Young girls and revealing clothes

[Denethorn]

I used to think Mag was female too at first . This is looking really bad for Mag lol, it wasn't based on the content of his posts though, it was because his avatar was a picture of a woman at the time - so one makes the assumption

Lord knows what people would assume I was

[VonDondu]

I can't really put my finger on it, but the first few posts I read from Magrus were about some problems with women, and he just sounded like a woman to me for some reason.

Fable used to think I was a man until I corrected, and I think the reason he gave is that I don't sound like Yoda or something like that.


[QUOTE=Denethorn]Lord knows what people would assume I was [/QUOTE]
A green and purple cartoon character?

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=VonDondu]Don't worry. I used to think Magrus was a lesbian. [/QUOTE]
You mean she's not?

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=VonDondu]Don't worry. I used to think Magrus was a lesbian. [/QUOTE]

Trust me, if I didn't have this odd growth that made me a man, I would be a lesbian.

[QUOTE=Denethorn]I used to think Mag was female too at first . This is looking really bad for Mag lol, it wasn't based on the content of his posts though, it was because his avatar was a picture of a woman at the time - so one makes the assumption [/QUOTE]

Right right, I'll go back to using Cassie as my avatar so the people know what your all talking about. How I miss my little girl...*sighs* gorgeous, wonderful young lady and I miss her.

[QUOTE=VonDondu]I can't really put my finger on it, but the first few posts I read from Magrus were about some problems with women, and he just sounded like a woman to me for some reason.[/QUOTE]

A lot of my ex's have been bi-sexual, and one of the reasons they were attracted to me was that in many ways, I do think in the same manner a "typical woman" does. I'm extremely sensative, emotional, do whatever I can to help everyone out, "domesticated", love kids, etc. They tend to adore that about me, so I can't blame you between that and hot girl I used as my avatar for a while.

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]You mean she's not?[/QUOTE]

Nope, I'm all man baby.

[Denethorn]

[QUOTE=Magrus]
Nope, I'm all man baby. [/QUOTE]

A lean, mean, drinkin' machine.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=Fiona]The intention doesn't seem to matter in any of these cases. Each is backed up by the threat of some kind of sanction if the individual does not comply.[/QUOTE]

I cited the examples to show that even using your definition of power (which includes the threat of force) power does not always imply having people do something they don't want to.

[QUOTE=Fiona]You seldom see one without the other. Most powerful people prefer not to have to make the threat good, where possible. It's a waste of resources. However people vary, and in any group where a "soft power" is deployed to make people want to do evil things there will be dissenters. The sanction reduces the numbers.[/QUOTE]
But soft power comes first. Without soft power the people allowing or doing the evil things will be the minority and the dissidents the majority and a repressive action will be much, much harder.

[QUOTE=Fiona]The on-topic part of your post is important. I think a lot of men prefer not to recognise the threats which underpin the behaviour we are talking about and would prefer it to be in the nature of charisma or force of personality etc. Those things exist in this context but they are supported by physical threat. That's why even those who are on the other side of this debate started out saying it is dangerous for women to dress in revealing clothes.[/QUOTE](my bold though)
Sorry got me a bit lost there : I don't get exactly what you're talking about, especially the bold part.

[QUOTE=Fiona] I remains my view that soft authority is not authority until it has force behind it.[/QUOTE]
Try Ghandi. Try Mandela.
And promise of reward works often better than threats (and the capability to offer rewards is power, and rather of the soft kind).

But you seem to see power as something negative, rather than neutral, or am I mistaken?

[Fiona]

@ Lestat

In two of the three examples you give the power is definitely used to make people do something they don't want to do. The third is debatable. You seem to believe that in those circumstances the people are persuaded by power to do something they wanted to do anyway. Maybe, who knows ?

At your second point, again, maybe. I don't know how you could persuade a large group of people to a horrible point of view if you didn't already have power to access the media etc. I like what seems to be your view that people would not wish to do awful things if they hadn't been subject to soft power. On good days I agree, but not all the time. But how does it fit in with your first point that they are doing what they wanted to do anyway?

Sorry I confused you. I used to be able to explain myself but I seem to have lost the knack .

In this thread we have seen many arguments. People have said that women should dress modestly (by whatever definition they adopt) because to do otherwise is to invite attention. Similarly it has been argued that they should not go to certain places because the same thing follows. Others have gone further and suggested that certain kinds of dress or outings are actual invitations. In both these strands it is accepted that women know this and should take it into account when making decisions about their behaviour. This interpretation is supported by those who say that young women may not know it and be confused by the reactions they get. The implication is that women should limit their behaviour to take account of this.

