MetaChat - Hey Mecha ladies.

*sigh*

I love cleavage. It's one of womens secret weapons. It's a way of saying 'I'm a sexy woman,' without being overtly smutty. Sadly there's no equivalent for males, unless we all walked around with our pants half down, which dosen't look sexy, just stupid.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 11:29

you really have to use your breast power responsibly
Breast POOOWWAH!!

posted by jrossi4r 31 May | 11:32

*gets out the jumper cables*

posted by jonmc 31 May | 11:36

I have lots of cleavage and keep covered must of the time, unless I go out, I might wear something more revealing. In these cases, husband says, "nice boob shirt" I once made the mistake of wearing a boob shirt to Disney World. I didn't know it was such a boob shirt, and was all I brought to the hotel. I was thinking of buying a T-shirt all day. Husband said I looked appropriate. I'm not so sure. Every man, woman, and child seemed to be looking at my breasts. I think I have a picture somewhere.

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 11:43

Ladies, if you are unsure, post a picture and I will let you know if you dress appropriately or not.

posted by Capn 31 May | 11:46

What strange advice- women, keep it covered, keep it covered, keep it covered, UNLESS you're pregnant, then go crazy!!!

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 31 May | 11:46

What the fuck, ABC? "Boobtube" is just an expression; you didn't have to go out and hire a titty consultant.

posted by taz 31 May | 11:52

Also, how to be sexy while playing sports.
#2: Don't look too competitive. Smile! Look happy and mess up your hair a bit. If have your hair in a ponytail/bun don't make it to tight (it looks a little too weird and intense).

Just so you know.
Smile!

posted by Hellbient 31 May | 11:52

Ohmigod, that is hilarious hellbient.

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 11:55

"A recent study showed men photos of women in a workplace with large breasts showing cleavage, medium breasts and small breasts. When asked about who looked most professional and personable, the men chose the women with medium-sized breasts," she said.

"You don't have to be flat-chested to be taken seriously," she added. "You just have to be proportionate. For women who are small busted, that may mean a little padding. For well-endowed women, that may mean a minimizer."

I'm sorry, but FUCK HER. Why do I have to change the shape of my body to keep men comfortable in the workplace? That's completely insane. You know, I'm uncomfortable with men with a beer gut - they should go out and get girdles to make me happier.

posted by mygothlaundry 31 May | 12:02

Well, if you're pregnant, some man has obviously already claimed you to prove his manliness, so in that case you're allowed to look sexy, because it's reflecting glory back on your lord and master and his super-manly spermitude. You're not using your breasts for your own reasons; they've been giganticized by your societally-approved male and therefore are, themselves, societally approved.

Duh. :-)

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 12:08

I wish they'd quit calling breasts 'girls'--I can't put my finger on it, but something about it kinda creeps my out.

posted by box 31 May | 12:11

I dunno, I've met guys who refer to their nuts as 'the boys.'

posted by jonmc 31 May | 12:14

Yeah, I've met guys like that too.

posted by box 31 May | 12:15

Why stop at a finger?

What?!

posted by plinth 31 May | 12:15

Next up on ABC's Good Morning America: "Your Ass, and How to Handle It".

posted by taz 31 May | 12:17

*handles taz's ass*

Sorry! Someone was going to say it...

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 12:18

I also hate the terms "the girls." But mostly I hate the implication that I'm using my breasts for anything. I mean, they're body parts. They're there no matter what I wear, or what I'm thinking, or what I'm doing. Most of the time I'm not using them for anything more than I'm using my little toes for anything.

Actually, given the whole "balance" thing, I'm probably using my little toes a hell of a lot more often then I'm using my breasts.

Gah. It's such a fucking male-centered way of describing anatomy. "Men look at them, and like them, therefore you must be doing something on purpose!" Sigh.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 12:19

Hopefully, they won't give that one to Willard Scott.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 12:19

I love you mygo!

No, what I really want say is this: breasts! what do we need them for anyway? They are hurting regularly, like once a month, they give us breast cancer, they need extra clothes (so that they do not provoke!), and we all know how uncomfortable and expensive bras are, breastfeeding hurts like few other things, so you know. They tend to obey gravity all too faithfully. So, they only give pleasure to men/women during sex (and who really wants to do that, right?). I say, cut the damn things already!

Okay, I meant everything I said, except the cutting part. And the sex part, sigh. triple sigh.

posted by carmina 31 May | 12:23

I also hate the terms "the girls."

I have taken to calling my "parts" the guys. . not my man-boobs. The other guys.

On a serious note, I have a friend who underwent a double mastectomy solely because of family history. She seems happier, but it upset me. My problem, I know, but still.

posted by danf 31 May | 12:25

"super-manly spermitude" is so going to be my next sockpuppet!

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 31 May | 12:27

My wife watches "What not to Wear Alot," and I always get a little squicked out when they start talking about "the girls."

posted by drezdn 31 May | 12:28

I'd like to leave a copy of the cleavage article for the neice of one of the owners of a neighborhood bar, who is working at the joint for the summer. She's in her early 20's, and "into" what I guess the kids are calling "body modification" these days. To me, it looks like she fell face down in a fishing tackle box, but she's pretty proud of all the metal stuck in her face, and of her tattoos.

Now this is a neighborhood bar; the kind of place you stop at for a beer when out walking your dog, and sit out on the deck and drink your beer and read the paper, and other people come and go, or watch parts of games on the TV, while they wait to pickup kids from karate practice. There are water bowls on the deck for dogs, and they keep a jar of LivaSnaps behind the bar for regular "Muttomers." People meet friends there, on the way to the movies, etc. I've been stopping in once a week or so for about 2 years, and so I know a lot of the faces there, generally. But this young woman working there is attracting a whole new crowd of tatted up kids, who hang around the bar, whenever she's there.

She puts a jar on the bar labeled "Tattoo Fund" and the running gag is to "help" her design and place her next tattoos, and contribute money for getting them done. So, guys are constantly suggesting she get tattoos in what are generally unmentionable places, and she's lately taken to pulling down her halter top to not quite illegal points to help admirers make anatomically correct suggestions. But yesterday afternoon, when I stopped in, she was standing behind the bar, with her back to the bar, and her jeans unzipped, peeling one side of her jeans down to expose her hip (and the top half of one buttock), so she could show her admirers where she thought a butterfly tattoo would be perfect, and get their input. I didn't say anything, but if I'd had any "input," it would've been to tell her to pull her pants up, and that regardless of what she thought, she really wasn't "all that."

Her tip jar was running over, and bills were flopping out on the wet bar. Dirty glasses, empties and ashtrays all over the bar, too, but nobody at the bar, but me, seemed to notice.

