Are Women Conditioned To Be Weak By Society?

I know why women wear what they do, and I've already listed the reasons in this thread.
It's not exactly rocket science. Women ( and men for that matter ) can be read like a book.
All it needs is a study of human nature, interactions and society.

Wrong, you think you know why SOME women wear what they do, and have applied it to every woman you see fit, with or without reason.

The reasons that they've said, have all verified my points on the matter - except, of course, admitting that they wear them to impress and attract a man.
But they are hardly going to admit that, are they ?
Not too many women are going to come on here and say: ''Yes, I wear revealing clothes so as men look at me in an overtly sexual manner''.

As I've said previously, I have no problem with women dressing like sluts ( it's entirely their prerogative ) but it's just completely incompatible with being taken seriously or treated equally in real-life.

It just helps to validate my point that they are the weaker, submissive gender.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that this is even up for debate.
But I know most women can hold a never ending argument in an empty room, so I shouldn't be too surprised.

It helps validate my point that you're trying to make yourself feel special by suggesting that every woman wearing something even slightly revealing is doing it for a man in one way or another.

Plenty of women are doing fine in this life despite opinions like yours, and they wear what they like. If you don't find you can take them seriously, that's your problem.

You haven't given any examples of your personal independence to date, so I, personally, will refrain on passing judgement on that one way or the other, but I'm 99% sure that if you do, I won't find it either ''bewildering'' nor ''offensive'' !

I have referred to my personal independence and abilities that equal what a man can do before in this thread.

I'd also like to see you in a one on one match in the sport of your choice with the leading female world seed in that profession. If women really are that weak and really do provide third rate versions of whatever game they're playing, you should be able to beat them hands down, and thus justify the gap in payment they receive upon winning a title match. I get the feeling your ego would dictate to you that you would win.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by invetro
it's impossible to predict what is going on in a womans mind when she decides to wear whatever on any given day without actually BEING that woman.

I know why women wear what they do, and I've already listed the reasons in this thread.
It's not exactly rocket science. Women ( and men for that matter ) can be read like a book.
All it needs is a study of human nature, interactions and society.

Yes, I think the problem is people don't differentiate between what they're consciously aware of and what really drives their behavior on a subconscious level. The two may be very different and our conscious perception may actually be flawed at best so I agree with Sherlock Holmes on this one Unfortunately, women seem to delude themselves into believing they are doing it all basically on a whim but this is just too simple, you cannot dismiss years of evolution/social conditioning, and I mean thousands of years

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I'm wondering just how many more years these tired excuses can be rolled out by women before they have to face the facts... It's 2010, not 1950 !

You know I thought that usually females were on average the annoying ones but I could be wrong, because justifications need justifying. No one need's to take heed of facts... if females like playing with make up who gives a #, we all know why and how this came about just as we know why anything a male does came about. And no one will admit to any facts that goes against there optimal drive in life. The reason females wear make up is the same reason males lift weight, or play sports perspectively. They play sports so as the females who put on make up, are attracted to them, for reasons that are obvious. And asking a female to not be so female'y and not do as they do, is like asking a dude who plays sports for money to not play sports for money. It wont happen.

It's also because many women are happy to trade sex for money ( effectively prostitution ), even if that means marrying a 70-year-old millionaire.

Yes that is one of the discrepancy's between the sexes. Who know's, everybody knows either conciseness or unconsciously, but most things are conditioned, look at the past and you will see why things are like that. These females could be right when they say, that society has kept them down...When you judge what was in the whole history of human existence, by what you don't deem right from your perspective there will be discrepancy's...You can't expect for a creature that was on one end of the spectrum from the beginning of human time...since way before written history it's been biology and conditions, it was in the interest of survival for females to stay in villages, while males hunted and mating was done in the interest of survival, hence competition between males for the most successful hunter to attract the female, though back then all you needed was some pigs and a straw hut. This can be applied thought history to today's age. So if you condition someone for that long of a period in the interest of survival to be one thing...then Skipp forward to a couple of hundred of thousand of years later were the basic systems was in place. Then all of a sudden say sorry but females cant do this or that, because its seen as week by males, it wont work. So who is to say in this day and age that the females that marry a rich 70yr old has more of a chance at survival and prosperity, then the average female. Maybe they are the smart ones. And males are just jealous they found a loop hole in the rat race in life. Its more about necessaries and circumstance then anything else.

