Ogling

And missed ya 'til just now, BPB -- major East Coast provider -- HA!

I'm still trying to figure out if there are physiological underpinnings to how men and women react to ogling. Ya know, slot a/ tab b. Dlowan mentioned knowing guys who worked as strippers or whatever who did feel this from women. But overwhelmingly it seems to be directed toward men -- in terms of homophobia, for example, I would be MUCH less threatened by lesbians ogling than by heterosexual men. (Have experienced both.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

So a woman decides to travel to a country with a macho culture, alone... then what? She has the right to complain, but she should've known better? Does she carry any responsibility?

She has the right to complain, she has my fullest sympathy, and if she was a personal friend who called me to vent her frustration, I would leave it at that. In an intellectualish discussion like this though, I'll add that there isn't much of a point complaining about it -- about as much as if someone travels to Nigeria and then complains because he's caught malaria. So I guess the answer to your second question is "yes". As for your third question, I'll pull a Clinton on you and say it all depends on what you mean by "responsibility". If you travel to Iran alone, get grabbed, sue, and I am the judge, I'd obviously convict the grabber, not you. As a matter of pragmatics though, you have no control over the customs of your host country -- in other words, the only thing you can control is what you do. You'd be foolish not to excercise that control, and in this sense you do have some responsibility.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

OK, I see what you're saying. It's a hoary trope, though, that for example a woman who is dressed skimpily and is out late at night "asked for it" if she is sexually assaulted. I understand that actual sexual assault is several degrees more severe than being ogled, and also that the pendulum has swung the other way, in some circumstances -- Dan Savage, in his column "Savage Love", has said some things I agree with regarding women who claim rape when, for example, they had consensual sex with an ex even though they later regretted it. I do agree that women need to take responsibility when appropriate.

Nonetheless, I object strongly to any suggestion that women who are subject to any level of actual harrassment should take responsibility for their "role" therein -- what they wear, what they do, what they say, what they LOOK like. Once it has actually become harrassment, there is no "excuse" on the part of the harrasser.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Nonetheless, I object strongly to any suggestion that women who are subject to any level of actual harrassment should take responsibility for their "role" therein -- what they wear, what they do, what they say, what they LOOK like. Once it has actually become harrassment, there is no "excuse" on the part of the harrasser.

I think our kind-of-disagreement rests on the fact that we are asking slightly different questions about responsibility. To exaggerate for the sake of clarity, you're asking: If something happens, who should be sent to jail? I'm asking: Who should try to make sure nothing happens to you? The answers to both questions don't have to be the same. To take a less contentious example, suppose I leave a wallet on a park bench, return the next day, and low and behold, it's stolen. Who should be sent to jail? The thief, of course. Should he get favorable terms because I made it so easy for him? Of course not. Does that mean I wasn't being stupid in failing to look after my wallet? Oh yes, of course I was.

My claim is that the same logic applies to unpleasant sexual situations. Would you agree? If not, why?

-- Thomas

0 Replies

The stupid part. WHY does it have to be stupid to wear a miniskirt and cropped top on a city bus? (As in my orthodontist story.)

0 Replies

Why does it have to be stupid to leave your wallet on a park bench for a day?

Sucks, but such is life. It's a shame, but there will always be people who will take advantage of such a situation. No one is saying that makes them any less guilty or reprehensible.

Again, here's Thomas's question.. "Who should try to make sure nothing happens to you?"

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The stupid part. WHY does it have to be stupid to wear a miniskirt and cropped top on a city bus? (As in my orthodontist story.)

It isn't stupid the first time you do it. After the first time, you still have a right not to get nasty looks, and you're still doing nothing wrong in an ethical sense if you wear a mini skirt. But if you don't want the looks and still wear the mini skirt on the bus, you just made a practical misjudgment about the reality you're living in, and that's what's stupid about it in my opinion.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

I guess my take is that I meet a lot of men who say, "it's a shame, such is life, get over it", and don't get the effect it has, and how they contribute to it. If YOU saw a wallet on a park bench, would you take it, or try to return it to the owner? I see too many men who see ogling a woman as being more akin to picking up a lone 5 dollar bill on the street; "whaddya expect?".

Not to say ogling is terrible terrible awful horrible -- it's not. I hope I've gotten some of the nuances across in all of the stuff I've written on this subject. I just think it's simplistic to say stuff like "let nature take its course" or "that's life". It's a way of life that makes a lot of people really uncomfortable. It's a way of life that has already changed, a lot, in many places. It's a way of life that will probably continue to change. I think that's a good thing.

