UniLang

I mean, men can have difficulty figuring out what to wear, too, but I don't think she said anything particularly unreasonable or was being "huffy and uptight," and I don't agree that having difficulty choosing what to wear is a sign of vanity or whatever. Women certainly are complex and multifaceted human beings. So are men and children. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable for people to think of their choice of clothing on a given day as reflective of their mood, but people can have all kinds of moods, and reflecting every single one of them through clothing is probably impossible. Now, if she was trying to argue that therefore, women should be allowed to spend lots of money on clothing at the expense of, say, their children's education (provided, of course, that they have children), then I could see a problem.

I can see her point though. Expected clothing for women in social situations has a lot of micro-regulations, while men just have a few broad expected clothing categories.

But if she is making the argument that this difference has to be accepted and perpetuated, I disagree.

md0 wrote:I can see her point though. Expected clothing for women in social situations has a lot of micro-regulations, while men just have a few broad expected clothing categories.

That's not what she means. She doesn't even mention social pressure. She's basically saying "this is how women are, we're polyhedric human beings who change everyday".

I think she just ended up believing this image that women are so complex and moody etc. unlike the plain men. It sounds clichéd to me, but not bad.

vijayjohn wrote:Women certainly are complex and multifaceted human beings. So are men and children.

Exactly. All human beings are, not just women.

vijayjohn wrote:It doesn't strike me as unreasonable for people to think of their choice of clothing on a given day as reflective of their mood

This is a perfectly sensible point which can be applied to all genders. However she doen't define the issue in terms of mood, she's giving some deep ontological reason as to why women (and only women) behave like that, my impression is that she's trying to make women pass as some sorts of mythical creatures.

IpseDixit wrote:

md0 wrote:I can see her point though. Expected clothing for women in social situations has a lot of micro-regulations, while men just have a few broad expected clothing categories.

That's not what she means. She doesn't even mention social pressure. She's basically saying "this is how women are, we're polyhedric human beings who change everyday".

That's essentialist bullshit then.

The #metoo campaign has invaded the circles of the Nobel Prize (of Literature): https://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/man-with- ... l-assault/ (Very reliable, somewhat right leaning Swedish newspaper, the article itself is in English)

It doesn't say in the article, but apparently the Academy were aware of 'lighter' sexual harassment from the individual in question and decided to do nothing, it's only now that they are cutting ties.

I just happened to find this article yesterday; I don't believe I've ever heard of rape being protested this way before:

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/st ... -us/296634

Le genre humain est bisexué, cela implique des comportements distincts

«De même que si les femmes et les hommes copulent pour assurer la reproduction de l’espèce, pour rechercher leur plaisir, et à l’occasion, pour satisfaire les deux, cette modernité ne pourra pas faire que leurs comportements soient parfaitement identiques. Exiger qu’ils le soient en tous points, en particulier lorsqu’ils « négocient » leur accord, est une cause perdue.

Le genre humain fait partie des grands singes, chez qui se constituent des structures de domination, en particulier dans l’instrumentalisation des hiérarchies qui permettent au dominant d’imposer des relations sexuelles au dominé. Le mâle est en général dominant et l’ascendant s’exerce le plus souvent au détriment de la femelle. Mais ce n’est pas toujours le cas.

J’ai ainsi un ami dont la carrière scientifique fut interrompue en France pour avoir refusé un chantage sexuel exercé par sa patronne. Le même ami vit aussi son médecin féminin, cette fois aux Etats-Unis, faire interpeller à son insu son épouse par la police pour violences conjugales. Alors que cet ami dit aux policiers qu’il trouva chez lui : « Je ne vous ai pas appelés ! », l’un de ceux-ci lui répondit : « Monsieur, votre médecin a constaté que vous avez perdu la capacité de vous protéger. Notre rôle est donc de le faire à votre place. »»

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPQH0U2igOY

Without watching that video I can say that my position on breasts is libertarian.

Edit: also lol feMRAs

mōdgethanc wrote:Edit: also lol feMRAs

Inorite?