It seems to be agreed that some of that attention is unwelcome. It is further agreed that some of it is aggressive and can take the form of violence. Some people have argued that the reaction is inevitable because of our biological make up. Nobody here has argued that the aggression is inevitable for the same reason, I don't think, but I have seen that put forward elsewhere

From some women's point of view the problem is simple. It is not possible to know which attention is going to turn violent. We are encouraged to avoid all such attention as far as we can because of this, but, as has already been pointed out, that is not possible. As Von Dondu said,some men give women that attention whatever they do.(At the same time women are encouraged to be attractive but that catch is for another thread, perhaps). I see that you agree that reflexive looking is inevitable, and you believe it is harmless. So do I, to some extent. More than that is not harmless, and I think you agree with that too. But if a man is arguing that a woman's dress/presence, or whatever can lead to more than that, he is in fact exempting himself from the responsibility for what he does in certain circumstances. It is no longer his problem, effectively. Even if he does not eg stare, he is justifying those who do. For example Chimaera 182 said that men are brought up to go after what they want for cultural reasons, with the implication that they will pursue their ends aggressively. This is frightening. If women were not frightened they would find it easier to be assertive, and as Magrus said, this would make life better for everyone. But we do not know who will hurt us and so to a greater or lesser extent we acquiesce. Again I emphasise this is not all women or all men. It is pervasive enough to be important, however. The threat informs the behaviour of the vast majority of men and women. I think men prefer not to face the truth that women are afraid of them, because most are not aggressive violent people and do not like to be seen that way. But many men I have spoken to have mentioned the dilemma they face when walking on a dark quiet street where a woman is also walking alone. They acknowledge she is fearful and don't really know what they should do. That fear allows such attitudes and behaviour as we have been discussing (looking, staring, imposing on company without invitation etc) to pass without challenge. It allows men to believe it may be welcome at times, even when women they know well tell them this is not true. In short they prefer to think they don't get a smack in the mouth more often because of what you describe as soft power. I think it is because of threat.

I know I have rambled a bit but there are a lot of different points of view expressed and it is hard to keep them separate and to answer them. Anyway I hope that is a bit clearer.

On your final point. Neither Ghandi nor Mandela were powerful. They were both in jail. They did inspire many people by example and argument, and I tend to think Chimaera 182 drew a useful distinction when he used the word "seduction". Of course you are right that reward can get you what you want, often more effectively than threat. But if the person does not give you what you want you have to walk away from a person who is equal . You don't have the power to get it. That is the distinction I see. I do not think power is always negative. I support the existence of a police force even with the faults we sometimes see. I am only saying it is something else if there is no force behind it

[VonDondu]

Here's the article from The Onion which I mentioned earlier. (EDIT: This is satire.)


Report: Economically Disadvantaged Men More Skilled At Communicating Attraction To Women

BOSTON-According to a Boston University study released Monday, men from lower-income backgrounds are significantly more skilled at communicating their attraction to women than their middle- and upper-class counterparts.

"Many people would assume that the relative dearth of educational opportunities available to men in lower economic strata would result in inferior communication skills," said Boston University social anthropologist Dr. Mary Schoen, co-author of the study. "To the contrary, our research finds that they are up to four times more adept at conveying their interest in women than men with higher incomes."

Lower-income men, Schoen said, have a variety of phrases at their disposal to clearly and concisely communicate their attraction to members of the opposite sex. Among them are, "Slow down so I can get a look at you," "Mmmm, you are lookin' fiiiine today," and "I wouldn't mind a piece-a dat."

"Cultures in which the written word is not stressed generally tend to develop a greater oral tradition," Schoen said. "Never before, however, has the propensity been placed in a socioeconomic context, specifically with regard to how certain demographic subsets are better able to articulate their desire to get with that hot little mama over there in the red dress."

The study found that 95 percent of men who earn less than $18,000 a year were able to loudly and publicly voice their approval of specific body parts on women. By contrast, a paltry 3 percent of men who earn more than $75,000 a year could do the same.

"Though they scored substantially higher in math and science aptitude, upper-class males were surprisingly inept at simply letting a coworker know her ass looked nice in a skirt," said Dr. Marybeth Clarke, Boston University sociologist and the study's co-author. "It's not that they didn't notice the ass. They simply were unable to convey the sentiment."

Even more remarkable, low-income men are often able to initiate communication with women they do not even know.

