And this is pretty much the context most “boobs? cite!” that I see are meant in (granting that I don’t often go into bra-fitting threads unless they’re about larger ones in which I can share my wife’s expertise)
ATMB discussion for those who want to discuss how we can deal with this behavior, and not just the underlying dynamics and/or this specific case.
How can you know his intentions?
BTW Twickster
“Ostentatious Emergency Room Seabird”
So folks are back to claiming that a direct statement by a woman about how sexually attractive her breasts are isn’t sexual in that context? In what context, exactly, does a mixed company reference on the internet to the “amazingness” of a woman’s tits not qualify as sexual? What, they were amazing in their function as ballast? Perhaps they were amazingly useful in keeping her center of gravity? Or, perhaps, they were “amazing” in how they looked as a sexual signal to men?
But, sure, disregard what TL actually said by pretending that my evil ‘rants’ are at issue, not the woman telling a bunch of men how hot her tits are. :rolleyes:
Fake edit: in the before the obfuscation - saying that a woman’s tits look hot is saying that they are hot. That’s what having [hot body part] means, that when people who could be attracted to you look at it, they think it looks hot.
It’s generally poor form to call something a strawman and then go on to say exactly the thing you were claiming is a strawman. You are indeed saying that men should not have sexual reactions. Oh, sure, you’re couching it in terms of saying that men can have sexual reactions as long as they don’t, ya know, actually act on them. It’s the same thing as people who say that they’re not telling people not to be gay, just that they want to make sodomy a crime punishable by jail time.
And I’ve already said, many times, in response to you among others unless I miss my guess, that rudeness is bad and that a man should stop hitting on a woman if she makes it clear that it’s making her uncomfortable.
Yes, you are vilifying it. “Think about that hot chick all you want, but you don’t have to act on the biological imperative built up over thousands of centuries and try to initiate sexual contact, or anything. Geeez!” In point of fact, a man whose only reaction to things that turned him on was to think really hard about them would, by definition, be sexually unhealthy if he had no other outlet for his sexual tension.
Libido is a sex drive, not a sex contemplate.
And no, you can not always express such thoughts in a way that everyone will be happy with. Moreover expecting men to only flirt in a way that’s bland enough to be acceptable to 99.9% of the population is absurd. A friend of a friend met a girl and told her that she should apply for a job because “You have really great cleavage”. Was it rude? Yes. Would I have spoken in such a way in a million years? No. Did she date him? Yes. Is she still with him? Yep. Some men, and some women too, have sexual tastes different from yours. Demanding that men only hit on women in a manner that’s acceptable to everybody is bonkers.
At worst, all they’d do is be obnoxious (as long as they weren’t acting an illegal/threatening manner). And if that’s such a huge issue, then some people require a much thicker skin. If the worst thing that happens to you in your life is that someone obnoxiously indicates that you’re sexually attractive, well, then you’re living a blessed life.
Again, you call something a strawman and then make the very same statement that you’re claiming is a strawman. And as I noted, you’re justifying your claims that men are simply out of control by pointing out men who, correctly, state the facts of human biology. Men who try to have sex with attractive women are no more “out of control” than are women who try to have children.
Now, if you want to point to a man who is literally out of control and rapes women because he wants to have sex with them, you’d have a point. But classifying perfectly normal, healthy, natural human sexuality as “out of control” is offensive and phobic on a number of levels. Men initiating sexual advances with women who attract them, as long as the men are looking for a mate, is 100% normal, natural, and healthy behavior. Alleging that it is “out of control” demands that in order to be ‘in control’ men must engage in pathologically unhealthy sexual denial.
Own up to your own words. He characterized men as normal, healthy members of the species doing exactly what they’re evolved to do. You, in turn, characterized normal, healthy male sexuality as “caveman” behavior. And, honestly, it does betray sexism.
Unless, of course, you’re willing to say that any woman who talk about her biological clock is, likewise, admitting to totally being out of control and a cavewoman berserk with primal lust.
Would you say that? Is a woman’s wish for motherhood analogous to a sexually crazed cavewoman? How about a mother obeying maternal urges and protecting her children from danger? A berserker, lunatic Viking, or a “mom protecting her kids”?
The point is not only that they’re not insulting, but that you insist on viewing totally normal male sexuality as an aberration and form of degeneracy. You’re fine with it, as long as it’s not expressed . Again, it’s similar to the attitude that any man who has an urge to masturbate and carries it out is somehow sexually damaged. That if someone says that men have to relive sexual tension by ejaculating, that it’s an insult to men, and it’s saying that men are just out of control.
