# Looking? Leering? Getting caught and what to do..



## Anon Pink

Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body? 
Were you embarrassed? 
Did you notice if she was uncomfortable? 
Have you ever been called out for looking? 
What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?

I'm continuing this discussion from another thread. Although it was deemed a thread Jack, I think this is an excellent topic to DISCUSS without accusations of evil intent by anyone.

It's one thing bar hopping while dressed to impress. That is an environment in which looks and leers should be expected, and be ignored. But at work, at the bank, walking down the street, walking around the neighborhood... Hell no!

I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days. 

Polite men notice quickly and look away. A man who leers, such as the son in law in that other thread is a creep with no manners. Men do not have a right to leer in normal social or business situations. 

It shouldn't be as difficult to control where you look as this...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rc5G04nJecI
Share


----------



## anonmd

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body?
> Were you embarrassed?
> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable?
> Have you ever been called out for looking?
> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?


No to #1 and #2, I look not Leer. Unless it is my wife in which case there is no getting caught cause I'll tell her her ass looks fantastic or whatever directly. 

#3 occasionally, I would make sure to not look again but I wasn't leering so it is largely her problem to deal with. 

#4, called out for looking. Not really other than the classic "Hey, my eyes are up here". 




Anon Pink said:


> I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days.


I'd be highly likely to give the quick notice and look away. As far as assuming something if your nipples are erect in the grocery store - no, it's cold, I get that.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening anon-pink
I do my best to look away quickly if my eyes are drawn to a woman's breasts. It is easy though to screw up and let you eyes linger if you aren't paying attention. At least in my case it isn't intentional, my eyes just sort of stick there until my brain wakes up. 

So it isn't quite leering because the brain isn't really involved but it probably looks like it, and I wish I could always avoid it.


----------



## Lionelhutz

I have never been called out or accused of leering but there have been situations where I wonder if someone has assumed I was. 

In general I have little difficulty controlling where I look but I'm also someone who can get lost in thought. There have been a couple of time when I have found myself staring at a woman, all or part of her, when in fact my mind was completely elsewhere.


----------



## Anon Pink

anonmd said:


> #4, called out for looking. Not really other than the classic "Hey, my eyes are up here".
> 
> I'd be highly likely to give the quick notice and look away. As far as assuming something if your nipples are erect in the grocery store - no, it's cold, I get that.


If you've been called out for looking, you were looking too long and it turned into leering. Leering doesn't have to include a salacious grin. 

Look too long and it's a leer.


----------



## Anon Pink

richardsharpe said:


> at least in my case it isn't intentional, my eyes just sort of stick there until my brain wakes up.
> 
> So it isn't quite leering because the brain isn't really involved but it probably looks like it, and I wish I could always avoid it.





Lionelhutz said:


> In general I have little difficulty controlling where I look but I'm also someone who can get lost in thought. There have been a couple of time when I have found myself staring at a woman, all or part of her, when in fact my mind was completely elsewhere.



So something about a woman's body makes your brain get lost in thought? Okay, what thought are you most often thinking during those times?


----------



## jb02157

This kind of thing stirs my ire a bit. Women want to attract men and dress to do so and other do other things as you do such as go without a bra to help that process along....then a man does look at them they get all pissy and call them perverts. I say if you dress to attract and you don't get the results you want, don't do it then. If you don't want men to look at your boobs, wear a bra. In my mind this is just another example of society coddling women, let's them do what ever they want and have all the negative consequences be men's fault.


----------



## MountainRunner

I'm a derrier man myself, so they never catch me looking....just sayin... *giggle*


----------



## Marduk

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body? [/b]
> Yes.
> *Were you embarrassed? *
> A few times, but this was pretty rare.
> *Did you notice if she was uncomfortable? *
> This has almost never happened.
> *Have you ever been called out for looking? *
> Yes, by my wife.
> *What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?*
> For my wife the difference is turning your head to watch vs acknowledging what is in your field of vision.
> 
> I can see the wisdom in this.
> 
> *I'm continuing this discussion from another thread. Although it was deemed a thread Jack, I think this is an excellent topic to DISCUSS without accusations of evil intent by anyone.
> 
> It's one thing bar hopping while dressed to impress. That is an environment in which looks and leers should be expected, and be ignored. But at work, at the bank, walking down the street, walking around the neighborhood... Hell no!
> 
> I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days.
> 
> Polite men notice quickly and look away. A man who leers, such as the son in law in that other thread is a creep with no manners. Men do not have a right to leer in normal social or business situations.
> 
> It shouldn't be as difficult to control where you look as this...
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rc5G04nJecI
> Share*


*

Agreed...

From a woman's perspective, can you help me understand the role of attraction? Specifically, I've noticed the tolerance/acceptance for "leering" seems to go through the roof if the guy is hot vs if he is not.*


----------



## Marduk

jb02157 said:


> This kind of thing stirs my ire a bit. Women want to attract men and dress to do so and other do other things as you do such as go without a bra to help that process along....then a man does look at them they get all pissy and call them perverts. I say if you dress to attract and you don't get the results you want, don't do it then. If you don't want men to look at your boobs, wear a bra. In my mind this is just another example of society coddling women, let's them do what ever they want and have all the negative consequences be men's fault.


If you want women to be comfortable around you dressed provocatively, you need to create a space where they can do that without feeling vulnerable.

You can create that space, or not. Me?

I'd rather create that space.


----------



## Anon Pink

jb02157 said:


> This kind of thing stirs my ire a bit. Women want to attract men and dress to do so and other do other things as you do such as go without a bra to help that process along....then a man does look at them they get all pissy and call them perverts. I say if you dress to attract and you don't get the results you want, don't do it then. If you don't want men to look at your boobs, wear a bra. In my mind this is just another example of society coddling women, let's them do what ever they want and have all the negative consequences be men's fault.


Somebody didn't get his hugs and wheaties this morning.

I CAN NOT wear a bra due to a surgery I had a few years ago. I miss wearing bras. They are so pretty and they make my boobs look so much better.

"Women want to attract men and dress to do so..."

Okay, I can see how a man might be under that impression. Let me ask you though, what do you constitute as "attract a man" wear? Do you think a woman wearing jeans and a Tee shirt is dressing to attract a man? What about a business suit? Yoga pants and a sport top?

I think attract a man wear is... slvt wear, club wear. I imagine costumes that are rarely ever seen in every day settings.


----------



## ConanHub

I look all the time but very open, not threatening and casually. I look at women simply like they are there and obviously female. I haven't been caught leering since I was probably junior high.

If a woman is obviously showing her goods, I look at what she is showing. I don't space out or smirk and I won't stare. I am pretty good at reading mood and body language so I haven't been called out and whoever I have been looking at has not shown discomfort, many times appreciation has been shown along with eye contact, a smile ir a hello in passing.

I guess there is a way to appreciate the opposite sex in a classy fashion. I have witnessed leering and it is creepy. Attitude and body language speak volumes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Anon Pink said:


> Somebody didn't get his hugs and wheaties this morning.
> 
> I CAN NOT wear a bra due to a surgery I had a few years ago. I miss wearing bras. They are so pretty and they make my boobs look so much better.
> 
> "Women want to attract men and dress to do so..."
> 
> Okay, I can see how a man might be under that impression. Let me ask you though, what do you constitute as "attract a man" wear? Do you think a woman wearing jeans and a Tee shirt is dressing to attract a man? What about a business suit? Yoga pants and a sport top?
> 
> I think attract a man wear is... slvt wear, club wear. I imagine costumes that are rarely ever seen in every day settings.


I assume women wear anything to attract me.

But that's just my ego talking, which usually doesn't fit through the door.

The real shocker?

When I finally believed my wife when she said she dresses more for other women than for me or anyone else.


----------



## Shoto1984

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body?
> *Yes*
> Were you embarrassed?
> *In my younger days sure. Now, I look her in the eye with the intent of saying "yes I was admiring you" and then casually look away.*
> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable?
> *I get the feeling they are less uncomfortable when I acknowledge it then if I were to try and act like I wasn't looking*
> Have you ever been called out for looking?
> *No but I'm not a pig about it either.*
> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?
> *I think to look is fine and the more she's showing the more likely I'm looking. The line for me is looking constantly, staring her down, any gestures, cat calling etc.*


----------



## Jung_admirer

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body? One time that I can remember.
> Were you embarrassed? No
> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable? She asked me, "What are you looking at down there" in a coy voice.
> Have you ever been called out for looking? Was I? See previous answer.
> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body? Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, so know your audience.


I swam in college and I imagine the reason most of the backup timers were female had nothing to do with the racing suits we wore. I never gave it a second thought. You can chose to be flattered, spiteful or oblivious ... just remember it's about you.


----------



## jorgegene

Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body? 

yes, from time to time.

Were you embarrassed? 

yes, I hate it when i get caught.

Did you notice if she was uncomfortable? 

sometimes they are and give you a bored or nasty look, sometimes they smile.

Have you ever been called out for looking?

no, because i'm careful. i choose my moments and i don't stare, like some ghoul

What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?

there's no difference except the societal games. I mean that some women dress to make a show of themselves, but you're not suppose to look. When their boobs are on display hanging out, i look. but if i get caught, i'm a dirty 'ol so and so.
of course staring like a nut case and being obnoxious are a different category.

some women however are not dressed for display and only dressed nicely. so look respectfully, but not like a dork.


----------



## Lionelhutz

Anon Pink said:


> So something about a woman's body makes your brain get lost in thought? Okay, what thought are you most often thinking during those times?


No, when I'm lost in tought about something it almost certainly has nothing to do with what I'm looking at. It is most likely a work related thought or other problem sovling. Lava lamps would be the exception


----------



## Married but Happy

I'll look, but not stare or leer. If she notices, I'll look her in the eye and smile and nod. Almost always they smile back.

And I've caught women looking at me - quite a frequent occurrence in the grocery store, it seems. Maybe because I'm buying flowers for my wife? I smile and nod, and usually get a smile back.


----------



## yeah_right

marduk said:


> I assume women wear anything to attract me.
> 
> But that's just my ego talking, which usually doesn't fit through the door.
> 
> The real shocker?
> 
> *When I finally believed my wife when she said she dresses more for other women than for me or anyone else.*



BINGO!!!! Women do dress for other women in most cases. And that includes going to "da club". Women in their nightclub attire are comparing every other lady's club attire and wonder where they got it and can they find it on sale. Women know they could wear a grocery bag cut into a mini-dress and guys would be happy.


----------



## Anon Pink

Married but Happy said:


> I'll look, but not stare or leer. If she notices, I'll look her in the eye and smile and nod. Almost always they smile back.
> 
> And I've caught women looking at me - quite a frequent occurrence in the grocery store, it seems. Maybe because I'm buying flowers for my wife? I smile and nod, and usually get a smile back.


There you go! How to pick up women in the grocery store, get a bunch of flowers. A woman sees a man with flowers and thinks, How Nice! Gee I wish someone did that for me!


----------



## Anon Pink

So the men on this thread seem to understand the difference between looking and leering. Great!

What is your advice to women if the look or the leer makes them uncomfortable?

Like Marduk suggested above...



> From a woman's perspective, can you help me understand the role of attraction? Specifically, I've noticed the tolerance/acceptance for "leering" seems to go through the roof if the guy is hot vs if he is not.


This is one of those times when any attempt at universal answer will be shot down.

For me: attractiveness of the man isn't really the issue, it is the level of respect for me as a person that I intuit from him. If I feel he sees only a sum of parts, I am offended. If I feel a bit of respect, and general appreciation, as some men have suggested (they look then they smile at the woman) I am okay, though embarrassed. 

I'm sure other women might feel differently though.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Used to be some guy back in the eighties who would jog in something like spandex shorts in the summer. How do I know? All the young women in the area that I was friends with would talk about it and hush each other when I or another male came around. No they weren't talking about his abs, either. 

Sorry you are leered at in the grocery store. I hope you can feel safer soon. On the other hand, the more attractive a woman, the more looks she will get. I just wish for you, that they don't make you feel too creepy.


----------



## michzz

Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body? *Yes, and sometimes it was annoying and sometimes encouraged. Depends.*

Were you embarrassed? *Yes, when it was not wanted.*

Did you notice if she was uncomfortable? *Only sometimes.*

Have you ever been called out for looking? *Yes*

What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?

*A second or two or three is just looking.*
* Anything over 10 seconds is staring at the goods.*

I've seen just about everything that a woman can expose up top and downstairs.

Some women do not know or care that they are giving a free show. Everything from badly fitting clothes to "I don't give a cr&p" as reasoning.

I'm not sure if the camel toe in yoga pants and full commando exposures in a skirt are accidental or on purpose. 

Breasts are another story. Like I said before, sometimes it is hard to tell motivation or lack of it.

It's not a good idea though, to be constantly looking for your opportunity to see something--that just turns you into a perv.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body?


It's like a game. I always scan the face to see if they are looking for guys looking at them. I might look them in the eyes briefly to let them know that I know they are observing. If they're walking around like divas I look right through them and sometimes they turn around to see who's behind them. Fun stuff. Sometimes I just look away. None if this involves leering. It's amazing how much can happen in a passing glance. 



> Were you embarrassed?


Never stared long enough to be embarrassed about it. 



> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable


Curious maybe. 



> Have you ever been called out for looking?


Nope. 



> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?


Interesting that you say noticing versus looking/leering. A brief look is a notice and a longer look could be a leer if it is too long and doesn't involve eye contact. 



> I'm continuing this discussion from another thread. Although it was deemed a thread Jack, I think this is an excellent topic to DISCUSS without accusations of evil intent by anyone.
> 
> It's one thing bar hopping while dressed to impress. That is an environment in which looks and leers should be expected, and be ignored. But at work, at the bank, walking down the street, walking around the neighborhood... Hell no!
> 
> I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days.
> 
> Polite men notice quickly and look away. A man who leers, such as the son in law in that other thread is a creep with no manners. Men do not have a right to leer in normal social or business situations.
> 
> It shouldn't be as difficult to control where you look as this...
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rc5G04nJecI
> Share


How you dress is a form of communication. If your attire is inappropriate for the setting you will get stares based on that alone. I assume that those people are showing off and looking for admiration. I never assume that they want anyone's attention though.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

yeah_right said:


> BINGO!!!! Women do dress for other women in most cases. And that includes going to "da club". Women in their nightclub attire are comparing every other lady's club attire and wonder where they got it and can they find it on sale. Women know they could wear a grocery bag cut into a mini-dress and guys would be happy.


Not so sure of this. Women notice all of the details that men barely register like accessories and shoes, but they are dressing to be attractive to who they are attracted to. Maybe they could wear a grocery bag and find attention from men, but they want to compete with other women to be the most attractive.


----------



## Anon Pink

VermisciousKnid said:


> Not so sure of this. Women notice all of the details that men barely register like accessories and shoes, but they are dressing to be attractive to who they are attracted to. Maybe they could wear a grocery bag and find attention from men, but *they want to compete with other women to be the most attractive*.


Bolded part is most correct. Women compete with other women. Women are validated by other women in addition to men, while men are generally only validated by other men. A woman who walks into a party and her friends gush over her ...whatever... She feels validated and her confidence goes up. If a man pays attention to her she only feels validated if she wanted his attention in the first place.

Every woman has said this and heard this...

The only men who ever pay attention to me are the ones I would never go near. But these woman are pair bonded so someone paid attention to her and she did go near.


----------



## Cletus

Meh, I'm of the opinion that leering is a victimless crime.

I don't do it because I have been socially trained to not do so. Which really means I don't do it because of the social implications to _myself_. I don't want to be that creepy dude who's always staring at the women. 

But if I were of the constitution that didn't care what you thought of me, then why would I bother to not leer?


----------



## 2ntnuf

> If a man pays attention to her she only feels validated if she wanted his attention in the first place.


So, is he leering or just giving a quick look because he is biologically made that way? Sometimes, it's obvious and I've noticed some guy being creepy to a woman. Others, not so sure. Guess it's the woman's perspective, if there is no touching or other lewd act?

I decided to look this up. I guess either gender could be guilty by this definition. I doubt most men would press charges, though. 

lewd and lascivious legal definition of lewd and lascivious


----------



## michzz

Anon Pink said:


> Bolded part is most correct. Women compete with other women. Women are validated by other women in addition to men,* while men are generally only validated by other men.* A woman who walks into a party and her friends gush over her ...whatever... She feels validated and her confidence goes up. If a man pays attention to her she only feels validated if she wanted his attention in the first place.
> 
> Every woman has said this and heard this...
> 
> The only men who ever pay attention to me are the ones I would never go near. But these woman are pair bonded so someone paid attention to her and she did go near.



Hmm, I don't know about men only being validated other men. 

If a guy went up to a group of men and they gushed at how his suit made him look "hot" i don't think that would be anything other than creepy.


----------



## badsanta

Is it a bad thing that my wife will more often than not be the FIRST one notice other women's boobs before I do and point them out to me so we can make fun of them together?

"Did you see the boobs hanging out of that girl's dress! Over there... Look you idiot!"


----------



## yeah_right

badsanta said:


> Is it a bad thing that my wife will more often than not be the FIRST one notice other women's boobs before I do and point them out to me so we can make fun of them together?
> 
> "Did you see the boobs hanging out of that girl's dress! Over there... Look you idiot!"


But the difference is that while you're still looking and thinking to yourself "Ooohhhh, boobies!", your wife has determined whether said breasts are real or store-bought, if the dress is cotton or poly blend and if it is salmon or coral colored. She has also observed who the girl is with to guess why the boobs are being flaunted. If she's really good, your wife has skimmed hair, teeth and nail hygiene.


----------



## 2ntnuf

yeah_right said:


> But the difference is that while you're still looking and thinking to yourself "Ooohhhh, boobies!", your wife has determined whether said breasts are real or store-bought, if the dress is cotton or poly blend and if it is salmon or coral colored. She has also observed who the girl is with to guess why the boobs are being flaunted. If she's really good, your wife has skimmed hair, teeth and nail hygiene.






> "Ooohhhh, boobies!"


 and hopefully, he doesn't look like this---->


----------



## ConanHub

badsanta said:


> Is it a bad thing that my wife will more often than not be the FIRST one notice other women's boobs before I do and point them out to me so we can make fun of them together?
> 
> "Did you see the boobs hanging out of that girl's dress! Over there... Look you idiot!"


Women definitely check out other women. Maybe more than men.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz

yeah_right said:


> But the difference is that while you're still looking and thinking to yourself "Ooohhhh, boobies!", your wife has determined whether said breasts are real or store-bought, if the dress is cotton or poly blend and if it is salmon or coral colored. She has also observed who the girl is with to guess why the boobs are being flaunted. If she's really good, your wife has skimmed hair, teeth and nail hygiene.


Salmon or coral?

Won't matter, they had me at areola.


----------



## yeah_right

2ntnuf said:


> :scratchhead: skimmed?
> 
> and hopefully, he doesn't look like this---->


Skimmed - brief recon of boobie woman's hygiene. Full recon would occur when two or more women could discuss hair and nails ad nauseum. "That girl needs her roots done...OMG, her veneers look like chiclets, etc." You menfolk are just no fun for that.


----------



## 2ntnuf

yeah_right said:


> Skimmed - brief recon of boobie woman's hygiene. Full recon would occur when two or more women could discuss hair and nails ad nauseum. "That girl needs her roots done...OMG, her veneers look like chiclets, etc." You menfolk are just no fun for that.


Thanks I was confoozed.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Meh, I'm of the opinion that leering is a victimless crime.


It's not victimless, though. It's just that no one really cares about the feelings of those who have to put up with it. Or they try to pretend that the attention is desired/sought after.

To many, many women, leering is quite invasive, vaguely threatening, and utterly disrespectful. It actually sucks quite a bit to be treated like a tasty treat rather than a human being.


----------



## Dogbert

*Excuse Ms Pink but can you direct me to the melons?*


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> It's not victimless, though. It's just that no one really cares about the feelings of those who have to put up with it. Or they try to pretend that the attention is desired/sought after.
> 
> To many, many women, leering is quite invasive, vaguely threatening, and utterly disrespectful. It actually sucks quite a bit to be treated like a tasty treat rather than a human being.


I'm sorry, that is insufficient to claim victimhood IMHO. It reduces the word victim to near meaninglessness. If I don't touch you, approach you, threaten you, speak to you, or otherwise do something that you can't ignore simply by looking away, you're not a victim, by my definition.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, I get that, and it's not because I'm insensitive to the feelings of others - that's why I don't leer. I just have a stronger definition of victim than "I don't like the way you behave".


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I'm sorry, that is insufficient to claim victimhood IMHO. It reduces the word victim to near meaninglessness. If I don't touch you, approach you, threaten you, speak to you, or otherwise do something that you can't ignore simply by looking away, you're not a victim, by my definition.
> 
> We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, I get that, and it's not because I'm insensitive to the feelings of others - that's why I don't leer. I just have a stronger definition of victim than "I don't like the way you behave".


If you look it up in any dictionary, you'll find that the definition of "victim" is quite broad, and applies to all kinds of events: victims of crime, of illness, of circumstance, of misfortune. And it needn't be mere physical harm, but can include loss of property, of freedom, or dignity.

And while I get that one leer in and of itself doesn"t seem like it takes to much to avoid, and so is so short and small as to appear meaningless. But collectively, it adds up. And when it happens all the time, it's downright oppressive.


----------



## Anon Pink

badsanta said:


> Is it a bad thing that my wife will more often than not be the FIRST one notice other women's boobs before I do and point them out to me so we can make fun of them together?
> 
> "Did you see the boobs hanging out of that girl's dress! Over there... Look you idiot!"


Yes, it is bad. Very very bad.

I'm convening the counsel of Vaginal Fortitude and we will asses your wife's fitness to continue to own a vagina. We'll be in touch!


----------



## 2ntnuf

Anon Pink said:


> Yes, it is bad. Very very bad.
> 
> I'm convening the counsel of Vaginal Fortitude and we will asses your wife's fitness to continue to own a vagina. We'll be in touch!


What's the acronym? CVF? Do you have a coat of arms or an arm of coats?


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> And while I get that one leer in and of itself doesn"t seem like it takes to much to avoid, and so is so short and small as to appear meaningless. But collectively, it adds up. And when it happens all the time, it's downright oppressive.


Is this first or second-hand knowledge? You've spent no small amount of time on this forum convincing us that your life has passed largely in the shadows, unnoticed and overlooked by most men by virtue of your plain appearance and dress. 

I've never turned too many heads in my day either. Getting leered at in public by women is a cross I think I might be willing to bear. So while I might go home at night and curse my irresistible rugged good looks, "victim" might not be the first word to pop into my head.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> Yes, it is bad. Very very bad.
> 
> I'm convening the counsel of Vaginal Fortitude and we will asses your wife's fitness to continue to own a vagina. We'll be in touch!


Just so we're straight - you're going to touch his wife's vagina?


----------



## T&T

Anon Pink said:


> I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all.


This made me 

I don't ever stare...But, you may get a second glance!


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> Meh, I'm of the opinion that leering is a victimless crime.
> 
> I don't do it because I have been socially trained to not do so. Which really means I don't do it because of the social implications to _myself_. I don't want to be that creepy dude who's always staring at the women.
> 
> But if I were of the constitution that didn't care what you thought of me, then why would I bother to not leer?



But ask yourself Cletus, why have you been socially trained not to leer? Because it's rude and creepy. Unless you're a 90 year old man in a wheelchair, then it's cute! "Okay take a peak but only because you fought the Nazis."

Most men don't want to be thought of as either rude or creepy. So it boils down to what IS rude and creepy and what is moderately acceptable?

Like Michzz stated above



michzz said:


> A second or two or three is just looking.
> Anything over 10 seconds is staring at the goods.


I don't think anything beyond a second or two is appropriate. Look at something for 3 seconds...that's a long time actually. Especially for the women who feels under the microscope! 10 seconds is long enough to c0ck a gun isn't it? Yeah, way too long to gaze at her parts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon we're going to need a picture to determine if these are leer-worthy breasts or not. You can PM me since I know how shy you are.


----------



## thummper

Well, Anon, I do have to say that I look. I really try not to be obvious about it, but I definitely look. Haven't been caught looking, but sometimes it's hard to be discreet. I guess I'm a typical guy. It's fun to look and imagine what the "girls" would look like if they were released. *sigh* My wife has gorgeous breasts, and I find myself comparing hers to other women's. Most don't measure up (excuse the pun.)


----------



## Anon Pink

T&T said:


> This made me
> 
> I don't ever stare...But, you may get a second glance!


Which is why I go to the grocery store around lunch time. All women only men are employees and they BETTER know better! The produce guy...he's always willing to check for fresher stuff


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> Anon we're going to need a picture to determine if these are leer-worthy breasts or not. You can PM me since I know how shy you are.


You have a pic of the girls!


----------



## T&T

Faithful Wife said:


> Anon we're going to need a picture to determine if these are leer-worthy breasts or not. *You can PM me* since I know how shy you are.


 :rofl:


----------



## Anon Pink

2ntnuf said:


> What's the acronym? CVF? Do you have a coat of arms or an arm of coats?


Sorry 2nt, I am not the creative artsy person. I leave the coat of arms to the better suited ladies.

I'm excellent with hurling insults though...


----------



## Faithful Wife

It really wasn't a good enough picture to know for sure just how leer worthy they are. Need more data.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> Most men don't want to be thought of as either rude or creepy. So it boils down to what IS rude and creepy and what is moderately acceptable?


I just wonder how this social norm came into being. And is it universal? I don't know. 

Just yesterday I was in the break room when two Chinese nationals were having lunch - one a rice dish, the other a noodle bowl. The slurping was so loud you could have closed your eyes and thought yourself on the set of a porno shoot. We consider that to be rude in a way that they clearly don't. And why? Why is it inherently rude to make noise while you eat? 

The answer of course is that it isn't, at least not objectively. Leering to me falls into the same category. Things that you instinctively know not to do because of social pressure, but are hard pressed to really defend as having a basis in objective fact.


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> It really wasn't a good enough picture to know for sure just how leer worthy they are. Need more data.


Ha! As soon as thumbed gets home I'll ask what he thinks. Which would be a giant F NO!


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> I just wonder how this social norm came into being. And is it universal? I don't know.
> 
> Just yesterday I was in the break room when two Chinese nationals were having lunch - one a rice dish, the other a noodle bowl. The slurping was so loud you could have closed your eyes and thought yourself on the set of a porno shoot. We consider that to be rude in a way that they clearly don't. And why? Why is it inherently rude to make noise while you eat?
> 
> The answer of course is that it isn't, at least not objectively. Leering to me falls into the same category. Things that you instinctively know not to do because of social pressure, but are hard pressed to really defend as having a basis in objective fact.


Cletus I can see your point about other social norms but my understanding is that as women gained their rights, they also had to learn to be out in public unaccompanied. Men would not oogle a woman who was with a man. But a woman alone is fair game. As more and more women took their rights and became mobile out in society, unaccompanied, they had to contend with men oogling. The same men who would punch out another man for oogling his own wife or sister had no qualms about oogling someone else's wife or sister.

Until women cried foul!

My sister spent time in UAE where out right staring was done with impunity. She was told if she didn't like it, she could cover up. 

I'm seeing a connection to the level of women's autonomy to the level of open leering.

The U.S. Has decided women should be able to go about their day without being made to feel abused by being leered at.

So stop leering, get aviator glasses, be unobtrusive, be aware...if you must look. And if you get caught.. Smile and nod then keep walking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It's ok Anon...you know I'm not allowed either. (Dammit)

I look all the time. I guess I leer if no one can see me do it. 

I get caught sometimes and am embarrassed.


----------



## thummper

Anon Pink said:


> *You have a pic of the girls![/*QUOTE]
> 
> Hey, Anon, how 'bout the rest of your fans who'd like in on this?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Anon Pink
No it isn't quite that. It more a case that I will be talking, listening about some unrelated think and suddenly realize that my eyes have been on her breasts. As soon as I think "breasts" I look away. [

QUOTE=Anon Pink;12208185]So something about a woman's body makes your brain get lost in thought? Okay, what thought are you most often thinking during those times?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dogbert

*If the urge is too great, then I go into Stevie Wonder mode*


----------



## Faithful Wife

thummper said:


> Anon Pink said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a pic of the girls![/*QUOTE]
> 
> Hey, Anon, how 'bout the rest of your fans who'd like in on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries, the pic she sent was so innocent and I couldn't see NUTTIN' and when I complained to this fact, she just laughed.
> 
> (seriously though this is all joking around, she will happily show you the pic she sent me and you'll laugh, that's why I knew I could josh her about it)
Click to expand...


----------



## Faithful Wife

This topic is always a bit different for me as I am constantly having to stop myself from looking at people in lustful ways. I know it is rude. I know some of these people would think I am a total creep if they caught me. I do get caught sometimes and realize someone is totally creeped out by me.

At the same time, I'm fully aware if anyone's eyes are on me and to what extent they are on me (glance, look, leer, etc). I have to say, I have honestly never felt creeped out by someone looking at my body, even if leering. The ONLY times I have been creeped out have been when someone leers first THEN tries to make eye contact and/or speaks to me. ESPECIALLY when this has been a man who is not in any way age appropriate for me...because things like that have happened to me since I was 12 (as happens to most girls). THOSE were the times I felt creeped out.

I still feel creeped if a guy is going to take a disembodied leer at me and THEN try to speak to me, as if I'm going to have anything to talk about to him? WTF? I don't mind if you like the view, but why would you think I would also talk to you? 

And contrary to what a lot of guys seem to think, this doesn't happen often with a guy who is actually interested in dating you or getting to know you or taking you out. So the argument that we only feel creeped if we aren't attracted to the guy is bogus. It doesn't happen with guys who really would want to KNOW you and DATE you...and I'm NEVER attracted to ANY guy who just wants to leer at me and then try to speak to me no matter what he looks like. 

And I know the difference between a guy who just happened to take a look at my body and then is talking to me, but isn't a creep. There's a huge difference in the way a creep talks to you, you know it immediately. You feel it pouring out of them. 

Cat calls are sometimes creepy, sometimes not...it depends on if the guy is actually trying to get your attention and draw you in somehow, or if he's just making the sound but doesn't expect you to turn and make eye contact with him. The ones who are creeps will then start yelling at you after the whistle, if you didn't respond. Ugh, so gross.

So here I am...a creep according to some. Yet I don't feel like people looking at me are creeps. Unless they actually think they can speak to me, then they are a creep. To me, "just looking" isn't creepy no matter how lustful or leery. 

I do think your life experience shapes this issue a lot, and being that I've never been sexually assaulted, I don't have the reinforced fear of certain behaviors others might exhibit. I'm sure I'd feel creeped out more often if I had sexual trauma in my past.

The reason I don't feel like it is creepy to just look, no matter how lustfully, is that I fully "get" what men mean when they say, they just can't help it, and they don't want to help it, because it is awesome to see beautiful women and their shapes and bodies. I agree. 

Ironically, MY look or leer would be creepy to some women who would not be creeped out by a random dude's leer, because some straight people are ONLY creeped out by same sex leers.

Speaking of that, this was a really great article:

The Borders of Sexual Harassment

Being a straight guy, getting hit on aggressively by a gay guy isn't always a big deal. And I'm sure the author isn't a gay-phobe. But the article does a great job at describing the creepy feeling that MANY women feel in the above situation. It wasn't just looking though, it was a horrible plane ride next to a creep for several hours. Food for thought to any straight guy who doesn't know what being creeped out feels like.


----------



## badsanta

Ok, here is a test for the guys.... Stare at this photo of catwoman riding batman's bike for at least about 20 seconds to scrutinize it for anything a bit awkward:








Be honest...

How many saw the ridiculous ginormous steel plate affixed to the rear tire so that the bike will not fall over?


----------



## PhillyGuy13

For two chunks of my professional life I've worked on a couple of college campuses. Once in my mid 20s and again later in late 30s.

On both occasions I worked in an office that has daily contact with financially needy students. Lest you find yourself out of work (or worse) you quickly learn to not stare at the students. No matter how provocative the dress, from tight tank tops to shorty shorts. Do. Not. Look. Do not make eye contact, do not smile. Doubly difficult walking across campus on a warm spring or summer day.

So I subconsciously still carry this with me today. I avoid eye contact, I don't look. Even if I'm with a group of friends at a bar, unless I'm prompted, I really don't look.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Betrayedone

A woman puts it out there in an uncontrolled manner it's fair game.........


