Wesley, you are reading way too much into the type of workout outfit someone wears and the location of the machine they are using. Perhaps these women are doing something else more provocative that you are leaving out, but at this point you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
I also know plenty of men and women who drive nice cars and wouldn’t think twice about leaving a $100 tip on a $400 bill. I wouldn’t assume anything further about them based on such superficial observations.
I’m sorry i dont know what im talking about. Perhaps i should just take responsiblity for women, god knows some of you are used to having men pick up the slack for your screw ups. Too many men wanting to live out their knight in shining armor fantasies in this society has fucked intergender relations.
I guess i am the bad one for looking at women like objects when they purposely try to present themselves as objects. Secondly, i do not think i look at women ‘as’ objects or as pieces of meat when i look at them physically. Having known women (as all people do) how someone looks does not matter after a few hours spent with them.
Third, as long as they don’t know im looking at them i fail to see the harm in doing it.
i agree with all of that. If a woman TRIES to come across as a sex object (wearing a shirt 2 sizes too tight with the word ‘sextoy’ on it for example, which i have seen) then leering isn’t necessarily a bad thing AFAIC. And if a woman said it made her uncomfortable i would stop.
You seem very confused about this. The OP describes one scenario, and you seem to think that she’s in a completely different one.
You keep bringing up gyms and scantily dressed women, and asking her questions like “would you prefer they talked to you or hit on you” as if you had no clue what she’d described in her OP.
She’s not at a gym. She’s not scantily dressed. She’s in a work environment. All your situations and examples don’t apply here.
For the record, why is it that if a woman DOES dress sexily, as you describe, all of a sudden she, in your words (form your post above) “…when they purposely try to present themselves as objects.”
Dressing to feel sexy and attractive is “purposely presenting one’s self as an object”? I see.
I know I’m feeding a hijack here, but let me ask you this…if a woman is wearing a shirt which shoves her cleavage out for the world to see, does she have the right to demand that you stop staring at her tits?
Well, perhaps if you are clairvoyant, like our young Mr. Clark here. He can tell what you are all about simply by observing your clothing or the car you drive.
Now if our expert will tell is if the opposite is also true: If a woman dresses in loose fitting, comfortable cloths, is this an indication that she’s completely unreceptive to being admired?
Ashtar: 1)Yes, but it won’t get her anywhere and she should be smart enough know that beforehand and 2) you are trying to make a point with extremes - an very revealing outfit on a woman who has zero interest in being looked at. My personal objection is to reading too much into an outfit that may have been donned simply because the wearer thought it looked nice on her.
There are plenty of well dressed, attractive women, and I’d wager a small fraction of them are sending you a subliminal message that they want your eyes on their rack.
That wasn’t my question/comment. In fact, I didn’t comment at all on whether or not she “had the right” to do anything.
My question/comment to Mr. Clark is “how does dressing sexily” translate to "purposely presenting herself as an object?
As to your question? Of course she has the right to ask, or demand that you stop staring at any part of her. It is still a free country right? Of course, the average, stranger may or may not be obligated to do as she demands. But then that wasn’t the question, was it? 
Btw, there IS a difference between an appreciative look, and an “Oh look, it’s all dressed up to show its boobs” dehumanizing creepazoid type leer.
I think most men know the difference, the ones that don’t? IMHO? They would give off creepy vibes, and that dehumanizing leer no matter what a woman was wearing.
im not talking about the OP at this point. That is a different scenario, the OP doesn’t seem to do anything to invite leers from men. And like the OP says, its the staring that bothers her not glances.
I was partially confused about whether she’d prefer them talk to her. You’d assume a woman who pits a man would not want him to try to talk to her and hit on her that way so i was somewhat confused.
Yes it is ‘presenting one’s self as an object’ as far as im concerned. If a man enters a bar intentionally wearing a rolex, an $800 suit and driving a mercedes he is intentionally trying to increase his sex appeal more likely than not. What if i ran around screaming about how evil women were for liking him for his money after he tried his best to make women like him for his money in the first place?
i’ve been upgraded to expert status. I’ve gone from misogynist creep to clairvoyant expert in 4 posts. I must be doing alot right.
In regards to your scenario no it doesn’t. HOwever realistically i fail to see why its improper to think women either intentionally or unintentionally invite these things. If a man went around posting that he made $200k a year on match.com he would be partially to blame if most of the women that liked him were golddiggers. He set himself up as bait for that type of person. If he doesn’t want to be bait then he shouldn’t present himself that way.
You are responsible for the morality of your own actions, not anyone else. And nothing anyone else does or wears has an effect on that.
Therefore, no matter how sexily someone dresses, looking at them in an inappropriate way is wrong. Makes sense?
On the other hand, I absolutely cannot make out what Wesley Clarl is saying.
i can’t either i think im trying to say 3 things at once.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that a woman who dresses to accentuate her figure is the equivalent of a braggart? It seems anyone who invests even moderate effort or expense on the way they look has a character flaw and may deservedly make a spectacle of themselves. So much for wanting to look good, and therefore feel good about yourself. I’ll keep that in mind, Wes.
