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.
So you'd put in hours of effort to make a costume of a character and wear it to a con involving said character and not actually want anyone to pay any mind to it.
I find this extremely hard to believe. Drawing pictures? Sure. Making dolls or whatnot? Whatever. Wearing an outfit of the character to a con? At the Very Least you're making a statement to the creators of that character or their fans that you are a fan as well. Attention.
Attention is not Attention Whoring. It's your actions being noticed.
kildy on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'm guessing I'm about to open myself up to a barrage of ridicule here, but can someone explain to me what's so horrible or depraved about this "Homeless Woman" story? Yeah, the story is pretty bizarre, but I thought it was entertaining.
I really can't begin to explain all the things wrong with the story...it's that bad.
I'm not trying to bait anyone, I just don't see how this story is that much different than your typical "guy in a relationship has an affair with woman from work / woman he met in bookstore / whatever". I mean, his relationship with his girlfriend wasn't particularly healthy (but not uncommon), and his only interest in this other woman was to get laid (unfortunate, but still not uncommon). I just don't see how the fact that the woman was homeless, or the fact that she ended up being somewhat unstable, makes his actions any worse.
Well here's the things that are to me:
How far he's willing to go to get into this lady's pants. He listens to her crazy rants while not even caring and acknowledges her lack of hygiene. Hell, he's basically ignoring every basic reason NOT to have sex with this woman. Who knows what she may have. In the process he gets goaded into hustling for change to buy bottom of the barrel pot with a team of ex-cons, talks about how he's cheated before and other past sexual experiences that I think supports the idea that he is a sexual deviant.
Things things all add up to him really just so desperate for sex that he ultimately says fuck it, let's try this boob project idea.
Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
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.
*sigh*
Medo, did you not see my previous post? The one in which I said that I assumed the "blanket statement" you were referring to was to be read specifically into this conversation about girls at cons? Ie. The scantily clad women at cons are doing it for attention because we all know scantily clad women in these environments bring on a lot of attention (like the Gaming "booth babes"). I said this just two posts up. Why must you keep trying to take that statement out of my assumed context (and because I didn't put it in that context in the beginning, I tried to clarify what I meant and why I didn't explicitly state it) to make some overall reaching point?
And please, could you stop with that bullshit emotional rape argument? Please?
Rephrase your analogy to fit your own rules, then we'll talk.
Wait, huh? I'm confused for real. My brain automatically shuts down on my lunch break. Do you want me to take my prostitute analogy and put in cosplayers instead? (don't make fun of me, it's Friday)
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.
So you'd put in hours of effort to make a costume of a character and wear it to a con involving said character and not actually want anyone to pay any mind to it.
I find this extremely hard to believe. Drawing pictures? Sure. Making dolls or whatnot? Whatever. Wearing an outfit of the character to a con? At the Very Least you're making a statement to the creators of that character or their fans that you are a fan as well. Attention.
Attention is not Attention Whoring. It's your actions being noticed.
You're conflating a whole shitload of variables and motivations. Attention is something garnered from externalities, and can be entirely inconsequential if someone's motivations were completely internal (and then, their validation would come solely from having accomplished their goal).
Of course, it's usually a combination of these external and internal goals, but that still makes you completely wrong.
Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
We're not making that claim. o_O
EDIT t Ragga -- rephrasing it in terms of cosplayers would be better, just because it'd keep us all on the same page.
Oboro on
words
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
You said technically, as if someone dresses up if and only if they want attention. It could be that they really like star-trek, have star-trek fantasies, or are part of a group going as the whole ship or something. Yes, attention may come with it, but that does not mean one does it because they want attention.
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.
Yes, because the idea that maybe a girl is dressing to get attention from the opposite sex totally invalidates the idea of sexual consent.
They make them there slopes pretty damn slippery where you live, huh?
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'd say there are a lot of instances where women dress the way they do to get attention from men. Same goes for men. The thing is, in both cases they're probably only really looking for attention from members of the opposite sex that they find attractive...a miniskirt does little except draw attention to your legs, but that doesn't mean you want every fat lonely loser checking you out all day.
But seriously, you don't wear pants with "JUICY" (or anything else, really) written across the ass if you're not trying to draw attention to it. Like, a lot of attention. Don't act all indignant if you catch me looking because you don't think I'm all omghot.
Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
We're not making that claim. o_O
EDIT t Ragga -- rephrasing it in terms of cosplayers would be better, just because it'd keep us all on the same page.
Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
You said technically, as if someone dresses up if and only if they want attention. It could be that they really like star-trek, have star-trek fantasies, or are part of a group going as the whole ship or something. Yes, attention may come with it, but that does not mean one does it because they want attention.
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
I find this so far out of the possible that I'd postulate that people post on message boards due to a desire to type, not out of any desire for anyone to read their statements. Is it possible? Sure, I guess?
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.
Yes, because the idea that maybe a girl is dressing to get attention from the opposite sex totally invalidates the idea of sexual consent.
They make them there slopes pretty damn slippery where you live, huh?
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'd say there are a lot of instances where women dress the way they do to get attention from men. Same goes for men. The thing is, in both cases they're probably only really looking for attention from members of the opposite sex that they find attractive...a miniskirt does little except draw attention to your legs, but that doesn't mean you want every fat lonely loser checking you out all day.
But seriously, you don't wear pants with "JUICY" (or anything else, really) written across the ass if you're not trying to draw attention to it. Like, a lot of attention. Don't act all indignant if you catch me looking because you don't think I'm all omghot.
Let me just lay it out here:
I am NOT denying people dress for attention, or that women dress for attention. That's just stupid. Of course people do that.
I AM denying that it is at all useful and in fact is rather dangerous to ASSUME that a woman is dressing for attention, outside of a few extreme examples. These extremes may include some, but not all, women who dress up for cons.
Technically dressing up at a con is wanting attention, just not technically Sexual attention, nor attention from every random jackass.
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
You said technically, as if someone dresses up if and only if they want attention. It could be that they really like star-trek, have star-trek fantasies, or are part of a group going as the whole ship or something. Yes, attention may come with it, but that does not mean one does it because they want attention.
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
I find this so far out of the possible that I'd postulate that people post on message boards due to a desire to type, not out of any desire for anyone to read their statements. Is it possible? Sure, I guess?
Look, retard.
Not wanting attention doesn't mean you want no attention paid to you.
I AM denying that it is at all useful and in fact is rather dangerous to ASSUME that a woman is dressing for attention, outside of a few extreme examples. These extremes may include some, but not all, women who dress up for cons.
Oboro on
words
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
This is a false dichotomy. If you do not dress with the expressed desire of wanting attention, it does not mean that you do not want attention. What it means is that people may pay you attention regardless of your desire for it. If you do not seek out attention yet are given it nonetheless, it does not mean you do not want the attention; rather, it simply is a product of social interaction. I can order a coffee from a cute barista and be friendly to her without actually trying to be flirtatious, but if we end up hitting off that's cool tool. I did not talk to her to get her number, but if it happened than it was a product of social interaction.
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.
Did you stop shaking your head when you realized I disagreed with you within the convention context?
Did you stop shaking your head when you realized that you actually do believe this is more or less universally true, as evidenced by your agreement to disagree with my overall point about women?
I dunno, man. I feel like typing out "*shakes head*" in a condescending manner only works if your point is valid, which it isn't. Not only did I specifically address the convention thing, but you also disagree with my overall point about women...so, uh, I guess you should be shaking your head at yourself.
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.
Let's for argument's sake agree that a majority of conventioneers who dress scantily are doing it for attention. Do you then believe that you are entitled to the default assumption that scantily clad women are attention seekers?
Your argument is a complete failure because it is predicated on the fact that there is some line to be crossed where a woman becomes an attention seeker. Do you know how relevant it is that some women managed to look like Princess Laia without gold bikinis? Not at all. It is not relevant at all. In fact - though I'm not sure this word has the appropriate punch - I will say it is wholly "irrelevant."
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.
Which part do you disagree with? That hookers dress to attract clientele or that a woman wearing a miniskirt in public isn't necessarily doing it to grab your attention? Because I assure you I am correct on both counts and I hate to be an asshole (haha, no I don't) but I think it's pretty sad if you really, truly believe that women operate this way, either all women, the majority of women, or even on average. And even if most or many women do, you would still be a total jackass to assume anything of the sort about a woman dressing "hotly" or "scantily" or whatever.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
It's also important to note, which many people don't get, is that people can dress for "attention" without caring about the attention of your gross disgusting self. If a good looking girl is wearing a mini-skirt, she is not saying "hey you with the dorito breath! Take me!"
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
I find this so far out of the possible that I'd postulate that people post on message boards due to a desire to type, not out of any desire for anyone to read their statements. Is it possible? Sure, I guess?
