Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Open Source Boob Project: degrading or celebrating women?

1679111229

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    why does he have to be 'worse than a fratboy' to be a bad person

    you are terrible at life

    tmsig.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    You honestly don't see how trying to cheat on your girlfriend with a mentally ill homeless person is unethical? Really? You don't see how maybe, just maybe, this shows a trend of viewing women as sex objects and not having any regard to their health and stability?

    It's obviously unethical. My point was, I don't see how it's any worse than the behavior of your average 22-year-old fratboy. This guy might be a creep, but he doesn't have a monopoly on cheating or narcissism.

    Well, there's the whole "exploiting someone's clearly visible problems for fun and profit regardless of how it fucks them over" aspect.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Ugly people have it harder than attractive people.
    Ugly women have it harder than ugly men.
    Attractive women have it harder than attractive men.
    On these three points, I think we can all agree.

    Feral I think you've hit on the sad-but-true essence of the matter.

    We could parse whether or not say, an attractive well-dressed woman would get a job over a poorly dressed man. But I think we're all essentially in agreement. There are stupid expectations out there working against us all, and it's not a fair game.

    Unless you are an attractive man.

    3DS Friend Code: 0817-5033-8184 // Nintendo Network ID: AbsoluteZero
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    Am I the only one that noticed that The Cat linked a study (first one) that didn't support what she said (study mentioned nothing about the affect on men, as it didn't study it), then said being overweight wouldn't affect men's financial prospects, then linked a study that found they make 1.87 percent less for every 10% overweight they are?

    I only point this out because, whereas I think The Cat is a wonderful advocate for her points, I think the "men can be sloppy and it's ok, women can't" argument is bullshit. Sorry for being late to the party.

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Am I the only one that noticed that The Cat linked a study (first one) that didn't support what she said (study mentioned nothing about the affect on men, as it didn't study it), then said being overweight wouldn't affect men's financial prospects, then linked a study that found they make 1.87 percent less for every 10% overweight they are?

    I only point this out because, whereas I think The Cat is a wonderful advocate for her points, I think the "men can be sloppy and it's ok, women can't" argument is bullshit. Sorry for being late to the party.

    Um, her point still stands, because women are going to take a bigger hit per amount of weight over they are. Look at the recent vote over the Leadbetter Fair Pay Act, and McCain's rather uninformed and disgusting comments in reference to his opposition to the bill - he tried to pawn it off as a matter of lack of training, which if you had read the case was not the matter at all. These are the sorts of hurdles that women face, and saying "well men also have (much smaller) hurdles as well" doesn't help your case.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    The first study did back up my point, actually, and the other one simply, I think, reflects changing beliefs and regional differences. Neither cancels my point that gender bias affects economic prospect in a number of fundamentally unfair ways.

    tmsig.jpg
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    The Cat wrote: »
    The first study did back up my point, actually, and the other one simply, I think, reflects changing beliefs and regional differences. Neither cancels my point that gender bias affects economic prospect in a number of fundamentally unfair ways.
    The first study speaks exclusively to the impact that weight has on women in the career world and my understanding of your argument (which is what you were responding to a challenge of) is that weight affects women and not men. The article didn't speak to whether or not it affects men at all. That's why I said it doesn't back your point.

    Now, I think you're trying to reframe your argument from something specific that the articles don't support (weight doesn't affect men and it affects women in the workplace) to something broader that could umbrella the articles (unfair gender bias).
    Um, her point still stands, because women are going to take a bigger hit per amount of weight over they are.
    Not if she's asked to support it, and she didn't.
    These are the sorts of hurdles that women face, and saying "well men also have (much smaller) hurdles as well" doesn't help your case.
    But it sure does help to say that and then prove it when someone says "these hurdles don't exist."

