And that certainly makes sense too. Some people dress a certain way but it's for the WEATHER! not for how they want people to perceive them. lol I've been wearing my hunny's fleece shirt for the past week now because it's been so chilly outside. It looks stupid on me but it's the warmest thing that fits me right now. xD
No it isn't. Joan of Arc is a lady. Elizabeth Bathory is not. Winston Churchill is a gentleman. Josef Stalin? Hardly Your denial of this certainly does. Have you paid attention to this topic at all? I have no problem with women wearing whatever they want, and don't associate it with character at all. In fact I think I even pointed out that men who sit and kvetch over allegedly 'promiscuous' women are either creepy, or sexually repressed. I'm addressing the mentality that 'women' are entitled to respect by default (just because of what's in between their legs) - respect is something that has to be earned. It was Robin what's his name who went off on this tangent. My posts here weren't in response to the OP I wasn't responding to the OP. This thread was derailed on to some tangent about 'men need to treat women nice' - I was correcting him on that. By the same standard, women aren't entitled to respect a man just for having a penis - he has to act like a man Your ignorance is showing
So what is your position on this? I'm completely lost here, I think I got confused on who/what I was replying to I more or less agree with you on that. In fact I'd go as far to say that women who 'dress revealing in public' are usually 'not' doing it because they're 'looking to get laid on the spot' - I think the motive is wanting just to look attractive and get positive attention (which isn't bad in itself, unless your appearance is all that you self worth is derived from). I'd basically equate it to a guy with a nice car or truck with some expensive racing modifications - it doesn't mean he 'literally wants to go racing', just that he wants to be seen in a 'cool ride' (since men aren't as valued by women for their 'physical appearance' as vice versa, they tend to invest more in their cars, or motorcycles when it comes to 'looking good') The most actually 'promiscuous' women (as in the ones who 'slept around' with the most men) I've known were more covert about it (the exception would be literal hookers, since they purposely dress promiscuously in order to attract passersby). - - - Updated - - - Well you haven't known that many women, lol
Skirt length is not an accurate indicator of ones character... aka you cannot accurately judge a book by its cover. We all judge, including me, but one thing I never do is express my judgment to someone solely based upon what they are wearing. For example, I personally think the kids that wear the saggy pants look ridiculous... but I never have nor will I ever walk up to one of them and tell them that they look ridiculous. Why? Because frankly its none of my business how they dress and I believe it is shallow to express a judgement based on appearances alone. So long as ones attire is not violating any law, its just none of my business and I just could not care less what they wear. And if for some reason I ever see someone wearing something I deem inappropriate, I would rather go to City Hall and try to get the laws changed than to cast ineffectual judgments towards the fashion offender. But for all I care everyone could walk around in only underwear and it would not matter to me. I have known women who dress in socially acceptable ways but were very loose with their love (IMO better than calling them a whore). But it took me meeting a woman who always wears reveling clothing but does not sleep around and only has sex in the confines of a loving relationship and values marriage over casual sex to change my view. Sadly for most of my life I viewed women who dressed provocatively as town bicycles. I am now ashamed for having such a shallow and ignorant view in the past. Stereotypes are just offensive to me and it becomes worse once one realizes we are all stereotypes from afar in the eyes of another. Dressing in a socially accessible way does not make a person good... for IMO its their actions that determine their character. If we clean up Charles Manson and make him "appear" respectable does that mean he is respectable? If you were to take a respected member of the clergy and put long hair, a beard, and dress him in rags would this magically make them a bad person? There was an interesting news article about a man that did just that and it was interesting how many in the flock treated him not knowing he was really their pastor. We all live in a glass house... this is why I favor live and let live over casting stones of judgment of the superficial.
Who said it was, not me? I agree with that. Okay... where was I arguing that? On the same note, I don't think that Javis was ever arguing 'it's okay to treat women bad' either I don't view that - in fact guys who do usually haven't had any real experience with women. I used my 'cars' analogy - most guys who own sports cars aren't street racers or racing enthusiasts - they just want to 'look cool' (which isn't bad in and of itself) I think what was being discussed got confused somewhere in this thread That's true I agree. Somewhere along the line I believe you accused Javis of thinking 'it's okay to treat women bad if they 'dress inappropriately', but I never got that from what he was saying
My response in post #154 was to your question of; So what I said in post #154 was not directed at you, it was a clarification of my poorly worded OP. My OP was too brief and I should have been more specific on the topic. Answer is the same as the above. So is the following quote from Javis OK in your eyes? Now who knows, perhaps Javis was referring to consensual casual sex where the woman knew it was just about having fun with no strings attached. But when I read Javis saying... ... that screams player to me that drops lines in an attempt to get a woman to drop her panties. But as Javis has not responded to my questions I am left with the assumption that I hit the nail on the head and he has run from the argument. I have an adult daughter, and if I were ever to use a woman and"hit it and quit it" or drop lines to get a woman into bed... my daughter would flat out disown me! And what of Javis's daughter/s? What would they think if they stumbled upon this thread and read their fathers words? Even worse I wounder how Javis would take it when his girl/s grow up if some guy "hit it and quit" them? Its easy to objectify a woman but us fathers tend to get really moody when it is done to our own daughter. I absolutely got that. But as Javis is MIA on this we will never really know. Good and bad is often a matter of opinion and perhaps your view of what is the bad treatment of a woman is different from my own.
I doubt that he is saying he believes its okay to lie to women to 'get them in bed with him'. On the flip side, if a woman and a man had consensual sex without any strings attached, and the woman felt that the man was 'obligated' to keep dating him, that would be an error on her part. There are obsessive women like that, but if the man didn't lie to her and intentionally mislead her, then it's no fault on his part if she just "expected" him to keep dating her. If the genders were reversed the reaction would be different. If a man went on one date with a woman, or had sex with a woman 1 time, and then all of a sudden felt she was 'obligated' to keep giving him sex, or marry him, or have his kids, etc - that would seem creepy and stalker-ish. However when the sexes are reversed in the situation, then it's often immediately assumed "the man must've lead her on intentionally" and he's to blame - I don't like this double standard
See again you are judging on your own perspective, was Joan of Arc considered a lady in the time she lived by her opponents .. obviously not. What denial, the fact that I presented the actual meaning of the word lady which you choose to ignore .. it would seem the denial is more on your side of the fence than mine. Obviously more than you have, had you bothered to actually read the earliest responses to the OP then you would have seen that it is about the stereotyping of women for what they wear, and not about respecting them simply because of what is between their legs .. personally I respect all people until such time they do something to lose that respect, I tend to find if you treat people how you would wish to be treated they respond a lot better, you on the other hand go from the opposite direction starting with little or no respect and then expecting others to earn it from you. Then don't accuse me of going off thread when your responses are actually the ones that are. So in essence then we approach the idea of respect from opposing positions, me I like to treat all people with respect until such time that do something to lose that respect. If a woman wishes to act in a way that may seem un-woman like to some who am I to judge her for that, I'd rather not judge her until "I have walked a mile in her shoes". The whole point of the OP, IMHO, was to showcase the stereotyping that is perpetuated by adults to maintain the status quo to their children and thus continue the cycle .. IMO that cycle needs to be broken. My ignorance, even though the author of the OP pointed out your mistake .. Oh well they do say "There's none so blind as those who will not see"
Nevertheless, he is saying that, because nobody ever "fell for" the truth. That only happens with animals, never with humans.
Spacecricket79 wrote: if a woman and a man had consensual sex without any strings attached Hence vacation sex-right???
I just have been out of town since Thursday, and only had my phone... and I hate visiting this site on my phone.... either way, I'm hardly 'running' call it lines.. call it whatever you want..... I call it multiple personalities... I'm not looking for wives at the local bar.... the approach I take towards women there is 180* different than I took with my current fiance, who I met because a childhood friend is her boss (assistant Principal)... in fact, I almost didn't go out with her because I didn't want any issues coming up with my friend if I hit it and quit it like I had 3 other girls by the 3rd weekend of January last year. the other 3 girls... one needed a ride home because she was drunk and called me to come get her, said she'd.... if I did. ok. one was a friend of a girl I met and she hit it and quit it with me.... 3rd girl was a girl I had been casually hooking up with for the previous 3 months since my then g/f left me. She was my rebound chick I met the weekend after and whenver I had a real date that didn't work out, I called her to meet me back at my place after my date. She probably wanted more, but I never promised her anything. I'm not treating girls badly... I'm not smacking them around or anything... I just knew I didn't want anything more, and that was determined by both how I met them and what they were wearing when I met them and I was pretty up front with it. first impressions are a big thing. current girlfriend was dressed pretty, but it was conservative. I wore nice pants and a button down shirt... just a casual nice. Much more "take home to mom" material than a tattoo'd up, short skirt wearing girl I could easily talk into coming home with me and are absolutely gorgeous to me...
