RE: Don't be a creeper (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Don't be a creeper (11/30/2015 4:36:32 PM)

I'm a fine upstanding Englishman and therefore only wear stout woolen bloomers, ET.



Greta75 -> RE: Don't be a creeper (11/30/2015 4:37:54 PM)

In my country, rape is usually done by foreign workers from less educated backgrounds, usually the construction workers. And what I notice is, they never target the skimpily dressed, heavily make up girls. They have always attacked those that are just dressed conservatively normal. They look for victims that that looked mousey, shy, helpless and weak and ordinary.

One of the most recent rape incident, the girl was wearing baggy t-shirt and jeans and just cycling home. It's very rare victims are skimpily dressed. The ones that dressed like just as good as walking naked, heavy make up and high heels, go out clubbing, you never hear any rape incidents happening in those situations.




Greta75 -> RE: Don't be a creeper (11/30/2015 4:40:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

Can someone define what a creeper is? A definition which doesn't depend on the two parties' relative attractiveness please...



It's how a man looks at you. Even if his prince charming, he can become a disgusting creep very fast, depending on how he looks at you, whether his focusing on your face or not, without shifty eyes, and what he says and how he says it.
In my company in sales, it's quite funny, but they tell men to never compliment their female customers on their necklace. Anything that is near their boobs, do not compliment. That would be creepy.



ManOeuvre -> RE: Don't be a creeper (11/30/2015 6:57:48 PM)

The nude version is for authentic philhellenes, and your meta was clever. I've read some of your other posts though and you're generally cleverer still.

I can certainly appreciate the attempt to prove the point, but I'm not sure it gets you any closer to specificity of action. For the folks who buy into creepiness, I suspect that the reply, if your pass be genuine, and lacking in ;), incorporates a charge of creepiness only to the same extent as their judgement of your relative attractiveness, awkwardness, etc. Same goes for the degree of sympathy, negative attention, or shaming elecited by the onlookers, or others in the room, bus, bar, chat, thread, etc.

If I was more the sort who liked to fill hellenes, or was otherwise part of your target demographic, reading your profile, or otherwise judging who you are, would inform the bulk of the reply or rebuff.

Let me clarify, though, that that's not what I think is the matter with this discussion.

Older, awkward, or otherwise unattractive men will continue to occasionally reach far above their grasp. They will make their poorly-orchestrated passes at women whose shoes they would be unfit to lick, even in their own eyes. They'll get only scorn from their quarries and their fellow fellows.

I don't have a problem with that either. It strikes me as something of an economic reality with respect to human relationships. Even when there's no sex involved or implied, of course attractive people are better received than their uglier cousins.

The problem I have is precisely with the concept of creepy. It, and its associated stigma come down I think rather too harshly on the offender in most cases, and not nearly harsh enough in the example linked to on reddit.

I live in Canada, and there is a specific offence in our criminal code called "Criminal Harassment". That's how we say "stalking" in canadien. The course of events, as described in the reddit post seem to unambiguously cross the line, and I assume there are similar statutes and laws in the rest of the western world.

Now, I'm not particularly fond of the wording of my country's criminal harassment law, and I have seen and heard of rather arbitrary applications of it, but it does at least contain some sort of objective standard. I don't think anyone here would object to the idea of calling what is currently referred to as the darker end of creepy by a more distinct name, such as stalking, criminal harassment, attempted rape, unceased post-"ceased and desist" contact or any term you like, but I think it's important to make the distinction between that and the "creepiness" as it turns a progressively lighter shade of gray.

I sense I'll come up against some resistance, however, when I try to call that lighter side of creepiness for what I think it is: romantic failure.



Anyone else?



ExiledTyrant -> RE: Don't be a creeper (11/30/2015 7:05:45 PM)

"Creepy" is very subjective and that makes it infinitive. I am a Primal Dominant male that is all about a 24/7 TPE CNC dynamic. To many women that makes me very creepy, but to more women that makes me FUCKING HOT!!!!!

That being said, most people "grasp" the concept of creepy, but few people, infinitesimal amount, share the same definitive.

Jus sayin



Wayward5oul -> RE: Don't be a creeper (11/30/2015 7:13:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
I sense I'll come up against some resistance, however, when I try to call that lighter side of creepiness for what I think it is: romantic failure.

Anyone else?

They failed romantically because they were creepy.