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Is this first or second-hand knowledge? You've spent no small amount of time on this forum convincing us that your life has passed largely in the shadows, unnoticed and overlooked by most men by virtue of your plain appearance and dress.
> 
> I've never turned too many heads in my day either. Getting leered at in public by women is a cross I think I might be willing to bear. So while I might go home at night and curse my irresistible rugged good looks, "victim" might not be the first word to pop into my head.


You can say that because you really don't really have the experience.

Leering is not about being attractive enough to draw attention; it's about your body being treated as a public consumable.

My experience is both first and second hand. And while it is true that I have complained about being invisible to men, this was about love and relationships. My tits and ass have received plenty of attention over the years, quite independently of the rest of me.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> The same men who would punch out another man for oogling his own wife or sister had no qualms about oogling someone else's wife or sister.


I always cringed whenever I heard one of those stories of some guy punching out another in a Neanderthal hairy knuckled club wielding rage-fueled bar brawl over another eyeballin' his woman.

And for what? The crime of intercepting the photons bouncing off her body in a public place - no, scratch that, he'd never clobber a blind man, so it must be those impure thoughts that just have to be going on inside his noggin'. It all just smells of so much patriarchical wife ownership and lack of empowerment in defending her own virtue that it's nauseating. 

Wake me up when women start getting punched out for leering at a man, if we're all for equality. We can all debase ourselves to the lowest common denominator regardless of gender.


----------



## Fozzy

This is my leer face. Is it too obvious?


----------



## MountainRunner

badsanta said:


> Ok, here is a test for the guys.... Stare at this photo of catwoman riding batman's bike for at least about 20 seconds to scrutinize it for anything a bit awkward:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest...
> 
> How many saw the ridiculous ginormous steel plate affixed to the rear tire so that the bike will not fall over?


I actually noticed it rather quickly. Admittedly, being a "butt" man, I did download the pic to adjust the white balance and contrast to catch a better glimpse of her butt...But only after I noticed the plate, k? *giggle*


----------



## MountainRunner

Oh...and FTR...From this perspective, she would have never caught me staring at her boobs....just sayin, k?


----------



## FormerSelf

I don't recall being caught leering...not to say I don't notice what I find attractive, but I do try to keep a control on where my eyes decide to rest their attention.

Of course, this is coming from a guy who has been married for the last 17 years. Admittedly, there are times that I have been caught off guard with _wow!_ instances when a women strikes me as very attractive, but I have pretty much trained myself to downplay my reactions and not get caught falling over myself or ogle. Also, since many people have known me for being faithfully married, I feel it would be a poor reflection of character for them to observe me mesmerized by someone's anatomy. I guess I'm funny that way.

And no, it is not because I find myself "morally superior"...I just value my reputation more than losing myself in a temporary visual feast. But again, some things catch me off-guard...and I find myself steering my eyeballs against their will, as they say, "Must...look! So...enticing!" That is my caveman brain at work there.

My MIL told me a story about a friend of hers who was well-endowed and had grown accustomed to an acquaintance who made a habit of glaring at her chest. This guy's eyes would constantly hover during conversation...oblivious to the fact that it was plain as day. One day they bumped into each other at the store...and this woman was so fed up when he asked, "How are you?" with his eyes already locking on her breasts, that she cupped her hands under them, shaking them as she said "Fine, how are you?" The guy apparently got beet red...and avoided her ever since. :rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

MountainRunner said:


> I actually noticed it rather quickly. Admittedly, being a "butt" man, I did download the pic to adjust the white balance and contrast to catch a better glimpse of her butt...But only after I noticed the plate, k? *giggle*


And the first thing I noticed was the gun on the front wheel. Assuming it's a projectile weapon, the ordinance is probably pretty big based on the size of the barrel, and such a small magazine, you'd have to reload pretty frequently.


----------



## Fozzy

samyeagar said:


> And the first thing I noticed was the gun on the front wheel. Assuming it's a projectile weapon, the ordinance is probably pretty big based on the size of the barrel, and such a small magazine, you'd have to reload pretty frequently.


That's what she said.


----------



## ConanHub

badsanta said:


> Ok, here is a test for the guys.... Stare at this photo of catwoman riding batman's bike for at least about 20 seconds to scrutinize it for anything a bit awkward:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest...
> 
> How many saw the ridiculous ginormous steel plate affixed to the rear tire so that the bike will not fall over?


There was a motorcycle? &#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Racer

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body?
> Were you embarrassed?
> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable?
> Have you ever been called out for looking?
> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?


Fine, my inner-perv will play.

I’ve been caught checking out a woman. Usually embarrassed, depends on the storyline in my head and their reaction, but that’s my usual reaction; hand caught in the cookie jar. I blush. Actually, I used to hate that in my youth; I wanted to be suave about it. As I got older, I recognized blushing is actually a good thing and endearing for my ‘victims’. Basically most women sort of see me go red and grin; they know they caught me and got the appropriate response. From there, sometimes things get weird. 

Guess that fits into your ‘getting called out’. Some women aren’t offended, and… enjoy the idea that I blush. It’s rare, but some actually get more ‘sexual’ trying to catch me again. An over-exagerated bending over, that twist pose, the hair flip, etc. A cat and mouse thing starts; grocery store fun of bumping carts, polite excuse me’s, etc. I do see it as healthy fun; it’s nice to know ‘you still got it’. 

Most.. it’s just one of those knowing smiles; they aren’t offended. And rarely, someone is offended and creeped out; you can just see their discomfort…. And the perv I am sort of enjoys that too because I know I am completely and totally harmless; I’m simply too afraid to ever directly approach without a big warm welcome sign flashing. I haven’t had a shouter type in decades. Might also be my target; older women.. 30+. Girls get offended, older women tend to sort of not get offended and a secretly believe they sort of like knowing this not-to-shabby guy is checking them out. 

I look… though from time to time, there is a lear. That’s more reserved towards women I find irresistibly attractive. It’s not totally sexual either. Why it becomes a lear is that I’m starting to put together your backstory. Look for the ring, judge your clothing, how you interact with others, what sort of stuff you are buying, etc. to give me an idea about who you might be. That’s why I’m looking at you hard and long. It doesn’t even have to be sexual at all; Something caught my eye like how the hell you can be so chipper while waiting at the DMV. I need more data!

And sometimes, that lear is that perfect moment where I got a special look. Like a thin sundress, sun behind you, and a perfect silhouette of your wonderful exquisite figure. I’m learning because it was stimulating, a novelty, a rare taboo glimpse of being in the right place at the right time…

And there’s the sort of wtf lear. Sort of sexual, sort of not; Kind of like checking out a girl in a bikini and seeing pubes sticking out around the edges. Ya, I was glancing down there, but my mind has turned toward judging you on your grooming habits and envisioning Scary Movie scenes.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Since some people don't like being leered at so I think it is just good manners to not do so.


----------



## Marduk

Cletus said:


> I always cringed whenever I heard one of those stories of some guy punching out another in a Neanderthal hairy knuckled club wielding rage-fueled bar brawl over another eyeballin' his woman.
> 
> And for what? The crime of intercepting the photons bouncing off her body in a public place - no, scratch that, he'd never clobber a blind man, so it must be those impure thoughts that just have to be going on inside his noggin'. It all just smells of so much patriarchical wife ownership and lack of empowerment in defending her own virtue that it's nauseating.
> 
> Wake me up when women start getting punched out for leering at a man, if we're all for equality. We can all debase ourselves to the lowest common denominator regardless of gender.


Don't laugh, I've had that happen -- had the girl I was with start scrapping with some other girl over checking me out and making comments.

I thought I would have found it sexy to watch two women fight over me, but that **** just ain't pretty.


----------



## Marduk

badsanta said:


> Ok, here is a test for the guys.... Stare at this photo of catwoman riding batman's bike for at least about 20 seconds to scrutinize it for anything a bit awkward:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest...
> 
> How many saw the ridiculous ginormous steel plate affixed to the rear tire so that the bike will not fall over?


There are tires in this picture?

Oh, way down there...

Huh. She seems to be riding some sort of bike after all.


----------



## ocotillo

Anon Pink said:


> But at work, at the bank, walking down the street, walking around the neighborhood... Hell no!


I agree with the exception of obvious displays of exhibitionism that are clearly out of place. The weather is already in the mid 90's here and you see strange things from time to time. For example, my wife and I were in an upscale shopping mall and a young lady walked by wearing a black bra, spandex shorts and red high heels and nothing else. That's not something that happens by accident. 

[Edited to add]

This was not a sports bra. It was as lacy and sheer as anything in Victoria's Secret...


----------



## Mr. Nail

::bleep bleep::
What in the Bleep is this thread doing in the man club. Isn't there a don't feed the bears sign on the door. I get so bleeping tired of being baited.

RE catwoman why is there a tent stuck to the left rear tire of the zomboni she is following?


----------



## SamuraiJack

marduk said:


> There are tires in this picture?
> 
> Oh, way down there...
> 
> Huh. She seems to be riding some sort of bike after all.


There was a bike in that photo? Huh...

I will look and I will do it unabashedly. I appreciate the female form in all of its glory.
I will NOT leer or linger too long.

IF I get the Locking Stare for some reason I just half smile back and try to say with my eyes "You are looking very beautiful today."


----------



## Anon Pink

Racer said:


> And there’s the sort of wtf lear. Sort of sexual, sort of not; Kind of like checking out a girl in a bikini and seeing pubes sticking out around the edges. Ya, I was glancing down there, but my mind has turned toward judging you on your grooming habits and envisioning Scary Movie scenes.


:rofl:

And who could blame you?

Thanks for playing, Inner Perv.


----------



## Anon Pink

ocotillo said:


> I agree with the exception of obvious displays of exhibitionism that are clearly out of place. The weather is already in the mid 90's here and you see strange things from time to time. For example, my wife and I were in an upscale shopping mall and a young lady walked by wearing a black bra, spandex shorts and red high heels and nothing else. That's not something that happens by accident.


You have mid 90's already? Oh man I gotta get out of this town!

"Hmmm, shall I dress for Walmart and then change before I go to Sacks'?"


----------



## Thundarr

MountainRunner said:


> I'm a derrier man myself, so they never catch me looking....just sayin... *giggle*


Same here. I don't get caught staring by the person because they're facing the other direction but still I try to just notice and move on to something else. We've all seen those pictures of a guy leering a girl's butt and while it's funny in photos, I don't want to be caught by people doing it. That would make it awkward when paying for my stuff if the cashier just saw me ogling the customer who was in front of me.

Now the caveat to this is I can accidentally stare at a pretty face. It sucks to notice some woman's eyes and get stuck for a second only to realize she's LOOKING RIGHT BACK AT ME. Eh nothing to do then accept give a timid smile and look away.


----------



## Anon Pink

Thundarr said:


> It sucks to notice some woman's eyes and get stuck for a second only to realize she's LOOKING RIGHT BACK AT ME. Eh nothing to do then accept give a timid smile and look away.


Good to know. Next time I will take that longer than usual look, straight at my eyes and face, as a compliment. I usually wonder if I have something stuck in my teeth...


----------



## Thundarr

Anon Pink said:


> Good to know. Next time I will take that longer than usual look, straight at my eyes and face, as a compliment. I usually wonder if I have something stuck in my teeth...


You should. Sometime a short stare happens when we think someone is really pretty or has pretty features like eyes or smile. I'm better about not doing that than I used to be.

EDIT: But there's always the change you have something stuck in your teeth or hanging from you nostril .


----------



## Anon Pink

Thundarr said:


> You should. Sometime a short stare happens when we think someone is really pretty or has pretty features like eyes or smile. I'm better about not doing that than I used to be.
> 
> EDIT: But there's always the change you have something stuck in your teeth or *hanging from you nostril *.


:rofl:

Right note to self, check teeth and nose...


----------



## Tubbalard

I have been "caught" many times. It usually resorts to women liking it in uncomfortable way. Sometimes, they wave,smile and say Hello. A few times Ive been in a staring match and some with their boyfriends standing there. Sometimes I'll make comments if a girl is wearing something provocative. They mostly smile and say thanks. Most of it depends on your looks and behavior. To me leering is making a joker type face and following a female. If you look, you look with confidence. If you stare you stare with confidence. You cant come off creepy or salivating like a puppy dog, because you'll knock your rank down to a guy that's not used to Hot women. When I stare it's meant to convey That, I like what I see and I can have you anytime if I choose to pursue you. I never feel sheepish or or timid when caught. Ive even done the intentional Robert Redford(at least I think) at the fruit market stare. Where you find an attractive Lady you like and just stare. Women love confidence and boldness. I've even stared a woman down, seen her come my way, take her hand and pull her in to talk. She smiled. Tried to act like I was some crazy guy, but I knew deep down she liked it, because of the howling noises she eminated thereafter.

There is always a time and place for everything though. If a woman is showing the goods, she is showing it off for a reason. Workplace, church, conservative functions is not the time and place. But all else is fair game. I've seen women walking with half Their derierre showing. One female had a butt so big I had to say something. So I said "Daaaaammmn. You got a phat azzz" She replied "Thanks" and laughed and went on her way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Anon Pink said:


> Bolded part is most correct. Women compete with other women. Women are validated by other women in addition to men, while men are generally only validated by other men.



It took me a while to convince my wife to wear clothes worth of her size 4 figure. I succeeded by making the above paragraph obvious to her. She's in a field where she competes with people half her age professionally so clothing is but an extension.

I do look. If we are together I even point out the subject and we may discuss fashion tips etc  I don't leer - unless I have my trusty Nikon 300mm zoom along


----------



## coffee4me

Tubbalard said:


> When I stare it's meant to convey That, I like what I see and I can have you anytime if I choose to pursue you.


This comment is funny. If you want to convey this image could you have thought of a different username?


----------



## Faithful Wife

So funny...I've had the "I could have you if I chose to pursue you look a few times". I have a special sign in my purse for just such an occasion. It says in big letters "EW!!!" I make sure the looker knows I mean him. For some reason they turn red and look away at that point. Wonder where that false bravado goes once it's been exposed? Space?


----------



## VermisciousKnid

coffee4me said:


> This comment is funny. If you want to convey this image could you have thought of a different username?


Well... He *is* hanging around outside the Weight Watchers meetings so it seems appropriate.


----------



## Red Sonja

Cletus said:


> Meh, I'm of the opinion that leering is a victimless crime.


:iagree: and, I am a woman. Leer all you want and I'll feel free to ignore you and carry on about my business.

My problem is with touching or personal comments from strangers after the looking/leering. That part is intrusive to me.

I cannot tell you how many times I have had men and women (complete strangers) feel compelled to comment on and then touch eek my hair or the skin of my face ... even in the grocery store with my kid in tow! I don't understand this at all; I was raised to believe it is impolite to make personal comments on the appearance of strangers and/or touch them without permission (barring accidents or emergencies of course).

And, don't get me started on the people who feel free to lean in and smell you when in line at the check-out.


----------



## Deejo

I, all too often find myself stuck in airport terminals. People watching is a pastime.

I don't leer. At least I sure as hell think I don't. But I suppose what constitutes a leer is up to the person being 'observed'.

I was at FLL recently and down the concourse comes walking a woman in heels, making her about 6'4", and wearing a bodysuit that was white with the image of the American Flag on it. Hair down to her waist.

You couldn't NOT look. I wasn't attracted at all, but boy was I caught up in the spectacle of the imagery.

And I understand the comfort factor for flying, but there are more yoga pants in airports than any yoga studio in the world.

And all I can say is, Wow. I mean the whole spectrum of Wow.


----------



## razgor

Gentleman don't leer. We may look a little too much, but we don't leer. Such an ugly word!

But seriously, if you are wearing tight fitting pants (yogas!) or no bra and you have a nice body then you should expect some looks. Sometimes looks that last too long! 

I just smile if I get caught leering, I mean looking too much. I am just a man, what do you expect!


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> I, all too often find myself stuck in airport terminals. People watching is a pastime.
> 
> I don't leer. At least I sure as hell think I don't. But I suppose what constitutes a leer is up to the person being 'observed'.
> 
> I was at FLL recently and down the concourse comes walking a woman in heels, making her about 6'4", and wearing a bodysuit that was white with the image of the American Flag on it. Hair down to her waist.
> 
> You couldn't NOT look. I wasn't attracted at all, but boy was I caught up in the spectacle of the imagery.
> 
> And I understand the comfort factor for flying, but there are more yoga pants in airports than any yoga studio in the world.
> 
> And all I can say is, Wow. I mean the whole spectrum of Wow.



Yoga pants with red high heels...? I don't think she would be averse to looks, double takes, spit takes and possibly a non creepy leer.


----------



## FormerSelf

Racer said:


> Guess that fits into your ‘getting called out’. Some women aren’t offended, and… enjoy the idea that I blush. It’s rare, but some actually get more ‘sexual’ trying to catch me again. An over-exagerated bending over, that twist pose, the hair flip, etc. A cat and mouse thing starts; grocery store fun of bumping carts, polite excuse me’s, etc. I do see it as healthy fun; it’s nice to know ‘you still got it’.











HAHAHA

I had to say to myself "Yep, you still got it," the other day when I dropped in at my former employer. I was talking to an old co-worker, when I noticed an attractive young woman was doing the hair flip and twist poses to get my attention. I figured she was thin, cute, and blonde...and already got plenty of attention, so I completely ignored her. Ha! I'm still a few months away from divorce, so I'm just not into any of that...and probably won't be for a while.


----------



## john117

The cure for the common leer is a cruise. With the exception of a cruise out of Puerto Rico, every cruise we ever did would turn any prospective leerista into a blind man...

Not to mention the diplomatic episodes possible or likely with leering on foreign soil...

So, women, if your men leer uncontrollably listen to Dr. John here and book a cruise 

View attachment 33369


----------



## Fozzy

Or take them for a trip through the nearest Walmart.

*shiver*


----------



## Thundarr

Fozzy said:


> Or take them for a trip through the nearest Walmart.
> 
> *shiver*


Walmart hotties. Oh yeeeaaaaa.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just got back from a cruise and got plenty of leers, john. It was uber windy, too, sometimes. How does it turn you into a blind man to leer on a windy cruise? 

Its kinda funny when you can see a man's eyes even though he's wearing sunglasses, and you see his head faced straight forward, but his eyes planted on every T or A that goes by.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy and Thundarr (two of my favorites)...can I point something out? I know I'll probably get slapped around for this comment, but probably not by either of you...but anyway here goes...

When you turn the subject around to discuss how "gross" some women are, in the middle of a discussion about how "hot" some women are, this is the kind of thing that Always Alone mentions a lot. It seems that you are saying women only have worth if they look good to you. It really is kinda hurtful to some women, and it is mean, to talk about how "gross" they are if they are fat or what you feel is unattractive. (I did not look at the link by the way, but have seen walmart links before).

I guess my point is, as adults and gentleman, can we at least try to not make fun of people for their looks? Is there anything to gain from it? It is both mean spirited, and also, the readers may fall into a category like the one you are making fun of, we never know who might be reading or how they are feeling.

I know it isn't personal to anyone, but it is just, well, mean.

I'm sorry to slap your wrists, you both know I love you, that's why I can say it. Actually, I appreciate the opportunity to say this to you two, because if I said it to someone I don't like my message wouldn't be heard at all (because I have Chronic Sass Mouth and am unable to make a point when making it to someone I dislike).

thanks guys


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Fozzy and Thundarr (two of my favorites)...can I point something out? I know I'll probably get slapped around for this comment, but probably not by either of you...but anyway here goes...
> 
> When you turn the subject around to discuss how "gross" some women are, in the middle of a discussion about how "hot" some women are, this is the kind of thing that Always Alone mentions a lot. It seems that you are saying women only have worth if they look good to you. It really is kinda hurtful to some women, and it is mean, to talk about how "gross" they are if they are fat or what you feel is unattractive. (I did not look at the link by the way, but have seen walmart links before).
> 
> I guess my point is, as adults and gentleman, can we at least try to not make fun of people for their looks? Is there anything to gain from it? It is both mean spirited, and also, the readers may fall into a category like the one you are making fun of, we never know who might be reading or how they are feeling.
> 
> I know it isn't personal to anyone, but it is just, well, mean.
> 
> I'm sorry to slap your wrists, you both know I love you, that's why I can say it. Actually, I appreciate the opportunity to say this to you two, because if I said it to someone I don't like my message wouldn't be heard at all (because I have Chronic Sass Mouth and am unable to make a point when making it to someone I dislike).
> 
> thanks guys


Point taken. Intentions of humor can come across as mean spirited without us knowing it. Of course that's why it's good to have people like you to point out the certain humor that can be offensive to some. I'll have to think about the topic of Walmart hotties later when my wine buzz is gone . For the record though I might be considered the male version of a Walmart hottie since I shop there often and sometimes in sweat pants and unshaved. Doesn't that give me leeway to jest at myself ?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr, it's all good, you understood my point. And I understood that neither you nor Fozzy were being deliberately mean.

It is the overall picture, the "oh YEAH yoga pants, wootie woot!" added to the "oh heck NO do I wanna see a FAT chick in yoga pants, get me outta here!" that create the message "women are things we look at and judge based on appearances and this is very important to us, whereas, who she is is not important to us, we don't even care".

It is a pervasive message.

I know it isn't true (ie: I know that men in general actually do care who women are) and I know that you two didn't mean it that way, but nevertheless, it is a pervasive message in society.

(And I am against "stupid, bumbling dad" messages too, for the same reason).


----------



## Fozzy

My apologies. Trust me, there's a reason you'll never see my mug in the "post your picture" thread.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> (And I am against "stupid, bumbling dad" messages too, for the same reason).


Yea I hate those too. TV and citcoms in general paint men as bumbling idiots and women as nags. It's a bi-product of capitalism since those are the things that sell thus ratings. For example, "modern family" is really entertaining but look at Phil and Claire dunphy. They are the caricatures repeated in entertainment. But it's still a funny show so I watch it .


----------



## Faithful Wife

The thing is, I believe the talk about how gross people look, is actually just a thing we do as children to bond with each other. It is a social grease. 

First kid, head of a group of peers says "Hey, WE don't like so-and-so, do YOU?" 

(second kid frantically tries to figure out if liking so-and-so will make them be liked or NOT liking so-and-so will make them be liked) 

Second kid makes his best guess and answers "Uh NO, DUH! she's gross and FAT, too! Of COURSE I don't like her." 

First kid answers "Oh good I knew you were smart".

Second kid feels like a king.

This goes on for several years and on past high school. Eventually it is just a habit we've had since childhood and isn't really even a meaningful type of thing to say, BUT we associate it with bonding with our peers. I believe for the most part, people do most of the things they do in order to connect with someone. Talking about others is definitely a way to bond with people, whether what we are saying is good about them or not.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess my point is, as adults and gentleman, can we at least try to not make fun of people for their looks? Is there anything to gain from it? It is both mean spirited, and also, the readers may fall into a category like the one you are making fun of, we never know who might be reading or how they are feeling.
> 
> I know it isn't personal to anyone, but it is just, well, mean.


That was hawt.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aw, thanks Deej.

Hey heads up...anyone wants to see a boob I just posted one down on the intrusive ads thread. Seriously. (only one boob though)

Ha! Made ya look!

(but seriously I'm not kidding)

(wtf?)


----------



## Fozzy

I looked for 6 seconds.

Was that a leer?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I dunno man, I feel so creepy now! I have no idea what is and isn't creepy sometimes...am I supposed to look at the boob? But not see it as a boob, see it as food? Am I a creep if I crop out the baby and just look at the boob? Or am I a creep no matter what because she's just doing something natural. I'm confused. And probably creepy.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> I just got back from a cruise and got plenty of leers, john. It was uber windy, too, sometimes. How does it turn you into a blind man to leer on a windy cruise?



After 7 cruises I have yet to be on a cruise that more than 10% of the people deserved a look (crew excluded) All with Princess Cruises. Royal Caribbean and Celebrity probably attract more leer-worthy crowds...


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> The thing is, I believe the talk about how gross people look, is actually just a thing we do as children to bond with each other. It is a social grease.
> 
> First kid, head of a group of peers says "Hey, WE don't like so-and-so, do YOU?"
> 
> (second kid frantically tries to figure out if liking so-and-so will make them be liked or NOT liking so-and-so will make them be liked)
> 
> Second kid makes his best guess and answers "Uh NO, DUH! she's gross and FAT, too! Of COURSE I don't like her."
> 
> First kid answers "Oh good I knew you were smart".
> 
> Second kid feels like a king.
> 
> This goes on for several years and on past high school. Eventually it is just a habit we've had since childhood and isn't really even a meaningful type of thing to say, BUT we associate it with bonding with our peers. I believe for the most part, people do most of the things they do in order to connect with someone. Talking about others is definitely a way to bond with people, whether what we are saying is good about them or not.


I remember being seven years old, walking home from school and knocking a kid on his ass for making fun of Nicole Bunting. She was crying. 
Five other boys standing around laughing.

He didn't fight back. She ran away.

I was made fun of for 'liking girls'.

I managed to live with it.

Also know I made a woman very uncomfortable at an airport once.
I've made no secret of my ADD diagnosis. I'm the 'zone out' type. I can just fix on a point in space and get lost. When I came out of my reverie, it was apparent the woman thought I was staring at her. Wasn't even aware of her. Was staring past her and then she came into focus. Was obvious she was uncomfortable and got up and moved. I felt bad. Felt compelled to apologize, but knew that would likely make things worse.

But, no doubt, her story would be a creeper was staring right at her undeterred for 20+ seconds.

We've traversed this terrain before.

I don't have an iota of guilt for noticing someone I think is beautiful. 

There is a difference between the mental acknowledgement of beauty or spectacle (that dude with blue hair and nose piercing, or tribal tats, or the American Flag bodysuit Lady) and deciding to contrive a sexual encounter upon seeing an attractive member of the opposite sex.


----------



## Deejo

Noscript, Ad-block, and Ghostery are your friends.

But they don't have boobs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> After 7 cruises I have yet to be on a cruise that more than 10% of the people deserved a look (crew excluded) All with Princess Cruises. Royal Caribbean and Celebrity probably attract more leer-worthy crowds...


I think what you mean is, you're not into people your own age and older?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Noscript, Ad-block, and Ghostery are your friends.
> 
> But they don't have boobs.


Hey, sometimes this is the only way I can cop a glimpse. That particular ad just started showing up recently. LOTS of times I get ads for mail order brides, or that's what the ads look like...some international beauty of oh, 22 or so, looking at the camera with the bedroom eyes, lots of T and or A showing...

(sigh...actually I find it terribly distasteful...I love looking at beautiful women, but I don't want images forced upon me when I wasn't asking for them, especially not in such a context)

How do I download or do the thingys you said?

ETA: ok downloaded Ghostery...will work with it to figure it out. Thanks.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> I think what you mean is, you're not into people your own age and older?



The exact opposite - I love looking at mature, sophisticated women. But not as many people my age (55) cruise to begin with, on Princess at least, and those that do don't always look leer worthy 

At that age few women have the assets to be leer worthy and those that do may not always wear leer worthy clothes. Cruises are ideal in the sense you can wear all the NSFW type outfits you'd want without too much trouble.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah don't do Princess anymore. Do Celebrity. I saw many fine azz 55-ish year olds of all genders, and they saw me, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo! Hurrah, I'm ad free!!


----------



## ET1SSJonota

From the earlier linked article:
"Creepiness occurs when someone demonstrates sexual intent while undermining or disregarding the recipient’s personal autonomy or consent."
I wonder if THIS is where the line is drawn between real creepiness is when the recipient of the attention has made some communication (normally non-verbal) that the attention is undesired/unwanted, and it continues. 

Much is ballyhooed about how some women will "allow" attractive/interested males to ogle, but be upset when a "lesser specimen" is watching. I think practicing the above rule should make everyone happy. The "lesser specimen" can look until getting a clear signal that it is unwelcome. 

The whining about it being unfair is unwarranted. A direct for instance is husband-wife. I ogle my wife frequently. While she's not always 100% into getting ogled (she makes it clear to me when she isn't), she doesn't get upset at me doing it not matter her feelings. Why would this not apply to anyone that the woman accepts looking at her?

I fully agree that some "public displays" are ridiculous, and simply begging for the attention - so obviously, as always, there are exceptions to "the rule".


----------



## Tubbalard

coffee4me said:


> This comment is funny. If you want to convey this image could you have thought of a different username?


Lol. Yeah I guess youre right. Doesnt come off right if people think youre shaped like an Italian chef or the Klumps.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tubbalard

True, women only like if they find an attractive guy oogling them. It's the nature of the beast. All women want to be oogled/ stared at somepoint in their lifetime. It just depends on who. Ive done plenty of my fair share of oogling and leering and not once has a woman gave me a hostile reaction, because I oogle with taste. I leered at one particular woman for about 15 straight seconds. she was flustered and asked why I kept looking at her. So I responded, "Well, My love, I Like what I see. A woman as beautiful as you I cant help but to stare." She blushed and chuckled, then we engaged in small talk. Got her number and the rest was history.

I've seen plenty of guys crash and burn because when they leer it's with a cave man hungry man face. Its like a creepy thirst bucket. If you Leer you have to do it with charm and taste. When a woman catches you, you give her a slight smile/nod and either approach or keep walking. plenty of men crash when they see a woman walk by they leer then they see her again and repeat
It has to be strategic. One time and keep it moving.

You can do or say just about anything to a woman If she thinks you are attractive, likes your vibe/personality, your hygiene etc. I saw a beautiful woman one time. Gave her the eye contact, she looked up then down. When I approached her I said "OMG look what the lord has made" She smiled and blushed. Then I said "Wow you smell good" Then I got closer and proceeded to smell her neck and kept repeating she smelled good, then I said. "I wonder what it tastes like", soon as I said that I gave her a slight kiss on the neck, then a soft lick with my tongue. She belted out "Oh my goodness did you just really do that?" When I pulled back I looked at her and said "eh it tastes ok." She then gave me one of those offended looks, so I smiled and said "Well let me try again". Tried again and told her it she tasted like sweet and succulent and of milk and honey. She loved it. She melted like butter. But these type of stories are not uncommon. Women LOVE when men stare. Just not the ones they dont like.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tubbalard said:


> You can do or say just about anything to a woman If she thinks you are attractive, likes your vibe/personality, your hygiene etc. I saw a beautiful woman one time. Gave her the eye contact, she looked up then down. When I approached her I said "OMG look what the lord has made" She smiled and blushed. Then I said "Wow you smell good" Then I got closer and proceeded to smell her neck and kept repeating she smelled good, then I said. "I wonder what it tastes like", soon as I said that I gave her a slight kiss on the neck, then a soft lick with my tongue. She belted out "Oh my goodness did you just really do that?" When I pulled back I looked at her and said "eh it tastes ok." She then gave me one of those offended looks, so I smiled and said "Well let me try again". Tried again and told her it she tasted like sweet and succulent and of milk and honey. She loved it. She melted like butter. But these type of stories are not uncommon. Women LOVE when men stare. Just not the ones they dont like.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_






:wtf:


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
The acceptability of leering varies a LOT with the situation. In an environment where romantic meetings are common (night clubs, some bars, some cruises, etc), I think a lot more leering is acceptable than say at the workplace where it is always completely inappropriate.


----------



## yeah_right

Tubbalard said:


> True, women only like if they find an attractive guy oogling them. It's the nature of the beast. All women want to be oogled/ stared at somepoint in their lifetime. It just depends on who. Ive done plenty of my fair share of oogling and leering and not once has a woman gave me a hostile reaction, because I oogle with taste. I leered at one particular woman for about 15 straight seconds. she was flustered and asked why I kept looking at her. So I responded, "Well, My love, I Like what I see. A woman as beautiful as you I cant help but to stare." She blushed and chuckled, then we engaged in small talk. Got her number and the rest was history.
> 
> I've seen plenty of guys crash and burn because when they leer it's with a cave man hungry man face. *Its like a creepy thirst bucket.* If you Leer you have to do it with charm and taste. When a woman catches you, you give her a slight smile/nod and either approach or keep walking. plenty of men crash when they see a woman walk by they leer then they see her again and repeat
> It has to be strategic. One time and keep it moving.
> 
> You can do or say just about anything to a woman If she thinks you are attractive, likes your vibe/personality, your hygiene etc. I saw a beautiful woman one time. Gave her the eye contact, she looked up then down. When I approached her I said "OMG look what the lord has made" She smiled and blushed. Then I said "Wow you smell good" Then I got closer and proceeded to smell her neck and kept repeating she smelled good, then I said. "I wonder what it tastes like", soon as I said that I gave her a slight kiss on the neck, then a soft lick with my tongue. She belted out "Oh my goodness did you just really do that?" When I pulled back I looked at her and said "eh it tastes ok." She then gave me one of those offended looks, so I smiled and said "Well let me try again". Tried again and told her it she tasted like sweet and succulent and of milk and honey. She loved it. She melted like butter. But these type of stories are not uncommon. Women LOVE when men stare. Just not the ones they dont like.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I think I'm going to incorporate "creepy thirst bucket" into my vocabulary.

