Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 14-18 February 2011 (1861-1865)
J:
i would like to preface this post by stating that staring at a woman's assets is generally bad form, and generally avoid doing so in the absence of some persuasive reason to.
--- Quote from: est on 14 Feb 2011, 01:35 ---I think it's pretty important I say that I don't mean you shouldn't look at her at all. There's a big difference between an appreciative glance and ogling a girl so badly she feels like she needs a shower.
--- End quote ---
that's the part of the argument right there. what, objectively speaking, is the difference, and what constitutes the distinction? i would also like to ask exactly how someone is supposed to deduce what a given woman's 'target market' is?
i also think it highlights one of the main difference between 'male' and 'female' thinking (no, i am not saying that all individuals in any given group conform to either stereotype. just follow me on this one please) please consider the following:
--- Quote from: Scientific American: Women Apologize More Frequently Than Men Do ---Researchers analyzed the number of self-reported offences and apologies made by 66 subjects over a 12-day period. And yes, they confirmed women consistently apologized more times than men did. But they also found that women report more offenses than men. So the issue is not female over-apology. Instead, there may be a gender difference in what is considered offensive in the first place
--- End quote ---
the thing is not that men get to set the rules as akima suggested, but rather that men and women tend to operate out of slightly different rule books. conflicts like this happen when those rules conflict and both sides insist that their version is the more valid.
my understanding of the female point of view is as follows: martin had no right to make this woman feel uncomfortable. what he did is not important, it triggered a negative emotional response and therefor was wrong by default. because her emotional state was provoked by his actions, he is responsible for them. what he did to make her feel that way has no bearing on the situation.
whereas to my cold mechanical male brain, martin here has done nothing to this woman. he has not interfered or even interacted with her in any way shape or form. because she is under no obligation to care where he points his eyeballs and could easily just ignore him, any discomfort she may feel is irrational and entirely her responsibility. how anyone feels has no bearing on the situation.
the thing is that most men learn somewhere along the way that with only a few exceptions, no one in the world cares what they think or how they feel. accepting this fact is part of becoming an man, and acting otherwise is childish/unmanly. therefor, we are disinclined to complain if someone is doing something that bothers us, and do our best to ignore it. because of this, the fact that women appear to expect their feelings to matter to complete strangers can be hard to wrap our heads around. taking said feelings into account and accommodating them can be down right frustrating. trying to do so predicatively is a feat beyond many men.
i do not think it is wrong to look at any part of another human being for any length of time, and am well within my rights to do so. but i don't stare at women for the same reasons i don't order a BLT at a jewish deli. the other person does not like it, and it's generally not worth the trouble. now in order to get along and continue perpetuating this species, we really need to realize these things and accept them and occasionally make compromises.
sometimes men are jerks.
sometimes women are crazy.
this whole thing reminds me of an earlier argument from this forum as to whether poking someone in the chest constitutes assault. in that case it was the objective, quantifiable, and action based "no physical harm is done" vs the emotionally based and subjective "the victim feels intimidated".
Antario:
Society would be so much more pleasant if people had thickers skins and wouldnt get their panties in a twist every time somebody 'offends' them as offence is always taken, not given
VonKleist:
ītis only a comic :psyduck:
Border Reiver:
--- Quote from: Antario on 14 Feb 2011, 04:38 ---Society would be so much more pleasant if people had thickers skins and wouldnt get their panties in a twist every time somebody 'offends' them as offence is always taken, not given
--- End quote ---
Then explain the expression" to give offense".
Offense - the gift that everyone will give at some point, and receive.
TheEvilDog:
There is a big difference between a casual glance, and staring so hard someone might think you have pyrokinetic abilities and using them to burn off someone else's pants.
A casual glance is a little cheeky and can, at times, be playful. Staring...is not. In fact, any form of staring is rude, its one of the first things we're taught as children. If you stare someone, you're making them feel uncomfortable, which is even worse when they're meant to be in a relaxed setting like a bar. Regardless of what anyone might say about having an "license" or "inherent right" to check out the "merchandise", no one has the right to make anyone feel uncomfortable, or weirded out if they go out.
A glance can be a compliment, a brief way of showing that they've caught your eye. But leave it at that.
And in all fairness, Marten probably deserved the comedy slap because he was standing right next to the girl,his speech trailing off as he began to stare at her. Thats like sticking your hand into the tiger cage, you're begging to get hurt.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version