A man feeling sexual desire and acting on it is exactly as natural as any person feeling hunger and trying to find some food to eat. You wouldn’t say that hungry people are “out of control!” for wanting to eat. But a man who is attracted to a woman and tries to win her consent for sexual congress is just berserk if he feels he has to act on his desire instead of keeping it bottled up and repressed.
We got done with that bullshit in the Victorian age.
You’re confusing self-control with sexual repression and behavior that’s one step away from asceticism. It is unreasonable to equate “self control” with a denial of fundamental and healthy biological drives.
So to put a finer point on it, you weren’t alluding to rape as a reified concept, but making a 1:1 comparison between men who think it’s okay to flirt with a woman who makes a point of dropping in and absolutely irrelevant detail in a conversation and telling them how sexually attractive her tits are, and how rapists justify their raping women.
Hell, even calling a woman who’s being flirted with when she’d rather not be a “victim” is absurd. Shes a ‘victim’ of what, exactly, uncouthness? This desire to claim victim status is cocobannananuts. In the story I mentioned above, when the 60+ woman was flirting with me in the hospital cafeteria, I was there because my grandmother had had a heart attack, and I was in no mood for dealing with attractive co-eds, let alone unattractive women. Was I, then, a “victim”?
Wouldn’t I be a cowardly, thin-skinned wimp if I cast some undesired flirting as something that ‘victimized’ me?
Yes, yes I would. And so would a woman.
All I’m able to do is use my own judgment to try to analyze your words. Especially when you do things like allege that breasts (especially breasts that look amazing!) aren’t sexual in western culture, because to you, your own are generally just parts of your body, no different than your knee. That’s like claiming that I’m not really a sexual person, so I’m honestly baffled when I walk out naked flapping my cock at people and I get hauled off for indecent exposure. A mature adult should realize that we live in a society where individuals do not get to determine how the rest of society as a whole will view certain things.
Along the same lines, your earlier claim that when Tracy said her breasts looks amazing, that she wasn’t really saying she had amazing breasts. Ignoring, of course, that in western culture breasts that ‘look’ amazing are amazing breasts, because that that’s the very definition. We refer to “nice tits” because of how they look, not due to any functionality. It isn’t a comment like “Nice tits, I bet you can prop a door open with those real good!”
Stuff like that betrays such willful ignorance and agenda driven rationalizations that I cannot, in good conscience, take the rest of what you say at face value. If you’re not going to play straight, I will, perforce, analyze your statements for what you’re really trying to get at.
You can flirt by juvenile attempts at humor or highbrow attempts at humor or middilebrow attempts at humor. You can flirt by making eye contact. You can flirt by laughing a little too often for normal conversation. You can flirt by showing attention. You can flirt by asking someone about their day. You can flirt by letting your glance linger on a woman for a fraction of a second too long. You can flirt by looking in her direction when you had no real reason to otherwise. You can flirt by smiling at her. All of these things are perfectly normal ways that a healthy man might go about expressing his sexual desire rather than bottling it up and only thinking about it.
Hell, you can flirt by engaging in perfectly normal, every-day conversation as long as it has that je ne sai quoi. I’ve flirted with waitresses by talking about the menu (and had my wife roll her eyes at me for it). You can even flirt rudely and have that be considered “needling”, but it’s still flirting.
Do we have to perform some semantic tap dancing here? How about “hitting on”, would that be better than “flirting”? Sure, hitting on someone is more blatant and goal-driven than just flirting, but I suppose it’s close enough. It still doesn’t change my statement though, and women who get all bent out of shape by being hit on are still thin skinned wimps, just like any man would be, too. It’s different if the woman has reason to fear for her safety or if the man hits on her by placing his hands on her, but as long as we’re just talking about words? Yeah, thin skinned wimps.
People are rude, obnoxious, boorish and uncouth all the damn time. Getting all flipped out of by it generally displayed a marked lack of coping mechanisms. If being hit on when you don’t want to be, or in an obnoxious manner makes you (plural) feel more like a “victim” than sitting on the bus with some guy whose Ipod is turned up way too loud so that you can hear his lame music, you (plural) really need to chill out and/or take yourself much less seriously.
Or, to use an analogy: I once lived with a woman who had cats. She believed it was quite wrong for them to lick their genitals in public, and if they started grooming that area in the common area of the apartment, she would shoo them away. She thought that was how cats should ‘control’ themselves.
Arguing that men who have sexual responses shouldn’t flirtatiously(/obnoxious) joke with/smile at/chat up/whatever women or they’re not ‘controlling’ themselves is just as absurd as chasing cats away for the sin of grooming ‘inappropriate’ areas.
