You are really not making sense here. You think that only a pedophile would whistle at an 8 year old, but it’s okay to whistle at a 13 year old because they think she’s going to be sexually attractive in the future. Why isn’t it okay to whistle at an 8 year old? There’s only one reason. The men who are whistling aren’t thinking about what this girl is going to look like in the future. They only care that they find her sexually attractive right now. That’s why men who whistle at 8 year olds are pedophiles.
Not necessarily. They may just be sexual harassers, and she’s a girl. They want the girls to learn their place early. That doesn’t have to mean that they want to have sex with her now.
For what’s starting to feel like the three thousandth time in this thread: catcalling women and girls is rarely about wanting to have sex with them right that minute – or, sometimes, even at all.
ETA: The reason it’s worse to whistle at an 8 year old or a 13 year old is that they’re less likely to have developed coping skills. But it doesn’t become okay to whistle at somebody because they’re of legal age.
Both of my kids were born from the women being aggressive.
I think there’s truth here. Fathers who want their daughters to learn the woman’s role, and wear dresses all the time, etc. don’t have designs on them. They just want to raise a daughter who will assume the “correct” gender role.
No, one is a subset of the other. pretty means “attractive, but not as attractive as beautiful”.
And attractive, when applied to human beings, means sexually alluring. It’s been softened somewhat for sexless humans like babies, but think on this - if you were a straight man, would you call a 13 y.o. boy pretty? I highly doubt it.
Agreeing to disagree is only something that can happen when both sides are equally entitled to their opinions. It’s when they are coming from an equal footing, with equal knowledge.
In this case, however, we have multiple women who have been catcalled, and multiple men who have seen it action. They have lived experiences and thus are somewhat experts on the topic. On the other side, there’s you, going by a definition you read in a dictionary. Dictionaries don’t even try to give you any breadth of knowledge. They just help you use the right word in a sentence, and even then can fail because they only discuss each word briefly.
So you’re in a situation where people with more experience and expertise are telling you that you are wrong. And you are asserting that your own ignorant opinion is just as valid as theirs. It really isn’t. It’s like when some guy who has just discovered Einstein’s theory of relativity thinks they can prove it wrong.
There’s a reason even I, with more experience than you, responded with questions and seeking understanding, rather than flat out asserting people were wrong. I know that the women in this thread have more experience with catcalling and related topics than I do. I deferred to them as the experts.
You may think that social situations put us all on equal footing. But they really don’t. We all still have different levels of experience in different areas.
Oh, and to agree to disagree means that we both agree to stop arguing. It means we agree to let the disagreement stand, and stop trying to convince each other. It is not something you can unilaterally decide to do.
No, but I might call him handsome. For some reason, “pretty” is a gendered term.
And I don’t think I’m an outlier. I’ve remember being told as a kid by adults that I looked handsome. It happened too frequently for me to think they were all pedophiles. I mean, my grandparents said it to me. Similarly, my sister was told she was a pretty little girl.
I think this may be a language divide issue. I’ve never heard of “pretty” (or the male equivalent “handsome”) being inherently sexual. Try typing “pretty little girl” into Google to see how often it is used in clearly non-sexual contexts.
Hell, I’ve told my female dogs that they are pretty little girls. And my current male dog that he’s a handsome little fella.
Context matters.
‘What a pretty little dog!’ isn’t sexual. And it’s not going to make that dog, or some other dog who hears it addressed to that dog but not to itself, worried about what it looks like.
‘What a pretty baby!’ isn’t sexual; and again isn’t going to distress the baby, who mostly hears the tone of voice. I however immediately recognized the point being made when a fictional character addressed their (female) baby as ‘What a strong baby! What a sturdy baby!’
‘What a pretty little girl!’ isn’t necessarily sexual. But, combined with the context of the rest of society, it does tell the girl that she’s supposed to be pretty, and that this matters; that it would be a problem for her if she weren’t pretty.
“Pretty enough” in the context of a wolf whistle, or in general in the context of catcalling on the street, is definitely sexual. This is true even when the whistlers/catcallers aren’t intending imminent sex.
Not since college over 30 years ago. Often guys would say something to the college women and most often they would say something back. Sometimes the women would catcall or flash the men especially those guys working out. I’d never do that now.