Which further proves my point about women willingly submitting to a dominant male. The reason most men wouldn't marry an old lady is because: 1. It's pretty sick ! Especially thinking about the bedroom department. And, 2. Most men want to achieve something themselves, without having to rely on leeching off someone else.

This is a lie I know because I am male and know males only, other then mother and sister. Even the last part "everybody want's to achieve something themselves not only males".

Most men want to achieve something themselves, without having to rely on leeching off someone else.

Males are just more conditioned to do things by themselves, nature and society and circumstances dictated this... females were dictated something else. So in a sense that we must adapt to nature and are adapted by nature we all rely on others.

Many women, however, appear to want to be able to achieve something in life through living off someone else, rather than having to do their own hard work.

Another lie everybody does what comes natural to them or easier, women rely on men because they can, and men don't usually rely on women because they can't. More social engineering derived from both sexes. We only see it more clearly today because the world is slowly changing.

The only reason why I think women are the weaker sex is because they don't have that natural desire to make order out of chaos. They won't want to build a house brick by brick, or wage war over territory (physical territory), or travel the darkness of the mind to construct workable philosophies. It's always men who try and keep things together for whatever reasons.

But, again since this is ATS, I would say technology is attempting to render the above examples useless by creating a world within the world that's anti-natural. Humanism, feminism, mediocrity... All the scales have been lowered.

reply to post by dawnstar

hmm......when I asked my mom for the little bit of money I needed to take the college entrance exams.....my mom came back with this, oh, you don't need college, you're gonna marry a rich man who will take care of you, and me!! or something to that extent. I had all the scholarships that I would have needed...but well.....ten bucks was too much to ask for....

See this is what I mean by conditioning and changing world, females need to be thought certain male things to, because males aren't made of money, nor can they be trusted. Times change and people need to change with the times.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Yes, and I've witnessed men doing this also, but that in no way invalidates my point that women obsess over it more.

When just as many men obsess over it as women, yeah it kinda does.

There's nothing wrong with my logic, love.
Of course a primary motive for men to build muscle mass is to attract women, as women tend to like physically strong men. However, there are other benefits to building muscle mass, such as making yourself look more imposing, being able to defend yourself better, and being more physically healthy.

The only reason that women try and lose weight is to either impress men or to be more healthy.

And yet again we see the rationalization of why men do something, but women only do it to attract men or get healthy.

I would say anybody with any sense. If a woman has her norks popping out of her top, she's giving off the message ''I haven't got much going on between my ears, I'm easy and don't mind promoting myself as a sex object''.

Sorry, dear. I should have expanded my question so that you'd understand what I was asking. I was asking you who decided that skimpy clothing meant a woman wasn't worth being taken seriously and why that was decided.

Does skimpy clothing somehow erase all intelligence from a woman's mind? I think not. Just because you perceive a woman wearing less clothing to be worth less than one who is covered from neck to toe doesn't mean she is actually worth less or is less worthy of being taken seriously. Could she pick better clothing? Sure. Does her clothing somehow affect her intelligence or worth? Nope.

If a woman wants to dress like a slut, then she can't really have too much of a problem if men ( and women ) treat her that way.

You do realize that's pretty darn close to the "She was asking for it" line some men use when justifying their actions right? Just pointing out the similarity there, not implying anything.

Women who get taken seriously are the ones that try and promote themselves through their intelligence and personality ( who ironically can be every bit as sexy as the sex object type ).

Ahh, but see then they are just trying to be like men and are only doing things that men find commonplace. And if they focus on their intelligence and personality and don't dress in skimpy clothing then they just aren't that attractive anyway. So you say, anyway.

And if there are men like that ( and I'm sure there are ) then they are obviously taking their interest to an unhealthy level. Just as people might do with other hobbies.

Kinda like some women do, right?

You are deliberately ignoring the difference between a few male obsessives and a much larger number of women who creepily obsess about others.

No, I'm deliberately trying to explain to you that the number of male obsessives isn't nearly so small nor the number of female obsessives nearly so large as you'd like to believe. Nor do some women being obsessive about something/someone or wearing skimpy clothing mean that women in general are weak creatures who's every action revolves around attracting the attention of men.

reply to post by IandEye

i can tell you are very sweet-hearted and i have added you as a friend, but................... woman ARE NOT more spiritual as men. they are trapped by the physical world (menstruations) and that makes them weaker.

