A Modest Proposal

[luvluv]

Book report time, kids!

In A Return to Modesty , Wendy Shallit makes the case that, contrary to popular opinion, there are essential differences in the ways that men and women approach sex. She argues that the chivalric codes of modesty, in dress, in social bearing, and in sexual behavior, acted to protect women as women against the sexual agendas of men. The expectation that one had to wait for sex, that one’s body was not for public view, that lewd sexual behavior was totally inappropriate around women, acted to protect a woman’s romantic interests. Women, Shallit argues, possibly simply are more selective in the men they will sleep with, and the code of modesty lent social prestige to the woman’s prerogative to take her time to get to know her eventual mate.

By contrast, the sexual revolution has brought us what Shallit calls the “androgyny project” in which we believe it is sexist to think that there are any essential differences in the way men and women approach sex. We were told that feminine reticence towards casual sex was not natural, and had nothing to do with any naturally occuring higher level of vulnerability in the women vis a vis the sex act. Rather, we were told that the reticence in women was socially conditioned, probably even purposely contrived, by men in order to oppress women by denying them frequent, casual sex. We are now told that women want sex just as bad as men, in the same way as men. A person is now thought to be sexist if he thinks that women are ANY less promiscuous as men. Further, any women who is not sufficiently enthusiastic about the opportunity to have sex with multiple partners without any emotional involvement is said to be suffering from “hang ups” she “doesn’t have a ‘healthy’ attitude about sex” or, worst of all, she is “not very comfortable with her body.”

Shallit argues that we have pathologized any desire a woman may have for monogamy, for holding onto her virginity, for harboring romantic hopes of a life-long relationship, in short, we have pathologized what may well be the entire female sexual agenda.

The results, she says, have been largely predictable. She quotes Sally Cline, who refers to the sexual revolution provocatively as the “Genital Appropriation Era”:

What the Genital Appropriation Era actually permitted was more access to women’s
bodies by more men; what it achieved was not a great deal of liberation for women
but a great deal of legitimacy for male promiscuity; what it passed onto women was
the male fragmentation of emotion from body; and the easily internalized schism
between genital sex and responsible loving.

Shallit argues that when women approach sex as if the male sexual agenda were the norm, and where the female sexual agenda were an oppressive fiction, women find themselves ultimately unhappy with the results. In a series of personal interviews, as well as scores of quotations from a wide variety of popular books and magazines, she chronicles that the female sexual agenda stubbornly refuses to be put to sleep, and keeps popping up in the most unexpected of places. She argues, with some persuasiveness, that female modesty is natural, that shame at certain kinds of overtly sexual attention is almost universal, that the relatively stronger desire on the part of women to desire commitment and devotion as a prerequisite for intercourse acts to protect women from male promiscuity, and that since it is the “androgyny project” that leaves them at the mercy of male sexual imperatives, it is ultimately more misogynist than simply admitting that men and women are different in the first place.

The book is largely an argumentative essay. It’s not a comprehensive sociological examination or a scentific case study. It is more in the vain of The Fire Next Time or Common Sense ; an impassioned, yet rational appeal made to both our intellects and our hearts, telling us that something is amiss.

There are some very fascinating chapters including the afforementioned “Can Modesty Be Natural” in which she argues that modesty is not a social invention. But her best work in my opinion can be seen in the chapters on “Male Character”, in which she argues that female modesty has a role to play in socializing men. Also, in “Pining for Interference” when she argues that the rules of modesty gave sanction to a woman’s “no”, it empowered her to postpone sex until she was ready without that delay being a direct reflection on the character of men. Now, she argues, in a climate where sex is generally expected of women within a period of about a month or so, it is very difficult for a woman’s “no” not to be taken personally by the man, and this has in effect made women more likely to give in to sex they don’t want rather than to offend a man they may have feelings for. She argues that women who want to have sex early in the relationship will do so anyway, but in withdrawing the expectation of a waiting period for sex (which could last months) women have no real social sanction for their decision to wait. She also argues, in “Beyond Modernity” for a return of what she calls “the cartel of virtue”. She argues that:


…the balance of power has tilted markedly against girls. If a girl has sex with
her boyfriend, there is a good chance she will be left alone, but if she doesn’t,
then she will surely be left alone… There is none of this going steady business,
which, for all it’s stuffiness, allowed girls to have companionship and maybe
even love without having to have intercourse. Now there is only one scary
gamble: if you say no to enough guys, word may get around and people may
start to think that you are really weird. There is no longer any chance of being
sweethearts with someone. If you don’t do it, that’s It. You’re out of the game.
You’re on the sidelines, you’re benched…

In the past, women secured the chances of lasting love by forming a kind of cartel:
they had an implicit agreement not to engage in premarital or extramarital sex
with men. This made it more likely that men would marry and stay married to them.
As with all cartels, to be sure, there were incentives for individual women to cheat
or “chisel” on the agreement and have affairs out of wedlock. But in chiseling, something
unexpected happened to these women, too. Most of the women I know who are living
with men hope these men will marry them. And most of the women I know who had
affairs with married men hope that the men will ultimately leave their wives for them-
and when they do, they don’t want little adulteresses romping around their new
husband. Hat this means to me is that most women basically do want the same thing
in this respect: the security of lasting love. Therefore, in chiseling, in breaking up this
cartel of virtue, we spoiled things, ultimately, for ourselves…I guess I’m advocating
a return to the cartel of virtue.

She goes to lengths to separate herself from the “The Rules” books which advocated arbitrary emulations of modesty for the sole purpose of securing marriage. Shallit advocates modesty not in order to force men into marriage, but so that women can be more true to their own romantic goals.

At any rate, it’s a fascinating book. You can read the introduction and the first chapter over at Amazon.com here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684863170/qid=1062534840/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-9402156-4485500?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

If anyone has read the book, I’d be really interested in hearing what you think.

[Adrian Selby]

Wasn't this so called androgyny project a reaction by women against the ideals that this Shallitt wants a return to?

------------
the incorrigible analytics' club (http://incorrigible.adrianselby.com)

[pmurray]

Anyone who thinks that in sexual politics the balance of power is tilted against girls, has rocks in their head.

In Homo Sapiens, women decide who pairs with whom. That's why our species has such oversised male genitalia, in comparison with other primates. Most chicks prefer a big one.

[Samnell]

She argues that the chivalric codes of modesty, in dress, in social bearing, and in sexual behavior, acted to protect women as women against the sexual agendas of men. The expectation that one had to wait for sex, that one’s body was not for public view, that lewd sexual behavior was totally inappropriate around women, acted to protect a woman’s romantic interests.

Your author would benefit greatly from reading Chaucer, or the surviving Middle English popular songs. I'm sure they're available online somewhere. Google should be able to hook her up with a free copy of the Wife of Bath's prologue and tale.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by pmurray
In Homo Sapiens, women decide who pairs with whom. That's why our species has such oversised male genitalia, in comparison with other primates. Most chicks prefer a big one.

Perhaps that sums up your experiences with women so far but I think there's usually a bit more to male-female relationships than that.

Helen

[Amen-Moses]

Whenever I see "sexual agenda" used in a serious way I cringe. "Agenda" presupposes some sort of planning or mental thought processes, for men sex is purely biochemical and I doubt very much if women are really all that different (even though they might like to think so).

Amen-Moses

[scigirl]

luvluv,

Sounds like an interesting book - too bad I don't have time to read it! :( Stupid school. Maybe over break. . . it sounds a bit like the Moral Animal mixed with. . . not sure what.

Here's some of my thoughts about the bits that you mentioned:

She argues that the chivalric codes of modesty, in dress, in social bearing, and in sexual behavior, acted to protect women as women against the sexual agendas of men.
Ah but did they really? I understand that during that "pure" time, the rates of STDs were freaking high. I guess syphillis *is* passed through doorknobs! ;)

The expectation that one had to wait for sex, that one’s body was not for public view, that lewd sexual behavior was totally inappropriate around women, acted to protect a woman’s romantic interests.'
Again, I'm not convinced this really happened. I think people like to *think* it happened that way.
We are now told that women want sex just as bad as men, in the same way as men.
Are we really?
A person is now thought to be sexist if he thinks that women are ANY less promiscuous as men.
Since when?
Further, any women who is not sufficiently enthusiastic about the opportunity to have sex with multiple partners without any emotional involvement is said to be suffering from “hang ups” she “doesn’t have a ‘healthy’ attitude about sex” or, worst of all, she is “not very comfortable with her body.”
Is this always true? Also, and more importantly, what about the men who don't want sex? Does society treat them more, or less, like that?
Shallit argues that we have pathologized any desire a woman may have for monogamy, for holding onto her virginity, for harboring romantic hopes of a life-long relationship, in short, we have pathologized what may well be the entire female sexual agenda.
I disagree.

I do think that there are differences in how we approach sex today, obviously. But it isn't as clear-cut as this book makes it out to be. People were whoring around during victorian times (if you believe the STD epidemiologists which I do), and they still are.

Plus does this book talk about the male role in sexuality? The fact that status among males was important for mating during primitive times and probably still is?
The results, she says, have been largely predictable. She quotes Sally Cline, who refers to the sexual revolution provocatively as the “Genital Appropriation Era”:
Did she predict that the rate of teen pregnancy would actually go down from the 1950's? I doubt it.
she chronicles that the female sexual agenda stubbornly refuses to be put to sleep, and keeps popping up in the most unexpected of places.
The female sexual "agenda?"
She argues, with some persuasiveness, that female modesty is natural,
Not among most species of animals.
that shame at certain kinds of overtly sexual attention is almost universal, that the relatively stronger desire on the part of women to desire commitment and devotion as a prerequisite for intercourse acts to protect women from male promiscuity,
Protect *women?* Nope. It's to protect offspring. It's called "evolutionary selection."
and that since it is the “androgyny project” that leaves them at the mercy of male sexual imperatives, it is ultimately more misogynist than simply admitting that men and women are different in the first place.
Again I don't buy that this is really going on.
The book is largely an argumentative essay. It’s not a comprehensive sociological examination or a scentific case study.
Yeah I think I gathered that. I think I'll cross this book off as one I need to read over break. If I want to read unsupported assertions all day, I'll venture over to a Christian board! :D

Ok I'm off to class. . .

scigirl

[Ab_Normal]

All I have are inchoate personal objections. The author's hypothesis seems to place the entire burden of controlling sexual interactions on women, because those poor men just can't control themselves. Um, aren't men also sentient life forms? The ones I know certainly are.