0 Replies

In other words, I'm not really saying it's not stupid -- I'm saying that it totally sucks that it IS stupid. (As I said in the original orthodontist's story, about having forgotten about the appointment, and that I knew better.) I think it's extremely stupid that the civilized, educated men on the bus and at the office would think it's OK to ogle an underdressed, obviously distressed 17-year-old.

0 Replies

That first photograph is a staged image. It was an image of a friend of Ruths after they took it specifically for this effect. I think they even asked the boys to spice it up. Too bad though, it's tells such a story unfortunately it's misleading.

0 Replies

Algis, can you read the whole thread? We went into that a few times. According to what I read, the only communication was with the guys on the motorbike, asking them not to look at the camera.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I guess my take is that I meet a lot of men who say, "it's a shame, such is life, get over it", and don't get the effect it has, and how they contribute to it. If YOU saw a wallet on a park bench, would you take it, or try to return it to the owner? I see too many men who see ogling a woman as being more akin to picking up a lone 5 dollar bill on the street; "whaddya expect?".

As best I remember, I have looked at pretty women, but I never intended to make them feel uncomfortable. I have returned wallets I'd found in libraries, and I have kept $5 notes I've found on the streets. The difference is it's easy to identify the owner of a wallet, it's easy to see if the woman you're looking at feels uncomfortable, but it's hard to identify the owner of a $5 note.

sozobe wrote:

Not to say ogling is terrible terrible awful horrible -- it's not. I hope I've gotten some of the nuances across in all of the stuff I've written on this subject. I just think it's simplistic to say stuff like "let nature take its course" or "that's life".

Just to check how much we really disagree, suppose you wear the clothes you wore on that bus, and you get stares and maybe a grab. My opinion is that it's not okay to say "You asked for it, now deal with it", but it would be quite fair to say "How can we make sure it won't happen next time? Maybe it would help to be more careful with that mini skirt."

sozobe wrote:

It's a way of life that makes a lot of people really uncomfortable. It's a way of life that has already changed, a lot, in many places. It's a way of life that will probably continue to change. I think that's a good thing.

Full agreement here.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I guess my take is that I meet a lot of men who say, "it's a shame, such is life, get over it", and don't get the effect it has, and how they contribute to it. If YOU saw a wallet on a park bench, would you take it, or try to return it to the owner? I see too many men who see ogling a woman as being more akin to picking up a lone 5 dollar bill on the street; "whaddya expect?".

Not to say ogling is terrible terrible awful horrible -- it's not. I hope I've gotten some of the nuances across in all of the stuff I've written on this subject. I just think it's simplistic to say stuff like "let nature take its course" or "that's life". It's a way of life that makes a lot of people really uncomfortable. It's a way of life that has already changed, a lot, in many places. It's a way of life that will probably continue to change. I think that's a good thing.

Well said, Soz. However, "let nature take its course" and "get over it" is simply not what I was implying. Like crime in general, while it will never go away, this is definitely something we should be taking steps to overcome. I still think that Thomas's analogy is a good one.

0 Replies

Close to full agreement, with both of you. My only remaining quibble is this:

Thomas wrote:

My opinion is that it's not okay to say "You asked for it, now deal with it", but it would be quite fair to say "How can we make sure it won't happen next time? Maybe it would help to be more careful with that mini skirt."

Why not "Maybe it would help if more men realized the effect they had, and were more sensitive to signals that their attention was unwanted"? Why put the onus on the woman? (I mentioned before that men were frequently taken aback when I'd shoot them a glare -- I'd send them many more signals, ratcheting up obviousness, before getting to that point, that went unnoticed. Talking about regular guys, not the total creepos.)

I guess the real-life answer is some of each; women dealing with the reality, as unpleasant as it is, and men becoming more aware of the effect and doing something about it.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Why not "Maybe it would help if more men realized the effect they had, and were more sensitive to signals that their attention was unwanted"? Why put the onus on the woman?

