Women in public, no matter how they're dressed, are not "inviting" ANYTHING.

[redqueen]

Get it?

Not stares, not opinions, not interaction, not ANYTHING. Clothes are not an invitation. Words are. Body language can be.

CLOTHES ARE NOT.

This message brought to you by the Department of Why The Hell Are People Still Not Clear On This

[The Magistrate]

1. Cold Truth, Ma'm

[cali]

288. not even remotely the 'cold truth', sir.

[The Magistrate]

290. Not Worth Arguing About, Ma'am: Those Who See Will See, Those Who Will Not Will Not

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, nobody wants to die."

[redqueen]

296. "Not Worth Arguing About, Ma'am"

NOW you tell me!

[The Magistrate]

301. An Old Campaigner, Ma'am

Some people there can be profit in an exchange with, some are simply contrarians and will say no to anything just to hear the sound of it.

[stklurker]

2. stares...

Interaction, the rest.. fine. But if you wear little or no clothing, or something outrageous and expect people not to stare , thats not reasonable expectation. Sorry.

This message brought to you by Why the Hell Are People Still Not Clear on THIS

[redqueen]

3. Please do so to women who are accompanied by large, strong-looking men.

You would do so, I'm sure, since you seem to believe this is acceptable behavior.

Let us know how that goes.

[galileoreloaded]

4. because those men are the ones you value? how pre-historicly caveman

this is getting so blatant and positively fascinating.

[redqueen]

11. ...

[seabeyond]

13. lmfao.. ya. i just typed a whole post on that swooosh, then deleted. why bother. so funny. nt

[galileoreloaded]

34. nah, i got it pretty clear, ergo my post.

i'll clarify

you just reinforced gender bias by suggesting that a man in public wouldn't look at a woman if accompanied by "a large strong looking man". your words.

then, when caught, you attempted a quick shame and reframe to blow your sexism back on me as "not getting it" because somehow I'm so clueless as to see that because you are a self appointed gender warrior, you couldn't POSSIBLY have a sexist thought in your head.

i get it, its your shtick, but I'm going to call you out every. single. time.

its gross

[Roland99]

102. Don't bother...not worth the effort

trust me

[BainsBane]

147. No, she suggested he should try it

when accompanied by a big strong man. The point is it's about power. A male is unlikely to treat a woman as an object when she is accompanied by a "big, strong man" because he respects, even fears, that man's strength. Yet he might cat call when the woman is alone. The point is not that she prefers "big strong men," but that men tend to respect other men more than women.

Your sudden fascination with gender is interesting, considering last week you claimed you didn't recognize people according to gender identity.

[AtheistCrusader]

160. Cat call != stare.

Granted, staring can be taken to an uncomfortable or unwelcome extreme as well. Probably where you cross a line between observation, and the stare actually becoming a form of communication itself.

But if people are wearing flourish/decoration of various sorts, they probably want to be looked at. And this is gender neutral. Guys do it too. I am not attracted to males, but I will look intently at a guy that is dressed in some flamboyant/unusual/spectacular fashion. See it all the time.

But again, there are social protocols for that 'line' between observation, and causing discomfort.

[BainsBane]

168. There is a difference between looking and staring

I suspect you don't stare at women. Just a guess. As you say, there is a line between observation and causing discomfort.

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Absolutely.

And there are non-verbal cues that the recipient can use to discourage being looked at over-intently/crossing into the uncomfortable range of a "Stare(TM)".

[Starry Messenger]

210. I just got home from shopping.

On my way into the store, a driver (male) of a car, brought his car to nearly a stop and slooooowly drove in front of me while pinning me with a direct stare. It went on for about 15 seconds and I had to walk around his car to get to the sidewalk. That is staring. Not a glance at my interesting sweater.

I'm nice looking but hardly a fashion plate. It's a weird form of public social control. The odd thing is that it would hardly be worth mentioning, but I just thought of it when reading your post. It's not unusual. I think if women did this to men all the time, it would be the subject of comment.

[AtheistCrusader]

215. I agree.

And what you describe is going beyond observation to a form of communication itself, just like a cat call or inappropriate comment. And the person doing it, I'm sure knows exactly what they were doing.

[galileoreloaded]

173. i find hypocritical views on gender endlessly fascinating because I don't see it.

but wrong is wrong, and females don't have a monopoly on righteousness in gender discussions. sorry

[BainsBane]

175. Now you're back to not seeing gender?

[galileoreloaded]

176. reading comprehension

ain't your thing, is it?

that makes me sad

[BainsBane]

183. Yes,.no one can comprehend your secret code

that's what you claimed regarding your point about "special protection" afforded to rape victims if we acknowledge rape culture.
No one knew what you meant because clearly no such special protections exist, but you kept claiming it was everyone else's reading problems.

You misinterpreted redqueen's point so I explained it to you. That entire point is now inconsequential to you. I suggest you not be so eager to call others hypocrites. You willfully misinterpreted her post, ignored a clarification, and charged her with sexism over an argument that exists only in your head.

[chervilant]

322. What little there is of it!

His head, that is...


(IMHO, having seen the dissembling and bizarre 'conclusions' in both threads.)

[lark]

196. Twist & distort & ignore intentions

She didn't say people wouldn't look at a woman with a large strong man by her side, she said they wouldn't stare - see the difference now? How is that sexist? Men will often oogle women walking by themselves or in a group of women, but rarely if the same person is with a big man. Been there, seen that, many times. Men use the staring, and jibes as threats to women, and showing off for their friends, and that's not as likely to happen when there's another male walking with the woman.

[closeupready]

204. Well I don't know if you live in flyover country, but in New York,

men will stare at attractive women whether or not a man is with her. So I guess stay away from the Big Bad Apple.

[galileoreloaded]

205. im what women call "attractive", outspoken, and have no fear of judgement..

and i get looked at like a piece of meat...often. regardless if the female is single, married, young, old, etc.

"big strong man" is code for attractive i fear, and not for the "nice guys" that make up the other 95% of men that they dont WANT staring at them.

its sexist. its objectifying.

other men mean nothing to me. nothing. its about me being objectified, and to quote the op, female opinions on the matter are shit.

[redqueen]

221. cool story, bro

Also, you're not quoting me.

[lark]

419. Not getting it.

""big strong man" is code for attractive i fear, and not for the "nice guys" that make up the other 95% of men that they dont WANT staring at them. "

Sorry, this response is itself sexist. Why would you assume that women want any stranger staring at them? When I was decades younger I didn't have a car for many years and walked and biked or took the bus everywhere, so was out in the public spaces a lot. I often received cat calls, whistles, agressive ogling, and I didn't once care what the person looked like. He was a jerk, no matter what and that was the end of it. It didn't matter if he was attractive or unattrative, I thought there was something wrong with him for him to be behaving like that.

[chervilant]

321. Do you really not get that post?

Let's try this from a different perspective:

I have a dear friend who looks like Morgan Fairchild, only with red hair and green eyes. She has a slender, well-proportioned body. She dresses stylishly, but not provocatively (eg, no short skirts or skimpy blouses).

For her entire life, she's had to contend with clueless men staring at her, wolf whistling at her, making suggestive or sexually vulgar remarks to her...I could go on and on.

I remember walking through the Galleria with her and watching a guy turn completely around so that he could continue watching her -- until the woman HE was with punched him on his arm hard enough to knock him into the wall. When I asked my friend if she saw that, she said, "I've learned to look straight ahead and not respond to those sexist asswipes!"

That has been her life experience -- with men who can't understand "what's wrong with staring."

[zazen]

353. ah yes, the "freeze"

We Southern women were taught that from a young age. One is never supposed to acknowledge it --to "dignify it with a response."

A funny Southern writer, Florence King, really captured the weird class/gender/regional dynamics in that, because if a woman didn't acknowledge it--if she froze as if refusing to see anything inappropriate and continued on her business, as if that prurient world wasn't real to her, then that meant she was a real lady and the men felt guilty and wouldn't do it again (to her). So, our opportunity to seize "power" in that situation was the opportunity to assert class. And to prove we weren't Yankees.

That's a weird holdover from aristocratic notions of upbringing, wherein ladies do not acknowledge things that are inappropriate. So, what the system gets is women who don't argue directly back when they're harassed, but what it dangles in front of a certain type of woman is the opportunity to assert that she's a lady. Not exactly a fair trade, and one that reinforces the Madonna/whore complex.

[redqueen]

355. Excellent post.

Thank you very much for describing that coping mechanism, and how it reinforces the Madonna/whore complex.

[datasuspect]

30. why are you stereotyping large, strong-looking men?

they're not all prone to violence.

[redqueen]

35. It doesn't matter if they are or not. People naturally don't act so disrespectfully towards them

simply due to the chance they might be.



I wonder if people are actually trying to miss the point, being disingenuous, or...

[datasuspect]

42. that's a very sexist characterization

[BainsBane]

151. that behavior is sexist, yes

Not her observation of it.

[sufrommich]

70. You have to wonder if it's intentional?

Of course it is,it's the same 10 or so guys who show up on every thread that even remotely smacks of feminism. No matter how bluntly it's put, like men who make public comments to women they don't know will not be so free with their comments if that woman is accompanied by a man ,is now "reverse sexism",just like every mention of racism against people of color is "reverse racism" to freepers. I use the ignore function now whenever I see a pattern of this.

[redqueen]

75. Good point. nt

[BainsBane]

154. After claiming they don't see gender

but not as a joke like when Colbert says he doesn't seem race. If one doesn't identify people according to gender, how is it possible to be so obsessed with "sexism" toward men, I wonder?

[galileoreloaded]

182. i dated a woman who communicated like you once.

it was the best relationship i might have ever had. it was like a war that we both wanted to fight, constant reframing and verbal misdirection by her, followed by my insistence to stay on topic and relevant to the discussion by myself. super fun!


i miss her.

[BainsBane]

184. Please

don't put me and dating you in the same sentence EVER again.

[galileoreloaded]

191. but i'm large and strong looking!!! seems all the rage down here. nt

[BainsBane]

193. go back and reread my post

Where I explained Redqueen's point to you.

[Democracyinkind]

440. Ah. Rational boy and emotional woman...

I heard about that love story too, about 100 years ago.

Your posts are so full of juvenile gender concepts that I would consider them educational satire if you wouldn't seem that invested in peddling it.

[hootinholler]

188. Definitely or

I'm sure it's or.

[question everything]

62. You cannot stop people from staring

at handicapped people, at unusually dressed men and women, at cute babies, at obese and very skinny people..

Who are you to tell people at whom and where can they stare?

[redqueen]

68. You are actually defending rude behavior. Wow. nt

[Roland99]

104. no...it's human nature

[Scout]

113. it's still rude to stare ... we are capable of overcoming our "human nature"

... at least the vast majority of us are.

apparently some of us think we can't control ourselves

[Roland99]

116. depends on the situation doesn't it?

staring in plain sight at a handicapped person is quite rude. someone staring at a distance at someone of the opposite sex due to some type of visual stimulant or attraction is just human nature...akin to curiosity that drives eavesdropping.

[Scout]

396. ... and we can OVERCOME the base nature

that makes us want to act in a rude fashion.

at least most of us can control ourselves.

apparently your argument is that some can't. poor babies are too weak to control themselves i guess.

[get the red out]

213. Exactly

How is defending rudeness in fitting with any sort of liberal ideals???????

People are so odd on here sometimes.

[wryter2000]

406. Of course, you can stop staring

It's called courtesy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. Using perceived ownership of the women by big strong-looking men as defense of your point is odd.

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 03:43 PM - Edit history (3)

Paraphrased: Women are autonomous and have the right to self determination. They should only be looked at in the way I want people looking at me. Besides, if you stare her boyfriend will beat you up.

It is ridiculous to suppose that no one chooses their costumes in order to get people to look at them.

I'm sorry but no. You don't get to choose who I look at or even why. Nor do you get to define the motivations of all women in public.

[LittleBlue]

140. You would be surprised at how rare that is in America

Maybe in different countries or men who are dead drunk, but I've never seen it happen once. Men look at a large man's girl all the time.

Too many people armed in this country to get into fights over nothing. It isn't like Britain where fighting large brawls are the norm.

[redqueen]

150. I notice none of the usual suspects are addressing post 7.

Gee, I wonder why.

[LittleBlue]

153. I will address it if you want

This thread is quite large and I've barely gotten past the first few posts.

[redqueen]

159. I would be delighted.

Yours was the first of certain posts which seemed rational, so I would be interested to hear your take.

IMO men wouldn't stare at anyone they were intentionally trying not to offend, and I used the 'big, strong man' example because many big, strong men have commented on how differently they're treated.

[LittleBlue]

189. Ah, I see what you mean

Yes, the threat of consequences would deter a stare out of fear. If I were in a foreign country, I would be more mindful of my gaze. Especially in an Islamic country or a Latin American country. Probably in Britain too.

On the whole I'd say most men glance to whatever degree they can control it. Some have a great degree of control, especially if they're in relationships. I have been caught staring in the past, but not with the intent to make them uncomfortable. Usually in the most unnoticeable manner possible.