But I wasn't going to wait for her to pull her pants up to get me a cold one, so me and my mutt left, and walked 3 blocks home, for one out of our fridge.

posted by paulsc 31 May | 12:32

Elisabeth Squires is a damn tool. Ugh.

The phrase "the girls" ranks right up there with the word panties. DO NOT WANT.

posted by iconomy 31 May | 12:33

Bra fitters tell me that an E cup is the new C cup

What does this mean? E is supposedly average now?

I think I have a picture somewhere.

*tries to decide if teasing us is using breast power responsibly, lands on 'yes'*

posted by danostuporstar 31 May | 12:34

God, thanks for that iconomy. HATE the word 'panties.' I am not a four-year-old.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 12:35

Okay, let's just agree to call them "sweater puppies" from now on.

posted by Specklet 31 May | 12:36

You want to call the article of clothing formally known as panties "sweater puppies" Specklet? That seems like it would be confusing.

posted by Capn 31 May | 12:47

I love "sweater puppies." Because I imagine squirming golden retriever puppies, and it makes me happy.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 12:47

Ew. Not in panties, though. That would uncomfortable and quite likely unhygienic.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 12:49

Okay, let's just agree to call them "sweater puppies" from now on.

OK Speck. You need to drive down I-5 and help me get all the coffee off my monitor.

posted by danf 31 May | 12:50

Ooo you just reminded me of this old metatalk post and very funny thread, danf...

posted by iconomy 31 May | 12:58

But mostly I hate the implication that I'm using my breasts for anything.

Dingdingding! That's it, right there.

I have legs, too, and lots of men like to look at them. Should I assume that being looked at is their primary function?

posted by Elsa 31 May | 13:03

Oh man. Reading that just makes me tired and sad.

I'd like to second everything mgl and occhiblu said. Except for the golden retriever thing. I love dogs as much as anyone, but I really don't want golden retrievers in my shirt all day long.

posted by tangerine 31 May | 13:05

I love dogs as much as anyone, but I really don't want golden retrievers in my shirt all day long.

Blouse bunnies?

posted by Elsa 31 May | 13:07

i've called them the "ladies" before, but that's because I find the term funny. The girls is weirder somehow and I say NAY! And what a piece of shit article. I have been covering up for years mainly because of my own discomfort at sprouting the ladieeesss and just a few years ago I decided I didn't give two muddy ducks what anyone thought, so now I wear tops I think are comfortable and just deal with it. It's so surreal that someone would write an entire article telling me where to stuff my junk...now I am sad for society.

posted by Mrs.Pants 31 May | 13:11

You know what's interesting? Of the 37 comments so far in this thread about breasts, 16 of the comments are from men.

Of the 20 comments in the equivalent penis thread, 0 are from women.

I have no idea what it means, or if it means anything, but I think it's really fascinating.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 13:12

My theory: it's only men who are hung up on dicks. Women only really keep us around for opening jars and cleaning gutters.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 13:14

I want to be clear that obviously that article is a piece of shit, and I only posted it to be funny, and that mgl and occhiblu are spot-on.

posted by Specklet 31 May | 13:15

"I have legs, too, and lots of men like to look at them. Should I assume that being looked at is their primary function?"

YES! Male gaze teleology!

posted by klangklangston 31 May | 13:16

Well, there is the fact that this thread was first, so the second thread come across as more gender-segregated than the first... I'm not sure that makes sense. I mean that the first thread is going to seem co-ed by implication, since most threads around here are gender-neutral, whereas the second one, since it was established in opposition to this one, suddenly genders both threads.

I haven't had lunch yet and have apparently lost my post-coffee articulateness.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 13:16

My theory: it's only men who are hung up on dicks.

And occasionally hats, jackets, and sweaters.

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 31 May | 13:19

since it was established in opposition to this one, suddenly genders both threads.

occhi, I was just bored and wanted something to talk about and had nothing to contribute here is all.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 13:20

the equivalent penis thread and genders both threads crack me up for some reason. (It may be just because I got my dog high this morning though.)

Remember to spay or neuter your thread.

posted by danostuporstar 31 May | 13:23

occhi, I was just bored and wanted something to talk about and had nothing to contribute here is all.

I don't think it was a dig, jon. I think just an attempt at an explanation for pup's observation.

Anyway, sign me on for sweater puppies. That always cracks me up.

posted by gaspode 31 May | 13:28

Heh. I was just in the kitchen thinking, "Did I really just use 'gender' as a verb in a thread about sweater puppies?"

jon, I didn't mean to imply you did something negative, just meant it as an observation about why the gender split may have arisen with the second thread.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 13:28

≡ Click to see image ≡

What? You thought I was going to show the cleavage?

Right on to MGL and occhiblu's comments.

I don't think about my breasts too much. They've been useful for feeding my children. I am self-conscious if too much is on display though. Especially in the daytime. I don't know why. Maybe because my mother has said big boobs are "disgusting". Even though, she said it in the nicest, almost kidding way, I think a lot of people are ashamed of their breasts. I've found that a lot of people deem them only as sexual objects. Even women, unfortunately. These same women think nursing in public is disgusting.

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 13:29

Gender the thread! Queer the thread! Spill its blood!

I *really* need lunch to be ready....

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 13:30

jon, I didn't mean to imply you did something negative,

I know. I'm just at the point in life where I assume I did something wrong and like to apologize in advance.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 13:32

I tried to get the other gender involved in the equivalent penis thread. Name-away, ladies!

posted by Hellbient 31 May | 13:32

I know. I'm just at the point in life where I assume I did something wrong and like to apologize in advance.

I'm constantly apologizing. Once I was changing a rather painful dressing on a patient. I said sorry a few times. He commanded, "Stop saying you're sorry!" Of course, I then said, "I'm sorrry."

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 13:57

Nah, Lori, I've just come to the conclusion that being a fuckup is my function in life, so I figure I might as well get comfortable with it.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 14:02

What? You thought I was going to show the cleavage?

Well, yeah. Either that or a picture of every man, woman, and child in Disney World looking at your breasts.

posted by danostuporstar 31 May | 14:03

jonmc, you are not a fuckup. It is not your function in life. Are you kidding me? I would kill to be as intelligent and witty as you are. You're a good person with a very good brain. You're only 35, right? You have a lot of life ahead of you. I'm sorry if I'm sounding corny, but you're not a fuckup. You remind me of myself in some ways. Don't have such a defeatist attitude. What good is that?

dano, I hope I didn't sound show-off-y. There was quite a lot of cleavage to that shirt, and I did feel a little uncomfortable with it on. Especially at wholesome Disney.