So when your teenage daughter is crying her eyes out because some guy "hit'er & quit'er", you can be expected to respond by laughing at her for falling for his "line", or by telling her to get the F over it. I've got that about right, haven't I?
I appreciate the reply. But what is seen as bad behavior is subjective. But if we all agreed, the forums would not be nearly as fun. But as its your life, it really does not matter what I think, but I do appreciate your perspective.
the problem if she's upset with why she was hit and quit would be, again, what message was she trying to project. If she's in a bar, twerkin in a short skirt vs meeting a guy at church.
I guess it doesn't occur to you that if she doesn't show signs of distress, she has a way bigger problem than if she does. No, the problem would be that she values herself so little that she is moved to give some random unprincipled scoundrel what she should be saving for her husband. In that case, bearing in mind that the fruit never falls far from the tree, it will behoove you to reflect on how you set her up for that. What the hell's the difference? After all, the minute she fell for his "line" she became the fairly won spoils of war as far as he was concerned, right?
\ I'm not talking about getting raped. I'm talking about her willingly saying yes, then having her feelings hurt because she thought it meant more for him than it really did I can agree with that statement again, the split personality thing I have. I turn it on and off, and I don't have kids that are a result of one night stands, so any kid I do have, will be within marraige, and then I do have the moral highground to say "don't dress like a slut or you will more likely to be hit and quit it does matter where they meet. Location plays an important role too.
It is just the old "slut vs madonna" playing out. You are of course free do judge women anyway you want to. Women of course are free to think of you as a misogynist too.
Neither am I - like you didn't know that already. I know exactly what you're talking about. Too bad the same can't be said for you. Yes, that's called manipulation. Congratulations on dodging the financial bullets, but those women are going to have problems with their children that they wouldn't have if they hadn't gotten screwed by guys like you. For one thing, it doesn't take having the moral high ground to say that. For another, moral authority is not manifested by a mere recitation of consequences, but by an attitude in the father that makes the children disinclined to act against their own best interests - an attitude which, as of now, you haven't got. Evidently you somehow failed to understand the question, presumably on purpose.
yet guys like me still get laid.... and yet, guys like me still find the 'take home to mother' type girls. I realize, if karma really existed... you'd be happy with a guy like me spending every weekend alone. Problem is, karma doesn't exist and guys you think are misogynistic, are usually the ones who get laid the most, by the best looking women I am/was hardly some superstud yet I figured it out. 20 somethings love the 30 something y.o.'s do some investigation, see which ones have daddy issues and bam.... these are grown ass women... making their own dumb ass choices.... if they want to present themselves to the world like a bar-fly... so be it. They have a role they can play in life. Some girls may just want to get laid, too, and they know what to do. but any girl that chooses to dress like a bar fly, can't act surprised if they are treated like one.
agreed, my behavior changes.... depending on how she's dressed, etc. but so does the rest of the world's behavior towards her. The world treats me differently, too, based on how I'm dressed. I can complain that it's not right, and continue to dress inappropriately, or I can adjust how I dress to get the desired attention.
I totally judge on what people wear and I am not afraid to admit it. If you wear jeans to a wedding, you have no class. Throw on some slacks. If you wear a t-shirt to an interview, you arent taking it seriously. If you wear skimpy clothes, then yes, you want attention (not that they are asking for anything). I am all for woman who have great bodies and want to show it off...but there is a slutty way to do it...and a classy way to do it. There are appropriate times for certain attire. I have tattooes but they are all able to be covered for when in the office. I have low cut shirts that I will wear to the bar..but not to church. People judge by how you present yourself. I have met the meanest scruffiest looking bikers who turned out to be the sweetest teddy bears on earth. But was I hesitant to approach at first? yes. And that girl sitting at the bar with a skirt that almost shows her crotch and a shirt that barely covers her nipples? Oh ya...I am judging you for going out in public like that. But maybe I am getting old?