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    Or she just meant that they don't exist to the degree that they exist or women? Because that seems pretty true enough. I like to think it's changing for the better, though.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    I sort of glad his intentions weren't initially malicious, but I am severely disappointed that he didn't think it through, and apparently he didn't stop when he realized it was a way for him to vicariously defeat the sexual frustration of his youth.
    Do they not have titty bars where he's from?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    Or she just meant that they don't exist to the degree that they exist or women? Because that seems pretty true enough. I like to think it's changing for the better, though.
    And I'd be willing to go for that, if she didn't repeatedly say that it didn't exist at all.

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    He also used the phrase "and lo" like he's an apostle or biblical prophet or something. Seriously, if you were born in the last 2,000 years, using the phrase "and lo" is just creepy. And you gain another thousand creepy points if you use it in a self-righteous sexual context. Yes, I'm being serious...I think his language says a lot about his character and where his head was when he formulated this "project."
    So what you're saying is that in eleven years or so he's going to start a suicidal sex cult?

    This is the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    He also used the phrase "and lo" like he's an apostle or biblical prophet or something. Seriously, if you were born in the last 2,000 years, using the phrase "and lo" is just creepy. And you gain another thousand creepy points if you use it in a self-righteous sexual context. Yes, I'm being serious...I think his language says a lot about his character and where his head was when he formulated this "project."
    So what you're saying is that in eleven years or so he's going to start a suicidal sex cult?

    This is the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day.

    No, I don't see where I said anything about suicide, or a sex cult, or a suicidal sex cult. And frankly I'm not sure if you're calling my paragraph "the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day" or the piece of The Ferret's monologue that I am referring to. I'll assume you're not talking about mine, as that would be rather idiotic.

    If you really don't think there's a problem saying "and lo! we touched the boobies" (yeah, I'm paraphrasing), then you don't understand even layman's psychology or the English language and how they relate.

    steam_sig.png
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    The Cat wrote: »
    why does he have to be 'worse than a fratboy' to be a bad person

    you are terrible at life

    Because a fratboy pushed me and then stole my Gameboy. They are all now the scum of the Earth.

    mrsatansig.png
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    He also used the phrase "and lo" like he's an apostle or biblical prophet or something. Seriously, if you were born in the last 2,000 years, using the phrase "and lo" is just creepy. And you gain another thousand creepy points if you use it in a self-righteous sexual context. Yes, I'm being serious...I think his language says a lot about his character and where his head was when he formulated this "project."
    So what you're saying is that in eleven years or so he's going to start a suicidal sex cult?

    This is the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day.

    No, I don't see where I said anything about suicide, or a sex cult, or a suicidal sex cult. And frankly I'm not sure if you're calling my paragraph "the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day" or the piece of The Ferret's monologue that I am referring to. I'll assume you're not talking about mine, as that would be rather idiotic.
    Yeah, I mean his article/post/whatever is the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day, and his using the phrase "and lo" like a prophet makes me wonder if he'll get that sex cult going.

    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Ugh what the hell is up with this.

    Who even goes around talking to a woman and being like "hey can I touch your boobs". Normal people don't do that. Oogling is fine, touching isn't.
    Ogling isn't really fine either. It's pretty rude to just stare at a woman's chest, though it's less creepy than asking her if you can touch.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    He also used the phrase "and lo" like he's an apostle or biblical prophet or something. Seriously, if you were born in the last 2,000 years, using the phrase "and lo" is just creepy. And you gain another thousand creepy points if you use it in a self-righteous sexual context. Yes, I'm being serious...I think his language says a lot about his character and where his head was when he formulated this "project."
    So what you're saying is that in eleven years or so he's going to start a suicidal sex cult?

    This is the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day.

    No, I don't see where I said anything about suicide, or a sex cult, or a suicidal sex cult. And frankly I'm not sure if you're calling my paragraph "the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day" or the piece of The Ferret's monologue that I am referring to. I'll assume you're not talking about mine, as that would be rather idiotic.
    Yeah, I mean his article/post/whatever is the most ridiculously and embarrassingly pathetic thing I've read all day, and his using the phrase "and lo" like a prophet makes me wonder if he'll get that sex cult going.

    Okay, sorry, I really thought you were talking about my post for a moment which befuddled me.