/my last derail

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 14:15

*rerails derail*
Of course, you didn't sound show-off-y. I hope I didn't imply you did.

posted by danostuporstar 31 May | 14:29

no dano, you didn't. I guess that's my paranoid, apologizing personality coming out. :)

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 14:32

(Lori, thanks, but I really am a fuckup, honestly. My biggest acheivement in the past year was losing a McJob on purpose. and I'm more or less Ok with it all.)

posted by jonmc 31 May | 14:33

Well, as long as you're OK with your fuckupishness. We're all fuckupped in our own ways. Embrace the fuckyuppiness.

posted by LoriFLA 31 May | 14:41

Also: embrace the sweater puppies.

posted by Specklet 31 May | 15:09

yeah, don't sell him short Lori, jon's a tremendous fuckup.

posted by Hellbient 31 May | 15:15

Also: embrace the sweater puppies

Okay! Whose? Yours? When would be a convenient time for me to pop over? If that's okay, that is.

posted by TheDonF 31 May | 15:36

nah, hellbient, I'm a garden-variety fuckup. I believe in mediocrity, even in mediocrity. I'm hardcore.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 15:42

Don, they're booked up until September, can you wait that long?

posted by Specklet 31 May | 15:56

Specklet: you're on! I'll see you in September! Seriously! I'll be there to embrace your sweater puppies! *wonders where Specklet lives, figures the USA can't be that big a place, will take his chances*

posted by TheDonF 31 May | 16:03

Maine. I live in Maine.

posted by Specklet 31 May | 16:08

When girls refer to their breasts as "the girls" it squicks me out to no end. Don't do it, ladies. Just don't.
Mrs. Pants, "the ladies" is fine because I think its funny and you seem to use it for its substantial humor-factor.

LoriFLA: I'm so glad I'm not the only person who uses the phrase "nice boob shirt." That made my day. And from what I can garner from the picture you posted, you are dressed very appropriately, ESPECIALLY when compared to some of the fashion/decency atrocities I've seen at Disney. Just because something you wear is flattering doesn't mean you have to change.

I'm sorry, but FUCK HER. Why do I have to change the shape of my body to keep men comfortable in the workplace? That's completely insane. You know, I'm uncomfortable with men with a beer gut - they should go out and get girdles to make me happier.

On the one hand, I think its silly to ignore the social impact that breasts have. Everyone makes judgements based on appearance. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in some regards. On the other hand, just because someone might view you as being less "professional," according to this survey, doesn't mean you have to change anything about yourself. On a third hand that I found buried in the yard, I agree; beer guts are no good and should be dealt with accordingly.

Cleavage is something you can employ to your advantage in a competitive work environment or on the dating scene, as are good looks, a good sense of humor, a sharp wit, and many other positive characteristics one may have.

I love cleavage. It's terrific. But I hate it too. Because you ladies have no idea how hard it is to carry on a conversation while making constant reminders to yourself to "focus on the face, focus on the face, do NOT look down..." because it's an even greater hassle to try and carry on a conversation while wondering "Oh god, did I just have a horrible case of elevator eyes*? Did she notice? Crap, now she thinks I'm only talking to her because she's hot, and my chances are thus ruined."

*Y'know. Like, "Face, quick nanosecond glance to chest and immediately back up to face... repeat." This primarily done subconciously and as such can be a real pain to coach yourself out of doing.

posted by CitrusFreak12 31 May | 16:12

Maine it is, then. Hang on, I thought you lived in Oregon? You're not pulling some kind of Portland switcheroo on me are you?

posted by TheDonF 31 May | 16:18

Because you ladies have no idea how hard it is to carry on a conversation while making constant reminders to yourself to "focus on the face, focus on the face, do NOT look down..."

Yes, but I think the point is, that's *your* problem, not mine. It becomes my problem when you have more power than I do, but your being unable to concentrate is not fundamentally my problem. And that's why these stupid articles, and the attitudes behind them, are annoying and fucked up. They act like women are a problem for existing at all, and so it's our duty to do a ton of work and spend a ton of money making ourselves as unnoticeable and unobjectionable as possible... because after all, it's our fault for being a distraction in the first place.

Talking to a guy who's looking at my tits is distracting, and makes it hard to get anything done. So why shouldn't men be forced to wear blinders, or those big plastic cone-shaped collars they put on dogs to keep them from licking themselves?

Because we've decided the problem is women's bodies rather than men's actions. Our cultural story claims that men have no control over their actions, so women must control their bodies.

Given that bodies are biological realities and actions are, assuming free will, consciously chosen and controllable, the focus here seems a little fucked up.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 16:25

So why shouldn't men be forced to wear blinders, or those big plastic cone-shaped collars they put on dogs to keep them from licking themselves?

Ah ha ha haaaaa! Yes!

Portland switcheroo, hee hee!

posted by Specklet 31 May | 16:30

Portland switcheroo? I thought that was illegal.

posted by box 31 May | 16:36

Because we've decided the problem is women's bodies rather than men's actions. Our cultural story claims that men have no control over their actions, so women must control their bodies.

I predict the "boys will be boys" brigade will be entering just about now....

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 16:37

Yes, but I think the point is, that's *your* problem, not mine.

Yeah, but we do get massively mixed signals from culture at large on that score.I remember seeing a young girl wearing a skintight camo t-shirt with "Weapons Of Mass Seduction" emblazoned across the boobs, and barrages of women parading around in clothes designed to flaunt what we're nor supposed to be looking at. I'm not saying it makes gawking alright, but maybe you can see that it's all a bit confusing.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 16:48

Well, the world's a confusing place. That doesn't mean that anyone gets a pass on doing what's right.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 16:50

Occhi, come on...that's seems like a convenient dismissal of what I'm trying to say. We're getting 'Look at Me! Look at Me!" and "Why are you looking at me, pervert?" at the same time. And glibly dismissing the impact of those cultural signals is kind of...well, glibly dismissive.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 16:54

EVERYONE gets mixed messages. Why do you think those girls are WEARING those shirts IN THE FIRST PLACE???? Because they've been told that no one gives a shit about them unless they're sexy, that they have NO FUCKING PURPOSE ON THIS PLANET unless a guy wants to fuck them.

I'm SORRY if their being fucked over in the head makes it INCONVENIENT for anyone to remember that they're human beings, and to treat them as such, but being inconvenienced does not excuse buying into a fucked-up system.