Now there are times, very rarely, where a woman so stunning walks by that I forget myself. It just happens and you don't realize what you've done until afterwards, like an out-of-body experience. In fairness, I also did this to Shaquille O'Neill once in Vegas.

For the men who stare with the intent to make women uncomfortable? That's shitty. I have heard there are men like this but have never met one. In South America catcalls are the norm, but in the US northwest conspicuous staring isn't the norm, nor are fights in this manner normal. Of course every region varies, but this is a summary of my experience on the subject.

[redqueen]

195. If it's absent minded that's one thing.

Intentionally staring, whether the intent is to make the person uncomfortable or not, is rude and disrespectful.

Only assholes do that.

[adigal]

267. How do you discern if it is absent minded since we can't read minds

I am a woman, and I think sometimes I zone out and stare at things and people. I don't think when people stare, it is meant to be rude all of,the time.

Besides, if a woman or man is walking down the street in my small mountain town in a tiny bikini that looks like dental floss, people will stare. If she is walking to the beach at the Jersey shore, she will certainly still gwt noticed, but much less staring, because everyone walks to the beach in bathing suits. Context is everything.

[redqueen]

271. This isn't about a court proceeding. Even if you don't get caught, you should feel like an asshole

if you do something rude, mean, disrespectful, etc.

So yeah, maybe the person you're staring at so rudely doesn't notice. Doesn't make you any less of an asshole for being rude.

Contrasted with someone who zones out, has nothing to feel like an asshole about... and if the person they're staring at notices and shows their discomfort, I imagine that a good many would apologize.

[adigal]

278. I think some people want to be stared at, and I do agree with you

That we don't know who that is. And also, I did follow the original women libbers, and I don't remember them fighting for us to have the right to wear clothes that show everything but the nipple, and not be stared at. I think that is anethema to their goals, actually, which were To be accepted for who they were, not how they looked.

In other words, I think if a woman was walking down 6th Avenue in a bikini and got whistled at, Gloria Steinem would tell her to dress for the time and place. Don't be stupid, and then complain.

OK, I'm ducking now!

[redqueen]

282. You present yet another rdiculous example. Why?

You get the point.

You admitted as much.

Sooooo... what exactly is the point that so many people find so incredibly meaningful?


Next time I'll be sure to say that most women, in most circumstances, are probably not inviting anyone to rudely stare (cause polite staring is OK!), announce their opinion (as opposed to just having an opinion, cause apparently it needs to be spelled out that everyone has an opinion), or hit on her unless it's in a location where that is not a socially sanctioned and expected activity (because clearly no one understands context!)



Or no, wait, actually not.

Because LOTS of people understood full well what I meant the first time!

[lumberjack_jeff]

226. at·trac·tive /əˈtraktiv/ Adjective (of a person) Appealing to look at; sexually alluring:

I would anticipate that people (men or women) who are attracted to the big strong-looking man will do exactly that.

When one dresses to maximize their attractiveness, being looked at is what happens, and the big strong looking guy can't just beat someone up when the wrong kind of person gets the message.

[redqueen]

7. In fact, please stare at every big, strong looking man who attracts any attention from you.

Because as you insist, he's inviting it.

[LittleBlue]

156. What am I supposed to say?

I don't get it. Why would I stare at a man?

[AtheistCrusader]

170. A 'stare' is in the eye of the beholder.

Excuse the pun.

Yes, I will look at men who are 'noticeable', just as I would a female. Men and women go out of their way to be noticeable for much the same reasons.

Difficult to quantify when a look becomes a stare/ when observation becomes communication of its own. Usually the assessment of that threshold belongs to the person being looked at.

[Warren DeMontague]

316. Ah, the legendary Post #7. Here it is!

I could post some anecdotal reference to the experience of big, strong and/or "attractive" men and being stared at, but that would probably just invite a "cool story, bro" like the one upthread, an' we all know what that means.



So let me throw this out from left field- I actually think some of this shit may be geographical. In my experience, people on the East Coast, in particular, are far more intently and obtrusively up in each others' bizniz', just in general. This is one of the reasons I can't abide Manhattan. Every time I've been out there it seems like all rules of interpersonal decorum- like, how long to look vs "stare" at a stranger- have been tossed out the window.

The further West one goes, it seems to me, the more people in public at least pretend to not give half a shit about what other people are doing, at any given moment. This even applies to superficial Los Angeles.

[Posteritatis]

265. I am a big boy and am thus able to control whether I stare at something or not. (nt)

[NightWatcher]

5. I respectfully disagree. Body glitter on cleavage invites looks

Strange or excessive piercings on the face (men or women) invite looks.

"JUICY" written across the ass of short-shorts invite stares. I can't help it, I'm a reader.

Excessive or strange publicly visible tattoos attract looks and judgements.

Nothing invites being harassed or touched, but what you decide to present in public often attracts looks (good or bad) and sometimes too judgements (both good and bad).

[redqueen]

14. Staring is disrespectful. This is a fact.

People feel entitled to be disrespectful to certain types of people.

They should evaluate why that is.

Attention and looks are one thing. Staring is quite another.

[leftynyc]

32. Sorry, I simply cannot agree

If a person walks out of their home with purple hair and dozens of piercings on their face and body, they ain't looking to blend in. They're looking for the attention. That's a whole other ballgame than women not being able to wear what they want so they don't get physically attacked.

[redqueen]

41. Well then an extra special thank you to you and everyone else

who is completely aware of the point of the OP yet insists on changing the subject anyway.

[pintobean]

51. Like you did with my post?

[lumpy]

67. If a woman wears clothing in public that expose practically all of her bare breasts,

does she do it for attention or is she just airing her boobs ?

[leftynyc]

73. It doesn't matter

what her intention is.....she's not asking for someone to touch her.

[adigal]

270. But the OP wasn't about touching, was it?

It was about staring. And what does a woman who dresses like that want?

I am a teacher, and I try to tell the girls in a very roundabout way that women fought for years to be treated as equals, so why do many dress in a way that presents their body as the first thing that someone will notice about them? And I grew up listening to the "bra burners" so I do think I have a good handle on what those women fought for.

[galileoreloaded]

49. like the big strong men you seem to ogle?

as a "big strong man" i'm offended.

[cliffordu]

425. Who made you the arbiter of this??

[Logical]

430. Define staring? 30 seconds? 10 seconds? n-t

[pintobean]

6. Link to what the OP is apparently about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845844#post32

I'm a man, btw. It says so in my profile.

[randome]

10. Profiles can lie.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[pintobean]

20. Okay, I just double checked

Yep, I'm still a guy.

[woolldog]

55. lol

[keroro gunsou]

354. you had to check....

well then....

[woolldog]

8. What about someone wearing something like this?

[siligut]

45. OK, that pic on the right? That's inviting stares.

That's outright blatant

[redqueen]

56. Celebrities on the red carpet posing for pictures are SO FUCKING OBVIOUSLY not the subject of the OP

but then, that's blindingly fucking obvious.

[siligut]

88. I understand and agree with your OP redqueen

I was commenting on just that one pic, because OMG

[redqueen]

95. I figured...

I just had to vent about the post you replied to, but I knew actually replying to it was a waste of time.

[siligut]

99. Wise choice

[woolldog]

146. The language in your OP

was very broad and included "women in public, no matter how they're dressed."

I didn't read any exceptions for Hollywood starlets in your OP.

[pacalo]

332. What about how these ordinary people are dressed, then...

[woolldog]

152. heh

[Half-Century Man]

134. Bet the shoe make your toes go numb

I couldn't pull that look off. Chest hair would get caught in the chain mail.

[randome]

9. So men should only speak when spoken to?

Have you been to a club lately? In the right venue, clothing -or lack of it- IS an invitation.

But only in the right venue.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Warren Stupidity]

38. yes appropriate behavior for setting would be appropriate behavior

but that is a tautology, right?

"The street" is not "a singles bar".

[Bonobo]

338. And saying "hello" is not a pickup line.

If the woman response with an icy stare that signals "I am not interested" or if she says, frostily, "Yeah whatever, hello." then that would end things.

On the other hand, if she says, warmly, "Oh hi! How are YOU?" then you might proceed to the next step like "Do you work near here?" or "I like frappucinos too."

Then you measure how she responds, and that's kinda like how humans interact.

There's a hell of a lot of room between pretending no one around you exists and acting like Steve Martin, the Czech swinger, every time you see a woman.

[Warren Stupidity]

344. So it is a pick up line.

[Bonobo]

345. No, it's a greeting.

And both parties have the option as to how to interact.

[Warren Stupidity]

347. Have you ever considered how annoying it might be to be accosted by strangers

continuously, each of them hoping that their intrusion into your space will "get them somewhere"?

An attractive women minding her own business walking alone in a crowded public space, and many of the man passing by attempting to strike up a conversation. Quite a few will not leave it at "hello", some will get irate if she does not respond.

Your "hello" in the situation you described is in fact a "pick up line", with you hoping it will go further. Your claim that it wasn't was belied by your description of where the encounter might go.

Oh yeah, but you're a "nice guy", so its ok. But how the flying fuck does she know that?

[Bonobo]

351. She can talk or not talk.

First of all, just like she cannot read minds, I cannot read her mind and tell whether she is annoyed by all the people that have tried to talk to or even IF alot of people have tried to talk to her.

No, she cannot immediately tell if I am a nice guy. But if she chooses to talk, she may find out.

Why would you think so poorly of women;s ability to handle a "hello" that you would deny both men and women the agency in how to manage social interactions. I find it a very condescending attitude.

If the woman wants to ignore me, frown, smile, laugh, spit, giggle or whatever, why can you not give her the credit that she is able to do those things?

And as for your assumption that it is a pickup line that will "get them somewhere"... that speaks so poorly of your attitude towards people. Yes, all relationships are transactional in some way; that is to say that everyone WANTS something from another person...but to reduce it to that is really sad and unkind.

What if you saw someone reading the same book as you and you sensed a kindred spirit? What if you recognized someone from the movie theater showing of Singing In The Rain? Etc. etc, etc, etc.

[closeupready]

360. Some people on this board who fancy themselves smart

seem to live in caves or under rocks and come out to kvetch why the rest of the world doesn't live in caves or under rocks.

You know what I'm saying?

It's like this board is dominated, with regard to women's issues, by fake people who live solely on this board, and have no lives. And having a social life is or greeting someone is, in fact, a state of being known as sexual harassment.

It's the kind of thing that where it's gone so far in one direction, it's sheer comedy - a gold-mine for a 21st Century Mel Brooks.

[Bonobo]

362. I think you kinda nailed it.

It's like a disconnection from reality.

How many people have met friends or lovers or wives through striking up a casual conversation.

Not everyone thinks "Oh, I wanna piece of this girl". There really is a thing called emotions, a spark, a connection, an attraction... and that's what makes the world the world.

And the ultimate irony or ironies is that the people who claim to be on the sides of women's rights also seem to feel that they need to be protected like children from *gasp* human interaction.

Can we draw the line at ACTUAL harrassment which really exists? Whistles, "Hey babes" and that kind of rude behavior? But the thing is, no one here really needs advice on that because I seriously doubt anyone on DU would DO that.

So in the interest of creating people who SEEM to oppose them, who can be falsely labeled as "misogynists" so they will have a springboard to jump off, some here have lowered the bar to include normal human interaction as "harassment".

Fucked up indeed.

[closeupready]

365. Equally messed up that 60 people have recced this thread.

So far from being an outlier, this kind of angry "J'Accuse!" campaign is popular with many here.

[Bonobo]

368. For 367 replies, 60 is not much. nt

[closeupready]

389. While true in a relative sense, are there really

more than a dozen or so hardcore people on this board who agree with the harsh, glaring accusation/callout in the OP?

I like redqueen most of the time, and I do NOT want to pick on her. And honestly, it's beyond any one person.

Recently, there were all these rape threads, and I tried to participate by raising a corrollary point, but was effectively told to sit down and shut up. So fine, I did.

Then last week, someone posted an OP, why doesn't anyone talk about male-on-male rape?!?

And I responded that when I tried to do that, I was excoriated. Yet, crickets was what I got in that thread (which thread died a quick death).

This board sometimes on some issues seems more like CCD than an internet discussion board.

Anyway, I'm going to politely back out of this train wreck and move on to other threads.

Cheers!

[closeupready]

416. LOL, just now I realized, that T-Mobile Frankenstein commercial!

If this thread were a commercial, that's the one it would be:

[redqueen]

390. You know what's truly revealing, to me...

The reaction.

People routinely rant about issues that we all agree about here.

When that happens, those who agree usually respond with comments like HELL YEAH! And +1

Not YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME THAT WTF1 STFU!!!!11!1@!!

[Zorra]

431. Yes, it is strange. Because even if a poster understands this issue, there is no reason

for her/him to assume that everyone else reading DU understands the issue. Therefore, the subject matter of the post might be beneficial to other individuals, and subsequently beneficial to the group as well.

So why would an individual poster who claims to understand the issue so thoroughly that they don't want/need to hear anymore about it go totally aggro on you about your post if it might be constructive knowledge for others?

