Objectifying women

[Eilonnwy]

I am going to leave this here, as it says it much better than I did: http://dmhatingfemisfromhell.blogspot.co...ctims.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2...e-101.html

I am, however, done with this thread because this shit makes me rage so I'm walking away from it.

[tavarish]

You show pictures of women with sexy clothing and equate it with tits hanging out, and thus the same as your dick swinging freely? Wut?

I'm not advocating zero responsibility, I'm advocating that women aren't fucking objects, like money. We are people. You, and a lot of other people *cough* Bill O'Reilly *cough* don't seem to respect that fact.

I'm done with this bullshit.

Yes, women are people and deserving of rights. What does Bill O'Reilly have to do with anything? Is he the spokesperson for all men or something? Who gives a fuck what he thinks?

However, you have to realize that having an attractive body can be a valuable asset. So much so that it can actually make a career FOR you and work to your favor. It can ultimately be very rewarding, and many women want to cash in on this success - but with reward comes risk.

And just like dotard posted in the beginning, these women aren't forced to do this. They acknowledge that it will get them a certain degree of success, so why not?

Perhaps I'm a bit biased, as I'm with a girl who has modeled before, and has worked with many models in NYC fashion week. Never once did she feel objectified or complained that she was unfairly treated. She also worked as a waitress, where she got hit on daily. The reward outweighed the risk in that case, because attractive girls get better tips. If someone got out of line, they got thrown out. It's all a part of playing the game.

If you can't stand the heat, get your ass out of the kitchen.

[Dotard]

You show pictures of women with sexy clothing and equate it with tits hanging out, and thus the same as your dick swinging freely? Wut?

Jeezuschrist Ms. Elio, Can I say 1/2 my dick hanging out and call it "sexy"? Those pics do have women with 1/2 their tits hanging out. and one had ALL the ass hanging out.

I'm not advocating zero responsibility, I'm advocating that women aren't fucking objects, like money. We are people. You, and a lot of other people *cough* Bill O'Reilly *cough* don't seem to respect that fact.

AND NOONE IS ARGUING THEY ARE OBJECTS LIKE MONEY. Stop arguing with what you think I'm saying (or I would dare to say what you want me to be meaning) and argue against what I AM saying. If you do not agree.

I'm done with this bullshit.

So sayeth the one with no sensible argument against the contention.

[binny]

I also believe it is worthy of note that in my experiances the women who complain and holler about "That" or "This" objectifys women are those who could not even get past the initial screening to become part of it. IOW, jealousy of the beautiful is what I believe drives their hatred of mens clubs, magazines or beauty pageants.

Yes I'm jealous. Look at me for christ sake!

[tavarish]

I am going to leave this here, as it says it much better than I did: http://dmhatingfemisfromhell.blogspot.co...ctims.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2...e-101.html

I am, however, done with this thread because this shit makes me rage so I'm walking away from it.

It didn't address anything. It just says the person that rapes said woman is in the wrong, and I don't think anyone disagrees. It argued from emotion, just like what you're doing.

No one's saying rape is in any way justified because a woman wears revealing clothing. We're saying she's more likely to be targeted due to the attention drawn to her. Do you understand?



When you said rage, I though of this:

Dotard: Tits hanging out

Eilonnwy:

[Dotard]

Yes I'm jealous. Look at me for christ sake!

For what it's worth, I think your hot. If the avatars you used are actually you.

[downbeatplumb]

You are suggesting they had something to do with the rape, how the fuck is that not blaming them? These attitudes make me fucking sick. It's the same as suggesting that if a woman gets drunk it's okay for a man to take advantage.

If a woman says no, it doesn't matter if she's drunk, wearing skinny jeans, or some tight revealing clothing. No means fucking no and the fault lies entirely with the perpetrator.

No means yes and yes means harder.

I know a wren whose chat up line to men was 'no means yes and yes means anal'

Bit of a girl is our Caroline.

She'd been with so many sailors she claimed to be on the joining routine at HMS Nelson. (a land based establishment, part of the main fleet base in portsmouth)

---

Whats with blokes in songs calling women shorty all of a sudden.
Some of the girls round here are fucking huge.

[Watson]

There's a difference between women walking down the street with their bodies hanging out for the express purpose of sex- these are called prostitutes- and a woman who is simply comfortable enough with her body to wear clothing that reflects that. One is asking for sex, and as such, contributing to the acquiring of sex while one is simply wearing clothing. There is absolutely no pre-meditated "I want to get laid" behidn a woman dressing up.

I'm with Eilonnwy here, a woman doesn't dress up just to show off her goods for potential mates to ogle at- she may simply want to wear what she finds pleasing, comfortable, and attractive in her tastes. She is not contributing to or looking for the act of sex by wearing the clothing, she is simply expressing herself just like any man would do through style of dress.

Similarly, beauty paegant contestants or models may want to get across a 'message' by putting themselves out there on the stage and trying to look good while making a statement, but that message is not always "FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF ME." Come on, guys. Some time I am ashamed to be one of you.

[fr0d0]

You could argue that the women were forced into the beauty pageants because they're manipulated by societal pressures. The way you talk Dotard, is exactly the reasoning Muslims cite for wanting censorship. The two positions aren't very different. Women are beautiful to men, yes. We don't need shit like this cheapening it. Nor dick led jocks perpetuating it.