Again, free will. We can choose to do what's right rather than what's easy.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 16:57

hm. I'm going to go middle of the ground here. Because the free will argument does rub both ways, societal stuff notwithstanding. (I mean, the women freely chose to wear that).

posted by gaspode 31 May | 17:02

Occhiblu: I'm not sure if you're responding TO my comment or just using my comment as a stepping stone to your larger complaint. In case of the former: I was just describing an aspect of the love-hate relationship that I have with cleavage. I wasn't trying to say that it was *anyones* *problem* *.*

I'm all for freedom of ~~speech~~ wearing whatever the hell you want, and I certainly wouldn't blame a woman for my own foibles. I have a similar problem when talking to girls who I think have particularly attractive faces. I struggle to uphold my end of the conversation while simultaneously holding one with myself that goes something like "Don't stare, alright? Remember to blink. Andrew. Hello. Can you hear me? You're drooling dude. Oh shit, did she just ask a question? I think she did, and now she's waiting for a response... Say something!" at which point I usually yell "banana-hammock!" a la Scrubs, and walk away, dejected. It would be equally ridiculous in this situation to blame someone for something, other than "me" for "pseudo-comedic inneptness in casual dealings with the fairer sex."

And on preview, what jonmc said. It's confusing, and can be troublesome to deal with, but hey, I'm not complaining.

I predict the "boys will be boys" brigade will be entering just about now....

If we were to ignore all prior history, ignore all the effects that religion had on morality and thus had on women's bodies and the viewing thereof, I think you would find that it's more along the lines of "people will be people."

Women oggle men. Men oggle women. The problem arose when people got all puritanical and decided "this is something that people/women should be ashamed of and as such you should cover it up."

Another difference I think is that, as stated, there is no male equivalent to cleavage/breasts. So when women oggle men, it's usually in a more generalized way (ie, "so and so is very attractive") rather than a specific area ("she has an amazing chest"). Both sexes can appreciate a fine ass, however, and I think we should break bread over this wonderful ability we share.

*note: I realize I'm completely ignoring the thoughts of my homosexual peeps, but that's honestly because I'm totally ignorant of how the thought process works when it comes to oggling. Do gay women appreciate breasts as much as straight men?

Because they've been told that no one gives a shit about them unless they're sexy, that they have NO FUCKING PURPOSE ON THIS PLANET unless a guy wants to fuck them.

I'm SORRY if their being fucked over in the head makes it INCONVENIENT for anyone to remember that they're human beings, and to treat them as such, but being inconvenienced does not excuse buying into a fucked-up system.

Wow.

Being comfortable with your body and dressing to compliment what others view as an attractive physique = thinking that you're nothing but a sexual object to be possessed and you're also "fucked over in the head?"

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one.

posted by CitrusFreak12 31 May | 17:05

occhi: I took a couple of deep breaths, before responding to that last comment of yours, which quite frankly I found incredibly condescending and insulting. I wasn't denying the truth of anything you might have said, merely stating one factor that's involved these days. Sorry if that inconveniences you.

Now, I'm gonna go hang out with Pips and Hugh and celebrate his birthday.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 17:07

"Weapons of mass seduction" does not imply "dressing to compliment what others view as an attractive physique."

And yes, Citrus, I was working from your comment, not really directly addressing you. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 17:07

Because the free will argument does rub both ways, societal stuff notwithstanding. (I mean, the women freely chose to wear that).

Right, and you can choose to buy into a system that says you're therefore allowed to judge them or to drool all over them, or you can choose to not to engage with them in that way. People do all sorts of things I disagree with, and they might do it for all sorts of decent reasons. That doesn't mean I need to abandon my sense of what's right and what's wrong when interacting with them.

posted by occhiblu 31 May | 17:11

Do gay women appreciate breasts as much as straight men?

Yes, and possibly even more so. The difference is we don't stare.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from that.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 17:12

OK: women are magical wonderful creatures, and men are veil beasts. happy?

posted by jonmc 31 May | 17:17

Oh sure, you know I agree with you, occhiblu. But all jon said was that it was difficult. I don't think he was trying to justify anything.

Look! Over there! Sweater-puppies! woof

/attempt to distract the thread

posted by gaspode 31 May | 17:17

I think we have a case of miscommunication here. Here's how I think it went down, and feel free to tell me to can it if I'm far off the mark:

Jonmc used the "weaponds of mass seduction" shirt as an example "women dressing in a sexual way."

Occhiblue responds specifically to the detail of said shirt with slogan, attributing it (correctly, in my opinion) to a fairly large fuckup of society (ie, convincing young women that they are sexual objects and not much else. Paris Hilton and her ilk for example).

Jonmc (and myself) misinterprets occhiblu's ALL CAPS bit as "women who dress in an attractive/sexual fashion are fucked up in the head and it's all your fault you oppresive male bastards" (obviously I'm using artistic license with my paraphrasing for the sake of illustration), causing occhiblu's comments to appear to be a wild overreaction.

Is that about right?

And on preview: Teach me the secret, oh wise one. ::prostrates self at the feet of the wise mudpuppie::

posted by CitrusFreak12 31 May | 17:17

*sigh*

posted by Specklet 31 May | 17:25

It's just a matter of common courtesy, CitrusFreak12. Nothing more. I'm attracted to women, as I assume you are. But being one, I also know that it's a really uncomfortable feeling to be visually disassembled into your constituent parts. Maybe that makes me act differently, because I know what it feels like.

Jon -- don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say men were "veil" beasts, or even vile ones. All I'm saying is that it is quite possible to appreciate the way someone looks without making an object out of them. I don't really feel the mixed messages the same way you do, and maybe it's not possible for me to. I see lots of girls running around here in their little spaghetti-string tops with their boobs hanging out. I notice, yeah, but it doesn't feel (to me) that they're inviting -- or even giving me permission -- to ogle. So I don't. And that feels like the right thing to do, for me.

Maybe that's just a personal thing. I'm not saying all men are one way and all women are another. To argue that would be disingenuous. But it's also kind of ungenuous to imply that men can't help but stare because dammit, these women wear provocative T-shirts. I know for a fact that's false. *shrugs*

Anyway, I'm not trying to fan the flames. And I stand by my earlier statment that the "lesbian gaze" is quite a bit less pointed than the typical "male gaze," thought it's possible that straight women here would feel differently.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 17:28

Maybe that makes me act differently, because I know what it feels like.

Well I think that makes both of us on the same page; you don't do it because you know first hand how it feels uncomfortable to be "visually disassembled," I don't do it because I've been told that it is quite uncomfortable to be "visually disassembled," only I don't know from firsthand experience, and we both don't do it out of common courtesy. Go team!

But it's also kind of ungenuous to imply that men can't help but stare because dammit, these women wear provocative T-shirts.