I hope the woman-licking story was with someone you were dating or married to, because if was some random lady off the street, [email protected]'s creepy in a thirst bucket type way. I think I'd even turn down Michael Fassbender if he pulled a move like that on me.


----------



## always_alone

Red Sonja said:


> :iagree: and, I am a woman. Leer all you want and I'll feel free to ignore you and carry on about my business.
> 
> My problem is with touching or personal comments from strangers after the looking/leering. That part is intrusive to me.


Absolutely agree that the comments and touching take it to a whole new level of creepy. I mean, WTF?

And I also agree that I can and will simply ignore leers, and go about my business. 

But it still creeps me out to think that my tits and a$$ are subject to these constant evaluations, rankings, fantasies, and whatnot. Sure, it's his brain, he can think what he wants and I have no control. But I really wish he, whoever he may be, would just leave me out of it. It's my body, part of me, part of who I am, not a display in a museum or freak show. 

Everywhere we go, the message is that women are just bodies for public consumption, to be displayed, ranked, judged, used. 

And just to be clear: I'm not talking about "noticing" or thinking someone is beautiful. I'm talking about leering. 

I notice people too. All the time. But I still manage to see people, deserving of respect, and not just an array of body parts put there for my pleasure.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I notice people too. All the time. But I still manage to see people, deserving of respect, and not just an array of body parts put there for my pleasure.


I think it is a fine line, but this is how I try to look at people, even if leering. I feel like I can respect someone who I also want to leer at, but they may feel disrespected anyway if they catch me. That's ok, I would understand that.

By leering I just mean, I am looking and also noticing how sexy someone is or some part of them. But I still get caught sometimes and I still may be looked at like I'm a creep. Straight women in particular sometimes look at me like they want someone to beat me up. It is hard for me and I feel bad. But I don't feel bad about myself, I just feel bad that I made the other person uncomfortable.

I personally think that what we think about matters, even if no one else will ever know what you thought. So although I do look and technically leer, I don't have sexual fantasies about people. I note their sexiness and look and enjoy the visual stimulus. But I don't take it further into sexual thoughts. (I could and I have, but I really think there's an issue with that so I have stopped long ago).


----------



## jorgegene

"they leer it's with a cave man hungry man face." tubbalard

That's a good one! that's exactly what I mean. i avoid that for sure.

I pick my moments and look when she's not looking. and enjoy.
it makes my day when I get to look at a good looking woman. and I don't fantasize. When I leave, that's it. it's over. I love looking at my wife too.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> By leering I just mean, I am looking and also noticing how sexy someone is or some part of them. But I still get caught sometimes and I still may be looked at like I'm a creep. Straight women in particular sometimes look at me like they want someone to beat me up. It is hard for me and I feel bad. But I don't feel bad about myself, I just feel bad that I made the other person uncomfortable.


I don't think anyone should feel bad about themselves for finding another person sexy, and the fact that you do feel bad when you make someone feel uncomfortable, and put in efforts so as not to make them feel that way shows, at least IMHO, a healthy respect.

It's the meat market approach to womanhood that really grates on me. Especially since there is this huge double standard where men feel quite safe that they will be seen as persons, will not be judged solely on their looks, and can walk through WalMart without 6 dozen people snapping photos of them for later ridicule on the internet.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Absolutely agree that the comments and touching take it to a whole new level of creepy. I mean, WTF?
> 
> And I also agree that I can and will simply ignore leers, and go about my business.
> 
> But it still creeps me out to think that my tits and a$$ are subject to these constant evaluations, rankings, fantasies, and whatnot. Sure, it's his brain, he can think what he wants and I have no control. But I really wish he, whoever he may be, would just leave me out of it. It's my body, part of me, part of who I am, not a display in a museum or freak show.
> 
> Everywhere we go, the message is that women are just bodies for public consumption, to be displayed, ranked, judged, used.
> 
> And just to be clear: I'm not talking about "noticing" or thinking someone is beautiful. I'm talking about leering.
> 
> I notice people too. All the time. But I still manage to see people, deserving of respect, and not just an array of body parts put there for my pleasure.


Newsflash: dudes are continually evaluated, too.

It's the human condition. Whether we're conscious of it or not, a chunk of our grey matter sizes up every person as a potential mate that we come in contact with. And sorts people into whatever the biological equivalent buckets of "marry, do, ignore" are.

It's why unattractive people are frequently invisible. Of both sexes.


----------



## Cletus

yeah_right said:


> I think I'd even turn down Michael Fassbender if he pulled a move like that on me.


That's where you and I differ.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I don't think anyone should feel bad about themselves for finding another person sexy, and the fact that you do feel bad when you make someone feel uncomfortable, and put in efforts so as not to make them feel that way shows, at least IMHO, a healthy respect.
> 
> It's the meat market approach to womanhood that really grates on me. Especially since there is this huge double standard where men feel quite safe that they will be seen as persons, will not be judged solely on their looks, and can walk through WalMart without 6 dozen people snapping photos of them for later ridicule on the internet.


So I have a buddy of a buddy that's an ex model. And, in his 40's, is still totally attractive.

Women will seriously line up at the bar waiting to talk to him, even when his wife is right there. 

He's actually quite depressed about the whole thing. Because he can't interact with people "normally."

Women basically throw themselves at him constantly, and guys constantly are sizing him up as a potential threat.

So he's become quite brooding and depressed about the whole thing. Especially after his first wife cheated on him with an (even) hotter guy.

The sexual marketplace is what it is.


----------



## Anon Pink

john117 said:


> View attachment 33369



Is is how I look in the morning after a night of sex followed by a slew of hot flashes. Mr Pink assures me it is sexy. The kids can't wait to see the "moms morning do" and have even attempted taking pictures.

Satin pillow cases help.




Faithful Wife said:


> Hey, sometimes this is the only way I can cop a glimpse)


I'm telling the Sex God!






Tubbalard said:


> True, women only like if they find an attractive guy oogling them. It's the nature of the beast. All women want to be oogled/ stared at somepoint in their lifetime. It just depends on who. Ive done plenty of my fair share of oogling and leering and not once has a woman gave me a hostile reaction, because I oogle with taste. I leered at one particular woman for about 15 straight seconds. she was flustered and asked why I kept looking at her. So I responded, "Well, My love, I Like what I see. A woman as beautiful as you I cant help but to stare." She blushed and chuckled, then we engaged in small talk. Got her number and the rest was history.
> 
> I've seen plenty of guys crash and burn because when they leer it's with a cave man hungry man face. Its like a creepy thirst bucket. If you Leer you have to do it with charm and taste. When a woman catches you, you give her a slight smile/nod and either approach or keep walking. plenty of men crash when they see a woman walk by they leer then they see her again and repeat
> It has to be strategic. One time and keep it moving.
> 
> _You can do or say just about anything to a woman If she thinks you are attractive, likes your vibe/personality, your hygiene etc. I saw a beautiful woman one time. Gave her the eye contact, she looked up then down. When I approached her I said "OMG look what the lord has made" She smiled and blushed. Then I said "Wow you smell good" Then I got closer and proceeded to smell her neck and kept repeating she smelled good, then I said. "I wonder what it tastes like", soon as I said that I gave her a slight kiss on the neck, then a soft lick with my tongue. She belted out "Oh my goodness did you just really do that?" When I pulled back I looked at her and said "eh it tastes ok." She then gave me one of those offended looks, so I smiled and said "Well let me try again". Tried again and told her it she tasted like sweet and succulent and of milk and honey. She loved it. She melted like butter. But these type of stories are not uncommon. Women LOVE when men stare. Just not the ones they dont like._
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Facing the firing squad here, but I agree and ..... that was HOT!


----------



## yeah_right

Cletus said:


> That's where you and I differ.


Yeah, you caught me in a lie! If even you would succumb to his cheesy lines and creepy tongue antics, then I have no chance. No one can resist him. And I'm not talking about his extraordinarily large manhood. His voice could make any gross pick up line sound like poetry.

EDIT - I am referring to Michael Fassbender and not Tubbalard (or some random dude off the street), just in case there is any confusion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon honey..,take it back! You've written and read too many erotic stories. Having a stranger touch you is not hot except in fantasy. It should not be encouraged. Any guy attempting this is risking police charges. And any guy who thinks it is ok to touch unknown women is clearly a dangerous person.


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> Anon honey..,take it back! You've written and read too many erotic stories. Having a stranger touch you is not hot except in fantasy. It should not be encouraged. Any guy attempting this is risking police charges. And any guy who thinks it is ok to touch unknown women is clearly a dangerous person.


Ew no, not a stranger!

I take it back. 

I was thinking the role play of bar pick up. HOT!!!!


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Anon honey..,take it back! You've written and read too many erotic stories. Having a stranger touch you is not hot except in fantasy. It should not be encouraged. Any guy attempting this is risking police charges. And any guy who thinks it is ok to touch unknown women is clearly a dangerous person.


Under certain circumstances, I would find it to be very hot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon Pink said:


> Ew no, not a stranger!
> 
> I take it back.
> 
> I was thinking the role play of bar pick up. HOT!!!!


No he's talking about a stranger on the street who he leered at and then touched and licked, and he claims she loved it. Ugh.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Under certain circumstances, I would find it to be very hot.


How about if tubbalard is the one who touched and licked you? Still hot? No, I suppose not...it has to be a woman and it has to be someone who YOU think is hot. Right?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Tubbalard said:


> You can do or say just about anything to a woman If she thinks you are attractive, likes your vibe/personality, your hygiene etc. I saw a beautiful woman one time. Gave her the eye contact, she looked up then down. When I approached her I said "OMG look what the lord has made" She smiled and blushed. Then I said "Wow you smell good" Then I got closer and proceeded to smell her neck and kept repeating she smelled good, then I said. "I wonder what it tastes like", soon as I said that I gave her a slight kiss on the neck, then a soft lick with my tongue. She belted out "Oh my goodness did you just really do that?" When I pulled back I looked at her and said "eh it tastes ok." She then gave me one of those offended looks, so I smiled and said "Well let me try again". Tried again and told her it she tasted like sweet and succulent and of milk and honey. She loved it. She melted like butter. But these type of stories are not uncommon. Women LOVE when men stare. Just not the ones they dont like.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Woa. CreepTASTIC.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> How about if tubbalard is the one who touched and licked you? Still hot? No, I suppose not...it has to be a woman and it has to be someone who YOU think is hot. Right?


Of course. That's why I said under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include she's hot, not holding a weapon, and a couple others that escape me right now.

The point being that it is not universally un-hot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Of course. That's why I said under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include she's hot, not holding a weapon, and a couple others that escape me right now.
> 
> The point being that it is not universally un-hot.


Yet you guys complain that women ONLY want this when the guy is hot and the poor poor un-hot guys are creeps and it isn't FAIR.


----------



## Marduk

Just to throw a wrinkle in everything...

I agree the whole licking think was way outta line. And creeptastic.

But I will say, reflecting back on my single days... 

The sheer amount of stupid **** I could pull with women if I did it while in shape, lookin' sharp, and with a c0cky grin on my face... and get away with it...

Staggers me, even now.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet you guys complain that women ONLY want this when the guy is hot and the poor poor un-hot guys are creeps and it isn't FAIR.


Hey, listen, it's the same deal reversed.

I once walked into a bar. A random woman grabbed my ass as I walked past. I turned around, pissed about it (was with wife #1 at the time)...

And when I saw that she was hot, I smirked and walked away.

Men and women are more the same than not, I think.


----------



## NobodySpecial

marduk said:


> Just to throw a wrinkle in everything...
> 
> I agree the whole licking think was way outta line. And creeptastic.
> 
> But I will say, reflecting back on my single days...
> 
> The sheer amount of stupid **** I could pull with women if I did it while in shape, lookin' sharp, and with a c0cky grin on my face... and get away with it...
> 
> Staggers me, even now.


I know a guy whose favorite pick up line was "Nice dress. It would look better on the floor at the foot of my bed." I was baffled to learn this WORKED. This kinda stuff never worked on me. This super hot dude asked me to dance at a club one time. He was too touchy. But I could have lived with that for one song. He asked me if I had any black in me. When like a total fool I said no, has asked if I wanted any. I just walked away.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Hey, listen, it's the same deal reversed.
> 
> I once walked into a bar. A random woman grabbed my ass as I walked past. I turned around, pissed about it (was with wife #1 at the time)...
> 
> And when I saw that she was hot, I smirked and walked away.
> 
> Men and women are more the same than not, I think.


sigh....

And once again, like a lot of men, you don't seem to put into this scenario that women are not always able to physically defend themselves against men. So you are not making a true comparison.

What if a man had grabbed your wife's ass instead of a woman grabbing yours? What if the man was 6'8" and knew you would never be able to take him down and therefore he did it knowing you couldn't do a damn thing about it? Still cute? Still smiling?


----------



## Fozzy

NobodySpecial said:


> I know a guy whose favorite pick up line was "Nice dress. It would look better on the floor at the foot of my bed." I was baffled to learn this WORKED. This kinda stuff never worked on me. This super hot dude asked me to dance at a club one time. He was too touchy. But I could have lived with that for one song. He asked me if I had any black in me. When like a total fool I said no, has asked if I wanted any. I just walked away.


**scribbles down pickup line**

**replace black with furry**


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet you guys complain that women ONLY want this when the guy is hot and the poor poor un-hot guys are creeps and it isn't FAIR.


Who's "you guys"? I'm not complaining that anyone does or does not want this. I'm not so inept to not understand the creepy factor it represents even if I might, someday, somewhere, find it hot.

As to it not being fair? Boo-f'ing-hoo. Life isn't fair.


----------



## Tubbalard

yeah_right said:


> I think I'm going to incorporate "creepy thirst bucket" into my vocabulary.
> 
> I hope the woman-licking story was with someone you were dating or married to, because if was some random lady off the street, [email protected]'s creepy in a thirst bucket type way. I think I'd even turn down Michael Fassbender if he pulled a move like that on me.


Lol. It was a random lady. That was kind of the point of the story. A man can get away with a lot if the woman finds him attractive. The tongue licking was a playful and sensual gesture. She loved it and laughed. I was smooth, I was charming. She even gave me the googly eyed look. She never thought it was creepy. I was dressed nice, smelled good, good posture and turned up the natural charm. Its a certain way these things have to be done.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

Ted Bundy was also all of those things.


----------



## Anon Pink

NobodySpecial said:


> I know a guy whose favorite pick up line was "Nice dress. It would look better on the floor at the foot of my bed." I was baffled to learn this WORKED. This kinda stuff never worked on me. This super hot dude asked me to dance at a club one time. He was too touchy. But I could have lived with that for one song. He asked me if I had any black in me. When like a total fool I said no, has asked if I wanted any. I just walked away.


LOL, now those lines would have had me laughing in fun. Ask if he has any more good ones.

When I was single I took a male friend with me shopping, we both had to find an outfit for a wedding. I held up a dress and asked what he thought. He took it, threw it on the floor and said, "I like it that way best." Cracked me up 

You gotta keep a sense of humor right?


----------



## yeah_right

Tubbalard said:


> Lol. It was a random lady. That was kind of the point of the story. A man can get away with a lot if the woman finds him attractive. The tongue licking was a playful and sensual gesture. She loved it and laughed. I was smooth, I was charming. She even gave me the googly eyed look. She never thought it was creepy. I was dressed nice, smelled good, good posture and turned up the natural charm. Its a certain way these things have to be done.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


In this scenario, is it same to assume that this lady was drunk at a bar...or a prostitute? As smooth as you are, I doubt the ladies at the grocery store will find being spontaneously licked by a stranger as sexy as you think.

In scenarios where alcohol is involved, or you're at a location where it is assumed that people are looking for a little action (night club, frat party, Las Vegas street corner), this would be expected. Start dropping pervy lines or putting your tongue on someone in the airport security line, the local high school, courthouse lobby or library. Most women will think you're a rapist and start looking for your weapon.


----------



## yeah_right

Anon Pink said:


> LOL, now those lines would have had me laughing in fun. Ask if he has any more good ones.
> 
> When I was single I took a male friend with me shopping, we both had to find an outfit for a wedding. I held up a dress and asked what he thought. He took it, threw it on the floor and said, "I like it that way best." Cracked me up
> 
> You gotta keep a sense of humor right?


Replace your friend in this story with the male store clerk. Ewwwwwwwww!!!!!!


----------



## jb02157

Anon Pink said:


> I don't think anything beyond a second or two is appropriate. Look at something for 3 seconds...that's a long time actually. Especially for the women who feels under the microscope! 10 seconds is long enough to c0ck a gun isn't it? Yeah, way too long to gaze at her parts.


It goes back to my first post, women do dress to attract men, and when tehy don't get the results they want, they get all pissy about it. If they get the results they want, that's ok then. An attractive guy or a guy they are attracted to would be allowed to look, but an older less attractive guy becomes a creep or a prevert because he looked. I've heard that reffered to at times as an "unwanted advance". That's considered oh so horrible...and even punishable. They there's the other side of the coin when an ugly woman makes an unwanted advance to a man...that's perfectly ok and never punishable. 

Again I'll go back to what I said, this is a perfect example of just how coddled women are in society, what applies to them doesn't apply to men. Women are always barking about things being unfair and unequal they are treated...I think this applies to and should be equally applied to men. If a man receives an unwanted advance, the equal penality should be dished out to her as if a man did it to a woman. Is a woman considered a creep or a pervert if she looks at a man for any more then a couple seconds...of course not. 

So if you have had surgury and can't weat a bra, does it automatically exempt you from dressing to attract...I don't think it does. The men that look at you don't know this, so then that gives you no right to go around calling men perverts that look at you half cross-eyed. 

It goes along with the double standard women expect in life, if things go their way, they show their bodies and attractive men look at them, great keep it that way, but when something negative happens such as gross, icky older men looking at them funny, something should be done to stop those awful perverts.

And yes I did have my Wheaties and hugs today and this still bothers me.


----------



## Tubbalard

yeah_right said:


> In this scenario, is it same to assume that this lady was drunk at a bar...or a prostitute? As smooth as you are, I doubt the ladies at the grocery store will find being spontaneously licked by a stranger as sexy as you think.
> 
> In scenarios where alcohol is involved, or you're at a location where it is assumed that people are looking for a little action (night club, frat party, Las Vegas street corner), this would be expected. Start dropping pervy lines or putting your tongue on someone in the airport security line, the local high school, courthouse lobby or library. Most women will think you're a rapist and start looking for your weapon.




Lmao.no she wasnt drunk or a prostitute. Why do you have to degrade women for these scenarios to be plausible? Ive even said there is a tine and a place for everything. But why would I try this at an airport security line? I never claimed this works on every woman, but it seems as this incident makes you perturbed that I was able to pull this off? Why is that?

I dont spontaneously lick strangers. She was turned on by my looks and the conversation. alcohol wasnt involved. She was just a regular educated, woman. Nothing creepy about it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

jb02157 said:


> It goes back to my first post, women do dress to attract men, and when tehy don't get the results they want, they get all pissy about it. If they get the results they want, that's ok then. An attractive guy or a guy they are attracted to would be allowed to look, but an older less attractive guy becomes a creep or a prevert because he looked. I've heard that reffered to at times as an "unwanted advance". That's considered oh so horrible...and even punishable. They there's the other side of the coin when an ugly woman makes an unwanted advance to a man...that's perfectly ok and never punishable.


1. Women do NOT dress to attract men. They dress to compete with women. If women dressed only to attract men we'd all be wearing lingerie with the good parts on show at all times.

2. Women do not get pissy about not attracting men. WTF? How do you arrive at that?

3. An attractive man who looks and seems respectful will have success in looking. A fat beer bellied man wearing a stained white tee shirt, unshaven, with dirty nails...will have no success at all.

4. An unwanted advance is when a man makes an advance AGAIN, after being told no. Or when in the work place a man's advance is strong enough to cause a woman discomfort afterward. As in threatened, as in repercussions for having said no. 

5. A man on the street who leers/looks while get at most a dirty look from a woman. He won't get a citation or be put in jail. No punishment at all.

6. An unattractive woman who looks/leers and gets a no receives the same punishment as a man. IOW, none.



> Again I'll go back to what I said, this is a perfect example of just how coddled women are in society, what applies to them doesn't apply to men. Women are always barking about things being unfair and unequal they are treated...I think this applies to and should be equally applied to men. If a man receives an unwanted advance, the equal penality should be dished out to her as if a man did it to a woman.


Okay, don't. See numbers 5 and 6 above.



> Is a woman considered a creep or a pervert if she looks at a man for any more then a couple seconds...of course not.


Depends on the lookee. 



> So if you have had surgury and can't weat a bra, does it automatically exempt you from dressing to attract...I don't think it does. The men that look at you don't know this, so then that gives you no right to go around calling men perverts that look at you half cross-eyed.


Please point out where I called any man a pervert? Or, you could just Reread my opening post in which I stated 

""I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days. ""


Now where did I call me perverts again?




> It goes along with the double standard women expect in life, if things go their way, they show their bodies and attractive men look at them, great keep it that way, but when something negative happens such as gross, icky older men looking at them funny, something should be done to stop those awful perverts.


So women should be showing their bodies with equal opportunity to hideous men as well as hunky men? Women should be just as happy getting a long look from disgusting beer bellied stained shirt man as man in suit who looks yummy? 

Okay got that girls? We should jump for joy whenever a penis owner gives us a look!



> And yes I did have my Wheaties and hugs today and this still bothers me.


I'm sorry this bothers you. I can see there might be some confusion on your part. 

I think a look followed by looking away, or a look followed by a no threatening smile are perfectly fine. But that's just me. Not all women feel the same. So it's up to you to figure out what kind of woman can take it, and what kind of woman cannot.

By the way, if it is me, could you just let me know there isn't anything in my teeth?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon Pink said:


> By the way, if it is me, could you just let me know there isn't anything in my teeth?


You have teeth? Oh sorry I was looking at...

never mind


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon Pink said:


> LOL, now those lines would have had me laughing in fun. Ask if he has any more good ones.


The nice dress guy is a buddy of mine. I did laugh. This happened quite recently.



> When I was single I took a male friend with me shopping, we both had to find an outfit for a wedding. I held up a dress and asked what he thought. He took it, threw it on the floor and said, "I like it that way best." Cracked me up
> 
> You gotta keep a sense of humor right?


I didnt think the want any dude was super funny, grabbing at me on the dance floor. Alas I fail.


----------



## yeah_right

Tubbalard said:


> Lmao.no she wasnt drunk or a prostitute. Why do you have to degrade women for these scenarios to be plausible? Ive even said there is a tine and a place for everything. But why would I try this at an airport security line? I never claimed this works on every woman, but it seems as this incident makes you perturbed that I was able to pull this off? Why is that?
> 
> I dont spontaneously lick strangers. She was turned on by my looks and the conversation. alcohol wasnt involved. She was just a regular educated, woman. Nothing creepy about it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As a woman, I think it's degrading for men to think they have a right to go up to any random woman they desire and lick her neck...simply because they have good hygiene and smooth lines that girls fall for. Implying they are so easily led questions their intelligence.

Anyway, back to your example - now you're saying you were already conversing. That's different. The original post suggested that you made eye contact, walked up and licked her. If you were in the middle of a mutual flirtation, that's a different type of boundary.


----------



## jb02157

Anon Pink said:


> 1. Women do NOT dress to attract men. They dress to compete with women. If women dressed only to attract men we'd all be wearing lingerie with the good parts on show at all times.
> 
> *Now we all know that's plain NOT TRUE. Women don't dress to attract men?? ok then why the hell are there low cut tops, short skirts, cosmetics??? For women to compete with other women??? Where's my Bull**** stamp?*
> 
> 2. Women do not get pissy about not attracting men. WTF? How do you arrive at that?
> 
> *Oh they don't huh, I challenge you to go into a bar and talk to a woman who hasn't attracted a guy "acceptable" to her. I guarantee she's gonna be pissy about that.*
> 
> 3. An attractive man who looks and seems respectful will have success in looking. A fat beer bellied man wearing a stained white tee shirt, unshaven, with dirty nails...will have no success at all.
> 
> *That's what I said all thoughout my post...I take it you agree with me there. So attractive men CAN look and untractive men CANNOT, so they're perverts.*
> 
> 4. An unwanted advance is when a man makes an advance AGAIN, after being told no. Or when in the work place a man's advance is strong enough to cause a woman discomfort afterward. As in threatened, as in repercussions for having said no.
> 
> *Wrong, an unwanted advance IS looking when a woman doesn't want it. Again if a women decides to expose her body and men react to that, if she gets unwanted results, that's just too ****ing bad! If you are going to do that, you better ready to deal with the consequences.*
> 
> 5. A man on the street who leers/looks while get at most a dirty look from a woman. He won't get a citation or be put in jail. No punishment at all.
> 
> *Really?? That results in sexual harassment and men getting fired at work for that. Again where's my BS stamp.*
> 6. An unattractive woman who looks/leers and gets a no receives the same punishment as a man. IOW, none.
> 
> *When was the last time a women was fired for sexual harassment at a job?? I hear crickets...again, another job for my BS stamp. *
> 
> Okay, don't. See numbers 5 and 6 above.
> 
> *You pose a question and you get a poster who doesn't agree with you and has a valid point, but you dismiss that. I think it's fair to hear this side of the story to. *
> 
> Depends on the lookee.
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out where I called any man a pervert? Or, you could just Reread my opening post in which I stated
> 
> ""I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days. ""
> 
> 
> Now where did I call men perverts again?
> 
> *I think that's stated in the spirit of your post. Those that look too look are called_____. I'll let you fill in the blank.*
> 
> So women should be showing their bodies with equal opportunity to hideous men as well as hunky men? Women should be just as happy getting a long look from disgusting beer bellied stained shirt man as man in suit who looks yummy?
> 
> Okay got that girls? We should jump for joy whenever a penis owner gives us a look!
> 
> *Now is that what I said, no. I said that women should be prepared to get some undesired results when they dress to attract men, and when they do, these men shouldn't be reffered to as preverts.*
> 
> I'm sorry this bothers you. I can see there might be some confusion on your part.
> 
> I think a look followed by looking away, or a look followed by a no threatening smile are perfectly fine. But that's just me. Not all women feel the same. So it's up to you to figure out what kind of woman can take it, and what kind of woman cannot.
> 
> 
> *Interesting, It's fine for woman to show her body, but not ok to get negative results...it's ok to win the lottery but not ok to spend money and lose. *
> 
> By the way, if it is me, could you just let me know there isn't anything in my teeth?


----------



## Tubbalard

yeah_right said:


> As a woman, I think it's degrading for men to think they have a right to go up to any random woman they desire and lick her neck...simply because they have good hygiene and smooth lines that girls fall for. Implying they are so easily led questions their intelligence.
> 
> Anyway, back to your example - now you're saying you were already conversing. That's different. The original post suggested that you made eye contact, walked up and licked her. If you were in the middle of a mutual flirtation, that's a different type of boundary.


Did you read the story? Thats what happened in chronological order. I didnt randomly lick her neck Like a lizard. I noticed her made a comment, made a bold move and she loved it. There has been many situatuons where guys have just seen an attractive female they liked and kissed them. Contrary to your belief system, many women love this whether they want to admit ot or not. It all depends on the guy.
Im not understanding why you feel its degtading when she felt it wasnt so? I think its degrading that you feel that women are easily led and that I am implying it. Many women would LOVE for this scenario or variation to happen to them. Did not your fellow female poster say it was HOT!!!. Lol. Its probably just part of your social condition to automatically to think creep mode, which is understandable, But the human body cant resist what is natural and charming to them, however it maybe.

Just because you personally find it degrading doesnt make it so. It was actually quite charming. If you were ther Im sure you would have smiled. She was elated. There is a thin line between degrading and charming. In sleeping beauty The prince randomly touched Rose while she was singing. He kept touching her hand. She ran back home but she loved the gesture so much she invited him to her house and fell in love. Was the prince a creep Or was did he just happen to be the guy that could pull it off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

The poster who said it was hot read your story wrong. She thought you were a couple and were role playing. She took it back because it being a stranger makes it CREEPY.


----------



## yeah_right

Tubbalard said:


> Did you read the story? Thats what happened in chronological order. I didnt randomly lick her neck Like a lizard. I noticed her made a comment, made a bold move and she loved it. *There has been many situatuons where guys have just seen an attractive female they liked and kissed them. Contrary to your belief system, many women love this whether they want to admit ot or not. It all depends on the guy.*
> 
> Im not understanding why you feel its degtading when she felt it wasnt so? I think its degrading that you feel that women are easily led and that I am implying it. Many women would LOVE for this scenario or variation to happen to them. Did not your fellow female poster say it was HOT!!!. Lol. Its probably just part of your social condition to automatically to think creep mode, which is understandable, But the human body cant resist what is natural and charming to them, however it maybe.
> 
> Just because you personally find it degrading doesnt make it so. It was actually quite charming. If you were ther Im sure you would have smiled. She was elated. There is a thin line between degrading and charming. In sleeping beauty The prince randomly touched Rose while she was singing. He kept touching her hand. She ran back home but she loved the gesture so much she invited him to her house and fell in love. Was the prince a creep Or was did he just happen to be the guy that could pull it off.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



That sounds more rapey than charming, actually.


----------



## Tubbalard

Actually she said read it as a bar pickup. To which she referred as Hot. You felt some type of way that she would see this as HOT and shamed her for feeling that way, She didnt really feel it was creepy. You kept adding to your own interpretation of how things went down to sway her that it was creepy. I think she can speak for herself though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

JB, I've been patient with you. But my patience is gone. You will believe what you wish to and no other info will have any effect. Have a nice weekend.


----------



## Tubbalard

yeah_right said:


> That sounds more rapey than charming, actually.




Its more comman than you think...A female told me that some guy grabbed her friend and told her youre coming with me and kissed her. The woman loved this and her and the guy made out all night long. I was kind of shocked myself. But she says her friends who are more like co workers are looking for this kind of attention. They all work as upper management in an accounting firm. many women love this and seek it out. Not rapey at all. Can I ask do you live in a small town?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> The poster who said it was hot read your story wrong. She thought you were a couple and were role playing. She took it back because it being a stranger makes it CREEPY.





Tubbalard said:


> Actually she said read it as a bar pickup. To which she referred as Hot. You felt some type of way that she would see this as HOT and shamed her for feeling that way, She didnt really feel it was creepy. You kept adding to your own interpretation of how things went down to sway her that it wasnt creepy. I think she can speak for herself though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is me speaking for myself....

No dear, I thought it was a hot scenario as a role play for a bar pick up. It is a super hot scenario for people who are already hot for each other. 

But you can't possible know that with a stranger.


----------



## Red Sonja

Careful Tubbalard, women like me (and many others) have personal boundaries and the confidence to enforce them ... using mace, sharp elbows, Aikido training, etc.

:nono:


----------



## Tubbalard

Anon Pink said:


> This is me speaking for myself....
> 
> No dear, I thought it was a hot scenario as a role play for a bar pick up. It is a super hot scenario for people who are already hot for each other.
> 
> But you can't possible know that with a stranger.



Thats fine. But we were hot for each other. Just more of a spontaneous hot. I knew by her body language.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## yeah_right

Tubbalard said:


> Its more comman than you think...A female told me that some guy grabbed her friend and told her youre coming with me and kissed her. The woman loved this and her and the guy made out all night long.
> 
> *Blame it on the a a a a a alcohol. Honestly, this sounds more like a high school house party. If he was that suave, he would have taken her to his home or sprung for a hotel room instead of "making out" all night. *
> 
> I was kind of shocked myself. But she says her friends who are more like co workers are looking for this kind of attention. They all work as upper management in an accounting firm. many women love this and seek it out. Not rapey at all. Can I ask do you live in a small town?
> 
> *You can ask anything you want. It's a free country.*
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If you are for real, then I expect I'll read about you in the news at some point. Good luck with that.


