ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd April 2019, 11:47 AM   #121
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,380
Personally I have no issues per se in terms of amount of skin exposed. That is for the wearer to decide and as I mentioned what society views as provocative vs okay changes greatly from culture to culture and over time.

However I do believe that a certain level of dignity and seriousness in dress independent of flesh exposed is favored for certain situations. No stupid T-shirts or hats for example. To not disrupt the mood sought by those who are providing the occasion. Funerals, high state functions, religious locations, etc.

I am a full blown atheist yet I take off my hat when entering a church, mosque, etc. of any kind. And I speak quietly and try to be physically unobtrusive. When I knew in advance I would be visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or St Peters Basilica at the Vatican, I made certain I was wearing a nice shirt and pants.

One doesn't always have the clothing along to do this fully but I think one should try one's best. At least with one's behavior. One is a guest at these situations.

In terms of the OP: I personally don't find leggings to be undignified. Probably they are more dignified than shorts IMO. Many women wear skirts over the top of the leggings, which is kind of stylish, but even for those who do not one has to stare intentionally to observe private part indentations. If I have any trouble with leggings under these situations it is that I have with any item of dress: bright, loud zig-zag patterns or poka-dots are probably not ideal at a funeral unless one knows the deceased family is okay with it.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 12:05 PM   #122
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,896
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
However I do believe that a certain level of dignity and seriousness in dress
As you note, this ends up just begging the question of what constitutes dignified and serious?

For those who are used to it, there is nothing undignified or unserious about leggings. They are perfectly normal clothing.

If Dear Prudence has a problem with it, that's her issue.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 12:16 PM   #123
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,306
Perhaps a sensible compromise can be had. Tightfitting lower garment of stretchy material permitted, but the wearer must get both legs into the same fabric tube. So it'd be a long tight skirt that compels the wearer to hop. I think this would achieve a perfect balance between dignity and comfort, although it would make actual balance a bit tricky. It will give people something to do while waiting for church services to end.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 12:33 PM   #124
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Perhaps a sensible compromise can be had. Tightfitting lower garment of stretchy material permitted, but the wearer must get both legs into the same fabric tube. So it'd be a long tight skirt that compels the wearer to hop. I think this would achieve a perfect balance between dignity and comfort, although it would make actual balance a bit tricky. It will give people something to do while waiting for church services to end.
I dunno. One empty leg flapping in the breeze is not very dignified.

Unless they become known as "elephant pants". Then the empty side would be quite appropriate.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 12:50 PM   #125
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,290
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post

In terms of the OP: I personally don't find leggings to be undignified. Probably they are more dignified than shorts IMO. Many women wear skirts over the top of the leggings, which is kind of stylish, but even for those who do not one has to stare intentionally to observe private part indentations. If I have any trouble with leggings under these situations it is that I have with any item of dress: bright, loud zig-zag patterns or poka-dots are probably not ideal at a funeral unless one knows the deceased family is okay with it.
I mostly agree, but how could wearing a skirt over leggings possibly reveal private part indentations? Leggings can take the place of hosiery in many situations; I've never heard anybody say hosiery under a skirt was revealing? Maybe I'm not picturing the same kind of style you mean. A skirt over leggings, any way I picture it, should only reveal fabric-clad legs.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 01:14 PM   #126
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,761
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I dunno. One empty leg flapping in the breeze is not very dignified.

Unless they become known as "elephant pants". Then the empty side would be quite appropriate.
What are you talking about? One empty leg is the height of fashion:
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l...d-jeans/n10132
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 01:19 PM   #127
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What are you talking about? One empty leg is the height of fashion:
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l...d-jeans/n10132
I am soooo out of touch with the world of fashion!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 01:46 PM   #128
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,695
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I mostly agree, but how could wearing a skirt over leggings possibly reveal private part indentations? Leggings can take the place of hosiery in many situations; I've never heard anybody say hosiery under a skirt was revealing? Maybe I'm not picturing the same kind of style you mean. A skirt over leggings, any way I picture it, should only reveal fabric-clad legs.
Sentence structure / comprehension issue. He's saying that, even for women who don't wear a skirt over their leggings, you still have to stare to see the vaunted camel-toe.