Well, we can help it. I don't think anyone is saying we can't help it. I can help it because I actively concentrate on not doing it. What I was saying, and what I think Jon was saying, is that it's damn hard and damn confusing at times. The women certainly aren't "at fault" for wearing those shirts ("with their boobs hanging out"), and the men certainly aren't "at fault" for being attracted to it.

The problem is that there is a stigma (as evidenced by this thread) about breasts and how to "deal" with them. If I see a girl and she has an extremely pretty face, I can get away with looking at that face, especially if I'm engaging in conversation with her. You can look all you want, drink it all in. However, if has an attractive chest-al region as well, it is a big no no for me to actively engage in looking at it. Why? Because that's our society. That's our culture. Western society has this whole big hubub over women's bodies and likewise/especially breasts. If it weren't a big deal, then this wouldn't be either. Breasts are taboo.

I want to ask the women here what the difference between a man looking at your face because he finds it attractive and a man looking at your chest because he finds it attractive is. Seriously. What is the difference? Answers of "well because one is your face and the other are your boobs!" do not count.

Because I think both can be equally attractive. Looking at one is ignored, while looking at the other is met with scorn and disapproval. So yeah. Like Jon said: it's all a bit confusing.

posted by CitrusFreak12 31 May | 17:51

I... nevermind.

posted by Specklet 31 May | 17:55

Because when guys are looking at your face, you can pretend they're doing it because that's where people usually look when you're having conversations. Faces relay a lot of sophisticated communications. Breasts- well, not so much.

I'm not seeing the confusing part- it's just societal norms. You have to judge whether the norm is acceptable to break in each particular situation. I usually go with "better safe than sorry" and don't break them, unless I'm trying to make a point.

That said- I disagree with you, occhiblu, (sorry). I might agree with you if you'd posted in a different conversation, but your comments don't seem to apply to this one.

posted by small_ruminant 31 May | 18:05

Right, Specklet, I've done some research and apparently you don't live in Maine. Your dastardly plan to distract me from embracing your sweater puppies has been foiled. So, see you in September in Oregon, yes?

posted by TheDonF 31 May | 18:14

*winks at Don*

posted by Specklet 31 May | 18:20

it's just societal norms

I should clarify: That's essentially what I'm asking here. Why is that the norm? Culturally/socially, for us, it makes sense to not stare at a woman's cleavage.

In another culture? Probably not so much emphasis or importance placed on breasts, so looking at them wouldn't be a big deal (but by the same token, not many people would be looking at them if there wasn't much emphasis or importance placed upon them, right?).

What I mean by "confusing" is that nature says yes, nurture says no. Conflicting interests. It sucks. My brain wants to look, but my brain also says "dude in your society looking at a woman's breasts is a no-go. Don't do it." And yes, my brain calls me dude.

I usually go with "better safe than sorry" and don't break them

Agreed.

I might agree with you if you'd posted in a different conversation, but your comments don't seem to apply to this one.

That's what I was trying to address when I talked about the miscommunications bit. I think I get what she was saying. Unless I'm mistaken.

posted by CitrusFreak12 31 May | 18:20

Looking at people's faces is, in fact, what people do during conversations. If the person's face is aesthetically pleasing, bonus!

In the unlikely event that I ever show up somewhere in a shirt that specifically says LOOK AT MY BOOBS, or reasonable facsimile, presumably I'd be inviting you all to look at my boobs. No problem. If it ever happens, hey, go right ahead.

Obviously there's a continuum, but it's probably worth pointing out is that a little cleavage, or a top that isn't baggy, doesn't constitute a LOOK AT MY BOOBS t-shirt.

I acknowledge that this is a hot topic for me. I'm 5'1" and a generous D-cup. Most ordinary clothes are made for people several inches taller. I like v-necks and squarenecks and things that don't bunch up around my throat. But unless I'm wearing a turtleneck, there will probably be cleavage.

I spent several years as a self-conscious sysadmin worrying about this sort of thing to the point of wearing Size Huge vendor sweatshirts around the refrigerated machine room, because god forbid one of the guys should be troubled by an overenthusiastic nipple. I'm through with that. As occhiblu said, if anyone's distracted by my body parts, that's not my problem; they'll just have to deal with it the best they can.

To their credit, they generally do.

posted by tangerine 31 May | 18:29

I liked breastfeeding the babe.

And, I like the word 'panties' but not as well as 'knickers.' 'Knickers in a twist' is funnier than 'panties in a twist' but both expressions tickle me.

In college, some guy would steal women's panties, which sucks because nice underwear is not cheap, and also the creep factor. He was referred to as PantyMan, and was never caught.

As a term, I don't care about 'the girls' one way or the other, but I hate to be called 'lady' or 'ladies,' when part of a group. I'm a wymyn, damnitall!

Can we discuss toe cleavage sometime, cause that's a great term.

posted by theora55 31 May | 18:33

Specklet: I'll take that as a 'yes', then! Oregonist sweater puppies here I come!

posted by TheDonF 31 May | 18:34

Why is that the norm? Culturally/socially, for us, it makes sense to not stare at a woman's cleavage....

What I mean by "confusing" is that nature says yes, nurture says no. Conflicting interests. It sucks. My brain wants to look, but my brain also says "dude in your society looking at a woman's breasts is a no-go. Don't do it."

It's a tough question, CF, and there are volumes and volumes of feminist lit on the subject. Some are sensible and some are shrill. To my knowledge, no one has ever answered the question in 25 words or less.

All I can offer is a quick turn of the tables.

What if your johnson were more apparent through your clothes, like women's breasts are? And what if some girl came along and found it hot, couldn't stop staring at it while you tried to talk to her? You'd probably find yourself crossing your legs and covering your crotch with your hands, and you'd probably find yourself feeling really uncomfortable. And not because her intent was negative -- let's say she really found you attractive. But you'd still find yourself wondering what she was thinking, if she was noticing your shortfalls, if she was comparing you to the guy she saw in Playgirl last week. You'd feel self-conscious and probably a little inadeqate.

So it's not really about societal norms. You don't have to deal with that situation very often. But women are faced with it much more constantly. I mean, come on, give me one logical explanation for why a woman in a bikini means a car is of the highest quality. It's everywhere.

Do you see what I mean?

I actually had a really coherent argument when I came in here, but now I've gotten all carried away thinking about your junk, and my mind's gone all gooey. Can't stop drooling.

