See? Even NOW, he gets no respect…
Did you have an original thought to contribute here? Or did the bandwagon come by so you could jump on it?
In case you haven’t read the thread, which seems entirely likely given what you posted, there have been some pretty wild accusations, including that some people were equating rude remarks with rape, that men were being sexually repressed if they were not allowed to let their biological imperatives rule the way they post, and that sort of thing. I am very aware of the views of those who feel differently than I do - how could I not be? - so I’m not sure why you felt that your just-like-almost-everyone-else views needed to be addressed to me.
By the way, since it does appear that you haven’t read the thread, you may have missed that I said such remarks are not something that has offended me. That is because I don’t post or read flirting threads. I can think they’re clueless and stupid without being emotionally involved.
I’ve read the entire thread, and anyone else who has will know exactly why I responded to you (for kicks, you might want to go back and read the thread and see why I addressed you specifically - hint, it has all to do with this “can’t boobies be nonsexual” canard). I’ve made no accusations, wild or otherwise, regarding rape, repression, or the suppression of biological imperatives. I’ve only said the conclusions arrived at from your (hypothetical) “perspective” are naive. They are.
Very clever. How’s that working out for you?
Of course breasts can be non-sexual, they often are. However, your point has been made over, and over, and over again. That is why I asked if you had any original thoughts on the subject. I’m open to new ideas but am not willing to read the same old tired ones again. That horse is now buried and decomposed.
The “wild accusation” was that several or your coterie, with your little “Oh she was asking for it, eh?” routine were indeed, as admitted, comparing the method which rapists use to justify their raping with the method that people who flirt with a chick who mentions her amazing tits to a bunch of guys on the internet.
So yeah, *big *difference, you weren’t comparing flirting with rape, just people who point out that a girl who brings up her amazing tits has brought up a topic of conversation with how rapists justify forcing sex upon women.
Disingenuous punkass.
Too bad that all someone has to do is, ya know, quote the text you’re denying even exists. Pretty stupid on your part.
The claim was that men should not flirt in a group until “it can be expressed in a way that everyone can feel OK about.” That is, men should repress their sexuality until they can achieve the approval of a freakin’ committee. And, of course, that a man should repress his drive to flirt with a woman until he can be 100% sure that his method of flirting won’t make her feel bad, even though part of the whole point of flirting is to find out. Again, your attempt to deceive is stupid when I can quote what was actually said, which was that a man should “refrain altogether until [he] know[s] her better.”
Pretty wild, stating what people have said as proven by their own quotes.
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiild!
Much better to do what you’ve done, and lie about things that can easily be quoted.
that’s much smarter, too.
Uh, FinnAgain, have you heard of paraphrasing? And the ‘asking for it’ was not anything I said. However, your lecture on the biological imperative and sexual repression was one of the more interesting things I have read recently; I wasn’t aware that asking someone to consider their words before they post them was the equivalent of asking them to repress their sexual drive. And that was all I personally intended to express this entire thread - please consider the perspective of the other person and consider if what you are posting would be welcome. If that makes me a wild-eyed feminist, then so be it. I see it as asking for people to be mannerly, which apparently is too much in the Wild Wild West of the Dope.
I didn’t say that you used the “she was asking for it, eh?” phrase, but that it had been used. And that it was purposefully being used to compare the thought processes of those who justify flirting with those who justify raping. It was not a wild accusation. Nor was the 100% accurate claim that demanding men wait for committee approval or not initiate a probing bit of flirting until they already know it won’t earn a negative reaction.
Men should not flirt until it can be expressed in a way that everyone can feel OK about.
A man should refrain from flirting altogether until he knows the woman well enough to know that his flirting won’t make her feel bad."
A man should simply consider his words.
Oh, for God’s sake, people.
Pigs or prudes, isn’t it time we all just agree we hate Tracy Lord’s tits and get on with our lives?
Not too good at reading, are you? Everyone in the conversation, that is the man AND the woman, not just the man, not a “freakin’ committee.” If you don’t know if she’s going to want you to ask to see her tits, then you probably shouldn’t ask. I know, it’s such a cruel repression! It’s veritable castration, to expect such restraint.
If you are claiming that such conditions somehow equate to a mandate for monkhood, then I think you are a disingenuous punkass yourself. Unlike Suse, you are unable to paraphrase my argument without twisting it around to suit your urge for outrage, your need to be right at all costs.
Also, this is a flat-out lie. I’m just going to say it. My intention was not to purposefully compare the thought process of those who justify flirting to justify raping. That is strictly a fabrication of yours to discredit your opposition.
Are you an offense troll?
Plenty of times in the past I have flirted with women without knowing ahead of time if they will be receptive or not. Do you think there was something wrong with that?