----------



## Tubbalard

Red Sonja said:


> Careful Tubbalard, women like me (and many others) have personal boundaries and the confidence to enforce them ... using mace, sharp elbows, Aikido training, etc.
> 
> :nono:



That maybe true of you. But men like me and Im not super special or anything, have the ability to read women very well and make a bold move with no repercussions. Do you deny this? It seems as if women hate these types of stories where casanovas swoop down on women. But arent so many women looking for prince charming. However fake or real it maybe plenty of women have this disney fantasy. 

Like I said again and will repeat over and over. A man can do just about anything to a woman if she finds the man attractive. mace, knives, glocks and berettas cant stop attraction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tubbalard

yeah_right said:


> If you are for real, then I expect I'll read about you in the news at some point. Good luck with that.




I mean he could have taken her home but I never thought to ask. But this girl was looking for this type of adventure. Not a highchool frat party. I believe the female is around 37. The reason I ask if you live in a small town because you keep implying with jokes and sarcastic responses that these things are not likely. Its like they arent even programmed in your mind for possibility. I would dare say there is some naivete but Im not sure. Just trying to get a perspective of where you are coming from since you believe the only end result is rape, jail, or death. I was in the news for a community event that helps disadvataged people. Maybe I will come to your village and do the same. Then you can read about me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

My husband is a sex god yet would never want to lick a stranger. That's part of his charm...understanding what boundaries and appropriate behaviors are, even while still being dashing, handsome and even c*cky. 

Touching and licking a stranger is creepy no matter how you want to frame it. Ok so the lady was into it in the moment? She's likely creepy too so yes it does happen. Like attracts like.


----------



## john117

Anon Pink said:


> Satin pillow cases help.



Wimp  

Flannel sheets :rofl:


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Touching and licking a stranger is creepy no matter how you want to frame it. Ok so the lady was into it in the moment? She's likely creepy too so yes it does happen. Like attracts like.


So the fact that I can conceive of a situation where I as the lickee wouldn't find this creepy implies what exactly?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Men: please don't do this
Women: please don't accept this


Sorry, but it a world where we are trying to get rid of sexual assault, everyone should try not to do or encourage behavior that is indistinguishable from assault. 

If you know each other and agree, feel free to play any games you like.



Tubbalard said:


> Its more comman than you think...A female told me that some guy grabbed her friend and told her youre coming with me and kissed her. The woman loved this and her and the guy made out all night long. I was kind of shocked myself. But she says her friends who are more like co workers are looking for this kind of attention. They all work as upper management in an accounting firm. many women love this and seek it out. Not rapey at all. Can I ask do you live in a small town?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Touching and licking a stranger is creepy no matter how you want to frame it. Ok so the lady was into it in the moment? She's likely creepy too so yes it does happen. Like attracts like.
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that I can conceive of a situation where I as the lickee wouldn't find this creepy implies what exactly?
Click to expand...

You don't have a point that relates to my point unless tubbalard is the one licking you.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> You don't have a point that relates to my point unless tubbalard is the one licking you.


"Touching and licking a stranger is creepy no matter how you want to frame it."

Was that comment directed at him and at him alone, not to apply to anyone else in any other circumstances? If so, then I misread.


----------



## Tubbalard

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband is a sex god yet would never want to lick a stranger. That's part of his charm...understanding what boundaries and appropriate behaviors are, even while still being dashing, handsome and even c*cky.
> 
> Touching and licking a stranger is creepy no matter how you want to frame it. Ok so the lady was into it in the moment? She's likely creepy too so yes it does happen. Like attracts like.


As I mentioned to yeah right, what's charming to you may not be charming to others and vice versa. You're only considering what's "charming" in your frame of reference because it's probably not your natural experiences. I've seen all sorts of encounters where I'm taken back and the women love it. Touching a stranger is not Creepy, if the person likes it or it's the preferred way of doing things. I'm going to suspect that you kind don't live in a progressive town or have not experienced things that might be a bit bold for you.

Yes. Touching "can" be creepy if its done in the incorrect way or the person feels it's creepy. Creepy is defined by the Creepee, not by the witnesses. Licking, on most scales is creepy but if a guy can pull it off. Guess what? It's not creepy.

The lady was into the licking because she liked me. That's the whole point. She found me attractive. I picked up on the nonverbal cues and made a bold move. I've made other bold moves and sayings and women love it. There is a thin line between creepy and charming and A Man can get away with just about anything if the woman finds the man attractive. Who are we to judge?

Here is a link for Sleeping beauty and the Prince. Whoever made this movie made the prince a creep right? Or did sleeping beauty secretly like it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXbHShUnwxY


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus. It was directed at tubba because he's the only person here insisting that it isn't creepy to lick a stranger.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Cletus. It was directed at tubba because he's the only person here insisting that it isn't creep to lick a stranger.


Maybe I'm the one not being clear.

I wouldn't _always_ find it creepy if I were on the receiving end of it. I bet I'm not alone. It's too far outside of social norms for me to ever do it, even if I were single; likewise, I would never expect anyone else to ever try it on me for the same reasons.

But if it ever actually did happen to me ... ? I had a gay man try to give me a foot rub one day when we were all huddled a little drunk in my apartment in the cold during an ice storm. Somehow he got a gay vibe from me. I didn't think it was creepy, just a little hard to wrap my head around because it was so unexpected. I actually felt bad for him when one of my friends kicked him out for doing it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tubbalard said:


> I'm going to suspect that you kind don't live in a progressive town or have not experienced things that might be a bit bold for you.


You'd be wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus...of course we can all imagine the few scenarios where something like this could happen and things would turn out awesome for both parties...it is called having a fantasy.

Reality is something much different and it is simply NOT good to encourage anyone to touch a stranger.

If somehow that magical moment happens where your fantasy plays out in a safe way and a stranger licks you, then cool. You should be elated! But to encourage it as if this is normal, natural, and to be expected is just silliness.

I'm not sure what your point really is? How often do you think a woman would enjoy this?

Actually gay guys do have more experiences like this, consensually and happily. But gay guys have their own messages/vibe they send out when they are open to this kind of thing. This does not mean they would ALWAYS be open to it.

I've seen a woman trying to touch a hot gay dude's arms or shoulders and the dude freaked OUT about it and complained to the owners of the establishment. The woman was shocked and embarassed and left before the owners talked to her. Gay dudes think straight women trying to touch them are creepy. And they ARE.


----------



## yeah_right

Tubbalard said:


> As I mentioned to yeah right, what's charming to you may not be charming to others and vice versa. You're only considering what's "charming" in your frame of reference because it's probably not your natural experiences. I've seen all sorts of encounters where I'm taken back and the women love it. Touching a stranger is not Creepy, if the person likes it or it's the preferred way of doing things. I'm going to suspect that you kind don't live in a progressive town or have not experienced things that might be a bit bold for you.
> 
> Yes. Touching "can" be creepy if its done in the incorrect way or the person feels it's creepy. Creepy is defined by the Creepee, not by the witnesses. Licking, on most scales is creepy but if a guy can pull it off. Guess what? It's not creepy.
> 
> The lady was into the licking because she liked me. That's the whole point. She found me attractive. I picked up on the nonverbal cues and made a bold move. I've made other bold moves and sayings and women love it. There is a thin line between creepy and charming and A Man can get away with just about anything if the woman finds the man attractive. Who are we to judge?
> 
> Here is a link for Sleeping beauty and the Prince. Whoever made this movie made the prince a creep right? Or did sleeping beauty secretly like it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXbHShUnwxY



In my village, most women would shoot you with a poison dart if you suddenly walked up and licked their neck...just because you took her non-verbal cues. Which would be wrong because she was asking for it, right? 

I'm curious about your writing style, Tubba, is English your native language?

As for Sleeping Beauty, the Disney cartoon was taken from a fairy tale in which she was actually raped -
The REAL Stories Behind These Disney Movies Will Ruin Your Childhood

I think I may have threadjacked here so I'll back out. It's time for me to patch up my hut. LOL.


----------



## Tubbalard

Faithful Wife said:


> You'd be wrong.


See, I'm not so sure. Because these happenstance situations are not even within your mindframe of possibilities even taking place. I've seen much much bolder situations. What I did is merely at the bottom of the totem pole.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not sure what your point really is? How often do you think a woman would enjoy this?


I don't know. I guess you'd have to sample a large number of women to find out. Most would probably find it creepy, but you made a pretty hard-line statement about it being creepy all the time. 

Tubba, if he's to be believed, knows at least one who didn't. I might not, though obviously I'm not a woman, though I'm not sure what that has to do with creepy. So I think your unequivocal rejection of the idea is overblown. 

For anyone wanting to try this, I would say the success rate is probably really, _really_ low, the downside incredibly harsh, so proceed with the same caution you would use in robbing a liquor store. That is to say, just don't do it. But saying you probably should not is not the same as saying that everyone on the planet would find you or the practice creepy.

Words like "creepy" were used not too long ago (and still are, by some) by plenty of folks describing their reaction to the idea of homosexual acts.


----------



## soccermom2three

Tubbalard said:


> See, I'm not so sure. Because these happenstance situations are not even within your mindframe of possibilities even taking place. I've seen much much bolder situations. What I did is merely at the bottom of the totem pole.


Oh dear, you are new here aren't you?


----------



## Tubbalard

yeah_right said:


> In my village, most women would shoot you with a poison dart if you suddenly walked up and licked their neck...just because you took her non-verbal cues. Which would be wrong because she was asking for it, right?
> 
> I'm curious about your writing style, Tubba, is English your native language?
> 
> As for Sleeping Beauty, the Disney cartoon was taken from a fairy tale in which she was actually raped -
> The REAL Stories Behind These Disney Movies Will Ruin Your Childhood
> 
> I think I may have threadjacked here so I'll back out. It's time for me to patch up my hut. LOL.


English is my native language. I'm not so sure, I would find a lot of women in your village my cup of tea. But If one of them happened to find me attractive and give me all sorts of signals voluntarily or not, I'd bet I would have some pretty good success. A dart is only worth the person holding it.

You keep twisting the story around to fit your point of view. You keep reiterating that I suddenly walked up to her and licked her neck, like a cobra snake. Lol. I'm not sure why you keep misinterpreting the story when I have told you this was not the case. I made a comment. She liked it and blushed. I could tell she was into me. That's when I made my move.

Why are you so offended? As far as sleeping beauty. I'm specifically asking if the Prince was a creep based on how he wooed her?


----------



## Tubbalard

Cletus said:


> I don't know. I guess you'd have to sample a large number of women to find out. Most would probably find it creepy, but you made a pretty hard-line statement about it being creepy all the time.
> 
> Tubba, if he's to be believed, knows at least one who didn't. I might not, though obviously I'm not a woman, though I'm not sure what that has to do with creepy. So I think your unequivocal rejection of the idea is overblown.
> 
> For anyone wanting to try this, I would say the success rate is probably really, _really_ low, the downside incredibly harsh, so proceed with the same caution you would use in robbing a liquor store. That is to say, just don't do it. But saying you probably should not is not the same as saying that everyone on the planet would find you or the practice creepy.
> 
> Words like "creepy" were used not too long ago (and still are, by some) by plenty of folks describing their reaction to the idea of homosexual acts.



I agree with what you're saying. 

I had enough info to pull off the move that I did, where I knew it wasn't a creep move but a charming move. I couldn't pull it off with any old girl, nor can I do it with every girl. I read her body language to know I could pull this off. Yes the success rate is low, but it's not as low as some people think. It's not even something I recommend or push for guys to do, but I do believe in making bold moves. I've seen enough evidence that women love confidence and a man that is bold. A man can get away with lot if a woman finds the guy attractive.
There is a thin line between charming and creepy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok I'll just end my interaction on this topic with this: We all get to individually decide what is creepy for ourselves.

Yes, Cletus I made a fairly sweeping statement that a very very very low number of women could find themselves getting licked by a stranger NOT creepy. My bad. Since it is oh so important not to make sweeping generalizations and no one around here ever does that, I better clean up my act. 

So I take it back. We can individually decide what is creepy and therefore, I can only say for myself whether or not something is creepy and not speak for others. There ya go.


----------



## Thundarr

Now I've never licked a girl's neck (or other) before some kind of conversation but there is some context that's being dismissed about Tubbalard's account (plus his name doesn't help). It hinges on the fact that he saw interests first and then was bold. I guess that can be dangerous if someone reads the signals wrong but sometimes it's pretty obvious what the signals are. Now it's been a long time since I was single or young for that matter and I'm not the best at reading people but even I used to make bold moves on occasion if I saw blatant interest. So yea we don't know who's telling truth versus fiction since we're on a forum and all but the story is not all that far fetched. I know it's scary to imagine some guy you think is creepy licking your neck for no reason but that's not the way the account was framed.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> sigh....
> 
> And once again, like a lot of men, you don't seem to put into this scenario that women are not always able to physically defend themselves against men. So you are not making a true comparison.
> 
> What if a man had grabbed your wife's ass instead of a woman grabbing yours? What if the man was 6'8" and knew you would never be able to take him down and therefore he did it knowing you couldn't do a damn thing about it? Still cute? Still smiling?


Ah, good point. The whole rapey thing.

I was meaning the 'being treated like meat' thing, but I see what you're saying.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr, IMO, he's saying a lot of other things that are yucky, too. 

I could go on and on about how easy some men are, and how some of them actually WANT you to separate them from their money. And that would be true. I could talk a lot about how I could use my sexy-ness (and I have plenty of it) to move in and make things happen in numerous ways that would probably make people reading sick because it was so arrogant and out of place to say such things, plus they would be totally untrue about many people but I could say that according to MY experience, it is normal to expect a man to hand me his wallet or some diamonds. But again, my experience is what it is and I have stories that would make most people really dislike me if that is all they knew about me and if I told those stories in such a way that sounded like I was proud of being able to have power over these weak men.

Get it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Ah, good point. The whole rapey thing.
> 
> I was meaning the 'being treated like meat' thing, but I see what you're saying.


Well...I mean, for me...the only reason creepy is creepy is because it is "potentially" rapey. Or molesty. Or non-consenty.

Creepiness to me is when someone is so intent on leering or talking or touching or licking you, that they disregard whether this interaction would be appropriate, wanted, or consensual. And ANYONE who disregards these things, IMO, shouldn't be trusted. 

If there was no such thing as rape (or even unwanted touching), I personally would feel there was no such thing as creepy. Because what is the threat behind creepiness other than the idea that this person may be dangerous and/or may cross OTHER boundaries beyond the ones they are already crossing.

There is another factor here that most good guys probably don't know or realize but...some men, the ultra creepy ones, ENJOY making women feel unsafe and will do it deliberately. This has happened to me several times. These are the guys you KNOW you cannot trust and who MAY actually do you harm or at least are capable of it. I have said that I never felt someone just looking at me was creepy. This type of guy I am describing is different than the just-lookers. But since these guys exist, women can't really relax and just "accept a compliment" sometimes. We don't know what you're going to do next. If you speak to us, we don't know immediately if you are a good guy or if you are suddenly going to turn into an angry deliberately intimidating assh*le if we don't respond the way you wanted us to. 

Women don't like this dynamic, you know. We wish we were free to accept the compliments and the whistles without any expectation from us. If only there really was no such thing as rape or unwanted touching...we could all really just check each other out and appreciate beauty all we wanted.

But reject a creep who has no regard for you and has anger toward women or life or whatever...and you suddenly find yourself running for your car, grabbing your keys, because the guy followed you yelling "hey b*tch I was TALKIN' to you" down the street.

I know men face this type of potential violence from other men, too. I don't think that's cool, either. It is a pity, really.

I love people and want to look at them and have them look at me and for everyone to do it in fun and safety and good positive sexuality!

Sadly, this is not that universe.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Thundarr, IMO, he's saying a lot of other things that are yucky, too.
> I could go on and on about how easy some men are, and how some of them actually WANT you to separate them from their money. And that would be true. I could talk a lot about how I could use my sexy-ness (and I have plenty of it) to move in and make things happen in numerous ways that would probably make people reading sick because it was so arrogant and out of place to say such things, plus they would be totally untrue about many people but I could say that according to MY experience, it is normal to expect a man to hand me his wallet or some diamonds. But again, my experience is what it is and I have stories that would make most people really dislike me if that is all they knew about me and if I told those stories in such a way that sounded like I was proud of being able to have power over these weak men.
> 
> Get it?


He does come across braggy and condescending. I was just noticing that the buttons he's trying to push are being successfully pushed. I should remain quite because I don't buy the bravado either. It's a possible story but not a credible source.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I decided to put it on ignore so I won't get baited or something.


----------



## Broken at 20

Just going to preface this by saying I'm 22, work out, and have sky high testosterone. 
BUT that I know when any kind of looking is off-limits. 



Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body?


Yea


> Were you embarrassed?


Yes, so I mostly hid it. 

But after working in a jewelry store, I found a way around it. 
I just tell the girl (who's chest I'm probably looking at) that I was admiring her pendant/necklace, and then I'll ask questions to show I am genuinely interested in it. Like metal used, stones in it, style, etc. 
Keeps me out of trouble. 
And yes, I make sure they are wearing one before I do something stupid like this. 


> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable?


I just find it safer to assume that 100% of women are uncomfortable with me staring at them under 99% of situations. 
And yes, I do it anyway. Because I am a testosterone drunk man. 


> Have you ever been called out for looking?


Refer to above.


> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?


Kinda difficult to...place a standard on. 

I guess, noticing would be like a quick 5 second, head to toes back up to head look. And meeting her eyes the rest of the night. 
Looking would be stealing glances when the opportunity arises, but not being overly...weird about it. 
And leering would just be no shame staring.


----------



## QuietSoul

I'm jumping on late I'm the piece here...

I am facing an issue at the moment with my leering father in law (posted in Ladies Lounge).

I will be arrogant for a moment and say that I have a great body. So yes, I get looks here and there generally, which is a fact of life that I accept, but this is very different from leering. 

Leering is my father in law staring at my breasts from across the dinner table. They weren't hanging out but even if they were, they aren't his dinner. I kept having to draw my cardigan across my neck or putting my arm across that area like a weirdo. 

Leering is going the step further than a look/glance. Women can feel it when a man is seeing them naked or imaging you in some sexual way or situation. 

It ****ing pisses me off and makes me feel disgusting


----------



## QuietSoul

Re the OP with going braless... Dunno, it's a tricky one. It's generally not the done thing. Guys will be more likely to look, just saying. It doesn't give them a right to leer though.

At night at home, I go braless, but if someone is sysyomg with us (like my father in law right now), I won't wear a see through t shirt or tight top for eg, but I will be modest by wearing a few layers I including a loose cardy over the top. So I can still wind down and relax at night, without having FIL examine the more specific contours of my breasts and nipples. 

But what is it with some guys assuming you're aroused if you high beam? This is why all my bras have a little padding.


----------



## Broken at 20

QuietSoul said:


> I'm jumping on late I'm the piece here...
> 
> I am facing an issue at the moment with my leering father in law (posted in Ladies Lounge).
> 
> I will be arrogant for a moment and say that I have a great body. So yes, I get looks here and there generally, which is a fact of life that I accept, but this is very different from leering.
> 
> Leering is my father in law staring at my breasts from across the dinner table. They weren't hanging out but even if they were, they aren't his dinner. I kept having to draw my cardigan across my neck or putting my arm across that area like a weirdo.
> 
> Leering is going the step further than a look/glance. Women can feel it when a man is seeing them naked or imaging you in some sexual way or situation.
> 
> It ****ing pisses me off and makes me feel disgusting


Well, first, I would ask what you're wearing at a family dinner. Because family dinner is not really the time for low-cut tops. IF you're wearing those, or something similar. 

And I would also say family dinner is one of those times that it is NEVER ok to check out a woman. Like, you should always be making eye contact. 
Because leering then is just...like...dude. Problems. A lot of them...


----------



## QuietSoul

I was wearing a long dress, not V neck and I wouldn't say low cut, but if I lean forward or moved a certain way and you're staring, you MIGHT see a bit of something. It was hardly inappropriate for the occasion of an informal family dinner. 

Even so, it's his choice to gawk like it's the last day on earth, and his choice to engage in thoughts


----------



## Red Sonja

Tubbalard said:


> That maybe true of you. But men like me and Im not super special or anything, have the ability to read women very well and make a bold move with no repercussions. Do you deny this? It seems as if women hate these types of stories where casanovas swoop down on women. But arent so many women looking for prince charming. However fake or real it maybe plenty of women have this disney fantasy.


I am not denying your experience at all. What I am saying is that the scenario you previously described does not work on mature/quality women. It’s the attitude of the high school/college crowds. You sound very young and/or very inexperienced or perhaps you just target very young women. In any case, this is a _marriage _forum; perhaps you belong on a PUA forum.



Tubbalard said:


> A man can do just about anything to a woman if she finds the man attractive.


Assuming we are still talking about stranger-to-stranger; if you truly believe this then you have problems that law enforcement will eventually be called upon to help you with. It’s only a matter of time.


----------



## Thundarr

QuietSoul said:


> I was wearing a long dress, not V neck and I wouldn't say low cut, but if I lean forward or moved a certain way and you're staring, you MIGHT see a bit of something. It was hardly inappropriate for the occasion of an informal family dinner.
> 
> Even so, it's his choice to gawk like it's the last day on earth, and his choice to engage in thoughts


The issue I take with him leering at you is that you're his son's wife. There are boundaries and leering at DIL is crossing one. Now it's possible that he's in such a habit that he does it without always realizing. If so then you could call him out and it will stop.


----------



## ocotillo

Tubbalard said:


> I have been "caught" many times. It usually resorts to women liking it in uncomfortable way. Sometimes, they wave,smile and say Hello. A few times Ive been in a staring match and some with their boyfriends standing there...


I've seen this sort of social interaction in Europe and maybe it's normative there (?) I don't know.

I do know that there are plenty of areas in the Southern and Western U.S. where this is a pointed challenge and it doesn't really matter how big or strong your are. Virtually everyone has an equalizer of some sort behind the seat of their truck.


----------



## Thundarr

ocotillo said:


> I've seen this sort of social interaction in Europe and maybe it's normative there (?) I don't know.
> 
> I do know that there are plenty of areas in the Southern and Western U.S. where this is a pointed challenge and it doesn't really matter how big or strong your are. Virtually everyone has an equalizer of some sort behind the seat of their truck.


I agree. It's dangerous because some guys are violent and jealous but it's also a sh!tty way to treat people. For me humiliating some guy is too high a price for me to get an ego boost or a piece of tail (sorry for the derogatory term but that's what guys doing this consider it). The bigger problem is if the woman openly flirts back in front of her guy. It would be a lose-lose proposition because if a women responded to my flirtation with her guy right there then just looking at her after that would turn my stomach. And looking in the mirror would be ugly as well.


----------



## thummper

Looking at a beautiful woman (and sometimes one that's not so beautiful but has gorgeous, uh, accoutrements) is a cheap and satisfying recreational sport.  Like the old song says, "Buddy, ya can't go to jail for what you're thinkin'!"


----------



## john117

I was at the pharmacy today and as the shift changed in gallops this gorgeous late 30's woman out of Pilates class with tights and cleavage the size of the Grand Canyon.... Turns out she was the pharmacist. As fate would have it there was an issue with my prescription and we spent ten minutes trying to unravel the mystery.

My cataract appears cured for now :rofl:


----------



## Tubbalard

Red Sonja said:


> I am not denying your experience at all. What I am saying is that the scenario you previously described does not work on mature/quality women. It’s the attitude of the high school/college crowds. You sound very young and/or very inexperienced or perhaps you just target very young women. In any case, this is a _marriage _forum; perhaps you belong on a PUA forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming we are still talking about stranger-to-stranger; if you truly believe this then you have problems that law enforcement will eventually be called upon to help you with. It’s only a matter of time.


I don't know man, I get the feeling you lived a sheltered lifestyle for thinking this scenario can only happen to immature young pups. Unexperienced men or little boys can't pull it off. It takes some life experiences to understand women and attraction. I'm not so sure why you believe this can only happen to immature or women that don't have any quality about them? Education, age, intellect can't stop attraction or a man's charm, depending on who that man is. What I did was nothing special. These type of situations happen to mature/quality women and they happen more frequently than you think. Maybe you haven't seen enough to be comfortable with it and that's ok. That's why I understand the lashing out and little insult quips on the nature of the woman, because some people aren't privy to this to know that these things can happen, and it goes against everything in how they've been socially conditioned.



I don't target young college or immature woman. Don't need to or have to. The woman in the scenario had a Masters. She looked smart, carried herself appropriately, and I acted on it. I just had the tools to gain her favor.

Also I'm not understanding why you believe my interaction with strangers would lead to imprisonment? Sounds like you're hoping it would be that way, because of a chord it struck with you. That's wishful thinking but it's not thinking in reality. I just believe that these situations are so far outside your frame of reference that's it's hard for you to understand or comprehend it happening, therefore it doesn't sit well with you, so you have a latent need for punishment via law enforcement. You can't lock up what someone likes and wants. Attraction is powerful.

Also I think you took my quote of ( "A man can do just about anything to a woman if she finds the man attractive"), out of context to your fit your punishment narrative. It was meant to be in the realm of integrity without having ill will. Not to "do" something with evil intent. I'm a gentleman. My interactions with women are almost always positive.


----------



## Tubbalard

ocotillo said:


> I've seen this sort of social interaction in Europe and maybe it's normative there (?) I don't know.
> 
> I do know that there are plenty of areas in the Southern and Western U.S. where this is a pointed challenge and it doesn't really matter how big or strong your are. Virtually everyone has an equalizer of some sort behind the seat of their truck.


That's a point worth mentioning and I need to clarify. When I say "their boyfriend standing right there", It's not as if their boyfriend is looking at me while the lady is looking at me in unison. It's just a benign situation where I see a woman, she looks and I look and she doesn't stop, so I'm not going to stop. She either laughs sheepishly or moves on, but nothing to the detriment of .38 special standoff. Lol. I don't believe in breaking eye contact when a woman stares at me. It comes across as weak and timid.( And and I've heard women say that) I've lived in the south where there is a threat of the great equalizer. (as all parts of the U.S. are) In my experience, people from the southern part of the U.S. engage in eye contact more than the average U.S. citizen. I'm guessing because people are a little more friendly, whereas from northern, eastern, western or big metropolis areas people are not as friendly or rather not as hospitable.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

After reading through most of the thread the attitudes that I thought were going to be revealed were.

Nearly all men understand the difference between looking and crossing a social boundary.

Some men do not and we have all met them as women or men. Women have met them when they try to shoot down their gaze only to have an intensified reaction back and guys have been met with challenging actions to show if they can defend their girl. 

I can see how this thread would be annoying for a man to see as he does not want to get stereotyped as a caveman, but I think this thread serves as a good way to counter that stereotype.

I did see waaay back early in the thread one post from one poster, some annoyance about women dressing up nice but being annoying because they don't want the attention. I see the majority of women have said they don't mind looks but do mind boundary crossing. The thing is, what is appropriate or not changes in cultural contexts, and I don't know personally the morality of every person I meet. I tend to be on the cautious side. If I feel a strange man is giving me too much attention, my guard will be up because I don't know what his boundaries are. I assume 99% of the people I meet have healthy boundaries with other strangers but that 1% of people do not. I do not know if that specific man giving me too much attention is part of that 1%. 

Also I like to get dressed up nice for my fiance when we go out. It makes whatever we are doing more special, and shows that I care about him enough to do that. Some may look at my outfit and think, "She's asking for attention". Yes I am. But from my one special man. 

TBH, I think in the USA, the "leering" and such behaviors is very minimal. Other countries are very different. My sister lived in India and even though she wore very modest clothing, spoke Hindi and knew appropriate behaviors, she was branded as being ****tier because of her skin color. So I really think culture plays a huge part in deciding if how someone presents themselves is "asking for attention or not".


----------



## Deejo

QuietSoul said:


> I was wearing a long dress, not V neck and I wouldn't say low cut, but if I lean forward or moved a certain way and you're staring, you MIGHT see a bit of something. It was hardly inappropriate for the occasion of an informal family dinner.
> 
> Even so, it's his choice to gawk like it's the last day on earth, and his choice to engage in thoughts


This is where I often recommend going what I like to call, 'thermonuclear'.

Next time you know he's doing it, push your tits together and ask him if he'd like to pour some gravy on them.

It's the equivalent of bullying. And until you step up and shut a bully up, they are going to continue to do it.

So ... I advocate overkill.

If someone has the audacity to say they are offended or what you said is inappropriate, then the response is also obvious.

"But you think it's appropriate for my FIL to stare at my boobs? Or it's just not appropriate to point it out?"

90% of the time, those people that think they've got something on you slither into the shadows when you put the spotlight on them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...I wish it were that easy. That is sort of like telling a kid to just stand up to the bully. You know that some bullies are going to beat the crap out of that kid and now he's emotionally damaged even MORE. Most women (yes I'll speak for most of us here) have been in this situation (including inappropriate stuff like family time) and have tried various ways to "break the spell" of the male gaze...have at different times tried to gently tell a male friend or whoever that you are on to him, or whatever...and it just never goes well. 

Example: I have an elderly colleague who is beloved in every way...except that we all know he is a perv and will try to do and say pervy things if given the chance. We don't like to let him around the young female employees as we know what he is like.

Yet in 20 years, no one has been able to get him to understand YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT. He is not ignorant, he is just sooooo old school and essentially harmless that he refuses to be shut down.

And no matter what anyone from the outside might say, there is just NO easy way of taking down someone who is standing in a certain position relative to you.

This pull for SOME men to gaze or grope like this is _stronger_ than their desire to not offend someone. This is just a fact. 

I wish it were as easy as you suggest.

Myself, the only time I have successfully been completely protected from this type of thing is when I am in the company of my H and he is very much watching all the men around me and he will stand in front of my body and give guys a dirty look about it. Seriously, no matter how odd that may sound to a gentleman (like you Deejo) who does care about people's feelings and has normal empathy for others, many guys are not like you. They won't stop just because *I* give them a dirty look, they will only stop when my husband does.

And I'm not saying women are "better", this is just one specific area where there is some old leftover crap we're all putting up with from generations and centuries of when things were different.

I'm sure it will keep changing for the better as the oldest of them die off, and the younger ones get better at understanding why stuff like this isn't nice. ("Like this" referring to situations when a man is being inappropriate and there is no way for the woman to make him stop on her own voice).


----------



## ocotillo

Tubbalard said:


> When I say "their boyfriend standing right there", It's not as if their boyfriend is looking at me while the lady is looking at me in unison. It's just a benign situation where I see a woman, she looks and I look and she doesn't stop, so I'm not going to stop.


Maybe my "Ruralness" is showing again. Or maybe you don't frequent the "*******" establishments that I do. You're still describing a volatile situation that's probably not a good idea to try alone


----------



## QuietSoul

Thundarr said:


> QuietSoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wearing a long dress, not V neck and I wouldn't say low cut, but if I lean forward or moved a certain way and you're staring, you MIGHT see a bit of something. It was hardly inappropriate for the occasion of an informal family dinner.
> 
> Even so, it's his choice to gawk like it's the last day on earth, and his choice to engage in thoughts
> 
> 
> 
> The issue I take with him leering at you is that you're his son's wife. There are boundaries and leering at DIL is crossing one. Now it's possible that he's in such a habit that he does it without always realizing. If so then you could call him out and it will stop.
Click to expand...

OK, but what if it was say my male boss? Coming over to my desk and talking to me standing up whilst staring down my top? I am not in this situation currently but had a boss similar to this.

Or what if it's my neighbor who I don't think has ever looked me in the eye because he is so consumed staring at my body if I say hi or if going about my normal business? This is a past situation, and I did call him out after a few times and he hated me forever and made a point of leering whenever he noticed I was outside, coming out on his balcony to make a point of intimidating me in this way.

Regardless of who it is, do I not have a right to not be part of some sickos mental porn movie just for going about my normal business? 

Guys will look, that's a fact of life. But leering is a different thing again


----------



## QuietSoul

Deejo said:


> QuietSoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wearing a long dress, not V neck and I wouldn't say low cut, but if I lean forward or moved a certain way and you're staring, you MIGHT see a bit of something. It was hardly inappropriate for the occasion of an informal family dinner.
> 
> Even so, it's his choice to gawk like it's the last day on earth, and his choice to engage in thoughts
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I often recommend going what I like to call, 'thermonuclear'.
> 
> Next time you know he's doing it, push your tits together and ask him if he'd like to pour some gravy on them.
> 
> It's the equivalent of bullying. And until you step up and shut a bully up, they are going to continue to do it.
> 
> So ... I advocate overkill.
> 
> If someone has the audacity to say they are offended or what you said is inappropriate, then the response is also obvious.
> 
> "But you think it's appropriate for my FIL to stare at my boobs? Or it's just not appropriate to point it out?"
> 
> 90% of the time, those people that think they've got something on you slither into the shadows when you put the spotlight on them.
Click to expand...