See? It's silly.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 21:36

".. Can we discuss toe cleavage sometime, cause that's a great term."
posted by theora55 31 May | 18:33

Are we talking camel toes here? 'Cause I think that takes this thread down to new levels...

posted by paulsc 31 May | 21:52

*Y'know. Like, "Face, quick nanosecond glance to chest and immediately back up to face... repeat." This primarily done subconciously and as such can be a real pain to coach yourself out of doing.
This is why sunglasses were invented isn't it?.

What if your johnson were more apparent through your clothes, like women's breasts are? And what if some girl came along and found it hot, couldn't stop staring at it while you tried to talk to her?
I'm getting horny just thinking about the idea. See, you're ignoring one simple thing - men (most,anyway) like to be thought of as sex objects by attractive women. I mean, we like to be thought of as strong, dependable, caring and all that other stuff too but, if sex object is all we can get, we'll take it. Women are much more complex, multifaceted creatures and I love every one of them.

especially if I can catch a glimpse or two of "the girls" ;-)

posted by dg 01 June | 02:37

So we're having a big argument over who's at fault for boob-staring, right? Women for wearing clothes that either don't hide or actually emphasize their boobs, or men for looking?

If women are at fault, their options (if they don't want men staring at their boobs) are

1) to wear oversized, shapeless clothes for almost total protection

2) avoid anything that shows cleavage or is formfitting, or thin fabrics (and probably anything sleeveless) for pretty good protection. Unless they are more than normally endowed, in which case, go back to "1", or proceed to...

3) stay in the house

Some societies have basically codified "1" and sometimes "3" to take care of this problem.

If men are to blame for looking, they can

1) stay in the house (almost total protection, if we don't count electronic media)

2) not stare (for very good protection). They can try to use the same techniques that generally keep us from staring at a deformity or birthmark on another person. We all do that, right? We don't stare at the amputee's stump the entire time we're speaking to him/her. Right?

3) glance (not nonstop serial glances). Only for the adept. This offers pretty good protection, as this is the technique most women use when checking out a guy, so they're not likely to feel angry/uncomfortable/objectified if someone glances once or twice.

I'll leave it to you folks to sort out which of these solutions are best.

posted by taz 01 June | 04:44

Or the reasonable one, a combination of both. Nuance in looking, nuance in reacting. Sensitivity and grace. And less finger-pointing, less telling others what to do. It makes people sound stupid, and by stupid, I mean dumb.

From Cloud-Cuckoo Land, this is Wes Jamaica; so long, anger. Hello, tropical fruit!

posted by Hugh Janus 01 June | 08:22

Mudpuppie: That happens to me all the time. 8-)
No but seriously, yeah, I get what you're saying. Uncomfortable city. In our culture. I know that it's a no no. But if you were to, I don't know, go down and hang out with the Yekwana indians, their women don't wear shirts. It's not a big deal. If you were to look at them, they would not get all freaked out by that. It would be no more different than looking at their face, or an arm. After all, they aren't really a sexual organ. They're not "genitals." They're meant to feed infants. So why the big deal? I'm not asking that to imply that it isn't a big deal (in our culture), just really wondering: why is it? I think it would be interesting to learn about that.

So yeah, it really is a societal/cultural issue, no a panhuman reaction inherent in all societies. You and I would freak out about that because thats what our society has deemed "the norm."

dg: Sunglasses! How I love them. The problem there is eye strain, while trying not to move your head. For Better or For Worse covered that in a strip once, it was hilarious.

Taz: "So we're having a big argument over who's at fault for boob-staring, right? Women for wearing clothes that either don't hide or actually emphasize their boobs, or men for looking?"

I didn't think we were. I went with the opinion that no one is "at fault" for it. It's just something that comes naturally to men that they must learn to avoid doing (and as such it sucks, but what can you do?). I also happen to think that men's fascination with breasts in western society is fascinating in its own right.

posted by CitrusFreak12 01 June | 09:28

You know ... I just get weary of seeing these kinds of threads (basically any "women's issues" stuff) go down the same old path every single time. It makes me feel impatient and snarky, and I guess it makes a bunch of other people feel that way, too, on both sides.

To be less snarkful, I will say this: On the breast thing (breast thing? something-something? PROFIT!), it can be very stressful, or maybe just mildly distressing, as a woman. Me, for example... I'm naturally modest (physically, anyway - not so much, otherwise), and summer is always miserable for me... because: when I'm out, I can either wear light tops, with a bra, because I don't want to be provocative - and then the whole point of the light top is basically moot with the layered, heat-trapping effect going on with the bra. Or I can wear heavier fabrics, and no bra (as long as they are the right weight and stiffness to hide the "jiggle effect"), in which case, I'm still hot, because I'm wearing some heavy, stiff non-summery fabric.

Yes, I should just get over it, and wear things that don't make me feel physically miserable. But then I feel mentally miserably when guys stare, and - of course - wtf did I expect, going out dressed like that? You see?

I wish I were less sensitive, less observant, less ... everything about that kind of thing, but I'm not. Right now I'm wearing one of my husband's nice, big, cotton shirts, because it's tent-y, and I can go to the store, or answer my door, or whatever, in it, without a bra, yet without being Chesty McBoobs. If I go out, I bite the bullet (in terms of heat) and put on a bra and a blouse that is less wino-on-the-corner-looking. It really is frustrating, and I often ( -every summer!) feel like what carmina expressed here.

posted by taz 01 June | 10:06

Yeah taz.

Maybe someone pointed this out - I'm not sure. And I'm probably just opening up a whole other can of worms, but hey, I'm not usually an argumentative one around here :)

But!

There is a very big difference to being ogled because you're wearing a regular summery top, singlet top whatever to be comfortable and being ogled because you're going out wearing a low cut obviously provocatively sexy something with sequins across the boobs designed to draw one's attention there.

And my interpretation of what jon originally said, because I don't think he was saying anything particularly outrageous, was that hello! it's hard (but one should) avoid ogling in the first instance, because you have women going around wearing the second instance and you're having to make judgement calls - "is this ok? is this OK?". And it usually isn't - and I agree with the people who say default to not ogling, it's only polite. Of course.

And yes, the whole point that occhi made about society's valuing women only as sex objects is valid and important.

But it ignores the fact that plenty of women, women like me, like to show off their boobs/cleavage sometimes. We want to be looked at. Not all of us are modest. (actually, not so much now, more when I was enjoying having sex with a variety of different men, but that's by the by). Now should I stop displaying my body, and enjoying having people look at it because I'm promoting behavior that makes other women uncomfortable? Some people may argue yes, but I'm not going to.

Context is all. And that's hard. But so are plenty of things.

posted by gaspode 01 June | 10:43

You know ... I just get weary of seeing these kinds of threads (basically any "women's issues" stuff) go down the same old path every single time. It makes me feel impatient and snarky, and I guess it makes a bunch of other people feel that way, too, on both sides.