Quote:
Many women wear skirts over the top of the leggings, which is kind of stylish, but even for those who do not one has to stare intentionally to observe private part indentations.
I confess to being personally distracted by the spandex-clad female behind on occasion, and I'm not the world's biggest perv. As someone else noted, it can be a pretty good pace-improver if you're running a road race.

Catholics and their mass have myriad issues; this seems like a relatively small one.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 02:13 PM   #129
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,380
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I mostly agree, but how could wearing a skirt over leggings possibly reveal private part indentations? Leggings can take the place of hosiery in many situations; I've never heard anybody say hosiery under a skirt was revealing? Maybe I'm not picturing the same kind of style you mean. A skirt over leggings, any way I picture it, should only reveal fabric-clad legs.
Sorry if I was unclear but my post intended to agree with your point. To quote it:

"but even for those who do not (wear skirts or shorts) one has to stare intentionally to observe private part indentations"
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 02:17 PM   #130
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,380
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Sentence structure / comprehension issue. He's saying that, even for women who don't wear a skirt over their leggings, you still have to stare to see the vaunted camel-toe.



I confess to being personally distracted by the spandex-clad female behind on occasion, and I'm not the world's biggest perv. As someone else noted, it can be a pretty good pace-improver if you're running a road race.

Catholics and their mass have myriad issues; this seems like a relatively small one.
Thanks!

And yes I too can be distracted to some degree - but I try to avoid staring to avoid embarrassing myself. The distraction has decreased with increased exposure to this style of attire over the past few years.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 02:34 PM   #131
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I dunno. One empty leg flapping in the breeze is not very dignified.

Unless they become known as "elephant pants". Then the empty side would be quite appropriate.
Only if it's on the side..

In the middle, it's only a problem if it's flapping...
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 03:47 PM   #132
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,290
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Sorry if I was unclear but my post intended to agree with your point. To quote it:

"but even for those who do not (wear skirts or shorts) one has to stare intentionally to observe private part indentations"
Sorry, I was reading in a rush and comprehending wrong! Makes perfect sense.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 04:09 PM   #133
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,665
I wonder.....

Is there any actual scientific study of what makes men....err.....distracted....independent of culture? I'll see if I can explain what I mean. I'm not sure I can.

My hypothesis is that men are walking around engaging in sexual fantasy and/or mentally undressing women regardless of what the women happen to be wearing at the time. If all the women have burkas, the men are wondering what they look like without the burkas. If some of the women have burkas, and some have bikinis, men would be more likely to observe and ogle the bikini wearers, but the actual sight of female flesh is not actually what gets guys all revved up. It's more about the presence of females at all. We'll look at the most scantily clad primarily because if there are two women to be seen, and one is showing more than the other, we might infer that one wants to be seen more, or that one is ….ummm…..closer to where we want this to go anyway. On the other hand, if you're at a nudist situation, once the novelty wears off they are just pretty girls (and not all that pretty girls, but my opinion is that most girls are pretty) that happen not to have any clothes on.

People joke about how in societies where women are covered head to foot, the site of a bare ankle might drive men into lustful frenzy, but has anyone actually tried to determine how much of this distraction is caused by the sight of female flesh itself, versus the sight of more female flesh than one is accustomed to seeing. In our society, where images of naked women are easily located, and where women wear somewhat revealing clothing as a matter of course, is exposed female flesh still a big deal if it is not more exposed than normal?