Ok, how about if it's put this way:
Just because a woman wears a low cut top which shows off her awesome knockers to go get drinks, it doesn't mean she wants to be propositioned, fondled, or fucked by anyone who comes along. Including you.
Restate your overall point here. What is it again?
Ok, reset.
A comment was made about oogling cosplay women rather than grabbing a handful of chest, but oogling wasn't as ok as looking. I said I didn't understand that, as the dressing (without explicitly saying cosplay) was done for attention. Enter tangent about generalities.
My overall point is when women dress up in revealing outfits for these cons, they are doing it to get attention. This has been reinforced by my limited experience. I don't understand why they get upset over this attention. Of course, I haven't asked each and every individual woman who's ever done it why they did it, but certain assumptions have to be made or we could never discuss anything.
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
This is a false dichotomy. If you do not dress with the expressed desire of wanting attention, it does not mean that you do not want attention. What it means is that people may pay you attention regardless of your desire for it. If you do not seek out attention yet are given it nonetheless, it does not mean you do not want the attention; rather, it simply is a product of social interaction. I can order a coffee from a cute barista and be friendly to her without actually trying to be flirtatious, but if we end up hitting off that's cool tool. I did not talk to her to get her number, but if it happened than it was a product of social interaction.
And what I'm saying is that it's also false to state that normal interactions (talking to a barista? Normal.) are not entirely analogous to abnormal interactions (dressing up like a character from a show? Not day to day normal.)
Attention is not a bad thing. You do not put massive amounts of effort into something and not want it to be noticed.
One does not spend large blocks of time, effort and money in a project and not desire someone to say "wow, nice work", or "you put a lot of effort into that!"
I do not posit that everyone wants attention at all times, that would be silly. I'm positing that putting that much effort into something desires a response from those for whom it is intended. Which is, technically, a definition of attention.
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
I find this so far out of the possible that I'd postulate that people post on message boards due to a desire to type, not out of any desire for anyone to read their statements. Is it possible? Sure, I guess?
Ok, how about if it's put this way:
Just because a woman wears a low cut top which shows off her awesome knockers to go get drinks, it doesn't mean she wants to be propositioned, fondled, or fucked by anyone who comes along. Including you.
And I have, at no point, said that is true. In fact, I've said.. the opposite?
Restate your overall point here. What is it again?
Ok, reset.
A comment was made about oogling cosplay women rather than grabbing a handful of chest, but oogling wasn't as ok as looking. I said I didn't understand that, as the dressing (without explicitly saying cosplay) was done for attention. Enter tangent about generalities.
My overall point is when women dress up in revealing outfits for these cons, they are doing it to get attention. This has been reinforced by my limited experience. I don't understand why they get upset over this attention. Of course, I haven't asked each and every individual woman who's ever done it why they did it, but certain assumptions have to be made or we could never discuss anything.
That's pretty much was it.
The problem here is you make no distinction between dressing for attention and dressing for sexual attention.
kildy, you are choosing to remain completely ignorant to any motivations -- internal, or external ones even -- that are not, "I did this because I want people to pay attention to me in some fashion." In addition to that, as Podly said, you're espousing a false dichotomy.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
The thing that bothers me is the justification implied in this kind of attitude. "Well, she's an attention seeker." I know Medopine was dismissed earlier but there is a vague echo of "well, she was wearing a miniskirt, so she was asking for it!" in here. The idea that women seek attention and thus it is okay to ogle, stare, or bug them as a result is rather despicable. And this Ferret guy takes it two steps further. Not only does he suggest that his perverse behavior is something of a gift to these women who appreciate the attention, but he went ahead and started a whole system for it. With fucking buttons.
Come on.
Look, I look at attractive women. I do. I'm a man. I do it now and then. I try not to be creepy about it. But when I do it, I don't do it while simultaneously pretending that I'm giving these women the attention they want. I think that kind of disconnect DOES lead to sexually abusive behavior, or control issues, or at the very least indicates a real lack of understanding or care or both on how other people think and how we should act toward them. I'm not going to pretend that I never look at women, that my eyes never linger, perhaps inappropriately now and then, but I'm also not going to pretend that it's because a girl wants me leering and drooling at her (not that I do that, but I'm making a point).
kildy, you are choosing to remain completely ignorant to any motivations -- internal, or external ones even -- that are not, "I did this because I want people to pay attention to me in some fashion." In addition to that, as Podly said, you're espousing a false dichotomy.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
And you're completely failing to address my point that someone does not put large volumes of time effort and money into something, then specifically plop it down in public and not want anyone to see it.