From my POV, this type of irrational behavior would usually indicate unresolved personal issues with the subject matter of your post, and that this type of aggro reaction may even be an indication of latent misogyny, a form of denial manifesting in the irrational reaction to your post.

It's often difficult to pinpoint the motivations behind irrational behavior.

Also, it may be in part that you are continually chipping away at the wall of patriarchy by posting here about different issues, some obvious, some not so obvious, that most women are aware of because we are victimized by them as a historical and current subject minority group. But some men, because they comprise the long standing dominant majority, may be partly or completely clueless about these issues, because they do not cause them harm or slight. In fact, these issues often are supports for their position, and you may be challenging dearly held beliefs that the holders of these beliefs don't want challenged either consciously or subconsciously.

Hence, a multiple whammy for you personally. Some are already obviously already angry with you because of your persistence in bringing up these issues which cause them discomfort, as described above. So when you bring up one more issue that makes these folks uncomfortable, it intensifies the irrational reaction, hence the WTF!1! STFU1!1! Make it stop! Pleeeeze, make it stop!!!

Just some possibilities...*sigh*...your guess is as good as mine.

[redqueen]

437. I do hope that with every outburst of tantrums

at being reminded of the things that some would for whatever reason not be reminded of... treating said reminders as if they were personal accusations... bizarrely...

that more and more people notice. And also wonder.

[nomorenomore08]

433. Way more defensiveness (on their part, not yours) than necessary.

Most of the time, I don't take any of these threads personally. Why? Because I know I'm not a creep/asshole/predator. Yet otherwise decent people seem to freak out over this stuff. And it kind of makes me wonder who they really are deep down.

[pintobean]

434. Who we are

People who don't feel that they don't need constant in-your-face lectures, from self anointed know-it-alls, on how to be decent human beings. Most DUers are good people deep down. The OP is insulting this community with this crap.

[nomorenomore08]

435. Maybe you're right. I don't know.

Either way there's no need to aggressively shout down OP's which one happens to disagree with.

[Dash87]

383. See my response to her. Tl:dr version is, context is appropriate,

and so is learning to read signs and social etiquette.

[Dash87]

380. I personally don't see any harm in "hello."

That is, given the context is appropriate. Reading a book, ear phones on, having closed body language, or avoiding eye contact = say nothing. If people want to be greeted, they will respond to your smile with a smile, but that isn't 100% absolute.

And above all, nobody likes a barging or interrupted asshole. I know some people are bad at reading signs, but it would do them good to try and learn to avoid angering someone.

Also, if I don't know you, you're by default threatening. You can say hello, but don't invade my personal space plz. If I'm doing any of the above (reading, music) I don't want to talk so go away. Don't even say hello.

Do you agree with these general rules?

[redqueen]

388. Did you read the 'Can I buy you a cup of coffee' blog post?

You obviously get it, and that guy does too.

Thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

395. No I grew up in the 70's with a lot of great radical women.

It really isn't rocket science.

[redqueen]

402. "It really isn't rocket science."

Yeah... however, judging by some of the reactions here, on the feminist blogosphere when this issue is discussed, and in various other places, you'd think feminists were proposing all kinds of coo coo bananas ideas. My favorite is the one where these ideas, if adhered to, would mean the extinction of the human race. That's a good one.

[Dr. Strange]

12. Okay, I'll confess, I'm not clear on this.

Context: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/ga-asks-judge-to-toss-kkk-suit_n_2003621.html

What this woman (and the two men) are wearing is inviting a LOT of opinion from me. Why am I wrong to have an opinion based on what they're wearing?

[redqueen]

18. Oh for fuck's sake.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Women dressed in sexy clothes are NOT inviting ANYONE to walk up to them and share theirs.

I'm really fucking tired of this stupid game. Really so far past fucking tired.

[cliffordu]

436. Then stop instigating the game with transparent crap OP'S like this one.

[Orrex]

234. I'm totally staring at you right now.

[Dr. Strange]

241. Well, in that case...

I'll put my pants back on.

[Inkfreak]

279. This post is so full of funny I can't breathe. I'm dying here...

[Nay]

392. HAHAHAHAHAHAH.....

[Dash87]

15. I really don't understand how this isn't clear.

And yet I hear it all of the time, even a few times here - "don't want to get attacked? Don't dress the wrong way."

Why? How is this not obvious victim blaming?

[redqueen]

19. Look at this thread full of men tying themselves in knots

trying to rationalize excuses for missing the point.

No, not missing. Ignoring. Intentionally.

[cali]

294. sorry, it ain't just men. your op was a silly generalization full of self-righteous shit

claiming to speak for all women. fuck that with a rusty rake.

I'm a woman. I'm a feminist. YOU don't fucking speak for me on this.

[redqueen]

297. Read more. nt

[EOTE]

361. Be offensive and condescending less. nt

[redqueen]

363. LOL! Oh, the irony. nt

[EOTE]

371. I know, right?

Every day it's like I get my very own peak into the minds of myriad hypocrites. Today we're being told that it's rude to talk to women, tomorrow we might be told how incredibly awful it is to hold open doors. Never know what crazy shit we might be told next. One thing is for sure, there will be a certain sub-group of DU who will continue to spew out offensive and ignorant shit on a daily basis and when called out on it, will only double down on their stupidity. And that's why I love this place.

[redqueen]

372. Back to your insult and attack routine, I see.

Certain feminist issues do seem to bring that out in you.

[EOTE]

373. And nearly every issue brings out your tried and true insult and attack routine.

Your misandry needs no particular issue, you'd find a way to attack and insult all men on a thread about kittens. But I'm afraid I've overstepped my bounds, I didn't mean to communicate with you in any way. God knows how inappropriate it was of me to assume you wanted to be spoken to. I'll be sure to remember my place in the future.

[redgreenandblue]

346. Cali I have to say....

...after this post and the story you posted about how you dated a drug dealer / boxer you officially have me thinking that you OWN.

[Puzzledtraveller]

397. ^^^this^^^

[chervilant]

325. Ignoring,

belittling, ridiculing, and generally flying their sexist flags high.

[Blue_Tires]

59. I've been on this site a long ass time

and I've *NEVER* recalled anyone (who wasn't a low-post count shit-stirrer) saying "oh, that victim deserved it because of what she was wearing", etc...

[closeupready]

16. I'm not sure I agree with this. As a disclaimer,

I think it applies to either gender, that if you are dressed immodestly, you are 'fishing for compliments'.

The form of those compliments can be vulgar, or classy, depending upon what class YOU are a member of.

(Oh, and never travel to Paris, or France, particularly if you are beautiful. )

[redqueen]

22. I disagree completely. nt

[closeupready]

25. I don't get it. Sexuality is an essential part of the human psychology

for both genders, in all species of living being. Courtship displays have been observed in all mammals and both genders, I think.

If YOU are asexual, that's fine. It bothers you when men try to court you.

But as with Gwyneth Paltrow and her ridiculous parenting (in which, because SHE thinks she's gluten-intolerant, she thus KNOWS that everyone else -including her children - is gluten-intolerant), just because some principle applies to you doesn't mean it applies to anyone else.

Peace, redqueen.

[redqueen]

27. This is about respect. NOT sexuality.

There are any number of reasons someone might be dressed up.

No one has the right to assume it is for them.

I am sick of this stupid game.

[Dawgs]

37. Yeah, fuck biology.

[MadrasT]

112. "Biology" is not an excuse to harass or bother women because of how they are dressed. (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

223. Being an asshole is a choice, not biology.

If no one asked your opinion, they didn't invite you to provide it.

There is no biological compulsion to engage in such commentary to strangers.

[Roland99]

107. then why do you insist on continually playing it?

[closeupready]

139. Some people, I think, know how to relate only antagonistically with others.

That in their own personal histories, they have been abused and thus, (understandly perhaps) they know how only to attack and berate. There is some of that in this thread, IMO.

[cali]

295. well you started the stupid game and you play it quite a bit here. little late to demur.

[redqueen]

299. Read more. I suggest you at least read post 282.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. Who defines "immodestly"?

Some people think a short skirt is immodest. Most of us don't. Does that mean that the yahoos who think a short skirt is fishing for compliments get a free pass?

[closeupready]

85. Some people DO think a short skirt is immodest; thus, for THEM,

they may react to that.

I don't understand what you mean by the term, "get a free pass"? If you mean, they are not entitled to free speech, I disagree. Everyone is entitled to that, including the right to state that they think a short skirt is immodest.

[Gormy Cuss]

105. What I meant was, are those who think it's immodest encouraged to make comments to the wearer?

That is, because they think it's immodest do they get a free pass to stare, to insult, to comment at all? Clearly the wearer doesn't think it's immodest. It's not about free speech. It's about courtesy, decency, and other social constructs.
We have the choice to call some speech and actions socially unacceptable.

[geek tragedy]

138. People who think a short skirt is immodest should shut the fuck up

instead of providing their opinion to the woman.

They have a free speech right, but it's still being a fucking asshole.

[closeupready]

145. You are wrong, and always will be.

[geek tragedy]

149. Nope. Unwelcome commentary to strangers based on their clothing

is ALWAYS assholish.

Without exceptions.

There is a constitutional right to be an asshole in many cases.

[closeupready]

163. Yep, wrong as the day is long.

[geek tragedy]

177. I disagree with you and the Saudi Virtue Police and the creeps

who sexually harass women on the street.

I like my side of the argument better.

[closeupready]

201. It's a free country. Enjoy the freedom to be wrong.

[geek tragedy]

202. People who object to street harassment are not the ones who are wrong.

But, we must live in different decades.

[closeupready]

208. If at some point you want to get back to the topic in the OP,

let me know.

[geek tragedy]

214. I have been talking about the topic.

Me: It's assholish to tell 'immodestly dressed" women your opinion of their clothing.

You: Is not--they invited it by dressing immodestly!

As I said, whenever you agree with both the Saudi Virtue Police and the creeps who say "hey baby, I like the way your tits look in that top" you're probably not correct.

Having people who provide such assholish commentary is a good reason to avoid a neighborhood.

[closeupready]

220. No, you're talking about Saudi Arabia and burkas. Meanwhile,

the rest of us are talking about the topic in the OP.

Again, let me know when you want to get back to the topic. I'm pessimistic you do, though.

Cheers.

[geek tragedy]

222. Yes, the topic is whether women who dress 'immodestly' are inviting

commentary from complete strangers.

You, and the Saudi Virtue Police, and the "nice tits baby" guy are all in agreement that the woman does invite such commentary.

I disagree with you, the Saudi Virtue Police, and the "nice tits baby" guy.

[closeupready]

225. You're going to get bored talking to yourself.

Have a good one!

[geek tragedy]

228. I'll have a better time than the person to whom

you express unwelcome 'compliments'

[closeupready]

232. You still here?

[jberryhill]

370. Actually, that's what GT has been telling you

You can pick your nose in public too.

You'll still look stupid doing it.

[closeupready]

387. Whatever. This discussion is so yesterday.

[geek tragedy]

121. "if you are dressed immodestly"

So, anyone who doesn't wear a burkha is an attention-seeker who invites others to provide opinions?

Oy.

[closeupready]

135. FYI, "immodest" IS - in fact - a real word.

Look it up.

[geek tragedy]

136. Yes, and it has an entirely subjective meaning. nt

[closeupready]

143. Not entirely, no.

[EC]

17. Why do so many men

think it's okay to blame the women? What is missing in the up bringing of our boys that they think this way? If only the woman would just not tempt me....that is the way Muslim men think and put their women in black Burkas...and has anyone noticed that they make their women wear black from head to toe in the middle eastern heat? Is there a bit a sadism in that? Shows a lot of what they really think about women and I have to say many of the men of the civilized world seem to think the same way.

[redqueen]

21. It's all the people who don't call it out.

And all the people who say its just fine because they prefer to focus on "compliments" as if harassment isn't the issue.

[Lex]

23. I guess they'd rather hide the women than conform their behavior

or so it seems to me.

[Dawgs]

24. Disagree.

Most women (and men) dress the way they do because they want a reaction.

They like getting compliments (opinions). They like getting noticed (stares).

Pretending that they don't is just stupid.

[redqueen]

26. Oh, you've asked them all?

Or do you think the feelings of the ones who disagree just don't fucking matter?

[Dawgs]

33. Anyone with half a brain knows that most people like to look nice and get compliments for it.

Do you find it wrong to look nice, or to receive a compliment for it?

[galileoreloaded]

54. i wonder if it's just insecurity run rampant. its fascinating. nt

[Sekhmets Daughter]

57. Considering the number of choices to be had in clothing,

why would anyone dress in something provocative if they didn't want to attract attention? Doesn't the provocateur bear a bit of responsibility if some of that attention is not to her/his liking? I mean, do they hand out permission slips in advance, "you may stare, whistle or hit on me" or denials of permission..."You may not even look twice"

I know, even appreciate, where you are coming from...but this leaves too many unanswered questions. Just one qualifier...walking naked down Main Street is NOT an invitation to rape.

[redqueen]

61. You are seriously ... "stare, whistle, hit on me"

I don't even know what to say.

I'm fucking stunned.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

69. You don't think some women dress for just that effect?

Really? When was the last time you went clubbing?