First of all, my point was that it would be fair to say it, not that it's the only fair thing you could possibly say. Second of all, your alternative would be true, and it sure would be a nice excercise in empathy and bonding with that woman. But beyond that, it would have no practical consequence because the only person whose behavior I can change as the guy who's talking is the woman I'm talking to, not the ooglers.

sozobe wrote:

(I mentioned before that men were frequently taken aback when I'd shoot them a glare -- I'd send them many more signals, ratcheting up obviousness, before getting to that point, that went unnoticed. Talking about regular guys, not the total creepos.)

As you said a couple of pages ago, the "look at me -- don't look at me" game is complicated. In particular, my experience is that when a woman sends repulsive signals at low levels of obviousness, it is very hard to tell if she's really not interested, or if she is interested and is just testing if your effort is for real. As best I can tell from a distance of 6000 miles, these guys wrongly interpreted your low-level repulsion as a tenacity test, demonstrated tenacity because they were genuinely interested in you, and didn't get grounded until you sent an unambiguous "No" in their direction.

I know I've just opened a whole new can of worms because you said in a much, much earlier thread that you don't believe in "signals". But while I have no way of knowing what your situation was, I'm betting that the guys made an honest mistake. They didn't mean any harm

sozobe wrote:

I guess the real-life answer is some of each; women dealing with the reality, as unpleasant as it is, and men becoming more aware of the effect and doing something about it.

Again, I'm afraid that's true but without practical consequences -- I bet that none of the guys who listen to concerns like yours were ever part of the problem in the first place.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

jjorge*197982* wrote:

Women probably don't initially REALIZE that your eyes are on them. I'll bet that what gets you into trouble is that OTHER covert thing you're doing while pretending not to look......

Solution? keep your hands out of your pockets.

LOL!!! Like Alanis says: "I've got one hand in my pocket and the other hand is not having as much fun"

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

In particular, my experience is that when a woman sends repulsive signals at low levels of obviousness, it is very hard to tell if she's really not interested, or if she is interested and is just testing if your effort is for real. As best I can tell from a distance of 6000 miles, these guys wrongly interpreted your low-level repulsion as a tenacity test, demonstrated tenacity because they were genuinely interested in you, and didn't get grounded until you sent an unambiguous "No" in their direction.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this, and to sound a major theme again -- the kind of ogling I have a problem with has nothing to do with romantic interest. That is more obvious with the oglers who have the more explicit and easily recognized goal of making the oglee uncomfortable. But the guys I am talking about, the ones who were startled and sheepish when I glared at them, were not interested in me romantically, or even sexually per se -- this was not an opening gambit in an attempt to get to know me better. It was much more like looking at a painting, say, or a statue. And their response when I glared at them was very much like the response of someone who thought they were looking at a statue until it moved and they realize it's really a person covered in blue paint and holding a pose. "Oh! There's a person in there!"

This kind of absent, but persistent staring is the far less objectionable type, but it's also the far more common type, and the far less recognized as being objectionable. Maybe everyone here recognizes it as such, I dunno. My goal is not to convert the membership of A2K, at any rate. I just have had several interesting conversations on this topic, thought of starting another here, and have found it interesting indeed.

0 Replies

Everything I've read in this thread thus far has been very pc and careful not to mention any of the mental pathology that resides with some women in regards to this subject. Some women enjoy and count on being able to elicit prurient interest in their appearance. It is part and parcel of the character of some females; a tool I believe many of them would be a little bereft without. While we explore ad nauseum the end of the male spectrum of behaviors that is the most courtesy and/or maturity-challenged, I thought it fair to give at least a nod in the direction of the idea that not all women are totally above board with their motivations, all the time.

0 Replies

Oh, of course. That was part of what I was getting at with the "look at me/ don't look at me dance". I also mentioned, with approval, Dan Savage's take on women who cry rape when they later regret sex that was consensual at the time, for example.

And yes, some women really thrive on visual attention. I remember a wedding that we went to, and the "best man" (friend of the groom's, but female) wore an extremely attention-getting outfit -- cut down to there, chartreuse, big dangly earrings, very high heels. We talked then about why it bothered us, and that's what it came down to -- the need for attention to the point of drawing attention away from the bride, who is supposed to be the center of attention. (And who was remarkably good humored about it, even though it later developed that the groom and the "best man" were getting it on... sighh... [she stopped being good humored about it as soon as she found out, tho..])

0 Replies

Sexual harrassment is hard to prove unless there are witnesses.
I said, she said, kind of charges because somebody "looked" doesn't sound like sexual harrassment to me. If I were in that guy's shoes, I'd sue for unjustified firing. c.i.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know