Actually that isn't even accurate. Behavior doesn't have to be 'romance' oriented.

It doesn't matter why they did it. They act in a manner that is socially inappropriate and causes someone else to discomfort.

They were creepy.



LadyPact -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 1:10:12 AM)

Trimming some down but let's see if we can take the discussion further.
quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
Let me clarify, though, that that's not what I think is the matter with this discussion.

Older, awkward, or otherwise unattractive men will continue to occasionally reach far above their grasp. They will make their poorly-orchestrated passes at women whose shoes they would be unfit to lick, even in their own eyes. They'll get only scorn from their quarries and their fellow fellows.

I can't say I agree with the standard of it's more or less the idea of unwanted attention from what used to be called a person being out of someone's league. It can be but it's not necessarily correct.

quote:

I don't have a problem with that either. It strikes me as something of an economic reality with respect to human relationships. Even when there's no sex involved or implied, of course attractive people are better received than their uglier cousins.

I can't say I agree with this but I'd have to go through and try to rate it through physical characteristics and that's not really impossible to do.

quote:

The problem I have is precisely with the concept of creepy. It, and its associated stigma come down I think rather too harshly on the offender in most cases, and not nearly harsh enough in the example linked to on reddit.

There's always going to be a range but there is also a part that isn't able to be classified. That's the vibe that someone gets from the other person. Those situations where your instincts, sixth sense, or whatever a person likes to call it is telling you that something is off about the interaction with the other person. They lean in too far, so you take the step back to re-establish your personal space and that kind of thing.

quote:

I live in Canada, and there is a specific offence in our criminal code called "Criminal Harassment". That's how we say "stalking" in canadien. The course of events, as described in the reddit post seem to unambiguously cross the line, and I assume there are similar statutes and laws in the rest of the western world.

In the US, our stalking laws vary from state to state. Stalking goes into the territory of multiple occasions (calendar dates) where creepy won't necessarily cover that. Stalking is a continued pattern of criminal behavior where the acts used are specifically in the attempt to cause fear and intimidation where creepy might not live up to that standard. Stalkers know they are stalking. It's not a case of they don't know or aren't aware.

quote:

Now, I'm not particularly fond of the wording of my country's criminal harassment law, and I have seen and heard of rather arbitrary applications of it, but it does at least contain some sort of objective standard. I don't think anyone here would object to the idea of calling what is currently referred to as the darker end of creepy by a more distinct name, such as stalking, criminal harassment, attempted rape, unceased post-"ceased and desist" contact or any term you like, but I think it's important to make the distinction between that and the "creepiness" as it turns a progressively lighter shade of gray.

I'm trying not to sound flippant but creepy doesn't tend to have people finding the necessity to go to court. Creepy isn't necessarily going to hit the stalking level. It's not especially going to last months or years. There are a lot of things that creepy isn't going to live up to that stalking does. Can something start as creepy that can evolve into stalking? Sure.

quote:

I sense I'll come up against some resistance, however, when I try to call that lighter side of creepiness for what I think it is: romantic failure.

Anyone else?

Here's the part where we're going to be in disagreement. It's really not the perception of the person pursuing that is the measuring stick here. It's the perception of the receiver. Much the same as it is with most forms of communication and/or personal interaction. As the speaker, it's generally your responsibility to convey your message properly. If the listener is paying attention and the environment is suitable, the rest relies on the speaker.

You're also skipping an entire category of people who are (what they think) the overly friendly types. These are the folks who just don't get that they aren't being received well, don't recognize the social cues that the other person isn't interested in talking to them, don't realize that it's time to mingle with other people rather than try to monopolize the other person's time, lean in too close, and things of this nature. A glaring example of this can be folks who are not in the neural typical category because they have a difficult time reading other people by body language and social cues.

Then, of course, you do have the folks who just enjoy doing these things on purpose. (I'm certainly not giving everyone a free pass here.) Perfectly aware of the fact that they make other people uncomfortable and get a kick out of doing it.






freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 3:25:02 AM)

[sm=goodpost.gif] LP. Absolutely spot-on!

There are a LOT of people out there that seem to have no fricken idea of what 'personal space' is and cannot comprehend social cues let alone follow them.
We've had a few on here that fall into this bin, on top of being socially inept; those that we would call HNG's.
There's even a couple of regular posters on these forums that are in this group.