"It's one thing to be able to strike up a conversation with a friend or coworker," Clarke said, "but the challenge is that much greater when you're trying to talk to a stranger who's running to catch a train."

The study also found that the communication skills of economically disadvantaged men are virtually unaffected by context, remaining consistently high regardless of the race, class, or mood of the woman being approached.

"Whether the woman was black or white, rich or poor, cheerful or profoundly depressed, these men were consistently able to get across the message that they would enjoy engaging in intercourse with her," Clarke said. "Their requests to 'let me get up on it' or 'give me a little sugar, honey' were unfailingly clear, regardless of who the woman was or her emotional state at the time."

Lower-income men were also seven times more likely to ask women questions. Among the queries noted in the report: "Where you going all dressed up so sexy?" and "Where did you get a pair of legs like that?"

Schoen said the idea for the study first came to her during the summer of 1998, when she was gathering data for an interdisciplinary research project on access to healthcare among the nation's poor. While studying admittance procedures at various hospitals in East Los Angeles, the south side of Chicago, and New York's Spanish Harlem, Schoen was impressed by the direct manner in which men in these communities expressed to her their admiration for the shape of her body.

"All I had to do was walk down the street to notice the discrepancy in communication proficiency between rich and poor males," Schoen said. "While well-to-do men would steal furtive glances at my chest, less well-off men would loudly and confidently state their opinion on the matter."

Schoen was not just struck by the directness of the poorer men's remarks, but by the "vast vocabulary" they employed in doing so.

"These men did not simply say, 'I like your breasts,'" Schoen said. "They used a vast array of terms: ****, jugs, knockers, knobs, headlights, *******, ta-tas, cans, hooters, *****, *******, bazooms, rack, mounds, maracas, milk cans, milk bags, yabbos, fun bags, slappies, coconuts, jabungos, melons... The full list, which is included in the report, is nine pages long."

Schoen said she and her colleagues are "heartened" by the findings.

"The nation's economically disadvantaged males face many problems. Fortunately, an inability to express themselves to attractive young women in public is not among them," Schoen said. "It is up to all of us to encourage these men to develop their skills even further, that their voice might rise, loud and proud, from car windows and construction sites all across the nation."

[penguin_king]

personally, being a 14 year old boy, i have no objection to young girls in revealing clothes

[Lestat]

@ Fiona: let's agree to disagree on our respective definitions of power, shall we? Anyway, I will stubbornly continue to use my definition. And I think you underestimate the power of Good ole' Nelson, even while in prison.

Concerning the main part of your message:
I follow your analysis, but I think the point of those that advocate some restraint in dressing sexily, is that women have to adapt to the circumstances (the world as it is, and not as it should be) and to do otherwise is behaving irresponsible.

To draw a parallel: nobody will argue that car theft is a crime. But are you going to leave your car unattended in the street with all doors wide open and the key in the contact? People will judge that behaviour as irresponsible.
Another parallel: As an expatriate in this town going out at night on foot is incurring great risk since I'm a clearly identifiable prime target for robbery & mugging. And if I'm found to do so, it might very well cost me my job because I didn't respect basic security principles. That doesn't justify or even mitigate the crimes that could be done against me.

So on the one hand I say, in our given world and society, a certain level of skimpiness in dressing is inviting trouble. But on the other hand in no way this should be used as an excuse for harassment or worse, and IMO it should in no way be possible to use the way a woman dressed as 'mitigating circumstances' for harassment or rape in a court of law. It would be like using the fact that a car was left open as 'mitigating circumstances' for car theft, or the fact that I'm foreign and rich (compared to the average Liberian) as a 'mitigating circumstance' for someone to rob me here.

@ VonDondu: fairly confusing. So here it's judged fine for men to voice very vocally and in sometimes raunchy terms their appreciation for a woman's looks? Now what do you women want exactly?

[Chimaera182]

I have to say that VonDondu's article does bring up a good point. It's a fact that there are many subsects in every culture, and some subsects overlap, though this overlap has nothing to do with anything. And we like to believe we live in a classless society, but that's not true. And within each subsect--depends on what group you belong to, depending on being a man or woman, your race, your socioeconomic background, etc.--has its own rules of behavior and mannerisms. It's generally considered crude to exhibit your attraction to someone in ways like whistling, staring, or other overt ways; but who decides that such exhibitionism is crude? The upper-class. The lower-class tends not to have a problem exhibiting their attraction to others, but to them it's not crude; in fact, it's second nature, and when someone can't show how they are attracted to someone, it makes them weak or stupid or whatever. I've hung out with tons of different people from tons of different backgrounds all over the spectrum, and I've seen guys who easily exhibit their attraction for women in ways that tend to make me blush. I would never talk to someone in ways I see them talk, or approach someone I didn't know and talk to them; I grew up as a shy kid, although even though I'm still slightly shy sometimes, once I get to know someone more I become comfortable enough to be normal around them. I once really liked someone and wanted to talk to them, but when I asked my friend how to do that, he seemed annoyed that I even had to ask.