[Autumnlicious]

Because I strive to approach most situations from a purely logical and by extension, scientific and legal, view, I make these assertions:

When a crime is to be judged, it must be stated that each of the actors somehow played a role that lead to the final conclusionary act that would be judged on. Playing a role, however, does not distribute blame, unless shown beyond the shadow of doubt that one did contribute significantly to the act in question.

In these following examples, the involved parties share no or some measure of blame, with the lions share accorded to the transgressor.

Donard (the unknown cousin) of Donald Trump is a well known individual who is mentally deficient. He decides to take a walk in downtown New York with money hanging from his pockets. A mugger sees this opportunity and takes it, but in the whole course of actions, is caught and put on trial.

The mugger is clearly in the wrong with a clear history of such and is jailed for it. However, in an analysis of the event, I will point out that while Donard can fully expect to walk down downtown NY safely, he cannot expect that displaying currency in a loose fashion such that it could be conceivably lost on its own will not attract attention of others, most notably the mugger.

All things considered, Donard unequivocally contributed the crime by setting up the situation to begin with, regardless of the legality of such an action. But that is not the end of it.

While most people comfortably have the cloudy idea that this is the end of the case and so forget it, they forget that the real legal system has a defined process to examine, distribute and accord blame and harm to any actor involved. Now, in the course of the trial, we discover that the mugger was John Q. Public who had a little too much to drink and stole from Donard - now what? Most people were willing to convict a faceless mugger, but when I added in a personality, I assure you that the opinions people have on this will be different, for the most part.
...skip to the point, you gasbag!
My point is, that nothing is black/white when it comes to law and crime. Looking for mitigating factors on part of the defendant and blame factors for both is an integral component. If a victim does contribute to the crime done to them, then it is inherently different from the case involving a crime done to a victim whom is entirely innocent and unconnected (A fully random attack) and should be judged accordingly, with damage done and blame metered out to the correct parties.

We have this because not all crimes hold the same motive - crimes of passion, of forgetfulness or of inebriation, to name a few, merit different considerations of blame and damaged done and merit different mitigating circumstances. While it is conceivable to get off from a crime "scot-free", the majority are prosecuted and decided upon accurately enough.

In my mind, beauty pageants and their actors share similar degrees of blame. If you try to pull out the "harm it does to X" argument, then it is to be noted that unless invidious intent is recognized, all actors involved are treated to a lesser degree of blame.

And finally, wearing clothes or lack thereof and anything else contributes to the act in history we call a "crime". It just happens to be that we know there are somethings that one does with the popular expectation of not being harmed - like walking down East San Jose in business attire, while walking down East San Jose with the knowledge of gang activity and wearing Red and blue has the popular expectation of getting you harmed, and thusly, a court will note (note the note) that you willingly walked into a zone with notable crime with the action of drawing attention to yourself by attire alone.

Before any of you jump on me for usage of a civilian scenario, please just imagine the differences between getting caught in a bona-fide modern war zone of today and being caught in a police-gang war. Note that there are very few differences, with the key difference merely being sizability of the gang as opposed to a nation. Then again, modern war today is most like state-gang warfare due to the guerilla warfare. Except that in a local situation, the police are expected to be familiar with the community enough not to shoot a friendly or noncombatant, while we accord lesser expectations with our soldiers in foreign lands with almost no relationship with the locals at hand.

I find that a great many things share a high degree of similarity with other things.

Addendum:

You could argue that the women were forced into the beauty pageants because they're manipulated by societal pressures. The way you talk Dotard, is exactly the reasoning Muslims cite for wanting censorship. The two positions aren't very different. Women are beautiful to men, yes. We don't need shit like this cheapening it. Nor dick led jocks perpetuating it.

Correct, but only to a certain degree, as it is not illegal to be acted upon by "societal pressures" which is just the attitudes of a mass of people. It is not illegal for them to do it, nor is it illegal for you to disparage it. Certainly the attitudes of a mass of people may be composed to views that lead or justify criminality and thus any crime to be done by a member of the previously mentioned mass (or society) will incur a differing sentence, either more extreme on the perpetrator to send a message to that community if sentenced by an rejector of that attitude or a lesser sentence from someone who subscribes to it.

What we really need is to strive for more objective courts everywhere!

But then you may have to deal with the tasteless assertion that a woman wearing revealing clothing in a muslim country had some small part of blame in getting raped, with the rapists holding the obvious lion share of blame.

Then again, with the example of fully clothed women who do pretty much every reasonable thing to avoid rape in muslim countries getting raped anyways and their respective legal systems letting off the rapists (the less-est or smallest a punishment can be - "no" punishment) while blaming the victims happens to validate my system - as in this case, the judges subscribe to what we consider a criminally minded community, at least in some aspects and prove it by considering the crime differently.

How now - do you desire a court that is as objective as possible, but may layer some blame on you or note such if you significantly contributed to the crime done to you, or do you desire a court that blames only one side, defendant or prosecuting.

I warn you, though, that one perpetuates a societal mindset and is merely a polar opposite in mindset from another country (like Saudi Arabia) with the same logical underpinnings.