Am I being unreasonable?

[redqueen]

Is it possible that any adult male seriously does not understand what constitutes a rude stare at an attractive woman?

Something tells me all their alleged confusion would clear right up if some guy was leering at their daughter.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Jesus, just answer the question

Fuckable or not--and I've been 'fuckable' my entire fucking life, rude is fucking rude. And no, being 'fuckable is not fucking 'superior' in any fucking way, it simply teaches females from cradle to death bed that is where the bulk of worth lies, and to spend ungodly fucking amounts of money toward that objective.

The women I admire may or may not be stunners, may or may not have physical vanity, (most have intellectual vanity)but are out there in the world making a fucking positive difference no matter who wants to get in their fucking pants, it's simply not the most important thing to them, and sometimes not even on the fucking list.

Hormones and Gonads aside, Straight women admire or even lust after men--or are they not supposed to do that? I do it every day working around all the young residents I do, but I know the fucking difference between making someone fucking uncomfortable or frightened and simply admiring. Gay women admire women; and they seem to be able to do so without the bullshit baggage certain men create with their rude ass staring and commentary. Fuck.

And what the fuck does it matter if Redqueen is female born or something else in the context of the question?

[redqueen]

4. Excellent point re: gay women.

There was a thread in GD in which several guys seemed to be claiming in all serious that they had no idea what objectification was, or what would differentiate rude staring from any other kind of observation.

[libodem]

7. What question?

[redqueen]

8. Erm...

"Is it possible that any adult male seriously does not understand what constitutes a rude stare at an attractive woman?"

[redqueen]

3. Um...

IMO staring just confirms that the person staring is rude and thoughtless. That's it.

[ismnotwasm]

5. Here's a little something from IBTP

I enjoyed; a bit off topic, but not by much;

The case for flip-flops and flowing robes
When I got a spam for “men in wedding dresses” this morning I thought, hell yeah! I sure do wanna see some men in wedding dresses. I bet men look even more asinine in wedding dresses than women do. And who doesn’t want to look at something asinine first thing on Sunday morning?

Men universally look asinine in women’s clothes, yeah? The reason for this, and for mild funniness in other low forms of humor, is incongruity. Nothing says “I submit to my species’ disdain and surrender forthwith any claims to my own humanity” quite like a wedding dress. Women’s clothes are designed, according to a rigorous standard of misogyny, to communicate that the wearer is totally up for self-abasement. Men, on the other hand, are required by law not to be totally up for self-abasement. Therefore, in accordance with the laws of patriarchy, comedy and gender, a dude in a wedding dress is improbable and unnatural, thus causing the observer to laugh or retch or curl a cynical lip.


http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2010/04/04/the-case-for-flip-flops-and-flowing-robes/

[redqueen]

6. Love it

"It is a universally agreed-upon fact that suffering indignity is consistent with women’s essential nature. Women look natural in stupid clothes because women, as is stated in the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women, are biologically and culturally constrained to subsist as degraded masochists."