I think your last section is succinctly brilliant and very appropriate. Well said. [8D]



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 3:32:15 AM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
I sense I'll come up against some resistance, however, when I try to call that lighter side of creepiness for what I think it is: romantic failure.

Anyone else?



What on earth is remotely romantic if a stranger stares at your breasts? A grope in public transportation is not romantic failure, it's creepy groping because somebody thinks he can get away with it.

A few years ago I shared a flat with several others, we were all women, 2 to 3 times a week we would find "presents" on our doorstep or the mailbox that was on the outside wall, chocolates, flowers, bad poems (some quite explicit) and the crowning glory, nylon tacky panties (the kind you don't even look at as a woman because they're just too awful with scratchy nylon lace), we had no idea who left them or for which one of us it was meant, but we were all pretty creeped out. You can argue that it was a romantic failure on the givers part, but for us it was uncomfortable and a bit terrifying, especially since we had the only flat in the building and the entrance was walking through a not too well lit yard.

It wasn't serious enough for the police, they advised us to not eat the chocolates and sweets and that was it, it didn't take away the feeling that we were creeped out.

After it went on for several weeks and we had several meetings in the kitchen trying to figure out where all the junk comes from, we decided to have a little note on the letter box, saying the anonymous presents make us a bit uncomfy and to please stop. We took pains to be polite as we thought whoever does it is possibly not well adjusted and didn't want to set the person off. Instead of the usual crap, our mailbox then had oil in it, broken eggs, broken glass... Since that was damaging property (mail) the police was more interested and actually approached the landlord, he decided to have a light with a movement sensor in the yard but he gave us a speech that we should just have thrown the stuff out and not left the note asking to stop. That to me was even creepier.

I don't know what your sexual orientation is, but let's assume for a moment you are straight, not interested in men at all. Would it really make a difference if the guy hitting on you was good looking? Would that change your mind?

For most women a creepy action isn't determined by the guy's looks, but by the action itself. The perpetrator being massively overweight, ungroomed and smelly adds another layer of disgust, but it's the action first and foremost.

I don't know if you have an XBox, but try XBox live and log in with a female name, any game, all of a sudden you get comments that might shock you a bit, you know graphic descriptions of rape, you don't see the guys who make the comments only the avatars, they could be drop dead gorgeous, do you think it makes it less creepy? Of course you can log in with a male name but then with the headphones and microphone and you play with a group, you say something and your voice gives you away, guess what happens... Because you know, being female makes so much difference if I can shoot an alien robot in a computer game...

There's a pretty interesting article about a guy who used his girlfriend's Tinder app

http://uk.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/lessons-from-a-girl-s-tinder.html

I like his conclusion that men are often unfairly judged on account of a few jackasses, but that there are more of those jackasses out there than he thought and that they are the aggressors.

It's not all that different for men or women, you make a few bad experiences, you try to avoid them because anything else would be quite stupid, wouldn't it...



crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 10:59:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
There is an assumption scattered through this thread by various posters that some men just can't over-ride their lizard brains when a woman's curves cross their line of sight.
Is that really a defense for the various behaviors that have been discussed here?
They can't help themselves?

I'm pretty sure that was aimed at others, but, I'll respond to agree with you, and to disagree with you, with the devil being in the details.

Let's take the agreement first, which is always easier.
If a woman is dressed provocatively, and if a man follows her all around for ten minutes if he leers at her for a prolonged minute or so, hoping to get a better glimpse of what she is clearly "selling" (and, trust me, any woman dressed like I am describing is "selling" sexual attention, whether she knows it or not), then both she and he are out of bounds but she is out of bounds in a socially acceptable way, while he is not.

Hence, he's the offending party.
[image]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/14/article-2003380-0C66F77C00000578-312_468x744.jpg[/image]
Now let's take the counter argument, which is never easy to explain:
If a woman is dressed provocatively, and if a man notices her (which men can't help but do), but, after the biologically programmed second, he looks away and continues on with his business, without, perhaps, doing an about-face and following her, for example, then he is just doing EXACTLY what she wanted him to do.