[redqueen]

72. Sure, *some* do.

Does that make you think it's ok to treat all women as if you know they are in that group?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

89. No, I don't...

But my original question still stands... why dress for that type of attention, if you don't want that type of attention? How is anyone supposed to know which group someone is in?

Clothing is a way we identify ourselves...it is part of who we are, female and male alike. When we dress in a sexy little number, we are saying 'I am a woman who appreciates my sexuality'. When we dress in mom jeans, that's the message we're giving off...'sex is the last thing on my mind right now, thanks.' Whether you like it or not...that is what is being said. Are you suggesting that no man is ever allowed to make a move simply because he can't identify to which group any female may belong? That seems unrealistic, and not even particularly desirable to those, of both genders, out there who may still be looking for someone to share a night, week, month or lifetime.

[redqueen]

98. That's the point. You don't know, so don't assume.

It doesn't matter why they chose to dress however they're dressed. It is not an invitation for disrespectful behavior.

It really is very simple.

It probably seemed unrealistic for women to expect not to be sexually harassed at work back during the days when women first entered the workforce.

There are actually lord of people, men and women, who fight sexual harassment.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

108. Ah, so now we're talking the workplace.

It is simple to you, because you wish to view it as simple... I don't see it as a simple issue whatsoever. But again, we must agree to disagree. Appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

[redqueen]

115. No, I simply used it as an example of a situation where women were routinely sexually harassed,

and were later protected by law from such harassment.

In some Scandinavian countries, sexual harassment in public is also illegal.

It would be nice to see such laws here as well.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

130. Perhaps because Scandinavian countries have fewer problems with sexual repression...

I'm not even certain it's the clothing that attracts the attention from some men...and I am beginning to think that those men are incorrigible, so it's better for women to know how to handle them.

As I may have mentioned to you, I'm 65 years old. Recently I had a go around with my neighbor who is somewhere between 45 and 50. He seems to think I am lonely and need his particular attentions. I found it amusing that he thought I would be interested in him...and when it was no longer amusing I handled it. I can assure you, he has never seen me in anything more provocative than an oversized t-shirt and a pair of Bermuda shorts. Should I have called the police on him, or had that ability? I don't think so, but perhaps some women need that type of protection. As it is a long way off, in this country, in this political and social climate, I think it would be good for women to learn how to deal with men who have more balls than brains.

As usual, I've enjoyed the exchange...as we always start off in different places, it helps me clarify my own thinking...and even modify it.

[Dash87]

36. Seabeyond's_cartoon.jpg

I don't know where it is, but you know the one. The one with the clueless "I would love if people complimented me!" guy at the end.

[ismnotwasm]

66. I'm part of HoF

And have nothing to do with this thread. How about not calling me sweetie?

[geek tragedy]

180. Amazing how some just can't help themselves. nt

[EC]

77. some of us

just settle for clean and neat.

[Dawgs]

84. Fine. But I'm sure you don't mind getting a compliment if something thinks you look nice. n/t

[EC]

86. ?

I usually figure there is a motive. It depends on who is doing the complimenting.

[geek tragedy]

123. Pretending that sexual harassment is okay is what' stupid. nt

[Blue_Tires]

28. where on this site are posters still not clear on this?

[redqueen]

31. Are you joking?

Did you read the other responses?

One DUer even helpfully linked to his post which made me think this OP was necessary.

Now that I've seen the responses I see it was not just necessary but desperately needed.

[Dawgs]

39. Yes. The other responses pretty much agree with me. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. Somewhere there is a horse, and it is screaming...

"Hey cart, come back here!"

[Blue_Tires]

64. you mean the thread by boston bean?

I see nothing in there to do with "blaming-the-rape-victim's-wardrobe"...

[redqueen]

83. I thouught the OP made it clear that I'm talkong about harassment.

Stares, opinions, interaction...

Someone else mentioned whistles and come ons.

It seems that any thread about feminist issues has to be written in legalese here, looking at some of these responses.

It is seriously disturbing.

[Zorra]

29. I like to say it with Pink.

[redqueen]

46. I almost wish I hadn't posted this.

Like I needed another reminder.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. We wish it had not been posted as well.

Because we don't constantly need to be reminded.

it is funny, you post flame bait and then say "look at the responses!" It was necessary for me to start this thread!

well guess what? It was not necessary.

[The2ndWheel]

76. Almost

I think in this particular circumstance you wanted the attention that the words you wrote got, good or bad. Or else why do it? Is a post on an internet message board going to stop something all of a sudden the world over?

You wanted to post it, and you wanted the reaction. That's the game.

[redqueen]

80. No. I WANT people to stop making excuses for harassment.

I DON'T WANT to be reminded how fucking...

nevermind.

[datasuspect]

93. shit, i want a million dollars

doesn't mean i'm gonna get it.

want in one hand, shit in the other . . .

see which hand fills up quicker.

here's a lesson you might have missed: LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

[The2ndWheel]

101. If everyone responding just said "yes, I agree"

is that going to solve the problem? On the internet in this one post it might, but probably not in the big picture.

If nobody responded to your post, the way you want or not, what would that mean? That nobody cares about the issue? Would you write another post as a result?

[snooper2]

129. you sound a little Fed Up

House of Pain can usually fix that

[pacalo]

335. That's what the "trash this thread" button is for.

[Zorra]

81. Cheer up! You could just look at this thread as a safe outlet for some people to safely let out

their pent up angst.

I'm quite sure you weren't expecting roses and candy anyway; always remember, your head will wear out long before the wall falls down.

[datasuspect]

90. why would you "almost" wish that?

how would you get attention otherwise?

clickbait . . . clickbait . . . clickbait

[NaturalHigh]

381. Yeah, I'm with you on that.

Maybe the first time I've ever agreed with you.

[Half-Century Man]

167. Never heard this song before

I like it, it's funny and directly to the point. Could/should have been aimed at he once or twice (or maybe 60). I'm a little troubled by one thing, If you don't want the attention or the drink why would you want the money? I know just a song...right?

[Zorra]

268. No, not just a song at all. Men usually buy me drinks in bars because they want me

to engage in sex with them.

It's so obvious that I often think, "You are trying to buy me, so why not just give me the money, instead of "beating around the bush?"

(pun totally intended, sorry, I couldn't resist)

[Half-Century Man]

275. If you wrote that song Ms. Zorra

I can accept that as the answer. I just wondered if someone's presence or minor introductory gifts were rejected, One would expect all other gift offerings might meet the same fate.

[Zorra]

281. That's one beauty of art, people often have different interpretations of a work of art.

If that is what it means to you, go for it.

No, I didn't write the song, Pink beat me to it.

[Half-Century Man]

302. Everyone has a musical talent

mine is audience.
Songs don't say the same thing to you each time you hear them. I was just referring to some of the lyrics used and what they said to me this time through.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. No. Fucking. Shit.

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't need people like you to lecture me about stupid s*** like this.

I don't understand why you think Democratic Underground members are in constant need of this lecture. Where did you get this idea?

[Dash87]

44. [View All]

[redqueen]

50. Really?

Really?

[zappaman]

87. +100! n/t

[Electric Monk]

47. This woman, because of how she is dressed, is inviting people to ask her for bus fare.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2097696/Britons-turn-free-cash-Too-cynical-accept-genuine-offer-goodwill.html

The majority of Brits were so cynical when it came to accepting a genuine offer of goodwill that they turned down free money, research has revealed.

Cash was offered by five women to commuters at busy bus stations up and down the UK but an average of only eight people at each station, out of thousands of bus travellers, took up the offer.

Women wearing a sandwich board that read "Ask me to pay your bus fare and I will" were positioned at bus stations in Newcastle, Medway, Manchester, Perth and Leicester, but were mostly just ignored.

The experiment ran during morning rush hour each day for a week and just 38 people in total across the country accepted the offer.

When questioned, the minority who did eventually accept the free cash admitted they were reluctant at first because they thought the offer was too good to be true.

[Nye Bevan]

48. Jerry Seinfeld: "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun."

"You don't stare at it. It's too risky. Ya get a sense of it and then you look away."

[nomorenomore08]

256. Common sense, from "Seinfeld" of all places...

nt

[polly7]

52. Woot! Right on!

Inna explained that the last time they confronted neo-Nazi thugs they were badly beaten, and she lost a tooth. So this time round they were planning a different, slightly more detached approach: waving their banners at the fascists from a distance. The plan was for Inna and Sarah, another core member of French Femen, to check into a luxury hotel by the Joan of Arc statue on Place des Pyramides, which is where the far-right groups were going to gather. Once the square was full of neo-Nazis and press, they'd roll down their massive banner and shout their slogans, wearing nothing but flower crowns from the hip up.

http://www.vice.com/read/my-weekend-with-topless-femen-feminists




Which is why I found all the outrage here over female protesters exercising their right to dress as they please in public so weird. It seriously surprised me ... standing up for the rights of one means doing the same for all. Mixed messages don't accomplish shit. imho.

[msanthrope]

74. Those breasts are patriarchy!

Remember when we had Meta to corral this shit?

[RC]

96. From the comments at your link:

Wallace Shao · Top Commenter · Works at Work? No thank you.
i dont know much about the femen group, but they seem a ton better than the crazy radical feminists we have in the US. the ones that think feminism=eradicating men completely
Reply · 5 · Like · Monday at 1:03pm

How true.

[redqueen]

106. lolwut

[pacalo]

336. Does that also apply to the OP?

Is it really wise for a certain group to continuously post "this is the way that I demand you to think" OPs?

[redqueen]

385. No. And since some seem to need an explanation for this, too, I will explain.

See, the OP is about the fact that just because some women care to be interrupted, whistled at, stared at, etc., that does not mean ALL women do, and this means that NO ONE has the right to assume that they should feel free to do so. Choosing to do so makes one a rude asshole.

Street harassment, as well as treating women as if they should always be polite and accommodating anytime anyone demands their attention, are important issues. You may have noticed an increasing global awareness of these facts, and a push to educate people about what the problem is with these behaviors, and why they're wrong. A few people here have gone to great lengths and taken great pains to miss the point, but that's neither here nor there. Most understood the OP just fine, and the reason why is that those are the people who have been paying attention to feminist discourse about these issues.

The post I replied to, on the other hand, is cutting and pasting some unrelated crap which relates to an obsession that a few people have, and about which they seem to think is going to start some drama. The only problem is no one (but them) cares. So that makes it hilarious.

[pacalo]

421. I see a lot of these tactless, demanding OPs, then only when the author gets negative feedback

does she backtrack & begin to explain in a more civilized manner what should have been the OP in the first place. "Get it?" & referring to women in a broad sense are going to get pushback.

That's where the "drama" began.

Like it or not, what a woman wears makes a statement to the public about who she is. It's the only introductory criteria strangers have to assess her as a person. I'm not saying that it's right or fair; that's the way it is.

Whether a woman gets respect or not in public begins with herself. I know that as a woman. Walk with your head up high, with a deliberate gait of confidence, & choose to dress how you want to be perceived by others.

And another thing, I like being a woman. I like it when I walk into the mall or a restaurant & heads turn. I like the way I'm treated by others. I know when to show my cleavage & when it's not appropriate. I'm proud of my long legs, too. The fact that I don't get cheesy cat-calls is the result of dressing appropriately & my attitude.

[redqueen]

422. "The fact that I don't get cheesy cat-calls is the result of dressing appropriately & my attitude."

Wow.

Amazing.


No, people get it. Some just want to argue. Some want to maintain the status quo.

Either way, what you said just then -- implying that women bring street harassment on themselves based on how they dress and their attitude?

That is indefensible.

[pacalo]

427. "Some just want to argue."

No kidding -- starting with your OP declaring 'this is the way women feel, dammit. Got it?' from "the Department of Why The Hell Are People Still Not Clear On This".

With the overall attitude that was exposed in Meta, I'm guessing the new "status quo" you're seeking is that women should look at men in general as the enemy; you're not happy that many women don't see themselves as victims.

It is you that doesn't "get it". Learn to cope with reality or get therapy; I mean that in a kind way.

[msanthrope]

349. Did you really mean to post that? That's quite funny, but not

for the reasons you think it is.

[EOTE]

376. There's that irony again.

I'm just curious to know if you've ever taken the time to smell your own fingers. I'd have a sick bag available just in case.

[unblock]

60. whether or not they're "inviting" anything, clothes communicate, clothes make a statement.

this is true for men as well, although the code is different. a uniform means something different from a suit, which means something different from casual attire, which means something different from uh, bedroom attire.

men who walk around in their underwear may or may not be "inviting" stares, but they're fools to think they're not going to get some, not to mention denied entry to certain places such as restaurants or the office.


now, it is true that some men take liberties in interpreting what a woman's clothing may mean. in particular, a woman may be dressed nicely because she has a date later that evening, in which case the message she is sending was intended only for that one special someone, but many men will choose to take the message as intended for them, or for that matter, for anyone. this is where much of the problem lies.


if you mean to say that the whole of fashion is a patriarchal construct and that clothes *ought* to be nothing other than practical, I don't think i'd particularly disagree; but as it is we do have fashion and that means that certain clothes do make certain (if sometimes nebulous) statements.

perhaps my refinement to your point would be that i think anyone attempting to interpret whatever statement clothing is attempting to convey would be well-advised to get corroboration from the wearer's words, body language, etc. without such support, the statement is easily misinterpreted, with the result often being that the wearer gets offended or insulted.

needless to say (and yet, it needs to be said) no one ever asks to be raped, and nothing, certainly not clothing, changes that.

