U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2013, 09:27 AM
 
3,279 posts, read 3,766,483 times
Reputation: 6149

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by maciesmom View Post
It's called manners. For someone who is constantly going on about how his kids know appropriate behavior and know well to fear a good old fashioned paddling if they slip up, I find it interesting you don't hold yourself to that same standard.
To me, if you don't want to be stared at, then don't advertise your "goodies." Period. It is beyond ridiculous to all but flash your breasts in someone's face & then become mad when they--wow, actually LOOK.

Don't give me the "it's hot outside" excuse. No one is saying cover-up head-to-toe. But tank-tops like that with no bra on, which is a common way such outfits are worn, are practically BEGGING for someone to take a look. There are outfits that are ventilated & such but that aren't so VERY revealing or so flashy. Sorry, but when you CHOOSE such to wear, you have no business complaining when someone stares.

I mean, really, if I went out in public dressed as a clown, or in some other outfit that was advertising how silly I felt or such, how much sense would it make to CHOOSE such an outfit to wear only to then become angry that someone was staring? What if I bore boxer underwear & nothing else, I mean, after all, boxer underwear is really showing no more skin than a typical bathing suit if you think about it.

But I choose not to wear something so overtly silly or so overtly "flashy" etc because I understand that if I were to do so, people are going to stare. That is the reality. The same goes here. If you don't like men staring at your breasts, then quit all but putting them out there for all the world to see only to then complain about the staring. That's just ridiculous.

LRH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2013, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Yellow cottage, green doors.
16,318 posts, read 12,599,314 times
Reputation: 71553
Well, I've got news for some of you. Those "professionals" like to see that pretty, feminine lady too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Denver area
21,147 posts, read 22,139,461 times
Reputation: 35609
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrytxeast View Post
To me, if you don't want to be stared at, then don't advertise your "goodies." Period. It is beyond ridiculous to all but flash your breasts in someone's face & then become mad when they--wow, actually LOOK.

Don't give me the "it's hot outside" excuse. No one is saying cover-up head-to-toe. But tank-tops like that with no bra on, which is a common way such outfits are worn, are practically BEGGING for someone to take a look. There are outfits that are ventilated & such but that aren't so VERY revealing or so flashy. Sorry, but when you CHOOSE such to wear, you have no business complaining when someone stares.

I mean, really, if I went out in public dressed as a clown, or in some other outfit that was advertising how silly I felt or such, how much sense would it make to CHOOSE such an outfit to wear only to then become angry that someone was staring? What if I bore boxer underwear & nothing else, I mean, after all, boxer underwear is really showing no more skin than a typical bathing suit if you think about it.

But I choose not to wear something so overtly silly or so overtly "flashy" etc because I understand that if I were to do so, people are going to stare. That is the reality. The same goes here. If you don't like men staring at your breasts, then quit all but putting them out there for all the world to see only to then complain about the staring. That's just ridiculous.

LRH
Oh please... This was an interview. No one has said she didn't wear a bra. In fact, she was wearing a suit jacket if I recall. While I agree it was not the most apprropriate choice for an interview situation, I don't see where anyone has said that she was braless and thrusting her "goodies" in the interviewer's face. You have quite an active imagination going there. Wishful thinking perhaps?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 09:46 AM
 
16,724 posts, read 13,704,406 times
Reputation: 40996
@@ <-- rolls eyes. Stupid kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 10:28 AM
 
3,279 posts, read 3,766,483 times
Reputation: 6149
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciesmom View Post
Oh please... This was an interview. No one has said she didn't wear a bra. In fact, she was wearing a suit jacket if I recall. While I agree it was not the most apprropriate choice for an interview situation, I don't see where anyone has said that she was braless and thrusting her "goodies" in the interviewer's face. You have quite an active imagination going there. Wishful thinking perhaps?
No, I'm more responding to the mentality, which I've seen & heard of in many places, that says that a woman can flash her goodies all she wants, or at the least wear something that is most certainly on the "look at me" side of things, and you're not supposed to have any sort of reaction at all. That's just ridiculous.

If it's not off-topic and subject to a "mod cut" to say this, we seem to be doing that a lot of ways, really. I watch old NBA clips from the 90s sometimes & it is amazing the difference--back then when a player reacted to a bad call, so long as their reaction wasn't horribly over the top, commentators would praise officials for letting it go, for letting a player reasonably vent & express his emotions. Now, if a player has any reaction other than a robotic one, if he shows any emotion at all whatsoever, they call a technical foul & the commentators admonish the player saying "you've got to play through the frustration, you can't let a call you disagree with cause you to lose your composure." I'm like--bull-feathers, they give their heart & soul to their game, & they're not allowed any emotional reaction at ALL? Please. It's one thing to say you can't let your emotions CONTROL you, but to basically say you can't have any reaction at all period is just nuts.

In like manner, it is ridiculous to say that you as a woman can wear even a bikini or such & if a man even GLANCES at you for a nanosecond, to go crying foul. That's nuts. I'm not saying it's okay for a man to slobber all over the place & act like a total jerk, and I'm sure not saying women should have to cover up head-to-toe, but when even a stare for a bit is deemed offensive while you're all the while wearing revealing clothing, that's just ridiculous.

LRH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 12:36 PM
 
204 posts, read 257,158 times
Reputation: 141
Definitely inappropriate for an interview in a corporate environment if the cami was plainly visibile under the jacket. I'll just say OP is lucky it wasn't a woman who was interviewing her. Being that it was a man who ogled, hey, maybe it helps her get the job (and maybe OP knew this all along, which is why she chose to wear something like that in the first place).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 01:41 PM
 
Location: In a house
13,258 posts, read 34,677,768 times
Reputation: 20198
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpf723 View Post
Definitely inappropriate for an interview in a corporate environment if the cami was plainly visibile under the jacket. I'll just say OP is lucky it wasn't a woman who was interviewing her. Being that it was a man who ogled, hey, maybe it helps her get the job (and maybe OP knew this all along, which is why she chose to wear something like that in the first place).
Tell you what - if I were the interviewer, I probably would've stared at her chest too. And I'm a happily married heterosexual woman. No sexual harassment there at all - my knockers are probably infinitely more magnificent than hers anyway. However, for whatever reason, my brain chemistry tells me to stare whenever someone puts their breasts on display, or otherwise frames them in such a way as to make a blatant presentation thereof.

If you don't want your chest to be stared at, then don't draw attention to it by emphasizing them with lace and flimsy material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 04:39 PM
 
1,956 posts, read 3,631,686 times
Reputation: 2755
I also have to wonder what kind of bra the OP was wearing under the cami. It appears to have very thin straps. So unless the OP is very small chested, either the bra straps were showing in some way, or if she was not wearing a bra, that is just inviting even more undo attention to the area she apparently wants no one looking at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 07:01 PM
 
129 posts, read 192,386 times
Reputation: 140
Well, at least she didn't show up in those skin tight leggings that seem to be the new thing these days, that often leave nothing to the imagination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2013, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,822 posts, read 39,431,510 times
Reputation: 48626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElleTea View Post

And NO one in my office wears (nude) hose. I haven't since the mid 1990's. My interview for my current job? I wore a spring dress and my legs were bare.
Outside of VERY conservative corporate settings and a few other fields such as some health care administration, I can't remember the last time I saw ANYbody wearing nude hose. Dated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top