Not that I want to overthink this too much. I like looking at women. I like it when I can see more of their bodies. Vive le difference and all that. And even bodily exposure isn't all that important. At the gym I go to, there are lots of orthodox Jews and a few Muslim women, all dressed very modestly and covering up most of their flesh and in many cases their hair. They can't hide the fact that they are cute. I might notice the ones in shorts or leggings first, but they aren't any better looking than the modestly dressed ones, and I can't help but think that lustful thoughts are inspired by the body underneath the clothes, and if that body can't be seen, the guys will just make up the image in their heads.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 04:32 PM   #134
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,182
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I wonder.....

Is there any actual scientific study of what makes men....err.....distracted....independent of culture? I'll see if I can explain what I mean. I'm not sure I can.

My hypothesis is that men are walking around engaging in sexual fantasy and/or mentally undressing women regardless of what the women happen to be wearing at the time. If all the women have burkas, the men are wondering what they look like without the burkas. If some of the women have burkas, and some have bikinis, men would be more likely to observe and ogle the bikini wearers, but the actual sight of female flesh is not actually what gets guys all revved up. It's more about the presence of females at all. We'll look at the most scantily clad primarily because if there are two women to be seen, and one is showing more than the other, we might infer that one wants to be seen more, or that one is ….ummm…..closer to where we want this to go anyway. On the other hand, if you're at a nudist situation, once the novelty wears off they are just pretty girls (and not all that pretty girls, but my opinion is that most girls are pretty) that happen not to have any clothes on.

People joke about how in societies where women are covered head to foot, the site of a bare ankle might drive men into lustful frenzy, but has anyone actually tried to determine how much of this distraction is caused by the sight of female flesh itself, versus the sight of more female flesh than one is accustomed to seeing. In our society, where images of naked women are easily located, and where women wear somewhat revealing clothing as a matter of course, is exposed female flesh still a big deal if it is not more exposed than normal?


Not that I want to overthink this too much. I like looking at women. I like it when I can see more of their bodies. Vive le difference and all that. And even bodily exposure isn't all that important. At the gym I go to, there are lots of orthodox Jews and a few Muslim women, all dressed very modestly and covering up most of their flesh and in many cases their hair. They can't hide the fact that they are cute. I might notice the ones in shorts or leggings first, but they aren't any better looking than the modestly dressed ones, and I can't help but think that lustful thoughts are inspired by the body underneath the clothes, and if that body can't be seen, the guys will just make up the image in their heads.
To take it a step further it's depressing to me to think all of this pretty mundane noticing females is at the root of countless fistfights, kidnappings, rapes, murders, probably even wars in human history.

Maybe the Catholics share Orthodox Jewish adage that it's better to not go an inch down the slippery slope at all, so cover up.

Last edited by Venom; 2nd April 2019 at 04:33 PM.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2019, 11:09 PM   #135
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,335
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
. . . one has to stare intentionally to observe private part indentations"[/i]
No, one doesn't. I don't know about you but I am pretty aware of my surroundings. I don't stare with intent. I look with intent so that I am aware of my surroundings and when something catches my interest I will take another look when time permits. When I walk into a crowded room there is a descending list of priorities that might go:

1: Don't bump into people.

2: Where is the host?

3: Who else is interesting?

4: Did I see anything else of interest?

At 4 I might have noticed that an attractive woman is wearing leggings (yoga pants) and so I might pay some attention so as to get a look at her butt should she present it for my viewing. I might also notice a guy, or woman, with a bunch of piercings and tattoos which I might try to get a look at as well.

But I doubt any male just "stares with intent." Many of the people who get triggered by a guy looking are themselves just looking for something to take offence at. To suggest that an attractive body on display is not to be looked at is absolutely absurd. It's like expecting everyone to cover their eyes when they walk past your piece of expensive art because you "bought it for yourself." If you are out in public you are open to being observed and if you don't like it, tough ****.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 12:09 AM   #136
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,174
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I generally find myself very much on the "It's nobody else's business how women choose to dress" side of this issue. But reading this has me thinking of a particular devil's advocate that I can't easily dismiss.

Issues of women's clothes get brought up in so many context where the answer seems clear to me:

No, women do not bear any level of responsibility for being raped because of ANYTHING they might have chosen to wear.