[uppityperson]

78. I wish I could recommend your reply. Thank you for it.

[redqueen]

92. You obviously know exactly what I mean.

Ridiculous nonsense about men walking around in underwear aside.

[unblock]

211. hey, if you've never seen "breaking bad", you should. or visited manhattan for that matter....

[HockeyMom]

97. Do DIAPERS make a statement?

Are babies and old women in diapers "making statements" too? Rape is not about being SEXY.

[closeupready]

103. The OP did NOT discuss RAPE.

Period.

[uppityperson]

114. The OP talks about being stared at, or holding opinions about someone. Not rape.

[HockeyMom]

124. OK, my experience as a 13 year old Catholic School Girl

dressed in baggy white blouse, plaid pleated skirt below my knees, knee socks, and orthopedic looking shoes. Sexy????? I was followed home from school by a NYPD Patrol Car, with them whistling and yelling at me, "Hey, BABY." This was in 1961. Yeah, I tried to hide my BOOBS as best as I could, but I HAD THEM at 13 and that Catholic School uniform wasn't MEANT to show them off.

It is all in the eye of the beholder. ANY manner of dress by a woman can be viewed as sexy by men who think that way. That was my point about DIAPERS. School girl dress, and yes, even diapers, can be viewed as sexy by perverted men, and it seems, even COPS.

[uppityperson]

127. Yup, it can be and it sucks.

[unblock]

261. the statements that clothes make can be misinterpreted or ignored (sometimes deliberately)

obviously the statement your clothes were making was "i'm wearing this because my school makes me wear this", but those boorish oglers chose to ignore that message.

some people have agendas, be it to flirt, ogle, befriend, target for rape, etc. they may misconstrue or ignore the statement your clothing is making, or they simply proceed with their agenda having nothing to do with your attire.

[unblock]

230. underwear doesn't make a statement, unless worn as outerwear.

in the case of babies, any statement made is of whoever did the dressing, rather than the baby.

i'm not familiar with fashion diapers, so to me diapers merely make a statement that the wearer is incontinent. lots of clothing is simply practical and is worn to address practical needs, such as to counter the cold or the rain or the sun. if one wishes not to communicate incontinence, wearing something to over the diaper would be advisable.


i agree that rape is not about being sexy, though that may be a bit off topic.

in case i haven't been clear, there is no such thing as a statement, made by clothing or otherwise, that means "i want to be raped".

[Amimnoch]

166. I agree with uppityperson, this is perfectly stated.

[bowens43]

63. nonsense.

many women and men dress specifically to invite stares and attention. If you don't see that you're blind.

[olddots]

65. Yes I get it and for some reason allways have.

Why people are not clear about the intent of appearance ? damned if I know as humans we all pre judge .

[redqueen]

79. Some people are just pointing out situations where the OP doesn't apply (e.g. protesters)...

in an effort to derail the thread from talking about harassment.

They understand perfectly well but would rather play idiotic games.

Because that's how important harassment is to them.

Call it "compliments", conflate it with the attention sought by protesters, ... anything but speak out against harassment.

[polly7]

91. Well ........

some of us just happen to believe that women DO actually have the right to dress as they please ..... no matter where in the world they are or for what reason, without being harassed, raped, beaten or mistreated in any way.

[msanthrope]

82. Utter nonsense. Some women dress to attract stares, opinions, and interactions.

Some do not. Some men do--and some do not.

Some attention is wanted, and some is not.

What you fail to grasp is that life is complex, and your blanket axioms really don't apply outside of the bubbles of your constructs.

You may argue that no matter how women are dressed, it does not excuse lawbreaking by anyone else. That is a legal fact. But your attempts to explain other human behavior with silly slogans really doesn't work.

[MillennialDem]

117. Some do, does this make it ok? I wear a short skirt or shorts on a hot day, and NOT to

get attention.

Does that excuse cat calls and whistles? I've gotten them in jeans and a hoodie too btw.

[msanthrope]

162. Are you really asking me if that's okay? What a silly question. nt

[woolldog]

178. I agree.

I'm an attractive guy and I get stared at all the time. It's sickening.

Well just because the other day I went to the beach wearing this does not give people any reason to stare. My eyes are up here people:

[one_voice]

203. um....

I'm not staring. Really, I swear.

[closeupready]

216. Hmm - I like the bottom half; you can keep

the top half. LOL

[woolldog]

255. those briefs are NOT

an invitation for your attention.

[The Straight Story]

238. How LONG does something have to be to be considered a stare?

What we need is some of our folks to run around watching what we look at it and timing it (as well as have hand counters to see which sex we open the door for the most).

[nomorenomore08]

260. I don't know... I just try not to make people uncomfortable, out in public.

Which isn't to say I don't "look" - of course I do - but I do my best to be discreet about it.

[woolldog]

252. stop staring

at me.

[MillennialDem]

254. Well, I'm a lesbian so I'm not :)

[Scootaloo]

197. And the point is that you shouldn't make assumptions

Now, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure RQ isn't saying everyone should go about wearing blinders and staring at the ground. Fact is, if you see someone flashing skin or wearing some outfit you consider 'weird,' yeah, you're probably going to look at them.

...But basic politeness says you don't stare, leer, catcall, or whatever. I disagree with RQ about the "no interaction at all" thing, because I see no harm in attempting conversation... but again, social awareness and politeness; pestering and harassing are no-no's. And if you can't tell when someone has no interest in chatting with you, well, dunno what to say.

[msanthrope]

209. Oh sweet jeebus...I gotta go rewatch the ABC afterschool special

on that. Or maybe the very special Blossom episode. Or the Little House on the Prairie episode. Heck, I bet I have a vhs of the Different Strokes episode when Arnold learned that you shouldn't make assumptions about how people look....

Or maybe, just maybe, the level of discourse brought to the table from those who think they speak on behalf of feminism could rise a bit?

What, really, do you think you are edumacating us about?

[Scootaloo]

219. Well, you seem to have completely misread the OP

So I guess I'm "edumacating" you about that.

Or maybe, just maybe, the level of discourse brought to the table from those who think they speak on behalf of feminism could rise a bit?

You don't use college texts to teach science to first-graders.

[msanthrope]

229. Who, precisely, on this board do you think is at a first-grade level?

Be brave and tell us.

[Scootaloo]

244. Just from this thread?

Galileoreloaded, leftnyc, Woolldog, Dawgs, some I'm probably missing, it's a long thread and there are a lot of people who are apparently giving blank looks when told to not treat others like objects.

Some of us achieved an understanding of how to behave towards others via a process my people call "some goddamn home training," but it seems this is not universal. And worse it seems this lack of basic social awareness has persisted to adulthood. So, you start with the basic outlines of how staring, much less catcalling or whatever, is rude no matter how you cut it. As you can see, people are still struggling with these concepts and are asking for definitions to simple nouns.

So long as these people can't figure out that cleavage is not an invitation to verbal masturbation, more erudite concepts such as the links between misogyny and homophobia, the impact of media and culture in forming "gender norms," and the concept of privilege would just be completely wasted effort.

You have to explain what science is, before you show them quantum theory. Or plate tectonics, for that matter.

[Apophis]

340. + infinity.

[snooper2]

94. what brought this on? has it been a week already?

LOL

[SleeplessinSoCal]

100. My hubby and I differ on this. I don't think "inviting" is the correct word though.

There's a reason prostitutes dress as they do. It's not rape they're after, it's sexual arousal. I'm the one concerned that some young women are flirting with disaster by dressing provocatively is all.

[uppityperson]

109. No one is "inviting" harassment, no matter how they dress.

I agree with that. If you want to stick with harassment, then I agree.

But saying no woman in public is inviting anyone to look at them is too broad and too simplistic. Anyone in public is liable to be looked at, stared at, have opinions held about. We all have the right to look at other people, and saying we do not is wrong. We do not have the right to harass anyone else. But we do have the right to look and hold an opinion.

[redqueen]

120. I assumed people would not defend rude behavior

and disguise it as 'human nature'.
re: looking vs staring see post 14
re: opinions see post 18

[uppityperson]

126. How long of a look is a stare? It varies from area to area. It is the vagueness and over broadness

of the OP that it seems many are having trouble with.

A stare can be different, depending on where and how it is done. Harassment is wrong, no matter what. That I agree with.

"Women dressed in sexy clothes are NOT inviting ANYONE to walk up to them and share theirs. " True. But we can and do all hold opinions. Doesn't mean sharing them is ok but holding them is.

[redqueen]

141. However long you'd stare at someone you were intentionally avoiding disrespecting is the right

amount of time.

Adjusting your behavior to get away with however much rudeness you think you can get away with is fucked up.

As for opinions, yes I have said as much.

Again it seems that I should speak in legalese when discussing certain feminist issues

I wish that those who are working so hard to miss the point would consider why they are doing so.

[uppityperson]

179. I see a lot of it here as a communication issue. Word and phrases have different meanings, depending

on different people and situations. However, it seems all (except for perhaps a couple trolls) agree that harassment is wrong, no matter the clothing or body language or words. Harassment is just wrong.

[redqueen]

185. Agree to disagree. nt

[uppityperson]

186. You disagree "Harassment is just wrong"? or that words can have different meanings?

[redqueen]

192. I disagree that all the arguing is due to misunderstandings.

Some people definitely think it is reasonable to stare at women, to share their opinion of them, and to approach them in whatever situation in public.

This issue has been discussed repeatedly. More and more people seem to be acknowledging the fact that disrespectful and inconsiderate behavior is not ok and no amount of rationalizing will change that.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

253. That's why I say "flirting with disaster"

I realize I'm conservative on this question. But it's worth keeping in mind how many others think as I do and bare that in mind when addressing provocative issues which can result in a violent crime. I also happen to think that there are some young females who may actually not be very intelligent IN or OUT of the military - have a poor sense of protecting themselves from danger. I can also imagine the military training in boot camp may provide a false sense of strength and ability to protect yourself from an attack. None of this is an excuse, but an observation of what is going on.

My advice, until the hierarchy in the military is held accountable for their despicable and criminal behavior, be extremely alert and on guard. And contact your congressional reps and demand action.

[Tien1985]

110. I wonder what

All these women "who want stares and opinions" do when know no one notices. Are people frightened that women are going to start running up to them and shaking their shoulders "hey, hey you! Pay attention to me!!!"

Got to love the poutrage. If you don't stare (staring is not the same as being aware of), suggestively whistle, catcall or harass strangers the call out in the OP doesn't even apply to you. If you do those things, you're an asshole.

[redqueen]

181. I'm surprised by the 'but how long is a stare?' comments, too.

It must be very important to some people to be able to do this.

[JustAnotherGen]

111. rq

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii understand.

I'm just sitting here slack jawed that someone would compare a woman who dated Marilyn Manson - the king of shocking appearance - to me in a business skirt suit walking past a construction site.

See that's it -


I'm inviting wolf whistles and shit being dressed in Jones New York.

Yet - those same whiny cry baby boys get pissed when I use extremely vulgar and sexist language to describe their mothers or do a little key action walking by their truck.

I assure you - they see me in Somerville NJ right now (big development going on) . . .they won't say a word. They actually looked down and away when I came out of Shop Rite on Monday after stopping on my way home from work.

This is a situation where I fully admit and have no shame to using sexist languague - when I'm being 'slut shamed' by male sluts whose mothers were sluts or they would have been raised better than that. How quickly they cry baby up when we get up in their grill and go after the Women They Hold Nearest and Dearest to get them to shut the fuck up.

[adigal]

277. You key someone's car because you get whistled at?

That is some very disturbing behavior.

[JustAnotherGen]

324. So is asking

If my pussy is wet by five guys on the job.

It wasnt deliberate. I walked by the truck and my keys were out.

A little scratch. Like an inch.

They shouldn't whine and be cry babies. And I'm not calling the po po over that.

I'm going to jut out my chin and spit back. Then call their employer and slammed the business on Angie's list. Construction is only boys will be boys when it's not me they are using vulgar and disgusting language with to try and humiliate me.

How about that guy who grabbed me while I was doing RA Rounds in college and pulled me in his room? Yep. I took the beer stein off his shelf and gave him 8 stitches. Wolf Whistle . . . he had it coming.

Even VP of Student affairs said it was okay. Rape or jut out your chin and . . . Fight? I'll always fight.

Especially when five large guys dressed like THAT in tight construction clothes try and humiliate me . . .

[NaturalHigh]

394. Pretty sure you could be arrested for keying the vehicles.

As for your language...yeah, I agree. Go ahead and fling it back at them.

[BeyondGeography]

118. Good one

[bike man]

119. How one is attired does indeed invite opinions and/or looks. Often, opinions about the appearance

are many and varied.

If this were not true, the DU posts about the attire of the FLOTUS, when she appears in public, would be alerted on in great numbers.