Fake edit: and no, that’s not saying that “lolzors, men are just like animals while women are truely evolved!”. But that humans, both genders, just like cats or dolphins or amoebas, have certain biological drives which are normal, natural, and healthy. They can be, and should be, modified by culture in a great many cases. But demanding that men be sexually repressed or their sexuality itself is a disorder is nutso.
But the guys were using context–SHE said her boobs look amazing. She didn’t just post about a favorite white shirt; she stipulated that this shirt makes her boobs amazing!
I think this is the reason this whole thread exploded–WHAT is the context? And who gets to determine it? Afterall, I’ve never seen these juvenile references in threads about breast cancer.
God, please no “female only” forums. I hate that men are more and more marginalized in this world. Why are we so fragile that we can’t seem to deal with offense on a case by case basis? Why are we depriving men of a learning opportunity and ourselves of a broadening one? Please, no female or male only anything–that would be a huge step backward, IMO.
I’ll post further remarks in the new thread. Thanks for attempting to broach this huge topic,** Twickster. **
Amazing to whom? To her. The assumption seems to be that she is judging her body as to its sexual attractiveness to men; I have been saying that a woman can and often does judge her body without consideration of a man’s thinking. A woman’s perspective can be different because she has other thoughts about her breasts that are not sexual. They can be inconvenient, painful, distort the appearance of clothing to name a few.
This doesn’t invalidate a man’s perspective that breasts are sexual. What it does it allow for the possibility that a woman’s perspective is that they are more than just sexual. A man who wants to communicate effectively will at least consider that possibility if the comment is ambiguous and govern his response accordingly. If he doesn’t want to, it’s not like there’s anyone stopping him. I don’t think anyone’s proposing a rule or immediate mod intervention.
By the same token, women should strive to be clear - if they are going to refer to their breasts, it should be in a way that is unmistakably flirtatious or not flirtatious. It is then up to anyone responding to read that particular post in its intended context and determine how to respond. If it’s unclear to someone who wishes to respond, good manners would suggest restraint but aren’t obviously the final determiner of how the response will be worded.
I wasn’t attempting to suggest that there should be any such thing here. I was trying to find out if Ascenray believes that such things should not be posted here at all, because it is a mention of breasts in mixed company, which he has stated is always a sexual reference.
She didn’t say that. Just amazing. Your conclusion regarding amazing to whom is just as valid as anyone elses, so it really comes down to a matter of individual interpretation. You can’t fault the readers for the author’s failure to clarify herself.
We don’t know that. I didn’t assume that: I immediately thought she was calling unnecessary attention to herself.
Absolutely, in general, but the impetus of her comment is NOT clear. That is my point.
I agree.
No argument here. (of course, depending on good manners online is a bit naive in and of itself, but I hear you and agree).
Thank goodness. I about fell off my chair…
Tern, ern, plover – nope, I’m not getting it.
I’m guessing it has to do with Boobies.
Apparently you don’t read many of VT’s posts. Hint: they’re not meant to be taken seriously. Every. Single. One. Is a joke.
Most of them are pretty good, too. I have to admit I’m not sure what he’s getting at here.
I think it’s supposed to read as “something-er-gull”. No idea what the something part is.
The first time, I kind of rolled my eyes when reading the responses because they seemed to me to be a non-effective flirting tactic and a hijack of the thread topic. In the second thread, I was raising an eyebrow when Koxinga brought the first comment up but the ensuing discusion seemed to be civil. But by the third thread, I was thinking “Seriously? Did you really need to go there?” because by that time dbaFred’s intentions were pretty obvious.
I didn’t read any of those threads before this thread was started, so I don’t know how I would have taken them had I encountered them individually.
I think it’s a takeoff on stuff like Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (WTF), but all I get is OERS–which makes no sense to me. Oo-ers? OO=breasts? But there aren’t 2 Os, so who knows.
Doc, come back and 'splain your joke, please!
Pics of a pair of awesome boobies!
Also, a bunch of great tits!
:smack:
but why emergency room? 
It’s a cryptic crossword clue. Ever since I found out that our Twickster was an editor at Games magazine, I have admired her skill with puzzles.
Ostentatious=showy
Emergency Room=ER
Seabird should actually be Seabirds and =boobies
Thus we get Showy ER Boobies or Show Yer Boobies
The proper response is probably a Paint By Numbers ( a puzzle that has nothing to do with the kits of that name) depicting a pair of breasts.
No wonder I was confused – you only had half the clue. (For non-solvers, a cryptic clue has the wordplay in half of it, and a synonym or suchlike in the other half of the clue – he only gave the wordplay.)
Truly, you are a great mind.