    I scratched my head. Literally. Granted I have an itchy pimple up there, but still...

    steam_sig.png
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Well I say "oogling" but obviously I don't mean like standing there, mouth gaping and eyes bulged. But the day it's a crime to look at an attractive woman is a day the terrorists win.

    Rock Band DLC | Gamertag: PrimusD | WLD - Thortar
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    Ogling isn't really fine either. It's pretty rude to just stare at a woman's chest, though it's less creepy than asking her if you can touch.
    This is something I just don't get. Women dress a certain way to get attention, and then complain about the attention that they get. It's like going bass fishing and thinking it's a crime when you keep catching bluegills.*
    Spoiler:

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    I think there's some sense of you should be able to dress to look good and not be an object for it.

    I think there's also a desire to be outraged in some cases, when you blatantly dress with everything hanging out and then loudly protest that anyone notices.

    I solve this by wearing a banana hammock when walking around central square.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    kildy wrote: »
    I think there's some sense of you should be able to dress to look good and not be an object for it.

    I think there's also a desire to be outraged in some cases, when you blatantly dress with everything hanging out and then loudly protest that anyone notices.

    I solve this by wearing a banana hammock when walking around central square.


    Well that's fine as long as you have a decent body. Otherwise, hell no.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Ogling isn't really fine either. It's pretty rude to just stare at a woman's chest, though it's less creepy than asking her if you can touch.
    This is something I just don't get. Women dress a certain way to get attention, and then complain about the attention that they get. It's like going bass fishing and thinking it's a crime when you keep catching bluegills.*
    Spoiler:

    The problem is in assuming that women dress in certain ways to attract attention. They may be dressing that way because they feel good dressed that way. Because a girl wears a miniskirt does not mean she is trying to get people to ogle her, oogle her, or even moogle her. Sometimes googling works, though, if you get their name.

    Jokes aside, seriously, it's a faux pas to assume that women want to attract attention. I'm not suggesting that they want to REPEL attention, but that attracting attention isn't necessarily a part of their thought process when they get dressed. That attracting attention appears to be a natural symptom of dressing, um, "hotly" isn't the same thing as dressing that way for that purpose.

    Also, I'm pretty sure fish are universally disgusting.

    steam_sig.png
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Ogling isn't really fine either. It's pretty rude to just stare at a woman's chest, though it's less creepy than asking her if you can touch.
    This is something I just don't get. Women dress a certain way to get attention, and then complain about the attention that they get. It's like going bass fishing and thinking it's a crime when you keep catching bluegills.*
    Spoiler:

    How do you know why a woman dresses the way she does? Wearing something that looks nice on her does not automatically mean her motivation is male attention.

    You statement is dangerously close to "if she didn't want to be raped, she wouldn't have been wearing that skirt!"

    EDIT: Hi5 drez

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    I'd complain about the stupidity of the button thing, but honestly it's also completely unnecessary. How do you find the girls at cons who don't mind you touching their boobs? They're probably the ones dressed in the attention whore, falling out of the top outfits. They're usually fairly easy to find. Just ask to go back to your room instead of groping right in the damn open, sheesh.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    A moogle in a dress would creep me the fuck out.


    Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
    get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
    have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    Medopine wrote: »
    How do you know why a woman dresses the way she does? Wearing something that looks nice on her does not automatically mean her motivation is male attention.
    In speaking in the specific terms of "cons," and my limited experience with them, I'll gladly make a logical assumption. If some girl goes out with a few cotton balls strategically glued to her to look like the cat chick off the Marvel vs. Capcom game, then yeah, I'll say she's looking for attention. She knew she was going to get it and welcomed it. This is exactly what happened with the Star Wars con that I went to regarding the girls in the gold bikinis.

    It's absolutely moronic and disingenuous to say that women don't dress for attention. The girls at the Packers game in the snow who wore the cheese bikini tops? Attention seeking. They wanted attention and they got it. If they didn't want attention, they wouldn't have done it.