Ok whatever I can be, but not always...for the second part that is what I said they are not more spiritual then men on average.

And females are on average more spiritual then males, mostly because on average males don't have that option, or time to be moody about things that wont do them any good.

We don't have the option of seeing I to eye, because we are not in menstruations. Spirituality is not gender specific. Do we see eye to eye, Iandeye?

men can destroy life and women can create it- that doesn't make them more spiritual. as a matter of fact- isnt it that very balance of destruction/creation that makes women fear for the lives of their creations (and themselves in the process) which in turn makes them act out in irrational and - yes- destructive ways? even if you don't know it, the makeup industry, the clothing industry, all that nonsense are some of the very things that are destroying our world through greed, slave-labor, and money.

Industries do only if one is obsessed with something, and that is what they want you to be, obsessed with it...makes more money for them. Buy this and this and happiness comes...same... as buy beer and chicks come to you. Not entirely true.

the part that really gets me is that women are like little pets who always are striving to please, to do good by their parents or peers or whatever......and this pure motivation is perverted into sexualized power. i have YET to meet an American woman who can love with her heart and not with her gut. a real man understand that death is part of life, just like plunging the toilet is part of owning a house. women just don't plunge.

Yes I have noticed this phenomenon females on average tend to want to please everyone. They want to be loved by everyone and sometimes they are "be careful what you wish for, or be more specific" Some of them are like little troupers going on ahead no matter what, even though there are signs of "beware cliff ahead" in there path. As for hearts and all that, who knows, but most likely plunging toilets in your own house is funner.

women aren't made weaker by society- their fears of death and non-conformity make them weaker. and boy do they love to play dumb.......

Affirmative.

the Buddha said his teaching would disintegrate into meaningless word in 500-1500 years after death because women were being ordained. strong words from fairly spiritual guy.....he said to be born a woman is evidence of a lower karmic rebirth.

The Buddha was wrong, his teachings disintegrated into meaningless words, a couple of days after his death.... If he was wrong about that, he can be wrong about many other things.

this isn't a competition between each other (thats a womanly thing, right) it is really a way to see beyond gender, sex, and self.

If you say so.. must be true.

since this is ATS i will add that the de-masculinization of America and the de-feminization of women is the basis of all mind control................change the definition of "natural" and you can do anything ungodly you want.

True but do any of us have a choice faced with the problem of "time moves on" nothing is natural everything moves on eventually.

Originally posted by IandEye
men can destroy life and women can create it

Women can destroy life as well, and no life is created by women alone. It requires both a male and a female to create life. We carry that life, but we don't create it alone.

isnt it that very balance of destruction/creation that makes women fear for the lives of their creations (and themselves in the process) which in turn makes them act out in irrational and - yes- destructive ways?

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but you seem to be saying that when a woman fears for her child's life she becomes irrational and destructive. If so, I wouldn't say it's irrational to protect your child by whatever means necessary. If that requires destroying someone else to protect said child, so be it. You don't come between a momma bear and her cubs.

the part that really gets me is that women are like little pets who always are striving to please

Pets?

i have YET to meet an American woman who can love with her heart and not with her gut.

When you refer to women as "little pets" I'm not surprised. But tell me, how would you know if a woman is using her heart or her gut?

a real man understand that death is part of life, just like plunging the toilet is part of owning a house. women just don't plunge.

On the contrary, women do plunge both literally and figuratively. Not witnessing it yourself doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Reply to post by Jenna

this over-protective nature is ego.....it is an extensionof the 'self' and the closest we come to 'immortality'. no it is not rational.
the physical world is a prison and what makes women not-so-spiritual is their lack of this understanding.......
everything is so pretty and loving and soft and warm and.......no?

you say I don't see women plunge? how would you know? lame argument and you're taking this all personally.
christians are like little pets too- they want to do good, they want to please their master and in that case its Jesus, God, Holy Spirit (whoa that's a lot of deities!) american women are paganistic narcissists who think the universe was created for them to be happy. they see a different world than men do.
together they can create something worth living for but I know that the strongest woman is morally weaker than the most spiritual man.
to the other poster:
the buddha's words didn't die you schmuck. selflessness is eternal- just ask moses, jesus, or.........mother theresa? I'm glad we agree on all this sexist bullship but your statement about the teachings being dead is just ignorant american narcissistic crap.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by IandEye
this over-protective nature is ego.....it is an extensionof the 'self' and the closest we come to 'immortality'. no it is not rational.