Hrmmm… it is a lie that you stated that the thought process is the same, that both rapists and evil, evil flirty bastards blame their victim for someone provoking their bad behavior?
I’m really not going to bother with your bovine idiocy any more. Your other lie about how expecting every single person in a conversation to be okay with a type of flirting isn’t demanding approval by a committee is equally stupid.
Just put me back on your damn ignore filter and stop gnawing at my ankles.
In regards to your first question, certainly the latter, and sometimes the former. There’s a fine line, and many women deal with it all the time. What is being equated here with a man’s ‘loud shirt’? A sexy outfit? Because again, most women will tell you that sweatpants and a baggy tee are hardly catcall kevlar. This goes double if they’ve got large breasts. I sometimes wonder – If people are prepared to elect a female president, would they elect one with DDD breasts? I’m quite serious. How many jokes would we have to hear, on the Dope and elsewhere?
And again, who gets to decide what is and isn’t sexy, and then what do we do with people who don’t play by the rules? As I mentioned, many people find men in suits sexy. The same way a man might find a miniskirt sexy. But is a man in a suit accused of sending off the same signals as a woman in a miniskirt?
I like flirting. I even like breasts. But even if you are a truly enlightened, feminist gentleman who enjoys hot, consensual sex with women you respect and lust after – you’ve got to figure there are quite a few people who’ve got some catching up to do, and women deal with them every day. Whatever the OP, I think many lady Dopers are simply disappointed. We’ve been to other boards where, as I mentioned way up, sexist jokes are often the norm, gender is assumed male, and those who choose a female username are singled out early on (seriously guys, as an experiment, start posting on a game or film site under an obviously female name). So it can be a bit jarring to find the lowest common denominator where you feel most comfortable.
Seriously, women have the “right to not have anybody flirt with her unless she’d enjoy their flirtation”? How is anyone supposed to know in the first place? Is there seriously something wrong with flirting with someone without knowing beforehand that they want you to do so?
No one’s “accusing” anyone of anything, I don’t think. You send off sexual signals simply by being an animal that reproduces sexually. The important thing is for each of us to recognize what “signals” we are sending out and be aware of what behaviors provoke certain responses.
What does this prove besides the fact that women will get more attention in environments where there are fewer women? Is that inherently sexist, or simply a byproduct of our biological state of being?
Okay, but why do women have that right? I’m not saying that unwanted flirting can’t be obnoxious, even grating, but why do women ever have a ‘right’ to avoid it? Sure, it’d be nice, but something that rises to the level of a right? Why? And what of other obnoxious behaviors? Do I, for instance, have a right to prohibit women from wearing perfume (which I generally find cloying and/or repulsive) ? Why or why not?
TBH, anything that catches anybody’s eye. A color blind person might not even notice a loud shirt. Some men wouldn’t notice a woman with beautiful eyes. It takes all sorts. So, yeah, even a woman in sweats can be someone who catches people’s eye. I honestly think that’s just what anybody accepts by going out in public, man or woman.
- No idea.
- Probably roughly the same as jokes about Ross Perot’s ears or Bush looking like a chimp or Gorbachev’s birthmark. People like to make jokes about looks. And, well, gigantic breasts are more noticeable, at least to many, and provoke a stronger reaction than even giant ears, at least to many.
- It’s determined on a person-by-person basis with certain broad societal influences/constraints/trends.
- As long as people don’t violate law, individuals get to either roll their eyes, get into a shouting match, or just ignore them.
No, because the primary function of a suit is to look distinguished/professional while the primary function of a mini-skirt is to look hot. The sexual appeal of a suit is secondary to its function, the sexual appeal of a mini-skirt is its function.
But, sure, if you like men in suits feel free to chat one up with your favorite line. Worst comes to worst he’s not interested, right?
I agree, and it’s obnoxious, but my point is that there’s a metric fuckload of obnoxious behavior going on in the world every single day. Hell, I lived in NYC for a while, if I let every bit of rudeness stop my day, I’d never have made the walk up Broadway all the way to West 4th. It seems that some people are letting the (non illegal, non-threatening) obnoxiousness get blown way out of proportion.
But, well, that’s why it’s important to chose your online community. You’re not obligated to hang out in a place that’s strikingly obnoxious to you all the time, but the Dope hardly rises to that standard, right? And sure, all communities is mostly jerks. And some people are too.
But, in my mind, there’s a good bit of daylight between “people shouldn’t be jerks” and “I have a right to have people not be jerks.”
Do we disagree on that point?
I realize that you have become entrenched in an untenable position, and are now on a campaign of revisionist history to save face, but I’ll try one more time:
Tracy posted that her shirt made her waist look tiny and her boobs look amazing, and two people jokingly said they would like to see her wearing the shirt.
