I’m female, and I’ve definitely found my eyes caught by women whose breasts are falling out of their clothes. My thoughts tend to run more along the lines of does she have any idea that everyone on the street can see her breasts? and less toward admiration of her assets, but it’s hard not to look at unusual things, whether that’s naked skin bared in public or a weird scar on someone’s face.
This in no way changes the fact that staring at someone is an improper thing to do, and that staring at someone in a way that makes them uncomfortable is not acceptable - whether it’s exposed skin, a scar, or missing limbs. But I think that there is a ’spectacle’ aspect to the situation that might be even more applicable than ‘the myth of male weakness’ to explaining Isky’s perceived compulsion. So he might do well to consider that the pull to stare at her exposed breasts doesn’t need some male hormonal urge to explain it beyond simple surprise - and that he can resist it the same way he’d resist the urge to stare at a heavily tattooed person or two men strolling down the street holding hands.
I’m with Jendi on the “one free bite” rule, so I don’t see anything wrong with his initial glance. (Caveats, here: First, bmmg39 is right that a lot depends on just how long the guy looked at the woman’s chest. Second, I’m a little more lenient in a gym because people do use that as a place for meeting. If I’m at a party or the gym, I’m not going to be upset at guys who check out my breasts or butt or whatever briefly - not staring in a prolonged way in preference to looking at my face; my threshhold for getting upset about that kind of thing is lower if I’m either at work, where I expect people to treat me professionally, or alone on the street, where such attention can be more potentially threatening.)
On the other hand, the part that sophonisba quotes later, where he fumes at her for her reproving look, that part bugs me. OK, you look, you get the signal your look is unwelcome, you stop, fine. You look, you get the signal your look is unwelcome, you grumble that the woman should have thanked you for admiring her, not so fine.
Mythago’s right, I withdraw the autistic remark, that was probably borderline offensive.
The whole thing reads it was written with one hand. Furthermore, what is his complaint actually about? Not about her clothing or her breasts. He was embarrassed at the time and is upset now because she gave him a look. She gave him a look that offended him. Let us meditate on that for a bit. She looked at him in a way that made him feel embarrassed and ashamed, and he dwelled on the possible and probably meanings of that look all the way home and long after, and is still dwelling on it, and is so upset about that one humiliating look she gave him that he had to write a long, creepy letter to a friend about it.
But he can’t understand why a woman would mind being given a look from him.
This is why I think the guy is either making the whole thing up to get off, or seriously, severely deranged.
Isky here.
-tool of the pornstirocracy
-unable to separate my boner from my social construction
-on the autistic spectrum
-some kind of sociopath?
-asshole
-great kisser
I added the last one.
I got a chance to read through all the posts on this page today and am appreciative of getting to hear the opinions of everyone that posted, particularly Hugo.
So… I actually have a bunch of questions about a lot of what I’ve read, and I’m still debating as I type this, if I should be asking them now, as I’m not sure this is the forum.
I do want to say a few things about what I wrote..perhaps it might clarify a few things that I think were misinterpreted, perhaps it won’t. Perhaps it doesn’t make a difference. But what I’d really like to make sure is known, is that what I’ll be writing is in no way intended to change one’s opinion of me, or excuse or apologize anything that I wrote. If you disagree with me, I completely respect and accept it. I just want to make sure we’re on the same page.
Context and Content.
First of all, what I wrote, and perhaps Hugo will jump in and attest to this, was written to Hugo directly..I know him…..so much of it was written in a more conversational style and was, in many places, intended to get him to smile or laugh. If I was writing it directly for the forum, it most likely would have been worded differently. Hugo, and I’m not speaking for him, read the letter and probably heard it in “my voice”, which I imagine would lead to a slightly different interpretation of the text compared to the rest of the readers.
Also, the above letter was EDITED.
Now, nothing substantial AT ALL was left out…mainly just little self-deprecating jabs at my weight and maybe a few other personal bits…which when put together, lighten the tone. (again, in my opinion.) (Further note to Hugo: I’d be happy at this point, to just keep the rest of the letter personal.)
-As I read this, I realize this is mainly for the person whose post included the “very creepy”, “level of detail” bits: I don’t think the text was conveyed the right way.
Also…lots of posts talking about “staring”.
I wasn’t.
But I was in a direct line of sight. One of the details that was edited out of the letter was the position of the woman’s floor mat in relation to the row of ellipticals and nautilus machines. (And thinking about again, it is even STRANGER to me now that the woman chose to sit there FACING everyone, when she could have positioned herself in a more “protected” direction or location. oh well…)
I’m just going to cut to the questions/issues.
