NARRATOR: It does not have pockets.
Wait. You don’t think women desire to be thought of as beautiful or hot? What’s the point of all this makeup, hair styling, perfumes, jewelry, and g-strings for?
Women have agency.
In this post^^ you claimed women were happier in the " bad, old 50s or 60s" ahem !
“Be seen, not heard.” I think thats one of the Ten Commandments or something.
Men don’t face the same issues women face of being judged for their physical attractiveness. Physical attractiveness is just one desirable trait a man can have; men know they can still be seen as desirable for other traits if they don’t look good.
Women, on the other hand, realize that some men will only judge them based on their physical attractiveness. As far as these men are concerned, a woman who isn’t physically attractive has no value. And some of these men will be in positions where they have a major impact on women’s lives.
Miltown, wine, and amphetamines, Mother’s little helpers.
It is “fair game to note” any characteristic that’s relevant to the context or appropriate to the company. As has been frequently repeated in this thread, it’s nobody else’s business if you choose to speak about random women’s sexual desirability with other consenting adults all day long, relevant or not. And of course, in a situation that’s specifically addressing women’s sexual desirability, it’s relevant to speak about it.
But you can’t just take it for granted that you can say anything you want about women’s sexual desirability when it’s irrelevant to the context and/or inappropriate to the company. The days when men could freely assume that their sexual comments about women were always relevant and deserving of attention in any circumstances are over.
See above. This really isn’t that difficult.
Note that the only reason this thread even exists is that some miffed male posters have been throwing tantrums all over the boards merely because some inappropriate sexual comments in a politics thread were gently criticized as inappropriate.
To recap the progress of said tantrums:
-
A couple posters in a thread in the Elections forum about Supreme Court confirmation hearings digress into some observations about a “hot chick” seen in footage of said hearings.
-
The mod request is complied with and the Elections thread proceeds on-topic (or at least topic-adjacent) for several more pages with nobody making any fuss about the “hot chick” digression at all.
-
Meanwhile, an ATMB thread is started by the poster who introduced the digression in the Elections thread, querying the mod request. That went on for five pages of mostly fussing and whining by male posters upset that their inalienable right to irrelevant oversharing about their penisfeelings in any circumstances whatsoever was being challenged, until it was closed by a moderator on grounds of cruelty to dead horses.
-
Several hours later, this Pit thread was opened for the purpose of continuing the fussing and whining about challenges to the inalienable right to irrelevant oversharing about penisfeelings. And it’s now gone on for nine pages or so of the same dead-horse flogging, largely driven by the perpetually renewed fussing and whining on the part of the same male posters.
The fundamental reason this discussion has dragged on the way it has is because a few outraged entitled manbabies are stubbornly refusing to accept that they can’t just take it for granted that men can say anything they want about women’s sexual desirability when it’s irrelevant to the context and/or inappropriate to the company.
Guys, it may make you look momentarily a bit bro-derpy when you casually throw some sexual comments about women into a situation where they’re not appropriate. But it makes you look like full-on triggered misogynist assholes when you throw prolonged fits of outrage over the fact that men’s casual sexual comments about women in a situation where they aren’t appropriate may result in some criticism of that behavior.
Ok this is a minor nit to pick but what’s the relevance of consent or adulthood when it comes to the printed word? Do you need to be an adult or to need to give consent before someone puts up a Hooters billboard?
Of course they do. And some women DO desire those things – but not to be told they’re “hot” or “beautiful” by some rando somewhere.*
Some women do the makeup etc., thing because their religion/society at large/their significant other tells them they look hideous without, so they feel obligated.
Some women feel like all of that performative femininity shit is for them – and they could give two shits about what anyone else thinks.
Some women feel like they don’t need any of that shit to be beautiful or hot and do you know what? Their opinion matters more than some outside observer’s does.
Some women just really can’t give two shits (or the necessary energy) for any of that performative femininity stuff, and don’t care what other people think about their “beauty regimen”.
Gee, it’s almost like women are individuals, not a monolith of identical beliefs and desires.
A simple rule for those looking for one: If you wouldn’t walk up to your guy friend/co-worker and say, “Hey, guy, you’re looking [hot/gorgeous/sexy/whatever] today”, don’t say that to your gal friend/co-worker.
*Very few women want to be told they’re “hot” or “beautiful” by some rando somewhere, but that there exist women who DO like it (or who are paid to behave as though they do) doesn’t negate the point.
Well, yeah, I didn’t figure. 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your example suggests that the distinction you’re trying to draw isn’t really involving spoken remarks vs. printed word per se so much as individual expression vs. public/collective/corporate action.
That’s an interesting question, which connects back to earlier posts about, e.g., publicly playing rap music with obscene lyrics or displaying prom dress ads that contain the word “hotties”.
