I'm not sure I follow your logic there...
I think there are plenty of chaps who would blanche at the thought of a many-porked partner.

I also think that dressing sexily is not necessarily an open invitation to be studied beyond the realms of politeness. It's an invitation to be judged positively, not to be stared at. Consider wearing a particularly horrible garment - three-quarter length trousers on a man, for instance - and being stared at in horror for it for some time rather than just quickly assessed and then left in peace.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:02, 2 replies)

That is different
nobody intentionally puts on a terrible outfit. Also if it's a man the chances are they will be quite happy with the glance/assessment treatment.

Women don't wear eye-poppingly risque outfits to be glanced at. They want to be worshipped! The majority of males unfortunately respond by not knowing where to put their eyes lest being accused of being a pervert!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:09, closed)

I'm glad that you're able to speak for all women, everywhere
But regardless of their motives in dressing sexily*: just as you have every right to stare at them, they have every right to get annoyed at you staring.


*I won't claim to know why every woman dresses sexily, but I have heard many different reasons and they aren't all 'to be worshipped' and I'd imagine such a trend would continue over larger populations.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:19, closed)

I'm glad that you're glad that I speak for all women everywhere
Equally I'm glad that you can speak for me!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:20, closed)

I can't speak for you
Nor would I claim to.

Have I misunderstood something?
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:21, closed)

Obviously!

( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:22, closed)

Err...what?

(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:25, closed)

Gawd
You said you were glad that I can speak for all women everywhere(?)

Inicdentally I was voicing my opinion on women who go out wearing "eye-popping risque outfits", which incidentally, is not all women everywhere.

Furthermore, I don't think my comments were out of place under the topic of "sexism". So erm, go ahead and be glad - this is well and truely off-topic.

*edit* Also, can I ask... Are you a woman?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:28, closed)

I did say I was glad you were able to speak for all women everywhere
on account of you saying that women get dressed up sexily to be worshipped. As in, you knew why women (not just some) do a certain thing.

Have you misunderstood me?

*EDIT* You may, and I am not. Can I ask the same of you?
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:30, closed)

well O.K.
but seeing as the definition of "worship" is the object of adoring reverence or regard, I don't see how you can argue that is not why women wear eye-popping and risque clothing? What are you saying, that they do it for the craic?
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:33, closed)

There's no logical link there
Dressing sexily =/= seeking adoration.

We all make an effort to dress in a reasonably presentable way...does that mean we're all seeking adoration? Or are we just looking nice for our own satisfaction, or to avoid looking horrific, or to be judged as looking good without necessarily wanting further attention, or because that's accepted cultural norms?

I'm not saying that no women don't dress in certain ways to get the reaction we're talking about, but I really don't think that's the only reason women do it. And I'm not sure that the reaction we're talking about, ogling, is the same as receiving good attention for looking sexy. That can be achieved with far greater depth or subtlety.

I mean, I'd find it damned odd, and a little rude, if a woman stared at my crotch for long periods if I was wearing uncharacteristically tight trousers. She could show approval or interest in different ways. And I think men can do the same for women...
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:48, closed)

Maybe not adoration
but appreciation certainly. Otherwise if people did not care one iota what other people thought of them, then they wouldn't go to so much effort getting ready.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 17:05, closed)

Yup.
I made that point. But does appreciation mean being stared at?
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 17:11, closed)

My quote was "eye-popping, risque"
to be appreciated? Are ye mad? And this is where this whole pitiful argument has needlesly perpetuated. If you think a woman wears eye-popping risque clothing to be "appreciated" then yer a maddo or a feminist. Not once did I say they *want* to be or *deserve* to be stared at, but by gum you better expect it.

Then queue awkward looks from men who don't know where to place their eyes. Do you see why this is wrong?

*edit* for eye-popping and risque, just to clear-up as I don't think we're talking on the same level here, but think Katie Price.
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 17:23, closed)

Not really
seeing the insult in 'feminist' there.

And you are a little bit loopy if you don't realise that when women are tarted up for a night out 70% of it is for their mates. Women dress for other women (holds more true for posh parties, but almost as valid for nights out.)

And every women accepts the quick flick up and down, and is generally a veteran of both the interested, and the 'eh not so bad' looks. But that is vastly different from just plain out lechery, and if a man can't keep his eyes on my face then I generally find it appropriate to make a judgement of my own on him, and it's rarely flattering.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 20:15, closed)

Ah, you've explained what I was trying to say using 10% of the words
If I had a pandatron, I'd engage it.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 9:24, closed)

I see you aren't that glad of Amber speaking for 3 billion women world-wide
But pander away!
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 9:46, closed)

Busted.
Sad face.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 9:55, closed)

Indeed
I love speaking for three billion women :) On the downside it makes my voice hoarse.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 13:27, closed)

I don't see why any of this is disagreeing with me
The only thing is while I say women want to be shown adulation, you think they are doing it "for their mates". What's the difference? They want adulation from their mates. Perhaps worship is too strong a word but it's not a magnificent stretch of the imagination to say that women wear, and here is the key part - eye-popping/risque - clothing to be revered.

I fully agree that this doesn't warrant lechery, in fact I even said that before! I'm merely saying that if you wear such clothes then it is obvious that in the U.K. there are guys who's eyes are gonna be on stalks.

My comments are agreeing with the O/P on the paradox that women will happily flaunt with 95% of their tits hanging out yet get offended when a stranger stares. Of course no man should be leching away, I won't be(!), but why complain when you can just cover up!

Can't quite believe my throwaway comment has generated such a response.
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 9:45, closed)

I think maybe you're right about crossed wires
and the extent of the dressing we're talking about. I agree that there seems to be a certain element of, if she likes the look of the guy then she's happy for the attention and if she doesn't like the look of the guy then she cries foul.

But generally, I just think that lechery ain't the right way to treat people. We're agreed on that.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 9:58, closed)

If you're in an art gallery,
how long do you look at a picture, statue etc to appreciate it? A glance simply isn't enough. It takes the brain about 3 - 4 seconds to make a judgement about a person, after that it is assessment to see if they would make a possible mate.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 17:25, closed)

I get what you mean
but a painting is an inanimate object. I don't really hold much in the way of a social obligation to it, as it's not going to care what I do and has no sensitivies to offend.

That's why I go to art galleries to look at breasts.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Thu 7 Jan 2010, 9:25, closed)

It's circumstancial.
If a girl is out, showing a little bit of cleavage then I'm sure she wouldn't be too bothered with a passing glance.

Whereas if a girl goes out wearing a top that barely covers her nipples and a skirt that stops at her crotch, she should expect to be ogled.
(TheColonel, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:17, closed)

slipper slope
Where does one draw the line on that. For example, very low cut top, tight trousers and not ankle breaking shoes, stare or not to stare.

In all fairness we generally know what is risque.

I think a bit of a stare is acceptable, but no leering/unwanted attention. Just coz she looks game does not mean is or on the game.
(StyX is staring at you, yes YOU!!!, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 16:51, closed)

Just keep your hands in your pockets at all times.
Works for me.

Edit: seriously though, if a girl is showing off her top half blatantly and hiding her bottom half just as obviously, is she not directing you where to look? Perhaps not too proud of her lower features, she puts the focus on her breasts.
(TheColonel, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 17:16, closed)

Gawping indiscreetly like a 13 year old hormone-bundle is uncool...
*Noticing* is inevitable; and when in conversation, eye contact at all times, lest your gaze travel south. Come on, it's not *that hard* (f'narr f'narr)...
( writerblock ... embedding disabled by request on, Wed 6 Jan 2010, 23:35, closed)