It doesn't make me feel impatient and snarky as much as it makes me feel disgusted and hopeless. By most any standard, this is a civil, intelligent, well-meaning and fairly homogenous group. If we can't help but do the same old dance to the same old music, who will reassure me that there's some hope for the rest of the world?

posted by box 01 June | 10:44

I love you, 'pode. That's exactly what I wanted to say.

posted by jrossi4r 01 June | 11:05

Everybody's different, and has a different approach, for a different reason. Take me, for example. Sex is a trap, and I engage in friendships with people that aren't fraught with sexuality because I'm not interested in the power play that follows sex, I don't want anyone's claws in me, and I don't particularly want my semen in anyone right now. I wouldn't mind falling in love, but it won't be because the sex was great. So maybe I'll be alone for a long time; big deal. Being hit on, hitting on others, having still others tell me to hit on others, listening to others talk about hitting on further others; it's all pretty tiresome and not my bag.

I don't look at women's breasts because they either don't want me to, or they do want me to. Either way, if I don't look, I win. I gain a friend who values my lack of sexual interest in them, or one who discovers that the rutting instinct -- which has governed so many of their possible friendships and turned them into "relationships" where both players just tumbled around with claws sunk deep into one another's genitals -- that rutting instinct can be ignored by humans in favor of an exchange of ideas, or friendliness, or trust. I don't like when someone has a full sentence on their t-shirt, and I read it, and when I look up, they're mad at me for looking there. It's an embarrassing trap, and an unkind way to treat others. I'm a compulsive reader, not a compulsive ogler.

We're not fucking animals (except during the occasional bonobo cruise), and we're all in this together, but people like to take sides, as if the capacity and willingness to harm others is monopolized by either sex. It's a stupid distinction. If you want to fight the individual who offends you, in whatever way, do it, in whatever way. Fighting the world means you're mostly offending people who don't know or care about you. If they're smart, they'll ignore you. That's model behavior.

posted by Hugh Janus 01 June | 11:13

Wait, gaspode... do you think that I don't want any women to show cleavage or wear anything revealing at all? I totally don't feel this way!

I would actually love to be more comfortable wearing slightly sassy things, or lighter, slinkier things, and I love to see other women wearing light, pretty things. But the issue of whether or not this is a de facto invitation for guys to stare, make comments, come on to you, etc., is a problem. Which sort of inspired my earlier (snarkier) comment. Who's problem is it?

The linked article suggests that it's the woman's problem; others here have said, no, it's the man's problem. Hugh, and some others are saying it's everyone's problem, and not so easily outlined.

Well, this is true, but it doesn't mean that I can just wear what's comfortable for me, because society doesn't work in such a nuanced way. It basically takes a lot of people being really rebellious and persistent to change those kinds of mores. For every step forward in human rights, generally, there was always a period of people freaking out about the outrageous behaviors/opinions of a handful of really persistent people saying, "hey, this fucking sucks, and we aren't going to put up with it."

posted by taz 01 June | 11:29

I don't know how this anecdote is relevant, or even if it is, but I thought I'd throw it out there just for the added perspective.

I'm not a buxom person. Not bosomy, chesty, stacked, built, or anything like that. And I'm fine with it. (Though 5th grade PE was really, really harsh.)

This generally, but not always, leaves me exempt from ogling and cat-calling and the like.

But a couple weeks ago, I was in the local corner store buying beer. There was a guy in line behind me, and then another drunken bubba came in and got in line behind him. The drunk guy started a conversation with the other guy. He was generally just being loud-mouthed and idiotic, and I tuned a lot of it out. But then I heard him saying, loudly, "I just want to go up to her and say 'Hey, can I rub some lotion on those mosquito bites for you?'" And it was clear that they were talking about -- and laughing at -- me. The dude was 5 feet away from me, and he felt like he could say that about me -- not even to me. I was that much of a person to him.

It pissed me off so much that I didn't say anything, knowing it was better to keep my mouth shut. (And also knowing that if I turned around, they wouldn't be looking me in the eye.)

So I left and fumed about it for a while, knowing that they were the idiots and that I did absolutely nothing to invite or deserve the comments.

Again, I don't know how it's relevant. I think it's clear from what a lot of people here have said that this is a touchy issue. I don't believe anyone on Metachat would ever be such an asshole as to act like that toward a stranger. I really don't.

But this stuff is loaded (for everyone, obviously). I thought this conversation had gone pretty well, pretty civilly, but I guess not everyone feels that way.

I guess people get tired of seeing these debates here, but I don't. Yeah, they do tend to bring out the same people on the same sides of the issue, but I really believe that in some minor way, every time it comes up, we all learn something from each other.

No one camp is ever going to capture the flag and convert the folks on the other side -- and that's not the point. But hopefully, by hashing it out, we can at least discover what our common ground is. And again, learn something from each other in the process.

Anyway. My flat chest and I should probably get to work.

posted by mudpuppie 01 June | 11:50

I certainly didn't mean to imply that women shouldn't wear what they want, or that wearing clothes that make you feel good is damaging to the sisterhood. They should, and it's not.

Jon's "weapons of mass seduction" tank-top comment seemed to me to read one of three ways (or some combo thereof):

1. It's sometimes hard not to look at women's tits.

2. Women sometimes dress in ways in which men get confused about whether it's right to look at women's breasts.

3. Women's free will in dressing means that men get mixed messages about whether it's ok to sexually objectify women.

I figured #1 was the least inflammatory meaning, so I responded to that. Jon said that my response was glibly dismissive, so I was left assuming that he had actually meant to convey one of the other messages.

And, I mean ... what? What response does anyone want to "Sometimes it's hard not to look look at women's tits when they dress a certain way, and oh, by the way, women send mixed messages" if "Yeah, it's hard, do it anyway" isn't acceptable?

"Yeah, it's ok to use women's appearance to decide whether or not one needs to treat her with the same respect one shows other (unattractive or shapelessly dressed) women"? No, in fact, it's not ok. It may be widely practiced, but if we're talking about what you should do, then no, it's not ok. Which was the entire point of everything I had said in this thread up to that point, so it seemed bizarre to think that point hadn't been covered.

"Yeah, men get a lot of mixed messages"? Well yes, they do. But if you accept that idea, then I fail to see how you don't also accept the idea that women are also getting mixed messages. If women are also getting mixed messages, then making the statement that the way one woman dresses (in a skin-tight camo tank top with the words "Weapons of Mass Seduction" written across her boobs, no less) is somehow a message from all women, or one that muddies the waters about how all women want to be treated enough that she makes you question your policy of not staring at any woman's tits, makes no logical sense. "I as an individual get confused about what's proper conduct because society sends me mixed messages, but that individual is obviously tapped into some great sisterhood-of-truth that makes her actions more deliberate, thought out, and intentional than my own" ... why?