    I just don't understand the argument against that. Please explain.
    You statement is dangerously close to "if she didn't want to be raped, she wouldn't have been wearing that skirt!"
    Yeah, let's not start that stupid argument (which most people would agree is stupid, although the people who engage in the argument are not).

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    Nice, Attractive Clothing? Not attention seeking.

    Completely out of place "I'm wearing a bikini top to a bar nowhere near a beach"? Probably wants attention.

    I can understand wanting to look nice in general. I also know that even guys may dress to get attention when they go out.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    Your original statement was pretty sweeping and general, which is what people are taking issue with. If you want to limit it to specific instances like you mentioned, that's fine. Other than extreme examples like that, it's totally unfair and unwarranted to assume that "women dress for attention."

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    How do you know why a woman dresses the way she does? Wearing something that looks nice on her does not automatically mean her motivation is male attention.
    In speaking in the specific terms of "cons," and my limited experience with them, I'll gladly make a logical assumption. If some girl goes out with a few cotton balls strategically glued to her to look like the cat chick off the Marvel vs. Capcom game, then yeah, I'll say she's looking for attention. She knew she was going to get it and welcomed it. This is exactly what happened with the Star Wars con that I went to regarding the girls in the gold bikinis.

    It's absolutely moronic and disingenuous to say that women don't dress for attention. The girls at the Packers game in the snow who wore the cheese bikini tops? Attention seeking. They wanted attention and they got it. If they didn't want attention, they wouldn't have done it.

    I just don't understand the argument against that. Please explain.

    Maybe they just wanted to look like Princess Laia. You cannot universally prove that all women who dress scantily do it "to get attention." The assumption is incorrect. It is not justified because (a) they do get attention (which is something of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, that because the effect of dressing proves that they dressed specifically to get attention or (b) because some women seem to appreciate the attention or even (c) because they dressed scantilier than some arbitrary Mason-Dixon line you've drawn to decide who is an "attention whore" and who is merely an innocent girl about town.

    And, for the record, there's nothing wrong with appreciating the attention, but it is incorrect to assume that dressing to get that attention.

    I think your argument is even LESS true in the context of a costumed affair like a convention specifically because people dress up to idolize their...heroes or whatever. You could make a better case for halloween, in fact, than a comic convention.

    It's completely false (not disingenuous, but outright incorrect) to assume all women who dress in some "hot" fashion are doing it for attention. Honest to God if this thread does nothing else I hope it opens some minds to this. Yes, in some contexts, a women may dress a certain way to get attention. Hookers dress a certain way to attract their clients and it would be false to suggest otherwise. Cheerleaders and Hooters waitresses are given the outfits they are given to, yes, attract attention. But the girl wearing a Poison Ivy costume, or the business lady in a short skirt, or whatever else? No, not necessarily. You need to stop assuming this, because it's wrong. I don't think anyone is arguing that NO women dress to get attention, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume ALL girls who dress below some square-inch textile threshold are seeking attention.

    steam_sig.png
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    physical appearance certainly will help you
    That's the entire point.

    Well, duh. If you are a very handsome guy, it factors in. However, being ugly does not work against you as a man.
    ...
    It's the same thing.

    "You are worse off if you are not attractive" is the same thing as "You are better off if you are attractive."
    The Cat wrote: »
    The first study did back up my point, actually, and the other one simply, I think, reflects changing beliefs and regional differences. Neither cancels my point that gender bias affects economic prospect in a number of fundamentally unfair ways.
    So you're changing your argument and admitting I'm right? You said that a man's appearance has no bearing on his career. Look I have a quote:
    The Cat wrote: »
    being overweight or an uggo or a not-snappy dresser will not affect a male's financial and career prospects.
    I mean, just stop talking in absolutes.

  • PodlyPodly RUDEASS TITTIES Registered User regular
    Being ugly certainly works against you as a man.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    biden%20sig.png
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    *shakes head*

    We were talking about the women at cons, specifically the scantily dressed ones. I thought it went without saying, due to the context of the conversation, that's what I was referring to. If there was confusion, fine. I'll admit I made the assumption that everyone would view my comment in that context.
    Drez wrote:
    I think your argument is even LESS true in the context of a costumed affair like a convention specifically because people dress up to idolize their...heroes or whatever. You could make a better case for halloween, in fact, than a comic convention.
    But I couldn't even make the argument then if me saying "women = majority" and you saying "women = all." We can always find an outlier to invalidate any argument.