No, It is not reasonable to expect women to cover their hair or faces or entire body to avoid exciting men.

No, it is not acceptable to make negative assumptions about a woman's character based on what she happens to be wearing. The whole world has a history of that being oppressive BS.

However.

I can't go so far as to say that it's impossible for the way a person presents themself to have a predictable and causal role in what someone else experiences emotionally and psychologically. I don't think it's sexist or incorrect to say that a particular outfit can cause arousal in another person. I don't think it's reasonable to view arousal and sexual thoughts as a choice made by the person having those thoughts with no relation to things they see.

If someone walks down the street in nothing but body paint with the words "Lick it" across their buttocks, people may be aroused or disgusted or amused by that but I don't think one could reasonably argue that those responses are entirely unrelated to the choice made by the person in body paint.

And we increasingly in western society find ourselves in discussions of when we should care that our words, actions and choices have an emotional impact on others. The trend is that more and more people are choosing to care about those emotional impacts and make considerations in their behavior.

So is it entirely crazy to ask that people be thoughtful about the psychological response clothing choices might evoke? We can talk about where we draw the line, from exposed ankles to yoga pants to nothing but body paint. My personal inkling is that cultural norms decide where that line is, but I wouldn't consider there to be no line, or that people are entirely unreasonable if their cultural experience is out of line with general norms.
No, there really is no line. Seriously.

A Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" does not excuse anyone sexually asaulting her.

Decent human beings do not blame the victim. Your Petersonian mental gymnastics do not change that fact.
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 04:27 AM   #137
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
A few thoughts and anecdotes:

1. If you leave your wallet on the restaurant table while you go to the bathroom, people, and your insurance company, will assign partial blame to you. Same if you don't lock your car, bike, house.

2. I did internships at a nursing home that trains an astounding number of folks for the job - most young, most female, many pretty, some muslim. Thinking back, the sexiest young woman I remember was a Kurdish lady who wore hijabs all the time, which showed off her utterly beautiful face and hid her slightly chubby body somewhat. Perfect! I should mention that her hijabs were not shapeless bags, often colorful, pretty fashion items in their own right, they just covered hair and body. One day, she wore a hijab with a diamond-shaped cut-out between the breasts! Although she wore an ordinary tshirt with girlish glitter underneath, so she didn't expose any skin nor allowed anyone to see her shape better, this attire struck me, and I guess most colleagues (including straight females), as stunningly sexy, almost inappropriately so. A Jedi trick on the mind!

3. I fondly remember my first full day in Kiev some 10 years ago: on this sunny, warm August Sunday, there were weddings going on in every church, and wedding parties in every park. I noticed that the young ladies, in keeping with Orthodox expectations, wore veils on their faces in church - still, their heel were longer than their skirts. And no, I am not talking about some, I mean most. Bare legs seem to be no problem in Ukraine's churches, but bare female faces do.

4. Restrictive Dress codes seem to be ok in business, schools, restaurants - why not in churches?

5. I read a headline the other day that some saunas here in Germany are starting to ask customers to cover up. So there's an example of where society seems to be getting more prudish, not less
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 04:48 AM   #138
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,665
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
No, there really is no line. Seriously.

A Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" does not excuse anyone sexually asaulting her.

Decent human beings do not blame the victim. Your Petersonian mental gymnastics do not change that fact.
You clearly didn't understand the post to which you were replying.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 05:27 AM   #139
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,306
Another sensible compromise: baggy, concealing clothing for everyone, but with hyper-realistic anatomically correct graphics depicting every part covered. This would simultaneously be modest and revealing, pleasing both sides of the debate.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 05:56 AM   #140
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,695
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You clearly didn't understand the post to which you were replying.