The responses were not out of line with the original post. Nobody asked for naked pics, nobody said they were masturbating, nobody even said “tits.” They used the exact same language used by Tracy.
In short, they absolutely did consider what Tracy would be comfortable with, and posted in line with it. You have consistently misrepresented what happened with your imagined responses.
I’m sure there are examples, especially on other message boards, of inappropriate responses. But you are doing everyone a disservice by misrepresenting what happened here and trying to make charges of sexism and sleaze stick when they were not warranted.
Why would there be fewer women on a film site? Anyway, I meant to imply that you may very well get treated differently than you would posting as a man (or possible man which, again, is often the assumption), that your viewpoint may suddenly lose value or be considered differently because you are a woman (e.g. Your preferring one film over another is chalked up to your genitals rather than your arguments and personal opinion). Or you might be pestered with irrelevant questions or private messages, jokes, requests for pics, etc. when you just want to figure out what’s wrong with your PC.
Disappointing for anyone who figured the anonymous internet was a safe haven from racism, sexism, etc. (okay, maybe no one thinks that anymore – but I do remember thinking, and reading about, itway back when). Anyway, sorting out gender and the internet is surely the work of a thousand current grad students.
Pretty much all the other points boil down to this – women’s bodies are perceived and treated differently than men’s in western society. They occupy space differently, and often to their own disadvantage. Whereas men in suits are the default, women and their bodies are still the other, so they deserve to be commented upon in public space. Most learn this in their early teens (basically, boob time) – that their bodies are now open to public commentary.
Take the aforementioned politician. She wears a man’s suit, to blend in – she sticks out like a sore thumb. Too dykey. She wears a flattering suit? Too sexy. Please, find me a woman with large breasts who has never had them pointed out to her by at least a dozen strangers. Or a pregnant woman who hasn’t had her space severely violated (by both men and women). Or a perpetual frowner who doesn’t regularly get told to smile. Yes, we make comments about male politicians, and yes, some men get hit on in public, and yes, men are very occasionally objectified in advertising. But sometimes, however much we say that women are the ‘choosers’ when it comes to relationships, I think it’s just taken for granted that women should greet everything but a grope or slur with a good-natured giggle.
(Again, I love both flirting and breasts. But I’ve also had a guy at a cafe call me a bitch because I was too busy with a crossword to engage him in discussion).
Blaming the victim for your own bad behavior is not a rape-exclusive event. It happens pretty much whenever there’s a victim and a self-righteous perpetrator. I work in a middle school and I see it all the time as a justification for bullying. You choose to make it about rape, not me. So yes, it is a LIE. I had zero intention of likening message board flirting to rape, and if I did, I’d admit it and I’d make my point. You can insist that you’ve read my mind long distance and know better than I do what I meant, but you’d be lying if you did.
No, sorry, it’s YOU who is lying again. Why don’t you put ME on ignore, because every time you lie about what I’ve said, I’m going to correct you. Keep calling me names, too. It does not make you look better or help your argument. I am becoming more and more convinced that you’re trolling, though. Moo!
Since I wasn’ there, I have no idea what you said. Did you ask a woman you didn’t know to show you her tits? Probably not. There’s flirting that is non-offensive even to people who aren’t going to reciprocate. “Being OK with it” doesn’t mean flirting back or wanting to hook up with you after you flirt; it just means that you didn’t make the woman feel weird or gross after you did it. Is that really too much to ask? A little social grace is all that’s necessary here, not written consent of a committee signed in triplicate, whatever Finn may have made you think I said.
You do realize that we’re not, after 10+ pages, talking specifically about Tracy Lord anymore, right? That there are SHOW US YER TITS type comments in other places on this message board (some far less appropriate than Tracy’s thread), and that the conversation has been expanded to include those, as well as a variety of other semi-relevant topics, like flirting in general, and whatever other arrant bullshit FinnAgain tries to drag into the conversation.
However, obviously Tracy didn’t want people to ask for pictures of her clothed boobs either. When she asked them to stop, some did and some didn’t. It even got brought up in another thread, which is why she opened a Pit thread. See, once she expressed that she didn’t like it, no matter how ill-worded or provocative her original post was, it would have been polite to just let it go. That’s not about flirting, that’s about being a jerk.
Now tell me, what is revisionist history about what I’m saying?
For what it’s worth, I think this is part of the inherent disconnect here … many posters ARE still talking about **Tracy Lord **and that specific situation, and are honestly confused/frustrated by the far-ranging topics that it has spawned. They try to bring the thread back to its original question/scenario (like Carmady seems to be doing), and it gallops off into a different hemisphere again.