    And sure, maybe they did want to look like Leia. So did other a few others who managed to do it without wearing the gold bikinis. Of course, the others didn't get as much attention or pose for nearly as many pictures while we were all lined up in the Indiana Room.
    Drez wrote:
    Hookers dress a certain way to attract their clients and it would be false to suggest otherwise. Cheerleaders and Hooters waitresses are given the outfits they are given to, yes, attract attention. But the girl wearing a Poison Ivy costume, or the business lady in a short skirt, or whatever else? No, not necessarily. You need to stop assuming this, because it's wrong.
    Seriously? I mean, this paragraph? Seriously? Man, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    There's also a difference between ogling and simply looking. It's not an unreasonable assumption to make that a woman dressed in a certain way at a certain place wants attention, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to stare at her tits. Subtlety, people.

    Also, as specifically regards cons - a lot of female characters are skimpily clad, thus when a woman wants to dress up as a character, they have a good chance of ending up wearing something not very conservative almost by default.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    That woman's outfit arouses me. She must have put it on to garner male attention!

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    Medopine wrote: »
    That woman's outfit arouses me. She must have put it on to garner male attention!
    Seriously, I don't even know how to tackle that viewpoint. I considered doing a breakdown of the premises but I don't think I'm going to make any headway. x(

    words
  • PodlyPodly RUDEASS TITTIES Registered User regular
    I know that I dress to attract female attention. But I'm also kinda vain.

    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    biden%20sig.png
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    Medopine wrote: »
    That woman's outfit arouses me. She must have put it on to garner male attention!
    That woman is wearing a miniskirt, see through top, and stilettos while walking back and forth through the truckstop in the dead of winter. She must be lost and from out of town. NO FUCKING WAY she's a prostitute.

    See, we can do this dumb shit all day. It's even better for me because I'm wasting tax dollars to do it.

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    That woman's outfit arouses me. She must have put it on to garner male attention!
    That woman is wearing a miniskirt, see through top, and stilettos while walking back and forth through the truckstop in the dead of winter. She must be lost and from out of town. NO FUCKING WAY she's a prostitute.

    See, we can do this dumb shit all day. It's even better for me because I'm wasting tax dollars to do it.
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    *shakes head*

    We were talking about the women at cons, specifically the scantily dressed ones. I thought it went without saying, due to the context of the conversation, that's what I was referring to. If there was confusion, fine. I'll admit I made the assumption that everyone would view my comment in that context.
    Rephrase your analogy to fit your own rules, then we'll talk. ;)

    words
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    That woman's outfit arouses me. She must have put it on to garner male attention!
    That woman is wearing a miniskirt, see through top, and stilettos while walking back and forth through the truckstop in the dead of winter. She must be lost and from out of town. NO FUCKING WAY she's a prostitute.

    See, we can do this dumb shit all day. It's even better for me because I'm wasting tax dollars to do it.

    Yeah that's not my goddamn point at all. You can show me, and I agree, that there are instances when a woman does dress a certain way solely for the attention she will get from males.

    This does not extrapolate to any kind of blanket assumption about why women dress however they dress. Assumptions like that lead to bad things like blaming a woman's outfit instead of her rapist.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    kildy wrote: »
    Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
    No, it's not. Wanting attention of any variety is one possible motivation among a nearly-infinite (though of course, much smaller in practicality) set of motivations. The other groups of motivations that are especially important here are, as aforementioned, stuff like attachment to the character.

    words
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    I think we can safely say that in any instance blaming an inanimate object (clothing) on an action (rape) is an absolutely stupid thing that tries to move blame on an action away from the only thing acting.

    I don't blame a tree for me walking into a tree, though it totally had stripped bark and wanted it.

Sign In or Register to comment.