Deejo, believe me, I have fantasized about calling him out lime this many times. At the moment I plan to do it when it's just us there so my H doesn't feel conflicted. His dad is dying and can be manipulative and while he SHOULD stick up for me in a situation like this, I know him well enough to know he won't. I'm kind of on my own here.

I feel I can call him out but I will need to picky moment


----------



## ET1SSJonota

QuietSoul said:


> ...
> Regardless of who it is, *do I not have a right to not be part of some sickos mental porn movie* just for going about my normal business?
> 
> Guys will look, that's a fact of life. But leering is a different thing again


As sad as it is, NO YOU DO NOT have such a right. You cannot control how other people think about you. You have every right to ignore that fact, and ignore that person, and they have NO right to touch you. But you cannot control their thoughts. 

This is the basic attitude that so many men balk at. The "thought police". 

But let's be clear: it isn't TRULY the mental porno issue that bothers you. It is the rudely making it obvious that this is what he is doing. Which is just exactly what it sounds like: tremendously rude, and gross - but not "illegal" and not violating any of your "rights".


----------



## QuietSoul

I had intended the term "right" more loosely, but I see where you are coming from. Now this presents and interesting discussion. Does a man then have a right to leer and to sexualize a woman against her wishes?


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Well when we say men's biology I think we have to keep in mind that women are just as visual actually. It is biological for women as well. However, the biggest difference is that women have been shown to be really bad at knowing when they are aroused or not. For men they know when they are aroused much easier because their junk is on the inside not the outside. There is also suggestion that women are taught to downplay arousal, and men to play it up.

I'm not to big of a fan of biology arguments. That does not mean that I think biology does not make us attracted to one another. But many times I feel that the biological parts are simplified in such a way to argue for certain behaviors. All behaviors are part biology and part culture, learned, experimented, found. 

That's not to say either way on this. I already laid out my opinions, I just become such a nit-picker with this.


----------



## jaquen

Human beings look at human beings. It's always been the case, always will be the case. The length of time will vary, as will the intention behind the look. And the most attractive among us,_ regardless of sex_, will collect the lions share of glances, stares, glares and yes, even leers. It's the burden of beauty. 

I believe the answer lies somewhere in the land of get the hell over it. Plenty of people aren't comfortable being looked or leered at, but what're you going to do? As long as you're not threatened, groped or touched there's not recourse of action for having other human beings look at you. What someone chooses to gaze upon is literally none of your business and the sooner you get that, the sooner you can move on.

Our personal boundaries and levels of discomfort with this stuff doesn't only shift from person to person, it shifts within person to person. For many people the level of discomfort changes several times even throughout a given day, depending on who's doing the looking, or how we feel about ourselves in a given moment. 

Obviously some people just go overboard into an uncomfortable territory, but on the whole I think people just are wired to look at other people, for so, so many different reasons. Spending your life assuming it's the most nefarious, or sexually charged, reason seems an exhausting exercise just not worthy of the time and effort it takes to be constantly offended.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

jaquen said:


> Human beings look at human beings. It's always been the case, always will be the case. The length of time will vary, as will the intention behind the look. And the most attractive among us,_ regardless of sex_, will collect the lions share of glances, stares, glares and yes, even leers. It's the burden of beauty.
> 
> I believe the answer lies somewhere in the land of get the hell over it. Plenty of people aren't comfortable being looked or leered at, but what're you going to do? As long as you're not threatened, groped or touched there's not recourse of action for having other human beings look at you. What someone chooses to gaze upon is literally none of your business and the sooner you get that, the sooner you can move on.
> 
> Our personal boundaries and levels of discomfort with this stuff doesn't only shift from person to person, it shifts within person to person. For many people the level of discomfort changes several times even throughout a given day, depending on who's doing the looking, or how we feel about ourselves in a given moment.
> 
> Obviously some people just go overboard into an uncomfortable territory, but on the whole I think people just are wired to look at other people, for so, so many different reasons. Spending your life assuming it's the most nefarious, or sexually charged, reason seems an exhausting exercise just not worthy of the time and effort it takes to be constantly offended.


I agree with what you are saying

And don't.

Who determines if I am being offended too much? 

For myself, I carry on my life in much the way you have described. I accept is as being natural and I don't force others to stop looking.

But I also don't force people to feel comfortable with something they don't feel comfortable with either. I am not saying you are saying that at all actually. 

But I am using what you wrote as a jump-off to point out that demanding someone stop doing something because it offends you and demanding someone stop feeling something about what you are doing are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## jaquen

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I agree with what you are saying
> 
> And don't.
> 
> Who determines if I am being offended too much?
> 
> For myself, I carry on my life in much the way you have described. I accept is as being natural and I don't force others to stop looking.
> 
> But I also don't force people to feel comfortable with something they don't feel comfortable with either. I am not saying you are saying that at all actually.
> 
> But I am using what you wrote as a jump-off to point out that demanding someone stop doing something because it offends you and demanding someone stop feeling something about what you are doing are two sides of the same coin.


Exactly.

One of the most common pieces of advice passed around here is that you ultimately cannot change your spouse. If we don't even have the power to change the people in most intimate relationship with us, how much less so random folks on the street?

We have the right to be as offended and uncomfortable as we like.

And other people have the right to look at whatever they choose, including our bodies, for whatever reason they like.

Seems that the best way to go about this is to change one's own perspective if you find yourself in a constant state of discomfort and offense over what other people chose to look at. Because guess who ends up being on the losing end of that game? You. 

I personally think we all could stand to reinforce ourselves with thicker skins. Is that mandatory? Of course not. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen said:


> We have the right to be as offended and uncomfortable as we like.


Then why tell them to "get the hell over it"?

Why not have some compassion for them even if they can't do anything about how someone else thinks of them or looks at them?

I have compassion for men who stare because I do it myself.

I also have compassion for people who feel uncomfortable because I can understand why they do.

Why the need to tell either side to "get the hell over it"?


----------



## Thundarr

QuietSoul said:


> OK, but what if it was say my male boss? Coming over to my desk and talking to me standing up whilst staring down my top? I am not in this situation currently but had a boss similar to this.
> 
> Or what if it's my neighbor who I don't think has ever looked me in the eye because he is so consumed staring at my body if I say hi or if going about my normal business? This is a past situation, and I did call him out after a few times and he hated me forever and made a point of leering whenever he noticed I was outside, coming out on his balcony to make a point of intimidating me in this way.
> 
> Regardless of who it is, do I not have a right to not be part of some sickos mental porn movie just for going about my normal business?
> 
> Guys will look, that's a fact of life. But leering is a different thing again


We're comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges but there's a theme that makes them all rotten. These are the places and situations where you're supposed to feel the safest. Friends, family, and co workers are supposed to have your back.

Your original comment about your FIL is sad to me. You and your husband are being kind and responsible but your rewarded by feeling uncomfortable in your own home. That's not an acceptable consequence IMO. Also the issue with your neighbor likely makes it more difficult to confront your FIL because that confrontation caused animosity before and left you feeling bullied in your own yard. Try not to let your neighbor's childish bullying control how you handle this with your FIL though. Just be tactful and blunt and assume it's possible that he hasn't understood how uncomfortable he's been making you. I don't know your neighbor but I know people like him. He handled being called out for leering like a child would and then took every opportunity afterwards to do the equivalent of _"I'm not touching youuuu"_. If he's married or has kids then I feel bad for his family because they have to put up with crap from his way of thinking.

Employment is somewhere you should feel safe and especially safe from your boss. That's why harassment laws exists and most companies try to be tough on bosses having any relationship with their subordinates. But sometimes harassment still happens.

So to recap.
- FIL leering is disrespectful IMO on many levels. To you, to his son, and to himself. Beyond that though, anyone who you extend a hand to and allow to live in your home should never make you feel uncomfortable.
- Your boss was unprofessional and didn't deserve to have a position of authority.
- Your neighbor was just a jacka33. What else is there to say? I mean him leering is one thing but you said "hey dude, you make me uncomfortable" and that should have ended that. Him then trying to intimidate you afterwards is not gender specific. It's an ugly human trait than men and women alike have.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...I wish it were that easy. That is sort of like telling a kid to just stand up to the bully. You know that some bullies are going to beat the crap out of that kid and now he's emotionally damaged even MORE. Most women (yes I'll speak for most of us here) have been in this situation (including inappropriate stuff like family time) and have tried various ways to "break the spell" of the male gaze...have at different times tried to gently tell a male friend or whoever that you are on to him, or whatever...and it just never goes well.


Yes, this. Leering is not about "finding someone attractive" or "noticing beauty". It is a power play pure and simple. It *is* a bully act where the leerer gets off on making the other person uncomfortable.

Old-school pervs like your colleague are the easiest to handle because they really don't mean harm. They just get off on making women blush, giggle, adjust their clothing, whatever. But other leerers' primary goal is to exercise their buried resentment and make women squirm.

This is why you see so much push back about "thought police" and whatnot. It's a way of reinforcing the power play "ha ha, I can make you as uncomfortable as I please, and there is nothing you can do about it! You can't control my mind."

One thing women can do to protect themselves is to refuse to play along. I had a boss once who was like your colleague. The first words out of his mouth to me when I was hired were "oh, so you're my new sex slave." I shut him down that very first day simply by looking him in the eye, not blushing, not giggling, not flinching. Just a straightforward "no.". After that he never bothered me again, and told people I was "tough as nails". He continued playing his little games with other women in the department, though, and was well known for his sexual harassing ways. 

But not playing along will only go so far, and with certain sorts of leerers. Others have a whole lot more to prove and aren't as easily managed.


----------



## always_alone

QuietSoul said:


> I had intended the term "right" more loosely, but I see where you are coming from. Now this presents and interesting discussion. Does a man then have a right to leer and to sexualize a woman against her wishes?


"Right" isn't the best word here, IMHO. When it comes to actual rights, we, universally, are supposed to have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

Leering and sexualizing aren't actual rights, and are arguably a kind of violation of human rights. But because it all happens in the head, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Just like we don't actually have a right to imagine gouging out those obnoxious eyeballs, but since it's all in our heads, no one can stop it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always, I wish I could say our old colleague wasn't dangerous, but I believe he is. He has far too much power to not be dangerous. He does more than look. He actually isn't trying to make women uncomfortable, he's trying to make them allow his weird psuedo-advances. He wishes they were down for it instead of being uncomfortable, in other words.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> These are the places and situations where you're supposed to feel the safest. Friends, family, and co workers are supposed to have your back.


It is a shame that we can't expect to feel safe in general, everywhere. And I mean that about both men and women.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Always, I wish I could say our old colleague wasn't dangerous, but I believe he is. He has far too much power to not be dangerous. He does more than look. He actually isn't trying to make women uncomfortable, he's trying to make them allow his weird psuedo-advances. He wishes they were down for it instead of being uncomfortable, in other words.


Ah, okay, this does sound more dangerous than most of the old-school perviness I've had to deal with, and not so easily managed.

But definitely a power play, where he is master and she is just (supposed to be) a thing to be manipulated.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> "Right" isn't the best word here, IMHO. When it comes to actual rights, we, universally, are supposed to have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
> 
> Leering and sexualizing aren't actual rights, and are arguably a kind of violation of human rights. But because it all happens in the head, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
> 
> Just like we don't actually have a right to imagine gouging out those obnoxious eyeballs, but since it's all in our heads, no one can stop it.


You're getting carried away with rights. Let's remember that noticing, looking, and leering are grey areas of ambiguity. Anyone has a right to think whatever they choose. Actions are where rights come into play. In other words you 100% do have a right to want to gouge our some one's eye balls for staring but you do not have a right to actually do it.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> It is a shame that we can't expect to feel safe in general, everywhere. And I mean that about both men and women.


Yes but aren't you talking about the extremes that are offensive rather than some normal guy (that's most of us) who checks you out and then is back to whatever he was doing? Most guys don't intentionally get caught looking because we aren't intending to offend or be disrespectful in the first place. So really the type of leering you and most of the women are angry about (I think) are men who stare and don't care if they offend or not or the ones who do it specifically to offend and prove they can. I say you should be angry at those guys all day long but don't box the majority of men with them is all. We're really not defending those guys.

I know one of the things I learned years back when my first marriage ended was that I only had control of myself. Caring what someone else thinks when they look at me just isn't in my control so I don't spend much effort wondering about it.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> You're getting carried away with rights. Let's remember that noticing, looking, and leering are grey areas of ambiguity. Anyone has a right to think whatever they choose. Actions are where rights come into play. In other words you 100% do have a right to want to gouge our some one's eye balls for staring but you do not have a right to actually do it.


Okay, you're right. I looked it up and article 18 does clearly outline freedom of thought as a fundamental human right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

We can all be as much of an a$$hole as we want, as long as we're just thinking it.


----------



## thumbper

Faithful wife said: *This type of guy I am describing is different than the just-lookers. But since these guys exist, women can't really relax and just "accept a compliment" sometimes. We don't know what you're going to do next. If you speak to us, we don't know immediately if you are a good guy or if you are suddenly going to turn into an angry deliberately intimidating assh*le if we don't respond the way you wanted us to. 

Women don't like this dynamic, you know. We wish we were free to accept the compliments and the whistles without any expectation from us. If only there really was no such thing as rape or unwanted touching...we could all really just check each other out and appreciate beauty all we wanted.

But reject a creep who has no regard for you and has anger toward women or life or whatever...and you suddenly find yourself running for your car, grabbing your keys, because the guy followed you yelling "hey b*tch I was TALKIN' to you" down the street.*

I am OK with and see the fun in mutual exchange of looks, compliments and light flirting. Especially among the 20+ years married set; a little recognition and appreciation that says "you still got it" is good to hear, especially if coming from an otherwise dull or mundane relationship. 

The OP stated that women dress to impress women and also, later, said they dress to impress men. What concerns me is, and a situation I am familiar with first hand, dressing and behaving to impress men, while out for the night or away on a girl's weekend. With a goal of not paying for a single drink all night.....the married ladys, and long time friends, are not there dressed to impress women. For the most part, the (typically married) men are happy to pay for a little conversation, smiles, flirts, dancing and possibly a gentlemanly kiss on the cheek at the end of the night, no harm, no foul. Throughout the night, thoughts of a bj in the parkinglot were hopeful at best but reality, and past experience, controlled their expectations and temper.

My fear for them, as Faithful wife states above, is that you just do not know who you are talking to. Ted Bundy was mentioned earlier and what a gentleman he was. On one occasion I am familiar with, they were followed to the parking lot and surprised by one of the "gentleman" insisting he would drive one of them home. All ended well this time...... but what about the next? 

Creepy, leering behavior should be shut down immediately, if it is unwanted, as this is a potential sign of trouble to come.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr, I'm just saying that the part I quoted that you wrote had an implication built into it that we can't expect to feel safe everywhere, and I was just commenting that this is sad.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> Okay, you're right. I looked it up and article 18 does clearly outline freedom of thought as a fundamental human right.
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> *We can all be as much of an a$$hole as we want, as long as we're just thinking it.*


Yes people have the right to be a$$es in thought. At least we can take solace that there are often consequences. Life usually isn't working out very well for a$$es that I've seen.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Thundarr, I'm just saying that the part I quoted that you wrote had an implication built into it that we can't expect to feel safe everywhere, and I was just commenting that this is sad.


I agree that people should feel safe everywhere. I just think it's vastly more extreme when someone feels unsafe or disrespected at home because these are people we know and therefore there's less room for miscommunication and misunderstanding. 

I can say for a fact that before reading threads like this at TAM, I didn't realize how many women feel unsafe in public during the middle of the day. I still just have trust what I read from you ladies because otherwise it wouldn't compute to me. It's because we all project and I've never felt scared in public.


----------



## Faithful Wife

thumbper...I think it is cute that you are showing some mate guarding here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> I can say for a fact that before reading threads like this at TAM, I didn't realize how many women feel unsafe in public during the middle of the day. I still just have trust what I read from you ladies because otherwise it wouldn't compute to me. It's because we all project and I've never felt scared in public.


I enjoy learning things that help me think in broader terms than my own perspective, too. Especially things about the rights of others that I may not have realized was happening right in front of me or that I may have even been doing myself. I'm not trying to bend over backwards not to offend anyone...obviously I offend many right here.  But I feel bad if I know I made someone feel bad. That's all there is to it. I will always do my best to not do something that makes someone else feel bad if I know better. So I try to know better in all ways I can find.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Just want to say Thundarr that you have been having some very poignant observations and that you have summed up my thoughts about the subject in a better way than I could.


----------



## Thundarr

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> Just want to say Thundarr that you have been having some very poignant observations and that you have summed up my thoughts about the subject in a better way than I could.


Thank you Maria. I have a not so serious story about being leered at by the way. My wife and I stopped at a convenience store some years ago and I went in to get snacks while she waited in the car. When I got back to the car she had a devious smirk on her face so I knew I was in trouble. Apparently as I was walking out of the door the cashier (a dude) tippi toed over the merchandise shelf to check out my butt. She thought that was hilarious and still picks at me on occasion about it .


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> Okay, you're right. I looked it up and article 18 does clearly outline freedom of thought as a fundamental human right.
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> 
> We can all be as much of an a$$hole as we want, as long as we're just thinking it.


Not to mention article 12, the right to not be subjected to attacks on our personal honor or reputation. 

And article 19, perhaps more applicable, in freedom of expression. So no, they can be an a$$hole AND express it. 

This is some of the counters to the line of thinking that gets so many upset at you AA. You're concerned at the smallest fraction of guys that actual have some malicious intent, and yet have directly impugned several on this board (see ART 12) who by and large are speaking for the majority. Implied therein is your concerns are legitimate, but others can take a hike. 

Perhaps instead of the “take a hike” or “get over it” lines, you should suggest making use of article 20, and freely UNassociate with the person who is bothering you.

Now let’s consider the large numbers of men who are becoming more reclusive and unwilling to engage, because they fear the aforementioned “thought police” and being labelled a perv for daring to express interest in a beautiful woman who would rather not be looked at by a lesser specimen? 

Our society has been going downhill for a long time. I’m curious to what some of the drivers (I’m sure there are several) of much of the decline has been, but I note one interesting facet. “Chivalry” dying – the lack of interest on the part of fellow strangers in protecting one another. When someone is being beaten, or groped, or mistreated in some way, it seems the new cultural response is to whip out a camera and start recording. 

Whereas someone like me would want to step in and do something about the situation, we now must fear what the authorities would do if we “interfered”. Or worse, in the case of a “damsel in distress”, the ire of said damsel afterwards for some “chauvinist male” daring to suggest she needed assistance (I have had this happen to me personally).


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why tell them to "get the hell over it"?


I already answered this question in the very same post you quoted.

"Seems that the best way to go about this is to change one's own perspective if you find yourself in a constant state of discomfort and offense over what other people chose to look at. Because guess who ends up being on the losing end of that game? You."

My suggestion is that, while any person has the right to exist in constant state of upsetness over people looking at them, for their own good it's best to change their perspective and adopt a "get the hell over it" mentality. Seems ultimately more beneficial than stewing in discomfort and bitterness all day long over what other people's thoughts are. It's just my view and way of looking at it, a mere suggestion. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Why not have some compassion for them even if they can't do anything about how someone else thinks of them or looks at them?


This is going to sound uber insensitive, but oh well. In the scheme of things compassion worthy, somebody being twisted up in knots because other human beings glance their way isn't very high on my list. 

I save my compassion for people who are actually being harassed and sexually assaulted.



Faithful Wife said:


> I have compassion for men who stare because I do it myself.


It sounds like you have compassion enough for us both.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen said:


> This is going to sound uber insensitive, but oh well. In the scheme of things compassion worthy, *somebody being twisted up in knots because other human beings glance their way* isn't very high on my list.
> 
> I save my compassion for *people who are actually being harassed and sexually assaulted*.


Sometimes it is the same person.

Of all my female friends and acquaintances, the ones who are the most sensitive to this subject are the ones who have really bad things in their past. I don't know any females like myself who haven't had bad things happen who are "twisted up in knots" about it.

So if someone is uber sensitive about it, I figure they have a reason to be instead of just shooting them down. I don't know or talk to people who just want to get upset about things that don't actually upset them for real reasons. I don't see people doing that here, either.

I also don't see the reason for minimizing behavior like "for glancing their way". Not one person on this thread or anywhere else has said they were offended by anyone "glancing their way".


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I also don't see the reason for minimizing behavior like "for glancing their way". Not one person on this thread or anywhere else has said they were offended by anyone "glancing their way".


:iagree:

OP posts specifically about leering, about crossing boundaries and making another feel uncomfortable. This isn't just glancing in someone's direction. 

And it seems incredibly unfair to assume that the one who is uncomfortable is automatically the one at fault.


----------



## always_alone

ET1SSJonota said:


> Not to mention article 12, the right to not be subjected to attacks on our personal honor or reputation.
> 
> And article 19, perhaps more applicable, in freedom of expression. So no, they can be an a$$hole AND express it.
> 
> This is some of the counters to the line of thinking that gets so many upset at you AA. You're concerned at the smallest fraction of guys that actual have some malicious intent, and yet have directly impugned several on this board (see ART 12) who by and large are speaking for the majority.


How have I impugned anyone's honour? :scratchhead:

OP is about leering, and my posts have been about leering. From what I've seen on this thread, most of the posters have been quite clear about the differences between looking and leering, and most have seemingly agreed that it's rude and obnoxious to make someone feel uncomfortable by scrutinizing them sexually.

These rights we have aren't really intended as rights to be an a$$hole. Freedom of expression, for example, doesn't include hate speech, or insults, or threats. What about the right to be treated with dignity and respect?


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> How have I impugned anyone's honour? :scratchhead:
> 
> OP is about leering, and my posts have been about leering. From what I've seen on this thread, most of the posters have been quite clear about the differences between looking and leering, and most have seemingly agreed that it's rude and obnoxious to make someone feel uncomfortable by scrutinizing them sexually.
> 
> These rights we have aren't really intended as rights to be an a$$hole. Freedom of expression, for example, doesn't include hate speech, or insults, or threats. What about the right to be treated with dignity and respect?


Your treatment of Dvls in the objectification thread (IIRC - is it bad that the threads start to run together?), for instance. I'm sure you've got "reasons" for that though - so it was justified (among many other examples).

Why am I not surprised you'd go to "that's not what they're intended for"? Well AA - they seem pretty clear to me. And to quote one of my favorite movies of all time "I don't think it means what you think it means"


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> Sometimes it is the same person.
> 
> Of all my female friends and acquaintances, the ones who are the most sensitive to this subject are the ones who have really bad things in their past. I don't know any females like myself who haven't had bad things happen who are "twisted up in knots" about it.
> 
> So if someone is uber sensitive about it, I figure they have a reason to be instead of just shooting them down. I don't know or talk to people who just want to get upset about things that don't actually upset them for real reasons. I don't see people doing that here, either.
> 
> I also don't see the reason for minimizing behavior like "for glancing their way". Not one person on this thread or anywhere else has said they were offended by anyone "glancing their way".



So what's your actual solution, besides expecting me to express compassion in the same way you do?

Since you have no control over what other people look at, or think, only your own behavior and perspective, what's your advice?



always_alone said:


> :iagree:
> 
> OP posts specifically about leering, about crossing boundaries and making another feel uncomfortable. This isn't just glancing in someone's direction.


And since everyone's boundaries vary, and again often vary within any given person, what universal, objective standard stipulates what is a boundary crossing look?

What is considered a "leer" to you might be a harmless gaze to another person. 

Someone could look you up and down, you assume they're sexualizing you, and it could be for reasons that have nothing to do with being interested at all in your private parts.

And, of course, other people's unexpressed thoughts are none of our business.

So I ask the same question I ask Faithful, what do you suggest everyone actually do? Never, ever look at another person? Ban all sexual thought? Adopt a legal boundary that gazing upon another human being past an arbitrary time allotment, without their permission, be illegal?


----------



## always_alone

jaquen said:


> So I ask the same question I ask Faithful, what do you suggest everyone actually do? Never, ever look at another person? Ban all sexual thought? Adopt a legal boundary that gazing upon another human being past an arbitrary time allotment, without their permission, be illegal?


This slope is a little too slippery for me. Not quite sure how you get from "leering is rude and makes people feel uncomfortable" to banning all sexual thoughts and strict legislation?

Just because a leer is difficult to link down, just because there is some ambiguity about what it means and when you've crossed a line, doesn't mean we should sweep the whole issue under the rug as "passing glances" and "get over it.". Some people find themselves having to live with it, for example, in their own home. Some people have to work with it. Some find themselves in church or in school having to deal with it. They can't get away without uprooting their own lives.

Do such people not deserve to be respected? Or do we just wash our hands because someone might accidentally be offended by the wrong thing or person?


----------



## Tubbalard

Is all sexual scrutinizing rude and obnoxious or is it just rude to you, or the specific set of people performing the scrutiny?

Sexual scrutinizing on the positive side is just another way of saying "checking out"

In my experience, women that receive the highest amount of leers/stares/oogles, have a "behind the waterfall" approach to it, whereas women that receive an average to low amount of stares/oogles/leers are mostly affected by it. More often than not an average looking female is not going to be leered by Mr. Perfect, whereas a woman rated high on the looks scale will be leered by people from all ages and cultures and they've just become numb to it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

This conversation is NOT an indictment of all men! Let's be real clear on that. I hope that no one participating here feels that a finger is being point at them.




jaquen said:


> So what's your actual solution, besides expecting me to express compassion in the same way you do?
> 
> Since you have no control over what other people look at, or think, only your own behavior and perspective, what's your advice?
> 
> 
> 
> And since everyone's boundaries vary, and again often vary within any given person, what universal, objective standard stipulates what is a boundary crossing look?
> 
> What is considered a "leer" to you might be a harmless gaze to another person.
> 
> Someone could look you up and down, you assume they're sexualizing you, and it could be for reasons that have nothing to do with being interested at all in your private parts.
> 
> And, of course, other people's unexpressed thoughts are none of our business.
> 
> So I ask the same question I ask Faithful, what do you suggest everyone actually do? Never, ever look at another person? Ban all sexual thought? Adopt a legal boundary that gazing upon another human being past an arbitrary time allotment, without their permission, be illegal?



A boundary crossing look is always going to be subjective with in a certain range. Some women have boundaries even further outside of that acceptable range. The sensitive outliers. They may be uncomfortable with male attention period. They may automatically jump to incorrect conclusions, and that would be on them, providing the look was within an acceptable range of everyday appropriate male female interaction, and appropriate for the environment. 

Since our expressions typically mirror or reveal our thoughts it is the men who must guard their behavior on this.

A look beyond 3 seconds might be a leer. It becomes a leer if the gazer has sexual thoughts, because ...expressions mirror or reveal emotions. Thoughts create emotions, emotions are revealed... Make sense?

If a man look for longer than 3 seconds or so, AND has sexual thoughts, his expressions and continued looking is easily interpreted not as a "nice outfit" but as sexual aggression. That is threatening to a LOT of women.

On this, look/leer thing I understand how it might be very difficult for some men to be observant of their own behavior.

Crazy comparison but whenever I see a baby I cannot help but watch and study. I absolutley LOVE babies and many times I simply can't stop looking. My daughter once said, "Mom, you're probably making that mother uncomfortable, like you're going to steal her baby or something." 

Until my daughter said that I never realized how my innocent, and what I thought was a loving expression, might be interpreted by a young mother. 

*It's on ME to accurately gauge how my looking might be interpreted and adjust accordingly.
*



always_alone said:


> This slope is a little too slippery for me. Not quite sure how you get from "leering is rude and makes people feel uncomfortable" to banning all sexual thoughts and strict legislation?
> 
> Just because a leer is difficult to link down, just because there is some ambiguity about what it means and when you've crossed a line, doesn't mean we should sweep the whole issue under the rug as "passing glances" and "get over it.". Some people find themselves having to live with it, for example, in their own home. Some people have to work with it. Some find themselves in church or in school having to deal with it. They can't get away without uprooting their own lives.
> 
> Do such people not deserve to be respected? Or do we just wash our hands because someone might accidentally be offended by the wrong thing or person?


In the home by someone other than the husband absolutely crosses boundaries. In church, in the work place...all inappropriate places for a man to allow a look to turn into a leer.

In school between students it doesn't. Assuming we're talking about younger students. Both men and women have to learn to deal with their sexual thoughts and their boundaries.

Manners are all about making society function better for everyone. A set of social customs that dictate appropriate behavior. It is up to men to understand how their behavior impacts those around them, not those around them to find a way to mitigate or excuse the behavior. 

Where ever it might be appropriate to allow behavior in a highly sexually charged way is where it would be less offensive to allow a look to turn into a leer. And that's not on the street, at the grocery store, at work, or in class. And most especially not in a womans's home unless you are her BF or husband.


----------



## jaquen

always_alone said:


> Do such people not deserve to be respected? Or do we just wash our hands because someone might accidentally be offended by the wrong thing or person?


I also have no idea what "deserves to be respected" means in the context of someone gazing upon another person. I've been leered at, and I'm a man. In fact I've been leered at by another man before in a urinal while trying to do my business. Can it be uncomfortable? At times, yes it can be. Does it mean I feel inherently disrespected? No. I don't find people thinking of me sexually, or looking upon me sexually, as a respect issue, even if it has the power to make me feel uncomfortable. A lack of respect, for me, is crossing a boundary physically or even verbally. YMMV.

Meanwhile my wife has been checked out, hollered at, leered and drooled over more times than she can count. That doesn't cause her discomfort. She finds it mildly amusing and sometimes flattering. She doesn't think it disrespectful for men to overtly express sexual or romantic interest in women.

So, again, what's your solution in world where not everyone sees your problem as even a universal issue? 

And if you're not trying to regulate thoughts, despite some of your comments in this thread to the contrary, what are you proposing exactly?


----------



## jaquen

Anon Pink said:


> A look beyond 3 seconds might be a leer. It becomes a leer if the gazer has sexual thoughts, because ...expressions mirror or reveal emotions. Thoughts create emotions, emotions are revealed... Make sense?
> 
> If a man look for longer than 3 seconds or so, AND has sexual thoughts, his expressions and continued looking is easily interpreted not as a "nice outfit" but as sexual aggression. That is threatening to a LOT of women.



Why should any man (or woman for that matter, since women "leer" too) abide by this rather arbitrary rule?

What of the scores of people who want to and enjoy being looked at, or even sexualized?


And who defines what a "leer" even is? If a woman looks at you for more than 3 seconds is that too a leer? Since you have absolutely no idea what's going on in her mind.

What if a man is caught looking beyond the dreaded 3-second rule and it turns out you remind him of ex, his sister, or his mother? 

And don't even get me started on how these conversations shift radically depending on the infinitely varied cultural and social norms.

The further down the rabbit hole we travel with this kind of policing the more preposterous it gets.

I think grown up, healthy people need to find a way to deal with the fact that they share this planet with billions of other people. Some of them are going to look. A selection of them will look for longer than 3 seconds. If that's all it takes for a person to feel demoralized, terrorized, and disrespected the core issue, to me, is a stunning lack of coping skills. You should never empower another person to the degree they have that kind of hold over you. Change you because that's the only person you can.

If you're waiting around for "leering" to stop, you'll find rest in the grave I suppose.


----------



## Anon Pink

Tubbalard said:


> Is all sexual scrutinizing rude and obnoxious or is it just rude to you, or the specific set of people performing the scrutiny?
> 
> Sexual scrutinizing on the positive side is just another way of saying "checking out"
> 
> In my experience, women that receive the highest amount of leers/stares/oogles, have a "behind the waterfall" approach to it, whereas women that receive an average to low amount of stares/oogles/leers are mostly affected by it. More often than not an average looking female is not going to be leered by Mr. Perfect, whereas a woman rated high on the looks scale will be leered by people from all ages and cultures and they've just become numb to it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



This is kinda true and kinda not true in my experience.

A woman who doesn't feel threatened is going to easily ignore being checked out. Most women I know mostly ignore it entirely.

When I am being checked out my first thought is along the lines of questioning my appearance. Unzipped? Trailing toilet paper? Food in my teeth? My second thoughts are wondering who they think I look like? "No, I'm not my sister...I know you think I'm her we look alike." (And then I get a little angry cause both sisters are older and one is much heavier while the other is slightly ravaged by Cancer treatments!) But if I'm in an area of town away from where my sisters and I live, I finally reach a tentative conclusion that I think I'm being checked out. 