Remember, any woman dressed provocatively is promoting her sexuality, whether she realizes it or not. Only a child doesn't realize her underpants are constantly showing. Any woman of any age old enough to have breasts and pubic hair knows EXACTLY what she is doing when her wardrobe constantly malfunctions.
[image]https://9javoice.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/too-short-mini-skirts1.jpg[/image]
In this counter case, the man who notices, and perhaps glances for, oh, say about 3 seconds, is not out of line; it's actually the woman who is wrong if she then complains that the man is leering at her.

For two reasons that is wrong:
a) He wasn't leering (which, I agree, is extremely subjective), and,
b) She was selling sex and yet she's surprised that this is exactly what she gets.

So, what irks me most is not men leering (as that's not my beef, and I, like anyone else, even Aspergers, have learned that 3 seconds is about the rule and certainly you don't change course to follow or watch a woman - you just notice, and you look for a couple of seconds, and then you force yourself to turn away).

No. It's not creepy leering that irks me, from my male perspective.
It's woman selling themselves daily, and then complaining that their sales tactics are working perfectly such that men take their cues from her.

Not all women are this way, for example, most of the female posters in this thread whom I have corresponded with have had a perusal of their profiles and flicker accounts (with their permission since they gave me the URL!) or their professional sites (which again was a URL posted in their profiles).

Given that I have looked up some of the ladies on this thread, NONE of them seem to be the type that I am talking about (those who dress provocatively expressly so that people will look at them, and THEN have the gall to complain that men are looking at them.

It's not the provocative dress that I deplore (hell, I LOVE when women dress to show their sexual goodies!); its' the two-faced complaining afterward that I am pointing out as being untenable.

Of course, remember that I'm NOT talking about assault, battery, rape, nor even bona fide leering.
I'm just discussing looking for a few seconds (which is merely doing EXACTLY what the woman wants us to do, or she wouldn't have dressed that way in the first place.)
[image]http://cosmouk.cdnds.net/cm/14/30/53d3e8b5f3c39_-_130611-slut-walk-main.jpg[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
Personal responsibility does not mean if a woman is dressed provocatively and happens to be intoxicated, she is asking for 'it'. Or that if a woman is sober and is dressed provocatively, or is completely wasted and is dressed conservatively... . No one deserves to be sexually assaulted.
And as a society we shouldn't withhold our compassion because s/he did or didn't do something reckless.


The devil is in the details. See above, but even if the woman walked through town naked (which is pretty much what many woman do as much as they can get away with), she still has the right to not be assualted, or touched, or even leered at (with that sticky definition always being an issue).
[image]http://i.imgur.com/SMzwS.jpg[/image]



stef -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 11:08:41 AM)

quote:

(and, trust me, any woman dressed like I am describing is "selling" sexual attention, whether she knows it or not)


quote:

I'm just discussing looking for a few seconds (which is merely doing EXACTLY what the woman wants us to do, or she wouldn't have dressed that way in the first place.)


You're too dense to understand that women can dress as you have described entirely for themselves and they're not "selling" anything or looking for anything from clueless men who are sure they know what those women really want. If you can't get past this simple fact, then all of your umpteen pages of navel-gazing you've spewed here isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.



crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 11:17:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef
You're too dense to understand that women can dress as you have described entirely for themselves and they're not "selling" anything or looking for anything from clueless men who are sure they know what those women really want. If you can't get past this simple fact, then all of your umpteen pages of navel-gazing you've spewed here isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.


Oh, I have often read what you say, but I believe I have stated that most women don't even REALIZE what they're doing.

I have asked friends many times, and most women I have asked why they wear a short frilly skirt tell me (oh so innocently) that "its' fun" to dress in a short skirt.

I look at them, and, after having asked dozens over the years, I realized, "they have absolutely no clue"; the reason "its' fun" is because they get ATTENTION.

Women (and men) love attention.
They just do it different ways.

Sure, I hear you say that women dress for themselves. I've heard it before.

And I definitely understand you. I've always understood that you would like to THINK that way.

And, you probably actually do think that way.

But, like it or not, our dress is a uniform. Whether you're a football player on the gridiron or a businessman in an office complex, your clothes are a UNIFORM that says something about your purpose and intentions.

You wear the uniform; other people get to decipher your real intentions.
[image]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--W-zuH-0E--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1923fr8opdeq0jpg.jpg[/image]

The devil is in the details though, because YOUR provocative might not be MY provocative, so, my pictures show what I'm considering provocative.

