REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A R-rated discussion of women's fashion...

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 23:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16684
PAGE 2 of 3

Saturday, June 6, 2009 2:23 PM

CHRISISALL


Bytemite, for what it's worth, my Wife says you are right on the money with every post.
YOU GO, GIRL!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 2:49 PM

CHRISISALL


Okay, my Wife just informed me that my words here *may* be interpreted as coming off as somewhat sexist (a little smackdown from my better half is always welcome as it usually brings enlightenment), and if that's the case, I have to say it was not my intention; I started this thread to genuinely explore the frustrations inherent in female attire perpetrated upon us by the media & our fellow fashion victims.

But she's still a babe!

*ducks*


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 2:57 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

I think style is for projecting yourself and your personality outwards, and is an art form.


This is MY style:



Lucas stole it!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 3:14 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Why don't peeps generally resopond favourably to men dressing like THIS at society functions?





That has more to do with gender than sexuality. This post might be illuminating for you:

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/05/03/rejecting-the-gender-binary-i
n-fashion

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 3:16 PM

BYTEMITE


...

...Nice dress. And you know, he actually does look good in it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 3:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA


*stares at Byte's rant, slowly blinking*

That's. Just. Freaky.

And yanno, given the topic at hand, even more ironic given my emotional response to that.

But more fascinating is how as you mentioned, folks from what are probably radically different backgrounds arrive at the same conclusions on such a consistent basis - leavin me feelin a bit superfluous when someone else done made my argument for me.
(HKCavalier is kinda notorious for this)

I will throw some fuel on the fire however by pointing out that fashion designers, now and in the recent past, have attributed "beauty" to a body-form I consider to be downright unhealthy and therefore repulsive to me - no matter how attractive THEY think they might be, MY first response would be tryin to feed them, ha!

I might not care for appearances as a general rule, but my kindness to someone who looks obviously starved isn't sexual interest, it's pity...

Course, most of em would be insulted to know that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 6:17 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Just. Freaky.

Isn't it just.
Quote:

leavin me feelin a bit superfluous when someone else done made my argument for me.
(HKCavalier is kinda notorious for this)

You & Mikey often do that for me.
Quote:

attributed "beauty" to a body-form I consider to be downright unhealthy and therefore repulsive to me - no matter how attractive THEY think they might be, MY first response would be tryin to feed them, ha!
I agree, that's why I thank my lucky stars that my Wife's body-type more resembles that of Salma Hayek of the present.

Hey Hero, how's your little stick figure trophy girlfriend?
Yeah, I gots me a provocative streak for a Shaolin; I just can't help it.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 7:49 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


I think gay men first wore high heels.

They love rearward sexual encounters.

Everybody knows gay men run the fashion mafia.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 11:03 PM

AGENTROUKA


I'll leave your earlier post with the pictures alone, as it has already been well replied to with regards to gender, methinks.

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, my Wife just informed me that my words here *may* be interpreted as coming off as somewhat sexist (a little smackdown from my better half is always welcome as it usually brings enlightenment), and if that's the case, I have to say it was not my intention; I started this thread to genuinely explore the frustrations inherent in female attire perpetrated upon us by the media & our fellow fashion victims.

But she's still a babe!

*ducks*




I think there is a LOT more damage being done in terms of body image than in terms of how showy or sexy clothes are supposedly supposed to be.

If a woman can't find a blouse that will properly close in the front because everything was designed with a 12-year-old's figure in mind, there's something wrong with the fashion industry.



Bytemite's rant contains a lot of truth.

I don't think that the desire to dress in a way that reflects sensuality is an artificial thing forced on people from an outside force, if anything is has been repressed on and off for centuries to fit the proper image of the modest, sexually submissive wife.

Much of the discomfort at seeing a woman in a feminine business suit might come from the artificial inability to allow intelligence and femininity in the same space. What I see there is the old instinct to make women conform to a male standard of success and hide anything that might have any effect on men (Veil, again.) because any effect must be her intention and her fault and her problem to deal with.

But the social trend toward equating beauty/youth = happiness = consumption, and the idea of "romance"... that's a sad and disturbing fact. Well said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 6, 2009 11:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Are you ladies aware of this?
Are you okay with it?

Ideas on this? I'm especially interested in hearing from the female contingent of this board.




Here's my two cents.

1. Cent #1: Women especially, but almost everyone, enjoy beauty. They like to make their surroundings beautiful, they like to make themselves beautiful. Nothing wrong with that.

2. Cent #2: Whoever is powerful in the society in which one wishes to achieve upward mobility defines what is beautiful. So if you're trying to be popular in high school, beauty is defined by the popular clique girls and the jocks. If you're trying to be popular in Hollywood, beauty is defined by the movie moguls and casting directors.

Men tend to hold the power in society in general. And they tend to define as beautiful whatever gives them wood. High heels give them wood, so high heels are beautiful.

Once beauty is defined, women internalize the definition without thinking through WHY something is beautiful. Some are very well aware of the relationship between sexiness and beauty, but others are simply conforming with convention. They don't necessarily mean to be sexual teases or objects of desire.