That's illogical. That has no possible logical sense behind it. At all.
I draw. I like drawing. My motivation for doing so is that I enjoy doing it as an activity.
I do not put up my drawings in the street. Why? Because the Only possible motivation to make that move from being a private activity to a public activity is... Oh yeah, other people. That part that makes it Public.
kildy, you are choosing to remain completely ignorant to any motivations -- internal, or external ones even -- that are not, "I did this because I want people to pay attention to me in some fashion." In addition to that, as Podly said, you're espousing a false dichotomy.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
And you're completely failing to address my point that someone does not put large volumes of time effort and money into something, then specifically plop it down in public and not want anyone to see it.
That's illogical. That has no possible logical sense behind it. At all.
I draw. I like drawing. My motivation for doing so is that I enjoy doing it as an activity.
I do not put up my drawings in the street. Why? Because the Only possible motivation to make that move from being a private activity to a public activity is... Oh yeah, other people. That part that makes it Public.
Your point is completely predicated on the fact that all people seek external validation [attention] for their work, and that the work they do cannot in any way be validated internally or through other external means -- hence why I'm harping on your ignorance of the fact that other external mechanisms and especially internal mechanisms exist.
Also, you continue to view this as a false dichotomy. So. I could basically have quoted my post you quoted yourself, since you quoted it and then made all of the mistakes that it's asking you to rectify. Your take on "public" versus "private" is also hopelessly narrow and illogical.
kildy, you are choosing to remain completely ignorant to any motivations -- internal, or external ones even -- that are not, "I did this because I want people to pay attention to me in some fashion." In addition to that, as Podly said, you're espousing a false dichotomy.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
And you're completely failing to address my point that someone does not put large volumes of time effort and money into something, then specifically plop it down in public and not want anyone to see it.
That's illogical. That has no possible logical sense behind it. At all.
I draw. I like drawing. My motivation for doing so is that I enjoy doing it as an activity.
I do not put up my drawings in the street. Why? Because the Only possible motivation to make that move from being a private activity to a public activity is... Oh yeah, other people. That part that makes it Public.
See this attitude is what we're talking about. It's wrong. It has an element of logic to it, but it's still wrong. Some women dress solely to be "fashionable" which has nothing to do with wanting to look hot or wanting to attract sexual attention. Some women want to look fashionable possibly to attract attention - but socialite attention. Some people dress a certain way just to fit in. Maybe Girl X is wearing a miniskirt because she has sensitive skin and the less material she wears, the better. There are many reasons as to why people present themselves in certain ways. These assumptions, that they dress publically because they want the public to see them this way is a bad, dangerous assumption.
The "shakes head->paragraph responding to Medo's post" was directed at Medo. Reread it that way. Then maybe you won't be so full of righteous indignation.
Let's for argument's sake agree that a majority of conventioneers who dress scantily are doing it for attention. Do you then believe that you are entitled to the default assumption that scantily clad women are attention seekers?
Yes. If the majority of anything is X, then X is the default assumption. If most firefighters fight fires, though some only drive the trucks, it is the default assumption is that if someone tells you that they are a firefighter then they fight fires. I don't understand the problem with this.
Your argument is a complete failure because it is predicated on the fact that there is some line to be crossed where a woman becomes an attention seeker.
You're right. Right until you make the argument yourself. See the next quote.
Which part do you disagree with? That hookers dress to attract clientele...
That's why I'm saying we have to disagree. You can't say "there's no line in the sand!" and then say "there's a line in the sand!" It's really bad to do it in consecutive sentences.
And yes Drez, I know you're an asshole. We smell our own.
kildy, you are choosing to remain completely ignorant to any motivations -- internal, or external ones even -- that are not, "I did this because I want people to pay attention to me in some fashion." In addition to that, as Podly said, you're espousing a false dichotomy.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
And you're completely failing to address my point that someone does not put large volumes of time effort and money into something, then specifically plop it down in public and not want anyone to see it.
That's illogical. That has no possible logical sense behind it. At all.
I draw. I like drawing. My motivation for doing so is that I enjoy doing it as an activity.
I do not put up my drawings in the street. Why? Because the Only possible motivation to make that move from being a private activity to a public activity is... Oh yeah, other people. That part that makes it Public.