All this happens within a second or two.

I'm at a stage of life where I enjoy that kind of attention, to a certain degree. At my age, I should be better at distinguishing the difference between being recognized, being checked out and an aggressive leer. Perhaps because I've spent years and years ignoring those looks and leers I never developed the ability to do that?


----------



## Anon Pink

jaquen said:


> Why should any man (or woman for that matter, since women "leer" too) abide by this rather arbitrary rule?
> 
> What of the scores of people who want to and enjoy being looked at, or even sexualized?
> 
> And who defines what a "leer" even is? If a woman looks at you for more than 3 seconds is that too a leer? Since you have absolutely no idea what's going on in her mind.
> 
> What if a man is caught looking beyond the dreaded 3-second rule and it turns out you remind him of ex, his sister, or his mother?
> 
> And don't even get me started on how these conversations shift radically depending on the infinitely varied cultural and social norms.
> 
> The further down the rabbit hole we travel with this kind of policing the more preposterous it gets.
> 
> I think grown up, healthy people need to find a way to deal with the fact that they share this planet with billions of other people. Some of them are going to look. *A selection of them will look for longer than 3 seconds. If that's all it takes for a person to feel demoralized, terrorized, and disrespected the core issue, to me, is a stunning lack of coping skills. You should never empower another person to the degree they have that kind of hold over you*. Change you because that's the only person you can.
> 
> If you're waiting around for "leering" to stop, you'll find rest in the grave I suppose.



I agree with much of this, particularly the bolded parts.


----------



## Marduk

jaquen said:


> I also have no idea what "deserves to be respected" means in the context of someone gazing upon another person. I've been leered at, and I'm a man. In fact I've been leered at by another man before in a urinal while trying to do my business. Can it be uncomfortable? At times, yes it can be. Does it mean I feel inherently disrespected? No. I don't find people thinking of me sexually, or looking upon me sexually, as a respect issue, even if it has the power to make me feel uncomfortable. A lack of respect, for me, is crossing a boundary physically or even verbally. YMMV.
> 
> Meanwhile my wife has been checked out, hollered at, leered and drooled over more times than she can count. That doesn't cause her discomfort. She finds it mildly amusing and sometimes flattering. She doesn't think it disrespectful for men to overtly express sexual or romantic interest in women.
> 
> So, again, what's your solution in world where not everyone sees your problem as even a universal issue?
> 
> And if you're not trying to regulate thoughts, despite some of your comments in this thread to the contrary, what are you proposing exactly?


At the end of the day, perhaps allergens are an apt metaphor.

There's a certain, broad, generally acceptible sensitivity to people with allergies. So it's not socially acceptible to go around smoking in non-smoking areas, have strong perfumes or colognes, etc.

Most folks fall generally into "acceptible" and aren't social pariahs about it.

But then you get folks on the one hand who say "I can be free to smoke wherever I want, I can wear whatever perfume I want, etc!"

And on the other end of the spectrum are folks that demand that no-one smoke ever, wear only unscented anything, don't eat peanuts at home because the oils could be transmitted, etc.

Sure some people are technically free to do as they like. Doesn't mean that they should impinge that freedom on others. On either end of the spectrum.

What I'm saying, is stick to the middle path on these things, and everything will likely work out just fine.

I've checked out plenty of women. I have never been called a jerk by any of them. But I do notice and tone it down when my wife smacks me in the back of the head about it.

Know what I mean?


----------



## Cletus

Thundarr said:


> I can say for a fact that before reading threads like this at TAM, I didn't realize how many women feel unsafe in public during the middle of the day. I still just have trust what I read from you ladies because otherwise it wouldn't compute to me. It's because we all project and I've never felt scared in public.


And there is nothing that you and I can do about this.

No, I really mean that. I can do everything in my power to seem as innocuous as possible to a strange woman on the street, but if she's going to be afraid of me simply because I am bigger and stronger, I cannot change that.

I can't make every bad man suddenly go away. I can't remove that memory of the one time she was followed by a creep or had a friend held up at knifepoint. I can't change the human inability to assess risk accurately and have her understand that she's in more danger of death in her car than outside of it. I can't change that I outweigh her by 75 pounds.

I can be the biggest advocate of women's issues, the nicest guy you ever met, and the least likely to ever harm you on the street, but it is not within my power to make you feel safe around me if it is not in your nature.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Do such people not deserve to be respected? Or do we just wash our hands because someone might accidentally be offended by the wrong thing or person?


No one has the right to expect to be respected by anyone.

Do you respect the meth head on the subway with his unwashed hair, two teeth, and vile personal hygiene? No, you don't. A person is free to comment to his friends about you, make disgusting faces, pretend to stick a finger down a throat, and look at you in shocked disbelief over your choice of footwear. The same applies to me. Rude? Sure. Illegal? Of course not. 

And that's just tough luck. You can't mandate the utopia we might all like to live in without raising the ghost of George Orwell.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> *It's on ME to accurately gauge how my looking might be interpreted and adjust accordingly.
> *


It is on "you" only if you care for it to be. If you're not uncomfortable making young mothers nervous around you, you are under no obligation to do anything different. Because staring at a baby is neither illegal nor immoral. 

The police didn't come bashing down your door before you were aware of the problem, and they won't now that you are even should you continue to do it. 

I'm really finding this notion that people think they have a right to not be stared at foreign.


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> It is on "you" only if you care for it to be. If you're not uncomfortable making young mothers nervous around you, you are under no obligation to do anything different. Because staring at a baby is neither illegal nor immoral.
> 
> The police didn't come bashing down your door before you were aware of the problem, and they won't now that you are even should you continue to do it.
> 
> I'm really finding this notion that people think they have a right to not be stared at foreign.



This is a murky issue. 

Take how my sister felt when she visited the UAE. She felt threatened everywhere, even though she is one tough ass woman! And this was long before 9/11 and the gulf war. A time when most Americans had no idea the full extent of the Arab world's common treatment and expectations of women. In those countries, it is not at all a burden to men to behave accordingly. They are excused from being respectful because their lusts are a natural reaction to immoral woman.

But in western countries men ARE burdened by accountability. Social customs dictate we do not purposefully make others feel threatened.

Police won't arrest a man for leering, nor me for making a young mother feel like I might steal her baby because I stare so adoringly at the baby. But our social customs tell us it is not polite to stare.


----------



## jaquen

marduk said:


> What I'm saying, is stick to the middle path on these things, and everything will likely work out just fine.


Most people already do; it's the silent majority phenomenon.

As with most things on TAM, we're caught up debating the extremes here.


----------



## jaquen

Anon Pink said:


> nor me for making a young mother feel like I might steal her baby because I stare so adoringly at the baby. But our social customs tell us it is not polite to stare.


I don't agree with this. I think your sister was wrong. Plenty of women think their kids are the cutest things ever, and totally get why a woman would "stare so adoringly" at them. A lot of mothers aren't going to make the leap toward "oh no, she's gonna steal my babies!!!". 

Keep looking adoringly at the world's children!


----------



## always_alone

Anon Pink said:


> Take how my sister felt when she visited the UAE. She felt threatened everywhere, even though she is one tough ass woman! And this was long before 9/11 and the gulf war. A time when most Americans had no idea the full extent of the Arab world's common treatment and expectations of women. In those countries, it is not at all a burden to men to behave accordingly. They are excused from being respectful because their lusts are a natural reaction to immoral woman.


And this is all I've really been saying. Leering is disrespectful, it is a power play, in which the leerer feels quite entitled and cares nothing for the dignity of the object of their leer. 

You (not you personally, but anyone) can justify disrespect all they want, argue vociferously to defend their rights to disrespect whoever they want, whenever they want, however they want.

It is still disrespect.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just don't get the level of annoyance at the people who do feel uncomfortable at being leered at. Why be annoyed at them but not annoyed at the leerers? We can all do better and be more accommodating and kind without losing any of our "rights".


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> This is a murky issue.


Not to me.



> Police won't arrest a man for leering, nor me for making a young mother feel like I might steal her baby because I stare so adoringly at the baby. But our social customs tell us it is not polite to stare.


Right. It's a question of norms and rude behavior, I agree. But as soon as people start bringing in notions of some right to not be leered at, they've raised an indefensible argument. Such a right has never historically existed, and I can't imagine living in a world in which it did. But should it come to pass, I'll be in on the ground floor of the human blinder business. Perhaps I could get bought up by Apple.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I just don't get the level of annoyance at the people who do feel uncomfortable at being leered at. Why be annoyed at them but not annoyed at the leerers? We can all do better and be more accommodating and kind without losing any of our "rights".


It is, IMHO, buried resentment. The way this is always painted is that some poor guy harmlessly finds this incredibly beautiful woman attractive, and just wants to look at her, steal an innocent little glance. But when she isn't suitably flattered or want that attention, well, she must be an entitled princess who has no right to judge them, just because they don't meet her precious standards. 

No point in aiming to respect others or treat them well when you firmly believe that they aren't returning the favour.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> It is still disrespect.


Not sure who you are arguing with.

It is disrespectful. We are all in agreement. Does that mean it rises to the level of something we as a society want to criminalize? There is already considerable social pressure to not do it to which the vast majority of us are sensitive. 

Is there something else tangible that we should be compelled to do about it? Should I start intervening in public if I see it happen? Should I start a fight to keep you from feeling on the short end of the power play stick? Or is the responsibility for dealing with the situation primarily yours?

What would you have happen in your perfect anti-leering world?


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> I just don't get the level of annoyance at the people who do feel uncomfortable at being leered at .


Perhaps the issue is that you're reading a tone where none is intended. 

Why do you assume annoyance on the part of those of us who are merely offering a different take than yours?


----------



## jaquen

always_alone said:


> And this is all I've really been saying. Leering is disrespectful, it is a power play, in which the leerer feels quite entitled and cares nothing for the dignity of the object of their leer.


No.

Behavior that you deem to be "leering", that you interpret to be a "power play", that you assume is a stance of entitlement and an attempt at dignity theft is disrespectful...to you.

I'm honestly confused as to why this continues to be such an obstacle for you, one that has seen you in the center of a lot of pushback on this forum.

Always_alone's perspective =/= a universal one. You absolutely are not in the position to assume what's happening in the minds of other people, especially men, whom you've displayed a frequent, steady habit of misinterpreting.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen said:


> Perhaps the issue is that you're reading a tone where none is intended.
> 
> Why do you assume annoyance on the part of those of us who are merely offering a different take than yours?


Because of words like "get the hell over it". Why so snarky about it if there is no annoyance?


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> Because of words like "get the hell over it". Why so snarky about it if there is no annoyance?


That's not snark actually, that's one of my life's philosophies.

And the person first and foremost at the receiving end of that sentiment is the man in the mirror.



always_alone said:


> It is, IMHO, buried resentment. The way this is always painted is that some poor guy harmlessly finds this incredibly beautiful woman attractive, and just wants to look at her, steal an innocent little glance. But when she isn't suitably flattered or want that attention, well, she must be an entitled princess who has no right to judge them, just because they don't meet her precious standards.
> 
> No point in aiming to respect others or treat them well when you firmly believe that they aren't returning the favour.


Exhibit A. 

I'm out of this piece. It was already teetering on the precipice of misandry, but I see this is turning into yet another A_A male bashing sideshow and I'm not in the mood to take that tired ride yet again.


----------



## always_alone

jaquen said:


> I'm out of this piece. It was already teetering on the precipice of misandry, but I see this is turning into yet another A_A male bashing sideshow and I'm not in the mood to take that tired ride yet again.


Really? 

I've had all of but a handful of posts on this thread, and have only chimed in to point out that "leering" as an actual disrespectful activity does cause some people some harm.

I fail to see how that is male-bashing or misandry, or insisting on the universality of my opinion against all others. Indeed, I noticed explicitly most posters here can see very clearly the difference between looking and leering. 

And yet, somehow, because I have something to say about leering, about what it involves and the attitudes that justify it, I am a man-hating man-basher who is trying to ban all sexual thoughts and incapable of any sort of reasonable or fair interpretation? 

Really?

Sigh.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> Really?
> 
> I've had all of but a handful of posts on this thread, and have only chimed in to point out that "leering" as an actual disrespectful activity does cause some people some harm.
> 
> I fail to see how that is male-bashing or misandry, or insisting on the universality of my opinion against all others. Indeed, I noticed explicitly most posters here can see very clearly the difference between looking and leering.
> 
> And yet, somehow, because I have something to say about leering, about what it involves and the attitudes that justify it, I am a man-hating man-basher who is trying to ban all sexual thoughts and incapable of any sort of reasonable or fair interpretation?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Sigh.


What with your postings herein mostly pertaining to suggesting men cannot and do not consider the inner feelings of others and how they might be affected by the unspoken thoughts and feelings of someone observing them, your feigned surprise at the reactions to your own quite obvious thoughts and feelings (you're writing to them, after all) is pretty amusing. 

How burdensome, amiright?? Lol.


----------



## always_alone

ET1SSJonota said:


> What with your postings herein mostly pertaining to suggesting men cannot and do not consider the inner feelings of others and how they might be affected by the unspoken thoughts and feelings of someone observing them, your feigned surprise at the reactions to your own quite obvious thoughts and feelings (you're writing to them, after all) is pretty amusing.
> 
> How burdensome, amiright?? Lol.


????

Okay, let me just answer this, and I will bow out of this thread.

I am talking about leering. Only leering. I am not saying that *men* do not consider the inner feelings of others; I am not saying that all men or all looks or all sexual thoughts are leering.

I quite understand that people notice each other, look at each other, admire each other. I get it. 

But leering is not the same thing. And I find it immensely puzzling why these threads always go in the same direction, trying to make it all the same thing, and all harmless.

It just isn't. I get that it might be hard to really understand what leering is if you don't do it and haven't been the recipient of it to any real degree. But why it's so important to denounce and decry any conversation about what it actually is and what it really involves is totally beyond me.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> It just isn't. I get that it might be hard to really understand what leering is if you don't do it and haven't been the recipient of it to any real degree. But why it's so important to denounce and decry any conversation about what it actually is and what it really involves is totally beyond me.


I wish you would have answered my question about what we should do other than wring our hands. If this is a problem you think is worth fixing, surely you must have some concrete ideas beyond "I wish pigs weren't pigs?"


----------



## john117

Let me understand this. 

Leering is inappropriate.

Yet we live in a society that, while morally as conservative as they get, sexualises everything and anything for profit. 

My wife and daughters get leered on occasion esp when we travel to places where it's more acceptable. I don't think they freak out over it and I don't think they would go ballistic about it either. 

Southern European cultures seem to appreciate leering and I would bet their sexual mental health is better than our pseudo conservatism.

Makes sense?


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> ????
> 
> Okay, let me just answer this, and I will bow out of this thread.
> 
> I am talking about leering. Only leering. I am not saying that *men* do not consider the inner feelings of others; I am not saying that all men or all looks or all sexual thoughts are leering.
> 
> I quite understand that people notice each other, look at each other, admire each other. I get it.
> 
> But leering is not the same thing. And I find it immensely puzzling why these threads always go in the same direction, trying to make it all the same thing, and all harmless.
> 
> It just isn't. I get that it might be hard to really understand what leering is if you don't do it and haven't been the recipient of it to any real degree. But why it's so important to denounce and decry any conversation about what it actually is and what it really involves is totally beyond me.


1.) Numerous male posters have stated that leering is bad. So I'm not seeing the disconnect or your immensely puzzling issue. 

2.) In terms of "harm", it doesn't get much less harmless than "some thoughts some other person may or may not be having about me". It just doesn't. 

Having been both leered at AND sexually assaulted, I know exactly what kinds of feelings can occur when in those situations. That being said, there is nothing that I can do about it, AND it might all be in my head. So the only mature thing to do about it is remove myself from the situation. 

Some of the resistance you are seeing is because far too many seem to suggest that the "line" between leering and looking is rather wide. In fact - the title to the post could even be said to suggest they are similar if not the same. You yourself have denigrated other forum posters for their quite mainstream view of looking at the other sex. THAT is the pushback. 

When it is suggested that the "bad" leering line can be pushed further and further into the "wow she looks good" and move on category (despite your protestations, you've been a party to this), there will naturally be pushback. 

I guess, if you need a pure example, it is a reaction to the suggestion that we might be evil in some way if our thoughts cross some puritan line that people like you have no way of actually knowing it was crossed. Similar to say, people on a forum suggesting that maybe a poster is a bit too generally combative towards men, and said poster dealing with it by dismissing the statements or suggesting they're just haters of her "ugly feminazi" self. Surely that makes some sense to you.


----------



## Marduk

Ugh.

I'm gonna go read Pope's "The Rape of the Lock" again.

Because that will be about as much fun.


----------



## SoWhat

Faithful Wife said:


> Anon honey..,take it back! You've written and read too many erotic stories. Having a stranger touch you is not hot except in fantasy. It should not be encouraged. Any guy attempting this is risking police charges. And any guy who thinks it is ok to touch unknown women is clearly a dangerous person.


After reading through this whole exchange, I'm perplexed at your reaction here - why can't people decide for themselves what they think is hot? 

"Take it back" - seriously?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well she did in fact take it back so....what's your point? She read it wrong and I knew she had. Anon is a friend of mine and I can make a good guess as to her answers and I was correct in this instance.


----------



## SoWhat

Had it been another female poster, one you did not know, would you have made the same demand?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Absolutely not.


----------



## ocotillo

SoWhat said:


> Had it been another female poster, one you did not know, would you have made the same demand?


If said female poster had started the thread, others of us might in a good natured way, have pointed out the ideological inconsistency.


----------



## Tubbalard

always_alone said:


> And this is all I've really been saying. Leering is disrespectful, it is a power play, in which the leerer feels quite entitled and cares nothing for the dignity of the object of their leer.
> 
> You (not you personally, but anyone) can justify disrespect all they want, argue vociferously to defend their rights to disrespect whoever they want, whenever they want, however they want.
> 
> It is still disrespect.


Is Leering disrespectful? 

if yes...then you're saying....Leering in all forms is disrespectful

or should I translate it to _Male_ Leering is only disrespectful...

I'm asking because you seem to be judge, jury and executioner on all forms of leering.

I truthfully don't believe you understand when you say "Leering is disrespectful". On this statement alone, you indict men, women and children. But all your posts have only indicted males on this issue.

You don't mention that people make leer worthy statements with their attire and even many women are looking for the leers for validation. What about the clown or caricature on the street corner? What about people with burned faces or facial/skin defects, that might have caused all people of all ages to leer? Truly these people have it harder than the average woman that gets a leer from an old man. What about the female that admires a male, to the point where she accidentally Leered? Was she disrespectful?

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but I'm going to suspect that you don't receive many Leers or positive Leers. The Leers you may receive are from old male creeps (low end leering). This assumption is based on your posts and the emotion behind it. Women that are inundated with leers receive it from both males and females, in both positive and negative forms. The attention is so much that they've become numb to it where it has little affect on their daily life.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think the miscommunication here has to do with the fact that men are used to having to stand down or defend themselves against, OR outright ignore even though they are being harassed by - - other men.

Boys typically grow up knowing that other, usually bigger boys will physically harm them or humiliate them at random. Sometimes their own brothers or fathers do it to them on purpose to "toughen them up". I think boys always know and get used to the idea that they are at risk of being swept up or into some kind of violence with other guys. 

And then once the boys get a bit older themselves, they learn how to dish it down to the boys younger than themselves. 

Boys get in fights, beat each other up, and it is just expected and common.

Girls, not so much. It does happen and most girls do understand the risk of physical violence by another girl or boy, or older kid. And some girls get just as scrappy as the boys do. But I still don't think it comes even close at all. I think the level of pure violence boys are exposed to directly is just so much higher that girls and women can't relate to it.

So men do know the potential harm that can come to them at the hands of other random men. Even just walking down the street, a man might follow and yell at and harass another man for who knows what reason. Just to intimidate, I suppose. Or sometimes they do mean actual harm.

Guys...I get it, I mean, I get that you do get what we are saying. I think some of you just don't have that much compassion because you are also living in a scary world where you may get violated against your will in any number of ways, too. 

We all have to protect ourselves and no one really gets to freely live without threat of some kind, no matter where you are.

But I still want to promote change, as much as possible. And to do that I think compassion is the start. Standing up for each other is another start. Understanding that being all out for yourself is fine and it is your "right", but being out to increase love and compassion and decrease violence and fear is way more rewarding (though you'd have to try to it know). I don't care how impossible it may seem, I do think our world is trying to evolve toward a more balanced and loving way of life.


----------



## QuietSoul

I feel this thread has become a bit disrespectful and about putting others down. I also feel my casual and broad use of the term "rights" (but mistaken in hindsight) has been taken and run with to mean some kind of legal protection issue, as if i am some kind of neurotic woman who expects to be able to call the police when some guy looks my way, despite the fact i corrected my intention earlier.

But anyway... this will probably be my last response here because i find TAM to be a positive place but i feel this thread has become harsh and kind of about personally attacking eachother.

Women in this thread who have stated they find leering uncomfortable or unacceptable aren't being over the top or putting it in some extreme context where they think they can do and wear whatever the heck they want and walk down the street expecting men not to look.

It's been stated numerous times that having a glance or a look is different from leering. Having a look is inevitable, male wiring, and it's just that - a look. Leering is looking and looking and looking, studying the viewees body in much detail, in clear view of the viewee and others around, and women generally do have an idea of what's going on in your head. I am not "out there" but you feel it when you are being sexualised, undressed in that person's head, imagined in a sexual act with them or others. Even if you do not perceive these things, it is still uncomfortable when a person is leering in this way. It is something that could reasonably be considered to make someone feel uncomfortable.

The personal examples I gave were of my father in law staring at my breasts across the family dinner table (and in case i am asked again, no i wasn't wearing anything exposing). The other was a neighbour who did nothing but stare at my tits or my arse any time i saw him, so one day i called him out and it just pissed him off so he would make a point of coming out onto his balcony or the front of his place to stare and stare any time he noticed i was around. This was clearly a motive of intimidation, knowing full well it made me uncomfortable, but pissed that he had been called out, so he had to punish me.

Unless the guy is super young, or socially or intellectually impaired, they would have some general awareness that staring at a woman's bits in plain view of everyone is unacceptable and is likely to make her uncomfortable.

I had a situation once with a guy on the train across from me. He was intellectually impaired in some way, he kept peering at me over the top of a book, and then jiggling his hand around on his lap under some papers. In hindsight i wish i had called him out, but obviously i had some awareness that, okay, this guy may not have full self control, this is unacceptable but he probably thinks i am not noticing or something? And no i was not wearing a freaking bikini, i was in normal work clothes.

Generally, women don't walk around in nothing and then complain when a guy looks at them. I am just a normal woman trying to go about her daily life, and if i have my father in law over, i am not waiting to catch him glance in the direction of my body so i can jump up and down about it.

It's a mutual respect. I don't shove my tits or arse in some guy's face or put myself on display, and the guy, if he must look, at least tries to be discreet, and doesn't go into leering mode where i am his freaking porn material for the night.

For a man in his normal cognitive capacity, leering is known as something that reasonably could make a woman feel uncomfortable, and often if they do engage in unashamed leering, the guy is either a totally out of control of his hornyness or he is aware and in some cases intending to make the person feel sexually uncomfortable

Just for comparison, my husband is in long term recovery for sex addiction, and there are many occasions where i meet his friends from 12 step meetings. I dress respectfully. I don't wear a burqa but i do keep my skin covered and don't wear anything too tight. They are normal to me and i would have no idea otherwise that they struggle with sex addiction. My father in law on the other hand....


----------



## JCD

I don't know if this has been brought up, but there are TWO actors in the production of 'King Leer'.

The man who is looking.

The woman who is being looked at.

Now, I have a quibble about a definition. A long look is not a leer. A man dumbfounded by one's goods is rude, but not leering.

If you want a leer, take a look at how Austin Powers acts: "Yes I'm looking, I'm proud I'm looking and since you caught me looking, do you care for a bit of a shag?"

*A leer, to my mind, has a salacious expression involved. "How YOU doin...?" A leer is a visual 'come on'. It is an INTENDED expression communicating interest.*

A look can be rude and run long, but a look is a look. There usually is no intent in a look. Petty quibble, but an important distinction.

Which brings up the problem of the second actor. Some women are what I call realists: guys look. I am responsible at how much I let them see. They can be rude about it and it' my responsibility to call them on it if they get too creepy. It's another cross to bear/tool in my tool box/bit of flattery (sometimes all three at once).

I note, as do so many others, that the hotter the guy or the more sexual interest he engages, the less offense she seems to take. Funny how that works.

Now, some women will find something offensive in even the most banal of looks if she needs a microscope and nano-manipulators to find it. This is not just being dismissive of women's feelings. Some women (by no means all) are overly sensitive. (So are some men)

I like the law of threes: No look longer than three seconds (and that is pushing it and only if she doesn't realize you are looking) and no more than three glances at the same girl.

After that, you better be buying her dinner.

And honestly, most men have run the spectrum of looking too long at some point in their lives...just as some women have, at times overreacted and underreacted to people looking at them.

We are not black and white creatures.


----------



## Lionelhutz

JCD said:


> We are not black and white creatures.


This is the bottom line and the one that will make it impossible to have catch all rules in this area. 

I've known women who love to flirt and exchanges glances with men and some who dissolve into moral panic that some guy might even be thinking about her sexually based on the slightest perceived glance. 

In my view, evil creepy behavior is staring at a woman to the point where you are forcing her to acknowledge the fact that you are looking at her. Staring in general is simply rude but where you cross the line also depends on the social situation. A night club might be different than a grocery store and certainly different than the office.


----------



## Constable Odo

I take a short, unscheduled, "mandatory" vacation, and what do I return to? Yet another Kobayashi Maru thread constructed by feminists in the men's forum in order to provide adequate cover for their incessant man-hate-bashing.

Men look. It's that simple. 

Physical attraction is one component of mate selection. It is what attracts us to a woman first. Yes, there is more to a woman than looks, but in the environment of nature, I have no way of knowing her personality, her character, her intelligence, or anything else about her, until I engage her in discussion. And what draws me to her first? Her appearance, naturally.

Women dress to be noticed. They dress in competition with other women (invariably because those other women are in competition for the same limited supply of free sperm on the market) as well as to attract men (the source of said free sperm).

The difference between "looking" and "ogling" is an imaginary line concocted purely in a woman's head based solely on her level of attraction to the man who happens to be looking in her direction, whether "checking her out", or not.

Or, so well summarized in this scene from "Six days, Seven Nights" with Harrison Ford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0_hQMvxAhY

Robin - What are you lookin' at? 
Quinn - Nothin'. 
Robin - Somethin'.
Quinn - Nothin'. 
Robin - Oh, don't give me that. You were ogling. 
Quinn - "Ogling"? 
Robin - Yeah. 
Quinn - Ogling? Let me ask you something. 
Robin - What? 
Quinn - When you go into a store to buy something like that, what do you say to the clerk, "Give me that outfit so nobody will look at me?" 
*Robin - No, I like people looking, just not you.*


And that is that. The Natural Truth.


Do I look at women? Sure. Nature gave me two eyes, and despite being monogamously pair-bonded to a woman I absolutely adore, my endocrine system doesn't shut off in the presence of other women. Do I "ogle" other women? That's purely a function of whether or not the woman feels I'm attractive, or creepy. I can't control what other people think. 

Naturally I try not to notice when my SO is with me, purely as a matter of respect for her, but time to time it still happens, and she has permission to punch me in the arm if she catches me drooling. Fortunately, she's totally secure with the knowledge that, at the end of the day, she is the one I want to go home with and share my bed with each and every evening, because she and she alone rocks my boat, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and sexually.


I make no apologies for being male, and having normal male "urges" which, despite the feminists desire to play "thought police" and criminalize mental activity now, includes a healthy sexual appetite and appreciation for the female form and those visual cues of health and fertility which women exude. 

Millions of years of human evolution have made us the way we are, so why fight nature in the name of some nonsensical political-correctness B.S. From a purely intellectual standpoint I may only wish to father children with one woman, but instinctive desires to spread my genes far and wide are constantly driving my inner animal to seek an endless supply of fertile, healthy women. And how does a male do that? By looking at a woman's skin complexion, and the luster of her hair -- signs of health, lack of sickness and chronic illness, and fertility. Developed breasts tell us a woman has matured into child-bearing age, and the sway of a woman's hips tell us her birth canal has widen enough to bear us children. 

Just because I, as a human animal, are constantly inundated with visual signals which trigger instinctive urges doesn't mean I have to rent a helicopter and spray my semen all over Boston.


Nine times out of ten, the women who complain about "ogling" are the ones no man wants to ogle. These are the same women who complain MaryLou's Coffee only hires cute perky women with an upbeat attitude -- no sour, bitter women need apply -- most of whom are feminists. And, as another poster pointed out, the higher the male is on the food chain, the higher is standards for the women he is "ogling", so those who aren't getting any "ogles" are usually POd because they're not.


And, naturally, just as many women out there are ogling men, as is evidenced by the plethora of Buff-Firemen-in-Speedos calendars on amazon.com. I'm perfectly fine with it. One of my best lady friends, Kelly, constantly ogled cops. I teased her incessantly about being a "badge bunny". She would shake her head and smile, saying "Yup!"

Do I complain and feign outrage, indignation, and be "offended" I haven't been asked to pose in the Fireman's Calendar? 

No. I merely keep writing the publishers offering my services for the Plumbers-Crack calendar, which, to date, they haven't taken me up on


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think humans are mostly very good at picking up subtle clues, and I think there is a lot of range in "looking".

There is a simple glance when someone walks in your line of sight.

There is a glance and an involuntary smile when a very attractive person walks in your line of sight.

There is the unconscious stare where someone beautiful catches your eye and you aren't really aware that you have been staring.

There is intentionally looking at a beautiful person

There is looking in the hope that they will notice and respond

There is staring a particular body parts.


The recipients of these looks may react differently, and yes, that reaction may depend on how attractive / creepy the looker is. 


I still think that in most social situations it is polite not to stare, and to act embarrassed if you get caught doing so by accident.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

I don't understand why anyone feels the need to propose the "why" some women don't like the concept of ogling. Odo, Tubbalard, and others - isn't that basically the same concept that you're pushing back against isn't it - making judgments about other people's thoughts?

I'm sure there are attractive women that don't appreciate ogling, or feel "harmed" based on it. Many are probably somewhat intimidated away from complaining about it for fear of listening to some of the responses here. 

One of the things that struck me, thinking about this discussion and some of my own frustrations with it, is that some of the back and forth has the hallmarks of the communication issues between males and females. One thing that should be understood is that when presented with a problem (for instance "leering"), we men like to present a solution. 

Unfortunately, in this case there IS no solution other than social conditioning - and that is already in place. Further frustrating men like me is that the generic "feminist" of today will not only feel that all men are pigs, but when someone like me steps in to dress down a guy who is acting inappropriately around or at a woman, I'm just as likely to get dressed down by her afterwards for being a chauvinist. 

I think it has been made abundantly clear that most men think there is a line that can be crossed in looking and sexualizing a woman. So what is it that we aren't getting here?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I actually do think there can and will be continued change in this area of our lives, collectively.

We aren't getting it, just yet, but positive changes have already occurred to even get us to the table to be able to discuss it.


----------



## Racer

ET1SSJonota said:


> I think it has been made abundantly clear that most men think there is a line that can be crossed in looking and sexualizing a woman. So what is it that we aren't getting here?


What we aren't getting is whether that's 'bad' or 'normal' or 'good'. Because it is not, nor ever has been, a clear cut line... lots of foggy grey between those opposites. Probably because it's so dependent on two totally independent minds and how they judge the situation. Neither person can mind-read, but both like to presume intentions and motivation for the ogling even though not a single word is exchanged.

And I also know you women 'check out' men too, just as much from what I can tell. Men though typically never view that as a creepy or ewww moment. Might have to do with that 'threat assessment' or feeling intimidated. I would note though if some other guy is 'leering' at us, our minds go on high alert too and start assuming the worst like he's going to mug us, or start a confrontation or whatever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Constable Odo said:


> Nine times out of ten, the women who complain about "ogling" are the ones no man wants to ogle. These are the same women who complain MaryLou's Coffee only hires cute perky women with an upbeat attitude -- no sour, bitter women need apply -- most of whom are feminists. And, as another poster pointed out, the higher the male is on the food chain, the higher is standards for the women he is "ogling", so those who aren't getting any "ogles" are usually POd because they're not.