I don’t believe that Hugo chooses his words lightly, He made some statements that I question. If he or someone here can provide clarification, I would sincerely welcome it. If you want to go the pisaquari route and just attempt to insult me, I guess you can do that too.
1. It’s dangerous to attribute intent to clothing choices.
As a rule of thumb, sure, I will agree with you. The woman at the gym: You are CORRECT. I was WRONG to assume that she intended to draw attention.
But…when I wear scrubs and a stethoscope on October 31st, I don’t want to hear about anyone saying that I’m intending them to think that I’m a physician, ok?
Her breasts were on un-necessary display, positioned and allowed to be revealed in a direct line of sight to a good number of people. In my opinion, her intentions are irrelevant to THIS situation.
2. “the power to stimulate is culturally conditioned.”, “It’s not “inside of you”, it’s a learned behavior”
This is the one I’d most like to know about. In the above, Hugo was specifically referring to a breast, although I assume that the statement could be extended to other parts of the body. I”ll dust off a National Geographic and brush up on some aspects of other cultures, but someone please advise me about my own culture. Where did women get conditioned to look at a man’s ass or chest? Or a man to breast. If the answer is just related to the power of the media, I’m not sure I want to hear it. In my experience, my attractions were set prior to reading Star magazine or watching television. I’d love to hear anybody else’s, or be directed to a link. What about the more extreme examples?
sigh… Can no concession be made for honest to goodness, genetically-programmed attraction? Is it really this black/white? It’s not “inside of me”? We are all simply the product of cultural conditioning and learned behavior? It seems so sad if true.
ahh, I’ve just refreshed this page and see another comment that just came in. Wow. And so I’m stopping here. I’ll post what i’ve typed, and maybe continue the discussion with Hugo next time I see him! This has been absolutely fascinating. Best to all. Yes, even you sophonisba. :)
In a very general sense, I suppose. In practice there are restrictions on expression. Not (necessarily) legal restrictions, but social ones. Trust and cooperation - essential to human survival - are hindered when people are constantly asshats to each other. So when a person “sends information” of a nature or in a manner that needlessly does harm, it is the impetus of the people around them to then make that person feel like an asshat, in hopes that they amend their ways.
This is not meant to apply to Jendi’s candor regarding her feelings about being noticed (acknowledging variance in individual responses is a useful step in cultivating the widespread realization that no one person can or should represent an entire gender), but does preclude the defense of ogling as an important form of “free expression”.
I added the last one.
Of course you did. The entire tone of your first post was about what a swell guy you are and how much women should show their appreciation for that fact.
When I read the story, the first thing I thought was that this was fake. My second thought was that there was a hidden camera in the gym. I did not think, “she’s trying to sexually control him” or “she’s flirting.”
Just saying… different people = different perceptions & different assumptions. It’s called individuality.
I recall my daughter at the age of 16, preparing to go to a party, chattering on with her friend “Linda” about whether or not “Tommy” would notice her; and even asking my advice “as a guy whether this might get “Tommy” to notice her (And on a couple outfits she got my advice as a father, too, but another story.
Later that night, though, she was full of complaints that (A) Tommy didn’t notice her, and (B) other guys were, some who were geeks, and that they were creeps for hitting on her. In a nutshell, I told her that she dressed for attention from a boy, she got attention from boys - so, what exactly was her complaint?
Gonzman, suppose, we were to accept your proposition that sometimes some people do dress to be noticed by others. Even if this is the case, how can you possibly have the arrogance to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of their intentions?
Suppose your daughter is a lesbian, and is dressed up in revealing clothing for the attention of women - does that possibility cross the minds of those men assuming she’s dressing for their pleasure? Are they still entitled to leer, even if absolutely no thought of men crossed her mind as she was choosing her outfit?
Moreover, suppose this hypothetical ‘Tommy’ reciprocated your daughter’s crush, and, in getting ready for this party, he dressed in his most fitted jeans that draw attention to his butt, and his tight tee that showcases his bulging biceps that he spent the last month in the gym toning so that your daughter would notice them. Suppose that there is a gay man there, a foot taller than Tommy and much more muscular, who thinks that Tommy is hot and finds his clothing provocative. Does this entitle him to leer at Tommy all evening, or make suggestive comments about how Tommy’s crotch, butt, or biceps look in that outfit?: after all, Tommy dressed to be noticed and is being noticed - what exactly is his complaint? Suppose the gay man follows Tommy home, and rapes him on the way - did Tommy ask for it? After all, Tommy’s clothing was provocative, and we all know that men can’t help themselves when confronted with sexual desire. Besides, Tommy probably had a few drinks, and what was he doing dressed like that and out by himself at that time of night - he should have expected to be leered at and/or raped. Right?