No kidding. What the hell.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 06:24 AM   #141
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,207
I'm reminded of that video a while back of a bunch of women walking through New York and getting various reaction from men. One of the women literally said, "I know I dress provocatively but......"
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:18 AM   #142
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,328
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You clearly didn't understand the post to which you were replying.
Originally Posted by carlitos
No kidding. What the hell.
Cavemonster said that there is a certain line that a woman ought not cross over. Lambchops said that there is no such line.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:22 AM   #143
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,761
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
No, there really is no line. Seriously.

A Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" does not excuse anyone sexually asaulting her.
Nobody here is claiming that it does.

But here's the thing: a Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" is going to make people uncomfortable. She's got some responsibility for that, and she shouldn't do that.

Quote:
Decent human beings do not blame the victim. Your Petersonian mental gymnastics do not change that fact.
You're the one engaging in mental gymnastics, trying to force everything into victim blaming when it's never been about that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:31 AM   #144
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,183
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
A Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" does not excuse anyone sexually asaulting her.

Absolutely.

With the caveat that I'm still going to look and I'm probably going to ask if I can help her with something.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:34 AM   #145
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,183
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
1. If you leave your wallet on the restaurant table while you go to the bathroom, people, and your insurance company, will assign partial blame to you. Same if you don't lock your car, bike, house.
Speaking as a man who works for an insurance company, I can tell you that the industry would love to be seen as the standard for all that is right and good.

But it really, really isn't. I don't give a flying one what the insurance company says about who's responsible for stealing my wallet. Neither do the police. And, if we could find the fellow with the wallet, then he's still getting prosecuted. He's still a thief. I'm still a victim.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:42 AM   #146
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Absolutely.

With the caveat that I'm still going to look and I'm probably going to ask if I can help her with something.
Exactly. She bears some responsibility for setting the stage and encouraging attention. Not to be attacked.

Is wearing klan garb in a black neighborhood benign? Should the wearer expect a likely illegal reaction? Blow the whistle loudly enough and the dogs will come.

You absolutely have the right to express yourself. Just be ready for predictably unwanted responses. Rightly or wrongly, they will come whether you wanted those particular responses or not.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 08:55 AM   #147
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,290
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I wonder.....

Is there any actual scientific study of what makes men....err.....distracted....independent of culture? I'll see if I can explain what I mean. I'm not sure I can.

My hypothesis is that men are walking around engaging in sexual fantasy and/or mentally undressing women regardless of what the women happen to be wearing at the time. If all the women have burkas, the men are wondering what they look like without the burkas. If some of the women have burkas, and some have bikinis, men would be more likely to observe and ogle the bikini wearers, but the actual sight of female flesh is not actually what gets guys all revved up. It's more about the presence of females at all. We'll look at the most scantily clad primarily because if there are two women to be seen, and one is showing more than the other, we might infer that one wants to be seen more, or that one is ….ummm…..closer to where we want this to go anyway. On the other hand, if you're at a nudist situation, once the novelty wears off they are just pretty girls (and not all that pretty girls, but my opinion is that most girls are pretty) that happen not to have any clothes on.

People joke about how in societies where women are covered head to foot, the site of a bare ankle might drive men into lustful frenzy, but has anyone actually tried to determine how much of this distraction is caused by the sight of female flesh itself, versus the sight of more female flesh than one is accustomed to seeing. In our society, where images of naked women are easily located, and where women wear somewhat revealing clothing as a matter of course, is exposed female flesh still a big deal if it is not more exposed than normal?


Not that I want to overthink this too much. I like looking at women. I like it when I can see more of their bodies. Vive le difference and all that. And even bodily exposure isn't all that important. At the gym I go to, there are lots of orthodox Jews and a few Muslim women, all dressed very modestly and covering up most of their flesh and in many cases their hair. They can't hide the fact that they are cute. I might notice the ones in shorts or leggings first, but they aren't any better looking than the modestly dressed ones, and I can't help but think that lustful thoughts are inspired by the body underneath the clothes, and if that body can't be seen, the guys will just make up the image in their heads.
I think you explained yourself quite well, and it's an interesting theory .