See this attitude is what we're talking about. It's wrong. It has an element of logic to it, but it's still wrong. Some women dress solely to be "fashionable" which has nothing to do with wanting to look hot or wanting to attract sexual attention. Some women want to look fashionable possibly to attract attention - but socialite attention. Some people dress a certain way just to fit in. Maybe Girl X is wearing a miniskirt because she has sensitive skin and the less material she wears, the better. There are many reasons as to why people present themselves in certain ways. These assumptions, that they dress publically because they want the public to see them this way is a bad, dangerous assumption.
I see the issue is that you're applying my logic to "attractive women", whereas the statements were about "people who dress up at cons"
One involves wearing pretty clothing because you enjoy it, and does not really imply any level of giving a shit that other people even Exist.
The other involves a few hundred to a few thousand dollars of gear (boys AND girls!) to dress up appropriately and travel to an event that celebrates the subject matter.
One of these involves a shitton of effort in order to go out and desires Attention. Not SEXUAL attention, just other people who enjoy the same thing noticing that you put a lot of effort into your appearance, or even just put a little effort into it as a fan of the genre.
This does not in any way shape or form translate to "miniskirt? You just want me to stare at you, oooooogle"
Uh, you know, there are different kinds of attention there. Someone for example would love to be complemented on the ingenuity and craftsmanship of their costume, while at the same time not welcoming the "omg u has boobs" type of attention. Sexappeal might not always be the reason for someones costume decision, as usually it is the character that they try to portray, instead of trying to dress up as the sexiest nerd-bait around.
I mean, if you want me to offer an anecdote, here -- one of the more successful cosplay outings with two friends was an incredibly elaborate one where we 1) had characters that were only mildly popular, 2) were using outfits of those characters that 99% of the con-goers would not have seen, since they were only in a single artbook, and 3) we only wore them for a few hours despite the fact it took us weeks to put them together.
We were doing the characters' wedding dresses from the artbooks, which were both incredibly elaborate and incorporated hoop skirts. For us, the motivation was to push our craftsmanship further than ever before, and also to do something so ridiculously over the top that con security had to scramble and unlock the second half of all the double doors so that we could fit into the building.
It was, however, impossible to do anything else while wearing those costumes so after we modeled them for the judges, we went back to the car and changed. When they announced we were winners for them, we changed into the costumes again, collected our reward, and changed back.
Our motivations would have been fulfilled whether or not we win the contest, because our primary motivators were internal -- to 1) do something we hadn't done before, and do it well, and 2) to wear something ridiculously over-the-top and hilarious.
There are more photos of us standing in Amanda's front yard swooshing our skirts around in front of a broken-down van on cinder blocks and making funny faces than there are that people took of us at the con -- really, we weren't looking for attention and we weren't there long enough or near enough people that many pictures could have been taken, until the awards ceremony at least -- and even then, we just collected, walked off-stage, and changed.
kildy, you are choosing to remain completely ignorant to any motivations -- internal, or external ones even -- that are not, "I did this because I want people to pay attention to me in some fashion." In addition to that, as Podly said, you're espousing a false dichotomy.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
And you're completely failing to address my point that someone does not put large volumes of time effort and money into something, then specifically plop it down in public and not want anyone to see it.
That's illogical. That has no possible logical sense behind it. At all.
I draw. I like drawing. My motivation for doing so is that I enjoy doing it as an activity.
I do not put up my drawings in the street. Why? Because the Only possible motivation to make that move from being a private activity to a public activity is... Oh yeah, other people. That part that makes it Public.
Your point is completely predicated on the fact that all people seek external validation [attention] for their work, and that the work they do cannot in any way be validated internally or through other external means -- hence why I'm harping on your ignorance of the fact that other external mechanisms and especially internal mechanisms exist.
Also, you continue to view this as a false dichotomy. So. I could basically have quoted my post you quoted yourself, since you quoted it and then made all of the mistakes that it's asking you to rectify. Your take on "public" versus "private" is also hopelessly narrow and illogical.
You aren't actually answering shit, is why. You're standing there going "no, I'm right, damnit.", without explaining why you believe such.
Public and Private are well defined and logical barriers. Say I like to paint. Ok, I can do so in public or in private, and it's still _I like to paint_. Now, say I have paintings. I can either keep them in public or in private. There is at no point a logical reason to put them in public without wanting someone to see them. If you can prove that wrong, Go Nuts. Find a single logical reason to hang your artwork in public without wanting anyone to see it.
