Cleavage

  • Thread starter Thread starter vsedriver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh please, if cleavage makes you forget that a woman is a person as opposed to an object, you are the one with the problem.
then there are a lot of men out there with a serious problem. I’m sure the readers of Playboy and other porno material are seeing the ‘person’ in the naked photos. I bet they are thinking what a lovely young lady. Bet she’d make a wonderful wife and mother and her parents must be really proud.

If women present themselves as objects, men will see them as objects.
 
then there are a lot of men out there with a serious problem. I’m sure the readers of Playboy and other porno material are seeing the ‘person’ in the naked photos. I bet they are thinking what a lovely young lady. Bet she’d make a wonderful wife and mother and her parents must be really proud.

If women present themselves as objects, men will see them as objects.

The man makes a free will choice-- to look for the playboy – to look for the porn. He can’t excuse himself – from making that free will choice.
 
You obviously have no idea what slutwalks were about.
Oh, I know exactly what slutwalks are about.

“We have the right to dress so as to make ourselves sex objects, to dress like harlots, to dress like we only wish to be noticed for our ‘assets’, but if a man subsequently acts in the way we asked him to do through our dress, that man is a chauvinist pig.”

In other words, it was about the same logic as the “our body, our choice” “it’s only a baby if I say it’s a baby” argument. It’s self-centered and childish.

(Yes, I know it was a protest started after a particularly insensitive cop made the observation that if these college girls didn’t dress like sluts, they wouldn’t get raped. But it morphed into far more than that)
 
A lot. Women like to feel pretty and be admired. Sadly, too many fall victim to modern culture which teaches that’s gained by sexuality. Women know men look at them. If they help out in the looking, they are just as guilty as the one doing the looking.

This is no different than the get away driver sharing guilt in a robbery. Sure, he didn’t actually rob the bank, but he knew it was going to be robbed and helped lay out the scenario of that robbery but driving his car to and from the bank.
So, by your reasoning, a woman raped while not dressed modestly according to you, shares the guilt of her rapist?
 
Oh, I know exactly what slutwalks are about.

“We have the right to dress so as to make ourselves sex objects, to dress like harlots, to dress like we only wish to be noticed for our ‘assets’, but if a man subsequently acts in the way we asked him to do through our dress, that man is a chauvinist pig.”

In other words, it was about the same logic as the “our body, our choice” “it’s only a baby if I say it’s a baby” argument. It’s self-centered and childish.

(Yes, I know it was a protest started after a particularly insensitive cop made the observation that if these college girls didn’t dress like sluts, they wouldn’t get raped. But it morphed into far more than that)
So knowing how they started, you come up with with this rot. It was not just an insensitive cop btw.
I am not responding anymore to those who appear to have issues with women who do not toe their (the) line.
 
So knowing how they started, you come up with with this rot. It was not just an insensitive cop btw.
I am not responding anymore to those who appear to have issues with women who do not toe their (the) line.
That’s what the CAF “Ignore” feature is for. I’ve found, in the past 25 years or so of participating in online discussions that it’s generally better if you simply “ignore” somebody rather than say that you’re going to ignore. When you tell somebody that you are going to disregard anything in the future, it’s like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “nah, nah, nah…I can’t hear you!” – I say this not to denigrate you, but, rather, as a general piece of advice from somebody who’s been doing this for a long, long, time

All people, women and men, need to take responsibility for their decisions and understand the implication (the “fallout”) of those decisions. Those decisions include the decision to do something or not; the decision to say one thing, another thing, or to hold one’s peace; the decision to dress one way or the other; the decision to groom oneself one way or the other; and so on.

A person’s decisions with both verbal and nonverbal communication impact those who receive those communications: both those to whom the message is intended and those who happen to inadvertently intercept those communications.

The sooner somebody recognizes that and makes the appropriate decisions based upon that inviolable law, the better off both the individual making the communication is and the people who receive the messages sent are. That’s just the way it is…you may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
 
Many ugly things in life like not taking responsibility for one’s own faults and playing the blame game.
Who suggested this? I have seen no one suggest this in the way you present. In fact, I would agree and suggest you use this advice regarding the role women play in creating a situation which causes another to stumble.
 

It comes down to this – the lustful man – is going to lust – doesn’t matter what a woman wears. If he doesn’t purify his disordered desired mind – the sickness stays within.
Your repeating this over again shows you are not understanding the point I am presenting.
 
So, by your reasoning, a woman raped while not dressed modestly according to you, shares the guilt of her rapist?
No, and you should know better than to attempt to make that connection to what I said. You should be ashamed of yourself and your dishonest approach to what is supposed to be an academic interaction instead of an emotionally blind hissy fit.
 
Oh, I know exactly what slutwalks are about.

“We have the right to dress so as to make ourselves sex objects, to dress like harlots, to dress like we only wish to be noticed for our ‘assets’, but if a man subsequently acts in the way we asked him to do through our dress, that man is a chauvinist pig.”