Gonzman, I’d be interested to hear your judgement on these scenarios.
N.B. Through the preceding example, I don’t mean to confront misogyny by invoking homophobia. It’s just that in my experience, it’s very difficult to demonstrate to men what unwanted male attention feels like without using a scenario like the above. To my mind the equivalent of a woman getting unwanted male attention is a male getting unwanted male attention - male attention is threatening in a way that female attention rarely is, for various reasons. One of these is the simple fact that men can generally overpower women and both of them know it. Also, women have historically been seen as bodily and men, spiritual/intellectual (this goes as far back as ancient greek philosophy), and so women receiving comments on their bodies feels like confirmation that that is all they are.
As is probably clear by this point, I remain unconvinced about the goodness of the concept of modesty. First of all, it’s incredibly entangled with the male gaze. It assumes that men are always the ones desiring and women are always the objects being desired. And thus, it always seems to focus on policing women’s dress.
What about an acknowledgement of female desire? On a church mission trip that I went on about 6 years ago, when I was a 16 year old conservative fundamentalist Christian in high school (rather than the feminist liberal Christian grad student I am now), the policy was that girls couldn’t wear strappy tank tops, but guys could go topless (this was in 100+ degree heat). We had to paint a church as part of our service project, and one of the most vivid piercing cravings of desire that I ever felt was watching one of my Christian brothers scraping paint, watching his muscles flex. I’ve since realised that I find the guys’ bicep/collarbone area an incredible turn on. But the fact that girls might be turned on by guys’ bodies never seems to be acknowledged; when I told the program leader, he told me that girls aren’t visual creatures and don’t get sexually aroused - rather, they exchange sex for love, marriage, money, etc. (the way this jarred with my own feelings and experience, even at 16, was in retrospect a push on my way towards feminism)
Yet unlike Isky, while I knew I was seriously turned on, I never therefore jumped to the conclusion that this boy went topless specifically with the intention of turning me on and frustrating me - this conclusion often seems to be the conclusions of men when they see women that turn them on. This is not only the view of Isky here but also the ‘rebelution modesty survey’, where teenage boys assume that every minute detail of female attire is chosen or rejected with their hard-on in mind. It takes a special kind of provincial and arrogant short-sightedness to ascribe someone’s motive to your reaction; it’s to assume that what seems evident to you is the case for everyone - like when my cat hides his head under the blanket and thinks that no one can see him. A lot of my straight guy friends have said that the male body is ugly and the female one attractive, therefore women must be modest but not men; being a straight female, finding the male body sexy and not being at all turned on by breasts, it’s difficult for me to determine exactly what nuances of clothing will turn different men on. And frankly, until men wear burqas to avoid turning me on, I really don’t care.
Isky, it’s very difficult to make large breasts do a disappearing act. Did you consider that maybe she was wearing that top because it was the most comfortable workout top that she owns (my breasts are only a 34c, and even I find I need very tight workout tops or I get bounce and chafing)? or maybe she needs to do the laundry and it’s the only one clean? or perhaps she figures that she’ll get leering from men like you regardless of what she wears, so it doesn’t really matter (I go jogging in the evenings, and get catcalled 5-6 times over the course of an hour, regardless of whether i’m totally covered or in just a bra and short shorts). In short, Isky, did you consider that there are myriad reasons that she might have been wearing that top, none of which includes you. Before you put on a piece of clothing, do you consider its effect on women’s arousal? If you have a big penis, do you constantly worry that wearing a particular pair of shorts might hint at this, because if you get harassed when that happens, it’s your fault because you were ‘asking for it’, looking like a slut, what with having big body parts? Because your gender’s body is culturally sexualized, do you have trouble finding clothing that doesn’t sexualize you - particularly on a limited student budget? Do you worry about someone of the opposite sex overpowering you and raping you because of a arbitrary judgement that they made on your clothing and/or size of your body parts? Until you angst about these issues daily, you aren’t in a position to judge a women’s motive based on her clothing.
Gonzman, suppose, we were to accept your proposition that sometimes some people do dress to be noticed by others.
Okay - let’s start by not being so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as to pretend it never happens, or is even rare, then, shall we?
Even if this is the case, how can you possibly have the arrogance to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of their intentions?