Your dress is a uniform just as much as mine is.
If I walk into a meeting wearing shorts and a t-shirt, versus hiking boots and jeans, versus a wool suit, I'm "saying something" about myself, and my intentions. It doesn't matter what I think my intentions are; what matters is what other people decipher about my intentions from my dress alone.

If a woman dresses provocatively, then that's her statement to the world; she is selling her sexuality.
The world gets to decide what her statement is; not her.

It doesn't matter that she deludes herself, as you apparently do, that she's NOT selling her sexuality.
In fact, just as someone stated that it doesn't matter WHAT a woman is wearing, men should not leer, this applies in reverse to women.

If you dress provocatively, you may delude yourself that you're doing it for some other reason than to promote your sexuality; but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
It doesn't matter why they did it. They act in a manner that is socially inappropriate and causes someone else to discomfort.
They were creepy.


The devil is in the details (which are almost completely missing in this discussion, so, I will assume provocative dress as one of the details, as otherwise, why would men be leering in the first place?).

If someone complained about men leering, I would have to ask her what she is wearing when men leer at her.

Schools, for example, have to enforce a dress code just so that girls DON'T show too much sexuality (aka skin).
Why is that?
[image]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/06/10/2A445F1600000578-3148705-image-a-11_1436176704875.jpg[/image]
Even given provocative dress, the man is wrong if he "leers" (which, as stated by someone else, has infinite definitions unfortunately); however, the woman is just as wrong if she dresses provocatively and then has the gall to complain that men are doing exactly what her clothes are begging them to do.
[image]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/14/article-2003380-0BF3E35B00000578-731_468x317.jpg[/image]



stef -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 11:30:12 AM)

quote:

Trust me that I read what you say, but I believe I have stated that most women don't even REALIZE what they're doing.

Thank $diety that you have come long to set all the poor wimmens straight at what they're really doing.




LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 11:31:58 AM)

In that case, I suggest you look up the uniforms of Catholic schools, minskirts...

As for clothes, are you really suggesting women should worry about where a guy's eyes go and cover up, so the guy simply doesn't "have" to stare? That's a bit like saying a disabled person should hide his or her disability so somebody isn't tempted to stare.

I said a few times that I don't tend to dress provocatively, I don't have wardrobe malfunctions (the last one was actually not funny, one of those lovely dresses with the long trailing sleeves a bit Game of Thrones caught fire with a candle - no boobage was flashed, and I assure you it was 100% not planned, I don't tend to burn dresses with a lot of Zeros on purpose), that doesn't mean I want to dress in shapeless garments that make me look like a walking tent, I like practical well fitting clothes...
You know the most revealing clothes I wear are actually when I do yoga, those tight stretchy things, and I can assure you that any guy in the yoga class leering and the teacher sees it, the guy better has a humiliation fetish... How come it works there but just jeans and a regular t-shirt down the road and it doesn't work anymore?

Seriously, I don't think men are so weak that they can't control their eyes, they are not like my dogs if I show them a steak and they start salivating without control and will not be able to look away until I say "Go eat"...



crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 11:43:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef
Thank $diety that you have come long to set all the poor wimmens straight at what they're really doing.

I don't think women will ever understand that their dress is perceived by others exactly how they mean it to be perceived, whether they consciously realize that or not.

It's the same with men - but this conversation is about women and men leering at them, so, that's why I'm concentrating on what the women are wearing.

Many women tend to sell their sexuality, day in, and day out - by what they choose to wear in public.

Otherwise, adults wouldn't have to enforce dress codes in schools, which, while they go after gang colors and baggy pants, dress codes in high school are mostly to prevent girls from showing their boobs, buns, and camel toes in academic classrooms.

They just give equal time to the men to appear to be even handed; but the men showing too much skin is almost never the problem, while the girls showing teats and buns is always the real problem.

Why is it that school administrators have to enforce rules to STOP young girls from showing their sexual organs to anyone who has eyeballs?
[image]http://mvhsoracle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/url-5.jpeg[/image]



LadyConstanze -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 11:53:33 AM)

quote:

I don't think women will ever understand that their dress is perceived by others exactly how they mean it to be perceived, whether they consciously realize that or not.

It's the same with men - but this conversation is about women and men leering at them, so, that's why I'm concentrating on what the women are wearing.

Many women tend to sell their sexuality, day in, and day out - by what they choose to wear in public.

Otherwise, adults wouldn't have to enforce dress codes in schools, which, while they go after gang colors and baggy pants, dress codes in high school are mostly to prevent girls from showing their boobs, buns, and camel toes in academic classrooms.


Sorry, we aren't selling, this isn't Sunset Strip in the evening, we choose to wear what is fashionable, if you sexualize it, it's your choice, we don't force you to.

As for the enforced dress code in schools, we're talking about a bunch of teenagers who would take everything to the hilt, males and females, they are growing up and experiment with clothes. As a teenager I was into the whole punk and goth thing, I don't have a mohawk and multicoloured hair anymore, I grew out of it, it's what happens.

But thanks for comparing grown women to teenagers who have to be told how to dress, tell you what, I can keep my boobs from falling out of my shirt, how about you worry about your eyes falling into my cleavage? Sounds like a fair deal to me.



crumpets -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 12:15:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
In that case, I suggest you look up the uniforms of Catholic schools, minskirts...

I went to Catholic school. And, I know about the dress codes. I even know about the shine on patent-leather shoes being a problem.

Dress codes exist mainly for one reason only.
They are made by adults, to keep younger adults from dressing inappropriately, which is the way many of those younger adults would dress if the adults didn't enforce the dress code.

Specifically, girls tend to expose too much skin.

In fact, girls tend to expose way more than is necessary, and certainly they're not doing so for comfort.
They will fool themselves and say it's for fashion. They will lie to themselves and say it's for fun.
They will deceive themselves and say it's to look pretty or to get attention.
Or, the biggest lie of all, that it's for the other women in their peer group.

Let them lie to themselves, as they don't have a clue that clothes are a uniform which is INTERPRETED by others.

Those interpretations don't follow the same deceptive rationale that I'm hearing here.
Otherwise, leering wouldn't be a problem.

Again, the devil is in the details. We both have to define what we mean by provocative.
I think my pictures are showing my viewpoint as to what I consider provocative.
[image]http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5815814.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Megan-Fox-seen-wearing-a-catholic-school-girl-outfit-as-she-filmed-a-scene-at-the-Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-2-movie.jpg[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
As for clothes, are you really suggesting women should worry about where a guy's eyes go and cover up, so the guy simply doesn't "have" to stare? That's a bit like saying a disabled person should hide his or her disability so somebody isn't tempted to stare.

First off, any woman who wants to dress provocatively is sexy in my book.
I will never complain if a woman shows too much skin (unless it's "my" woman or my child or my mom or my sister, etc.).

Otherwise, all the other women in the world are welcome, nay, they're ENCOURAGED to show as much skin as they want.
Who cares if they're freezing. Who cares if they can't walk a half mile. Who cares if they constantly have to pull down the hem or pull up the straps. Hell, show as much skin as you want. I'm all for it. And I'm not complaining.

What I'm discerning is that women want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to dress provocatively, and yet only have the one guy they care about notice them.

Well, it just doesn't work that way.
So, the women will complain until the end of time about the same thing.

Because what they do, and then what they complain about happening, makes no sense when you think about it.
You dress as you like, and you get to decide why you dressed that way; but everyone else gets to INTERPRET it too.
You have no control over HOW they interpret it - other than to enforce your own personal dress code.
[image]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a3/72/2e/a3722e3b5c57abaab139e5c372374276.jpg[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
I said a few times that I don't tend to dress provocatively, I don't have wardrobe malfunctions (the last one was actually not funny, one of those lovely dresses with the long trailing sleeves a bit Game of Thrones caught fire with a candle - no boobage was flashed, and I assure you it was 100% not planned,

I have seen maybe twenty or thirty pictures of you, and I would agree with what you said about the fact that YOU dress appropriately (at least as far as those pictures are concerned).

However, you may have misrepresented my point about the wardrobe malfunctions.
I realize you have some boobage (as your office photos shows), which you can't hide.
You also wear a normal length business skirt (that tan dress you have in your photo set, for example).

However, MANY women wear too short skirts, too thin straps, too low tops, such that they don't need to PLAN on a wardrobe malfunction; it will inevitably happen: perhaps ten times a day.
[image]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1834606!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/idina-menzel.jpg[/image]

I don't tend to burn dresses with a lot of Zeros on purpose), that doesn't mean I want to dress in shapeless garments that make me look like a walking tent, I like practical well fitting clothes...