But they aren't, are they.

That is why people of both genders dress the way they do. They want to make an impression, to have people form opinions based on that first impression. It's just the way it is.

[maxsolomon]

122. Don't stare, sure, but looking is Human Nature

especially at signs of fertility and mating behavior. which skimpy clothing on EITHER SEX constitutes. because that's body language.

if men have to wait for women to speak to them to interact, we'll need to get back to arranged marriages.

"use your peripherals!" Jay in the 40 year old virgin.

[redqueen]

128. Notice that the word "look" is absent from the OP.

As for waiting to interact: http://www.theferrett.com/ferrettworks/2012/10/but-if-i-cant-buy-you-a-coffee-how-will-our-species-reproduce-how-to-hit-on-women/

[maxsolomon]

131. I noticed.

Because I STARED at your OP.

Staring is a subset of Looking. So is Ogling, Leering, etc. Finding the right side of the line (looking, glancing, using your peripherals) is the key to not being a macho dickhead. And it takes practice.

Because nearly every man looks.

[redqueen]

155. And once more I am reminded of the need to use legalese when addressing *certain* feminist issues.

I thought it was quite obvious I was referring to harassment.

I overestimated...

[Jim Lane]

258. It's not just feminist issues.

On DU, any issue that stirs strong feelings will prompt responses that are aimed at the general tenor of a post, or at things that might be implied from it, or at things that other people with similar views might also say, rather than the actual words in the post.

Take one of our all-time never-goes-away hot-button issues: Ralph Nader. Suppose someone makes a comment critical of Nader's decision to run on the Green Party line in 2000. It's just about guaranteed that at least one response will stridently defend Nader's right to run. I've never seen anyone on DU take the position that Nader should have been thrown off the ballot, because his candidacy had the effect of aiding Bush, but that nonposition gets refuted again and again.

You seem to be using the term "legalese" to refer to taking extra pains to spell out what you mean and what you don't. You should recognize two points. First, meanings and connotations that are obvious to you won't be obvious to everyone. In this instance, I don't think that what constitutes "staring" is completely cut-and-dried, objective, and beyond dispute. When the responses to your comment reveal different understandings of the term, you should simply clarify your meaning without repeatedly complaining about "legalese". Second, even when comments are pretty clearly wrong, you could consider going the "legalese" route at least to the extent of specifying what you're not saying. You shouldn't have to, but you can save yourself some time that way.

[redqueen]

262. Agreed on all points.

And if you read the thread you will see that where it seemed as if the poster was arguing in good faith, I did explain further.

However, as anyone can plainly see, there is a fuckton of asinine and very revealing pretzel logic on display in this thread, and there is no defense for it. It is at those disingenuous replies which I consider to be reasons to bother with legalese (e.g. compliments, protesters, celebrities, etc.)

The reason I emphasized 'certain' is that there are some feminist issues which you can count on widespread agreement with. Others, however, not so much. (e.g. criticism of FEMENs methods gets dishonestly spun as telling women what to do with their bodies! and you don't want men to see booooobieeees! and other similar disingenuous bullshit / asshattery.)

[bike man]

415. "Looking" IS included in the OP, by the use of one word in upper case in that OP

"Women in public, no matter how they're dressed, are not "inviting" ANYTHING..."

[The2ndWheel]

142. The word anything is captitalized though

[Orrex]

172. Indeed

In context, it was put forth as an absolute, when further discussion reveals that it was meant to be situation-specific.

Perhaps not as cut-and-dried as it might first appear...

[el_bryanto]

132. This is an interesting question

Clothes are clearly a form of communication - with rare exceptions people put on clothes because they want to say something about themselves.

We should go to the star trek uniforms as soon as possible.

Bryant

[Inkfreak]

283. I dunno...

Dr. Crusher looked great in her uniform. I found myself staring at her for an hour. At least once a week. Usually Sundays. At 7pm. Eastern.

[LittleBlue]

133. Stares? Lol

I think in fact quite a few don't mind the attention.

Regardless, men will never stop staring at women. At least not until heterosexuality becomes a thing of the past.

[geek tragedy]

144. Emotionally mature men learn to not stare at women.

40-year old adolescents insist on staring, but it's assholishness and a lack of maturity, not 'heterosexuality.'

[LittleBlue]

148. No, they just get better at it

Or they're married and either quit out of fear or get REALLY good at it.

[BainsBane]

157. there is a difference between looking and staring

or ogling.

[LittleBlue]

165. True

I guess the difference is how well the urge to stare can be suppressed, and possibly how good the woman looks.

[BainsBane]

171. The difference is in the maturity and decorum

of the person doing the observing.

[geek tragedy]

169. If you're not getting noticed, you're not staring.

Looking/noticing/observing is not the same thing as staring/ogling/etc.

[redqueen]

198. This post says so much.

About my OP, and about society.

[bvar22]

137. Better go tell the Street Walkers on the backside of the French Quarter...

...that they are wasting their money on thigh high boots, fishnets, and tube tops.

[Tumbulu]

187. so true

but I think the OP is about permission to harass.

I do not agree that it does not matter what one wears.

I think that people who decide to play up this card, often get burned and I am not particularly interested in defending them.

I am not really sympathetic.

[bike man]

342. And bodybuilders (men and women) wearing bikinis/thongs while posing. People not only

stare, they applaud and yell.

[Orrex]

158. What would you say to a woman who believes that her clothes are an invitation?

Since reading this OP, I have asked a number of coworkers, both male and female, and just about all of them agree that clothing certainly can be an invitation, though context is essential.


How do you arrive at the declaration that clothing can't be an invitation? How might one reconcile that with the opinions of other women whose opinions differ from yours?

[badtoworse]

161. This entire thread is a scream and a welcome break from the focus on scandal

Thanks for the entertainment

[99Forever]

164. Oh goody, flamebait.

And lookie who posted it. Wadda stuprise.

SSDD

To the trash with it.

[The Straight Story]

190. Actually, it is more like Farming

Plow up the board and plant some seeds, find people who don't agree with you, explain to others that is why you are and always need to continue educating people because until no one disagrees with you sexism is alive and well.

As long as there is one seed you can play monsanto and claim cross contamination and have a case. And in a nation of over 300 million, you will never run out of seeds. On any topic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

237. The discord daisies and conflict carrots won't water themselves!

The fact that conflict carrots are in high demand show how important it is to cultivate them.

[The Straight Story]

240. I am thinking there is something to the whole lack of carrots thing for some....

Heard it affects your vision or something like that.

Whatever you do, don't stare at the crops (especially the melons and cucumbers)

[cherokeeprogressive]

319. Well put as always. And, RIGHT on the money. n/t

[redqueen]

200. Glad you managed to get your handful of posts in before dramatically announcing you're trashing it.

[99Forever]

246. One post.

(now two) Handful? Bahahahahhahahahahhaha



Perhaps in your seething anger you are having difficulty counting.

[redqueen]

248. Got you mixed up with Roland99, you have the same style on some issues.

Couldn't figure out how to trash the thread, huh?


Or is your one little post in this awful, terrible thread so important that you just had to untrash it so you could defend it?

[99Forever]

250. I'd try to educate you as to the...

... various functions of this website, but clearly, learning isn't your long suit.

[redqueen]

251. Awwwwwwww... aren't you just precious!

[Apophis]

341. Shocking, isn't it?

[Tumbulu]

194. I agree with your sentiment redqueen

but I have observed, over my longer life, that the people who want to play the game of advertising their sexual bodies, vs their productive or healthy or beautiful bodies in public, play that game to get things from people for free.

I view the people who choose to dress these ways as scammers and try to stay as far away from them as possible. Usually, anyone dressed in some sort of way that ilicits stares has some or many problems, these costumes are calls for help, not attack- I agree with you on that important point.

But I have the right to get as far away from these sorts of people as possible. Clothing is how we humans do communicate, more so than words. But no one anywhere deserves attack.

[hunter]

199. I used to work in a place where we were often on call.

Carry your pager with you, don't leave town.

On summer weekends I usually worked alone and sometimes there would be reason to call other techs in. It was medical lab and I wasn't licensed to do some things. (I always wanted to irradiate some sandwiches for long term unrefrigerated storage, but I also didn't want to get fired...)

It wasn't uncommon for one of my coworkers to show up very much uncovered -- short-shorts, sandals, and a minimal bikini top. Quite honestly, she was distracting but we were both married and I never thought any more of it. I figured that's just what she usually wore around the house in the summer. She'd go to the women's locker room, put on her scrubs, covered shoes, do what she was called in to do, and leave dressed just as she'd arrived.

Now that I think of it, maybe she considered me "safe." I'd like to think so. It's quite possible she never come to work dressed like that when some of the guys we worked with called her in, even if it was something stat.

[Bully Taw]

206. you seem very angry

do you get a lot of unwanted stares? When you pick out your clothes in the morning why do you pick out certain outfits? Do you pick out some that are comfortable, some that you think might look good on you, some that might be appropriate for work?

I believe, in general, people wear the clothes they wear to make a statement to those around them. What statement do you make?

[Atman]

207. If a woman walked down the street without pants, she'd be "inviting rape."

If a man walked down the street without pants, he'd be inviting a life-long sex-offender status and would have to register with the government everywhere he moved. Hmmm.

[redqueen]

212. Wow. nt

[Atman]

239. I agree. Wow.

You made no further comment, nor did I.

A scantily clad woman is considered "asking for it."

A scantily clad man is considered a pervert and sex offender.

Agree or disagree?

[kiranon]

242. She could also be mentally ill or the recent victim of a rape. Invitation -

I don't think so. As the mother of a mentally disabled daughter, your comment could get a person in a world of hurt if the thought is acted upon by someone who thinks the same way. Consent is the name of the game and some people cannot give legal consent.

[Atman]

247. But wait...wouldn't the man also be considered "mentally ill?"

Wouldn't a man walking down the street with no pants be considered "mentally ill" on some level?

I'm not advocating one side over the other. I'm merely trying to point out the difference...a woman walking down the street with no pants would be considered a "target." A man walking down the street with no pants would be considered a "predator." I just find it curious. I'm not saying either one is right.

[Tien1985]

274. Acutally,

yes. We've had a number of naked people wandering around in my neck of the woods in the last few months. (I can't believe I can say that.)

The men--almost every time one came up, the first reaction by people around was wondering what type of mental illness/drug problem he had.

The women also had their sanity and drug situation questioned, but there were definitely comments made about what their appearance was and how likely they were to attract sexual attention.

None of them, to my knowledge, have been called perverts or sex offenders. In the end, it seems to be chalked up to bath salts.

We also have perfectly sane, non-druggies naked in public around here yearly. Namely, a bunch of college students who like to swim when the water has just barely reached a decent temperature. None of them have been arrested, although the police usual issue a warning at them around this time of year. Two guesses which sex has a bunch of assholes (not participating) standing on shore catcalling at them.

Yes, there is sexism directed at both sexes.

The OP here is specifically about men who stare, shout at or harass women based on their sexual appeal. I, and many men I know, don't do this and think it is sexist. Do you agree?

[Nay]

357. "Mental illness" or "diabetic crisis" is actually what most people, and all first responders, would

think of first in either case. Because that's what it usually turns out to be.

[Atman]

358. Diabeties causes you to walk around naked?

Please elaborate. I've never heard that.

[Nay]

391. Not diabetes per se, but a severe hypoglycemic episode. And not in all cases, of course.

"Of all the complications,hypoglycemia seems to be the most important. The usual symptoms of pallor,
dizziness, sweating, tremor, hunger, and convulsions may or may not be present. Younger children may
show only irritability and fretfulness, which conduct they may also simulate in an attempt to obtain candy. Older children may show confusion, negativism, or violent outbursts (the literature reports that
diabetics may assault people or undress in public while hypoglycemic)." That's from an issue of Juvenile Diabetes. It applies to all diabetics, though, and I believe it's mostly because the combination of profuse sweating and mental confusion induces the diabetic to remove clothing to cool off, even in public. The hypoglycemic episodes are also the times when cops can mistakenly think you are drunk, and treat you as such; there are some horror stories of diabetics thrown in the drunk tank and dying there.

I should have added another specific category of mental illness that more often results in undressing in public: dementia. It can cause the ill person to have no inhibitions at all and remove clothing in public as a result of hypersexuality caused by dementia. Not all dementia patients do this, but enough of them do that for there to be a market for unremovable clothing. See "anti-strip clothing" under the Alzheimer's section of this site: silverts.com

[KitSileya]

439. I'm surprised you think that isn't the immediate assumption.

We had a stark naked man walk into our church (Roman Catholic) in the middle of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and you know what, our first assumption wasn't that he was a predator or a provocateur that hated the Church, but that he was mentally ill. Two men in the congregation ran up to him an escorted him outside while covering him with one of their jackets, and called the police because they are trained in dealing with such incidents. (Since this wasn't the US, the man, whom the police had been searching for because of multiple reports that he was wandering naked in town, was sent to a hospital, and evaluated. I don't know that he was mentally ill or drunk, or high, but I have seen him around town later, fully clothed and appearing to be doing fine.)