Be that as it may, my ten year old daughter does not wear Britney/Christina tart-in-training clothes. Consistency isn't my primary virtue. ;)

[truelies]

As I see it those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself. It would help to if those of the libertine bend would lose the idea that all of society must remake itself to accomodate their urges. For some of us waking up in a strange room, next to someone we do not recognise after injesting the latest designer chemical to excess simply has no great appeal. BTW if the DW and I choose to indoctrinate our kids that certain choices that you enjoy are best avoided in the interests of maintaining the Health of the Body and Soul and refuse to allow you equal time to refute, you have no legitimate grounds for objection. If you want to mold the personality of a child-go bear your own.

Freedom of non-association is every bit as valuable as freedom OF association. NO one was a right to thrust their unwanted company unon others.

[dangin]

OK, so the chivalric codes serve to tell us about modern sexuality??? what about the sexuality of the 99.999% of the world who wasn't upper or upper/middle class european?

The very first quote that luvluv posts is a big problem. It talks about "legitimacy for male promiscuity". The problem is that the author grants the existence of male promiscuity, and then says someone is trying to legitimize it. But it exists, so it is already legitimate. WE EVOLVED THIS WAY FOR FUCKS SAKE. Anyone who wants to examine human sexuality but ignores the sexuality of the human animal in favor of the sexuality that our communal psyche says is acceptable, or normal, or moral, or appropriate is just writing about naval lint.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by truelies
As I see it those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself.

That's silly. No one should have to pretend they are something they aren't, or not say what they truly feel, because you and your children are around. It is your responsibility to protect your children (if you feel you must) not theirs. So, those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle are free to do so until they actually violate one of your rights. You don't have the right to shut them up just because your children are around, but you do have the right to leave, of course.

[cheetah]

Of course men and women are different, may have different goals and may approach things differently, but I hate how this book appears to try to pit women against men, like we are each trying to steal something from the other through decit or trickery. Men are trying to trick women into sex and women are trying to fool men into love, before either realizes the other got what they wanted first. I know that evolutionarily men want to spread their seed and women want to obtain the best seed. Fine. And it's true that these biological imperatives affect us. But, why should we consciously stick to that when it's not necessary? if we aren't trying to have kids, why not have sex if you feel like it, regardless of the quality of the seed?

The question is, where does love come from? I don't think it is biological for women to want love, it is a romanticized notion that we train young women to want. Our instincts might drive us to get the best seed, perhaps, but not lifetime commitment. We as humans are arguably not designed for lifetime pair bonding, particularly if you look at our closest relatives. So, I think they make a mistake between women needing to choose quality seed, and looking for lifetime love.

I'll admit that I think many women, particularly young women, make a mistake in believing sex will bring love. Maybe they haven't learned to separate the two when necessary or warranted. All I can say is that being a teenager sucks. I know when I was a teenager, I wanted ever-lasting love with my boyfriend of the time. now, I puke at the thought. how silly! I was so young, why would I want that? Teenagers are irrational, but that doesn't mean the book is right about society as a whole. What we should change is teaching young women to romanticize love and sex and learn not to pour more dollars into the billion dollar romance/wedding industry. It's marketing, not biology, that confuse women about romance, IMHO.

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by truelies
As I see it those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself.

We parents have a powerful tool on our side - it's called the "off switch". My daughter hasn't shown much interest in pop culture, but when she does, I'll be there keeping track of what she ingests and making sure she knows what I think of it.

[tronvillain]

luvluv:
In A Return to Modesty , Wendy Shallit makes the case that, contrary to popular opinion, there are essential differences in the ways that men and women approach sex. She argues that the chivalric codes of modesty, in dress, in social bearing, and in sexual behavior, acted to protect women as women against the sexual agendas of men. The expectation that one had to wait for sex, that one’s body was not for public view, that lewd sexual behavior was totally inappropriate around women, acted to protect a woman’s romantic interests. Women, Shallit argues, possibly simply are more selective in the men they will sleep with, and the code of modesty lent social prestige to the woman’s prerogative to take her time to get to know her eventual mate.
I was under the impression that it was the popular opinion that there are essential differences in the ways men and women approach sex, at least on average. It is obvious that women in general are simply more selective than men in whom they will sleep with (for obvious biological reasons), but so what? It is not at all clear that it is any more difficult for a woman "to get to know her eventual mate" than it used to be.
By contrast, the sexual revolution has brought us what Shallit calls the “androgyny project” in which we believe it is sexist to think that there are any essential differences in the way men and women approach sex. We were told that feminine reticence towards casual sex was not natural, and had nothing to do with any naturally occuring higher level of vulnerability in the women vis a vis the sex act. Rather, we were told that the reticence in women was socially conditioned, probably even purposely contrived, by men in order to oppress women by denying them frequent, casual sex. We are now told that women want sex just as bad as men, in the same way as men. A person is now thought to be sexist if he thinks that women are ANY less promiscuous as men. Further, any women who is not sufficiently enthusiastic about the opportunity to have sex with multiple partners without any emotional involvement is said to be suffering from “hang ups” she “doesn’t have a ‘healthy’ attitude about sex” or, worst of all, she is “not very comfortable with her body.”
Who exactly is saying any such thing? It is fairly obvious that there are inherent differences, but it is also fairly obvious that such inherent differences were enhanced by the main cultural ideas. As it has become easier for ideas to spread, other cultural ideas have flourished where the old ones wither. Still, the ideas that have spread are not that "women want sex just as bad as men, in the same way as men" or that "any women who is not sufficiently enthusiastic about the opportunity to have sex with multiple partners without any emotional involvement is said to be suffering from 'hang ups'." I know very few women who have sex with multiple partners without any emotional involvement, and yet no one is accusing the rest of "hang ups." Of course, if a woman is raised in an environment where she picks up a lot ideas associating fear and shame and disgust with sex, she will not be especially compatible with people lacking such ideas and so might be considered to have "hang ups" or to not have a "healthy attitude" about sex, or to not be "comfortable with her body."
Shallit argues that we have pathologized any desire a woman may have for monogamy, for holding onto her virginity, for harboring romantic hopes of a life-long relationship, in short, we have pathologized what may well be the entire female sexual agenda.
She may argue that, but I laugh at her argument. Oh, the idea of holding onto virginity is much more scarce these days, but a desire for monogamy and romantic hopes of a life-long relationship are as strong as ever. People simply no longer expect to be able to achieve them the first time out, and are more willing to have some fun while looking and making the invevitable mistakes. You know what? Plenty of men want monogamy and life long relationships too, at least eventually.

Wendy Shallit:
...the balance of power has tilted markedly against girls. If a girl has sex with her boyfriend, there is a good chance she will be left alone, but if she doesn’t, then she will surely be left alone… There is none of this going steady business, which, for all it’s stuffiness, allowed girls to have companionship and maybe
even love without having to have intercourse. Now there is only one scary gamble: if you say no to enough guys, word may get around and people may start to think that you are really weird. There is no longer any chance of beingsweethearts with someone. If you don’t do it, that’s It. You’re out of the game.
You’re on the sidelines, you’re benched…
If a girl has sex with her boyfriend there is a good chance she will be left alone? Insanity. I have seldom heard anything so stupid. If a girl has sex with her boyfriend there is a very good chance he will be sticking around. Early on in life, he will probably stick around for nothing more holding hands and kissing, with a chance of perhaps eventually moving on to more later. As time goes on, people on average tend to expect more sooner in a relationship, but intercourse can often be posponed for a long time if other alternatives are available. What world is this woman living in?
In the past, women secured the chances of lasting love by forming a kind of cartel: they had an implicit agreement not to engage in premarital or extramarital sex with men. This made it more likely that men would marry and stay married to them. As with all cartels, to be sure, there were incentives for individual women to cheat or “chisel” on the agreement and have affairs out of wedlock. But in chiseling, something unexpected happened to these women, too. Most of the women I know who are living with men hope these men will marry them. And most of the women I know who had affairs with married men hope that the men will ultimately leave their wives for them- and when they do, they don’t want little adulteresses romping around their new
husband. Hat this means to me is that most women basically do want the same thing in this respect: the security of lasting love. Therefore, in chiseling, in breaking up this cartel of virtue, we spoiled things, ultimately, for ourselves…I guess I’m advocating
a return to the cartel of virtue.
Ah, but did women actually secure lasting love in the past? They may have secured lasting marriages, but that seems more likely to have been a result of the tabboo against seperation or divorce rather than of a lack of premarital or extramarital sex. Was there really less extramarital sex in the past, and if there was, was it not just a result of people (especially women) having less freedom of movement, socialization, and communication? Yes, most (though definitely not all) of the women I know who are living with men hope that they will eventually get married, but you know what? Most of the men (though definitely not all) I know who are living with women hope that they will eventually get married too. Oh, some of them may have different timetables, but if they didn't want to be together they wouldn't be together. People would probably be getting married sooner if women refused premarital sex, but would there chances of "lasting love" be better? I do not think so.

[Calzaer]

As I see it those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself.

As I see it those who wish to live an irrational Christian lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself.

[truelies]

Originally posted by cheetah
That's silly. No one should have to pretend they are something they aren't, or not say what they truly feel, because you and your children are around. It is your responsibility to protect your children (if you feel you must) not theirs. So, those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle are free to do so until they actually violate one of your rights. You don't have the right to shut them up just because your children are around, but you do have the right to leave, of course.

May you receive 10000 Saturday morning visits by Jehovah's Witnesses.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by truelies
May you receive 10000 Saturday morning visits by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Oh, well, if you meant simply that they shouldn't come on your property and try to convert you, fine. But certainly, your phrasing implies that no one should act in any way you define as inappropriate anywhere in proximity of you and your child. So, you are perfectly fine with people doing whatever they want in front of you and accepting the responsibility to remove yourself from it, if it is in a situation you don't control (i.e. not your personal business or residence)?

As I see it those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself.

I'm sure you can see where I got that impression, since you said out of your sight, as opposed to your property.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
As I see it those who wish to live a libertine lifestyle should be free to do so to the extent that they are willing to keep it out of sight of the children of people such as myself.
And then later. . .
For some of us waking up in a strange room, next to someone we do not recognise after injesting the latest designer chemical to excess simply has no great appeal.
Nice strawman.

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by cheetah
Oh, well, if you meant simply that they shouldn't come on your property and try to convert you, fine. But certainly, your phrasing implies that no one should act in any way you define as inappropriate anywhere in proximity of you and your child. So, you are perfectly fine with people doing whatever they want in front of you and accepting the responsibility to remove yourself from it, if it is in a situation you don't control (i.e. not your personal business or residence)?



