Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a perfect world, a woman would be able to walk down the street naked if she so chooses, without worrying about eye-raping or any other sort of rape.
Men need to be able to control themselves. This is the principle that the West adopts and believes in. In Muslim countries, it is the woman's duty to control the men by covering themselves.
Men have absolutely no responsibility for their own reactions.
Is this what we want to see in our free western world?
And btw.........IT IS RUDE TO STARE.
No matter what your staring at. If you saw some poor person with half a face you'd manage to look away, but not a bit of boobage?
I don't know what anyone else meant. What I meant was that, whether it's a man or a woman, someone in a state of undress will be stared at because people are curious, and when someone chooses to show their wares, people will look.
I also will point out that generally it's women that are showing their wares. Men tend to cover up.
Lastly, if someone is showing their wares, they're not showing them because they accidentally forgot to wear more clothes. They are showing them because they intend to show them to people so they can look at them with their eyes.
What is really strange is if someone chooses to show their privates and at the same time EXPECTS not to be looked at or stared at. I don't know if any country where people do not look at or stare at people displaying their private parts or as much of them as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
How did this go from talking about a woman in a short skirt to "Well if her face is covered in tattoos and she's dressed like a gladiator then OF COURSE I'm going to stare"?
There are ostentatious outfits that might cause double takes (though it is still rude to stare) but that's not what was described in the OP. He said the woman was wearing a short skirt. That's it, not short skirt with a bra top, 7 inch platform shoes and a tattoo across her face that says "dumb blonde". By all accounts, this was just a normal woman showing some leg. Perhaps in an outfit such as this.
And how does she react to the man next to her looking at her like a sex object? Does she jump up, yell "pervert!", and slap him across the face? No. She just alerts him to how rude he's being. How unreasonable of her.
What I find digusting about the OP is that he thinks she should have accepted that man's leers as a compliment. Because if she didn't want to be treated like a sex doll, she should have worn a skirt to her ankles. He thinks she deserved unsolicited male advances, that she was asking for it.
It's generally not men that go around in a half-state of undress. Men usually cover up. And by the way, revealing clothing is revealing because it is meant to show body parts to onlookers. If it weren't, they'd wear a coat over them.
So I don't understand why men cannot look at someone who is clearly wearing as little as possible, if she's doing it to be looked at. (Unless she accidentally left the house with less clothing than was her intention because she suffers from ADD or something, or if she's very poor and can't afford clothing that covers her body as she would prefer lol).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope
In a perfect world, a woman would be able to walk down the street naked if she so chooses, without worrying about eye-raping or any other sort of rape.
Men need to be able to control themselves. This is the principle that the West adopts and believes in. In Muslim countries, it is the woman's duty to control the men by covering themselves.
Men have absolutely no responsibility for their own reactions.
Is this what we want to see in our free western world?
And btw.........IT IS RUDE TO STARE.
No matter what your staring at. If you saw some poor person with half a face you'd manage to look away, but not a bit of boobage?
It's generally not men that go around in a half-state of undress. Men usually cover up. And by the way, revealing clothing is revealing because it is meant to show body parts to onlookers. If it weren't, they'd wear a coat over them.
So I don't understand why men cannot look at someone who is clearly wearing as little as possible, if she's doing it to be looked at. (Unless she accidentally left the house with less clothing than was her intention because she suffers from ADD or something, or if she's very poor and can't afford clothing that covers her body as she would prefer lol).
The issue here is STARING.
I say it is rude no matter what.
If you read the entire thread, you would know that we are talking about offensive eye-raping, NOT appreciative glances, nor even double-takes.
There is a huge difference between them.
Women do dress for appreciative glances...why not...but we DO NOT sign up for eye-raping.
I don't know what anyone else meant. What I meant was that, whether it's a man or a woman, someone in a state of undress will be stared at because people are curious, and when someone chooses to show their wares, people will look.
I also will point out that generally it's women that are showing their wares. Men tend to cover up.
Lastly, if someone is showing their wares, they're not showing them because they accidentally forgot to wear more clothes. They are showing them because they intend to show them to people so they can look at them with their eyes.
What is really strange is if someone chooses to show their privates and at the same time EXPECTS not to be looked at or stared at. I don't know if any country where people do not look at or stare at people displaying their private parts or as much of them as possible.
Who said anything about showing genitals? You're twisting the originally described situation to shift the blame onto the person being stared at instead of the person doing the staring. Some people might consider exposed knees a state of undress or exposed clavicles or shoulders.
Shouldn't a person, man or woman, be able to get dressed in the morning without worrying about being stared at inappropriately by an adult who should know better?
What do you suggest? That people gouge their eyes out so they won't stare at people who are dressed suggestively?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
Shouldn't a person, man or woman, be able to get dressed in the morning without worrying about being stared at inappropriately by an adult who should know better?
Something I've noticed. The bigger the boobs, the lower the cut and V of the blouse and more revealing. But don't stare at all that cleavage.
This is a sensitive subject for me.
I used to have a career where I had to dress formally.
Due to my body shape, my breasts appear to grow directly out of my shoulder blades. I am apple shaped, have virtually no waist, and am broader across the shoulders than the hips.
I was criticised for showing cleavage when I had my blouse done right up to the second button, simply because THAT IS MY SHAPE. Short of surgically removing or binding my chest, I am going to have some cleavage unless I'm in a turtleneck, which should only be seen on turtles IMO. Women have cleavage! Get over it! It's a natural part of our bodies!
My reply to the woman who said I was dressed unprofessionally? "People in roman sandals should not throw stones".
It was never mentioned again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