I mean, if you want me to offer an anecdote, here -- one of the more successful cosplay outings with two friends was an incredibly elaborate one where we 1) had characters that were only mildly popular, 2) were using outfits of those characters that 99% of the con-goers would not have seen, since they were only in a single artbook, and 3) we only wore them for a few hours despite the fact it took us weeks to put them together.
We were doing the characters' wedding dresses from the artbooks, which were both incredibly elaborate and incorporated hoop skirts. For us, the motivation was to push our craftsmanship further than ever before, and also to do something so ridiculously over the top that con security had to scramble and unlock the second half of all the double doors so that we could fit into the building.
It was, however, impossible to do anything else while wearing those costumes so after we modeled them for the judges, we went back to the car and changed. When they announced we were winners for them, we changed into the costumes again, collected our reward, and changed back.
Our motivations would have been fulfilled whether or not we win the contest, because our primary motivators were internal -- to 1) do something we hadn't done before, and do it well, and 2) to wear something ridiculously over-the-top and hilarious.
There are more photos of us standing in Amanda's front yard swooshing our skirts around in front of a broken-down van on cinder blocks and making funny faces than there are that people took of us at the con -- really, we weren't looking for attention and we weren't there long enough or near enough people that many pictures could have been taken, until the awards ceremony at least -- and even then, we just collected, walked off-stage, and changed.
And yet, we were satisfied.
And you do not understand that a technical definition for attention would be that the two of you knew how detailed said outfits were, and that you went to be judged for a costume contest.
Posts
No, technically it is not. Even if it usually is, technically it is not.
So you'd put in hours of effort to make a costume of a character and wear it to a con involving said character and not actually want anyone to pay any mind to it.
I find this extremely hard to believe. Drawing pictures? Sure. Making dolls or whatnot? Whatever. Wearing an outfit of the character to a con? At the Very Least you're making a statement to the creators of that character or their fans that you are a fan as well. Attention.
Attention is not Attention Whoring. It's your actions being noticed.
Well here's the things that are
How far he's willing to go to get into this lady's pants. He listens to her crazy rants while not even caring and acknowledges her lack of hygiene. Hell, he's basically ignoring every basic reason NOT to have sex with this woman. Who knows what she may have. In the process he gets goaded into hustling for change to buy bottom of the barrel pot with a team of ex-cons, talks about how he's cheated before and other past sexual experiences that I think supports the idea that he is a sexual deviant.
Things things all add up to him really just so desperate for sex that he ultimately says fuck it, let's try this boob project idea.
I cannot think of a single instance, ever, where someone has put a shitton of effort into something outside the day to day norm and proceeded to tout it out in public and wants everyone to ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Medo, did you not see my previous post? The one in which I said that I assumed the "blanket statement" you were referring to was to be read specifically into this conversation about girls at cons? Ie. The scantily clad women at cons are doing it for attention because we all know scantily clad women in these environments bring on a lot of attention (like the Gaming "booth babes"). I said this just two posts up. Why must you keep trying to take that statement out of my assumed context (and because I didn't put it in that context in the beginning, I tried to clarify what I meant and why I didn't explicitly state it) to make some overall reaching point?
And please, could you stop with that bullshit emotional rape argument? Please?
Wait, huh? I'm confused for real. My brain automatically shuts down on my lunch break. Do you want me to take my prostitute analogy and put in cosplayers instead? (don't make fun of me, it's Friday)
Of course, it's usually a combination of these external and internal goals, but that still makes you completely wrong.
EDIT t Ragga -- rephrasing it in terms of cosplayers would be better, just because it'd keep us all on the same page.
You said technically, as if someone dresses up if and only if they want attention. It could be that they really like star-trek, have star-trek fantasies, or are part of a group going as the whole ship or something. Yes, attention may come with it, but that does not mean one does it because they want attention.
Yes, because the idea that maybe a girl is dressing to get attention from the opposite sex totally invalidates the idea of sexual consent.
They make them there slopes pretty damn slippery where you live, huh?
I'd say there are a lot of instances where women dress the way they do to get attention from men. Same goes for men. The thing is, in both cases they're probably only really looking for attention from members of the opposite sex that they find attractive...a miniskirt does little except draw attention to your legs, but that doesn't mean you want every fat lonely loser checking you out all day.
But seriously, you don't wear pants with "JUICY" (or anything else, really) written across the ass if you're not trying to draw attention to it. Like, a lot of attention. Don't act all indignant if you catch me looking because you don't think I'm all omghot.
Podly's statement appears to be.
Restate your overall point here. What is it again?
