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, 1 reply)

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)