Now a couple of years ago I was running a water station for a marathon and this one young woman came up wearing these very tight, short shorts and while I didn’t say anything, I couldnt help but notice. After she had ran away I looked over at the guy I was working with and both of us had raised eyebrows and we both mouthed the word “Wow!”.
I don’t intend to suggest that thorny_locust would be wrong if she were to say all wolf-whistles come across as sexual objectification (to her). I do intend to suggest, and hopefully I made the explicit argument, that a man does not necessarily sexually objectify a girl in his own mind when he makes a wolf-whistle. Therefore the man might not actually be a pedophile, even if he comes across as one.
This suggestion may seem to be a non-sequitur until you look at the rest of my argument. The girl apparently didn’t think it was sexual, the father actually said he didn’t think it was sexual, therefore I think maybe it really wasn’t sexual.
The suspected disagreement here which I do not intend on debating at length is who determines the meaning of a sound, in this case the wolf-whistle.
Perhaps this is the epitome of irony, but when I unilaterally say “let’s agree to disagree”, I mean “I disagree with you but don’t want to argue about it here, I acknowledge that you disagree with me, and I request that you to agree not to argue about it here”. You and thorny_locust are free to disregard my request and continue making posts about how and why I am wrong about who determines the meaning of a wolf-whistle.
~Max
Well, in my humble opinion, you’re wrong. I think human beings can be beautiful or pretty like a sunset, and I think I can feel attracted to the beauty of a human being in the same way I am attracted to the beauty of a sunset. Humans can be sexy, too, but I distinguish between sexiness and beauty. Especially in children, I might think they are pretty or beautiful but that same feature is a huge turn-off sexually because I’m not sexually attracted to children.
If you think the only way a person can be pretty or beautiful is by appealing to sexual desire, I pity you.
~Max
I think humans can be aesthetically pleasing in a non-sexual way. But I wouldn’t use the word “attractive” for it. And I wouldn’t use the words “pretty” or “beautiful” for post-pubescent humans to mean that, either, because the ambiguity exists. Not using the words that way doesn’t mean all aesthetic appreciation of humans is sexual. But it does mean the set of humans to which it can be applied free of that implication does not include any 13 yo girls.
So you would call a 13 yo boy “pretty” or “beautiful”?
That’s your choice. I wouldn’t use “attractive” either, but I think “pretty/handsome/beautiful” appropriately represents my feelings. I can’t think of a better way to articulate it.
Mind you, I also think it is inappropriate to tell random people that I think they are beautiful. It is ambiguous.
The appropriate word would be “handsome” although “beautiful” might work with someone I know well. To call a thirteen year old boy “pretty”, here at least, is to insinuate that he is effeminate. In some extraordinary circumstance that might be a complement.
~Max
If it’s just pure aesthetic appreciation, why use gendered language?
I am a product of my culture, which is heavy-laden with gendered language.
~Max
Doesn’t mean you have to use it.
It doesn’t, but I do.
~Max
He doesn’t have to be a pedophile in order to sexually objectify her.
For what feels like the three hundredth time: catcalling is sexual objectifying, but it does not necessarily have anything at all to do with intentions to have sex with the person. This is objective fact. It was illustrated by several instances discussed earlier in this thread in which the person catcalled misunderstood the situation and responded favorably to the catcaller(s), only to find those people entirely taken aback. (This can’t be counted on; some catcallers will move on to physical sexual assault if they get the chance.)
Your imagination about potential uses of the wolf whistle has nothing to do with that particular fact, and your insistence that only pedophiles could possibly sexually objectify an underage girl is just plain wrong.
And if you’re going to keep posting it, yes I’m going to keep objecting to it. If you want to ‘agree to disagree’, you have to drop the subject.
– Possibly you’re confused about what sexual objectification means. It has to do with considering a person only in relation to their sex, not as an individual. It does not require wanting to have sex with the person. A person who says ‘women are only good for having sex with’ is sexually objectifying all women, but most certainly doesn’t intend to have sex with all of them. A person who says – and means – ‘who’d go near that ugly bitch?’ is sexually objectifying the woman he’s addressing despite the fact that he doesn’t want to have sex with her and is explicitly denying wanting to.
I’ve cut up your post a little bit to highlight the only parts that I agree with.
~Max
Right here is where you’re wrong. Argue all you want, but you’re wrong. The more you argue, the worse you come across.
How would it seem to you if a woman wolf-whistled at a 13-year-old boy she saw on the street? Just letting him know she finds him esthetically pleasing?