(January 17, 2016 at 2:15 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:01 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Hey man, don't put all men into the same category of being "wired" the same as you, I can assure you I am not wired like you. You act like we are all 10 year old boys seeing a pair of boobs for the first time.

Oh come on wizard, don't tell me you don't look at a member of the sex of the your attracted to and go "that ass, its fucking amazing"
I'm going to give you a personal example of how this works. There is this girl in my class at school. She has a fucking amazing ass that and figure. I would love nothing more then to fuck the everloving shit out of her from behind. But j also acknowledge that she is a very competent and intelligent human, who is very kind and easy to get along with. She also has great organizational skills. Does that make me an evil sexist who views women as objects. Hardly. Just my mother was careful to teach me that women are more then just sex objects. In other words you can teach a straight man to see women as humans, but you can't teach him to not what to fuck women.

But once again,
no one here is saying that men shouldn't be ATTRACTED-TO, or even appreciate, a sexy woman's appearance.

What we're saying is that her appearance doesn't give men license to act like apes.

If I'm looking good...not even dressed particularly provocatively, just looking good...

...and I go to the grocery store,
and I see a man do a double-take at me,
and his gaze lingers a moment,
maybe he even briefly makes eye-contact with me...

I am not going to be offended....in fact, I will even be a little flattered.

Even if I do not find him attractive;
even if he is the same age as my grandfather.

As long as all he did was LOOK, and not STARE.

But if a guy stares fixedly at me, never lowering his gaze,
even after he knows I've seen him looking...

...that is intimidating and could even be construed as menacing.

Now, what some of the guys here are trying to defend,
is that it IS entirely understandable to STARE,
and that STARING should not be shamed,

....if the woman is dressed provocatively.

And what we've been responding with is this:

Fine.  Stare if you must.  As long as you don't touch or harass.

But it's still rude, and we are still going think you are an ape.
You may be struck by her provocative dress,
but you are still responsible for your own behavior.
Looking is one thing...staring is another.

If these guys want to say:
" If she dresses sexy, she should expect stares. "

Then I can say to those guys:
" If you stare, you should expect to be considered an ape who is barely in control of himself...
...and you can expect women to flee from you. "

In other words,
EVERYONE is accountable for their OWN behavior.

(January 17, 2016 at 2:38 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: 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 nowadays and simply ask you politely to not be a creep.

^ YES

No matter how provocatively she is dressed:

Looking is one thing.

Staring is another.

(January 17, 2016 at 2:53 am)pool the great Wrote:

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

I wish we had a thumbs-down button.

(January 17, 2016 at 9:28 am)MTL Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:38 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: 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 nowadays and simply ask you politely to not be a creep.

^ YES

No matter how provocatively she is dressed:

Looking is one thing.

Staring is another.

Exactly, plenty of men seem to be able to go to the beach and function like normal human beings. Girls are running around in bikini's, it's really a magical place but you don't see guys standing around like zombies, pitching tents in their board shorts.

(January 17, 2016 at 3:37 am)Heat Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When I was still single I used to wear really sexy, expensive underwear from Victoria's Secret. Only in my favorite colors - black, red, and hot pink. And yet... I was celibate and didn't strip down to my underwear in front of anyone. So, why did I wear them? Obviously no one was going to see them, and I knew that. I wore them because it made me feel sexy, for myself. 

Again, believe it or not, the existence of women doesn't revolve around men all the time. And neither should it.

Why the fuck would that make you feel sexy? What is deemed "sexy" if not by standards of your sexual preferential gender?


I'm gonna wear a bracelet I really like. AWW YEAH DUDE I'M SO FUCKING SEXY FUCK YEAH DUDE THIS IS THE SEXIEST THING I'VE EVER WORN, SCREW OTHER PEOPLE THIS IS GIVING ME CONFIDENCE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE FUCKING SEXIEST THING IN THE WORLD, NOTHING TO DO WITH OTHER PEOPLE FINDING IT ATTRACTIVE AWWWWWWWWWWWWWYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

So now you're telling CL that not only does she understand women better than men do,
...but she doesn't even understand herself???

I totally get what she is saying.

(the CAPS make you look ridiculous, btw)

(January 17, 2016 at 3:43 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: And what you call "explicitly dressed sexy" is just your subjective idea, dictated by your society. To a muslim man a woman who's eyebrows are showing seems like a prick-teasing whore.

 

Quote:You want to look, do it. Just do it like you would at a person you respect. Not a piece of candy, that you hope, if you stare at it long enough - will fly into your mouth.

^ BRILLIANT

Quote:I can imagine to you feeling aroused is more important than the feelings of people you are potentially making uncomfortable - but living in a civilized society means that sometimes we have to stop ourselves from things that seem normal to us. 

Masturbating in public theoretically doesn't hurt anyone, but would you really want to live in a society, where whacking it in the street was accepted? Yeah - I didn't think so. And that's just a different level of suppressing our natural ape-ish sexuality.

^ GAME, SET, MATCH

(January 17, 2016 at 6:04 am)Heat Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 4:42 am)Losty Wrote: I dress however I want, for whatever reason I want to, and nobody gives a single fuck what you think about it.

Ok thats fine by me. I dont care how someone dresses until they hypocritically claim victim when someone points out the obvious. 

Honestly, dress however you like, as long as you let others think whatever they want. It's when people start getting those two confused, and thinking they can both dress however they want IE: something drawing attention,  and then expect and rage over the fact it ends up drawing attention, that it becomes a problem.

What's considered "sexy" attire is subjective, and what's considered to be an impolite reaction is as well. Keeping in line with your statement above, you shouldn't rage if your response to what someone is wearing ends up drawing attention, either. According to your own logic: it's a problem.

Nothing a little special pleading can't fix, though.

(January 17, 2016 at 9:31 am)MTL Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 2:53 am)pool the great Wrote: 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.

I wish we had a thumbs-down button.

Yeah, feminists tend to have an aversion to logic. Nothing new here. *flies away*

Heat, I now understand what you mean, you are confused and irritated by how women say it's offensive when a guy look at them when they dress sexy even when that's exactly what she wanted to happen when she dressed sexy - to be sexually desirable. Then they go on and on about how this is objectifying women and bla bla bla. *women*


What you don't understand, due to your lack of experience in these matters is this is common human behavior, it is a form of self-flattery. What's the word? Boasting? Yeah, you get the picture, some chicks do this because this increases their sexual value in other's eyes(or at least they think, god knows it's annoying). It's not hypocritical, they actually likes the attention, but claiming how they hate all the attention and they can't go out without guys drooling over them is a form of self-flattery they employ to boost their self-worth/confidence and increase their value in the eyes of others.
Yeah, I know, the chicks that do this are extremely annoying - ignore them at all costs but don't make it so explicit that it's offensive. Nod and agree with them giving the impression that you're falling for it but keep in mind that you don't want to get involved with these chicks, these types are the ones that people call attention seekers, and that's what they are trying to get so don't give it to them - ignore them, that'll drive 'em nuts hahaha.

(January 17, 2016 at 12:07 pm)pool the great Wrote:

(January 17, 2016 at 9:31 am)MTL Wrote: I wish we had a thumbs-down button.

Yeah, feminists tend to have an aversion to logic. Nothing new here. *flies away*

Don't forget logic works on premises. Why do you expect people to share yours? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?