I almost want to say that the reason the well-educated people are not as visible with their attraction to someone is that they are smart and would feel overly embarrassed doing so, but that would be an insult to the not so well-educated (besides, who says that someone who went to Harvard Law is always going to be smart, and someone who went to a community college and dropped out is dumb? Some of the dumbest people in the world can be well-educated, and some of the smartest people in the world could be high school droup-outs; it depends on the *kind* of smarts you look for). But the way we behave always is rooted in our background; we may feel an attraction to someone based on biology, and we may want to act on it based on that attraction, but how we were raised--the kind of social background we grew up in--dictates how we will behave in certain situations. I suppose this is why when I see someone I'm attracted to, I am afraid to talk to them or sometimes even look at them, while someone else would find it second nature to walk up to someone they like and just strike up a conversation with them.

I don't remember exactly where I was going with this since I was doing something else while writing this and reading the article. But I want to point out that sometimes--I won't say usually or a lot of the time, and I will say "usually" more often from here on in--women want to attract rich and powerful men because they have money (again, not always, because there are plenty of women who don't mind dating below their own income). The wealthy usually are well-educated (usually, not always), and as VonDondu's article points out, they tend to behave in more "socially acceptable" ways (socially acceptable to them). So for them to stare at a woman wearing a tight shirt or miniskirt is crude behavior to them, and the women who go for wealthy men--although they do like to be admired--respect this about them (usually). If the same woman is walking down the street in those clothes on her way to a cab to this man's large house and she runs afoul a few men who are in the lower class, they may hoot and gawk or what have you, which would offend her. She dressed for the rich man to enjoy, not for two lowly street trash to gawk at. But this goes back to the story Magrus brought up of the girl in his class who was moaning for some guy's attention and got Magrus'--and the entire class's--instead and was so insulted by it. Such visual--and apparently vocal, as that example warrants--cues are intended for a select individual, and when someone else horns in on it, tempers can flare. It's about getting attention, but getting it from the right people. If you've ever seen The Simpsons, the episode where Marge accidentally gets a breast job comes to mind. She discovers having large knockers isn't so bad, and she begins to enjoy the attention, until she realizes the attention is coming from the wrong kind of people (and poor Milhouse, who says, "My mom says I'm not supposed to look at you.") She didn't mind Homer enjoying the twins, but when sleazy people like Barney and Moe and the Sea Captain are panting at the window, she doesn't like it.

And before I get Fiona too pissed off at me again 0 , women in plain clothes can be subjected to exactly this kind of behavior as well, and men aren't immune to this, either. But again, because of the inequalities in society (the subsects I mentioned earlier, including gender, race, social backgrounds, etc.) they tend to react differently. Maybe a middle- or upper-class woman would be offended at hoots and hollers from the blokes, but a lower-class woman might not. Or maybe she would be just as offended, and a middle- or upper-class woman would not. This kind of inequality between different people just leads to trouble.

[QUOTE=Lestat]@ VonDondu: fairly confusing. So here it's judged fine for men to voice very vocally and in sometimes raunchy terms their appreciation for a woman's looks? Now what do you women want exactly? [/QUOTE]
Every woman is like every man: they have their own personalities, their own backgrounds, their own wants and needs. To ask one woman what all women want is like trying to perceive the world with just your eyes alone; you may see a lot of it in your lifetime, but you would miss out on so much more. You cannot depend on one person to give you the answer for billions of people.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]

Every woman is like every man: they have their own personalities, their own backgrounds, their own wants and needs. To ask one woman what all women want is like trying to perceive the world with just your eyes alone; you may see a lot of it in your lifetime, but you would miss out on so much more. You cannot depend on one person to give you the answer for billions of people.[/QUOTE]
(That was a winking smiley, no need to take it too serious ) But anyway, hard to see the personality on first sight. So, if you don't know whether the woman appreciates this type of reaction (and frankly speaking, I wonder how many women appreciate their buns or knockers loudly commented on), why risk offending her? Call me an anally retented upper-class twit but I prefer to err on the side of caution .