Being a woman and having talked to and understood the view of literally hundreds of women about this particular issue, nine times out of ten the women who complain about it the most are those who have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Most other women don't complain about it at all.

And I'm talking about the behind the scenes real feelings of women here, not what we say around men or to men about this.

At the same time, I've never known any man who is dangerous to women or who intended one any harm via ogling. Even though I know there are men who do intend women some harm, I do not assume most men do nor have I ever experienced one who does.

Can't we see the best in each other and work from there?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> And I also know you women 'check out' men too, just as much from what I can tell. Men though typically never view that as a creepy or ewww moment. Might have to do with that 'threat assessment' or feeling intimidated. I would note though if some other guy is 'leering' at us, our minds go on high alert too and start assuming the worst like he's going to mug us, or start a confrontation or whatever.


I hate to try to draw the comparison, but I'm sure most men could imagine what might happen if they were the new guy walking through a prison.

Every time a see a movie prison scene like this and the prisoners making lewd and violent statements about the new guy, I have the thought "yeah, it is like this for women all the time, in some areas". (Obviously not in the same numbers as you rarely pass by 100 men at once).

I think men and women both are intimidated by the same type of aggressive male, the ones who really do mean to do you harm and are saying so outright.

It is just that men are taught to "show no fear" while women are not prepared for this type of thing, at all, basically. We are taught by our elders, including and especially men, that some men WILL harm you and we know by experience this is true also.

So why is it so hard to understand how those who cross the line with their behavior make it difficult for women to know the difference between an actual threat and just some man ogling and whistling? 

Maybe think of it like this: Send a young boy of 12 or so through a room of only 20 prisoners and let them howl and make their noises and sexual gestures and harassment...isn't this boy going to come out of that experience very shaken up?

*EVERY* 12 year old girl experiences this because full grown adult men up to their 60's will take the opportunity to make such noises at any young girl they see they can prey upon. Even though MOST men are not like this, MOST men are not prisoners, either. ENOUGH men are like this that all young girls experience this. So some of us get permanently shaken up by it. Especially those who do also end up being assaulted (not necessarily in conjunction with ogling).


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> I hate to try to draw the comparison, but I'm sure most men could imagine what might happen if they were the new guy walking through a prison.
> 
> Every time a see a movie prison scene like this and the prisoners making lewd and violent statements about the new guy, I have the thought "yeah, it is like this for women all the time, in some areas". (Obviously not in the same numbers as you rarely pass by 100 men at once).
> 
> I think men and women both are intimidated by the same type of aggressive male, the ones who really do mean to do you harm and are saying so outright.
> 
> It is just that men are taught to "show no fear" while women are not prepared for this type of thing, at all, basically. We are taught by our elders, including and especially men, that some men WILL harm you and we know by experience this is true also.
> 
> So why is it so hard to understand how those who cross the line with their behavior make it difficult for women to know the difference between an actual threat and just some man ogling and whistling?
> 
> Maybe think of it like this: Send a young boy of 12 or so through a room of only 20 prisoners and let them howl and make their noises and sexual gestures and harassment...isn't this boy going to come out of that experience very shaken up?
> 
> *EVERY* 12 year old girl experiences this because full grown adult men up to their 60's will take the opportunity to make such noises at any young girl they see they can prey upon. Even though MOST men are not like this, MOST men are not prisoners, either. ENOUGH men are like this that *all young girls experience this*. So some of us get permanently shaken up by it. Especially those who do also end up being assaulted (not necessarily in conjunction with ogling).


Just out of curiosity where are you getting the notion that all Young girls and women experience this. My mother never did, my x wife never did, my GF never has. Are you talking about all girls getting checked out or have lewd obnoxious comments made to them?


----------



## Anon Pink

Constable Odo said:


> I take a short, unscheduled, "mandatory" vacation, and what do I return to? Yet another Kobayashi Maru thread *constructed by feminists *in the men's forum in order to provide adequate cover *for their incessant man-hate-bashing.*


Is Odo short for odious?



> Men look. It's that simple.
> 
> Physical attraction is one component of mate selection. It is what attracts us to a woman first. Yes, there is more to a woman than looks, but in the environment of nature, I have no way of knowing her personality, her character, her intelligence, or anything else about her, until I engage her in discussion. And what draws me to her first? Her appearance, naturally.


Well thank you captain obvious. Hey maybe Odo is short for obvious?



> Women dress to be noticed. They dress in competition with other women (invariably because those other women are in competition for the same limited supply of free sperm on the market) as well as to attract men (the source of said free sperm).


News flash: Sperm is not now, now has it ever been LIMITED in supply. In fact, said sperm can be had quite easily by just about any woman at just about any time. 



> The difference between "looking" and "ogling" is an imaginary line concocted purely in a woman's head based solely on her level of attraction to the man who happens to be looking in her direction, whether "checking her out", or not.
> 
> Or, so well summarized in this scene from "Six days, Seven Nights" with Harrison Ford:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0_hQMvxAhY
> 
> Robin - What are you lookin' at?
> Quinn - Nothin'.
> Robin - Somethin'.
> Quinn - Nothin'.
> Robin - Oh, don't give me that. You were ogling.
> Quinn - "Ogling"?
> Robin - Yeah.
> Quinn - Ogling? Let me ask you something.
> Robin - What?
> Quinn - When you go into a store to buy something like that, what do you say to the clerk, "Give me that outfit so nobody will look at me?"
> *Robin - No, I like people looking, just not you.*
> 
> 
> And that is that. The Natural Truth.


Not exactly Obe Con Odo. 

We were discussing leering which is different from looking and slightly different from oogling. They teach word nuance in English text books called Wordly Wise. Excellent texts by the way. Every child should be using them, IMO.




> Do I look at women? Sure. Nature gave me two eyes, and despite being monogamously pair-bonded to a woman I absolutely adore, my endocrine system doesn't shut off in the presence of other women. Do I "ogle" other women? That's purely a function of whether or not the woman feels I'm attractive, or creepy. I can't control what other people think.
> 
> Naturally I try not to notice when my SO is with me, purely as a matter of respect for her, but time to time it still happens, and she has permission to punch me in the arm if she catches me drooling. Fortunately, she's totally secure with the knowledge that, at the end of the day, she is the one I want to go home with and share my bed with each and every evening, because she and she alone rocks my boat, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and sexually.
> 
> 
> I make no apologies for being male, and having normal male "urges" which, *despite the feminists desire to play "thought police"* and criminalize mental activity now, includes a healthy sexual appetite and appreciation for the female form and those visual cues of health and fertility which women exude.


1. Very happy for you in your relationship.
2. Please read the whole thread. Maybe Odo is short for Obtuse?
3. Please refrain from slandering both the feminist movement and those participating in this thread, see your most offensive texts which I have kindly Bolded for you. 
4. Of course you and every other hetero male, and some gay males, appreciates the female form. We are FVCKING beautiful!



> Millions of years of human evolution have made us the way we are, so why fight nature in the name of some nonsensical political-correctness B.S. From a purely intellectual standpoint I may only wish to father children with one woman, but instinctive desires to spread my genes far and wide are constantly driving my inner animal to seek an endless supply of fertile, healthy women. And how does a male do that? By looking at a woman's skin complexion, and the luster of her hair -- signs of health, lack of sickness and chronic illness, and fertility. Developed breasts tell us a woman has matured into child-bearing age, and the sway of a woman's hips tell us her birth canal has widen enough to bear us children.
> 
> *Just because I, as a human animal, are constantly inundated with visual signals which trigger instinctive urges doesn't mean I have to rent a helicopter and spray my semen all over Boston.*


On behalf of all women, I thank you for your Herculean restraint.



> Nine times out of ten, the women who complain about "ogling" are the ones no man wants to ogle. These are the same women who complain MaryLou's Coffee only hires cute perky women with an upbeat attitude -- no sour, bitter women need apply -- most of whom are feminists. And, as another poster pointed out, the higher the male is on the food chain, the higher is standards for the women he is "ogling", so those who aren't getting any "ogles" are usually POd because they're not.


Once again, you've managed to be both wrong and odious. Yes I think Odo is short for odious.




> And, naturally, just as many women out there are ogling men, as is evidenced by the plethora of Buff-Firemen-in-Speedos calendars on amazon.com. I'm perfectly fine with it. One of my best lady friends, Kelly, constantly ogled cops. I teased her incessantly about being a "badge bunny". She would shake her head and smile, saying "Yup!"


Pay close attention now boys.
1. Women oogling men in magazines is not the same as men leering at a woman on the street, in the office, in a store, or even at a bar. You see those men volunteered to be photographed in order to BE leered at by whomever purchases the magazine.
2. While there are a few rare exceptions here or there, men do not get over powered and raped by strange women on the street who oogle them. They don't get hauled into allies, or cars, or behind some closed door and forced to have intercourse. 
3. A man being checked out by a woman never has to worry if he will be called a slvt because of the way his uniform fits. Won't be called a tease because he refuses to play along with the game. And with the odd exception, a man never feels physically threatened by a woman who leers at him. Because... With rare exceptions, men are bigger, faster and stronger than women.



> Do I complain and feign outrage, indignation, and be "offended" I haven't been asked to pose in the Fireman's Calendar?
> 
> No. I merely keep writing the publishers offering my services for the Plumbers-Crack calendar, which, to date, they haven't taken me up on


Thanks for participating.


----------



## Constable Odo

Anon Pink said:


> Thanks for participating.


You're welcome. I call it like I see it, sweetie pie.


----------



## Anon Pink

Constable Odo said:


> You're welcome. I call it like I see it, sweetie pie.



That's Mrs. Sweetie Pie.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Just out of curiosity where are you getting the notion that all Young girls and women experience this. My mother never did, my x wife never did, my GF never has. Are you talking about all girls getting checked out or have lewd obnoxious comments made to them?


Wow, really? You know for sure that none of them ever experienced having to walk through an area where some men or young guys are hanging out and being intimidated by them in this way? How could they escape this, when you know for yourself that you and every young boy experiences it at least once?

In my case, the most notable instances were while going alone to a grocery store where a group of migrant workers were standing outside and having to pass by them with yells and "ohh honey show me those cute new little t*ts" and similar, at about age 12. Not saying their migrant worker status had anything to do with it. Just that the area I lived in had lots of them. This actually happened several times, and I talked to several friends about it so I know it happened to them, too. 

Then another time at a friend's house, her father and uncles had a bunch of dudes over who all got drunk in the back yard...and every time the uncles and father weren't listening, the other dudes were like "hey girlie come over here an sit on my lap for a minute" etc.

I could go on with several other examples, some more threatening than others, but all with the same theme.

But every boy and man I know has experienced the same type of harassment (just not necessarily sexual, but definitely the threat of violence, and aimed at humiliation and intimidation) from a group of "bullies". I am sure you have experienced it, too. How likely is it that most women do NOT experience it, if most men do?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I wish you would have answered my question about what we should do other than wring our hands. If this is a problem you think is worth fixing, surely you must have some concrete ideas beyond "I wish pigs weren't pigs?"


Well, before we can have solutions, we have to agree there is a problem that is worth solving, more significant that "hand-wringing".

And we have to agree on what that problem is.

My only hope in this conversation would be that we might be able to agree that the problem isn't just the imaginations of over-wrought women. 

Then we can talk solutions.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Well, before we can have solutions, we have to agree there is a problem that is worth solving, more significant that "hand-wringing".
> 
> And we have to agree on what that problem is.
> 
> My only hope in this conversation would be that we might be able to agree that the problem isn't just the imaginations of over-wrought women.
> 
> Then we can talk solutions.


Well that seems awfully restrictive. Can't we proceed on the assumption that YOU believe a) there's a problem that b) should be solved? 

I'll grant you a) insofar as some women feel threatened by leering. It would be stupid to say otherwise. Now whether or not b) rises to the level of more than hand wringing depends greatly on the proposed solutions, which might range from "it's your problem, get over it" to "I get a free pass to slap the guy" to "let's round all men up and put them in re-education camps".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> Now whether or not b) rises to the level of more than hand wringing depends greatly on the proposed solutions, which might range from "I get a free pass to slap the guy" to "let's round all men up and put them in re-education camps".


Why minimize and insult women just to make your point?

No one here has suggested any such things and we are all rational thinking and caring adults. Aren't we?


----------



## Mr. Nail

Is it over yet?

It's like a train wreck, you don't want to look but you can't turn away. Every day I look in on this thread, and see it is still active. So at the risk of feeding the bears I'll throw my response to the question into the ring. 

I feel that my experience is unusual enough to be interesting if not educational.

At the age of 13 there was a girl in my class who gave me the creeps. She always had a standard harlequin romance novel handy. I suppose I made some assumptions in my mind about what was on her mind. She spent a lot of time gazing in my direction.
When I was 17 and a Freshman in University, there was a girl in my circle of acquaintance at nearly 21 years old, she was on the prowl. She had a boyfriend that she was trying to convince to propose to her. Again making some assumptions about what was going on in her head. She thought I was pretty safe. She flirted shamelessly with me in front of her intended. I was all of 5'5" to his 6'+. At 17 I certainly didn't believe that she had any real interest in me. She quickly and with visible chagrin mended her ways when he did propose.
At over 40 years old, I had an employee who was blessed with a truly spectacular bosom. There must have been magnets in there. I couldn't control my eyes, and there is no top that could have contained her. I know I made her uncomfortable because she got in the habit of covering up when I talked to her. I had to work hard to train myself to keep my eyes on her eyes. 

So in the first case. I was uncomfortable at her gaze whether it was intentional or just the vacant stare typical to the bookish. In the second case I knew full well what she was up to and participated in her deception. I'm quite happy she landed her man. 
But, I still don't respect her method. In the last case I was clearly making someone uncomfortable, and since I'm a nice guy, it was my job to fix it.

I don't think there is a one size fits all solution here, but the essence of good manners is making those around you comfortable. If you can at least manage that you are doing O K.


----------



## Blondilocks

'Getting caught and what to do..'

Anon, are you asking what you need to do when leered at or what men need to do when they get caught?

Personally, I like to think that someone who gets caught will have the decency to offer an apology for making the viewee uncomfortable. They may not have realized how long their eyes were trained on the object of fascination.

If you were the object of their fascination, then feel free to bring their attention to the situation. Oh, and I always keep a sweater in the car for grocery stores - even with a bra that freezer section can make anything stand at attention.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Being a woman and having talked to and understood the view of literally hundreds of women about this particular issue, nine times out of ten the women who complain about it the most are those who have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Most other women don't complain about it at all.


This is probably largely true, but I think the issue extends beyond who might be "sensitive" because of sexual assault.

Leering is an act of aggression, the perfect act of aggression for certain types of people because it is eminently deniable and never leaves bruises. This can be a real problem in workplace or other situations where you can't just walk away from it and pretend it's not happening.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> This is probably largely true, but I think the issue extends beyond who might be "sensitive" because of sexual assault.
> 
> Leering is an act of aggression, the perfect act of aggression for certain types of people because it is eminently deniable and never leaves bruises. This can be a real problem in workplace or other situations where you can't just walk away from it and pretend it's not happening.


Always, go back and look at what I quoted with the above thing I wrote. I was just responding to his assertion that ONLY "ugly feminists" are the ones complaining, and was trying to stir some compassion in him instead of the bitterness he was exuding. (Ironic since he called these same women bitter).


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Why minimize and insult women just to make your point?
> 
> No one here has suggested any such things and we are all rational thinking and caring adults. Aren't we?


I am simply lost for words on this one. I guess if you are absolutely intent on finding a way to be offended, one will be found. I offered a couple of points at the extreme ends of a possible solution space to a problem, and you take it as a slam on women.

Thanks for being a prime example of why I really probably don't want to be here any more.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> I am simply lost for words on this one. I guess if you are absolutely intent on finding a way to be offended, one will be found. I offered a couple of points at the extreme ends of a possible solution space to a problem, and you take it as a slam on women.


The "slam" on women is apparent, Cletus, since neither suggestion you made is in any way something any woman has said would be appropriate or wanted. You built in the idea that we (women) are simply over-reacting, by suggesting that we would WANT to have a free pass to slap the guy. It is over the top and just plain silly, that is why it is insulting.

But sure, go on thinking that you are just innocently saying things that should not be offensive and lay the blame on me being "sensitive". Or just be honest and say you knew when you wrote it that it was snarky. Either way, fine by me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Well that seems awfully restrictive. Can't we proceed on the assumption that YOU believe a) there's a problem that b) should be solved?
> 
> I'll grant you a) insofar as some women feel threatened by leering. It would be stupid to say otherwise. Now whether or not b) rises to the level of more than hand wringing depends greatly on the proposed solutions, which might range from "it's your problem, get over it" to "I get a free pass to slap the guy" to "let's round all men up and put them in re-education camps".


One person at a time, we attempt to change our attitudes. Raise our children with healthy, non-damaging. When some guy is engaged in this kind of behavior, we call them out on it. "Don't be that guy."


----------



## Blondilocks

I kinda like the idea of 'reeducation' camps. Maybe that sheriff in Arizona can volunteer to set them up. Just kiddin'.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Always, go back and look at what I quoted with the above thing I wrote. I was just responding to his assertion that ONLY "ugly feminists" are the ones complaining, and was trying to stir some compassion in him instead of the bitterness he was exuding. (Ironic since he called these same women bitter).


I know, FW, and I think you are spot on about that.

But this idea that only ugly women complain about leering because they're hopelessly jealous about not getting enough leers is just another way of pretending that leering is a natural expression of sexual attraction. And I just wanted to reinforce the point that it isn't typically harmless men having a overly-long look-see at a beautiful woman that he happens to come across. It is often deliberately aggressive and designed specifically to make the object of it feel uncomfortable.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> One person at a time, we attempt to change our attitudes. Raise our children with healthy, non-damaging. When some guy is engaged in this kind of behavior, we call them out on it. "Don't be that guy."


Yes. But frankly I would be happy with simply "openly acknowledge that there is an actual problem that isn't just an over-wrought, hysterical or ballistic response to a totally innocuous, harmless activity."


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I know, FW, and I think you are spot on about that.
> 
> But this idea that only ugly women complain about leering because they're hopelessly jealous about not getting enough leers is just another way of pretending that leering is a natural expression of sexual attraction. And I just wanted to reinforce the point that it isn't typically harmless men having a overly-long look-see at a beautiful woman that he happens to come across. It is often deliberately aggressive and designed specifically to make the object of it feel uncomfortable.


Right, that is why I made the point I did. Which is that women DO get sexually assaulted and please, let's not forget that when we are trying to say that "only ugly feminists" have a problem with sexual intimidation.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Right, that is why I made the point I did. Which is that women DO get sexually assaulted and please, let's not forget that when we are trying to say that "only ugly feminists" have a problem with sexual intimidation.


And I was just worried that might get spun into some big argument about hysterical women conflating innocent leering with sexual assault. 

But we are on the same page on this.


----------



## Anon Pink

Can I reign this thread back in?

This wasn't supposed to turn into another battle between men doing men things and women fining those men things repugnant and men feeling like their maleness is being judged while women feel dismissed by the boys being boys thing so they fire back...

My original request was to understand how men feel about looking, leering, getting caught, what they see as the difference, and how they handle it when they think they might have crossed a line.

I find it so refreshing that with few exceptions, men feel compelled to look and try hard not to leer. That's what I would expect to hear from the vast majority of men.

I find it humorous that some men are offended that some women are offended. Cause, if you feel that your behavior is above board, then why be offended if someone else is offended by it?

I find it sad when women can't take a modicum of pleasure in being checked out.

I find it concerning that the line between looking, checking her out and leering is as fuzzy as it seems to be in this thread.

I really don't want this thread to become an us against them. I think it's clear that most men are very decent people and do not deserve to be thought of as predacious. They're not. 

My dad said to me, "you think men are pigs and some men are, but a lot more men are good men." He was right. He was right about a lot of things. Yeah Daddy!


----------



## Faithful Wife

For the record Anon, I turn heads constantly and I love it. I also do plenty of double takes myself.


----------



## Jadiel

I didn't read all of this because it's a long thread, but it reminds me of when my kids are like "They're LOOKING at me!" I'm usually like "So? The only way you can see someone looking at you is if you're looking at them. If you're so upset about someone absorbing the light reflected off your body with their eyes, maybe you should lock yourself in a dark closet and hide for the rest of your life. Or you can just get over it because there's way bigger problems out there."

It's like the girls who go out breastfeeding and wave their boobies around and are like "This is my right as a female to feed my babies BUT DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT ME!" It's a two way street. You want to right to do it in public, I want to watch. Or you can stay home.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There's a picture down on the "intrusive ads" thread just for you, Jadiel.


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> For the record Anon, I turn heads constantly and I love it. I also do plenty of double takes myself.


I'm sure you do! Id do a triple take seeing you walking down the street.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

Constable Odo said:


> Women dress to be noticed. They dress in competition with other women (invariably because those other women are in competition for the same limited supply of free sperm on the market) as well as to attract men (the source of said free sperm).
> 
> The difference between "looking" and "ogling" is an imaginary line concocted purely in a woman's head based solely on her level of attraction to the man who happens to be looking in her direction, whether "checking her out", or not.


Since you invoke the biological reproductive imperative behind male and female behavior, why not also mention basic primate behavior: Primates perceive staring as aggression. It's built-in. It isn't in the conscious mind. 



> Millions of years of human evolution have made us the way we are, so why fight nature in the name of some nonsensical political-correctness B.S. From a purely intellectual standpoint I may only wish to father children with one woman, but instinctive desires to spread my genes far and wide are constantly driving my inner animal to seek an endless supply of fertile, healthy women. And how does a male do that? By looking at a woman's skin complexion, and the luster of her hair -- signs of health, lack of sickness and chronic illness, and fertility. Developed breasts tell us a woman has matured into child-bearing age, and the sway of a woman's hips tell us her birth canal has widen enough to bear us children.
> 
> Just because I, as a human animal, are constantly inundated with visual signals which trigger instinctive urges doesn't mean I have to rent a helicopter and spray my semen all over Boston.


I think your attitude doesn't take into account what it means for women to be physically smaller and weaker than most members of the opposite sex.

Suppose you, as a human male, end up in jail and get a cell mate who outweighs you by fifty pounds and spends all day doing push-ups and pull-ups. In other words, he would have no problem harming you if that was his wish. suppose he just looks you right in the eyes and doesn't look away? I wager that you would feel fear from that look. It would be a feeling, not a thought. 



> Nine times out of ten, the women who complain about "ogling" are the ones no man wants to ogle. These are the same women who complain MaryLou's Coffee only hires cute perky women with an upbeat attitude -- no sour, bitter women need apply -- most of whom are feminists. And, as another poster pointed out, the higher the male is on the food chain, the higher is standards for the women he is "ogling", so those who aren't getting any "ogles" are usually POd because they're not.
> 
> And, naturally, just as many women out there are ogling men, as is evidenced by the plethora of Buff-Firemen-in-Speedos calendars on amazon.com. I'm perfectly fine with it. One of my best lady friends, Kelly, constantly ogled cops. I teased her incessantly about being a "badge bunny". She would shake her head and smile, saying "Yup!"
> 
> Do I complain and feign outrage, indignation, and be "offended" I haven't been asked to pose in the Fireman's Calendar?
> 
> No. I merely keep writing the publishers offering my services for the Plumbers-Crack calendar, which, to date, they haven't taken me up on


Ogling a photograph is the same as ogling person? Photographs don't know they're being ogled.


----------



## Anon Pink

Jadiel said:


> I didn't read all of this because it's a long thread, but it reminds me of when my kids are like "They're LOOKING at me!" I'm usually like "So? The only way you can see someone looking at you is if you're looking at them. If you're so upset about someone absorbing the light reflected off your body with their eyes, maybe you should lock yourself in a dark closet and hide for the rest of your life. Or you can just get over it because there's way bigger problems out there."
> 
> It's like the girls who go out breastfeeding and wave their boobies around and are like "This is my right as a female to feed my babies BUT DON'T YOU DARE LOOK AT ME!" It's a two way street. You want to right to do it in public, I want to watch. Or you can stay home.


I've never seen a woman nurse I public who hasn't covered herself pretty well. You might see a slip of skin between the cover and the baby's mouth, but you have to look really hard...which would be along the lines of the fuzzy area. 

For me, I'd want to sit down right next to her and watch her nurse because my God there is nothing more beautiful than that!!!! Gives me mommy chills just thinking about it? God I can't wait to be a grandmother!

On the other side of the same coin. My father in law was being extra nice after my first was born and brought me a glass of water while I was nursing. He looked on adoringly. It felt kinda creepy and I had to talk myself down from a panic. I had to keep reminding myself that everyone thinks this sight is a beautiful sight and if I don't sexualized it no one else can.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> But sure, go on thinking that you are just innocently saying things that should not be offensive and lay the blame on me being "sensitive". Or just be honest and say you knew when you wrote it that it was snarky. Either way, fine by me.


You get the first post for free as a potential misunderstanding. 

You do not get the second. I don't have to apologize for not hewing to your definition of the proper way to frame a question. You are not the Thought Police, you are not inside my head, and you are not in a position either factually nor morally to call me a liar nor a provocateur when I am being neither. Don't believe me? That is not my problem. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Can't we see the best in each other and work from there?


Sage words. Apparently too hard for their originator to live up to as well.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all.
I haven't been elected God so I can only do what is within my sphere of influence. To whit:

I try to avoid staring at women, if I do it without thinking I look suitable embarrassed if caught. I never make comments on the appearance of strangers at work or generic social situations, though I may make polite comments in some circumstances where it is appropriate. I cannot avoid smiling when a beautiful woman walks into my field of view, but no one has ever seemed to take offense.

Personally, I don't care if women or other men stare at me.

It is not that I don't have a *RIGHT* to stare, its that I try to be polite and avoid making other people uncomfortable. I could also walk around without ever showering, but it would make other people uncomfortable so I don't do it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I pointed out specific behavior of yours Cletus, and you can try to pretend you "innocently" didn't want to be snarky if you want to. That's fine.

In order to keep the peace I'll just put you on ignore and suggest you do the same.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Just to wander off topic further, Breastfeeding. I think that something has to give. Due to my career in the building industry, I'm seeing the effects of recent legislation, and I like what I see. Lactation rooms are nice places. I've also had some limited exposure to other cultures where breast feeding in public is no more unusual than bottle feeding in public. I'm pretty sure I know which is more unnatural.

So my experience. I was helping some neighbors move in. Think about what that means. I barely know them, but I am going to know them well for a long time. So this progressive mother, in her home full of strangers moving furniture, sits down and proceeds to feed Junior. no cover up. Just like it was her everyday thing. And because it was her everyday thing, the rest of us just kept on working. She answered questions and directed. Felt perfectly natural. And no one stared. Her confidence set the standard for all of us.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> I pointed out specific behavior of yours Cletus, and you can try to pretend you "innocently" didn't want to be snarky if you want to. That's fine.
> 
> In order to keep the peace I'll just put you on ignore and suggest you do the same.


If apologizing is beneath you, knock yourself out. Just try not to call any other posters a liar in my absence. 

FYI, that was snark.


----------



## Thundarr

Anon Pink said:


> Can I reign this thread back in?
> 
> This wasn't supposed to turn into another battle between men doing men things and women fining those men things repugnant and men feeling like their maleness is being judged while women feel dismissed by the boys being boys thing so they fire back...
> 
> My original request was to understand how men feel about looking, leering, getting caught, what they see as the difference, and how they handle it when they think they might have crossed a line.
> 
> I find it so refreshing that with few exceptions, men feel compelled to look and try hard not to leer. That's what I would expect to hear from the vast majority of men.
> 
> I find it humorous that some men are offended that some women are offended. Cause, if you feel that your behavior is above board, then why be offended if someone else is offended by it?
> 
> I find it sad when women can't take a modicum of pleasure in being checked out.
> 
> I find it concerning that the line between looking, checking her out and leering is as fuzzy as it seems to be in this thread.
> 
> I really don't want this thread to become an us against them. I think it's clear that most men are very decent people and do not deserve to be thought of as predacious. They're not.
> 
> My dad said to me, "you think men are pigs and some men are, but a lot more men are good men." He was right. He was right about a lot of things. Yeah Daddy!





Anon Pink said:


> I've never seen a woman nurse I public who hasn't covered herself pretty well. You might see a slip of skin between the cover and the baby's mouth, but you have to look really hard...which would be along the lines of the fuzzy area.
> 
> For me, I'd want to sit down right next to her and watch her nurse because my God there is nothing more beautiful than that!!!! Gives me mommy chills just thinking about it? God I can't wait to be a grandmother!
> 
> On the other side of the same coin. My father in law was being extra nice after my first was born and brought me a glass of water while I was nursing. He looked on adoringly. It felt kinda creepy and I had to talk myself down from a panic. I had to keep reminding myself that everyone thinks this sight is a beautiful sight and if I don't sexualized it no one else can.


These are objective and thoughtful Anon. And the last snippet about talking yourself out of an instinctual feeling of threat shows that you try not to let the few creepers affect how you see men in general.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> These are objective and thoughtful Anon. And the last snippet about talking yourself out of an instinctual feeling of threat shows that you try not to let the few creepers affect how you see men in general.


The thing that leaves me scratching my head is these creeper dudes. I would bet my last dollar that they don't think of themselves as creepers. I wonder what they DO think. But not so much that I really want to know.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> The thing that leaves me scratching my head is these creeper dudes. I would bet my last dollar that they don't think of themselves as creepers. I wonder what they DO think. But not so much that I really want to know.


I suspect that they're not the real problem. They're the ones that make women uncomfortable, but the predator they need to fear is the family member or friend who, rather than behave creepily, invests a lot of time in "grooming" them for abuse.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> The thing that leaves me scratching my head is these creeper dudes. I would bet my last dollar that they don't think of themselves as creepers. I wonder what they DO think. But not so much that I really want to know.


See that seems like you're insinuating something but I'll assume I just read it wrong. People who go through life being blatantly disrespectful know it so you can trust that most creepers know they offend women and they don't care. They enjoy it but that's a small number of men who offend a large number of women who then in return are angry at the rest of men.

Normal men and women interact just find and understand when they are pushing the boundaries based on the context of the situation. Can a guy accidentally go overboard? Yes. Can a girl think a guy is creepy too quickly? Yes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> See that seems like you're insinuating something but I'll assume I just read it wrong. People who go through life being blatantly disrespectful know it so you can trust that most creepers know they offend women and they don't care. They enjoy it but that's a small number of men who offend a large number of women who then in return are angry at the rest of men.
> 
> Normal men and women interact just find and understand when they are pushing the boundaries based on the context of the situation. Can a guy accidentally go overboard? Yes. Can a girl think a guy is creepy too quickly? Yes.


Thundarr...did you read the link I left several pages back, an article by Mark Manson about how creeped out he was by a dude? If not I will dig it back up if you are interested (it was a great article). Anyway my point is, I'm positive the dude who creeped out the author doesn't see himself as a creep. So I don't really agree with you here, lots of people are creepy but don't see themselves that way because they believe they are just expressing their sexual attraction. There's a lot of ignorance and projection that happens in the mind of the creep.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> The thing that leaves me scratching my head is these creeper dudes. I would bet my last dollar that they don't think of themselves as creepers. I wonder what they DO think. But not so much that I really want to know.


I thought of something else that hasn't been mentioned although I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned

It's the concept of risk/reward. If some guy is outgoing and flirty and over the top then he's going to come across as creepy to some and confident to others. So Joe cool to one girl is Joe creep to another or many others. It really doesn't take that high of a success rate to drive someone's actions. Now what do I think about Joe cool/Joe creep? Ehh I'm not sure exactly. I'll have to think on that.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Thundarr...did you read the link I left several pages back, an article by Mark Manson about how creeped out he was by a dude? If not I will dig it back up if you are interested (it was a great article). Anyway my point is, I'm positive the dude who creeped out the author doesn't see himself as a creep. So I don't really agree with you here, lots of people are creepy but don't see themselves that way because they believe they are just expressing their sexual attraction. There's a lot of ignorance and projection that happens in the mind of the creep.


The mind of the creep . Yes my next comment drifted to a completely different subset that might come off as creepy sometimes based on risk/reward. I don't like the notion though as it might implicate younger me .