I'm sure you can see where I got that impression, since you said out of your sight, as opposed to your property.

If I am in the workplace and some co-worker is polluting the airspace near me with a blow by blow recounting of their Saturday night walk on the wild side or perhaps expounding on the virtues of atheism I will of course exercise the protections against a hostile workplace afforded by our legal system.

If I am in a restaurant I will of course prevail upon mangement to eject boorish or otherwise unpleasant intruders upon the peace and quiet of my meal and BTW that can include under the Law conversation or actions which other customers find offensive.

Public school teachers who stray fro the course outline into areas of their personal opinions that i regard as inappropriate can expect trouble from me. After all I pay their salary.

Want to play your boom box at mIdnight???? Do not do so near my Home lest I use 911 to cause you to receive a $100 citation for disturbing the peace.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by truelies
If I am in the workplace and some co-worker is polluting the airspace near me with a blow by blow recounting of their Saturday night walk on the wild side or perhaps expounding on the virtues of atheism I will of course exercise the protections against a hostile workplace afforded by our legal system.

If I am in a restaurant I will of course prevail upon mangement to eject boorish or otherwise unpleasant intruders upon the peace and quiet of my meal and BTW that can include under the Law conversation or actions which other customers find offensive.

Public school teachers who stray fro the course outline into areas of their personal opinions that i regard as inappropriate can expect trouble from me. After all I pay their salary.

Want to play your boom box at mIdnight???? Do not do so near my Home lest I use 911 to cause you to receive a $100 citation for disturbing the peace.


You have succeeded in completely missing the point, but I am glad you agree with me that it is your responsibility to use your own influence, in situations in which you have any influence, to change the situation. It is not the person's responsibility to be careful of you. I would point out that some of your examples here are tenuous at best. And finally, you should acknowledge that if you are in a public place (i.e. park, walking, or even a grocery store) you'll have to be the one to leave. Even in a grocery store, by the time you find management and exlpain that your poor delicates sensibilities are offended by the clothing or behavior of a fellow customer, that person would probably already be gone and the management would probably laugh at you. Unless they are harrassing you directly (instead of indirectly, which seems to worry you so much) or damaging store property, you aren't likely to get a lot of support.

Try taking a little responsibility for your own life before you expect people you don't even know to tiptoe around you.
:rolleyes:

[truelies]

Originally posted by cheetah

Try taking a little responsibility for your own life before you expect people you don't even know to tiptoe around you.
:rolleyes:

I think you will find that in many situations, in work places in particular that you have an affirmative duty to avoid causing irritation to those around you and that they are not under the least obligation to cede the field to you. They have a right not to be offended in the course of their workday and you have a duty to not cause offense. That is the reality of todays world.

[tronvillain]

So, you are the sort of insane person who would go running to the authorities without even approaching a person who offended you somehow? At some point we just have to say "Who cares if you are offended?", such as if you were offended by women not wearing veils, but possibly well before that. :rolleyes:

[truelies]

Originally posted by tronvillain
So, you are the sort of insane person who would go running to the authorities without even approaching a person who offended you somehow? At some point we just have to say "Who cares if you are offended?", such as if you were offended by women not wearing veils, but possibly well before that. :rolleyes:

I just use the Laws you folks put in place. The Gate swings both ways.

[tronvillain]

Exactly what do you mean by "you people"? If you want to make a nuisance of yourself with pathetic little complaints that is your "right", but it doesn't make you any less of an inconsiderate jerk. Oh, there are plenty of times in which I would consider complaining justified (late night noise complaints for example), but you are making it sound as if you would complain about things most people would not be bothered by, in which case I would say that you are the problem.

[Calzaer]

So if someone starts saying grace at the table next to me in the restaurant, I should go get the manager?

WWJD? He'd grow the fuck up. :rolleyes:

[scigirl]

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic. . . .

Let's say that we find out that the op of the book is true - that men are horny beasts who can't control themselves, and women have *all* the power. I know that's not really all the book is saying. But if you really think about the attempts by conservatives such as our lovely Attorney General (when I say lovely, of course I mean dickhead) to hide any form of nudity, it really makes you wonder:

If Johnny A can't walk down the street and see a little nudity here and there - either in a statue or a little cleavage of a complete stranger - and NOT be able to handle that, then WHO has the problem?

There are contexts where nudity is not sexual, and there are obviously contexts when it is. Going to your doctor for example - sorry guys, I don't get turned on by seeing all your naked dicks. Not even a little bit.

I think the conservatives often make the issue about sex when often it is not about sex. Not all nudity relates to sex. Yes we are evolved animals and sex is a big part of our lives and our genes. But does this mean that every single thing that humans do is for the purpose of sex? I don't think so - we are more complex than that.

No I don't think that our 13 year old girls should be dressing like Britney Spears. However, one thing that really pisses me off about all these "covering up women" talks is that it seems like the same old "blame the victim" argument all over again. Because what does "modest" clothing ultimately do? It hides the fact that we are females. It turns us into men (sort of) by hiding the obvious curvy differences.

Why should I have to hide the fact that I'm female, just because some men like our Atty General apparently can't walk down the street and see sexy things without wanting to hump them? Why is it me with the problem?

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by tronvillain
Exactly what do you mean by "you people"? If you want to make a nuisance of yourself with pathetic little complaints that is your "right", but it doesn't make you any less of an inconsiderate jerk. Oh, there are plenty of times in which I would consider complaining justified (late night noise complaints for example), but you are making it sound as if you would complain about things most people would not be bothered by, in which case I would say that you are the problem.

Actually the words I used were 'you folks'.

I look at it this way as long as you folks/people feel free and justified in harassing my folks/people about minor stuff like a creche in front of a townhall that ALL except you are OK with, I see no reason not to return the favour at every opportunity using the Laws/Regulations that you put in place. The Gate really does swing both ways.

[scigirl]

truelies -

I think you should at least *attempt* to stay on topic. Oh, and capitalizing Random words in a Sentence does not in fact help prove your points. Thanks,

scigirl

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic. . . .


Why should I have to hide the fact that I'm female, just because some men like our Atty General apparently can't walk down the street and see sexy things without wanting to hump them? Why is it me with the problem?

scigirl

No one is asking you to wear a burkha. However if you choose to walk down the street dressed like a hooker you would have to be a fool not expect some lewd looks and rude/suggestive comments from passing males. Indeed you have by your sugesstive wear given permission . Think about it you dress 'sexy' and expect NO ONE TO NOTICE????????? That is just plain silly. Or perhaps you expect men to first ask your permission before they eyeball you?

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
No one is asking you to wear a burkha. However if you choose to walk down the street dressed like a hooker
Ahh the old madonna/whore dichotomy. And I don't mean the singer.

Why are these the only two choices? Don't you agree that there is a spectrum of modesty? Furthermore, is it not true that not everyone agrees where the hooker part begins and the pure little virgin ends? There ARE people who think I should be wearing a burkha. In fact, there is this notorious catholic priest who runs a hospice here in Denver who makes his female employees dress different from the male ones. And he thinks that women shouldn't be doctors - they should be nurses and wear those cute hats. See - it is HIM with the problem - he can't accept the fact that boobs and brains reside in the same body.

Please read my post again. I was not complaining about men who notice a good-looking woman and acknowledge her. I was complaining about the men who are pathologically incapable of seeing any female form - even a fucking STATUE for fuck's sake, without having some sort of fantasy.

If a woman became a bumbling idiot after seeing anyone with big bulging muscles, would you demand that men stop showing off their muscles in any setting, or would you maybe think that this particular woman had a problem?

scigirl

[Donnmathan]

I must say, I object to this whole thing on basic principle. The whole thing seems to be saying, 'Women always want pure love. Men are pigs and ruled by their sex drives. Since they took our all-concealing clothes away, they are trying to make us into pigs too, or rape us." As a man, this view point has always baffled me; where the heck did this idea that men are slaves to their sex organ come from? My gender is not always the most admirable group around, but the same could also be said of women. How about we put all of that old-world garbage where it belongs, in history's dumpster, and move on?

How about this: no one has the right to tell anyone how to dress, any more than how someone dresses gives anyone the right to victimize them. Beyond that, all bets are off. If you see an attractive member of the opposite gender pass on the street, then an apreciative look is fine. Staring at them is fine. Heck, making an absolute idiot out of yourself in the middle of the street is fine, so long as you don't mind looking like said idiot. When you cross the line into stalking or unwanted physical contact and suggestions, it stops being fine. It makes me ill that a person can't see another person walk into work and say, "you look nice today," without it being sexual harassment. No joke, this comes from both my company's sexual harrassment policy and that of the Department of Defense, a relative's workplace!

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
It makes me ill that a person can't see another person walk into work and say, "you look nice today," without it being sexual harassment. No joke, this comes from both my company's sexual harrassment policy and that of the Department of Defense, a relative's workplace!

I've found it best to balance out any slip of the tongue with an immediate negation, like "hey nice dress today ... but I still don't wanna fuck you ok.". Better to be safe than sorry in our PC crazy world.

Amen-Moses

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
I've found it best to balance out any slip of the tongue with an immediate negation, like "hey nice dress today ... but I still don't wanna fuck you ok.". Better to be safe than sorry in our PC crazy world.

Amen-Moses

I'd LOVE to see the reactions to someone actually doing that!:rolleyes:

[brighid]

I've found it best to balance out any slip of the tongue with an immediate negation, like "hey nice dress today ... but I still don't wanna fuck you ok.". Better to be safe than sorry in our PC crazy world.

I would consider such a comment totally rude ... with the ending that is. It assumes, that as a woman, one equates a respectful comment as some sort of automatic desire to fuck. In that sense it debases the platonic male and female interaction by sexualizing it in an attempt NOT to sexualize it.

All one need do is give a polite smile, respectfully compliment said attire and move on. Only a minority of women would ever consider a respectful comment (if it made as such) as sexual harassment. Nor do I think by adding the last phrase actually makes it "PC" and therefore safe and not sorry!

Unless a man is looking me up and down in an attempt to undress me with his eyes, whilst giving me a similar comment I can't imagine thinking, "hey nice dress today" was meant as anything other then "hey nice dress today."

Brighid

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by brighid
I would consider such a comment totally rude ... with the ending that is. It assumes, that as a woman, one equates a respectful comment as some sort of automatic desire to fuck. In that sense it debases the platonic male and female interaction by sexualizing it in an attempt NOT to sexualize it.