In other words, it was about the same logic as the “our body, our choice” “it’s only a baby if I say it’s a baby” argument. It’s self-centered and childish.

(Yes, I know it was a protest started after a particularly insensitive cop made the observation that if these college girls didn’t dress like sluts, they wouldn’t get raped. But it morphed into far more than that)
This is deeply, deeply offensive to me. I’m a bit in shock that someone would type this in a public forum. Rape is not about sex, its about power over one’s victim. Women get raped when they are fully covered, just like they do when they are dressed in shorts because its 97 degrees outside. There is ZERO reason that makes rape okay. There is zero reason that being inappropriate, threatening and leering at someone is okay. It is NOT okay period. A woman is not “asking” a man to treat her any particular way because of how she dresses EVER.
 
This is deeply, deeply offensive to me. I’m a bit in shock that someone would type this in a public forum. Rape is not about sex, its about power over one’s victim. Women get raped when they are fully covered, just like they do when they are dressed in shorts because its 97 degrees outside. There is ZERO reason that makes rape okay. There is zero reason that being inappropriate, threatening and leering at someone is okay. It is NOT okay period. A woman is not “asking” a man to treat her any particular way because of how she dresses EVER.
If you can point to where I said rape was justified, I’d appreciate it.
 
I would like to introduce to you Romans 14:13-23, 1 Corinthians 8:13, and 20:32. There are others, but this is sufficient.
All of those say, in effect, “Don’t present a near occasion of sin to someone” but that does not force the person to commit a sin. It may offer the opportunity, but it doesn’t force them. They do that on their own accord.
 
No, and you should know better than to attempt to make that connection to what I said. You should be ashamed of yourself and your dishonest approach to what is supposed to be an academic interaction instead of an emotionally blind hissy fit.
Can’t make an arguement or discuss properly, fall back on insults.
 
If you can point to where I said rape was justified, I’d appreciate it.
Oh, I know exactly what slutwalks are about.

“We have the right to dress so as to make ourselves sex objects, to dress like harlots, to dress like we only wish to be noticed for our ‘assets’, but if a man subsequently acts in the way we asked him to do through our dress, that man is a chauvinist pig.”
har·lot
ˈhärlət/
noun archaic
  1. a prostitute or promiscuous woman.
    synonyms: prostitute, whore, fille de joie, call girl, courtesan; More
Based on the highlighted and red and the definition of harlot, it can be inferred we are talking about rape because you said a man acting the way he has been asked to through her dress, which implies an express consent wasn’t exchanged. Sex without express consent is rape.
 
A woman is not “asking” a man to treat her any particular way because of how she dresses EVER.
The problem with making a sweeping generalization and presenting it as a universal truth is that it is usually wrong.

A woman who dresses for work in a modest, professional manner expects to be treated as a competent professional.

A woman who shows up for a pickup basketball game with the guys and is wearing basketball shoes, shorts and the championship shirt from her latest basketball team expects to be treated as someone who can play ball.

A woman who goes out to dinner with a someone who asked her on a date wears clothing that reflects what she wants to convey to the man about herself.

A woman who meets her husband at the door after work wearing a nightgown is expecting a certain outcome from the evening.

We all dress purposefully most of the time. Sometimes for us, sometimes for others.
 
Well.

Kind of to get back to the Original Post.

A few months ago we were driving to Mass. A couple blocks from the church, I saw a thin attractive woman and a little girl walking hand in hand. The little girl had on a pretty little dress and carried a backpack. The woman was wearing hot pink skinny capri jeans, skin tight, a loose, low-cut while blouse, and teetered in white platform stiletto shoes. I mumbled to my wife, “That poor girl doesn’t stand a chance.”

My wife responded, “Uh-huh.”

A few moments after we took our seats in the pew, I saw the woman and little girl sit a few rows in front of us.

I looked at my wife and shrugged, “I guess I was wrong.” 🤷
 
All of those say, in effect, “Don’t present a near occasion of sin to someone” but that does not force the person to commit a sin. It may offer the opportunity, but it doesn’t force them. They do that on their own accord.
What they say, in effect, is if what you do causes another to fall, don’t do it.
 
The problem with making a sweeping generalization and presenting it as a universal truth is that it is usually wrong.

A woman who dresses for work in a modest, professional manner expects to be treated as a competent professional.

A woman who shows up for a pickup basketball game with the guys and is wearing basketball shoes, shorts and the championship shirt from her latest basketball team expects to be treated as someone who can play ball.

A woman who goes out to dinner with a someone who asked her on a date wears clothing that reflects what she wants to convey to the man about herself.

A woman who meets her husband at the door after work wearing a nightgown is expecting a certain outcome from the evening.

We all dress purposefully most of the time. Sometimes for us, sometimes for others.

Is this what parents are teaching children. To react/treat someone – based on what that person wears. The nicely dressed person – treated a certain way – as opposed to someone whose mode of dress is not to someones standards. Children learn from us. If parents and/or other adults convey the message – look at that woman – she’s asking for it – that is what the children believe and carry through.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top