Hmmmm - maybe when my daughter asked me “Daddy, you’re a guy - would this turn your head if some other woman was wearing it?”
Doesn’t require a dozen whacks with a cluebat, nor is it a leap in intuitive thought.
Suppose your daughter is a lesbian, and is dressed up in revealing clothing for the attention of women - does that possibility cross the minds of those men assuming she’s dressing for their pleasure? Are they still entitled to leer, even if absolutely no thought of men crossed her mind as she was choosing her outfit?
Let’s go a step further and postulate she gets unwanted Lesbian attention. Or any of a thousand other permutations of the scenario. My response is the same - you dress to be noticed, you get noticed - and the complaint is what? Grow up. Accept your agency in the dynamic.
Moreover, suppose this hypothetical ‘Tommy’ reciprocated your daughter’s crush, and, in getting ready for this party, he dressed in his most fitted jeans that draw attention to his butt, and his tight tee that showcases his bulging biceps that he spent the last month in the gym toning so that your daughter would notice them.
Okay, and….?
Suppose that there is a gay man there, a foot taller than Tommy and much more muscular, who thinks that Tommy is hot and finds his clothing provocative. Does this entitle him to leer at Tommy all evening, or make suggestive comments about how Tommy’s crotch, butt, or biceps look in that outfit?: after all, Tommy dressed to be noticed and is being noticed - what exactly is his complaint? Suppose the gay man follows Tommy home, and rapes him on the way - did Tommy ask for it? After all, Tommy’s clothing was provocative, and we all know that men can’t help themselves when confronted with sexual desire. Besides, Tommy probably had a few drinks, and what was he doing dressed like that and out by himself at that time of night - he should have expected to be leered at and/or raped. Right?
Gonzman, I’d be interested to hear your judgement on these scenarios.
I’d be very interested to respond to an apples to apples comparison, myself.
Since, for shock value, (As you admit below) you postulate an apples to oranges comparison, I’ll go ahead and rewrite it:
“Suppose there is a gay man there who is attracted to Tommy; who compliments him, pays attention to him, flirts with him, gives him his phone number, and asks him out on a date, and when Tommy says no, shrugs his shoulders and moves on?”
Because, IRL, this is usually -by far, far, far and away - what happens - not your rape scenario. Guy sees an attractive woman, guy engages said woman, guy makes overtures expressing interest, guy receives brush-off, guy moves on.
When I have gotten hit on by gay men, this is what I have done - the polite brush off. And when it is accepted, it ends there. I don’t over-react, because the gay guy is not a creep for asking - he becomes a creep depending on how he deals with the rejection of his overtures and flirtations.
Now, if you wish to extend the behavior that results from a rejection into creepy, stalking, criminal behavior - fine. No man deserves that from a woman or a gay man whose overtures they reject. No woman deserves it from a lesbian or man’s overtures they reject.
An admiring look, an offer of a phone number as a “I’m interested, call me if you are,” flirtation - these are not the same as refusing to take no for an answer, stalking, assault, or rape. It’s disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest, and you know it. Were I to rubricize all gay men who have ever come on to me with the brush of the persistent and creepy minority who kept up the wheedling, the fewer who insisted on groping me, or the one who stalked me, you’d call me out as a homophobic, gay-hating bigot.
But I bet you wonder where people get the idea that feminists are man-haters, though.
“…male attention is threatening in a way that female attention rarely is, for various reasons.”
Wrong.
“But the fact that girls might be turned on by guys’ bodies never seems to be acknowledged; when I told the program leader, he told me that girls aren’t visual creatures and don’t get sexually aroused - rather, they exchange sex for love, marriage, money, etc.”
Right. (That is to say: you’re absolutely correct to point out the program leader’s BS.)
In a nutshell, I told her that she dressed for attention from a boy, she got attention from boys - so, what exactly was her complaint?
Being sixteen, I’m not sure how well she articulated it. But probably it was confusion that she was interested in a particular boy, and the way girls are supposed to get a particular boy is to dress in a way that he notices and approaches them. Of course, unless Tommy is a fetishist with unusual clothing preferences, it’s rather hard to dress in a way that attracts only him without drawing the attention of other boys. And a girl who is dressed attractively is ‘fair game’ for anyone’s attention, expected to put up with that attention, and is sure to be told “What did you expect?” if she is uncomfortable with the unwanted attention.
Really, the issue here with Isky isn’t that he noticed the woman’s breasts. It’s that he appears to feel cheerfully entitled not only to stare at women, but to have them appreciate and acknowledge him for doing so.