I'd agree absolutely - I forgot the [sarcasm] tags on that last post.
All one need do is give a polite smile, respectfully compliment said attire and move on. Only a minority of women would ever consider a respectful comment (if it made as such) as sexual harassment.
Ignoring Amen-Moses' response for a moment, I'd have to say that your statement is how things should go. Unfortunately, some women (and men, for that matter) have taken things too far, and would ask, "so I didn't look good yesterday," and call it sexual harrassment. Thanks to that, official harrassment policy has to warn against such statements. Goofy, but true.

Unless a man is looking me up and down in an attempt to undress me with his eyes, whilst giving me a similar comment I can't imagine thinking, "hey nice dress today" was meant as anything other then "hey nice dress today."

Wish more people thought of it that way. I've actually heard of a man being fired from the DoD because he forgot and paid that exact compliment to a woman who had told him a few weeks before that she considered it harrassment. Guy is out a job, his family is out an income, and I bet that didn't make it easy for him to get a new job, either, unless he lied about his reason for leaving his last job. All because he was trying to be polite.

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
truelies -

I think you should at least *attempt* to stay on topic. Oh, and capitalizing Random words in a Sentence does not in fact help prove your points. Thanks,

scigirl

Given that I was responding to comments from other posters and that in fact their comments and mine DO have a tie broadly speaking to the Topic I shall have to repectfully decline to follow your guidance at this time. As to your other comment/gripe-all of us stuck in the 13th Century thumpers Cap Random words in the middle of a Sentence. It conveys info in a Code that you non-theist types are not privy to.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by brighid
It assumes, that as a woman, one equates a respectful comment as some sort of automatic desire to fuck. In that sense it debases the platonic male and female interaction by sexualizing it in an attempt NOT to sexualize it.


That was the whole point, that and a poor attempt at humour it seems. ;)

Amen-Moses

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Donnmathan

Wish more people thought of it that way. I've actually heard of a man being fired from the DoD because he forgot and paid that exact compliment to a woman who had told him a few weeks before that she considered it harrassment. Guy is out a job, his family is out an income, and I bet that didn't make it easy for him to get a new job, either, unless he lied about his reason for leaving his last job. All because he was trying to be polite.

Well, if she had spoken with him before about it seeming like harrassment to her, shouldn't he have stopped? I agree that it is silly for someone to think that's harrassment, of course! Nevertheless, if everytime I patted my friend on the back during a conversation she told me it hurt, I might stop giving her pats on the bac, though I don't think that that SHOULD hurt. I she thereafter got really mad at me, I would have to remember that I was fairly warned that she did not want to be treated that way in my interactions with her.

[brighid]

That was the whole point, that and a poor attempt at humour it seems.

Ah - seems humor is lost on me today :D Sorry!!

Brighid

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by cheetah
Well, if she had spoken with him before about it seeming like harrassment to her, shouldn't he have stopped? I agree that it is silly for someone to think that's harrassment, of course! Nevertheless, if everytime I patted my friend on the back during a conversation she told me it hurt, I might stop giving her pats on the bac, though I don't think that that SHOULD hurt. I she thereafter got really mad at me, I would have to remember that I was fairly warned that she did not want to be treated that way in my interactions with her.

You would be 100% right, if it happened more than twice. He made the comment ONCE, and she told him she considered it sexual harrassment, and that it was unwelcome. About two weeks later, he complimented her again out of sheer reflex - he was an all-around nice guy. Heck, he complimented other guys on their ties, too, and the rest of the women in the office never had a problem. Regardless - the harrassment policy said that if a behavior recieves a warning that it was unwelcome, and is repeated, the victim may file for sexual harrassment. The policy was followed to the letter, and the woman kept insisting on every step. Result - he got fired. Now, this example is very extreme, but is real. Is this the sort of world we want to be living in?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by truelies
No one is asking you to wear a burkha. However if you choose to walk down the street dressed like a hooker you would have to be a fool not expect some lewd looks and rude/suggestive comments from passing males. Indeed you have by your sugesstive wear given permission . Think about it you dress 'sexy' and expect NO ONE TO NOTICE????????? That is just plain silly. Or perhaps you expect men to first ask your permission before they eyeball you?

So long as it's only looks I don't think the woman has any right to object. Make yourself attractive and people will look. That's simply human nature.

Rude comments are another matter, dressing provocatively isn't asking for them.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
Given that I was responding to comments from other posters
Yes I should have yelled at them as well. But in the words of a wise first-grader, "You started it!" :D

I still wouldn't mind an answer to my questions, since you obviously find time to reply to my other posts: Do you think that modesty is black and white: Either a woman looks like a virgin or she looks like a whore? And if you do think there is gray area, how do we as a society define that gray area? Do we use your definition, mine, or (shudder) Ashcroft's?

Also, your response to me illustrated my point even more - why can't men simply control themselves?

To use yet another bad medical analogy - let's consider diabetics and candy stores. Diabetics really can't handle eating a bunch of candy. However, candy stores are not illegal. They can advertise, put stuff on display, etc. Why is that?

Could it be. . . because candy is not inherently bad, and diabetics have to simply learn to control themselves?

Maybe some men see all women as candy, and act like 3 year olds in a candy store. However, I still don't understand why the responsibility should solely fall upon the women to correct this pathological behavior.

Consider things from a woman's point of view for a minute. If men are fueled by their basic biological desire to mate, then so must be women, correct? Women are (allegedly) genetically programmed to admire men of high status in the community. However, I don't harass and stalk every guy I see who drives a corvette. I certainly look at them, maybe stare a bit. But I don't fall apart. If I can control my inner biological urge to mate with all the posturing docs I'm around every day (ugg), than certainly men can control their urge to mate with the "fertile" females.

scigirl

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
You would be 100% right, if it happened more than twice. He made the comment ONCE, and she told him she considered it sexual harrassment, and that it was unwelcome. About two weeks later, he complimented her again out of sheer reflex - he was an all-around nice guy. Heck, he complimented other guys on their ties, too, and the rest of the women in the office never had a problem. Regardless - the harrassment policy said that if a behavior recieves a warning that it was unwelcome, and is repeated, the victim may file for sexual harrassment. The policy was followed to the letter, and the woman kept insisting on every step. Result - he got fired. Now, this example is very extreme, but is real. Is this the sort of world we want to be living in?

I agree, it is extreme and extremely unfortunate, at that. But, what is it about more than twice that would be better? Is that your preference or is it a general rule somewhere and their more than once rule is above and beyond that? To me, once you warn someone, they oughta know, and accidents are excusable (of course, in this situation, sounds like the woman was rather draconian, but in general, one should expect one warning to suffice). So, is more than 2 arbitrary? Why not more than 4?

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by cheetah
I agree, it is extreme and extremely unfortunate, at that. But, what is it about more than twice that would be better? Is that your preference or is it a general rule somewhere and their more than once rule is above and beyond that? To me, once you warn someone, they oughta know, and accidents are excusable (of course, in this situation, sounds like the woman was rather draconian, but in general, one should expect one warning to suffice). So, is more than 2 arbitrary? Why not more than 4?

Aye, there's the rub! I think the problem needs to be in the definitions of "harrassment" and "hostile work environment". If the guy had been singling her out, or even ONLY complimenting the women, I could understand the application of the policy. As it is, I can't see why the policy could not be made more flexible; instead, such policies are getting more and more draconian. It's not the two instances that bothers me, as much as the fact that he got the same punishment as someone who had attempted to 'cop a feel' twice would have, and that sort of non-graduation is universal. Shouldn't there be some protcetion for nice guys in the rules, as well, or does he have to break the habit and turn into an automoton to avoid getting fired?

[brighid]

Wish more people thought of it that way. I've actually heard of a man being fired from the DoD because he forgot and paid that exact compliment to a woman who had told him a few weeks before that she considered it harrassment. Guy is out a job, his family is out an income, and I bet that didn't make it easy for him to get a new job, either, unless he lied about his reason for leaving his last job. All because he was trying to be polite.

I am going to remain skeptical about the details of this because I think perhaps something is being left out. I have had to file a sexual harassment claim in the past, and there is currently one pending against a fellow in my company, and these things are rarely that simple. Perhaps in his retelling there are some important points being left out.

Unfortunately for your friend the DoD has a very strict, zero tolerance policy on this matter: http://www.odedodea.edu/foia/iod/pdf/01eeo002.pdf

It clearly states that "substantiated claims" may result in administrative correction and/or disciplinary action resulting in a reprimand or removal. I sincerely doubt that a simple "nice dress" comment would result in this individuals removal.

The SOP for a sexual harassment claim involve informing the offender that such comments are not welcome, as well as reporting any incidents to the proper authorities. From there the authorities will determine the veracity of the claims and unless egregious, will reprimand the offender with a warning of no further contact. It is generally, and only after subsequent incidents that an offending individual is fired. I just have a very hard time believing that he made one "nice dress" polite comment, and a subsequent one got him canned.

Brighid

[Donnmathan]

My relative was his boss, and that relative just gave me quite a bit more info. Unfortunately, some people in the DoD had an interest in making an example to show everyone that they were being pro-active about harrassment, and this guy's case came up at exactly the wrong time. Apparently, the guy who got canned had friends in higher places, because the moron responsible got dumped into a dead-end spot and the poor guy who got canned got a job at another office. The woman has been the source of about 2 sexual harrassment claims per month, most of which are dropped, and they are trying to find a way to get rid of her.

So, to some extent, you were right - there was more to it. Still, just an investigation can screw you up in some places...

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
My relative was his boss, and that relative just gave me quite a bit more info. Unfortunately, some people in the DoD had an interest in making an example to show everyone that they were being pro-active about harrassment, and this guy's case came up at exactly the wrong time. Apparently, the guy who got canned had friends in higher places, because the moron responsible got dumped into a dead-end spot and the poor guy who got canned got a job at another office. The woman has been the source of about 2 sexual harrassment claims per month, most of which are dropped, and they are trying to find a way to get rid of her.

So, to some extent, you were right - there was more to it. Still, just an investigation can screw you up in some places...

Somebody sure didn't look at her background! She obviously doesn't known when she's been harassed!

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
Yes I should have yelled at them as well. But in the words of a wise first-grader, "You started it!" :D

I still wouldn't mind an answer to my questions, since you obviously find time to reply to my other posts: Do you think that modesty is black and white: Either a woman looks like a virgin or she looks like a whore? And if you do think there is gray area, how do we as a society define that gray area? Do we use your definition, mine, or (shudder) Ashcroft's?