[Fiona]

@ Von Dondu.

I take it this is a satirical publication ? That was hilarious.

[VonDondu]

Um, yes, The Onion is a satirical publication. Here is a link to the latest issue.

Some of the articles are obviously parody, such as the one-line blurb, War On String May Be Unwinnable, Says Cat General, or a news brief titled, "Bush To London Bombers: 'Bring It On'" in the same issue. Two of my all-time favorites are Bush Finds Error in Fermilab Calculations and Bush Regales Dinner Guests With Impromptu Oratory On Virgil's Minor Works.

On the other hand, The Onion has been taken seriously before. A Chinese news service actually plagiarized an article from The Onion that alleged that U.S. Congressmen were threatening a walkout (much like certain football team owners) unless the U.S. Capitol building was refitted with a retractable dome.

Of course, some articles ring so true, it's almost scary, such as this one, which was published the week that President Bush was inaugurated.


[QUOTE=Lestat]@ VonDondu: fairly confusing. So here it's judged fine for men to voice very vocally and in sometimes raunchy terms their appreciation for a woman's looks? [/QUOTE]
The point of the article is that men who make inappropriate remarks to women are "low class".

[Lestat]

Chimaera, we've been had!!!
My excuses for even remotely considering the truthfulness of the article

[VonDondu]

Sorry, Lestat, I didn't mean to fool anybody.

[Chimaera182]

The article may be fake, but there's a lot of truth in it, no matter what they say. People respond to different situations in different ways depending on their backgrounds. And, like I said, I have seen people interact with people they like, and the sad truth is that that parody article has a lot more truth in it than you'd think (even VonDondu agrees that several of those articles "ring true" more than we might like to think). And I didn't concentrate on the article; I said it brought up a good point. Also, I kind of debunked it when I said that you can't judge people based on their social class; people just react differently to different situations, regardless of their being well-educated or otherwise.

A good satirical writer takes real elements and weaves it into a fancy story that may look good and seem like a real thing (maybe a real solution to a real problem). Ever read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal? He claims that to solve the famine and overpopulation of Ireland, the Irish need to eat their babies, but he builds up to it with a lot of truths and facts. And, frankly, eating babies isn't such a bad idea. It served rodents well, and god knows the rodent populations need controlling.

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=Lestat]
My excuses for even remotely considering the truthfulness of the article [/QUOTE]

Go on then, let's hear them

[VonDondu]

Fiona, I think Lestat meant to say "My apologies" instead of "My excuses". I suspect it might just be a language glitch.

On the other hand, if he were American, I wouldn't be surprised if he was offering excuses instead of apologies.

[Magrus]

I don't have time to go through all the stuff that's been said here the past two days, I'm too busy with getting ready to move, sorry.

However, I saw something that does apply here. I went out to lunch with my friend Rachel while we were getting stuff ready today, she used to work at the place, knew everyone and got us free food which was awesome. Money's especially tight, and when your busy, taking time to cook is a hassle so free stuff from a diner is great. Anyways, there was an old friend of ours there who we were catching up with and Rachel asked who the other girl working the counter was and our friend said "she's not worth talking about" so Rachel said "Oh, one of those?" looking at the girl and our friend just nodded and rolled her eyes.

I didn't really pay attention at all until I saw a bunch of guys staring next to us. The girl was cute, maybe 17 or so and it looked like she had nothing but a shirt and apron on. Her shorts were about 4 inches long past the waist, with slits up to the waistband on either side of her legs. Now, she ignored anyone female, and flirted with every guy her age there with the tip jar in front of her. This place doesn't do tips, ever. Yet, she was getting tips showing herself off.

Now, granted, she was attractive, that just outright disgusted me there. Our friend who gave us food says "Your not oggling the new girl, whats with that?" and I said "That's just a complete turn off to me showing off like that." She just kind of stared at me and said "Your odd, but thats a good thing" and handed me my food.

I don't get it, I mean, my friend (Nikki) is a very attractive young woman, people noticed her in sweatpants and a t-shirt with the sleeves rolled up. The kitchen they work in IS hot, it's about 98 degrees (F) in there, so I can understand not wanting to wear a lot of clothing. Yet, I've never seen a girl wear clothes like that there for the simple sake of deceny. The things they have you doing there, we could see UP her shorts quite easily. I just found it ridiculous she was dressed like that and trying to get money from the boys.