Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,071
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Why do you think it is appropriate to make moral judgments about high school girls?
-
Features
Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Why do you think it is appropriate to make moral judgments about high school girls?
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
It is neither inappropriate nor moral judgement, just an opinion.
Our high school has a dress code, those bastards, who are they to say what a high school girl can wear ? Why would they do that I wonder ?
And who put you in charge of thought crimes anyway ?
Oh, you read my post about particular girls that I saw in photos (there were about 10, most of whom I know personally) and you thought it applied to every teenager on the planet?
Why? Should you listen more carefully to what women ACTUALLY say and spend less time imagining your version of what women say?
There were actually some 13-14yos in the photos, too.
ruby sparks
Contributor
What makes you think I don't trust you? Of course I trust you. You're an honest and decent and likeable person and I'm sure everything you say about yourself and the people you've known is true. But the question of why women/girls/anyone around the world dressed/dresses and presented/presents themselves is not about you or the people you know, that's all.
I mean, you can literally, right now, go online, and read almost any number of examples of people, including women, girls, men and boys, saying that they dress and present themselves for reasons that are not only to please themselves.
And just in case there's any misunderstanding, if (if) they're expressing their sexuality, or just dressing to impress, or if (if) that is one part of their reasons, and even if it so happens that in some cases they do want sex, with whoever they consider to be the right person, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's natural. It's pretty much the same for all humans, male or female. We agree that that is not the problem. The problem, well the one we're mainly concerned about, is men misinterpreting.
Last edited:
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,071
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Yeah, I get it: it's about men telling women what they want and why they do what they do.
Although why men think they know a thing about women want is beyond me. From what I can tell, few men get laid as much as they would like and I don't know a single man who isn't perplexed by the women in his life on a daily basis.
But sure, go ahead and tell me that why girls and women dress the way we do not about us.
ruby sparks
Contributor
That’s an interesting question. As much overwhelming evidence that exists to prove that men are TERRIBLE at discerning the thoughts of women, they keep entering conversations with women and telling us, “no, what you really think is...”
Chances are, you’re going to be wrong. That’s just the odds based on how y’all are doing so far.
And still you just can’t stop yourselves from saying, “no, let me tell you what women and girls really think...”
ruby sparks
Contributor
Interesting and probably often true but irrelevant in this case. Because it's not just men who say it.
Is Heather Heying a man?
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,071
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Derec, my apologies. I was thinking of the film Eighth Grade. You should see it.
Here’s a handy recap of the thread:
I post an observation, looking at the pictures of about 10 high schoolers from freshman to junior, and I observe they are dressed with short skirts, cleavage showing on some, high heel, curled hair, make-up. And while I KNOW these girls, and I know they are NOT trolling for sex, I prredict many men will look on the same image and claim, “they are trolling for sex”
And then quite a few of you spend 3 pages demonstrating the point, perfectly. “Skanky Hos” and all.
Uplifting - some men on this thread did not; and understood fundamentally that clothing on a woman is not an advertisement for avilability. Thank you for being decent humans.
But the others who rushed in to prove the negative prediciton about men... I bet your fellow men roll their eyes at how badly you mess things up.
I post an observation, looking at the pictures of about 10 high schoolers from freshman to junior, and I observe they are dressed with short skirts, cleavage showing on some, high heel, curled hair, make-up. And while I KNOW these girls, and I know they are NOT trolling for sex, I prredict many men will look on the same image and claim, “they are trolling for sex”
And then quite a few of you spend 3 pages demonstrating the point, perfectly. “Skanky Hos” and all.
Uplifting - some men on this thread did not; and understood fundamentally that clothing on a woman is not an advertisement for avilability. Thank you for being decent humans.
But the others who rushed in to prove the negative prediciton about men... I bet your fellow men roll their eyes at how badly you mess things up.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
And you may well be right. I think you probably are. I think a lot of people here, including several men, would agree with you on that. And it's a problem.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
It looked to me like a moral judgement. Definitely.
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Nobody said that about that image. You didn’t get that reaction and your disappointment is noted. You must try harder.
Mmmm hmmm.
Some of the discussion in the thread veered into the intentions of adult women, not just teenagers.
Probably best just to stick with the age group in the OP, because it's apparent from women's responses that teenage girls don't share the same intentions as adult women.
Probably best just to stick with the age group in the OP, because it's apparent from women's responses that teenage girls don't share the same intentions as adult women.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
And now I have a question for you.
Do you have any sort of issue with that (#2)? See also: Gillette ad, above.
No, of course not. I said something similar myself earlier in the thread. I also posted my views on what young men should learn, about a year ago.