She calls women having the same freedom to wear whatever they want that men take completely for granted "biological sexual harassment". Apparently I've been sexually harassed my entire life and DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!

ETA: I really do find it funny how many of these blinkered arguments simply fall apart as soon as you take them out of a heterosexist context. If gay men behave around straight men the way straight men behave around women, we're horrible sexual predators. But they're just following their "biological imperatives" so it's totally okay. And of course lesbians never exist in these scenarios, since the idea of women who don't what their dicks seems to be outside the realm of comprehension for most straight men. (It's taken as axiomatic that there are only two genders and these correspond perfectly to biological sex, so there's no need to even consider other possibilities.)

linguoboy wrote:She calls women having the same freedom to wear whatever they want that men take completely for granted "biological sexual harassment".

Um, what? Neither sex has the freedom to wear whatever they want. Never heard of indecent exposure laws?

Yasna wrote:

linguoboy wrote:She calls women having the same freedom to wear whatever they want that men take completely for granted "biological sexual harassment".

Um, what? Neither sex has the freedom to wear whatever they want. Never heard of indecent exposure laws?

Ooh, you got me there!

Men's clothing choices are not policed in remotely the same way as women's. I work at a university. Every day I see men wearing athletic gear with their junk clearly outlined for all the world to see. A professor I knew had a male student who would wear cut-off sweatpants, sit in the front row, and slouch so you could see his entire ballsack. How many male buttcracks have you yourself seen in your lifetime? Now compare that to how many times you've heard a man's appearance used to justify an assault against him. (For me the number is zero.)

It's the most ridiculous double-standard and literally everyone in the world can see it for what it is except the pervy men who benefit from it and the women who stand by them because they don't want to admit they've thrown their lot in with pervs.

linguoboy wrote:I work at a university. Every day I see men wearing athletic gear with their junk clearly outlined for all the world to see.

Both sexes can and do wear tight-fitting athletic wear.

A professor I knew had a male student who would wear cut-off sweatpants, sit in the front row, and slouch so you could see his entire ballsack.

I have literally never seen a situation like this in my life, and I'm guessing neither have you since you resorted to a second-hand anecdote. I have seen a woman exposing her vagina in public though. But it's such an unusual occurrence that I'm not about to draw any conclusions from it, and neither should you.

How many male buttcracks have you yourself seen in your lifetime? Now compare that to how many times you've heard a man's appearance used to justify an assault against him. (For me the number is zero.)

You are completely missing the point. A slob's revealed buttcrack provokes sexual arousal in exactly no one. Last weekend I had my nipple pinched out of the blue by a drunk girl I had just met, presumably due to my appearance. Does that count?

It's the most ridiculous double-standard and literally everyone in the world can see it for what it is except the pervy men who benefit from it and the women who stand by them because they don't want to admit they've thrown their lot in with pervs.

I agree that there's a double standard, but I don't think you can think coherently about the topic if you're ignoring all differences in male and female sexuality. For a start, how about admitting that it doesn't make sense to treat female chests and male chests as equivalent in this context?

Yasna wrote:

A professor I knew had a male student who would wear cut-off sweatpants, sit in the front row, and slouch so you could see his entire ballsack.

I have literally never seen a situation like this in my life

You've never seen sideball in your entire life?

Yasna wrote:

How many male buttcracks have you yourself seen in your lifetime? Now compare that to how many times you've heard a man's appearance used to justify an assault against him. (For me the number is zero.)

You are completely missing the point. A slob's revealed buttcrack provokes sexual arousal in exactly no one.

Speak for yourself.

I don't see how this is missing the point. If anything, it's proving it: straight men are aroused by certain sorts of bodies, so they police the hell out of those. They aren't aroused by other bodies, so they ignore it when they're exposed.

This is the clear double-standard I'm talking about.

Yasna wrote:Last weekend I had my nipple pinched out of the blue by a drunk girl I had just met, presumably due to my appearance. Does that count?

When you reported it to the police, did they ask what you were wearing at the time? If so, then it does. HTH.

Yasna wrote:

It's the most ridiculous double-standard and literally everyone in the world can see it for what it is except the pervy men who benefit from it and the women who stand by them because they don't want to admit they've thrown their lot in with pervs.

I agree that there's a double standard, but I don't think you can think coherently about the topic if you're ignoring all differences in male and female sexuality. For a start, how about admitting that it doesn't make sense to treat female chests and male chests as equivalent in this context?

I'm not "ignoring differences in male and female sexuality" (whatever you claim those to be, as if both sexes didn't show a huge range of variance). If anything, you are ignoring similarities between opposite-sex attraction and same-sex attraction. Gay men are men, too. Why don't we get to blame our lack of self-restraint on your provocative behaviour?

Yasna wrote:For a start, how about admitting that it doesn't make sense to treat female chests and male chests as equivalent in this context?

And why doesn't it? Plenty of other cultures allow women to expose their chests without civilisation going to pieces around them.

I find men's nipples intensely attractive and I think it's great how willing you all are to display them openly for me. Could you really blame me for giving them a friendly tweak now and them? After all, I'm a man; it's what I'm programmed to do, apparently.

Let's just take a pause to remember that the primary biological purpose of mammaries is to nourish offspring. The fact that men in certain cultures have eroticised them to the point that they are considered too obscene to be displayed in public is...kind of gross when you think about it.

linguoboy wrote:You've never seen sideball in your entire life?

Nope. Thank god.

I don't see how this is missing the point. If anything, it's proving it: straight men are aroused by certain sorts of bodies, so they police the hell out of those. They aren't aroused by other bodies, so they ignore it when they're exposed.

This is the clear double-standard I'm talking about.

All the video was saying is that staring at indecently exposed parts is a normal and expected reaction. How many gay men have gotten in trouble for staring at an exposed buttcrack?

When you reported it to the police, did they ask what you were wearing at the time? If so, then it does. HTH.

Luckily for that girl I wasn't bothered by it for more than a few seconds because y'know, male chest ≠ female chest and I'm not a snowflake.

I'm not "ignoring differences in male and female sexuality" (whatever you claim those to be, as if both sexes didn't show a huge range of variance). If anything, you are ignoring similarities between opposite-sex attraction and same-sex attraction. Gay men are men, too. Why don't we get to blame our lack of self-restraint on your provocative behaviour?

I am not denying gay men the privilege of staring at indecently exposed parts in public.

And why doesn't it? Plenty of other cultures allow women to expose their chests without civilisation going to pieces around them.

Because female chests are an extremely obvious secondary sexual characteristic of women, with significant biological consequences for how men react to them. I'm not arguing that females shouldn't have the right to show cleavage. The only issue is when some feminists react with hostility to the extra attention that cleavage provokes. There's a debate to be had about the appropriate duration and frequency of glances, but let's not pretend that the exposed females bear zero responsibility for the extra attention.

I find men's nipples intensely attractive and I think it's great how willing you all are to display them openly for me. Could you really blame me for giving them a friendly tweak now and them? After all, I'm a man; it's what I'm programmed to do, apparently.

No one is excusing sexual assault.

linguoboy wrote:Let's just take a pause to remember that the primary biological purpose of mammaries is to nourish offspring. The fact that men in certain cultures have eroticised them to the point that they are considered too obscene to be displayed in public is...kind of gross when you think about it.

This could only be thought by someone not sexually attracted to breasts.

Yasna wrote:

linguoboy wrote:Let's just take a pause to remember that the primary biological purpose of mammaries is to nourish offspring. The fact that men in certain cultures have eroticised them to the point that they are considered too obscene to be displayed in public is...kind of gross when you think about it.

This could only be thought by someone not sexually attracted to breasts.

Wrong. I think boobs are hot but not obscene to be displayed in public.

Yasna wrote:All the video was saying is that staring at indecently exposed parts is a normal and expected reaction. How many gay men have gotten in trouble for staring at an exposed buttcrack?

Gay men have been killed for less.