An admiring look, an offer of a phone number as a “I’m interested, call me if you are,” flirtation - these are not the same as refusing to take no for an answer, stalking, assault, or rape.
Very few stalkers or rapists start off by grabbing their victims or telling them “Hi, nice to meet you, I’ve decided you’re going to be part of my life forever.” They start off the same way “nice”, persistent guys do. So women have the lovely choice of being paranoid, uptight bitches who think every guy is a rapist, vs. “what did you expect?” and being told they should have told a rapist or a stalker to get lost from the beginning.
But I bet you wonder where people get the idea that feminists are man-haters, though.
Better to be hated by twelve than carried by six.
Better to be hated by twelve than carried by six. ”
Thanks, mythago.
If I had a daughter in Gonzman’s situation, I would ask her why she didn’t go try to chat up Tommy herself rather than wait for him to “notice” her. As for the other guys hitting on her, if they guys were being creeps, then they’re being creeps. That is in NO WAY her fault, regardless of how she was dressed.
Gee, catty and Mythago, you mean if you’re trying to dress to impress it’s absolutely impossible to do a surgical strike? There’s no way to be 100% sure that you will attract only the person you want? You might have to utter the words “thanks, but no thanks” or something similar?
Must be an evil patriarchal plot against women.
Must be an evil patriarchal plot against women.
Or a way in which dating advice to women is sometimes dysfunctional, at any rate. Nothing wrong with having to utter the words, “thanks, but no thanks” a few times. Something rather more wrong with not being able to think of any way to get Tommy’s eye while you’re uttering the words “thanks, but no thanks” umpteen times, because the only tool in your kit is dressing to impress, and hoping Tommy reads your mind.
At a certain point, you really do need to break down and go over and talk to Tommy yourself, and not just go with the dress to impress route.
As for the other guys hitting on her, if they were being creeps, then the fact that she dressed to impress doesn’t excuse them, but there’s actually nothing in Gonz’s story to indicate that they were doing more than expressing interest before getting turned down. But, “hey, why not go over and chat up Tommy yourself” is probably better advice than “hey, be satisfied with the attention you got.” Unless the other guys actually were being creeps, she probably minded the being ignored by Tommy part of the equation more than the part where the other guys noticed her.
What she was wearing and the size of her breasts are strawmen that divert the argument away from whether or not men, should or have the right to look at a woman’s breasts.
I am 5′2″, weigh about 120lbs and my bra size is 34A. It doesn’t matter if I wear a t-shirt, a button down shirt for work, a sweater, a sports bra and tank top while jogging in 80 degree weather or a halter top, men stare at my breasts when they walk past. There is no justifiable reason for it.
Plenty of men, actually every boyfriend that I have had in my 28 years and quite a few others, have been able to communicate their attraction to me without staring at my breasts as I walked past them on the street, as I exercised at the gym or went for a jog, or even as I danced with them in a club.
Some women may like being looked at, but not all. In that light, assuming that any particular woman wants to be looked at, and moreover that she wants to be looked at by YOU, is self-centered and arrogant.
and with huge sense of entitlement!
//You might have to utter the words “thanks, but no thanks” or something similar?//
Sorry, but if most guys were content with “Thanks but no thanks,” I’d be able to get a drink at a bar in peace just once in my life. I’ve been called a bitch over things like “Sorry, I’m seeing someone,” “I have a boyfriend,” “I’ve got a girlfriend,” or “Sorry, I have to run.” Certainly, not all guys do this, and I’m not trying to imply that’s the case. The ones that do are the ones who keep talking to you after verbal and bodily clues that you’re not interested (no eye contact, negative body language like crossed arms and facing away, reading a book, one word answers, clock watching, making real or fake cell phone calls, etc), and they’re the problem in the first place, not the guys who smile and beg off and don’t waste your time — OR let you waste theirs.
So Katie, you’re saying some guys aren’t as nice as other guys.
I find it very difficult to believe this is a new or, for that matter, solvable problem.
The chief,
Just in case you’re unaware, there ARE polite ways to approach a woman. I generally tend to prefer the company of respectful people of both genders- and I have rarely heard my female friends call someone a creep if the guy approached her respectfully and backed off when she didn’t show interest.
I have nothing against men or women being polite and respectful when approaching strangers.
It’s not some patriarchal plot against women- I’m talking about ASSHOLES that harass women and won’t take no for an answer without wasting people’s time and becoming unpleasant. We’re not talking about respectful people.