We're all confused. There is no cabal. Women don't all consult one another in the morning before getting dressed in order to determine how best to confuse the male half of the species. We're all making the best choices we can, and some of those choices end up sucking, but we still have an ethical obligation to do what we think is right, not what we think is easy, regardless of the provocation.

Which is why I said, Well, the world's a confusing place. That doesn't mean that anyone gets a pass on doing what's right.

While I do stand by my general frustration and annoyance with being goaded into spending time arguing a point that I didn't think was worth it, I do apologize for my tone upon being goaded. There was more hyperbole intended there than came across (which is something I've noticed about a fair number of my comments that tend to piss people off, and I'll try to do better about wording them better or adding smiley faces or something, because most of you don't know me face to face and can't hear the "I'm on a hyperbolic rant with much waving of hands, but I'm still smiling and making silly faces" tone I tend to use with friends), but it was still doing what was easy rather than what was right.

posted by occhiblu 01 June | 11:51

Some years ago, back when Ally McBeal was a popular show in some quarters, I had a job interview with an HR employee who was wearing an Ally McBeal type short, short skirt. She was a very friendly young woman who insisted that we sit directly across from each other (no desk to add formality - or cover - between us). She then proceeded to sit in exactly the manner exposing the most flesh (yes flesh - no stockings). It didn't help that she had gorgeous long legs. I noticed all of these details, by-the-way, in fractions of seconds with peripheral vision only. Because I spent the entire half hour with my eyes glued to her eyes. When I left, I literally had developed a migraine from the strain of keeping my eyes obsessively focussed in one spot and Never. Ever. Looking. Down. I also got the job. Which is why I can tell you that the woman in question turned out to be one of the sweetest individuals I've ever worked with. I'm quite certain she had no idea of the... display on hand, or the... difficulty it put me in.

No - there's no lesson here, really. It was just a human interaction that seems to fit the subject at hand, somehow. Another data point. People are work, even when nobody's really in the wrong (or right). Maybe especially when nobody's really in the wrong. Honesty and respect take effort. Which is also one of the reasons I like this place so much.

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 01 June | 12:36

occhi:

First, of all, I'm a grown man and a happily married man, and while I definitely appreciate a pretty woman, I don't go around leering and hooting and pinching. Just so you know.

Secondly, the t-shirt was meant as an example of a larger societal trend that on one hand bombards young men with 'look at the hot girls! look at the hot girls!' and on the other hand says 'if you look at the hot girls, you're a filthy sexist pervert!' which to a young man who's probably already baffled by life in general seems to give him a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you don't situation which makes many people throw up their hands and say to hell with it.* It was not offered as an excuse for sexist behavior, merely an observation on how all this crap effects everybody. You're response to what I said seemed to be 'well, tough shit!' which is what got my hackles up.

Plus the implication that the only reason a girl would want to dress that way is because she's 'fucked in the head,' I found kind of presumptuous and insulting. I'm a fully grown man who realizes that his self worth involves far more than his looks, but on the occasions where I've gotten positive attention for my looks (from women and even from men) I got a big charge out of it. It's not inconcievable that a young (this girl was maybe 21) woman might enjoy that charge, too. and it was a Friday, maybe she was going out clubbing or something and looking for...that kind of fun.

anyways, I'm rambling and I sincerely doubt whether you'll take anything I say seriously, but I figured I'd put in my two cents.

*also I remember a MeFi thread where several 40+ women were complaining that it's sexist that men don't ogle or flirt with older women. It's beyond confusing, it almost seems like some people want the world to react exactly how they want, when they want, and the world dosen't work that way.

posted by jonmc 01 June | 14:04

also, 'objectification' is not clearly defined here. if I see a pretty girl and think dirty thoughts, is that objectification? Looking at porn? saying 'wow, she's pretty?'

I'm not even kidding here. In conversations about these issues it often seems that if you're a straight male, no matter what you do, you're the bad guy, and that's what turns me off to a lot of these dicussions or at least gets my hackles up.

posted by jonmc 01 June | 14:17

At the point that your response or action impacts the other person and makes them feel self-conscious, ashamed, guilty, or embarrassed, it's "objectification" or just really fucking bad manners.

Also, I'm 40+ and not complaining that men don't ogle or flirt with me. I get it much less than when I was younger, and I don't mind at all. Probably, what women were talking about there was something other than how many men stare at their boobs.

posted by taz 01 June | 14:36

At the point that your response or action impacts the other person and makes them feel self-conscious, ashamed, guilty, or embarrassed, it's "objectification" or just really fucking bad manners.

Thank you.

posted by jonmc 01 June | 14:40

Oh, god. This doesn't mean that it's okay to have a website rating random, candid snapshots of unsuspecting women, either. (Or the like. This is why I shouldn't be a lawmaker... I always miss the loopholes.)

Not that this is what you were talking about, jon. I just got kinda fearful.

posted by taz 01 June | 14:59

Mudpuppie: Word.
Occhiblu: Word.
It's Raining Florence Henderson: Word (had those types of headaches for those reasons before too. Ouch).
Damnit, Everyone: Word.
/goes over College-Youth Vernacular Quota for the entire month of June

also, 'objectification' is not clearly defined here. if I see a pretty girl and think dirty thoughts, is that objectification? Looking at porn? saying 'wow, she's pretty?'

There is no concrete answer. That's not to say that Taz's answer isn't completely correct, because it is. However, even then there is no concrete answer, because it depends on the person. Two people could interpret the same action from you in entirely different ways. One might take it as a compliment, one might feel rather violated. The best bet is to err on the side of caution and just not say/do it if there is any doubt as to how that person will react. If you know the person, odds are you'll know where the line is drawn.

And I'm glad we seem to have been able to talk this out without major incident and generally with open minds. I had more than my fair share of doubts as to where this thread was headed for a time.

Good game, team.

posted by CitrusFreak12 01 June | 15:03

Word, CitrusFreak.

You've concluded things nicely, and are wise beyond your years. And getting wiser.

That objectification definition that I gave upthread, though? It's not really correct; the term is much more complicated.

Basically, I gave a kind of definition of harassment, and while objectification is necessarily a part of that, the real meaning of the word dwells in many other shadows and serves as the springboard to far worse things.

posted by taz 01 June | 15:33

31 May 2007