I'm not sure that anyone would assume that a man walking around in public without pants was a predator - for one, I think most of us know that a predator would never draw attention to himself in that manner. As I said, I think most of us would assume that something was wrong with him, and perhaps be scared of him, as many assume that mentally ill men are prone to violence (which isn't true, but that is how they are perceived, unfortunately.) A woman would also be considered mentally ill if she walked down the street without pants, but she wouldn't elicit fear - but some men would consider her easier prey. Because most predators are dressed, and looking for easy prey, and mentally ill women are definitely easy prey to them. And in the US, many rapists still get off scot free when their victims are unable to resist - because they're paraplegic, mentally ill, what have you.

After all, many men still consider women in public public property, and address them at their leisure, harass them in the street, accost them on public transport, get angry with them when they refuse to engage in conversation, think it's their right to hit on them regardless of the venue (and the woman's body language.) Why shouldn't rapists think that rape isn't a big thing, when so many men disregard women's body language and bodily integrity in all these lesser ways? After all, if she dresses nicely, it can't be because she feels well when dressing nicely, she must be inviting comments, at least that's what many in this thread are saying. And it's a short step from uninvited comments, to uninvited come-ons, to uninvited touching, to rape - and then she was asking for it when she dressed like that, right?

[nomorenomore08]

217. And as always, people overreact with the "What am I supposed to look at???"

I always figure, a simple glance never hurt anyone, but on the other hand it's rude to stare. And that goes no matter who I'm looking at. Sure, my eyes might linger a half-second longer on a woman I find attractive, but I really try not to draw her attention/make her uncomfortable. Just common courtesy, that's all.

[redqueen]

227. Wow, you make it sound so simple!

[nomorenomore08]

233. Hell, I'm as socially awkward as they come, and I still manage to be polite and discreet

most of the time. Don't know what other people's problem is...

[Warren Stupidity]

350. I always try to not get my drool on her breasts.

And if I mess up I always carry a clean handkerchief, 'cause I'm a real gentleman.

[nomorenomore08]

420. Heh, not like I was claiming to be better than anyone else.

I figure "not creeping people out" is kind of the bare minimum of civility.

[Locut0s]

218. I met a women who missed cat calls /whistles...

I was working in 711 at the time and my fellow employee whistled when a girl walked in. Thing was it was a joke, the girl was a friend of his and it was all light hearted, not intentional. We'll a lady standing in line behind said suddenly "oh I miss that, it reminds me of home back in the old country" she was from Europe, I believe Italy. I was a little startled when I heard her say that, she actually said she thought we were too uptight in this society about such things.

[closeupready]

224. Remember Edith Cresson?

She was France's Minister of Overseas Affairs, IIRC - she wasn't a very good one as she seemed to have a diplomatic gaffe every week.

One week, the English had their turn. She landed at Heathrow and made a remark, "The English are gay because they don't look at my breasts," or some remark like that. Let me see if I can find the quote verbatim.

[closeupready]

231. Former French prime minister: 'one in four Englishmen might be gay'

Because, strangely, they did NOT look at her in London.

>>In Paris, Prime Minister Edith Cresson put the problem thus: "It's a question of education, and I consider it something of a weakness."

Her disdainful view of the Englishman's warmth -- she passed similarly harsh judgments on American and German men -- was expressed in an interview four years ago, long before her appointment as prime minister, but only now published, to her embarrassment.

"The English are not interested in women. It is astonishing. I remember strolling about in London and men in the streets don't look at you. In Paris, the men look at you all the time," she said, adding the suspicion that one in four Englishmen might be gay.<<

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-21/news/1991172056_1_french-literature-english-men-manhood

[Locut0s]

235. I made a post some time back on here that showed that a lot of men AND women watch porn regularly...

Why am I saying this? Because in don't think you can use such a broad brush on either gender. If I remember a lot of the men watched if on a daily basis and quite a few women watched it semi weekly. And I thought no you will agree that this is a nicer cross section of the public. I've seen polls in a lot of places that show the same. Do you assume from this that the VAST majority of them are bigoted pricks? As others have said here to stare or leer is quite different from a look. I don't think even the majority of men who are players let alone the average guy stare or leer.

One thing I see a lot here is that men are made to feel guilty of their own biology. We certainly aren't wired to stare, harass or be violent. But yes we are wired to look at a pretty girl. Like it or not it's automatic, we can not stare certainly, we can be nice, we can do all of that. We should and I think most do. But I'm sorry the saying that sex is on a guys mind every X number of seconds is only a bit of an exaggeration. At least for younger guys.

[kiranon]

236. All the staring and cat calls seemed more predatory than kind. Don't

miss it at all now that I am an old lady. In fact, it is liberating. To each her own.

[Locut0s]

243. I think to each her own is kind of the point we are trying to make...

The OPs post is aggressive and predatory in its own sense. It assumes that all men are creeps and all women don't want sexual attention.

[redqueen]

249. Completely ass-backwards. See posts 72 and 98. nt

[gollygee]

259. Where do people get this?

No.

It only assumes that men behaving like creeps are creeps.

And it only says you shouldn't assume women dressed a certain way is wanting sexual attention, not that none are.

[redqueen]

264. A few have protested that its all just a simple misunderstanding.

They must not be aware of feminist discourse on this subject.

To the great dismay of many, I am sure, this isn't an issue which one can use 'third wave! third wave!' as a Get Out Of Misogyny Free card or a wedge to divide feminists.

[cbdo2007]

257. Men also!! Enough of the comments ladies....

you like my ass. I get it, now please leave me alone, especially when I'm with my kids. Thanks!

[Megalo_Man]

263. I completely disagree.

Dressing in a sexually suggestive manner is inviting sexual attention, whether the person dressing that way realizes it or not. Men are attracted to healthy, attractive women. You can't change this. That doesn't mean dressing in such a way is an excuse for men to act however they want, but you don't get to shift responsibility onto them for inviting that attention.

[Summer Hathaway]

266. I don't know what world you live in

but out here in the real world, women (and men) often dress in a way that invites stares, opinions - and especially interaction with others.

It seems that the members of the Department of Why The Hell Are People Still Not Clear On This are the ones who are totally unclear on that fact.

[cali]

269. I'm not at all clear on it. I absolutely dressed to invite reactions

when I was younger. Of course, I didn't dress to to invite assaults, but sure, at times I dressed as an invitation for attention.

[redqueen]

273. And therefore every woman is the same? And men should feel free to assume that's the case?

Or should they not assume that every woman is trying to invite stares, opinions, and come ons, and proceed accordingly?

[cali]

280. I didn't say that. YOU made the absolutes in your op.

period. I refuted your sweeping bullshit about women. All women are not the same. YOU are the one that made that bullshit claim.

And fucking don't put words in my mouth.

Oh, and I'm hardly singular in having dressed, at times, for attention.

your op was shitty and lecturing and wrong.

[redqueen]

284. LOL, by that logic you had no grounds to be mad at Seth MacFarlane. You get that, right?

And I damned well stand by my absolutes. Because although there are women who just looooove being complimented by strangers, or even, or as our kind and thoughtful friends have pointed out, being sexually objectified and harassed, the default assumption should be that she does not, because that is the only way to ensure you aren't being an asshole.

[cali]

306. pathetic. You don't speak for me- either as a woman or a feminist

so take your own advice to Femen, dear.

[Sivafae]

272. How else are we going to know you're a whore if you don't dress the part?

That is sure gonna make it hard to treat women with respect they are if men have to treat every woman they meet with respect. Imagine the extra work! The poor little men!

You women! I tell you, you ask for the hardest things!

[redqueen]

276. LOL... you juat reminded me of an incident...

I was walking down the street, on my way to see Rocky Horror. I was dressed up for it, and a group of men drove by and asked me 'How much?'

Being a very naive young woman, I assumed they recognized my outfit and were asking about the movie ticket price. So I said $5. They laughed uproariously and threw garbage at me.

Totally my fault, though. How dare I dress up for that movie! I was totally flirting with disaster.

[BainsBane]

289. I used to get that alot when I was very young

like ages 10-14. You can imagine how disgusting that was. I didn't dress provocatively at all.

[redqueen]

293. At that age I only got honked at, followed, invited into cars, etc. nt

[cliffordu]

438. Too bad you didnt have a big boyfriend to prevent that stuff....

Referring to your dare way up thread, of course.....

[WinkyDink]

285. Not sure about "no stares" (Courtney Stodden, anyone?!). But as for speaking or touching? Hell, no!

[BainsBane]

286. The irony

of some objecting to this OP, while in other threads they accuse feminists of being prudes, not liking the human body or sex.

[cali]

287. this type of dishonest crap doesn't serve feminists

and it's such bullshit. There is nothing wrong with a woman dressing for attention or stares.

Nothing.

Do all women? No, of course not, but plenty do and there is nothing wrong with that.

puritan bullshit op.

[BainsBane]

291. Where does the OP say there is something wrong with it?

She doesn't AT ALL. She says women have a right to dress how they want without being assaulted physically or verbally.

[cali]

300. try fucking reading the op

Women in public, no matter how they're dressed, are not "inviting" ANYTHING. [View all]
Get it?

Not stares, not opinions, not interaction, not ANYTHING. Clothes are not an invitation. Words are. Body language can be.

CLOTHES ARE NOT.

she says nothing about assault. she says women (and she doesn't say some women) no matter how they dress are not inviting any kind of attention.

That is ridiculous crap.

[BainsBane]

303. You are misreading it

She says women have a right to dress how they please, that clothing is not an invitation for men to engage in cat calls or other rude behavior. She makes no comment whatsoever about women's clothing choices.

Your rudeness is entirely uncalled for.

[Summer Hathaway]

326. No, she is not misreading it

She quoted the OP exactly as it was written, which did NOT include anything about clothing not being "an invitation for men to engage in cat calls or other rude behavior."

What the OP very clearly said was that "Women in public, no matter how they're dressed, are not "inviting" ANYTHING."

And that is a ridiculous notion on its face, as many here have pointed out.

Women (and men) often dress specifically for the purpose of attracting attention (sexual or otherwise), triggering interaction, eliciting stares and opinions, and so on.

This isn't rocket science. It's human nature.

[BainsBane]

327. redqueen explained what she meant

If you choose to invent your own story, that's entirely your doing. If on the other hand you want to understand what she said, you can read her response in this subthread. I suspect, however, the point is to misunderstand and fight for the sake of it.

What do you suppose I was inviting at age 10 when men stopped me on the street to try to hire me as a prostitute? Or at age 13 when a guy jumped in my bedroom window? I must have been asking for it. Do all little girls get what they ask for? How about the girls Castro held hostage. In objecting to the OP, you are arguing that assault is justified based on how someone dresses. I guess those bell bottoms I wore as a ten year old were just too much for grown men to resist.

[Summer Hathaway]

328. If Redqueen didn't mean what she said in her OP

she could have edited at any time. She didn't.

"In objecting to the OP ..."

First of all, I am not 'objecting' to the OP - I am merely pointing out the obvious: To say that women (or men) don't dress to invite ANYTHING is preposterous. Men and women do so all the time.

... you are arguing that assault is justified based on how someone dresses."

How you got from my saying that people DO in fact sometimes dress in a way that invites interaction to "arguing that assault is justified based on how someone dresses" is so beyond comprehension as to be laughable - if it wasn't so downright creepy.

People sometimes dress to attract attention = assault is justified.

Like I said, downright creepy way of thinking.

[BainsBane]

330. She explained herself

You chose to misunderstand and pick a fight. Enjoy yourself.

Her point is dress does not justify assault or harassment. It was perfectly clear to me, but since you misunderstood you had opportunities to learn what she meant. You chose not to. Calling me creepy for pointing out that I was harassed By men as a child takes a special kind of insensitivity that defies comprehension. This exchange has left me nauseous.

[Summer Hathaway]

331. I didn't misunderstand the OP as written

Again, she could have edited - but she chose not to.

I don't consider pointing out the fact that people often dress in such a way as to deliberately invite interaction as 'picking a fight'.

Facts are facts. I'd say the OP was 'picking a fight' when she misrepresented those facts. I'd also say that 'picking a fight' (aka posting flamebait) was the motive here, and that's why the original OP was never changed to reflect a later need for the OP to "explain herself".

[redqueen]

364. Most people got it the first time.

As for your "she could have edited" whine, read post 282.

[Summer Hathaway]

403. Yes, most people 'got it' the first time

They 'got' exactly what you wrote in your OP.

But as per your usual MO, once people pointed out how utterly ridiculous your statement was, you started insisting that what you were 'really saying' was something completely different than your original OP.

[BainsBane]

305. Do you believe

that men can treat certain women badly based on how they dress? That is essentially the point you are objecting to: that men can treat women certain ways based on how they judge her clothing.

[pintobean]

314. It is ridiculous

In post 31, she says my post made her think her OP was necessary.

Here's my post:

So is my body

I have no control over who looks at it, or what their opinions are. If I choose to display it, I'm inviting people to have an opinion.

"They aint yours" applies to you, as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845844#post9

[redqueen]

367. What's ridiculous is your 'Who, me?' act.

BB's post was about the vile reaction to Angelina Jolie's decision, which was displayed by far too many men. (Not just five, as the standard minimizers of all non-patriarchally-approved feminist issues were saying).