I have seen how you dress at work (from your photo set), and you dress tastefully as far as I can see.
My definition of "provocative" would probably not include how you dress.
It would likely include most of the items listed on your average high school dress code though.
[image]http://www.bkmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/640px-Grand_Palace_dress_code.jpeg[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
You know the most revealing clothes I wear are actually when I do yoga, those tight stretchy things, and I can assure you that any guy in the yoga class leering and the teacher sees it, the guy better has a humiliation fetish... How come it works there but just jeans and a regular t-shirt down the road and it doesn't work anymore?

I think you can answer that question yourself if you just look at how tightly your jeans and t-shirt fit versus the typical male jeans.
[image]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/18/article-2632025-1DFA0BC000000578-488_634x807.jpg[/image]
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
Seriously, I don't think men are so weak that they can't control their eyes, they are not like my dogs if I show them a steak and they start salivating without control and will not be able to look away until I say "Go eat"...

Actually, you're right and you're wrong, just as the devil is always in the details about what you mean by "controlling their eyes".

I think all men "notice" for a split second a boob, or a too-short skirt, or a glimpse of panty or nipple or cameltoe, etc.
I think that's what women find "fun" about wearing sexy clothes.
The get the general aurora of men "noticing" for at the very least the biologically programmed split second.

It's where men continue to look that you're all complaining about.
And, for that, we really need more details since your provocative might not be my provocative, just as your looking-too-long might not be the same as my definition of looking-too-long.

The devil is in the details and my posts try to contain details in images that portray somewhat what I'm trying to explain from the perspective of someone who is assaulted day in and day out by women's panties, teats, buns, cameltoes, and upper thighs.
[image]http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/79/590x/secondary/172780.jpg[/image]



AAkasha -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 12:18:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

Many women tend to sell their sexuality, day in, and day out - by what they choose to wear in public.




I honestly think you believe women look in their closet and go "Oh, what can I wear that will cause countless men to harrass me, stare at me, and potentially follow me down the street making lewd comments."

I guess it's time for women to start dressing in potato sacks and thick sweats underneath as to not inconvenience men that - god forbid - have to behave unlike Neanderthals.

My husband has zero problem interacting with women despite how they are dressed with zero distraction. Because he thinks behavior like that is for juveniles with no self control. What is your excuse? Despite trying to explain away "a glance" from a "a leer" guess what - he does NEITHER. He behaves like a polite gentleman. You should try it rather than blame women and excuse away the lack of self control and tact by most men.

And if I had all kinds of spare time that you apparently do, I would sit here and google images with the terms "Men inappropriately looking at women dressed normal" and come up with a page full of examples.

Women are NOT going to stop dressing the way they want because MEN can't control their biology. Get over it.






freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 12:35:20 PM)

My dear crumpets.... when are you going to get it through your thick numbskull and into your inept brain cell that women do NOT dress for other men to ogle and leer at to be objectified.

Whether you or other like-minded and inept males think it is open to YOUR interpretation is pure baloney fantasy.

They really DO dress for themselves, fashion and peer groups and IF they dress for men, it would be for their partner(s), not men in general to provide wank fodder.


Seriously dude, you need to get a life - a real adult one, not behind a screen.



AAkasha -> RE: Don't be a creeper (12/1/2015 1:08:15 PM)



Crumpets needs to read this:
http://ask.metafilter.com/166426/Keep-your-eyes-to-yourself

From the article: "I had a friend who once asked me to come with her to buy a minimizer bra because she just couldn't take it any more. She wanted me there so I could help her buy the bra that smushed her boobs the most. She thought it would help."

There's a brief mention of looking (politely) vs. staring or leering, but most women experience the leering or staring, and men feel as if it is THEIR right since - after all - women dress a certain way.

A woman is expected to dress sharp in a corporate workspace. Sure, you can cover your boobs, flatten them, wear long skirts -- and look like an unfashionable idiot with a lack of style. Instead, men can grab their sack and man up and not act like idiots.

I am NOT going to change the way I dress for men. Like a lot of women who are not young and slutty, and as a woman with ample cleavage that I do NOT show off, I am sick of men making excuses for their inability to deal. And to be honest it's an excuse anyway. Men like to look. They think they are owed it. They could give two shits. That's why so many are labeled creepers.

Akasha



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02