All righty then. Everybody holding your chosen yarn end? Okay, let’s pull… 
[posting this now as general intro and following up shortly with specifics]
And if this happens, don’t freak out. Just acknowledge it was inappropriate, give a real apology (no “I’m sorry you were offended”) suitable to the offense, and try to do better.
So. We all agree that in general, art and advertising aren’t always governed by exactly the same rules as individual behavior, right?
For instance, it’s almost universally agreed that it’s inappropriate (not to mention illegal) for people to walk around naked in busy urban areas. But it’s generally (although not unanimously) agreed that it’s okay to display sculptures of nude human figures in busy urban areas (at least in western societies strongly influenced by the arts traditions of classical antiquity). Public display of an artist’s depiction of some behavior is not exactly the same thing as real-life individuals voluntarily choosing to engage in that behavior themselves.
This also pertains to, say, public performance or broadcasting of rap music songs with obscene lyrics. Would it be appropriate for an individual to stand on a street corner and shout at specific passersby obscene invitations taken from rap songs? Definitely not. Is it equally inappropriate for a store to be playing a selection of canned music which includes some rap songs with similarly obscene lyrics? Most people would probably say no, even if they think that such a commercial soundtrack is still somewhat inappropriate in its own right.
Similarly with advertising. As a society, we seem to have accepted that it’s okay to depict at least some behaviors in advertising media that would be inappropriate for individuals to imitate in the same circumstances. E.g., underwear-ad posters showing women or men standing around in their skivvies, which would definitely not be considered appropriate behavior from real individuals in the places where the ads are displayed. Or, say, perfume ads where the models may not even have reached the skivvy-wearing stage.
So I think that’s the context we’ve got to consider when we ask if it’s okay to show, for instance, a prom-dress ad containing the word “hotties” or a billboard for Hooters. I’m not arguing that advertising media can never be inappropriate—on the contrary—but I think it’s pretty obvious that the appropriateness standards for advertising media are not identical to those for the behavior of individuals.
That seems almost like circular reasoning though. And I’m not saying every social norm in every setting needs to be explicitly spelled out to some ridiculous standard of precision. What I do expect is that if social norms differ and are by necessity very fuzzy that a more general live and live attitude would be more productive.
Let’s look at the art example. Do artists get consent from the religious for sacrilege? No. They may avoid certain forms to keep their heads but they definitely don’t ask. Do people need to consent to view such imagery if it’s randomly displayed? No. So, It seems that in a free society it’s not realistic or maybe even appropriate to demand that content is not offensive to any potential audience.
Right, I’m not at all disagreeing with you that artists don’t, for example, get consent from the religious for creating artworks that those religious people may deem sacrilegious.
But that’s just reinforcing my point that our standards of appropriateness for forms of public expression like art and advertising are not exactly the same as our standards of appropriateness for individual behavior. Are you trying to argue that they are, or should be? Would you support, for instance, requiring the legalization of public nudity in any place where it’s considered permissible to display a nude human figure in sculpture?
If not, then the attempt to argue against a certain standard of appropriateness for individual behavior on the grounds that it’s different from standards of appropriateness for art and advertising collapses from apple/orange syndrome. The two standards are not identical and never have been, and it’s not intrinsically hypocritical to accept some differences between them.
Check yourself. If you are standing around drooling, panting and making suggestive remarks to random women, it’s probably not a good thing. How hard is that to understand? Jeez.
But…but…but…! His PENIS is having FEELINGS! ** FEELINGS!** He must tell the world this, because otherwise no one would know his precious, precious penisfeelings!
:rolleyes:
What these guys don’t understand is that some “rando” saying “hot chick” or wolf-whisteling is not that much different than a dog humping your leg. Except a leg-humping dog makes less noise.
What’s wrong with you? Don’t you ever get tired of looking like a hysterical fool or attempting to slay strawpeople?
No. You have to defend the implications of that statement. I have not seen anyone here on Anti-Hot_chick-Comment side objectify another group.
No. You are not. You might act nice IRL when it suits you, but you have demonstrated here that you are not nice.
NO. If you are referring to this thread, no, that is not true. It is not offensive stuff aimed at an approved group. It’s aimed at you and Starving Artist.
You aren’t a group. You don’t represent all heterosexual men. You don’t even represent all rude as all fuck heterosexual men. You are just two people here that other people find, well, rude as all fuck.
Bonus Point:
You have twigged that it’s not just women in here disagreeing with you, right?
Oh goodness. Not nice how? Because I don’t automatically agree with the nuttery on this board? Thankfully, that’s not how niceness is measured in the real world. With regards to not seeing the bigoted language with regards to,gender, race, and age? Perhaps you need your eyes checked if what you are saying is true.