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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.*
As I understand it, a lot of people like bluegills, but others find them to be garbage fish that just get in the way. I've never been fishing, so as an urban male, I went with something I remembered from a fishing video game I played once.
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.
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.
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.*
As I understand it, a lot of people like bluegills, but others find them to be garbage fish that just get in the way. I've never been fishing, so as an urban male, I went with something I remembered from a fishing video game I played once.
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.
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.*
As I understand it, a lot of people like bluegills, but others find them to be garbage fish that just get in the way. I've never been fishing, so as an urban male, I went with something I remembered from a fishing video game I played once.
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!"
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.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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).
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."
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(
Oboro on
words
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
I know that I dress to attract female attention. But I'm also kinda vain.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts
you are terrible at life
Well, there's the whole "exploiting someone's clearly visible problems for fun and profit regardless of how it fucks them over" aspect.
Unless you are an attractive man.
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.
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).
Not if she's asked to support it, and she didn't.
But it sure does help to say that and then prove it when someone says "these hurdles don't exist."
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.
Because a fratboy pushed me and then stole my Gameboy. They are all now the scum of the Earth.
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.
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...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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." 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: I mean, just stop talking in absolutes.
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.
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.
Seriously? I mean, this paragraph? Seriously? Man, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
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.
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.
I don't blame a tree for me walking into a tree, though it totally had stripped bark and wanted it.