You're probably right that the main thing exciting a lot of men is the mere presence of pretty women. However, I do think there's often a sort of judgment that enters into their assessment of the more scantily-clad attractive ladies. If a hot chick goes jogging in leggings and a sports bra, lots of people simply refuse to believe she might be doing it to be comfortable. She MUST want attention, otherwise she would cover up her body! (Not saying you do this of course, Mead, just throwing out some cultural tendencies I've seen.) Personally, I do sometimes feel rather blessed to be amongst The Boobless. Nobody jumps to assuming I want attention when I wear a tank top. If I wear a "low-cut" top, all you see is chest bone. And possibly a little cluster of zits if it's sweaty season. Mmmmm, look out, my eyes are up here! Lol. I just sort of get away with it, because the kind of people who make judgments like that tend to barely notice me.

I feel sorry (in this one sense) for boobily-endowed hotties who just want to look nice/be comfortable without sending an unwitting sexual message to every person they see. It isn't fair to make those judgments, but I don't know how you'd get people to stop. Distraction-by-lady-flesh is a hardwired condition. Even I occasionally catch myself staring at an impressive enough rack sauntering by on full display.

So I do understand why guys get frustrated when a girl with cleavage for days says "my eyes are up here," or something. But there's another element to it, as well. Some people are just super hot, and some boobs are really big and curvaceous. No matter what you put them in, short of perhaps a potato sack, they look sexy. I don't think it's very fair that such women have to basically either wear a potato sack or risk being found guilty of the foul crime of "wanting attention."

Just some thoughts. Really don't have any strong points, so don't anyone get angry, I beg you.

EDIT - All that being said, there are still certain modes of dress (for both/any gender(s)) that are simply inappropriate for certain venues, and sexism has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, leggings as pants would not be a good choice for church. I don't attend church, but if I ever have to for some reason, I'll dress pretty conservatively. The same way I dress when going on job interviews.

Last edited by isissxn; 3rd April 2019 at 09:05 AM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:03 AM   #148
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,896
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Absolutely.

With the caveat that I'm still going to look and I'm probably going to ask if I can help her with something.
Why? Why would you ask anyone if you can help with something unless they look like they need help with something? Just to harass them?

No, dressing like a Victoria Secret model does not give you any right to harass them, nor are they asking to be harassed.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:04 AM   #149
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Are all unwanted interactions harassment?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:08 AM   #150
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Cavemonster said that there is a certain line that a woman ought not cross over. Lambchops said that there is no such line.
I apologize if I was unclear. The line I was referring to was not a point at which sexual assault is justified as Lambchops seemed to interpret.

The line is the point at which it may be considered insensitive to dress a certain way in a certain social context. That does not make a person responsible for ANY actions other people take.

For those purposes, dress is very much like speech. We can applaud the legal and general sentiment that people can say what they please, but saying some things in certain contexts can be considered insensitive and it is not unreasonable to ask people to refrain from certain expressions in certain contexts.

A funeral (as I suggested in my example) may not be a great time to wear certain things, just like it may not be a great time to say certain things. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church. We can support their technical legal right to speak in the vicinity of funerals, while noting that their choice of things to say is insensitive. I don't see that clothing is entirely separate from
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:10 AM   #151
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,290
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Are all unwanted interactions harassment?
It can feel like it, depending on the situation and one's preexisting mood. I try not to take that out on others, but internally, I have really lost my patience for being bothered by strangers (of either sex, but especially thirsty men) over the years.

Outwardly, I don't consider people true ********* until I've clearly declined conversation and they persist in bothering me. Then it's harassment.

Not that I do anything about it other than try to extricate myself. I'm not the type to shout, "you're harassing me!" at strangers. But in my own mind, I start thinking of it as harassment when a very clear "no thanks" doesn't make them go away. Same exact metric for salespeople, actually.

I have a biased view, though, because the strangers who hit on me always tend to be old and seriously creepy. I still don't think I'd like it if, say, Jason Mamoa started harassing me on the subway, but I'd be willing to give it a try just to make sure. (That's a joke, nobody flip, complete joke. Joke!)

