Hope Solo: Babe of the week #31 (July 2012)

[{ Emilia }]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

I tried to keep out of this line of discussion but to no success.

You better had. I actually expected better from you but this illustrates that even decent guys don't understand some of the issues. Don't be that guy!

I also don't know how you look and what your personal style is but if you've ever put on make up, a tighter than necessary dress or some high heels then you've got absolutely no leg to stand in this line of discussion.

What a load of rubbish, sorry.
Wearing a nice dress does not give a man the license to objectify me.

Women dress the way they do because they like to express themselves, their taste in fashion and their taste in aesthetics. Everybody is welcome to appreciate beauty/aesthetics.

What you don't seem to understand is that there's a difference between appreciating beauty and a statement like "I'd do her."
The latter is objectifying the woman as a sex object, it's that sense of entitlement that pisses people off.

Stating I have no leg to stand on here just because I like dresses and high heels is insulting. Plain and simple.

We don't just do it to make men want to fuck us. But apparently you feel so entitled that you can't imagine another reason. We do it because we appreciate style, beauty and want to look good. And again: There's a difference between that and plain objectification.



So yeah: I'm shocked that this still hasn't sunk into the brains of some guys. Since you're from Mannheim you might find this helpful: Google Maps - Directions

[iguana_tonante]

{ Emilia } wrote:

---

So yeah: I'm shocked that this still hasn't sunk into the brains of some guys. Since you're from Mannheim you might find this helpful: Google Maps - Directions

You are brilliant.

[Robert Maxwell]

{ Emilia } wrote:

---

You better had.

What a load of complete and utter rubbish.
Wearing a nice dress does not give a man the license to objectify me.

Women dress the way they do because they like to express themselves, their taste in fashion and their taste in aesthetics. Everybody is welcome to appreciate beauty/aesthetics.

What you don't seem to understand is that there's a difference between appreciating beauty and a statement like "I'd do her."
The latter is objectifying the woman as a sex object, it's that sense of entitlement that pisses people off.

Stating I have no leg to stand on here just because I like dresses and high heels is insulting. Plain and simple.

We don't just do it to make men want to fuck us. We do it because we appreciate style, beauty and want to look good. And again: There's a difference between that and plain objectification.



So yeah: I'm shocked that this still hasn't sunk into the brains of some guys. Since you're from Mannheim you might find this helpful: Google Maps - Directions

Your post made me realize the basic problem with FPAlpha's attitude (apart from it being quite sexist): he views the way women dress as something meant for him. A woman dresses in nice clothes and makeup because she's trying to impress him, not because she just likes to express herself. Those are the kinds of insidious attitudes that should be brought up in threads like this. You should never assume somebody does what they do purely or even mostly for your own benefit--it is the height of arrogance and self-entitlement to think this way, and it seems some men do it without even realizing it.

[Mutenroshi]

Wow! I never realized that Mannheim was that close to home!

[sidious618]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

A woman dresses in nice clothes and makeup because she's trying to impress him, not because she just likes to express herself. Those are the kinds of insidious attitudes that should be brought up in threads like this. You should never assume somebody does what they do purely or even mostly for your own benefit--it is the height of arrogance and self-entitlement to think this way, and it seems some men do it without even realizing it.

Even if women dress specifically to impress some men it's the height of arrogance for a man to assume that he's one of those men!

[Mutenroshi]

^
Whuuuut?

[Yoda]

sidious618 wrote:

---

Even if women dress specifically to impress some men it's the height of arrogance for a man to assume that he's one of those men!

You've got the entirely wrong attitude.

If you don't assume that you're what she's trying to attract, whether it's a delusion or not, then you've already lost the battle

[Robert Maxwell]

Yoda wrote:

---

You've got the entirely wrong attitude.

If you don't assume that you're what she's trying to attract, whether it's a delusion or not, then you've already lost the battle

This is basically the textbook definition of "creepy behavior": a sense of entitlement and an assumption that every woman you meet is interested in having sex with you, even if she doesn't know it yet.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yoda wrote:

---

If you don't assume that you're what she's trying to attract, whether it's a delusion or not, then you've already lost the battle...