Protecting those weaker than yourself at the risk of harm or death to yourself is not an act of the ego. I've no clue how you see it as being closest to immortality...

the physical world is a prison and what makes women not-so-spiritual is their lack of this understanding

Yet you are tied to this physical world as well. Would that not make you as not-so-spiritual as the rest of us?

everything is so pretty and loving and soft and warm and.......no?

you say I don't see women plunge? how would you know? lame argument and you're taking this all personally.

You said, and I quote:

i have YET to meet an American woman who can love with her heart and not with her gut.

a real man understand that death is part of life, just like plunging the toilet is part of owning a house. women just don't plunge.

You say women don't love with their heart and just don't plunge. It's fairly obvious that your comments came from personal experience (Since you said "I have yet to see...") and it wasn't to difficult to understand that you haven't seen a woman who loves with her heart, or plunges as you put it. Apparently I touched a nerve though since you're accusing me of taking this personally... I'm not, by the way. I enjoy conversations like this quite a bit, as evidenced by my numerous posts in this and similar threads.

american women are paganistic narcissists who think the universe was created for them to be happy. they see a different world than men do.

A tad bit angry at American women, I take it. Being pagan isn't any different than being Christian when you get right down to it. Pagans just have more dieties. Men and women can both be narcissistic. And no two people see the world exactly the same.

I know that the strongest woman is morally weaker than the most spiritual man.

That's quite a claim. Care to explain why you think this is so? Or what strength has to do with morality or spirituality?

Women are conditioned to be insecure about themselves.

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
I think we're all trained to act in a certain way to produce for The State.

They need bodies for their economic pyramid schemes. So, the sexes are brainwashed accordingly.

Women are more susceptible? I don't believe it.

A star for you

Most people (female/male) are conditioned to fit some specific "roles".
It's all about "productivity" to the sytem...

What's highly rentable is destroying the self-esteem.

However the power-intelligence-capacity to realize the truth of it all- lies in each person- to rebel and start thinking for themselves.
Stop the consumerism of ideas of "how to live" "what I should wear"- "how I should react"- "what I should expect"- from the TV and media in general.


There's not such thing as "the weaker sex".
I refuse to buy into that idea- fuled by the religious dogmatics.

Being feminine doesn't equate being weak. That's a very silly comparission.

Society can TRY to dictate how to live your life- and TRY to condition you to be something- but it can't really happen- if you don't allow it. Period.

reply to post by IandEye

to the other poster: the buddha's words didn't die you schmuck. selflessness is eternal- just ask moses, jesus, or.........mother theresa? I'm glad we agree on all this sexist bullship but your statement about the teachings being dead is just ignorant american narcissistic crap.

Words are meaningless and the Buddha did die and people did misinterpret his words...or to be more correct interpreted his words in there own way.
Selflessness in not eternal...moses, Jesus even mother Theresa will all be forgotten and there words gone into the aether given time...in a million years all that you know will be gone, and it's very likely that will happen in a couple of thousand years as well. So how is it eternal are you some sort of new age hippy Cristian that is high on weed, and plays a guitar to impress the girls. Everything dies including "selflessness" after all did you not say this to impress the girls.

a real man understand that death is part of life, just like plunging the toilet is part of owning a house. women just don't plunge.

a few years ago, a group of crazies decided to fly planes into a couple of our buildings.....

and well, we were all afraid that Iraq had wmd's and were gonna blow us all up!! even though all the crazies on the plane were supposedly saudis, their base of operation was in afghanistan....
well, the war in afghanistan for some reason took second place on the priority list.....
we invaded Iraq...
why????

we were AFRAID of the REMOTE possibility that Iraq would be able to destroy our way of life, if not our lives!!! Many men were all gun hoe to go and fight or to send others to "protect"...but well, protect what? were they the least interested in my, or yours way of life, or was it mainly the fear for their way of life??

I was a member of a christian fundamentalist church for a long time....
have a chat with some of these people sometime....
according to them, ya, you can discuss what hubby should do, have a part in the discussions, but well, it's all his decision to make, and it all comes down to you are just to accept what he says, and be obedient.....
he could be sending your kid to bed without supper every night of the week, you could be in fear for you life, but you are still being told to just accept what he does, and PRAY that god will change his heart...and have faith that God will protect, take care of you......
and yet, these same fundies were probably also gun hoe about going into Iraq, to protect THEIR way of life from the remote danger that the country was seen to present!

if men were more spiritual than women, well, they would have prayed to god to change the heart of the Iraqis and the taliban, and they would have just had faith that God would protect them.....
like they expected women to do for centuries!

"Let the torah be burned, but let it not be taught to a women!!"""

did you know that the old jewish synagogues were places mainly for men...
men were required to attend, women were not. men were allowed on the first floor, women, if they came were up in the balcony, where they couldn't hear much of anything that was said. thus, well, paul writing that the women should remain silent in the church.....
the women in the synagogues got used to the place being a meeting place for them to come to and have chats!!! But, it was left up to the men to go home and teach whatever they felt that the women should know about the spiritual realm.....
but, well, why was it so FEARED by men for a women to be taught the torah??? surely the spiritual superiority should be enough to counteract any damage the spiritually inadequate women might do in her ignorance!

Originally posted by invetro
Wrong, you think you know why SOME women wear what they do, and have applied it to every woman you see fit, with or without reason.

No, the reasons that almost all women wear the clothes that I'm describing is already covered by my previous posts.

Originally posted by invetro
It helps validate my point that you're trying to make yourself feel special by suggesting that every woman wearing something even slightly revealing is doing it for a man in one way or another.

LOL. ''trying to feel special''.

Not every woman wears those clothes purely to impress or get the attention of men.

When a woman wears these clothes to boost her self-confidence, she's indirectly trying to get men to ogle, but purely for her own benefit.

When a woman wears striking clothing to make her ''sisters'' envious/jealous, it is not done for the man's benefit, it's all down to the Queen B mentality.

When a woman wears these clothes because of peer-pressure or because it's fashionable, then that is not done for a man's benefit.

So, you're completely misunderstanding my points, if you think that I'm saying that it's purely done to impress or attract men.

Originally posted by invetro
Plenty of women are doing fine in this life despite opinions like yours, and they wear what they like. If you don't find you can take them seriously, that's your problem.

Nowhere have I disputed that women should wear what they like ( within reason ); au contraire, I've already mentioned that I like to take a butchers at a woman showing off her pins and her breasts.

I ( like many other men and women ) can't take them too seriously, though, as they are displaying themselves as sex objects, so I consider them to be potential conquests, rather than someone I could hold an intellectual debate with.

Again, I have absolutely no objection to a woman promoting herself as a sex object first and foremost - it's entirely her prerogative.
They just can't get offended when 90% of men treat them as such.
Men are very visually orientated when it comes to sexual attraction, and women know this. So they can't act innocent when men treat them as sex objects.

Originally posted by invetro
I have referred to my personal independence and abilities that equal what a man can do before in this thread.

I must have missed it then.

Nothing personal, but I find it amusing that some women always like to boast about how ''independent'', ''strong'' or ''empowered'' they are. Surely these things should be taken for granted if they are truly equal to men ?

To be honest, I think most men would cringe at ever describing themselves as ''empowered''. This would sound so weak.

Independence and mental strength are a given for most men, so we don't need to go on about it.
So why do women constantly need to brag about these attributes that men take for granted ? Is it to convince themselves or other people ?

I'm genuinely curious.

Originally posted by invetro
I'd also like to see you in a one on one match in the sport of your choice with the leading female world seed in that profession. If women really are that weak and really do provide third rate versions of whatever game they're playing, you should be able to beat them hands down, and thus justify the gap in payment they receive upon winning a title match. I get the feeling your ego would dictate to you that you would win.

You've just disembarked from the logic train again.
I am not even up to amateur male club standard in tennis and I can't swim, so I haven't got much chance of beating a top professional women's tennis player or swimmer.
I am a passable track and field competitor, so I could probably beat a few of the top female runners.

But, what's illogical is your inference that my ability at any given sport has any impact on the fact that women's professional sport is dire and third-rate.

The top female tennis player would barely get into the top 1000 in the men's rankings, so why on earth should they get equal prize-money ?
The idea that women should receive equal prize money in sport is ludicrous, and thankfully most sports won't ever introduce it.

If you had equal prize money for women, then you'd have to have equal prize money for all the various disability versions of each sport, and all the various junior and senior versions of each sport.
Which would mean there wouldn't be much prize money to go around in the end.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
And asking a female to not be so female'y and not do as they do, is like asking a dude who plays sports for money to not play sports for money. It wont happen.

I never asked women to stop being feminine ( what fun would that be ?! ).
All I asked for was a bit more honesty on the part of some of them on this thread ( and in real life for that matter ).

You are right. Men lift weights to impress women, because women like strong, powerful dominant men that are capable of looking after them and warding off danger.

Women wear make up and pretty themselves up to be submissive and attractive to the dominant male.

It's just a pity that some women can't acknowledge the result of millions of years of evolution.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
So who is to say in this day and age that the females that marry a rich 70yr old has more of a chance at survival and prosperity, then the average female. Maybe they are the smart ones. And males are just jealous they found a loop hole in the rat race in life. Its more about necessaries and circumstance then anything else.

Again, I don't see a problem in an arrangement of this kind.
The man provides the woman with what she wants ( money = comfort and security ), and the woman provides the man with what he wants ( sex ).
I don't believe that society plays much of a part in this.

What I object to, though, is the feminist types ignore this kind of situation, while still trotting out the ''sisters are doing it for themselves'' kind of line.

Women naturally seek a man who can provide and protect. That is why they are the submissive gender.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
This is a lie I know because I am male and know males only, other then mother and sister. Even the last part "everybody want's to achieve something themselves not only males".

It's not a lie. Most men would be a bit ashamed and embarrassed at achieving wealth through leeching off a septuagenarian millionairess.
Many women are perfectly happy to do this with a man.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Another lie everybody does what comes natural to them or easier, women rely on men because they can, and men don't usually rely on women because they can't. More social engineering derived from both sexes. We only see it more clearly today because the world is slowly changing.

It's not a ''lie'', it's an opinion.

It's not social engineering, it's nature.

Originally posted by Jenna
When just as many men obsess over it as women, yeah it kinda does.

But they don't. It's only your imagination that is clouding a logical appraisal of the situation.

For you to argue that women don't obsess more than men about their appearance is comical.
Do you walk around with your eyes closed ?

Originally posted by Jenna
And yet again we see the rationalization of why men do something, but women only do it to attract men or get healthy.

No, I rationalised the reasons why both men and women attempt to achieve a bodily ideal.

It's not my problem that you don't like the answer.

Originally posted by Jenna
Does skimpy clothing somehow erase all intelligence from a woman's mind?

I think you've got the chicken and egg the wrong way round, darling.

Originally posted by Jenna
Just because you perceive a woman wearing less clothing to be worth less than one who is covered from neck to toe doesn't mean she is actually worth less or is less worthy of being taken seriously.

You must have misunderstood my posts if you think I'm saying that skimpily dressed women are ''worth less'. I have never said that, nor do I believe anything like that.

It's simple; a woman that displays a lot of flesh is promoting herself as a sex-object first and foremost.
It's unlikely that someone with too much intelligence would do such a thing, as they'd be fully aware at how they would be perceived by men ( and also many women ).

Originally posted by Jenna
You do realize that's pretty darn close to the "She was asking for it" line some men use when justifying their actions right? Just pointing out the similarity there, not implying anything.

No, it's nowhere near that line of ''logic'' that some men use in an attempt to justify rape.
Only someone paranoid on the gender issue would make that connection, considering it wouldn't make any sense in the context of our discussion.

A ''slut'', fyi, is usually defined along the lines of a ''promiscuous woman'' - not as a ''valid target for rape''.

Have a word with yourself.

Originally posted by Jenna
Ahh, but see then they are just trying to be like men and are only doing things that men find commonplace. And if they focus on their intelligence and personality and don't dress in skimpy clothing then they just aren't that attractive anyway. So you say, anyway.

LOL.
Focussing primarily on intelligence and personality in most real-life situations is normal, be it male or female.

When on earth did I say that, which you claim ?
You can surely do better than seemingly making up points that I've never made.

A woman doesn't need to show off tons of flesh to be sexy or attractive. Sadly, many women don't seem to understand this.

Originally posted by Jenna
No, I'm deliberately trying to explain to you that the number of male obsessives isn't nearly so small nor the number of female obsessives nearly so large as you'd like to believe. Nor do some women being obsessive about something/someone or wearing skimpy clothing mean that women in general are weak creatures who's every action revolves around attracting the attention of men.

I literally know of no male that has an obsession with a particular sports star ( although, I don't doubt that these people exist ).
I know dozens of women that read celebrity gossip magazines.

The difference that you're ignoring is that hobbies like sports, cooking, stamp collecting, gardening etc. are all perfectly healthy, but are unhealthy when taken to the extreme.

An interest in tawdry, sordid details of the private lives of people that you've never met is unhealthy and creepy, even in its mildest form.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
But they don't. It's only your imagination that is clouding a logical appraisal of the situation.

Oh the irony.

For you to argue that women don't obsess more than men about their appearance is comical.

No, my eyes aren't closed. I pay just as much attention to what people don't say as I do to what they do say. Men don't talk about their appearance as much as women, that much is true. But not talking about it and not obsessing over it are far from being the same thing.

No, I rationalised the reasons why both men and women attempt to achieve a bodily ideal.

Sure you did. If you call claiming that men can do things just because while women only do them to attract men rationalizing.

You must have misunderstood my posts if you think I'm saying that skimpily dressed women are ''worth less'. I have never said that, nor do I believe anything like that.

You said they were less worthy of respect, implying that they have less worth overall than someone who doesn't wear skimpy clothing.

It's unlikely that someone with too much intelligence would do such a thing, as they'd be fully aware at how they would be perceived by men ( and also many women ).

I don't know about that... Lingerie models get paid to stand around in their undies. Sounds like a pretty smart decision to me if you can land one of those jobs.

A ''slut'', fyi, is usually defined along the lines of a ''promiscuous woman''

Yet how many times do we hear people say something along the lines of "Well if she dresses like that, she deserves what she gets." You said something similar yourself actually.

When on earth did I say that, which you claim ?
You can surely do better than seemingly making up points that I've never made.

Ahem:

But a woman's ''success'' is quite often defined as emulating a male role in any given situation.

Originally posted by Jenna
According to whom? You? I know more women who couldn't possibly care less about seeking attention from or attracting the opposite sex than those who do care about doing so.

Without wanting to sound unkind, those are probably women that don't get too much attention from men anyway.

Care to retract your claim that you never said either of those things?

I literally know of no male that has an obsession with a particular sports star ( although, I don't doubt that these people exist ).
I know dozens of women that read celebrity gossip magazines.

No, you know of no man who talks about his obsession. Women do talk about things (anything really) more than men do, and are more willing and likely to share whatever it is they're thinking about. Men on the other hand will generally offer up the minimum necessary regardless of topic unless they're teaching someone how to do something and keep everything else to themselves, whether it's to keep from being seen as weak, obsessive or whatever.

The difference that you're ignoring is that hobbies like sports, cooking, stamp collecting, gardening etc. are all perfectly healthy, but are unhealthy when taken to the extreme.

No moving the goal posts. We're not talking about the sports themselves or any of your other little hobby examples, we're talking about the sports stars. And yes, some men do get obsessive about sports stars which ties in with this next quote:

An interest in tawdry, sordid details of the private lives of people that you've never met is unhealthy and creepy, even in its mildest form.

Just as being able to recite every stat, every game played, every race won, along with the year and city it happened in is unhealthy and creepy. If we were to do a study on the percentage of men and women around the globe who exhibit these obsessive behaviors (assuming that everyone who participated in the study was honest about it), I'd be willing to bet my paycheck that the percentages would be comparable between the genders.

As much as you'd like to believe otherwise, men are not these perfect creatures who are generally above being interested in the private lives of others, above petty concerns about their physical appearance, or so wonderful at everything that women seem inept in comparison.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
But they don't. It's only your imagination that is clouding a logical appraisal of the situation.

A ''slut'', fyi, is usually defined along the lines of a ''promiscuous woman''

Yet how many times do we hear people say something along the lines of "Well if she dresses like that, she deserves what she gets." You said something similar yourself actually.

Let's look at this idea.

Women who are "promiscuous" are considered "sluts", while men who are "promiscuous" are .... patted on the back and adding notches to their bedpost. To me, it is definitely conditioning of women and men that men are just "sewing their oats" while women are "being loose".

They are actually doing the EXACT same thing.

It is a double standard, it promotes the erroneous belief that men are superior to women, it is one set of rules for men, and a completely different set of rules for women.

It makes no difference to me, male or female, the exact same actions, "should be" labeled as the same thing. If a woman is a "slut" for "sewing her oats" then a man is also a "slut" for "sewing his oats".

Women and men are conditioned imo, and men and women fall into these negative belief patterns, without even realizing what is taking place. Men, and unfortunately women, accuse women of being "loose" when a woman walks proudly within her sexuality, while a man is told that this exact same behavior "makes him a .... real man".

If a man does it, well he is just being a man and still worthy of respect and even by some he is seen with even more high regard, if a woman does it, well she is just a "slut" and unworthy of respect. , and "deserves what she gets".

The example of this is the belief by many, that a woman should be a virgin when she marries, but it is just assumed that a man will have spent many hours with those "sluts", and it is not expected that a man will be a virgin when he marries.

Sherlock, and those who have these same double standards and conditioned beliefs, grow and learn. Be more accepting of the truth that men and women are equal, and all should be allowed to walk proudly within their own skin, however they choose to do this for themselves.

Equality does not mean people are the exact same. It means we all deserve to be respected using the same guidelines for everyone, not one set of guidelines for men and one set of guidelines for women.

Harm None!
Peace

carrots and melons, guys, carrots and melons...must we really compare the two? Yes, you say? all right then, I'll bite...been stalking this thread for a bit anyway, it's made me quite hungry indeed...

...for blood...yours, sherlock...

haha just kidding. i'm not one to go hunting for enemies, don't walk into a debate looking to win either, but to understand, and if everyone understands, everyone wins! we ain't gotta agree with each other but we can understand each other, right?!

so having said that, i think i understand where you're coming from sherlock, you speak of logic, however i don't think it's very logical to compare carrots and melons...i mean, everybody knows both men and women do things whether consciously or not for the sake of attracting the opposite sex...i guess i just struggle to see what any of that has to do with whose stronger or weaker.

okay, instead of arguing against your points (which i don't agree with mind), let us assume everything you claim is in fact correct! where does the weakness come in? okay, let's say a female wants to reveal a bit of her "fun bags" (you're quite the poet, I'll give you that much mate) for the sake of attracting men (whether she knows it or not). why is that weak exactly? i would hope it's only natural for them to want to attract the opposite sex. by that logic, everything men do with the slightest intentions, conscious or not, of attracting women must also be weak, and in fact you would be weak for eying those "fun bags" and being curious about them. also anything men do, whether they realize it or not, which may put them in an advantageous position towards attracting the opposite sex, deliberately or consequentially, would make them weak.

want to show your dominance in sport? women may find successful sportsmen sexy, too bad, that makes you weak! you want to be good at your job for the sake of self-fulfillment? but what if women like guys like that? wouldn't that make them weak? according to your logic it would. hmmm. okay. personally the only thing i would say men are stronger at than women on average is physical strength, which if you think about it in today's world, means little to nothing at all. anything physical a woman can't do on her own, she can get a machine or better yet, a man to do it for her. not saying its either, but that sounds more like power than weakness to me. and a lot of men would do it willingly, if not for sake of just to please her, or show off, or boost their own ego etc etc. hmmm. still don't see where weakness comes into all of this.

carrots and melons, really...each sex has their own devices for attracting the other, if one gender's methods are weak, i don't see how the others aren't, given the ultimate goal in the end is the same, reproduction.

think that's all i got to blab about for now, just threw my thoughts out there without really putting them nicely together, but i hope you get the gist of my point of view. and let me know if i misunderstood yours? and let's try to understand each other.

one more thing, you speak of women doing things and wearing things to boost their self-confidence as if it were a bad thing. didn't really understand the point you were trying to make with that one. perhaps you can help me understand that, too.

far as i can tell...men and women are two sides of the same coin...

...very much like my 0.02c