[sub]For sale: one slightly worn Omega GMT and several custom tailored suits. Will trade for k-mart jeans and hooded sweatshirt.[/sub]
I think the point he’s trying to make is similar to the one I made before. If a woman is wearing a shirt designed to expose cleavage with a push-up bra and a slit in her shirt down to her belly button, she has no right to complain if men stare at her tits. If a man goes on Match.com and announces to the world that he makes $200K a year, he has no right to complain if gold-diggers are the only women who contact him.
[sub]Not that any of this has anything to do with the OP.[/sub]
It must be jelly 'cause jam don’t shake like that.
Sorry, Scumpup, but Chefguy beat you to it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Wesley Clark *
**im not talking about the OP at this point. That is a different scenario, the OP doesn’t seem to do anything to invite leers from men. And like the OP says, its the staring that bothers her not glances.
I was partially confused about whether she’d prefer them talk to her. You’d assume a woman who pits a man would not want him to try to talk to her and hit on her that way so i was somewhat confused.**
[quote]
Oh, Okay, so what you were doing was simply skewing off onto your on hijack. The way you worded that particular post, it sounded as if someone in the thread had suggested something else
The OP made it pretty clear that she simply wanted the man to stop his “oogy” staring and did not in any way suggest that she wanted him to talk to her, or hit on her. So why that point confused you is really unclear.
I disagree, in both scenarios. In the first, a woman is simply dressing and feeling her most attractive. In the second, same thing for the man. He is dressing to feel and behave the way he feels the most confident. Neither makes these two examples “objects”. It makes them human beings who are accenting certain aspects of themselves.
“Sexy, attractive woman”. “Successful, available man”. They are still expecting to be perceived as human beings.
See, this is where you’re still confused, first of all, to declare that a man dressing to accent a positive feature about himself (in this case his success), is trying to “make women like him for his money”. Is no more true than a woman dressing to impress, is trying to “make men like her for her body”. It’s natural human nature to put one’s “best foot forward”. Further, it’s natural that for women, it’s frequently their looks and sexuality, and men their success. Nothing “objectifying” about either of these things. It’s the onlookers who do the potential objectifying.
Secondly, to address your question,IF a woman who was an onlooker viewed said rolex wearing man based SOLELY on his percieved wealth and did the equivalent of “leering” at him based upon that aspect and that aspect alone, with no regard to him as a person, then she’d be just as guilty of “objectifying” (thinking of him as “provider of monetary indulgence” rather than as a person) him as some men are of objectifying women based on their looks/sexuality alone.
Third no one is “running around screaming how evil men are”. We’re saying that there’s a big difference between an appreciative look, and a creepy dehumanizing stare. (not in this thread anyway, if they are in YOUR life, to the extent that you feel it needs to be addressed, perhaps you should start your own thread).
That’s certainly NOT “going around screaming how evil men are”. It’s commenting on a small percentage of people who DO behave that way. And it’s not even calling them “evil”.
HUGE Hijack, first, thanks for clearing that up. I was having a devil of a time figuring it out.
My point was that neither of these things means that the person is trying to “objectify” themselves, nor does it mean that they deserve to be objectified. I don’t think Wesley Clark quite understands the meaning of the word.
Second, I have to disagree on the basis that anyone has the right to do anything they want. Whether or not they’ll be taken seriously of course is a different matter.
A man has a right to present himself first and foremost as successful. And he also has a right to complain about being ONLY perceived for that attribute. For a woman to view him as a meal ticket is a fault on HER behalf, not his.
Same with the sexily dressed woman. She has a right not to have drool down her shirt front, so to speak. She has a right to say “do you MIND”? if a man is giving her that oogy 1000-yard stare. Now, whether he’ll pay her any mind?
It also has to do with context. If women are dressing sexily in a night club, with hopes of meeting men, well DUH. Of course they’re going to dress their best. And they have the right to NOT be perceived SOLELY for their boobs. And to call someone on it if they’re rude about it (PS Wesley, callling someone on their rudeness doesn’t equal “AAAAGGGGGHhh You’re evil”).
And as to Mr. Rolex, same context? He has a right to present himself in his best light and to call women on their obvious gold digger behaviour, and that wouldn’t be screaming that said women were “evil” either. Just rude and a bit mercenary.
Anyway, back to the OP, as the OP and other posters suggested regarding the OP, it’s entirely possible that this guy doesn’t realize the way in which he’s looking at her. Same with other guys who LEER rather than look, so pointing that out to them isn’t akin to saying that they’re evil, it’s giving them a “hello? you’re being inappropriate” wake-up call. And if they choose to continue to be “inappropriate” then their stares are going to be perceived by many people as being creepy. That’s not equivalent to “evil” either. This isn’t that hard a concept to understand. Really.
Well, CanvasShoes, I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I can hardly believe that any person would dress sexy and then be allowed to get angry at people for staring at them. By dressing sexy, I don’t mean a nice business suit that accentuates her curves. I mean like a super loose blouse with the buttons open enough for you to see her belly button.
[/hijack]
I don’t get it. How do you know he is staring at your ass?