The solution lies in women taking control of the definition of beauty for themselves. It's a hard thing to do, when we're brainwashed day in and day out in everything we see on what is beautiful and desirable in the media. You see how a woman dresses, and you see how much approval she gets, and you can't help thinking, wow, I want to feel what she feels too.

I am raising a daughter who likes to play make-up so she can be beautiful. It doesn't matter how many times I tell her she is more beautiful without it. She has 100 million people telling her otherwise.

That's my two cents from the corner with ovaries.



--------------------------
The brain is a wonderful organ. It starts working the moment you get up in the morning and does not stop until you get into the office.
-- Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 7, 2009 3:45 AM

2BY2GINGERBLUE


Heels do the following.
1-legs longer
2-buttocks protrude up and back
3-tilts the spine forward which arches the back
4-forces the breasts forward/ makes them look bigger.

Heels were not gender specific when first invented, but the higher they got they discovered that they enhanced all the right parts of a Woman that attracted a Man. They have since gone into the world of fetish.
Women have subjected themselves to this stuff because society has said they need to to attract a Man. I'm just glad I can walk in very high heels for my own enjoyment. Guys if you enjoy seeing it all the power to you!

There are lots of Historical books on the subject.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 7, 2009 4:30 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 2by2gingerblue:

Heels were not gender specific when first invented, but the higher they got they discovered that they enhanced all the right parts of a Woman that attracted a Man.

IMO, every part of a woman attracts REAL men. Accentuating butts or breasts just gets us to the woody place faster.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 7, 2009 4:34 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

I am raising a daughter who likes to play make-up so she can be beautiful. It doesn't matter how many times I tell her she is more beautiful without it. She has 100 million people telling her otherwise.


The trick is to get her to realize that conforming to beauty conventions can be a game or a job- a game can be fun at times, but as a job it doesn't pay very well.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 7, 2009 6:49 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Heels were not gender specific when first invented, but the higher they got they discovered that they enhanced all the right parts of a Woman that attracted a Man.

Depends on the man.

Good sense, stout heart, intelligence, you bet.
Comically large breasts, not so much.
Course, I'd be a liar if I didn't say pretty does have it's effect on me, but my concept of it's a wholly different thing than most folks.

If I hadda pin down one thing that'll draw my eyes quick ?

The way a girl moves, and I don't mean the spike heel swing, I mean the grace and coordination of her movements - case in point: Summer as River in Objects in Space, watchin her move just sets off all kinds of happy noise in the back of my brain where the caveman lives.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 7, 2009 6:54 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
case in point: Summer as River in Objects in Space, watchin her move just sets off all kinds of happy noise in the back of my brain where the caveman lives.


You too, eh?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 3:18 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Much of the discomfort at seeing a woman in a feminine business suit might come from the artificial inability to allow intelligence and femininity in the same space.

I have no issues with women in suits. As long as they're comfortable in them.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 3:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
...

...Nice dress. And you know, he actually does look good in it.



Doesn't know how to accessorize. Now this guy knows how to good in a dress.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 4:44 AM

BYTEMITE


Well, yeah, I just mean that the red dress looked surprisingly good in the chest area. I can tell that particular cut was intended for a woman decidedly more buxom, but the dress is snug.

Pinned, tailored, or stretchy fabric, that is the question.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 4:59 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Much of the discomfort at seeing a woman in a feminine business suit might come from the artificial inability to allow intelligence and femininity in the same space.

I have no issues with women in suits. As long as they're comfortable in them.




I didn't think so. I was more replying to Bytemite's post on the subject.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 5:22 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

And skirt suits, without fail, tend to be designed to fall under the above descriptors. If a woman wears a pant suit, its a target for mockery.

I can't believe (although I'm no expert) that it is impossible to find a skirt suit that isn't flirty or sexy in style, I'm pretty sure I've seen them. But it doesn't matter, I wouldn't argue that women have to wear skirts. With pant suits, there's a legitimate tomboyish style I see in women detectives on TV, and I don't know, perhaps other softer styles that still aren't 'girly'. Maybe pant suits that are smart only and don't have any character to them are the ones that are targets for mockery, I guess because a person will come across as very serious.

Quote:

All of this clothing to make a statement, to define yourself, it's all REALLY intended to force you to meet some manner of social conformity.

I think most women want to reflect something of their femininity in their clothing, and the clothing ranges reflect this. Probably there is an over-emphasis on 'sexy' or 'flirty' in the ranges due to societal pressures and I can see why some people would become quickly disillusioned with this. The ideas of 'making a statement' and 'defining yourself' though, can be as much about resisting these pressures as anything else.

Quote:

And sometimes, when that can't happen, or often, when people are working hard at this but becoming more frustrated, slowly this frustration can manifest into very strange ways of acting out. Hurting people. Hurting yourself. Disturbing fetishism of what can and can't be had, all pushed and pressured by an overly repressed culture that at the same time is UTTERLY obsessed with sex.

Though we're talking about extremes here. It's possible to have a healthy and rewarding approach to personal style. The opposite extreme - imagine if everyone wore clothes only to be functional; how drab and boring the world would be?

Nah, the more colour and character in the world the better, I say.

I've tried to defend the idea of style, but I hope as well that I'll get you to think a little bit differently about it all, I think there is some throwing of the baby out with the bathwater in your approach – but sorry if I've pushed you quite hard against your will, I will zip it for now!


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 6:14 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:

With pant suits, there's a legitimate tomboyish style I see in women detectives on TV, and I don't know, perhaps other softer styles that still aren't 'girly'.

Laura Holt on "Remington Steele" comes to mind as impeccably dressed, and not at all "flirty"- very smooth & professional.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 7:28 AM

BYTEMITE


My argument with that take, kpo, is to ask why there is an expectation for women to wear "feminine" clothes, what "feminine" entails, and if women's clothing aren't JUST functional and drab, then what are they? What does not being functional and not being drab MEAN? What are the societal repercussions of women's clothing not being functional or drab? Why is there a double standard between "functional and drab" being acceptable for men, and not women? Why is there a social stigma against men who dress flamboyantly? And why does it all matter in a social interaction/positive impression/self image sense?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 8:06 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I'm sure someone out there is loving their neon day-glow plaid and polka dots out in public because the public disapproval stimulates their self-image as a rebel and they are comfortable with that.



{Raises hand...)



Yeah, I tend to wear sometimes... inappropriate tee-shirts to work or to go out. One of my favorites looks like the Dairy Queen logo, only it says "Drama Queen". It gets some VERRRRRRYYYY odd looks when I wear it. Imagine a big guy, six-foot-eight, over 260 pounds, looks like a longshoreman and cusses like a sailor, wearing a "Drama Queen" tee-shirt. Are YOU gonna be the one to walk up and say anything?

I've always collected shirts with really horrendous sayings on them. "Your face gives me the diarrhea", "I may not go down in history, but I'll go down on your little sister", "You could have just hurt her - you didn't have to kill her!" and so on. Part of it is the 20-plus years I spent in the tee-shirt biz, and part is just my sick and twisted sense of humor, but it's fun to wear something totally inappropriate to see other peoples' reactions. Today, in honor of our weekly staff meeting, I wore a shirt that says "It's funny how you think I'm listening to you." My boss got a kick out of it.

But that's just me...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 8:10 AM

AGENTROUKA


I'd say feminine clothes accentuate the female figure instead of trying to hide it, have a history as a female garment or jewelry and/or play with female experience.

The expectation to be feminine is there because, in general, as a society we carry some historical baggage about the genders being complementing opposites. Emphasizing the differences is something that people keep doing even today, instead of focusing on the things we have in common.

On the one hand, it's healthy to have a good relationship with your physical body and its shape, be unafraid to accentuate it, embrace everything in entails. On the other hand, we don't come in two cleanly divided versions of human and being a woman doesn't mean you have to love feminine things. This is where so much petty judgment comes in, and I hate it.

And I sincerely doubt that men's clothes today could generally be considered functional and drab. They accentuate the male figure in their lines, they come in colors to better fit with the wearer's own coloring, they have decorative prints or logos. (Ties are entirely decorative.) Men have their own types of jewelry, like cufflinks, fancy watches and they have hats, sunglasses... Men have a variety of shoes to choose from, as well.

What men wear is a lot more variable than just functional and drab, and to go for that look would be as much a choice for them as it would be for women.



What does is mean to go beyond functional and drab? Well, anything that goes beyond purely covering the body with clothes that just about fit. Color, cut, fabric, accessories..

Why does it matter? Because it's a form of self-expression. There is a TON of choice out there and much of it is tied to pre-existing "image"-packages of personality or political inclination or social background. If all we had to choose from were grey sweat pants and tees, it wouldn't matter, but whenever we buy clothes we makes a choice, we position ourselves socially/politically/culturally, in a very personal and very basic way. It's one of culture's ways to communicate who we are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 8:13 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Why is there a double standard between "functional and drab" being acceptable for men, and not women?

Because sexism is alive & well and part of what drives the fashion, make-up/hair removal, fitness, hair/nail salon & elective plastic surgery industries. Being concerned with how you appear takes time away from the ability to become knowledgeable on domestic & world events, and pay inequities between the sexes.
In short, it is one of the most devious & PROFITABLE ways to keep women in their place.
Narcissism is just another hammer wielded by the authoritarian paternalistic status-quo power brokers of the world.

I mean, why burn your bra when you can show off most of it in the latest $50 designer 25% cotton tee-shirt?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 8:19 AM

BYTEMITE


Agreed, Chris.

AR, I don't necessarily think all men's fashion is functional and drab, I was using kpo's argument and word choice. I reedited to include a question about why there's a social stigma against men who dress flamboyantly.

Peacock and peahen. One is drab, waits for the other gender to come to them and display. The other invests energy into making their appearance eye-catching and fighting off rivals, while at the same time making themselves more of a target to predators.

In this case, the dichotomy between the respective power of the two genders is even MORE obvious, because the drab one also carries control over sexual reproduction.

But in the case of humans, where the roles are reversed and the female is the one to dress up and attract predators, but predators of their own species, the sexual reproduction part of that can become a liability.

An average man has just as much control over their urges as a woman. The myth otherwise is just a justification, and harrows back to the days of the fairer sex, where all men were supposedly untrustworthy lustful brutes, and all women were supposedly innocent little lambs who had to be protected from them by friends and family.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 8:59 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
An average man has just as much control over their urges as a woman. The myth otherwise is just a justification

Absolutely true.
Teaching young boys otherwise is a recipe for unpleasantness.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 9:19 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Being a fan of menus that show pictures (like Denny's) over menus that are text only (like all of the best Mexican restaurants) I had high hopes for this thread. It started out so promising and then it delved deep into homotown.

Let's bring it back to and R-rated discussion of "Woman's" fashion, mmmmmmm kay?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 9:32 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It started out so promising and then it delved deep into homotown.

Let's bring it back to and R-rated discussion of "Woman's" fashion, mmmmmmm kay?


The "R" rating was for frank sexual references that might pop up, and the one in my initial post.
There are numerous sites that feature pictures that might satisfy your urgent needs, dude. Google 'em.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 9:50 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


There are culture differences to consider here as well (even within the same country).
"Almost French" is about an Australian woman living in Paris with her French husband. She used to run to the local market in her warm-ups, much to the chagrin of her husband. "I thought you'd be ok with me dressing *plain* in public?" "No! You have to think of them, to give them pleasure in how you look. It is rude to others to dress your way." Husbands encouraging their spouses to dress up to please others is not the typical American male thought process.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 10:31 AM

BYTEMITE


Very good point on culture, I wouldn't mind hearing more examples of cultures both more tolerant and less tolerant of how a person chooses to dress.

There's a "look at what I have!" vibe I'm getting from the French husband that I find almost as disturbing as the "MINE!" mentality I see in other places...

Either that, or it's really pretentious and mean-spirited (i.e. "Look at what she's wearing! *snicker snicker*"). I'm not sure which it is.

If this Australian woman doesn't run in her warm-ups, what exactly is she supposed to run in? Although, I'm worried this might get us into that other debate we had about certain societal pressures reinforcing gender roles, so maybe I ought to steer clear of that one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 10:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA


You know, I got to thinkin about this...

And it occurs to me that ALL clothing is social in nature, up to and including the fact of wearing any at all.

It's always rooked me that the MPAA - based on, mind you, the explicitly Catholic "production code" written by Father Daniel Lord - seems to think any amount of blood, slaughter and violence is perfectly acceptable, but how dare anyone show a human form in a natural state, or any hint of what the relationship between the two forms *is* in regard to procreation.

Also, that's one more way someone ELSE gets to shove their fuckin religion down my throat on a pike of law, despite what the 1st Amendment SAYS.
(and don't even get me started there)

So, what, exactly, is "wrong" with nudity anyways ?

It's not something I am big on myself, being personally something of a prude, and I *like* pockets, but really, what's so goddamned offensive about it ?

That children might realize men and women have different parts and wonder about their use ?
Might start asking QUESTIONS ?

Or perhaps the social stigmata of not measuring up to a "perfect" form that's not only unhealthy, but logically impossible for most human beings (and let's take a moment to point out how liberally photoshopped most of them pictures ARE, people!) - well, I can see that one.

Hell, remember this is coming from someone who's been put back together a couple times now and not all the involved parts are even biological - I get some looks when I wear shorts, since I don't give a continental dam about the sensibilities of the general public and saw neither need or use for cosmetic cover which just adds weight and complexity to the mechanical bits for no gain - technically imma cyborg, and the human parts have, uhh, seen better days, so yeah, I can see clothing as protective of the sensibilities of others, as in not having to listen to em bitch, or havin em stare and whisper, but still, that's the sensibilities of OTHERS, again, something I rather passionately do not give a damn about.

Also, gender-role as assigned to clothing is at best, stupid anyways, since while most men have no issue with a girl wearing "male" clothing, even think it cute - it's completely hypocritical to then take issue with a guy wearing "female" attire, isn't it now ?

One of my associates sons I initially met as a "girl" (he was wearing a dress, quite cute, and I really did take him for female, he has that look) and later on during that same convention, as a guy - and this sparked all too much amusement when my count of his kids didn't match his and we figured out why...

My preference for clothing is either as protective camo by blending into the background as a functionary of the environment, cab driver in a major city, janitor in office building, stock clerk in a store - in order to achieve a form of de-facto invisibility by playing on social and psychological blind spots to slip beneath notice, or as an act of intimidation by playing on primal fears at a social level.

And the pockets, hoo lordy the pockets - I carry a selection of tools, candy, communications gear and self defense equipment as a manner of course, since it doesn't seem socially acceptable yet for men to carry a handbag, something else which is idiotic since it's a damn logical place to put work-related stuff, but anyhows, a Mk65 Army Field Jacket has these gloriously large pockets which hold all MANNER of useful stuff - the old school duram "bonewrench" (a bicycle wrench shaped like a bone which fits most common bolts/nuts) has solved many a problem on the spot.

Anyhows, most clothing is done at all for SOCIAL reasons, rather than practical ones.

Amusing Anecdote: During same said conventions, I happened to be once again in charge of a collective of pesky brats who decided at the time to stage a minor revolt and demand a valid reason why they should listen to me.
To which, I swiped the Tiara off a passing Faery (if you've been to these conventions, that'll make perfect sense to you), planted it firmly on my head and stated "Because I am the PRINCESS, that's why!" - cue howling giggles and no further trouble.*

Alas that there were several noteable witnesses to that event, one of whom now works for me, and as such there's a freakin Tiara hanging from the key rack now, along with my "magic wand" - that bein an extendable assault baton - "because he's the princess!" is a meme now, meh.

People unable to mock gender roles deserve to be trapped in em.

-Frem
*I did actually explain to em later, since "cause I said so" is NEVER an appropriate answer, but I needed to get em out of the vicinity and out from underfoot so they could roll in the keg for the drinking party.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 10:49 AM

BYTEMITE


It's not that I think they're not INTELLIGENT, or that I think suit = intelligent and female = not. It's all these skirts that cut off thigh length, and the ridiculous little vests and street-performer monkey jackets that seem intended to diminish a woman's size and make them look CUTESY rather than a force to be reckoned with. That bothers the HELL out of me.

But then again, I don't really understand how anyone could feel secure or self-confident in a skirt, especially with the constant "panty shot" worry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 10:53 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Also, gender-role as assigned to clothing is at best, stupid anyways, since while most men have no issue with a girl wearing "male" clothing, even think it cute - it's completely hypocritical to then take issue with a guy wearing "female" attire, isn't it now ?


Well, a kilt is designed for a man's body, and a party dress is designed for a woman's, generally speaking. To put a woman in a suit cut for male lines would look as silly as a man wearing attire designed for women's, IMO.

But, anything you can't climb over a fence in is generally to be avoided, says I.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 11:24 AM

BYTEMITE


A lot of Asian societies are very conservative when it comes to nudity, too. I'm not really sure where that comes from, because in most other ways, religiously, they tend to have a lot of respect for the natural world.

It occurs to me that both Buddhism and Judiasm/Christianity may have roots in Zoroastrianism... Maybe that's where it came from. But it may also be something introduced when any religion tries to put more emphasis on a more important, purer, spiritual world, as opposed to the "mundane" dirty world, by which the vessels for those souls are tainted.

All of which, of course, is merely a trick to get oppressed populations to just accept the lot they're given, because things will be better in the hereafter. Also discourages reproduction... Hmm.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 11:40 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

My argument with that take, kpo, is to ask why there is an expectation for women to wear "feminine" clothes, what "feminine" entails, and if women's clothing aren't JUST functional and drab, then what are they? What does not being functional and not being drab MEAN? What are the societal repercussions of women's clothing not being functional or drab?


You're asking a lot of questions here - I can answer all of them but I'm not sure you want me too... basically in some ways I guess you understand and view the world completely differently to me. But I'll try to justify and explain my view, and perhaps you can say where exactly you disagree:

Femininity is a real and natural thing, it describes the ways in which a typical female brain is different to a typical male brain (we debated gender psychology in a thread not long ago remember? I explained my position more fully there). Anyway I think femininity is primarily a state of mind (though you can also talk about feminine physical features), and it can be projected outwards by a person through actions, mannerisms, voice, dress, etc. How? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and human beings have learned to read personality in a person's appearance and actions - it's how love at first sight can be explained, imo.

Not all women are feminine though, and I didn't voice any expectation for them to act/dress as such - only to be true to themselves, and find their own style.

Quote:

Why is there a double standard between "functional and drab" being acceptable for men, and not women?


Well I don't recall supporting this 'double standard' myself - I think men should have style as well, but I do think it's more important for women as there are different roles for acquiring a mate. I'm suggesting that women's psychology is defined to a large extent by their reproductive role: they have to advertise their youth/fertility, therefore men are more visibly stimulated, therefore female psychology has evolved to have a lot of care for appearance.

Quote:

Why is there a social stigma against men who dress flamboyantly?

I'm not going to defend social stigmas, but they're understandable - men and women not acting to type, confuses and confounds some people with cosy and over-simple, views of what men and women ought to be - with no allowance for natural variation in hormone levels (which can make women more like men in their psychology, and vice versa), or other psychological phenomena.

Quote:

And why does it all matter in a social interaction/positive impression/self image sense?


I think I've answered this - so long as you agree that personality can actually be expressed in clothing - if you agree with that, then you can see why I consider fashion an art form?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 12:01 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bytemite:
An average man has just as much control over their urges as a woman. The myth otherwise is just a justification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely true.



Says who? Just because it's a nice egalitarian notion doesn't mean it's true. People want men and women to be equivalent in all respects, when we have clearly different reproductive roles.

That's not to deny that women have 'urges' or anything like that though.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 12:06 PM

BYTEMITE


Men get erections all the time from what I understand: how often do you ACT on them? (I don't expect you to answer that, not generally or in a specific sense, it's completely rhetorical)

Just because men display a more obvious, outward sign of their urges doesn't mean they have less control over their urges. And sometimes the reaction isn't even related to anything sexual, it just happens.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 12:08 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
There are culture differences to consider here as well (even within the same country).
"Almost French" is about an Australian woman living in Paris with her French husband. She used to run to the local market in her warm-ups, much to the chagrin of her husband. "I thought you'd be ok with me dressing *plain* in public?" "No! You have to think of them, to give them pleasure in how you look. It is rude to others to dress your way." Husbands encouraging their spouses to dress up to please others is not the typical American male thought process.



I think we might be judging the french a little bit harshly and hastily here, just with this one fictional example. I don't share the man's opinion though: if people want to dress uncomfortably for the sake of fashion it should be their own choice, and not be expected of them. And I personally think women can look stylish and attractive in 'warm-ups'.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 12:21 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Men get erections all the time from what I understand: how often do you ACT on them? (I don't expect you to answer that, not generally or in a specific sense, it's completely rhetorical)

Just because men display a more obvious, outward sign of their urges doesn't mean they have less control over their urges. And sometimes the reaction isn't even related to anything sexual, it just happens.



Hmm. In terms of arousal would you agree with the assessment that men are like gas cookers, and women electric? Men turn on/off faster. So many things contribute to human 'urges' (hormone levels etc.), it seems odd to me to think they would be equivalent in men and women.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 12:38 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
You're asking a lot of questions here - I can answer all of them but I'm not sure you want me too... basically in some ways I guess you understand and view the world completely differently to me. But I'll try to justify and explain my view, and perhaps you can say where exactly you disagree:

Femininity is a real and natural thing, it describes the ways in which a typical female brain is different to a typical male brain (we debated gender psychology in a thread not long ago remember? I explained my position more fully there). Anyway I think femininity is primarily a state of mind (though you can also talk about feminine physical features), and it can be projected outwards by a person through actions, mannerisms, voice, dress, etc. How? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and human beings have learned to read personality in a person's appearance and actions - it's how love at first sight can be explained, imo.

Not all women are feminine though, and I didn't voice any expectation for them to act/dress as such - only to be true to themselves, and find their own style.



I really didn't get into the meat of that argument when it was going for a reason, but suffice to say, my position is that genetics and hormones considered, I don't think the basic framework of men and women is that different, because even, you know, the genitalia are analogous and have similar origins. The same goes for basic brain structure, we all have the same cortexes and regions. Brain chemistry... I can't deny it has an effect on emotions and memory retention, but intelligence and various skill sets? Those are very complicated. I think we don't know NEAR enough to start making those kind of claims yet, or limit such claims to gender differences. As for different cell make-ups in the brain, more grey matter vs. more white matter, I can't comment; we know correlation, but we don't know cause and effect. Personally, I lean more towards the "use" argument, where someone is going to be better at using some part of their brain, and have more of the relevant cells, if they're using their brain in that matter more. And I think social roles may be a large part of that. But you don't have to argue that... I'm not sure any of us want to get into that again...

I guess my main source of disagreement on this subject is how "feminine" traits are invariably assigned to females, and how that is concluded to be natural. But those traits aren't exclusive. And like you said, not all females are feminine. Saying unfeminine females are acting unnaturally is... hurtful to the unfeminine females. There's a negative judgment involved in there, on the order of they aren't acting like they should be. It feels natural to them, they aren't actively choosing to be false or anything like that. And if there's no harm in their unfeminine behaviour (because there are plenty of women who WILL act feminine and attract males in your "natural way"), then why aren't they tolerated more than they are?

Quote:

Well I don't recall supporting this 'double standard' myself - I think men should have style as well, but I do think it's more important for women as there are different roles for acquiring a mate. I'm suggesting that women's psychology is defined to a large extent by their reproductive role: they have to advertise their youth/fertility, therefore men are more visibly stimulated, therefore female psychology has evolved to have a lot of care for appearance.


Reproductively speaking, virility is just as important as fertility. And appearance is fairly important to women when selecting a mate, too. How come most men in modern times don't groom as much as women, and how come they aren't walking around overtly emphasizing their crotch? You see a guy walking around in a codpiece or a speedo/thong, and what is the general reaction?

Quote:

I'm not going to defend social stigmas, but they're understandable - men and women not acting to type, confuses and confounds some people with cosy and over-simple, views of what men and women ought to be - with no allowance for natural variation in hormone levels (which can make women more like men in their psychology, and vice versa), or other psychological phenomena.


Okay. I can agree with that assessment. Although maybe I'm judging other people's views on gender roles by saying that... Blah. No. My argument is all ABOUT how unfair gender roles are, and how they're imposed. I will compromise by saying that it is not the fault of the less gender-bendy, that it is no one's fault, but rather subconscious/socially driven.

Quote:

I think I've answered this - so long as you agree that personality can actually be expressed in clothing - if you agree with that, then you can see why I consider fashion an art form?


I'm not so sure it can. If you buy a painting, are you expressing your own personality and conceptions, or the artist's? I suppose if a person made their own clothes, but unless the clothing is utterly featureless and generic, then they would still seem to by necessity have to conform to an existing style, which was invented by someone else. Unless you're a perfect stereotype, and who wants to be, isn't there an easier, less confusing, less misleading way to advertise personality than relying on clothing?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 12:45 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Hmm. In terms of arousal would you agree with the assessment that men are like gas cookers, and women electric? Men turn on/off faster. So many things contribute to human 'urges' (hormone levels etc.), it seems odd to me to think they would be equivalent in men and women.




Women don't have fewer sex hormones or lower levels. Just different ones. And judging by some of my friends, they can feel urges just as often and every bit as intense as you guys.

We're talking about control. Saying men can't control themselves (or can't control themselves as much as women) is not only unfair to men, it's irresponsible. It gives them an excuse to not control their urges when maybe they should, like, for example, if it would hurt someone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 1:14 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And judging by some of my friends, they can feel urges just as often and every bit as intense as you guys.

We're talking about control. Saying men can't control themselves (or can't control themselves as much as women) is not only unfair to men, it's irresponsible.

I've known both guys & girls with strong drives that they could control, but the guys complained about them needing to control them MORE, citing so-called "blue-balls"...that's laughable, masturbation would tend to that, if it indeed existed. We don't need to enable lack of judgement by labeling it a "weakness."
How many times have you all felt like quitting your job so bad you could taste it, yet did not for practical concerns? The same self control can be applied to sexual urges.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 1:34 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Men get erections all the time from what I understand:

Not most of us, mainly just in the mourning, at strip clubs, and when our honeys give us *that* look...

I'm a bad man...


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 2:31 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Hmm. In terms of arousal would you agree with the assessment that men are like gas cookers, and women electric? Men turn on/off faster. So many things contribute to human 'urges' (hormone levels etc.), it seems odd to me to think they would be equivalent in men and women.




Women don't have fewer sex hormones or lower levels. Just different ones. And judging by some of my friends, they can feel urges just as often and every bit as intense as you guys.

We're talking about control. Saying men can't control themselves (or can't control themselves as much as women) is not only unfair to men, it's irresponsible. It gives them an excuse to not control their urges when maybe they should, like, for example, if it would hurt someone.



Women have different sex hormones and different levels of some of the same hormones: lower amounts of testosterone for example. Doesn't different hormones suggest to you that the urges will be different in nature - that the 'pull' will be felt differently? You're comparing apples and oranges to my mind. I'm sure some women feel a pull stronger than your typical man, there's overlapping due to a lot of variation, especially within women I think. I've heard some study identifying a powerful 'man love' gene within some women who have a history of many sexual partners and a more than average number of offspring - interestingly these women can pass their gene on to their male offspring, and this can explain some gay/bisexual men.

Why are we talking about control? Don't worry I'm not defending rape or anything. But this comparison of male vs female urges, honestly the most we can conclude is that both have urges, and there is variation.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 3:41 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

but intelligence and various skill sets? Those are very complicated.

I don't want to put women down. I like the idea of humans having different but complimentary roles, I think that's beautiful. Men and women are different, but compliment each other. I wouldn't try to claim superiority.

Quote:

And like you said, not all females are feminine. Saying unfeminine females are acting unnaturally is... hurtful to the unfeminine females.


Very true, and I sympathise with them. At least society isn't as confining on them as it once was.

Quote:

Reproductively speaking, virility is just as important as fertility. And appearance is fairly important to women when selecting a mate, too.


Hmm, female fertility has a tighter window of opportunity, so advertising youth is more important to women. And women also choose a mate based on how well he can provide for their offspring, so things like money/power can come in. There are many more cases of ugly men winning beautiful women than vice versa, no?

Quote:

I will compromise by saying that it is not the fault of the less gender-bendy, that it is no one's fault, but rather subconscious/socially driven.



All right, agreed. I'm actually quite radical in my view of social/cultural pressures, in that I believe it is almost all natural, and everything in human culture reflects something innate in human nature. I just don't see the mechanism whereby some sinister figures invent artificial cultural values, and individuals and society at large accept and adopt them. Things like religion, sexual modesty, xenophobia and even the way women are controlled by men in some islamic cultures - it all stems to my mind from deep, natural (though perhaps ugly) human instincts, and so the values actually resonate with each new generation that they are passed on to. Of course, these natural instincts can be hijacked/manipulated by people in power with an agenda. But this is all another debate.

Quote:

If you buy a painting, are you expressing your own personality and conceptions, or the artist's?

Both! You buy it because it resonates with you, conveying some attitude/emotion/part of the human experience that you are familiar with. If you didn't create it but it still resonates with you, then the artist's voice speaks for you. Perhaps it's easier to imagine if you think of music; maybe you have a favourite song - does it speak for you, painting the world as you see it? Don't you feel it defines you to a large extent?

Quote:

I suppose if a person made their own clothes, but unless the clothing is utterly featureless and generic, then they would still seem to by necessity have to conform to an existing style, which was invented by someone else.


I guess you have to be creative - use existing clothes and mix them up/customise them. After all, they don't sell whole outfits complete with prescribed matching accessories - you are expected to mix things up.

Quote:

isn't there an easier, less confusing, less misleading way to advertise personality than relying on clothing?


Good style communicates immediately and effectively to everyone who sees it. Clothes are only a part of style, but a key part - and nothing can replace style, things like femininity, sensuality, machismo, swagger, confidence, darkness, broodiness, playful mischievousness, humour etc. I think looking into a person's eyes can also give deep clues to personality, so women really shouldn't underestimate make up that accentuates them - it can make the warmth of personality so much more apparent. But my point is that these things, I would say, can be just as profound if not more, than words - and definitely more immediate.


Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 8, 2009 5:16 PM

BYTEMITE


I mostly started talking about control because I was making a point about how the fashion styles that the fashion industry pushes out makes women targets.

And also because I saw some hints of posts saying "oh, we're just men, you know how it is, nudge nudge wink wink." I know they were just joking, but I get tired of hearing that from feminists too. It really doesn't do much for the cause of gender equality to go around laughing at some untrue stereotyped shortcoming of one of the genders. And it can cause dangerous irresponsibility, like I said, that gets waved off as "just a guy thing."

As for the urges, I guess I really shouldn't try to comment on men, but I'll agree with you that both genders can have them, and both can control them.

I guess I just don't like the idea of a role, because a role can be limiting. I don't like the idea of a woman having to depend on a man, or a man having to depend on a woman. I guess I just don't see codependency as such a good thing.

It's true, about the men getting women more than otherwise. I actually think more that's an issue of the superficial direction our society has gone... Just like how there really is a such thing as a gold digger. Again, stereotyped roles being filled, and I would argue a result of a preexisting power structure. Stereotyped roles are a problem, not something that should be acceptable. One person taking advantage of another shouldn't be acceptable. There should be mutual respect, not some cold deal about beauty or money.

I guess other people's work has never affected me that way. I can appreciate art, or writing, or a song, even enjoy it an look forward to what next installment the creator might offer, but nothing really speaks FOR me. Clothing even less so.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 4:44 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Very good point on culture, I wouldn't mind hearing more examples of cultures both more tolerant and less tolerant of how a person chooses to dress.

There's a "look at what I have!" vibe I'm getting from the French husband that I find almost as disturbing as the "MINE!" mentality I see in other places...

Either that, or it's really pretentious and mean-spirited (i.e. "Look at what she's wearing! *snicker snicker*"). I'm not sure which it is.




I think you are filtering the example through your cultural experiences and are making an incorrect assumption (or maybe I explained it poorly). The man was not wanting to show off his trophy wife - "look what I have" in a vain, selfish way.
It is important to Parisians according to their culture to show respect for fashion by trying to dress stylishly - they are actually unselfish enough to take pleasure in their spouses (both men and women) looking pleasing to others without possessiveness, as well as being happy for their spouses in knowing they look stylish in a society that puts importance on doing so.
Fashion-wise, in wildly general terms, US culture puts a lot more importance on dressing comfortably, of showing our irascible nonconformist, "too cool to follow rules" attitude, all while ironically dressing like most everyone else. I'd guess to Parisians most people in the US just look like they could care less about their looks and are a bit lazy when it comes to style.
I'm not judging either, just describing and making some of my own guesses!


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 6:34 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I can appreciate art, or writing, or a song, even enjoy it an look forward to what next installment the creator might offer, but nothing really speaks FOR me. Clothing even less so.


I don't think I explained it brilliantly... it's like Gloria Gaynor speaks for a lot of women with 'I will survive' - women who've shared that experience of life. This movie set in paris will resonate with some people about the pressures put on women, firefly has messages such as 'big government is bad', 'family and human relationships can be beautiful and redeeming' etc(that first one doesn't resonate with me particularly). I guess with fashion you are adopting the message of the designer when you wear his/her clothes, which may be 'I am a sensual woman', 'I am a rebel', or even 'I'm too cool to care about fashion/looking smart' (the previous poster described this attitude pretty well). The fact that clothing can embody human attitudes is no more of an abstract mystery to me than music - sound waves of different frequencies strung together by an artist to create melodies that convey human emotion...

Quote:

isn't there an easier, less confusing, less misleading way to advertise personality than relying on clothing?



One more thing to add in response to this: in my experience if you don't project your own role/personality outwards confidently, people will project roles onto you, ones that suit them and may be quite patronising. In a perfect world all people would take the time to get to know and respect others, but sadly humans aren't perfect.

Quote:

I guess I just don't like the idea of a role, because a role can be limiting. I don't like the idea of a woman having to depend on a man, or a man having to depend on a woman. I guess I just don't see codependency as such a good thing.


I think I understand, the idea of roles can be demeaning, I frequently find that - I think it's how all human relationships work though, and a lot of the time it is beautiful. As a writer I am in love with the classic ideal of romance between men and women, and their different roles; and perhaps I am thinking about your classic 'alpha male' and 'alpha female' - which is a perfect ideal of romance that can never be fully realised, only imperfectly. It shouldn't be forced on anyone, but I think most people do aspire to it in lots of ways, women looking for 'tall, dark and handsome', or just 'a big man to protect them and make them feel small' - when I've heard women make these statements it has never sounded to me like these have been instilled into them by society, they sound like very deep, animal instincts/desires to me - and I see evolutionary logic behind them.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 7:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Actually, I'm more curious: Do most men have the same perception of high heels as Chris does, or is he just a deviant?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL