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

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

woah. I have been away from the internet all day. Can someone kindly explain what has transpired here? TIA.

haha, i thought the same thing, but i'm just gonna say "omar has been otm"

xp people overanalyzed stuff; no one was really "wrong" or "offtm" yet everyone carried on anyway

itt a strange man asks you if you saw the results on that poll

Yeah I'm just not sure why that caused this thread explosion. *shrugs* Will read later. Too tired atm.

clue: there are a lot of posts from myself :D

to be honest, gbx's advice about omar little being bang-on is itself accurate; other hoos played a stunning hand

Oy. I should have known. OK maybe I will just read Omar's posts.

2nd omar's consummate otmsmanship throughout

or 9th or whatever

if you really want to save time, just read my posts itt

new poster "rise" had a good argument as well

OK now I might as well read the whole damn thing.

OK I sort of skimmed it but think contenderizer made some good points as well namely:

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.

This is actually extremely interesting to me. Especially the following comment:

I've never been raped or even attacked/physically assaulted. I can't begin to imagine where your comfort line with this kind of shit shifts to after you have.

I have been assaulted and this whole issue doesn't bother me nearly as much. Sure this happens and it's sort of gross but I don't find it that threatening and it would never make me teary eyed. IDK I just sort of figure that dudes who catcall women are either losers or idiots who should go fuck themselves so I don't really worry about it. I have enough to worry about it already. Why let those assholes get to me?

That probably doesn't make much sense and I realize it's not much of an argument but it's late and I'm tired and that was my initial reaction.

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.

― WHY DON'T YOU JUST LICK THE BUS DIRECTLY (Laurel), Tuesday, December 1, 2009 7:39 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

OK I can understand this and it's a fair point. I guess I just try not to take anything on ILX or anywhere else on the internet so seriously that I would let it bother me.

And maybe I'm in the wrong and should have higher standards regarding these issues it just doesn't seem like that big of deal to me in this context tbh.

well, i think the equation is shaky, too. racism = racism, but i don't know that ~this~ guy's behavior is best understood as simple sexism. that's part of it, sure, but looking and wanting and even objectifying aren't necessarily sexist, nor is expressing desire in an uncivil manner.

it's more complex than that, and reducing it to an insistent "that's sexist and wrong, and you're wrong to disagree!" only polarizes the discussion.

Yes exactly. You've just articulated what I would have liked to say if I weren't mentally exhausted right now.

but looking and wanting and even objectifying aren't necessarily sexist, nor is expressing desire in an uncivil manner.

^^ this

yes

but looking and wanting and even objectifying aren't necessarily sexist, nor is expressing desire in an uncivil manner.

this is academic, imo

funny too because my argument there is basically that while you are all correct on that point, it isn't generally the case as it happens: there is a (perceived) high correlation between actual creeps and the kind of person that says gross stuff, as opposed to just plain socially isolated but well meaning weirdos that say gross stuff. they're out there, but i'd say that most of the ppl that have given unsolicited sexual observations might actually have some issues with, like, women. which is unfair, but it works as a functional rubric. some might be normal, respectable ppl with temporary confessional breaches, but most aren't.

anyway: that kind of shorthand ("~that guy~ is usually a crepe") is definitely a cousin to the same shit that underwrites your more casual racial/sexual/whatever comments (or jokes, really). probably not a valuable irony, but w/e, it seems like it explains a lot of our defense mechanisms!

there is a (perceived) high correlation between actual creeps and the kind of person that says gross stuff

CASE IN POINT: my AP english teacher who flirted inna skeezy professorial way with the girls. one day i was having a mandated one-on-one talk with him up at his desk about the paper we'd had to turn in that week, and his Primary Lust Object #1 walked by the desk on her way to the pencil sharpener and then back again, and he made this show of watching her the whole time and then turned back to me and smirked a little and said, "sorry, got distracted." and i just wanted my little conference with him to be OVER NOW.