You knew if was about men who were PUBLICLY commenting on women's bodies. You knew it was about SHARED opinions about women's bodies.

And yet you expect anyone outside of a small group of people to believe you meant that it was only your body that you consider as analogous to a car at a car show, and you only meant privately held opinions, that you kept in your head.

Fuckin please.

[pintobean]

393. I didn't read any of the Angelina Jolie threads.

Tell me how you know what I knew and what I was thinking. If you can't, it's just baseless accusations.
I discussed that issue with my wife and daughter, because it hits close to home. I don't find a lot of the opinions on the internet very helpful when it comes to a subject like that.

BB's post was ambiguous. Not being clear opened it up to interpretation. That's why I posted the car show pic. It was tongue in cheek. If you don't like the way I communicate, that's too bad.

By my body, I meant mine, and my comments apply to anyone's, male or female. If anyone puts their body on display, they're inviting people to have an opinion. It doesn't matter if you approve of it, or not. It's human nature. Deal with it.

[redqueen]

409. Everyone has opinions about all kinds of shit. Nobody cares.

It is only when it comes to SHARING those opinions that it becomes an issue, and anyone with an IQ over 50 would be able to figure out that that's what BB's thread was about, whether they'd bothered to read anything about the assholes commenting on Angelina Jolie's boobs or not.

[redqueen]

292. Wat

Could you please point me to where I said there was anything wrong with women who dressed in whatever manner?

I don't give a shit who likes harassment or how much. My point is it should not be assumed that just because a woman is "on display" that does not mean she is inviting opinions (to be shared, I should specify, for the seemingly obtuse).

[polly7]

298. But women who don't dress to suit you should be subject to your

'opinions'.

redqueen (102,297 posts)

"Personally, Femen, shut the fuck up, and don't claim that you speak for me, or anybody else. Stop dictating women that they need to be nude to be free, that's just as bad as men dictating them to be covered."

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10022625002

[redqueen]

304. That is A QUOTE FROM A MUSLIM WOMAN.

See the quotes? They're right there. I even prefaced it with the statement that it was FROM THE COMMENTS.

I guess since you were exposed for your previous ... obsession... you had to find a new one.

You never get tired of misrepresenting people's opinions to suit your agenda, do you?

[BainsBane]

307. snork

We don't listen to Muslim women around here. Get with the program redqueen.

[redqueen]

308. No shit! And the quote doesn't even say what she somehow seems to think it says.

[BainsBane]

309. but

it's what the guys say is says, so that's what counts.

[polly7]

310. Previous obsession?

Whatcha talking about? The nasty *toilet thing you tried to originally blame on men here?

This?:

polly7 (7,755 posts)
31. Wow. You should make up your mind.

redqueen (99,811 posts)
128. Yes, it's usually men who get to make up the words used to degrade women.

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 11:29 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)

And then only by absorbing the patriarchy's values do women start to use those words against each other (slut, bitch, etc.)

Fucktoilet was coined by a radical feminist (IIRC), to describe the way far too many women are treated by far too many men in this rape culture we're in. (During the Rape of Nanking, the soldiers did refer to the women and children they raped as public toilets, but AFAIK that isn't related.)

It seems fitting to me to use Twisty's term, and I'm glad that the naughty-word-list/anti-censorship/Lenny-Bruce-wannabe crowd finally has a term that they can at least pretend to be offended by.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=88696

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022391217#post31


People here were actually offended by it. There was no pretending.


As to the quote, my apologies ... I didn't read it closely enough, but as you posted it you certainly agreed with it, no?: "Loved this post from the comments:"

[redqueen]

312. Yep. Obsession. QED. nt

[polly7]

313. Lame. nt.

[Kingofalldems]

311. Is this a problem on DU?

After 9 years here I wouldn't categorize DU men as people who would engage in harassment of women. Appalling callout of fellow Democrats.

[zappaman]

315. Not that I've seen.

perhaps the OP would link to statements...
nah, what was I thinking?

[pintobean]

317. See post #6

In post #31, she says:

One DUer even helpfully linked to his post which made me think this OP was necessary.

I'm the only one who had done that - in post #6.

The OP doesn't resemble anything I posted.

[zappaman]

318. Shocker.

Same old shit, different day...

[Prism]

320. Ideology vs human nature

You seem to be having about as much luck with that as could be predicted.

I stared at a woman this morning. She had on a pretty sun dress, belt, shoes, and purse. For some reason, it struck me, so I kind of spacily looked at her ensemble and thought, "That is really well put together."

Now, I'm a gay man. I had no sexual interest at all. I was simply admiring the effect of her clothing choices.

Did she see an ogling male? Was my attention unwanted? I don't know. All personal interactions require a bit of interpretation, and our interpretations are slaves to our biases. I suspect if some of DU's resident Gender Police had witnessed that scene, it would've been characterized as downright predatory on my part. "Look at that man staring at that woman!"

I was staring. For perfectly benevolent cause.

Humans are complex like that.

Which is why simplistic, ahuman garbage like this is always met with the predictable amount of volatility. If your ideology seems like it's never even met a breathing person, it's garbage.

[oldhippie]

323. Sometimes, I just can't ....

... fucking believe this place.

[MrSlayer]

329. Right. Except when they are.

I tend to think if you're walking around Manhattan in a shoestring bikini, you're soliciting opinions, interaction and comments.

And then of course there are the Ladies of the Night.



These women, totally NOT inviting anything.

[Lunacee_2013]

333. Some of the replies here are just incredible.

Reminds me of the male privilege check list, the "I don't have to worry about what kind of message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability" one. And just because a woman wears something that gets your attention doesn't mean you have to leer at her. If you think she's attractive, just talk to her! Trust me, we women find that far less creepy then the whole starting down thing.

Also, what counts as something that's meant to get attention? I can understand the body glitter thing, but what if I'm just wearing some old work-out clothes, tennis shoes, no make-up, and my hair's a mess and I still have someone leer at me in the grocery store (and you have to stare pretty hard 'cause I'm literally half blind)? That can be very unnerving to a woman, especially one who's been followed out of a store, out through the parking lot and almost half-way home. Thank God he never actually tried anything, he just stared the whole time, but I was wearing lip gloss, so maybe I just wanted the attention.

And to anyone who wants to leer at another person, no matter how it makes them feel, I thought we were all democratic and maybe even liberal, and aren't we the ones who are suppose to care about how our actions affect others?

[Bonobo]

343. "If you think she's attractive, just talk to her!"

If you read clearly, there are people on this thread that think that talking to a stranger is ALREADY crossing the lines of unwarranted, unasked for, unwelcome, rude behavior.

"The street is not a pickup bar!"

[Lunacee_2013]

384. It's just my two cents.

I'd much rather someone say "hello, my name is ..." than just stare at me.

[Warren DeMontague]

334. Ah, but wait

what it's Halloween, and they are dressed AS AN invitation? What then?

[Bonobo]

337. That's true.

But as far as interactions go, it sort of a free world. Same thing for stares, smiles, etc.

Of course, a woman who wished to respond with an angry snarly is also within her rights.

People interact with each other. Yes, it's true. The only way to avoid that entirely is to live in a cave or on an uninhabited island.

[Apophis]

339. Yeah, if you're wearing clothes that are revealing, I'm going to look.

That's encoded in my genes and it's something I'll never feel bad about or apologize for.

[nomorenomore08]

429. "Encoded in [your] genes"? Nothing wrong with your post otherwise, but that part kind of

raised my eyebrow. Sexual attraction itself obviously has a biological basis - it's more or less how we continue the species - but isn't the supposed "sexiness" of certain clothing a cultural construct? I mean, weren't we basically naked for millions of years?

I don't see anything wrong, generally speaking, with giving an attractive person the once-over. But there's no need to drag pseudoscience into it.

[Jamastiene]

348. I agree with the majority of your OP, but I strongly disagree

that body language can be an invitation. Body language can be misread and it all too often is. Body language should not be used as an excuse to stare, opine or interact either, imo.

Why women are expected to take the shit we have to take is perplexing to me. There really is no excuse for it.

[redqueen]

352. That is a very good point.

Most feminists seem to include an ameliorating "just talk to us!" exception, based on body language.

I'm with you, though.

If you haven't seen this you might find it interesting. The follow up piece is also worth reading IMO.

http://www.theferrett.com/ferrettworks/2012/08/can-i-buy-you-a-coffee/

[Zorra]

356. It would be a lot worse if we did not have laws protecting us, and if women had

not worked tirelessly for centuries to raise social consciousness about the condition of women to the meager, but slowly improving, level that now exists on the planet ~

A shout out to all the feminist activists who have struggled, and are struggling, in the face of continual opposition, for genuine equality ~

[redqueen]

404. Could I please get hour thoughts on post 390?

Just curious to know if you've noticed the same pattern regarding the responses to certain subjects as well.

[Rex]

359. They might dress a certain way to invite stares.

I agree that no matter how they are dressed, it is rude to stare. However, I have known women that dress up to get attention with what they had on. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[cbdo2007]

366. Everyone likes to get a compliment.

Maybe not everyone but 90% of people like to get a compliment. Most women I know EXPECT compliments on their new shoes or their earrings or their new hair color.

My wife just expressed to me the other day how she thinks she must not be attractive anymore because she hasn't been hit on in public for about a year.

[In_The_Wind]

369. It doesn't matter what I'm wearing or doing ~ I still LOOKS.

I'm not doing anything to invite attention.

[Orsino]

374. Wearing high fashion, or unusual garments, invites looks.

Staring conveys an aggressive or suggestive message, and that's where looking is less than okay.

[sufrommich]

375. I see the usual suspects have exaggerated the claims being

made in your OP and are now arguing against their own exaggerated claims. Lather,rinse,repeat.

[redqueen]

377. LOL, no shit... and now I hear that I'm misandrying men on threads about kittens!!!!1!

Oh, the humanity!

[Marr]

378. *edit*

I didn't realize you were talking about being *looked at*.

No, I'm sorry-- I think any rational adult would admit that some kinds of behavior/clothing invites stares.

Would it be realistic to expect people to simply ignore this?:

[NaturalHigh]

379. Oh hell, what started this crap?

Did someone hold the door open for someone again?

Good grief. People and their faux outrage.

[Ter]

382. A double take stare is the only thing I was guilty of

Sometimes I can't help it, sorry.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

398. you are ridiculous! lmao!

Suggestion for your next thread

*under no circumstances would a woman want to sleep with a man

[Puzzledtraveller]

399. LOL

[Summer Hathaway]

405. I think the next OP is more likely to be

"Under no circumstances should a woman sleep with a man."

Such interaction could lead a man to all kinds of disgusting behavior towards a woman - like complimenting her, opening doors for her, etc.

[zappaman]

408. !!!

[redqueen]

411. STILL with the "opening doors"

Enjoy your head pats.

[Electric Monk]

400. 400! nt

[clarice]

401. Bullshit, when I wear my $%^$ me heels, it's to get a reaction. lol nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

407. To be honest, when I wear my Super Bowl Champions: Green Bay Packers Tshirt, I'm

totally looking for attention, and smack talk, and high fives, etc.

While I get your premise, sometimes we are dressing for attention. That doesn't mean the wrong kind of attention is acceptable.

[redqueen]

410. Thanks for admitting that you get the OP.

Most who are spending time thinking up and posting about exceptions are simply pretending they don't get it, cause the premise, which obviously concerns sexual harassment and unwanted sexual attention, is just soooooo hard to figure out.

It's not cute, and it speaks volumes.

[Dash87]

412. That's how I took the thread.

Less about normal reactions and more about rude staring and comments.

[Warren DeMontague]

413. Especially if you wear it on S. Lake Shore Drive.

[Brigid]

414. I get sympathetic looks when I wear my Cubs T-shirt!

[closeupready]

417. Forgive the levity, but you know that T-Mobile commercial

featuring Frankenstein in the castle laboratory?

I'm reminded a bit of that here. Cheers, RQ.

[cottonseed]

418. Haven't posted in years. See the crazies are still posting.

[cliffordu]

423. Well, duh.

Is there something here on DU that inspired you to post this or are you just inspired to teach old lessons?

[Warren DeMontague]

424. 8059 views and goin' strong.

Look! Don't Look!

[Uzair]

426. What FANTASY WORLD do you live in?????

This has to be a joke. No, seriously. Are you kidding?

Women dress sexy ALL THE TIME precisely to get men to approach them, to stare, to try something. Maybe not all the men in the room, but certainly some of the men in the room. And they're well aware that they're going to have some of the men approach them that they don't really want to approach them. It's all part of the game.

I don't know your story, but I get the feeling you haven't been to a bar or a club or a pool hall or a social event in quite some time if you actually believe what you just wrote.

[DesertFlower]

428. many years ago i had a friend with very large breasts.

she was only 14 but looked older. she was walking down Main st. and caused a car accident because men couldn't stop looking at her. she wasn't wearing anything provocative.

[DirkGently]

432. Kind what I thought was so relevant about FEMEN's naked protests.

[edit] ... and the insane reactions to them.