You've actually lost the only "battle" of consequence here, and you don't even realize it.

[Yoda]

It has nothing to do with entitlement. It's about having confidence in yourself, and believing that you are attractive to the opposite sex. It doesn't mean "don't take no for an answer," it means you should go into the situation believing you'll get a yes.

[YellowSubmarine]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

If you've ever thought about a woman "Damn she's hot.." then you've got no leg to stand on either.

There's a difference between thinking “damn, she's hot, I'd like to know more about her” and “damn, she's hot, I want her in my bed tonight”.

There's a difference between thinking “I want her in my bed tonight” and thinking it whilst ignoring everything else about her.

There's a difference between ignoring everything else about her and thinking “not hot enough”.

There's a difference between doing all of the above occasionally and dedicating a weekly thread to it, publicly, with women who have proven to be worth something in society and are known by much more than being hot.

So my guess is that those wouldn't be the same thing.

Some posts here are tempting me to make a cannibal analogy. Guys, please, you don't want that to happen.

[sidious618]

Yoda wrote:

---

It has nothing to do with entitlement. It's about having confidence in yourself, and believing that you are attractive to the opposite sex. It doesn't mean "don't take no for an answer," it means you should go into the situation believing you'll get a yes.

I agree with this but what I was talking about was viewing yourself as the center of the universe and that all women are out to impress you. What you're talking about here is something completely different.

YellowSubmarine wrote:

---

There's a difference between doing all of the above occasionally and dedicating a weekly thread to it, publicly, with women who have proven to be worth something in society and are known by much more than being hot.

That's the crux of it, I think. That and the "thumbs down" portions are what the real problem is, I think. Crass comments aren't the greatest thing in the world but it happens and people say silly things on the internet- I get it; it's declaring women ugly that, to me, is what's most upsetting along with doing it in a public space every week. It's just... classless.

[Rincewiend]

sidious618 wrote:

---

That's the crux of it, I think. That and the "thumbs down" portions are what the real problem is, I think. Crass comments aren't the greatest thing in the world but it happens and people say silly things on the Internet- I get it; it's declaring women ugly that, to me, is what's most upsetting along with doing it in a public space every week. It's just... classless.

True, if she doesn't "do it for you" in the looks department, in other words; you don't find here attractive, it doesn't mean she is ugly...

[TheGodBen]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

I don't see the problem in that at all.. i get judged too by women when i walk the street many times a day and don't notice it at all. The difference however is that women usually are not that idiotic to whistle and holler when they see an attractive man or even try to get a grab.. that's usually the domain of male morons who really think of women as meat and not a person.

That's not the difference, and you have failed to understand the scope of the disparity between how men's and women's attractiveness is judged by society. Here's a thought exercise:

There's a news show that's about to do a segment on the economy, and there are two female economists available to discuss the issue. Both have similar levels of expertise, and both have the same viewpoint. But one of them is a beautiful woman that's displaying some cleavage, and the other is just kinda normal-looking and wearing a turtle-neck sweater. Which one of those two women do you think is most likely to appear on TV?

Alternatively, you have the same scenario but in this case there's two male economists available for the show. Once again, both have the same level of expertise, and both have the same viewpoint. But in this case, one of the men is normal-looking while wearing a suit and tie, and the other man is attractive but wearing only a vest. Who do you think gets on the air this time?

Women are valued more for their sex-appeal than men are, men are valued more for professionalism than women are. Women live their lives constantly under this increased pressure, it shapes how they view the world and how they interact with it. And it's not just something they encounter in social settings, it happens in professional settings, it happens while they're watching TV, and it happens while they're browsing the internet. If you can't comprehend that fact, or if you see fit to dismiss it, your arguments will fail to make an impact on this discussion.

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think all that time and energy would be better spent fighting the gender pay gap instead of waging absurd little trench wars in internet forums. Putting anonymous horny guys to shame does not progress gender equality and accomplishes nothing of significance.