So you're saying that when you dress up to go to a con as a character that is involved in said con, you do not want attention. That it's possible to do so without wanting a single person at any point to notice you're doing so.
I find this so far out of the possible that I'd postulate that people post on message boards due to a desire to type, not out of any desire for anyone to read their statements. Is it possible? Sure, I guess?
Let me just lay it out here:
I am NOT denying people dress for attention, or that women dress for attention. That's just stupid. Of course people do that.
I AM denying that it is at all useful and in fact is rather dangerous to ASSUME that a woman is dressing for attention, outside of a few extreme examples. These extremes may include some, but not all, women who dress up for cons.
Not wanting attention doesn't mean you want no attention paid to you.
This is a false dichotomy. If you do not dress with the expressed desire of wanting attention, it does not mean that you do not want attention. What it means is that people may pay you attention regardless of your desire for it. If you do not seek out attention yet are given it nonetheless, it does not mean you do not want the attention; rather, it simply is a product of social interaction. I can order a coffee from a cute barista and be friendly to her without actually trying to be flirtatious, but if we end up hitting off that's cool tool. I did not talk to her to get her number, but if it happened than it was a product of social interaction.
Did you stop shaking your head when you realized I disagreed with you within the convention context?
Did you stop shaking your head when you realized that you actually do believe this is more or less universally true, as evidenced by your agreement to disagree with my overall point about women?
I dunno, man. I feel like typing out "*shakes head*" in a condescending manner only works if your point is valid, which it isn't. Not only did I specifically address the convention thing, but you also disagree with my overall point about women...so, uh, I guess you should be shaking your head at yourself.
Let's for argument's sake agree that a majority of conventioneers who dress scantily are doing it for attention. Do you then believe that you are entitled to the default assumption that scantily clad women are attention seekers?
Your argument is a complete failure because it is predicated on the fact that there is some line to be crossed where a woman becomes an attention seeker. Do you know how relevant it is that some women managed to look like Princess Laia without gold bikinis? Not at all. It is not relevant at all. In fact - though I'm not sure this word has the appropriate punch - I will say it is wholly "irrelevant."
Which part do you disagree with? That hookers dress to attract clientele or that a woman wearing a miniskirt in public isn't necessarily doing it to grab your attention? Because I assure you I am correct on both counts and I hate to be an asshole (haha, no I don't) but I think it's pretty sad if you really, truly believe that women operate this way, either all women, the majority of women, or even on average. And even if most or many women do, you would still be a total jackass to assume anything of the sort about a woman dressing "hotly" or "scantily" or whatever.
Just because a woman wears a low cut top which shows off her awesome knockers to go get drinks, it doesn't mean she wants to be propositioned, fondled, or fucked by anyone who comes along. Including you.
A comment was made about oogling cosplay women rather than grabbing a handful of chest, but oogling wasn't as ok as looking. I said I didn't understand that, as the dressing (without explicitly saying cosplay) was done for attention. Enter tangent about generalities.
My overall point is when women dress up in revealing outfits for these cons, they are doing it to get attention. This has been reinforced by my limited experience. I don't understand why they get upset over this attention. Of course, I haven't asked each and every individual woman who's ever done it why they did it, but certain assumptions have to be made or we could never discuss anything.
That's pretty much was it.
And what I'm saying is that it's also false to state that normal interactions (talking to a barista? Normal.) are not entirely analogous to abnormal interactions (dressing up like a character from a show? Not day to day normal.)
Attention is not a bad thing. You do not put massive amounts of effort into something and not want it to be noticed.
One does not spend large blocks of time, effort and money in a project and not desire someone to say "wow, nice work", or "you put a lot of effort into that!"
I do not posit that everyone wants attention at all times, that would be silly. I'm positing that putting that much effort into something desires a response from those for whom it is intended. Which is, technically, a definition of attention.
And I have, at no point, said that is true. In fact, I've said.. the opposite?
The problem here is you make no distinction between dressing for attention and dressing for sexual attention.
I don't know what else I can say to you if you are going to remain ignorant to the points I've made twice and you've failed to address, as well as now at least three other forumers, about motivations that are not the desire for attention.
Come on.
Look, I look at attractive women. I do. I'm a man. I do it now and then. I try not to be creepy about it. But when I do it, I don't do it while simultaneously pretending that I'm giving these women the attention they want. I think that kind of disconnect DOES lead to sexually abusive behavior, or control issues, or at the very least indicates a real lack of understanding or care or both on how other people think and how we should act toward them. I'm not going to pretend that I never look at women, that my eyes never linger, perhaps inappropriately now and then, but I'm also not going to pretend that it's because a girl wants me leering and drooling at her (not that I do that, but I'm making a point).
