(January 17, 2016 at 2:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:26 am)Heat Wrote: No one's arguing about being naturally sexy, we're arguing about the specific action of purposely dressing sexy.

Dressing sexy is purposeful, something done for a reason.

Heat, how are you so positive that the only reason women dress sexy is to be gawked at? You realize there have been multiple women here who have said otherwise, speaking from personal sentiments. Don't you think it may be a bit far fetched to think you know more about women than women know about women?

And they're all for bullshit reasons.

(January 17, 2016 at 2:41 am)Heat Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Heat, how are you so positive that the only reason women dress sexy is to be gawked at? You realize there have been multiple women here who have said otherwise, speaking from personal sentiments. Don't you think it may be a bit far fetched to think you know more about women than women know about women?

And they're all for bullshit reasons.

So you think I'm blatantly lying then? 

What could be a BS reason to you might actually be a valid reason to someone else. Especially when they are the opposite sex and have certain differences.

(January 17, 2016 at 2:38 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 1:53 am)pool the great Wrote: I agree with you that sexuality has to be controlled to an extend, but it is never okay to suppress sexuality. Never.
[...]

"Never"? Why? As I stated before - you voluntarily suppress your own sexuality all the time, for various reasons.
We are "wired" to have sex with anything our dicks fit into. And many people have additional aspects to their sexuality, fetishes and kinks, that they do and often have to keep to themselves, because they're likely to cause disgust in their potential partners. And what about pedophiles? Should they "never" suppress their sexuality? So yeah - it is pretty much always necessary to suppress sexuality, to some extent. And you're just arguing over what that extent is.

It's all a matter of social norms, instilled in us when we were young. You see - to me, being discreet about admiring women is natural and instinctive, because that's how I was brought up.  People who grow up in cultures that allow for more open objectification of women understandably have a different idea of what "natural" behavior is. And someone raised by apes would be astonished that dry-humping every female in proximity is somehow unacceptable.

Staring at people is not acceptable in most social situations - it's associated with predatory behavior. Unflinching, prolonged eye contact between strangers means aggression in body language - it's the same among most mammals. Go to a bar and stare at a bunch of lumberjacks - see how they like it.

We are "wired" to punch in the face a person who stares at us - or run away from them, because throughout our evolution things that stared at us usually wanted to eat or rape us. Most of us suppress that urge as well and simply ask you politely to not be a creep.

Here's the two things I find in your posts that I know are wrong:

1. The reason for men to get aroused when they see a sexy chick is because it is how men are programmed by evolution, not society, if you want proof of this go look at some animals with no social norms that get a hard on, it's not because anyone taught them they should get a hard on, get it?

2. Your idea of how everything is standardized in subjects relating to sexuality. A man may get aroused at how physically attractive a women is, this doesn't mean that a women has to, strictly, get aroused at how physically attractive a man is. Of course pedophiles should suppress their sexuality, shit, that's even a bad example example at best, they don't suppress it because of they know they are supposed to - they suppress it because children are not legally allowed to have sexual relationships, society suppress their sexuality because it is harmful to the society. Why should the sexuality of a heterosexual man that is supposedly objectifying a women by looking at her when she is explicitly dressed sexy be suppressed? What harm does this do to society so much that the sexuality of a heterosexual man has to suppressed and if possible social engineeringly altered to fit how a women or people that are opposed to this idea wants to fit? I call bullshit.

(January 17, 2016 at 1:40 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 1:39 am)pool the great Wrote: Yeah, no shit Sherlock, of course staring is rude.
We are talking about women's clothes and how it is supposedly objectifying a women for looking at her when she dress sexy.

Well, it kinda is. Women don't always dress "sexy" to impress guys.

Don't be too hard on yourself.  I'm sure you mean well.

(January 17, 2016 at 3:09 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 1:40 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Well, it kinda is. Women don't always dress "sexy" to impress guys.

Don't be too hard on yourself.  I'm sure you mean well.

lolwut

(January 17, 2016 at 1:55 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You are correct, men were wired to be sexually attracted to the way women look. Again, no one is saying otherwise.

Well if you think it is God's will ...

The layers of human sexuality and human society are too nuanced and varied to place any one hard and fast rule to. There is a man and a woman out there somewhere to prove everyone's arguments presented here correct.

A sure way to falter is to apply your one rule to every person in every situation. It just won't work. Furthermore, it may be a sign of inexperience, youth, or both. If it's not, it can still be seen as such, and you are in danger of being judged accordingly. Which can hurt your chances of knocking boots, if that's your aim.

Tread lightly, Exian. They're in a mood to have your head off for sure. Best to just admit you're wrong and a bastard, then excuse yourself earnestly and run like hell.

Okay. Yes women can wear whatever the fuck they want and no that does not give a man a greenlight to be a perv. /thread

(January 17, 2016 at 2:44 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:41 am)Heat Wrote: And they're all for bullshit reasons.

So you think I'm blatantly lying then? 

What could be a BS reason to you might actually be a valid reason to someone else. Especially when they are the opposite sex and have certain differences.

I think this thread and society in general is simply a bunch of women pretending what they are clearly doing isn't what it seems, and blaming us for even asking the question to begin with.
And then we have a bunch of guys who feel the need to agree with this, because if not it suddenly turns in to a gender discrimination issue.

It's all a bunch of pretending, so that a woman can mentally accept that her actions are not the ones associated with a negative denotation. 


You did not give me a reason. No one did. You, like everyone else, asserted an illogical statement as reality, and then got up an arms when called you out on it. I don't think you're directly lying, I think you're pretending, wanting your actions not to represent a characteristic that you find unfavorable.