Last edited by isissxn; 3rd April 2019 at 09:13 AM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:13 AM   #152
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,356
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
No, there really is no line. Seriously.

A Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" does not excuse anyone sexually asaulting her.

Decent human beings do not blame the victim. Your Petersonian mental gymnastics do not change that fact.
I'll suggest as others have, that you misread my position. I apologize if I was not clear. See my response to William Parcher for more detail.

I do respect that the points I'm making here have some surface similarities to people who blame victims for sexual assault. I assure you, the similarities are few and shallow and I do not share their conclusions.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:14 AM   #153
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,183
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Why? Why would you ask anyone if you can help with something unless they look like they need help with something? Just to harass them?

No, dressing like a Victoria Secret model does not give you any right to harass them, nor are they asking to be harassed.

One isn't allowed to talk to someone to whom one has not been introduced?

Are you English?



Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Are all unwanted interactions harassment?
Not at all. However, if she asks me to go away and I don't, that's harassment.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:15 AM   #154
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,290
Old ladies on trains are honestly even worse. They don't want sex, sure, but they want every speck of your undivided attention the entire journey from Pittsburgh to Johnstown. Which is almost worse. If you were planning on getting some work done, that is just too bad. Here are pictures of every person this lady has ever met, and the accompanying story.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:19 AM   #155
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,761
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Old ladies on trains are honestly even worse. They don't want sex, sure
How certain are you?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:19 AM   #156
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,896
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
One isn't allowed to talk to someone to whom one has not been introduced?
You didn't say "talk to them." You said ask them if they need help.

Why would you do that?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:25 AM   #157
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,761
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
You didn't say "talk to them." You said ask them if they need help.

Why would you do that?
Perhaps because being naked in public is often a sign of distress of some sort (typically mental). And offering to help people in distress or potentially in distress is perfectly acceptable.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:25 AM   #158
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,183
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
You didn't say "talk to them." You said ask them if they need help.

Why would you do that?
They hypothetical is that they have a sign saying they ""I love to ****".

i too, love to ****. She might want to **** me. She probably won't, but she might.

If the hypothetical had been her wearing a Bad Obsession t-shirt, then I would probably ask her about her fabrication skills and when she thinks Binky will be finished.

People who go out of their way to attract attention (As the lady in the hypothetical is doing) should not get upset when they attract attention.

I reserve the right to address anyone in a public place, right up to the point they tell me to do one, and, at that point, I will.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:37 AM   #159
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nobody here is claiming that it does.

But here's the thing: a Victorias Secret model walking around butt naked holding a sign saying "I love to ****" is going to make people uncomfortable. She's got some responsibility for that, and she shouldn't do that.

Nope, she should definitely do that if she feels like it, and to hell with other peoples' comfort. MAGA hats and white power t-shirts make me decidedly uncomfortable, not to mention more than a little anxious (given what they mean and who I am), and do so for nearly anyone who is not a cis-het straight white person. Yet I don't see anyone here advocating for legislation against them, or saying that they shouldn't be worn because they make people uncomfortable. Indeed, any suggestion of such a thing is met with cries of "censorship" and "free speech" from the same usual suspect who are here demanding women cover up to preserve men's sensibilities.

Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I don't think it's very fair that such women have to basically either wear a potato sack or risk being found guilty of the foul crime of "wanting attention."

Fully and entirely agreed. I will often look at attractive people, sometimes more than I should; and I've had a few instance where I've had trouble holding eye contact for that reason, but that's entirely on me, not on the person I was talking to or her breasts. That's my reaction, which I take full responsibility for.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon

Last edited by luchog; 3rd April 2019 at 09:42 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2019, 09:37 AM   #160
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,695
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Is wearing klan garb in a black neighborhood benign? Should the wearer expect a likely illegal reaction?
Hopefully Samuel L Jackson will be around to help.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.