And you're completely failing to address my point that someone does not put large volumes of time effort and money into something, then specifically plop it down in public and not want anyone to see it.
That's illogical. That has no possible logical sense behind it. At all.
I draw. I like drawing. My motivation for doing so is that I enjoy doing it as an activity.
I do not put up my drawings in the street. Why? Because the Only possible motivation to make that move from being a private activity to a public activity is... Oh yeah, other people. That part that makes it Public.
Linda Ronstadt wrote a song about you.
Nah, she wrote it about Warren Beaty.
I did think it was about me for a while, though.
Also, you continue to view this as a false dichotomy. So. I could basically have quoted my post you quoted yourself, since you quoted it and then made all of the mistakes that it's asking you to rectify. Your take on "public" versus "private" is also hopelessly narrow and illogical.
See this attitude is what we're talking about. It's wrong. It has an element of logic to it, but it's still wrong. Some women dress solely to be "fashionable" which has nothing to do with wanting to look hot or wanting to attract sexual attention. Some women want to look fashionable possibly to attract attention - but socialite attention. Some people dress a certain way just to fit in. Maybe Girl X is wearing a miniskirt because she has sensitive skin and the less material she wears, the better. There are many reasons as to why people present themselves in certain ways. These assumptions, that they dress publically because they want the public to see them this way is a bad, dangerous assumption.
Yes. If the majority of anything is X, then X is the default assumption. If most firefighters fight fires, though some only drive the trucks, it is the default assumption is that if someone tells you that they are a firefighter then they fight fires. I don't understand the problem with this.
You're right. Right until you make the argument yourself. See the next quote.
That's why I'm saying we have to disagree. You can't say "there's no line in the sand!" and then say "there's a line in the sand!" It's really bad to do it in consecutive sentences.
And yes Drez, I know you're an asshole. We smell our own.
I see the issue is that you're applying my logic to "attractive women", whereas the statements were about "people who dress up at cons"
One involves wearing pretty clothing because you enjoy it, and does not really imply any level of giving a shit that other people even Exist.
The other involves a few hundred to a few thousand dollars of gear (boys AND girls!) to dress up appropriately and travel to an event that celebrates the subject matter.
One of these involves a shitton of effort in order to go out and desires Attention. Not SEXUAL attention, just other people who enjoy the same thing noticing that you put a lot of effort into your appearance, or even just put a little effort into it as a fan of the genre.
This does not in any way shape or form translate to "miniskirt? You just want me to stare at you, oooooogle"
We were doing the characters' wedding dresses from the artbooks, which were both incredibly elaborate and incorporated hoop skirts. For us, the motivation was to push our craftsmanship further than ever before, and also to do something so ridiculously over the top that con security had to scramble and unlock the second half of all the double doors so that we could fit into the building.
It was, however, impossible to do anything else while wearing those costumes so after we modeled them for the judges, we went back to the car and changed. When they announced we were winners for them, we changed into the costumes again, collected our reward, and changed back.
Our motivations would have been fulfilled whether or not we win the contest, because our primary motivators were internal -- to 1) do something we hadn't done before, and do it well, and 2) to wear something ridiculously over-the-top and hilarious.
There are more photos of us standing in Amanda's front yard swooshing our skirts around in front of a broken-down van on cinder blocks and making funny faces than there are that people took of us at the con -- really, we weren't looking for attention and we weren't there long enough or near enough people that many pictures could have been taken, until the awards ceremony at least -- and even then, we just collected, walked off-stage, and changed.
And yet, we were satisfied.
Hahahah, phew, okay I can be done with this thread then. Thanks!
You aren't actually answering shit, is why. You're standing there going "no, I'm right, damnit.", without explaining why you believe such.
Public and Private are well defined and logical barriers. Say I like to paint. Ok, I can do so in public or in private, and it's still _I like to paint_. Now, say I have paintings. I can either keep them in public or in private. There is at no point a logical reason to put them in public without wanting someone to see them. If you can prove that wrong, Go Nuts. Find a single logical reason to hang your artwork in public without wanting anyone to see it.
And you do not understand that a technical definition for attention would be that the two of you knew how detailed said outfits were, and that you went to be judged for a costume contest.