Also, your response to me illustrated my point even more - why can't men simply control themselves?

To use yet another bad medical analogy - let's consider diabetics and candy stores. Diabetics really can't handle eating a bunch of candy. However, candy stores are not illegal. They can advertise, put stuff on display, etc. Why is that?

Could it be. . . because candy is not inherently bad, and diabetics have to simply learn to control themselves?

Maybe some men see all women as candy, and act like 3 year olds in a candy store. However, I still don't understand why the responsibility should solely fall upon the women to correct this pathological behavior.

Consider things from a woman's point of view for a minute. If men are fueled by their basic biological desire to mate, then so must be women, correct? Women are (allegedly) genetically programmed to admire men of high status in the community. However, I don't harass and stalk every guy I see who drives a corvette. I certainly look at them, maybe stare a bit. But I don't fall apart. If I can control my inner biological urge to mate with all the posturing docs I'm around every day (ugg), than certainly men can control their urge to mate with the "fertile" females.

scigirl

Of course there is a whole range of women's dress that falls between a full shields burkha and that of a south broadway hooker.

Something you have to realise is that it is perfectly and perhaps unavoidably normal for a healthy man in close proximity to any moderately attractive woman to wonder at least fleetingly what sort of a roll in the hay she would make. No doubt some/many of your male collegues have had or are having thoughts about you that they being well behaved individuals keep to themselves. Still the thoughts are no doubt there.

What gets me and I think I have said this before is the type of woman who dresses and acts in a manner that clearly says she wants to be noticed by men but seems to believe that she is entitled to in a room with 10 men be noticed by only the 2 or 3 she is interested in. It is a power game with many of them to attract a mans notice and then try to get him nailed as a harrasser. I agree that when a woman says 'no I am not interested' to a man he should leave her alone. however his first approach should not be regarded as harassment. SHE has a duty to warn off unwanted advances before squealing about being put upon.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by truelies

What gets me and I think I have said this before is the type of woman who dresses and acts in a manner that clearly says she wants to be noticed by men but seems to believe that she is entitled to in a room with 10 men be noticed by only the 2 or 3 she is interested in. It is a power game with many of them to attract a mans notice and then try to get him nailed as a harrasser. I agree that when a woman says 'no I am not interested' to a man he should leave her alone. however his first approach should not be regarded as harassment. SHE has a duty to warn off unwanted advances before squealing about being put upon.

Exactly. Unless a man has reasonable reason to suspect his approach is not wanted it can't be considered wrong.

[scigirl]

What gets me and I think I have said this before is the type of woman who dresses and acts in a manner that clearly says she wants to be noticed by men but seems to believe that she is entitled to in a room with 10 men be noticed by only the 2 or 3 she is interested in.
(self edited because the post was in response to extreme anger at recent events - please see next post).

scigirl

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Exactly.
(self edited because the post was in response to extreme anger at recent events - please see next post).

scigirl

[scigirl]

I'm afraid I can no longer objectively participate in this debate any longer.

As you can probably guess from my previous post, I'm a little angry. I just found out yesterday that the doctor I work with every thursday had a horrible thing happen to his family:

At 10 am in the morning in a fairly safe part of Denver, his family was attacked in their home in broad daylight.

His wife was bound and gagged, and his daughter who is only 13 years old, was sexually assaulted. 13 Fucking years old. And people are still blaming women's clothing. Well fuck them. Sorry if I can't be objective, but damn. Men who can't control their urges are fucking pathologically sick. And they should be shot.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E1565127,00.html

scigirl

[alek0]

Few questions:

Why should a man need to be told that his approach is unwanted? Why should he assume that approach is wanted until told otherwise? There are clear ways to indicate that approach is wanted. In absence of any signs that approach is wanted, why should a man try? Especially in places other than clubs, bars, pubs etc. What makes you think that women for example go to bookstores for any reasons other than buying or browsing books?

Why do you assume that a woman dresses attractively in order to attract men? I dress the way I do for one reason only - because I like to look at myself in the mirror and like what I see. It feels good to look good. It does not mean that I am looking for a man. Why is that so difficult to understand?

What do men intend to achieve with whistling, catcalls etc.? I don't know of any example when that sort of behavior achieved anything other than made the woman uncomfortable. If it is highly unlikely to have any positive effect, why do it?

On the other hand, I don't think that first approach or saying "nice dress today" is harassment. Things like "you won't be promoted unless you have sex with me" are harassment.
In my experience, it may be annoying to deal with unwanted advances but most of them can be resolved without reporting it unless the person doing the harassment is in the position to negatively influence the career. Sure, there are guys who are a bit slow to understand that no means no. However, if a guy is persisting after being told a clear no, I take it as a license to be as mean as I like and after a few truly wicked replies the problem is usually solved. However, I also don't see why should I dress like a nun to avoid this problem.

Approaching any woman just because you find her attractive or she is wearing a short skirt in absence of any indication that she wants you or anyone else to approach her is simply wrong. I don't try to approach every handsome guy I see in the street. Why then I can't be left alone, too? Why are men who approach attractive strangers in the street usually extremely unattractive? When was the last time you saw a fat middle aged woman approaching a handsome 20 year younger guy?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by scigirl

His wife was bound and gagged, and his daughter who is only 13 years old, was sexually assaulted. 13 Fucking years old. And people are still blaming women's clothing. Well fuck them. Sorry if I can't be objective, but damn. Men who can't control their urges are fucking pathologically sick. And they should be shot.

scigirl

There's a big difference between noticing someone dressed in a hot fashion and the sort of thing you are describing above.

Noticing her is one thing, raping quote another. The latter is *NOT* acceptable conduct even if she's stark naked and walking through Muslim lands!

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by alek0
Why should a man need to be told that his approach is unwanted? Why should he assume that approach is wanted until told otherwise? There are clear ways to indicate that approach is wanted. In absence of any signs that approach is wanted, why should a man try? Especially in places other than clubs, bars, pubs etc. What makes you think that women for example go to bookstores for any reasons other than buying or browsing books?

Should it only be permitted to meet people in traditional meeting venues? What about those of us who don't drink? Should we go through life alone?

Why do you assume that a woman dresses attractively in order to attract men? I dress the way I do for one reason only - because I like to look at myself in the mirror and like what I see. It feels good to look good. It does not mean that I am looking for a man. Why is that so difficult to understand?

But how is the man to know? If you're not in the market, wear a wedding ring!

What do men intend to achieve with whistling, catcalls etc.?

I do agree this is rude.

]On the other hand, I don't think that first approach or saying "nice dress today" is harassment. Things like "you won't be promoted unless you have sex with me" are harassment.


Or hands going where they aren't supposed to.

However, if a guy is persisting after being told a clear no, I take it as a license to be as mean as I like and after a few truly wicked replies the problem is usually solved. However, I also don't see why should I dress like a nun to avoid this problem.

Note that I said unless he knows it's unwelcome. You are describing a situation where he knows it's unwelcome.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by scigirl
...why can't men simply control themselves?...Men who can't control their urges are fucking pathologically sick. And they should be shot.

Your anger does not excuse the offensive and unsubstantiated negative generalizations you are conveying. Men who have the urge to rape are sick, but there has been no evidence presented here that most or even many men have to "simply control" the urge to conduct themselves in the manner you describe and then condemn.

Rape is not about sex; it is about domination and control. There has been no evidence presented on the thread to suggest it is a biological male drive or imperative, and the fact that human rape usually involves conduct unlikely to result in conception suggests that it is not.

Rape prevention is not a matter of getting men "to simply control themselves." It is no more valid to blame the "urges" of men for rape than it is to blame the dress and behavour of women for it.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by alek0
Few questions:

and a few more:

Why should a man need to be told that his approach is unwanted?

Why shouldn't he?

Why should he assume that approach is wanted until told otherwise?

Why should he assume otherwise?

There are clear ways to indicate that approach is wanted.

The are many ways to indicate that approach is unwanted, as well.

In absence of any signs that approach is wanted, why should a man try?

In the absence of any sign that approach is unwanted, why shouldn't he?

Especially in places other than clubs, bars, pubs etc. What makes you think that women for example go to bookstores for any reasons other than buying or browsing books?

What makes you think that women for example go to bookstores only for reasons of buying or browsing books?

Why should a woman assume a man needs to be told his approach is unwanted?

Why should she assume otherwise?

Why do you assume that a woman dresses attractively in order to attract men? I dress the way I do for one reason only...

Why do you assume that all women share your same motives?

Why do you assume that your motives for the way you dress are shared by all women?

What do men intend to achieve with whistling, catcalls etc.? I don't know of any example when that sort of behavior achieved anything other than made the woman uncomfortable. If it is highly unlikely to have any positive effect, why do it?

Men who do so are usually attempting to impress others with their virility and aggressiveness.

In my experience, it may be annoying to deal with unwanted advances but most of them can be resolved without reporting it unless the person doing the harassment is in the position to negatively influence the career. Sure, there are guys who are a bit slow to understand that no means no. However, if a guy is persisting after being told a clear no, I take it as a license to be as mean as I like and after a few truly wicked replies the problem is usually solved.

Then why the tirade against men who approach women?

Approaching any woman just because you find her attractive or she is wearing a short skirt in absence of any indication that she wants you or anyone else to approach her is simply wrong.

Explain why it's wrong to approach a woman because you find her attractive.

I don't try to approach every handsome guy I see in the street.

Most men don't approach every handome girl they see, either.

Why then I can't be left alone, too?

Why can't I? The answer probably has something to do with living in a collective where not everyone has the same motives and desires all of the time.

Why are men who approach attractive strangers in the street usually extremely unattractive?

Why are your standards of attractiveness a measure of whether a man may approach a woman?

When was the last time you saw a fat middle aged woman approaching a handsome 20 year younger guy?

When was the last time you saw a gorgeous woman approaching an unemployed street person?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Your anger does not excuse the offensive and unsubstantiated negative generalizations you are conveying.

Probably true, but on the grounds of pragmatism and sheer human empathy, and with all respect, I'ld very strongly recommend you wait at least 4 more days before you lecture Scigirl in that vein.

And I'ld seriously recommend that Loren Pechtel get himself some human empathy, fast.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Gurdur

And I'ld seriously recommend that Loren Pechtel get himself some human empathy, fast.

Huh? I'm saying she's using too wide a brush in her tarring.

Yes, the crime she referred to is vile--but that doesn't mean there's something wrong in a man finding a woman attractive and approaching her because of it.

[alek0]

If you have no problem with men approaching women without clear indication that the approach is wanted, I assume you have no problem with religious prosyletizing, right? After all, some people are looking for a new religion to convert to, so there is nothing wrong in assuming that you are one of them, right?

Can anyone answer me why is the default that a man should approach a woman whom he considers attractive if he has recieved no indication that approach would be wanted. If he tries to establish eye contact and she looks away, if he smiles and she turns her head on the other side, if he tries to walk by her side in the crowd and she tries to avoid that, is it still OK for him to try to start a conversation. Isn't it clear that she is not interested? Why can't you understand that unwanted approach, especially if a man is persisting in spite of having recieved no encouragement is 1) annoying 2) disturbing because of safety concerns.

What makes you think that women for example go to bookstores only for reasons of buying or browsing books?

That's a rather silly question. Because that is what bookstores are for. I don't know anyone who goes to a bookstore for the purpose of meeting a person of opposite (or same, depewnding on preferences) sex.

hy do you assume that all women share your same motives?

Why do you assume that your motives for the way you dress are shared by all women?

I don't. I am simply pointing out that there is at least one case (and there are likely many more) where a woman dresses attractively without wanting to attract men. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that every woman who takes care of her appearance is looking for a sexual partner.

Men who do so are usually attempting to impress others with their virility and aggressiveness.

And this is somehow acceptable excuse for such behavior?

Then why the tirade against men who approach women?

Because it is extremely annoying, it can be disturbing and it can be quite unpleasant. Wearing a short skirt is not an invitation for some bastard to put his hand between my legs, looking attractive in a crowded public transport is not a justification for some bastard to press himself against me so that I can feel his erection and breed heavily down my neck. Have you ever been sexually assaulted? the tirade is mainly because there are a number of men who don't understand that no doesn't mean yes, that no doesn't mean maybe, that no simply means NO. It is absolutely amazing how rude and insulting must a woman be until it finally gets through that she really means no. Unfortunately, one cannot afford to be rude or insulting with complete strangers because you never know whether he is some kind of a psycho or he is going to pull out a weapon. And polite no in my experience is in majority of cases considered as maybe. I've tried polite indication that I'm not interested, I've tried ignoring the guy, and in almost every case attempts for conversation continued after clear indication that approach was unwanted. So that's why the tirade.

I don't have much against guy trying once, as long as he doesn't try again after being told that I'm not interested. But this rarely happens. And then it happens again. And again. Do you have any idea what a woman who travels alone has to put up with? Often it is 1-2 cases even before I leave the airport building. A lot worse than Mormons or JWs.

Why are your standards of attractiveness a measure of whether a man may approach a woman?

How many young women find middle aged, balding, overweight men attractive? How would you feel if approached by a person whom you consider extremely unattractive and if that person would keep trying to touch you? And that in spite of clear indications that you don't want it?

Again, why should men consider it their inherent right to approach any woman whom they consider attractive? If there is such a right, why should it supercede the right of another individual to not be disturbed?

But how is the man to know? If you're not in the market, wear a wedding ring!

And guess what? According to experiences of my married friends, this doesn't work. Sometimes it doesn't help even if your partner is in the room at a party, if you are left alone for few seconds, you are a fair game.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by alek0
Can anyone answer me why is the default that a man should approach a woman whom he considers attractive if he has recieved no indication that approach would be wanted. If he tries to establish eye contact and she looks away, if he smiles and she turns her head on the other side, if he tries to walk by her side in the crowd and she tries to avoid that, is it still OK for him to try to start a conversation. Isn't it clear that she is not interested? Why can't you understand that unwanted approach, especially if a man is persisting in spite of having recieved no encouragement is 1) annoying 2) disturbing because of safety concerns.

You are describing a situation where he knows it's unwanted!

That's a rather silly question. Because that is what bookstores are for. I don't know anyone who goes to a bookstore for the purpose of meeting a person of opposite (or same, depewnding on preferences) sex.

Why does meeting someone only have to occur in situations meant for it?

I don't. I am simply pointing out that there is at least one case (and there are likely many more) where a woman dresses attractively without wanting to attract men. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that every woman who takes care of her appearance is looking for a sexual partner.

Nobody said that he should assume she's looking. What we said is that she should realize that men will be interested.

Because it is extremely annoying, it can be disturbing and it can be quite unpleasant. Wearing a short skirt is not an invitation for some bastard to put his hand between my legs,

None of us are saying this is justified. As far as I'm concerned that's sexual assault.

I don't have much against guy trying once, as long as he doesn't try again after being told that I'm not interested. But this rarely happens. And then it happens again. And again. Do you have any idea what a woman who travels alone has to put up with? Often it is 1-2 cases even before I leave the airport building. A lot worse than Mormons or JWs.

To me, once is ok, again is wrong.

And guess what? According to experiences of my married friends, this doesn't work. Sometimes it doesn't help even if your partner is in the room at a party, if you are left alone for few seconds, you are a fair game.

I agree it doesn't always work--there are plenty of men out there who go too far.

[scigirl]

I wonder if the incidence of men continually hitting on certain women is correlated with what they are wearing. I have a feeling that it is not. I personally have been harassed when I was wearing baggy sweats, an old ugly t-shirt, and my hair pulled back (I was going running). Also, I've been harassed when I was walking home late from a bus stop. It was too dark for him to see what I was wearing - I was simply a young female out by herself, and that was enough.

scigirl

[Dr Rick]

Your mixing terms here; there is no excuse for anyone harrassing anybody, but that's not the same as claiming that it is wrong for a man (or woman) to approach (hit on) someone they are attracted to. If he/she finds the other person is not interested, he/she should desist and leave the other person alone.

If you have no problem with men approaching women without clear indication that the approach is wanted, I assume you have no problem with religious prosyletizing, right? After all, some people are looking for a new religion to convert to, so there is nothing wrong in assuming that you are one of them, right?

Your assumption is correct, and it is the healthy default position in a free-society. There is nothing wrong with a person simply approaching others, or prosyletizing to them, or asking them for a donation. Humans interact frequently with those they do not know.

Looking back at some of the recent posts, this thread has acquired the nascent hallmarks of another really original "Men are pigs" debacle; thanks to eveyone for their time and thoughts, and so long.

[scigirl]

I agree, Rick, and I'm never offended when I get "hit on" - especially if it's in a nice way. I also don't assume that a man who talks to me is actually hitting on me. Maybe he's just friendly. In the same way that it's probably arrogant for (some) men to assume they have the "right" to hit on a pretty lady, I'd say it's equally arrogant for a woman to assume that a man is talking to you just to hit on you.

I guess I was trying to tie in this whole topic together - the op was that part of our unhappiness in society stems from the lack of modesty in women. But is this actually true? Does it make a difference what we wear?

I have two conflicting opinions on this issue. One is that there is certainly subtle and global effects of seeing nudity all the time on TV, magazines, etc. Certainly this affects us in some way. I recall that study done in fiji, where anorexia rates in women skyrocketed after they started watching american television. So I believe that this obsession that women have with their bodies is influenced by images they see.

However, my other opinion is that we've always been this way, and that modesty is not an absolute concept, but rather a relative one. Didn't women used to obsess about their bodies before TV existed? I remember reading about women who wanted the "TB" look, so they would swallow rocks or drink some nasty substance. Now we call it the "heroin chick look." Same idea, completely different century.

We think about the Victorian era as being modest, but those dresses they wore showed just as much cleavage as J-Lo does today, I think! It was a relative thing - you could dress "victorian" and "slutty" at the same time, depending on what your sisters were wearing. So comparing their style of dress to our style of dress today is, in my opinion, is not a helpful thing to do.

If the op is true, it should be easy enough to prove. Women are more "immodest" in places like Hawaii, versus places like Montana where you wear 3 layers of clothing about 7 months out of the year. Does Hawaii suffer more from those problems listed in the op than Montana does?

My point I guess is that the status of women in society is probably influenced on a global level by the images we see, but translating that into what happens at the individual level is much more difficult. Men have always wanted sex, they still do. Likewise with women. I just don't think that wearing bikinis, short skirts, long skirts, or burkhas, is going to change those facts.

scigirl

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Looking back at some of the recent posts, this thread has acquired the nascent hallmarks of another really original "Men are pigs" debacle; thanks to eveyone for their time and thoughts, and so long.
I"m sorry you feel that way. My drunken outburst aside, I feel that the original op (the book that luvluv quoted) is basically saying that "men are pigs." That's why I have a problem with it. No I didn't read the book, but here's a quote I disagree with:
What the Genital Appropriation Era actually permitted was more access to women’s bodies by more men; what it achieved was not a great deal of liberation for women but a great deal of legitimacy for male promiscuity; what it passed onto women was
the male fragmentation of emotion from body; and the easily internalized schism between genital sex and responsible loving.
First I don't buy that male promiscuity is new, or increasing. But second, even if it is, I don't agree that it is due to a decrease in modesty, as I sort of explained in my previous post.

To me, this book is essentially saying that men "are" pigs. Maybe you could explain to me if you 1) agree with this book's premises, and 2) if you agree that part of the premise of this book is that men aren't as able to control themselves as women are, when it comes to sex. Because that's how I interpret the book. And I disagree with that idea.

scigirl

[luvluv]

With all due respect, sci-girl, I think you are totally missing the point of the argument that the book is trying to make. The book is not saying, primarily, that immodesty corrupts men, and therefore society, and therefore should be done away with. What the book primarily is arguing is that immodesty works against the sexual and romantic interests of women, and therefore it is a practice that women should abandon, FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. The book does, in certain points, make arguments (which I consider to be valid and convincing) that immodesty has bad social consequences. But the books main goal is to offer that modesty is 1) natural, 2) protective and empowering rather than oppressive, and 3) a necessary component of a society in which women, all women, have a decent chance at fulfilling their sexual and romantic hopes.

I agree with you that there is a spectrum of modesty (more on that later), and I would also say that there is a spectrum of sexuality. On one end of the spectrum are people who prefer promiscuity, whose ideal scenario is to have a string of anonymous partners. It is true that very few people, male or female, truly inhabit the extreme end of this side of the spectrum. On the other end of the spectrum are total marital monogamists. These are people who believe in one sexual partner for life in and only in the confines of marriage. (I’m purposely excluding the celibate, as this is a spectrum of sexuality not the lack thereof.)

Now, the book does not argue that all men are at the extreme end of one spectrum and that all women are on the extreme end of the other spectrum. The book simply states, as most of us assume, that men are closer as a whole to the promiscuous end, and that women are closer to the monogamist end of that spectrum. Many of your posts seem to suggest that it’s either all or nothing or it’s not a problem. That if men aren’t snakes and snails and puppy dog tails and if women aren’t really sugar and spice and everything nice, that there can’t be any issue with how women dress. (AND PLEASE, PLEASE notice that if you are of the opinion that the book is primarily about how women DRESS, you are mistaken. It is more about how women BEHAVE.) But even if things are more gray than black and white, we are still shifting towards the darker grays and blacks of the spectrum, and that is still a problem. No, men aren’t exclusively or primarily pigs. But we’re more piggish in our sexual agendas than are women. That’s all that is necessary for the current situation to be a problem. As tronvillian said, there are obvious biological reasons why women would be more selective about their mates than men, and there are obvious differences in how men and women gauge a suitable sex partner. Shallit’s argument does not need to assume that men are mindless beasts, only that they are more visually stimulated and less selective than women. Now granting this uncontroversial fact, it is merely axiomatic that in a society where women dress more provocatively and require less, in the form of commitment and character, from the men that they sleep with, the balance of power will shift decidedly towards the male side of the spectrum of sexuality.

There’s a legitimate point to be made here, and while I think Shallit was probably influenced by an extremely liberal evironment in her collegiate days to believe that the problem is worse than it is, it is nevertheless a fact that the romantic ideal is today seen as naïve. A person who, like Shallit herself, tries to pursue romance and fidelity and (God forbid) withholding their virginity for commitment as a LIFE STRATEGY are often ridiculed and maligned. It is not an exaggeration to say that our society views holding onto your virginity, into your middle 20’s if need be, as pathological. It is not true, in our supposedly live and let live society, that if you choose such a path you will be greeted with indifference or support by society at large. The same people who demand an absolute refferendum on judgement for promisuous behavior are the very ones wearing the robe and wielding the gavel when a young woman or young man decides to take a counter-cultural approach to their sexuality. As a 27 year old celibate male, I know this first hand. The same people who would rage against me for making any sort of judgement on their sexuality miss no opportunity to decry that my own choices are “oppressive”, “unhealty”, and “unnatural.”

Getting back to the point, Shallit’s basic argument is that modesty not just in dress (in fact I think that is the least important component of modesty) but in behavior, is the best way for women to balance the field. I know it sounds cynical to say that men and women have competing goals in the sexual arena, and that when one wins the other loses. However, the fact remains that men and women have, generally, essential differences in what they want out of a sexual relationship. When sex happens, some form of compromise is struck. Shallit argues that in a society like ours, the “survival value” of modesty has plumetted because of the sexual behavior of women. In other words, because sex is so much more readily available and publicly approved, a woman who wants to withhold sex is at a disadvantage to a woman who does not. And while men are sentient moral agents, the odds are generally that all things being equal the man will gravitate towards the woman who offers him the best prospect of immediate (or near immediate) gratification. So when the sexual landscape is populated by a “critical mass” of such women, and with no sense in that landscape that it is proper to expect fidelity or commitment in a sexual relationship,, the terms of compromise shift markedly towards men’s interests. They can have more sex with more women at less cost to themselves.

Now if you, as a woman, feel that such a scenario is to your advantage, you would be one of the few. Do women really believe that a society in which sex is more common, with fewer strings attached, where men can always find easy sex elsewhere, without every having to be dependable, gentlemanly, caring, or particularly faithful… does anyone believe that such a society is one in which women are “empowered” or “liberated”? I think it is a burden for women that we live in a society where a man has a legitimate expectation of sex within a month of dating her, but that she has no legitimate expectation of a lasting commitment (of any kind) after the relationship is consumated. A society in which there is absolutely no public approbation for such treatment of women, where a woman occasionally feels apologetic for her inability to have sex without hang-ups, where she can actually be made to APOLOGIZE for the very expectation of commitment, is not a society in which women have the upper-hand in sexual poliltics. It is a society which is equally, perhaps more, misogynistic than a society which socializes men to expect to pay a high price in commitment for access to a woman’s body, and a society which socializes women to sell their sexuality dearly, and not cheaply.

Certainly, Shallit may be exaggerating at points in terms of the scope and the power of the normalization of extramarital sex. But is she right in thinking that the sexual landscape is currently working more in the interests of men and against the interests of women? Is she wrong in seeing that we are drifting towards the masculine end of the spectrum?

Shallit’s point is not that immodesty fails society. It is that immodesty fails WOMEN. It doesn’t get them what they are likely to want. Shallit’s point is that women look at the issue incorrectly. Women still fear judgement for their sexual behavior, so they react to anyone who critiques the current sexual landscape as one reacts to someone impugning their character. They see that anyone attacking the status quo is attacking THEM PERSONALLY, attacking the decisions that they have made. But very few women are really willing to look around them and ask themselves “Am I happy with the way things are?”, “In a perfect world, is this what I want sex to be like… is this what I want love to be like?” In my opinion, concerned women should stop looking at critiques of immodesty as a judgement on what they have done, but rather as an opportunity to explore WHAT IT IS THEY ULTIMATELY WANT, and to assess whether the current situation is giving them their best shot at it.

If women could build the sexual landscape over again, to remake male and female interactions anyway they desired, are you telling me they would remake it exactly as it is today?

If you are a woman, and your answer to that question is no, then why are you defending a state of affairs that you don’t like?

(I think this gets to a larger point, and a larger issue I have with feminism, a point I heard made by a Marxist writer by the name of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse stated that the primary problem of feminism is that it seeks to masculinize women rather than to feminize men, which is more necessary. The problem with feminism is that as it construes all aspects of femininity as having their origin in oppression, it essentially negates the authentic woman. There is no such thing as women, they essentially say, in nature we were all men, we all wanted the things men wanted. Thus the male becomes the norm, and women are normal only to the extent that their goals are masculinized. Thus, the role of feminism has not been to try to get men to respect and conform to female romantic and sexual interests, but to encourage women to try to mimic the sexual interests of men. Because, after all, female sexual interests such as love, romance, monogamy, aren’t REALLY female. They were imposed on women by men who [for some reason] wanted to limit the number of women they could have sex with…. I MEAN… who wanted to oppress women. [Yeah, that’s the ticket…]

So where feminists should have championed equal fidelity, they championed equal promiscuity. They had no choice, since they defined feminine modesty (and the concomitant desire for romantic monogamy) as an imposed ideal, and therefore not “real” they could hardly desired that both sexes equally submit themselves to illusion.)

Now, as to the spectrum of modesty in dress, I would say there is certainly a spectrum. Personally, I love seeing a beautiful woman presenting her beauty proudly. It can make my day. But there is a clear limit beyond which a woman presents herself in a way that is just lewd and crass, and the dress of young women particularly today has definitely shifted towards that end of the spectrum. One of the best chapters in the book is “Modesty and the Erotic” in which Shallit argues that an overdose of immodesty is problematic because it just isn’t sexy. She argues that some of the allure of sex is destroyed if everything is out in the open for all to see on an everyday basis. In sensuality being presented so freely and so publicly, it is inevitably cheapened. What is the big deal about me getting to see you in your underwear if every Joe on the street has the same privilege every time you walk out of the house? The sad fact is much of the pleasure of sexuality has to do with it’s privacy, it’s exclusiveness. The fact that it presents and offers what is not presented and offered to just anyone at anytime. However, when sexually provocative attire becomes the norm, when lingerie can pass as an evening gown, then the point of lingerie is largely done away with.

I’m sure I’m not alone when I say that what is most attractive to me is a woman who knows how to dress suggestively but not provocatively. That’s a private opinion, but I don’t think it is a rare one. Those long print dresses that girls were wearing a few years ago (the ankle length ones?) are more sexy to me than a pair of daisy dukes or a mid-drift any day. And the fact is that while I might want to look at a girl who has on barely any clothes, my interest in her doesn’t go much farther than that. The girl in the dress is intriguing. I think many women have lost grasp of that concept. The intriguing woman is always more pursued than the woman who puts everything on display for all to see. Men do want things left to the imagination in women they will actually want to spend any time with. No, most men do not have problems looking at women in strip clubs, but at the same time men do not want to take such women home to mother, nor enter into any kind of lasting relationship with them.

You can have brains and boobs, but you have to lead with one or the other, and your decision will tell all the men who are looking at you something fundamental about yourself. You are asking can’t I be both sexual and intellectual. Yes, but you do have to decide which aspect of yourself is fundamental in terms of your public presentation of yourself. Men can handle it without going to pieces, sci-girl, that’s not the issue. The issue is will it get you what you want? Will dressing in a cerain way get you the attention of the people whose attention you desire? Will it get you the respect of the people whose respect you desire?

And contrary to popular opinion, this is not a double standard. You would lose respect for a male doctor, or priest, or school teacher, who walked around with barely any clothes on. When someone presents themselves in public as something primarily to be looked at, as an object to be stared at and commented on, that is what will follow. Certain ways of presenting yourself in public scream “Look at me” and when you dress in a way that demands purely visual attention that is what you will get. However, if you dress in a way that demands curiousity, intrigue, promise, then that is what you will receive also. It seems that women demand more than human nature can provide when they feel they have a right to dress in anyway they want without anyone drawing the appropriate conclusion. Men don’t have that right and neither do women. We make choices and we have to live with them.

[tronvillain]

luvluv:
Getting back to the point, Shallit’s basic argument is that modesty not just in dress (in fact I think that is the least important component of modesty) but in behavior, is the best way for women to balance the field. I know it sounds cynical to say that men and women have competing goals in the sexual arena, and that when one wins the other loses. However, the fact remains that men and women have, generally, essential differences in what they want out of a sexual relationship. When sex happens, some form of compromise is struck. Shallit argues that in a society like ours, the “survival value” of modesty has plumetted because of the sexual behavior of women. In other words, because sex is so much more readily available and publicly approved, a woman who wants to withhold sex is at a disadvantage to a woman who does not. And while men are sentient moral agents, the odds are generally that all things being equal the man will gravitate towards the woman who offers him the best prospect of immediate (or near immediate) gratification. So when the sexual landscape is populated by a “critical mass” of such women, and with no sense in that landscape that it is proper to expect fidelity or commitment in a sexual relationship,, the terms of compromise shift markedly towards men’s interests. They can have more sex with more women at less cost to themselves.

To me it does not sound cynical to say that "men and women have competing goals in the sexual arena, and that when one wins the other loses", it sounds wrong. That is, I do not think it is true. I think you overestimate the importance that the average woman places on sex in today's society. Yes, they probably want a long term committed relationship, at least eventually, that does not mean they want to wait until they are sure a relationship is definitely one of long term committment before they have sex. After all, that could take forever, and why should they deprive themselves of sex, especially since it is not clear that withholding sex would make the occurence of a long term relationship any more likely. Plus, it could be quite important to know how good a guy is in bed before anything truly long term and serious develops. Yes, women who want to wait a long time in a relationship before having sex are at a disadvantage, but who the fuck cares? That appears to be a minority of women.
Now if you, as a woman, feel that such a scenario is to your advantage, you would be one of the few. Do women really believe that a society in which sex is more common, with fewer strings attached, where men can always find easy sex elsewhere, without every having to be dependable, gentlemanly, caring, or particularly faithful… does anyone believe that such a society is one in which women are “empowered” or “liberated”? I think it is a burden for women that we live in a society where a man has a legitimate expectation of sex within a month of dating her, but that she has no legitimate expectation of a lasting commitment (of any kind) after the relationship is consumated. A society in which there is absolutely no public approbation for such treatment of women, where a woman occasionally feels apologetic for her inability to have sex without hang-ups, where she can actually be made to APOLOGIZE for the very expectation of commitment, is not a society in which women have the upper-hand in sexual poliltics. It is a society which is equally, perhaps more, misogynistic than a society which socializes men to expect to pay a high price in commitment for access to a woman’s body, and a society which socializes women to sell their sexuality dearly, and not cheaply.
Except that we do not appear to be living in that society. Perhaps you are unaware since you are a twenty-seven year old virgin and so are presumably not trying, but it is not that easy for a guy to get sex (without directly paying for it that is). Why do we live in a society in which a man has a legitimate expectation of sex within a month of dating her? For the simple reason that the average women in our society appears to think that demonstrates sufficient potential for a lasting committed relationship that they can have some sex. She does have a legitimate expectation of lasting committment after the relationship is consumated, and justifiably so, since virtually no male says "Okay, finally got sex from her, time to leave." :rolleyes: The person most likely to break it off after the relationship is consumated is the woman, not the man. Men do break up with women, but it is not because she "gave in" and had sex with him. When have women ever been made to apologize for expecting commitment? We do not live in that society: it is a figment of your imagination.

[brighid]

But how is the man to know? If you're not in the market, wear a wedding ring!

Unfortunately, this doesn't work! :( I have even experienced multiple cases where I have said, "No, I am engaged/married and I am not interested" to have it followed by something like, "that's okay. I don't mind and he doesn't have to know!" :eek:

I can empathize with alek and with the men. I think it may be difficult for men to understand because they are usually the "hunter" and not the "prey" (for lack of better terms at this early hour and not full caffeinated yet).

Sometimes, there is absolutely nothing a half-way attractive woman can do (beyond wearing a burkha) to escape the notice of men. Sometimes you just want to be left alone and when the baggiest sweats, no makeup, baseball cap, and glasses does not work you just want to hide. I am not sure any man I know has ever had this experience. It may be difficult to understand given that most men would welcome more attention of this nature, but as a female I know my experience with this is very different.

I know I have had similar frustrations as alek and scigirl. I have felt angry at times even. Thinking "what on earth gives you the right to oggle me, look at me and make comments like that?"

I am certainly not angry at all men, but I would like some men to be more aware that their wolfen like gazes, their comments on my physique, etc. are not welcome and simply because a man may find me attractive does not mean he has the right to approach me, comment on my body, etc. (I think I worked, lived and played in the city far too long...) Or at least if those men would learn a bit of respect and when I won't meet his gaze, when I turn away, and my body language is clear that I am not interested to please just leave me (and other women) alone.

Brighid

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by brighid
Unfortunately, this doesn't work! :( I have even experienced multiple cases where I have said, "No, I am engaged/married and I am not interested" to have it followed by something like, "that's okay. I don't mind and he doesn't have to know!" :eek:

Oh, I know there are plenty of rude males out there. However, the widespread theme of this thread seems to be tarring all males with the actions of a subset of them.

I can empathize with alek and with the men. I think it may be difficult for men to understand because they are usually the "hunter" and not the "prey" (for lack of better terms at this early hour and not full caffeinated yet).

Yes--society says we must be the hunters. You can't then turn around and prohibit us from hunting--otherwise the species would die out.

I am certainly not angry at all men, but I would like some men to be more aware that their wolfen like gazes, their comments on my physique, etc. are not welcome and simply because a man may find me attractive does not mean he has the right to approach me, comment on my body, etc. (I think I worked, lived and played in the city far too long...) Or at least if those men would learn a bit of respect and when I won't meet his gaze, when I turn away, and my body language is clear that I am not interested to please just leave me (and other women) alone.

What I see is that a lot of men need to do a far better job of understanding no.

[brighid]

Yes--society says we must be the hunters. You can't then turn around and prohibit us from hunting--otherwise the species would die out.

I doubt the species would die out if some "hunters" learned some manners and respect however. For some it might even increase their chances of propogating the species.


What I see is that a lot of men need to do a far better job of understanding no.

Absolutely.

Brighid

[luvluv]

tronvillian:

First of all, as I've told you several times in these discussions, I am not a virgin. I'm celibate. I trust the difference is intelligible. And while I'm not the most expereienced person in the world, I am experienced enough to know that when a person talks too much about what he's doing, he's not doing that much. I say that to say that I have never found your appeals to personal authority in these conversations particularly impressive. If anything, they usually make me think you're younger and less experienced than you claim to be.

Further, you don’t even seem to understand Shallit’s basic argument. Her point is that society has put women in a position where, while she might be damned if she does, she is definitely damned if she don’t.

She isn’t saying that in any sexual relationship that any particular man is liable to leave HIS woman BECAUSE she is sleeping with him. She is saying that because sex is so readily available to the man from other women, this DESTABILIZES the relationship and makes it less secure than it otherwise would have been. Copy that, Chief?

It is the relative availability of sex that destabilizes monogamy, and since women RELATIVE TO MALES have more of a tendency to desire monogamy in the sexual arena, this disadvantages women primarily (but certainly not exclusively).


When I say that sex is easy, believe it or not I am able to speak largely from personal experience. Heck, even in my post conversion days, when I've been TRYING NOT TO GET LAID, I've had more than my share of opportunities. Not that I;m some sort of pretty boy or anything, and that's kind of my point. My point is that there are not as many character requirements to the sex act as there used to be. When I say that sex is easy, I'm saying that I don't need to be a good person to get sex, EVEN from other good people.

Women, historically speaking, and probably out of biological necessity, are the gatekeepers of sex. Women decide when, and where, and under what conditions, and at what price sex will occur. Now, a large deciding factor in male behavior is sex. In short men condition their behavior towards what is required of them for sexual access to women. If women, as a whole, set the standard such that only genetlemen have a good chance of getting laid, we will have a society of gentlemen. If women set the standard such that men have to be

We are approaching a society in which sex is defined in such a way as to defy or even forbid character-based prohibitions on sexual expression. If regular sex really is an undeniable need for mental and physical health, then it really is senseless to ask anyone to wait for a person of proper character. After all, I don’t require character from the person who provides me with food, nor of the person who provides me with shelter, at least no more than is required for me to trust that they will complete the agreed upon transaction. In such a climate, NOTHING is expected of men in terms of their treatment of women. For most men of our era, the treatment of women is an afterthought, it is something one gains in a haphazard fashion from personal experience. Whereas a generation or so ago, young men were trained on how to relate to women, it was a priority that men be trained on how to regard and treat women in respectful fashion. A large impetus behind this training was that women were socialized to value their virginity and their sexuality and they were taught that it was better to be celibate than to be with a man of poor character. Now that nothing is expected of men, however, nothing is largely what is available. Men are less likely to get married now, and more likely to get divorced, precisely because the social “expense” of sex has plummetted.

What is unavoidable is the correlation between a man’s willingness to committ and the social cost of sex. A large reason why men committed to women historically had to do with sex. If commitment was never a requirement for sex, how frequent do you think marriages would have ever been?

Now we are neither of us women, but if this is what women WANT, shorter, less committed, less stable relationships with numerous partners over against the prospect of more stable, longer lasting relationships, then they are behaving currently in a wise fashion for asking much less than their predecessors did for sex.

Shallit puts it this way

Women, when no one else is around, do you secretly long for a whole series of men; to arbitrarily marry one of them and then maybe have affairs, maybe not - to be cool and wait and see if anyone better comes along, and then divorce - or d you long for one enduring love? That’s a loaded question, but still, if you could be guaranteed that no one would laugh at you, would it be the latter. If your answer is yes, why do you allow your culture to shatter your hopes? Why is it that you feel so dictated to, when you were supposed to be, above all, independent?

As for your last point about the women who want to wait being in the decided minority, Shallit makes some of her best points on just this notion. Her argument is that it is very difficult for women to make the choice to wait because of the social climate we have created around sex. I don’t imagine anyone wants to wait until they are 25 to have sex in our society. But I would bet that if there were absolutely no social pressure for sex, if every occurrence of sex really had everything to do with what each person really wanted in their hearts, that most girls would not be losing their virginity at 14 and 15, as they do now. I’m not saying that every girl would want to save it for their wedding night, but I think most of them would wait longer than they do now. If you don’t think there are any aspects of modern sexuality that aren’t ENTIRELY the product of socialization, I think you need to think more about it. There is pressure to have sex on young people who would otherwise not be having sex, and most of these people are young girls.

It is not conservative fiction that individuals are under social pressure in our society to be having sex. Not having it is consider to be denotative of failure, of abnormality. We do consider people who are having lots of sex to be more successful as human beings in our culture, to be more desirable, more cool, whatever. There is this liberal myth that all the sex in our society is the result of people following their hearts and natural impulses. Baloney. A great deal of the sex, and the sex talk in our culture, is about people trying to conform to the status quo, to be “normal”, to be popular (especially in high school), to be well thought of.

Sex, in our cultural lexicon, is no longer PRIMARILY a private expression of intimacy but it is a public proclamation of success, of worthiness, even base “normalcy.” (There is a tremendous pressure to conform to what society says is “normal”, and I notice even adults conforming to this pseudo-standard with bewildering regularity.)

So a woman who does want to wait is not only at a disadvantage in relation to other women, she faces an entire culture arrayed against her success. She faces a culture which offers her severe censure for even making the attempt. Chastity in our culture is subversive, it simply cannot be openly pursued without comment.
We dont even have a society in which chastity and a less restricted sexuality can equally compete. We have a society in which the media and