That's the first time I've seen the Gillette ad. It's exactly the type of thing I believe in: stepping in, looking after others. Any room should be safer simply because you're in it. It doesn't hinge on vengeful violence. It just requires the resolve to make someone else's problem our problem; to stick our necks out rather than keep our heads down.
Gotcha. Well said. I agree.
I confess I don't do it very often, the stuff in the ad. Mainly because I don't see anything to intervene on very often (I actually do believe here is different from, for example, the USA, or what I perceive of the USA via the media, and also, I don't get out as much as I used to now that I am older and domesticated, I probably associate with like-minded people, in certain types of places, etc) but I will, sometimes, non-aggressively, say something if I do see it. I could be missing it of course. It depends what exactly it is though.
Then there's the personal safety consideration. A man intervening can not unreasonably fear for his own safety, since the sort of man, who may also be drunk, who is likely to warrant an intervention, is also the sort of man, often anyway, who will react aggressively to being intervened on, perhaps especially by another man, another male negatively judging him, making a challenge. And I'm useless in a fight. In that hypothetical case, I'd do something nonetheless. Just be there and be seen to be there. And/or report it. Intervene if it becomes a serious physical assault. Or help others (good not to be the only intervener).
I am sure there are some, perhaps even one or two women here, maybe men too for all I know, who think the sort of thing I'm talking about here is not doing enough. I respect that. That's cool. People will always disagree about where exactly the line is.
Would I actually step in on a guy (as in the ad) who goes after a pretty woman in the street? That depends. I'm not sure I would. Perhaps, if it's as obvious as it was in that scene that he was literally 'going after her' with his eyes popping out. But in other situations, it might not be so clear. If I saw something 'like' that, I might, assuming I had the time, watch for a bit, to see what happened, and possibly intervene. But maybe the woman will tell him to fuck off, or handle it effectively in some way, and I might be seen as a Patronising White Knight if I step in before she exercises her agency. How do I know the woman even wants me to 'look after her'? It's not my job to be a social vigilante, necessarily. If that sounds controversial, I'll take the hit on that.
Men and women are judged differently. A man is fundamentally a warrior and seen as such. A man who isn't isn't highly regarded. A man who steps up and fights when necessary is massively socially rewarded. Women just aren't. It's nice. But we don't really reward them. There's very little in it for a woman to fight. A lot for men.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Society has gone through quite an extreme and rapid transformation the last 150 years. I haven't heard anybody saying "boys will be boys" to condone male transgressions since the 1970'ies.
The 1970'ies feminists ( second wave) won. They actually changed the world. So we can stop fighting their battles now. That war is since long over
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Not availability. But attention, sexual attention. Women know they can use sex to get stuff from men. Sex doesn't mean actually having sex. But it can certainly be used as a carrot to dangle in front of men. Even men they'd never consent to sleep with. And women admire women who are good at it.
I'm not saying I know what women are thinking. But it's pretty damn obvious what they are doing. Whether they are self aware of this is another matter.
Claiming women aren't doing it, especially young women, is a tad naive IMHO
ruby sparks
Contributor
Given that you're the one who doesn't believe in toxic masculinity, it's not really all that surprising that you think the above too.
ruby sparks
Contributor
That's a good point. I think at times, everyone on all 'sides' (horrible word) has brought 'women' into the discussion, but it's not as you say the OP. Were we to stick to the OP (in which I'm presuming there was no actual image ever posted by the way, presumably for understandable reasons of privacy) there would imo likely be general differences, as there might be differences between younger and older teenagers (19 is different from 13 etc). I think the OP was referring to 15-17 year olds?
Perhaps someone should post a typical photo from the internet of the sort the OP is about?
In fact, what the heck, I'll post one, for discussion purposes, allowing of course that it might not be like the one Rhea was citing:
This is not unlike the sort of 'pre-night out' pics that one of my daughters might have been in a few years ago when they were about 15-17. Rhea ca let me know if it's not like the one she had in mind.
Speaking broadly, my guess is that the girls in that photo are likely dressing and making up much more to please themselves (and possibly each other) than to impress boys and that they are not likely hoping to have sex that night. I can't get into their heads, and I would not be surprised if some of them in some ways were also dressing to impress other people, including perhaps boys, or at least some boys, or a boy, but on the whole, I would guess that it's much more about pleasing themselves. Don't ask me to guess the percentages. There's no way I could know from just one pic! They might not all be heterosexual for one thing.
I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone here thought that judging by that photo, any of those girls was necessarily or likely to be 'trolling for sex', or much worse, assumed that they were.
Last edited: