itt a strange man asks if you saw the ass on that one

totally get where yr coming from, laurel. i'm a guy, so i don't live in a world that's threatening in this regard, and it's therefore easy for me to be all abstract about stuff like this. maybe that sucks, i dunno...

This is prob one of those situational/cultural things that people are talking about. But it's also about class, and race, and poverty, and other stuff.

is there a rolling feminism thread btw? serious question

i disagree w/ the idea of a 'rolling feminism thread' in the sense that it should be a sorta constant mindset on ilx at some level

i mean, if someone had something they wanted to discuss about feminism specifically as a concept that makes sense, but in the context of this thread it seems reasonable to bring it up in this thread

I figure I might as well make the arguments now while I still can, eh?

dude really?

why they're liable to express themselves in ways that make others uncomfortable.

socially inept or not turning girls into porn is p creepy i mean

is there a rolling feminism thread btw? serious question

there are many informative threads by famous ilx feminism theorist Calum Wadell

yeah deej this is a good thread imo for all its flaws but i mean a thread to collect news issues, personal revelations, good bits of feminist writing, marc loi in

and discuss why sarah haskins is so great

we already have no boys allowed in the room

^^^not enough marc loi content

xp ...which is about make-up, mostly.

i would not like to have such a thread though. i would like to not segregate that stuff, what deej said

that is a good point, i have to admit. it should inform every social-issue ilx thread. although sometimes people do write/say very good things directly relating to feminism which might not get posted to ilx otherwise.

btw i have no hesitation in describing sarah haskins as my #1 (well, pretty much my only) celebrity crush - i hope that does not make me ~this~ guy

the first step is any kind of approach. It can be a verbal approach. But any kind of unasked or unwanted approach, any kind of sexual familiarisation with the 'target', is the first step. Even if they're maladjusted, it's bad news. Your latest post is sadly OTM, though.

― a. cole, u thic (acoleuthic), Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:01 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, but that only applies when we conceive of sexual aggression in an entirely negative light. it IS negative in many circumstances, but it's also what allows humans to sexually connect with one another. the combination of moderate sexual aggression (on someone's part) and mutual sexual interest is what makes sex happen.

we're all allowed to make the "first step", right? to bare our teeth a little (so to speak), at the right time and in the right place. and the social rules that define right time & place are mutable, change a lot between groups. all of which we negotiate pretty easily if we're moderately attractive and socially skilled.

if not, we're creeps. our mildly aggressive first steps repulse people and we're reduced to commenting on strange asses outside liquor stores. all of which is too kind, because some of these guys would do worse, much worse, if they felt like they could get away with it. hell, some of these guys ARE much worse. but i don't like the suggestion that "the first step" is necessarily pointed towards something awful.

there are dudes who are creeps who are also socially skilled & pretty

lj you could start threads to discuss a particular person or article! no one is stopping you

There's such thing as an honourable approach. It comes through gauging both the circumstances and the individual one has chanced upon. It is manifested by an instant and PERSONAL revealing of oneself as interested or affable party. Thus, not so much an 'approach' in the predatory sense as a commingling of selves. There's a subtle difference. When the affability is a mask for creepiness, then that there is trouble. Women often learn to spot this type, but sometimes they don't. :(

Harbl, I guess!

there are dudes who are creeps who are also socially skilled & pretty

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/Gavin_Newsom_Oggling.jpg

I think the best way to respond to this is to engage in debate with that man, make it clear to him how his taste in asses sucks, "that one" does not possess a good ass, certainly not as good as the one on your ex! In fact ass-men are all latent homosexuals anyway trying to sublimate their homosexuality in faux-appreciation of the female rear.

lol ok i'm out

but i don't like the suggestion that "the first step" is necessarily pointed towards something awful.

I think there's a bit of self-protection in stuff like the poll results, based on exactly what you're talking about -- because you recognize SOME part of the impulse in your perfectly normal behavior, and you don't want yourself to be classed as crepey and wrong, so there's a natural tendency to want to make sure a space is left open for the more defensible facets of the behavior.

But this is kind of what I was mad about yesterday when the poll results came in, b/c men who mean the best of the possible end up justifying the worst of the possible sometimes b/c they're conflicted about it. Just because YOU wouldn't doesn't mean people don't.

yeah totally

there are dudes who are creeps who are also socially skilled & pretty

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:19 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeh, no argument. i'd formed a (possibly inaccurate) mental picture of ~this~ guy based on my own real-world experience of liquor store commenters of various sorts, and that's what i was talking about. sketchy, clingy, sad/creepy street folk.

Well fair enough, that's what this thread was orig about. But the rush to be as jokey as possible about it in a way that, if it were even like 30% truly what ILX guys really thought, would be fostering an attitude that endangers women...it really burned my shit up.

I think there's a bit of self-protection in stuff like the poll results, based on exactly what you're talking about -- because you recognize SOME part of the impulse in your perfectly normal behavior, and you don't want yourself to be classed as crepey and wrong, so there's a natural tendency to want to make sure a space is left open for the more defensible facets of the behavior.

― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, December 1, 2009 4:24 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

i, i don't know what to say. i thought i answered the way i did because the "slammin" answer was so retarded and awful, thus kinda funny. dumb shit, what can i say.

the word "defensible" bugs me cuz there's nothing to defend. the behavior i'm talking about is right and natural and god-fearing. the baby jesus smiles upon it. and the guy in question is totally being a horrible creep, no question. hope i haven't implied otherwise.

btw i have no hesitation in describing sarah haskins as my #1 (well, pretty much my only) celebrity crush - i hope that does not make me ~this~ guy

I saw her pantsless a few months ago.

(U.S. pants, not U.K. pants.)

i know - you're like a friend of hers - i am p-envious as cankles or ~this~ guy might put it

lj.xls o_O

Yeah, I know xxxp. ILX likes to be as ironic/noize as possible about everything in the world EXCEPT race, because people like DP and others make sure that reasonable boundaries stay up, and call people out on missteps, etc. hs, this is why I tend to compare racism and sexism on ILX -- NOT out in the world, where yes, they function very differently.

Nobody patrols ILX for gender issues/sexism, and it gets left to the "so ironic cos we're over it/past it as modern enlightened people" that it goes full force into "so disgusting that it's automagically hilarious" but then when THAT tone is considered normal, there's nothing to set it apart from what people really think and I just get worn down and sick feeling.

i think ilx is pretty good on gender issues - like better than most non-feminism-specific sites i've seen; there are a few noisy exceptions but the main caucus of regulars evince progressive and gender-equal viewpoints AFAICT

if i am wrong then i would be delighted to see and assist in the denunciation of counter-examples!

uh oh

No, I'm not at all interested in that. I mean the WS thread has already been brought up a few times here, no one needs me to do that again.

what about when there's a woman who is exceptionally gorgeous and two guys are noticing that they're both noticing her hotness and they give one another a knowing look/smile? is that egregious/threatening, Laurel?

it's kind of gay?

otm

:)

is there going to be a whole thing itt of cooking up champagne commercial scenarios to see if laurel is so hysterical that she would denounce them

or actually i don't know this board well enough to know who knows each other and is joking nvm if that is the case

otm, cut it out, and also lol @ "champagne commercial scenarios"

xpost that was otm to your first post, ABC

again, similar to seeing a really crazy person, it's an object of note in your common environment. "whew boy get a load of that one". i mean to go out of your way to acknowledge it to a stranger is weird, yes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/sevenxviii/Irespectyouasaperson.jpg

lol I'd never noticed the time elapsed between these posts before

filling the awkward "silence"

*respects you furiously*

fwiw, laurel, i might have voted the same way in yr hypothetical race poll. not cuz i'm so ironically superior, but cuz it's hard to take polls seriously. especially when they're serious.

and i'm not liable to snicker at noise-style "mock" sexist bullshit. i occasionally make crass jokes about all kinds of stuff, but i think i know where to draw the line. ymmv, of course...

i fundamentally object to the idea that ~this~ guy's grody expression of ass-lust must be seen as a kind of evil. he's a blank slate, after all. we can imagine him as a hostile, predatory pervert waiting to strike - or as a sad, neglected nobody reaching out awkwardly for affirmation. or both, i dunno. it probably says something about me that i default to the latter.

(fwiw it is amusing that after all, the only bits of loi we fundamentally needed were those first two posts, and the first sentence of the third one crutis originally posted)

*respects you furiously*

― bnw, Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:11 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

holy lol

i don't want to shock you but you are ~~overthinking some shit~~

― I wanna change your name to mrs. smash (some dude), Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:08 AM (7 months ago)

@ thread

*respects you furiously*

― bnw, Tuesday, December 1, 2009 5:11 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

ahahahahahahahahaha