It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa
i think you're confusing two different articles. one is the lady that worked at the bank, who i wasn't referring to in the second part of your quote, which was about the lane bryant article. the lane bryant lady who wrote a op-ed about her experiences at a house party, the commentary made by her counterparts regarding the appearance of a breasty woman wearing a v-neck with cleavage....at a party and how it seemed to suggest that it wasn't the clothing that was the problem but the body type, which was characterized as an inherently obscene body type. the bigger the breasts, the more attention they get, regardless of how well they are covered. just the fact they exist, causes trouble. showing cleavage of such breasts, accentuates it even more, creating a startling effect that shocks the viewer no matter what venue they appear in, proving that the issue is internal, in the viewer, not exterior on the woman. otherwise, we have to assume sexy hair needs to be cut. sexy necks covered. sexy buttocks, covered, and pretty soon, the lady has become the invisible woman, having been consumed by her own clothing
Originally posted by undo
if she's telling the truth, they didnt fire her because of her clothing, they fired her because of her body type, which is what i've been trying to explain this entire time. you can wear appropriate clothing and still end up being categorized as a "bimbo" just for having large breasts (and her case, long legs and a pretty face to boot).
Debrahlee Lorenzana and the Rogue Client
And that is why the case is a 100% loser. If the client is found to be a liar — and it doesn’t really matter too much what she lied about — why would anyone trust her words on the substance of the suit? In the original Village Voice article, obviously done in conjunction with Tuckner, she said:
“Are you saying that just because I look this way genetically, that this should be a curse for me?”
And she also said this:
“It’s so tiring,” Lorenzana tells the Voice. “My entire life, I’ve been dealing with this. ‘Cause people say, ‘Oh, you got a job because you look that way.’"
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa
i edited my post to further define that what i meant is, buns covered in slacks, if they are still sexy, will need to be covered by even more fabric, as pants would not be enough to keep them from being stimulating for people that are attracted to that part of the anatomy.
this also brings up the spectre of how this is dealt with in an office environment where gay men may find each other's attire stimulating and distracting, and not have anyone else notice there's anything going on at all cause we're too accustomed to overtly inappropriate attire, being all about women's anatomy and clothing choices, exclusively.
Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by undo
Are you really upset that someone was denied a modeling job based on a part of their body? That's female oppression? I'm sorry there are standards for corporate photography and anyone who has been in the business will tell you that. I was in male modeling when I was young, they constantly told me I was too short for my age, being a boy and all, and that my thighs are unproportional to my body, eyes are too far apart, etc.... "OHNOES , they said things about my appearance in this job that is based on my appearance -- big surprise . Good thing I'm making $115/hour smiling in front of an oversized piece of white paper or I would pretend to get upset about it."
Surely they stopped hating women like you feminazis say they do to hate on the boys for a while. Wow, these people sure hate a lot of different genders.
I'm sorry, you would have to be blissfully ignorant to think this is a gender-specific incident and complain as if it's a conspiracy against women's bodies..
I'm sorry this "walk in her shoes!" nonsense you speak of is something I have done already in my lifetime and it's not awful so your crusade for boobie sympathy falls short of the reality spectrum.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee
what i'm noticing in this thread is alot of people who want women exclusively, to consider the comfort of others, while demanding that women, exclusively, go to great lengths and great expense (and in some cases, life threatening surgeries) to make sure everyone is comfortable with the natural attributes of women, exclusively.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee
if there is no gender, why are women singled out for being too sexy, even while fully dressed? i mean some of these ladies have more clothes on than they did 100 years ago.
Originally posted by bkfd54
reply to post by hotbakedtater
People need to grow up...SAVE THE TATAS...