It seems you don’t know the difference. When people say CREEP, I think of people that behave in a creepy manner. You must not think very much of your fellow men when you assume I’m talking about ALL men.
It took me a long, long time to learn that basically no woman would be offended if I smiled at them, introduced myself, and asked them out for coffee, and that when women bitch about asshole guys, they don’t mean me.
Wow, Chatty. I told you that if you dress attractively there’s a good possibility some guys you don’t want to attract are going to find you attractive. From this, you extrapolate that I think you believe all guys are creeps and that I myself dislike men.
That’s gotta be a new track and field record for the Jump To A Conclusion. Where are the Guinness people?
I told you that if you dress attractively there’s a good possibility some guys you don’t want to attract are going to find you attractive.
There is a difference, you know, between “if you dress attractively, there’s a good possibilitiy some guys you don’t want to attract are going to find you attractive” and “if you dress attractively, there’s a good possibility some guys are going to pursue you in ways that are creepy, ignoring your efforts to let them know you’re not interested.” When you told Katie, “some guys aren’t as nice as other guys” and that this wasn’t a “solvable problem,” you sounded as if you were straying into the latter territory - the one where women should just sort of accept that they’ve invited it when men approach them in ways that are actually creepy, because no better can be expected from men. That’s probably what Catty was reacting to.
Expect that men you don’t want to attract are going to find you attractive? Sure. Expect that you’ll have to go to the work of saying no to a few people? Sure. Expect, if you’re a teenage girl, that teenage boys will approach you in ways that are clumsy and awkward because they haven’t figured out what girls like yet? Sure. Expect, if you’re adult, that some men will still be pretty awkward, and others will be using approaches that other women would like, but that you find annoying? Sure. But once the type of approach moves into territory that women in general find creepy and scary, or once the man isn’t being put off by being turned down, then the problem you want to work on solving is the one where the men are being creepy in their approaches, not the one where the women are showing off their looks. And, whether or not creeps are an altogether “solvable problem,” they’re people too, and capable of figuring out in which venues people let them get away with being creepy, and of adjusting in times and places where the general level of tolerance of creepy approaches goes down.
Thank you Lynn.
You explained with far more patience and eloquence than I could have.
Hey Isky and Fred - have you heard the one about the ample cleavage crack that looks just like an ample bottom crack… ample bottom = ample hips = ease of child birth = good female mating partner. We dont see eachothers’ bare bottoms any more and, so Germaine Greer has argued (back in 1999), we use cleavages as a subsitute! well its as good as any other theory I’ve heard/red on the subject.
Men and women look at eachother - I’ll definitely look at attractive men who cross my path if I can - I love a man’s chest just as much as Isky seems to love a woman’s! But I am also aware of being in the company of another person who will no doubt have feelings. It is always rude to stare - so I do my level best not to and I don’t assume that a man who is showing his chest is doing so because he wants female attention (although I’m sure some do) as one could never be certain. Making this assumption would be a recipe for causing offence.
According to the story you passed on, ‘Isky’ wanted a look at breasts, and he got a look at breasts. If he did not get what he wanted (as the story implies), that seems logically to imply that he wanted something other than to simply look at breasts. I personally have an analytical approach to these matters, and I tend to ask myself what relationship (in the broadest sense) I have to the people I meet, and how I can make the encounter positive (or at least neutral) for myself and them. I bicycle a lot, and find myself riding with men and women, admiring their style and grace. Adding to the stress of another cyclist would spoil the pleasure of the ride for me, so I take some care not to do it, to give people their space and show respect.
However, when Hugo and others articulate the the fostering of positive emotions in others as a duty, I think of the following story. I have had the unpleasant experience f an adult poisoning; a doctor miscalculated the dose in a prescription, and I had a night of convulsions and shakes (the drug could have stopped my heart, so I got lucky). The experience left me very careful, even paranoid, about what went into anything I ate or drank. Some years later, when I went to get coffee at a campus cafe, a student in a hurry leaned over me to throw out tea bag, and dripped her tea into my coffee. I felt angry and frightened. I perceived a harried student, trying to grab some tea and get to class, had just behaved a touch rudely, and however authentic my history and the emotions resulting from that history, unloading on her, holding her responsible for my experience, would not work. The experience helped to confirm my rejection of emotionalism as a basis for ethics. I don’t hold others responsible for what I feel because I don’t ell everyone my history. I do react to what I perceive as intentional disrespect, particularly intentional disregard for my physical safety (as an urban cyclist, I have plenty of opportunity to do that).