Edit: So just pay me know attention until I figure out what the h&ll I actually think.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> I suspect that they're not the real problem. They're the ones that make women uncomfortable, but the predator they need to fear is the family member or friend who, rather than behave creepily, invests a lot of time in "grooming" them for abuse.


I wonder how much time we waste speculating about facts we don't know. But more to the point, it is disturbing that you find predators an interesting thing to be worried about. But for some reason merely being afraid or uncomfortable is not an interesting conversation for you. I would assume that you would not like to be someone who would make someone afraid or uncomfortable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> The mind of the creep . Yes my next comment drifted to a completely different subset that might come off as creepy sometimes based on risk/reward. I don't like the notion though as it might implicate younger me .
> 
> Edit: *So just pay me know attention* until I figure out what the h&ll I actually think.


Can't help it, I'm a dog lover.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder how much time we waste speculating about facts we don't know. But more to the point, it is disturbing that you find predators an interesting thing to be worried about.


Why is that disturbing? I have a wife. I had two children, now grown. I never felt the need to protect them from the guy on the bus who stares for too long. I did worry about protecting them from those who would have done them harm. 

If you're worried about actual physical threats to your body, it's a well known fact that strangers are not your primary threat. I was assuming that part of the reason creepers are creepy is because they're seen as potential predators.



> But for some reason merely being afraid or uncomfortable is not an interesting conversation for you. I would assume that you would not like to be someone who would make someone afraid or uncomfortable.


And I don't. I'm not a leerer. 

As I've said many times here, and is supported by endless research, humans are terrible at assessing risk. Being afraid and being in danger are two very different things, and it is in our best interests to learn to better align our fears with actual threats. When we do that, we do things like wear our seat belts, eat healthy, and exercise properly instead of waste mental energy and effort on avoiding those things that are not, statistically speaking, a real threat.

I was in a strange city alone recently. I needed to go to the grocery store on foot at 10:00 one night. I felt plenty uneasy, but reminded myself that my fears were overblown and not rooted in sound reasoning. So I forced myself to go out anyway.


----------



## Constable Odo

Anon Pink said:


> This wasn't supposed to turn into another battle between men doing men things and women fining those men things repugnant and men feeling like their maleness is being judged while women feel dismissed by the boys being boys thing so they fire back...


Could have fooled me. I recognize a strawman when I see one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Generally speaking, I don't leer. I'm going to notice and I'm going to look. Tough cookies if it's unwelcome, it's in public and it's a free country and it's not done to unreasonable excess.

In signaling interest with "looks" (ie the eyes game), I look long enough to get caught, lock eyes and gauge her response. An important part of the eye game is not looking away before she does, else you signal lack of confidence (feeling intimidated by her looking back), fear (I didn't want you to know I was looking) or lack of interest (ie I didn't mean for you to think I was interested, we just happened to look at the same time).

Once I've had an eye lock, most look away. When that happens, I stop looking. Then, I'm glancing to see if I get follow up looks (ie catch her looking now) and try to judge the feeling. If I perceive her as welcoming, I'll probably squeak a coy smile, see if its returned, and/or come up with something to say to start a conversation.

To my thinking, negative looking - leering- is a continued stare at someone I perceive as dismissive of my looking, or holding a stare far beyond reasonable or convenient. You might turn your head for a good look, but you get your look and move on. You don't stand there soaking up every available second. As a rule of thumb, I'd say anything more than a couple seconds is getting into leering. And with no return signals, I'd say no more than 2 or 3 looks back, max.

With eye locks those couple seconds feel like an eternity though.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Why is that disturbing? I have a wife. I had two children, now grown. I never felt the need to protect them from the guy on the bus who stares for too long. I did worry about protecting them from those who would have done them harm.


I am not sure what protection has to do with this conversation. What do you think about how THEY feel about being stared at?


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure what protection has to do with this conversation. What do you think about how THEY feel about being stared at?


Everyone is allowed his own fears and dislikes. As a decent member of society, I should try to accommodate both to the best of my ability. 

On the flip side, your discomfort does not AUTOMATICALLY rise to the level of something I should feel compelled to do anything about. And yes, I put physical violence in a completely different category from generating uneasiness. 

Were you expecting some other answer? 

Let me ask you this: within my life, people who wore tattoos caused many people of both genders unease in public. Were they under an obligation to cover their tats to make you feel less threatened? Was that perceived threat any more or less real then this one?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> See that seems like you're insinuating something but I'll assume I just read it wrong. People who go through life being blatantly disrespectful know it so you can trust that most creepers know they offend women and they don't care. They enjoy it but that's a small number of men who offend a large number of women who then in return are angry at the rest of men.


I wonder. I am meaning no disrespect. The word creeper for me goes past this leering thing we have been discussing and maybe outside of the scope of this thread. But some of my experiences just really make me wonder.

As a pretty small child, like 11, I would have construction workers (linemen, dudes at Dunkin Donuts... across the years) catcall at me. Hey little girl, want to come sit on my lap? I can make it feel real good. I would bet a dollar that they went home to wives. Daughters of their own. They KNEW that doing that to an 11 year old child was disgusting and did not care?

I don't know. Which is why I said it baffled me. 



> Normal men and women interact just find and understand when they are pushing the boundaries based on the context of the situation. Can a guy accidentally go overboard? Yes. Can a girl think a guy is creepy too quickly? Yes.


Sure enough. Everything is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> As a pretty small child, like 11, I would have construction workers (linemen, dudes at Dunkin Donuts... across the years) catcall at me. Hey little girl, want to come sit on my lap? I can make it feel real good. I would bet a dollar that they went home to wives. Daughters of their own. They KNEW that doing that to an 11 year old child was disgusting and did not care?


Exact example I gave earlier of what I experienced and made the claim that all women have gone through this at least once. Would you agree with that (all women, or let's say 95% at least), just as a guess?

Since all men (or 95%) have gone through a similar scenario of being bullied (when they were young), threatened or intimidated by a group of older boys or men, I assume all women have also gone through this version of it. 

I don't know even one woman or man who hasn't, anyway.

Wolf had doubted this claim, is why I am asking your opinion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> Everyone is allowed his own fears and dislikes. As a decent member of society, I should try to accommodate both to the best of my ability.
> 
> On the flip side, your discomfort does not AUTOMATICALLY rise to the level of something I should feel compelled to do anything about.


So generally I am not discomfited by anyone who does anything pretty much since I was 12. I guess I am just surprised how little concern is voiced on these kinds of threads about the experience or feelings of the women in men's lives around these kinds of events. 

I am really glad for my Dad's approach to this when I was younger. He never said men are gonna be men and if you don't understand what they are on about, then really get over yourself. His message was more about, you know who you are. Make your choices wisely. And ignore those doofuses. Which I find good advice. 

Again, past the scope of this thread. So please let me know if this goes too far in the drift department.

But as it relates to what you should or should not do. AA and I are in very different camps. I am a grassrooter. We each of us fixes ourselves. 


> And yes, I put physical violence in a completely different category from generating uneasiness.
> 
> Were you expecting some other answer?
> 
> Let me ask you this: within my life, people who wore tattoos caused many people of both genders unease in public.


They do? That is completely unknown to me.



> Were they under an obligation to cover their tats to make you feel less threatened? Was that perceived threat any more or less real then this one?


So I am clearly missing something. Who is asking anyone to take on new obligations?


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> I am really glad for my Dad's approach to this when I was younger. He never said men are gonna be men and if you don't understand what they are on about, then really get over yourself. His message was more about, you know who you are. Make your choices wisely. And ignore those doofuses. Which I find good advice.


It's also an implicit statement that doofuses will be doofuses. 



> They do? That is completely unknown to me.


They did. Tattoos have become mainstream, and no longer have that power. Yet they caused the exact same internal reaction for many people that we are debating here today. I had a coworker from the Navy who swore that the tattoo on the back of his hand cost him more than 1 job. 



> So I am clearly missing something. Who is asking anyone to take on new obligations?


I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I assume a problem that generates 350 replies in a few days might be big enough to consider solving, depending on the solution. That's just my fix-it Y chromosome showing, I guess. Before we decide to fix it if we can, we have to weigh the cost of the solutions. Not forgetting, of course, that the solution might just be a recommendation to "suck it up", because that's not automatically the wrong solution either.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Exact example I gave earlier of what I experienced and made the claim that all women have gone through this at least once. Would you agree with that (all women, or let's say 95% at least), just as a guess?


I would not choose to guess at these rates. What I do know is that I do not know anyone who has not. I do not know anyone whose experience of this kind of thing has not been pervasive vs an isolated event. I know that I considered it SOP from a very young age. Thankfully at my age, it is less so. At pushing 50, if my husband is not in earshot, I will still get off comments when out with him on dates.



> Since all men (or 95%) have gone through a similar scenario of being bullied (when they were young), threatened or intimidated by a group of older boys or men, I assume all women have also gone through this version of it.
> 
> I don't know even one woman or man who hasn't, anyway.
> 
> Wolf had doubted this claim, is why I am asking your opinion.


I think people are mean. I would like people to be less mean.


----------



## Tubbalard

Most construction workers are kinda creepy though. Especially the ones that are on the low end. Its like the adult version of a male highschool football team. A lot of testorone flying around.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I would not choose to guess at these rates. What I do know is that I do not know anyone who has not. I do not know anyone whose experience of this kind of thing has not been pervasive vs an isolated event. I know that I considered it SOP from a very young age. Thankfully at my age, it is less so. At pushing 50, if my husband is not in earshot, I will still get off comments when out with him on dates.
> 
> I think people are mean. I would like people to be less mean.


I wish people were less mean, too. And I do actually think we can affect this and do better across the board.

I also know of no one who hasn't experienced this type of thing, but I mean, as a very young girl (which was the example I had given that wolf had doubted).

I still get it now too, but I don't consider that the same since I'm not a minor. (Ie: there's no way to know if the same guys who cat call me now would also cat call a 12 y/o...I don't think men who cat call adult women are always creeps, but those who cat call 12 y/o's ARE always creeps).

I actually ended a friendship with a male friend because he was making creepy statements about the 14 y/o daughter of a friend of his. He made sure to reassure me by saying "I'm not saying I'd DO anything with her!" Uh huh. Buh bye. Haven't spoken to him since.


----------



## coffee4me

Every female in my family has experienced being leered at in a public place to the point of discomfort. All of us have experienced cat calls. 

I was taught by my mother how to handle stares by ignoring them. Don't make eye contact just keep walking etc. I teach my daughter the same because it starts happening at about 12 years old and at that age it's best to keep a straight face and keep walking. As you age you learn to live with it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I wish people were less mean, too. And I do actually think we can affect this and do better across the board.


I really don't. I don't believe in across the board. Thankfully MLK did not agree with me. And neither do you. Rock on.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> As a pretty small child, like 11, I would have construction workers (linemen, dudes at Dunkin Donuts... across the years) catcall at me. Hey little girl, want to come sit on my lap? I can make it feel real good. I would bet a dollar that they went home to wives. Daughters of their own. They KNEW that doing that to an 11 year old child was disgusting and did not care?


I'm sorry NS. I'm surprised to hear that actually because I've never seen a man cat call a little girl like that. I suspect it's because they know how despicable it is and they don't do it in front of other men who might do something about it. When my wife was a little girl she says one of her uncles would make crude comments to her and others. He wasn't alive when me and her started dating. I'm pretty sure she told me how he died but I don't remember what from. I suspect I didn't care to remember anything else I heard about him. And yes he was married with daughters. My wife's cousins is who she was there to see.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> I'm sorry NS. I'm surprised to hear that actually because I've never seen a man cat call a little girl like that. I suspect it's because they know how despicable it is and they don't do it in front of other men who might do something about it.


Well for me it was not some super awful singular experience that defined me. It was the backdrop of my life for years. But it was a crowd of men. There were probably one or two that thought, wow this is awful. They said nothing.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Thundarr said:


> I'm sorry NS. I'm surprised to hear that actually because I've never seen a man cat call a little girl like that...


With so much anecdotal information I'll throw mine in the ring. I have ALSO never personally seen or been around a group of men catcalling ANY woman (young, mature, or otherwise). And I was in the NAVY for 8 years! That does not imply, however, that I don't "believe" that it happens. 

I have seen groups of men stop what they are doing to view a woman, but not catcalling and far more often than not the woman had no idea anyone was paying attention (at least from our group). There has on occasion been women in this group as well - many who were "disgusted" but generally normal male behavior. Others who participated in the "ogling" (if you will) session. 

I've seen many men "ogle" my wife in public before. Usually I dismiss it, occasionally it has led to some funny outcomes. She used to have a very low cut top, with a little horseshoe cutout in the front in the very middle. Quite sexy. I watched a guy crane his neck so hard while trying to catch a glimpse that he ran straight into a door. TBH... more than one guy. 

I HAVE been direct propositioned, hounded, assaulted, and "leered" and "catcalled" by groups of homosexuals before. Interestingly, the salient article posted by FW was quite "triggery" for these experiences (and well written). A key to note in these instances: they went FAR BEYOND "looking" or "leering" or "creepy". There was touching. There was intimidation/personal space invasion. There was continued persistence after direct refusal. These instances are, therefore, NIGHT AND DAY different.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> Why minimize and insult women just to make your point?
> 
> No one here has suggested any such things and we are all rational thinking and caring adults. Aren't we?


You WAY overreacted here FW. And that tendency is WHY Cletus and others like me seem defensive on the situation. From what I can tell, there haven't been ANY suggested fixes by those that insist this is a huge problem. 

So how about you and the others that are so wound up about it propose some? Then we can stop the guessing games and ACTUALLY debate the merits of the potential plans. 

Again - we keep getting these boiler plate comments from AA, and similar insinuation by FW and others that Men just don't "get it" or aren't "compassionate", or seem to not care. We do. WE GET IT. Leering, et. al. are negatives for a woman. What are you proposing as a solution?


----------



## Thundarr

ET1SSJonota said:


> You WAY overreacted here FW. And that tendency is WHY Cletus and others like me seem defensive on the situation. From what I can tell, there haven't been ANY suggested fixes by those that insist this is a huge problem.
> 
> So how about you and the others that are so wound up about it propose some? Then we can stop the guessing games and ACTUALLY debate the merits of the potential plans.
> 
> Again - we keep getting these boiler plate comments from AA, and similar insinuation by FW and others that Men just don't "get it" or aren't "compassionate", or seem to not care. We do. WE GET IT. Leering, et. al. are negatives for a woman. What are you proposing as a solution?


Here's my plan. Acknowledgement. I have no clue how to fix any of this and I'm not sure there's anything that can be done. But even though I don't have answers, I've heard what the ladies have said. Hopefully understanding how they feel and why will make me more objective than I was before knowing it.

That being said, if I were single again (god forbid), I would offend some without meaning to. But I would be slower to judge those who I felt were offended without reason. That's meeting half way isn't it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Solution...I can only propose baby steps toward a solution because I can't see one that works without baby steps at this time.

So how about as a baby step you (or other men) can talk with me (and other women if they want) about the _similarity_ in our experiences, so that we can generate more understanding and compassion. 

More specifically, can we civilly discuss the similar experience I brought up earlier of how most men have experienced (usually during childhood but sometimes throughout their life) the intimidation with real threat of violence from a group of older men or bullies?

I would sincerely like to hear thoughts on this from men, so we can have something in common. I also used the prison example. I think if we are all talking about the same type of feeling in different situations, we can find common ground. 

From there...more baby steps...(though if you like I could write down what I see as the continued baby steps and the ultimate solution outcome that is possible...) (just not yet, I'd rather have civil discourse)

ETA: Let me add this...when I consider the genuine threat some men can pose to others, and then contemplate having to be a *male* in certain situations, it makes me terrified. I would assume that most men have been through far more intimidation and aggression and violence than I have, a dozen fold. I would like to hear men talk about this feeling.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> Solution...I can only propose baby steps toward a solution because I can't see one that works without baby steps at this time.
> 
> So how about as a baby step you (or other men) can talk with me (and other women if they want) about the similarity in our experiences, so that we can generate more understanding and compassion.
> 
> More specifically, can we civilly discuss the similar experience I brought up earlier of how most men have experienced (usually during childhood but sometimes throughout their life) the intimidation with real threat of violence from a group of older men or bullies?
> 
> I would sincerely like to hear thoughts on this from men, so we can have something in common. I also used the prison example. I think if we are all talking about the same type of feeling in different situations, we can find common ground.
> 
> *From there...more baby steps...(though if you like I could write down what I see as the continued baby steps and the ultimate solution outcome that is possible...) (just not yet, I'd rather have civil discourse)*


That last part is an issue. If there's some "hidden" agenda that we wouldn't like from the outset, that you feel at least for a time that needs to be kept secret, YOU are setting up an "us" vs. "them" dynamic. 

At the same time, you propose acting like partners working towards a common goal. Can you not see how duplicitous that seems?

YES, by all means, show us the end game. Then we may or may not go willingly down that road with you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I honestly can't think of it in full solution form without thinking through the baby steps...that is why I offered to write it down for you...I said "not now" because that will take time. I am willing to take the time, but I would like civil discourse in the meantime. If you are actually interested enough in what I would come up with, I will be glad to take the time to do that first, before discourse.

Up to you. I don't have an agenda or know what the solution is. But I can come up with one if I think it through.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly can't think of it in full solution form without thinking through the baby steps...that is why I offered to write it down for you...I said "not now" because that will take time. I am willing to take the time, but I would like civil discourse in the meantime. If you are actually interested enough in what I would come up with, I will be glad to take the time to do that first, before discourse.
> 
> Up to you. I don't have an agenda or know what the solution is. But I can come up with one if I think it through.


I and several others have specifically asked for this. Please do. But don't "hold out" because you think it would be uncivil. 

Also - disagreeing with you is not automatically "uncivil".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can you assume I have good will, and I will do the same? I did not hold out because I thought it would be uncivil to present a solution. I meant what I said...I knew I would have to think through a solution and write it out, I did not want to take the time to do that at that moment (because it will take a little time) and I was hoping for some civil discourse (simply because I genuinely wanted some and did and still want to hear men's thoughts on the points I made). Not because I wanted to bait you or anyone into going anywhere with me or to hold out something and later "ta dah!" you with it. When I said I wanted civil discourse I did not mean that disagreement with me was uncivil, I meant that I sincerely want some civil discourse about the thing I mentioned, versus just debating about that topic. 

It was a request from me for a specific thing. Not a statement about the rest of this thread.

I am being genuine so please see this post that way. Thank you. 

I am happy to now go spend a little time to write up what I believe would be the steps to a solution, and will post it here when done. I am not saying anyone else will be wow-ed by me. I am doing this because you asked me to, and because I think it is reasonable to say "well what do you propose as a solution", which you did, and I am responding to as best I can.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

I try not to make assumptions. I rarely find value in them. 

That said - I look forward to your steps!


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

TBH,

I don't think there is a direct solution in this thread that can be made.

But I do think the discussion, while winding and maddening at times, was worthwhile. I now understand more what men go through and that they get catcalled more frequently than I thought and I know I will think twice before I believe or buy into the idea that all men think its ok. 

That doesn't mean that I don't think things can improve for everybody all around, but I have absolutely no idea how that would be implemented.


----------



## john117

Anon Pink said:


> My dad said to me, "you think men are pigs and some men are, but a lot more men are good men." He was right. He was right about a lot of things. Yeah Daddy!



I'm the best father I can think of - and probably a good man - but given the right circumstances I do look look look... Not in a piggish way, but more in the way of someone who understands appearance and appreciates a woman putting on a good visual performance.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> *Wow, really? You know for sure that none of them ever experienced having to walk through an area where some men or young guys are hanging out and being intimidated by them in this way? How could they escape this, when you know for yourself that you and every young boy experiences it at least once?*
> 
> In my case, the most notable instances were while going alone to a grocery store where a group of migrant workers were standing outside and having to pass by them with yells and "ohh honey show me those cute new little t*ts" and similar, at about age 12. Not saying their migrant worker status had anything to do with it. Just that the area I lived in had lots of them. This actually happened several times, and I talked to several friends about it so I know it happened to them, too.
> 
> Then another time at a friend's house, her father and uncles had a bunch of dudes over who all got drunk in the back yard...and every time the uncles and father weren't listening, the other dudes were like "hey girlie come over here an sit on my lap for a minute" etc.
> 
> I could go on with several other examples, some more threatening than others, but all with the same theme.
> 
> But every boy and man I know has experienced the same type of harassment (just not necessarily sexual, but definitely the threat of violence, and aimed at humiliation and intimidation) from a group of "bullies". I am sure you have experienced it, too. How likely is it that most women do NOT experience it, if most men do?


:scratchhead: what are you even talking about. I never experienced anything like this either........ Seriously what are you even talking about here. Maybe the area of the country you grew up in is way more hostile but I haven't EVER seen what you are describing


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> Here's my plan. Acknowledgement. I have no clue how to fix any of this and I'm not sure there's anything that can be done. But even though I don't have answers, I've heard what the ladies have said. Hopefully understanding how they feel and why will make me more objective than I was before knowing it.


Thank you! Acknowledgment means a lot. 

While I realize there are ambiguities and grey zones, stats show that a significant majority of women and quite a number of men, particularly those in the LGBTQ community, report that they find leering uncomfortable, intimidating, and it reduces feelings of safety and enjoyment of public spaces. So aiming for change is worthwhile, I think. 

I like FW's baby step of finding common ground. The more we can discuss these issues openly the better.

Other ideas:
-Countries that score highly on gender equality measures have the fewest problems with issues like leering. We have come a long way in this, but there is still work to be done.

-help ensure our public spaces are safe spaces. Why do I have to leave the park bench because Ogly McDogly decides he feels like hanging out and giving me the staredown? But I do. If we work together to make public spaces safer, though, we'll all get more of what we want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok ET1SS, here goes...but please note, this solution will only work for future generations because it depends on educating young people so that they may have different behaviors than adults in the past or now...and the people who would have to do the proposed baby steps range from parents and educators, to legislation/law makers, to grass roots campaigns, to state and federal agencies, and more. 

Steps to a solution:

*Raise awareness in schools, school administration and in the adult population so adults can help kids figure this stuff out. Keep this issue alive alongside bullying and other forms of intimidation. Separate the issue from rape and assault, but just like bullying can become a violent and/or sexual issue, help adults know that this is possible. Help adults remember and realize how vulnerable and afraid children are, and that both boys and girls are literally terrorized sometimes by these issues. For this post I will just call it sexual intimidation, for lack of a better term. And just like bullying this is very hard to nail down to specific behaviors that can be monitored, yet also just like bullying, we all know it exists and there are laws against it.

*Separate the issue of sexual intimidation from the natural and lovely enjoyment of each other’s bodies, visually and every other way we enjoy each other. Educate adults and kids alike in the joys of appreciating each other’s bodies. Expand sex education into schools in a much broader way so that natural and normal impulses are talked about openly and without shame. Help kids understand their major raging hormonal state with age appropriate humor and conversation, but definitely be direct and edgy about it all, because kids now know way more than we did at their age. Stop bullsh*tting teenagers, in other words. They know what they want to do to each other. Talk to them about the natural wonders of the beauty we see in each other. Help them respect their own sexuality and that of others, which includes enjoying the visual side of it. Talk about this separately from the sexual intimidation issue and don’t conflate the two in the minds of young people.

*Bring the genders together on the topic, keeping it centered on bullying in general. Work on bringing men’s voices out more often when it comes to sexual intimidation so that it will not seem like a women- against-men thing as much. It really is just about the bullying (if we have separated the issue from rape and assault as I said above) so we all have that in common and can come to understanding. Also, women are creepy and are bullies and will intimidate others so bring those facts out to be discussed and do not let this get lopsided into something only boys/men do. To accomplish this bringing together of the genders, I can envision various coalitions and non-profit groups. Many such groups exist now and are working on various related issues. The more social issues are talked about, the more change that comes about in time.

*Work on the issues that each gender faces but not from the “problem” end of it, start at the beginning. Why do kids bully each other? This has been studied and continues to be. I understand too that some amount of play and rough and tumble is completely natural, and animals in the wild actually do bully each other, so it is not unnatural behavior at all. However, I think most can agree that the level to which humans bully each other doesn’t seem so natural and there is more to it than biology. If this is incorrect and it IS simply biology (and maybe someone will “discover” this one day), then great. Make every child self-aware that they have a bully inside of them…but make them understand that this doesn’t mean they must bully it just means they may feel the urge to do so. In fact, I see the need for a lot of compassion for the bullies of the world, because they are no different than us, they just had their lives turned in a certain direction for whatever reason. Sh*t happens. Let’s not shame and blame the bullies, let’s educate them before they become bullies, and have compassion for the ones who already are. But there are consequences of being a bully (this is also being studied) so these consequences can be explained to young people and adults.

*Get more anti-bullying programs into laws in the workplace. I attended a 3 day BOLI seminar recently, and they are actually doing this. Let’s do it more. In fact a good rule of thumb might be, if you would get fired for it, don't do it on the street.

All of these baby steps and many more + a lot of time (probably a decade or so) = My Proposed Solution May Become a Reality


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> :scratchhead: what are you even talking about. I never experienced anything like this either........ Seriously what are you even talking about here. Maybe the area of the country you grew up in is way more hostile but I haven't EVER seen what you are describing


You've never been bullied or intimidated by anyone in your life?

Wow, ok. I guess you simply can't relate to what I'm saying then. But at least two other women on this thread have stated exactly what I did about my experiences at age 12 so...I hope that at least gives you the idea that I'm not living in some weird creep land. I have no idea where the other two women live but I know they probably don't live where I do.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> You've never been bullied or intimidated by anyone in your life?
> 
> Wow, ok. I guess you simply can't relate to what I'm saying then. But at least two other women on this thread have stated exactly what I did about my experiences at age 12 so...I hope that at least gives you the idea that I'm not living in some weird creep land. I have no idea where the other two women live but I know they probably don't live where I do.


 I asked the question in my original post becuase I didn't understand what you meant by all women have experienced this. Experienced what? Being intimidated? Being cat called? Being leered at? All three? That's why i was asking you

The ladies I refered to have been leered at but no they were not intimidated by this. I have been leered at yes and grossed out by it because it was a guy...no I was not intimidated by this.

Yes i was bullied once but thay had nothing to do with being leered at or sexual in nature. That was a communication problem that unfortunately had to be resolved physically.

When I said I have never seen what you are referring to I meant the group of men cat calling a 12 year old girl sexually or a woman for that matter. 

Since you pointed out migrant workers I did see a group of them once stare at my x wife. Some say it is more engrained in thier culture to stare/ leer at women. I don't know if thats true. I don't care if it is. My x wife wasn't intimidated or offended she ignored it..... I on the other hand was highly offended as they were staring and confronted the group of them. It was never an issue again And sometimes calling out bad behavior is the way to go. Sometime it's not and its a fine line. Course I was the bad guy in the situation but I did, as I always try to do, what's right


----------



## soccermom2three

I remember being 12 years old and being leered at by a married male friend of my parent's. He had this skeevy smile on his face. It was so uncomfortable. I tried to ignore it but I could just feel him looking at me. 

He knew me since I was probably seven. I grew up with his kids, camping, boating, parties. Gross.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ET1SSJonota said:


> With so much anecdotal information I'll throw mine in the ring. I have ALSO never personally seen or been around a group of men catcalling ANY woman (young, mature, or otherwise). And I was in the NAVY for 8 years! That does not imply, however, that I don't "believe" that it happens.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> I HAVE been direct propositioned, hounded, assaulted, and "leered" and "catcalled" by groups of homosexuals before. Interestingly, the salient article posted by FW was quite "triggery" for these experiences (and well written). A key to note in these instances: they went FAR BEYOND "looking" or "leering" or "creepy". There was touching. There was intimidation/personal space invasion. There was continued persistence after direct refusal. *These instances are, therefore, NIGHT AND DAY different.*


In my post in which I posted the link, I made that exact point myself...that I personally am not offended by anyone simply looking at me, no matter how lustfully...it was when they want to talk to you that I have a problem, and then I made the point that this can happen to anyone male or female, and posted the link. I never said or implied that the experience in the link was the same as looking or even leering by itself.

I find your first quoted paragraph above fascinating. Heck, I've ogled and cat called women along side men myself lots of times (they started it but I joined) and so it is odd to me that you never, ever witnessed it? The times I've seen it and joined in on it, were young guys hollaring at young girls but age appropriate, and there was the chance of actually talked to each other. You've never at least seen that?

Funny story, I was walking on a side walk with a gay guy friend once, and a dude driving by craned his neck at me. The friend said "how funny, that guy was totally checking you out!" and I'm like, "um yeah, because straight guys do that". Same friend would totally crane his neck at a young hot man, but he had no idea that any man would do that to me. Funny.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> When I said I have never seen what you are referring to I meant the group of men cat calling a 12 year old girl sexually or a woman for that matter.


Ok well yet another woman has said she had the same experience so..

Not JUST groups of men, it may be an individual man. But I mean straight up sexual intimidation with the clear intent of sexualizing the child. Yes, every woman I know has experienced this starting at age 12 or so.

I gave you my examples and one of them was the group of migrant workers. I could give lots more examples of individual men and gross things they did or said to me at that age.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok well yet another woman has said she had the same experience so..
> 
> Not JUST groups of men, it may be an individual man. But I mean straight up sexual intimidation with the clear intent of sexualizing the child. Yes, every woman I know has experienced this starting at age 12 or so.
> 
> I gave you my examples and one of them was the group of migrant workers. I could give lots more examples of individual men and gross things they did or said to me at that age.


Ok 

Well I never minimized what you lived through. Was just asking for clarity. Just hasnt been part of my world thankfully


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, thankfully. And I'm thankful I've never actually been sexually assaulted (since many women have been). I just know deep inside, like with an animal instinct, that I was in real danger around several of those men.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok ET1SS, here goes...but please note, this solution will only work for future generations because it depends on educating young people so that they may have different behaviors than adults in the past or now...and the people who would have to do the proposed baby steps range from parents and educators, to legislation/law makers, to grass roots campaigns, to state and federal agencies, and more.


But of course. 


Faithful Wife said:


> Steps to a solution:
> *Raise awareness in schools, school administration and in the adult population so adults can help kids figure this stuff out. Keep this issue alive alongside bullying and other forms of intimidation. Separate the issue from rape and assault, but just like bullying can become a violent and/or sexual issue, help adults know that this is possible. Help adults remember and realize how vulnerable and afraid children are, and that both boys and girls are literally terrorized sometimes by these issues. For this post I will just call it sexual intimidation, for lack of a better term. And just like bullying this is very hard to nail down to specific behaviors that can be monitored, yet also just like bullying, we all know it exists and there are laws against it.


I fully endorse this baby step (ETA: minus the unspecified laws). 


Faithful Wife said:


> *Separate the issue of sexual intimidation from the natural and lovely enjoyment of each other’s bodies, visually and every other way we enjoy each other. Educate adults and kids alike in the joys of appreciating each other’s bodies. Expand sex education into schools in a much broader way so that natural and normal impulses are talked about openly and without shame. Help kids understand their major raging hormonal state with age appropriate humor and conversation, but definitely be direct and edgy about it all, because kids now know way more than we did at their age. Stop bullsh*tting teenagers, in other words. They know what they want to do to each other. Talk to them about the natural wonders of the beauty we see in each other. Help them respect their own sexuality and that of others, which includes enjoying the visual side of it. Talk about this separately from the sexual intimidation issue and don’t conflate the two in the minds of young people.


This issue is a “nuts and bolts” type that needs more refining before I could endorse. Very specifically in fact, because it is part of the “large gray area” that has caused so much consternation in this very thread. HOW do we separate the issue? I proposed a definition much earlier on in this thread – but I don’t think a single person addressed it. I’ll come back to this.

I do particularly agree with stop BSing the teens, and start recognizing the fast approaching complete loss of actual control over their behavior, and add mitigation into the “preventing” defense.


Faithful Wife said:


> *Bring the genders together on the topic, keeping it centered on bullying in general. Work on bringing men’s voices out more often when it comes to sexual intimidation so that it will not seem like a women- against-men thing as much. It really is just about the bullying (if we have separated the issue from rape and assault as I said above) so we all have that in common and can come to understanding. Also, women are creepy and are bullies and will intimidate others so bring those facts out to be discussed and do not let this get lopsided into something only boys/men do. To accomplish this bringing together of the genders, I can envision various coalitions and non-profit groups. Many such groups exist now and are working on various related issues. The more social issues are talked about, the more change that comes about in time.


Meh on this one. It sounds positive, but broad, and again seems to miss that the vast majority of the genders ARE quite close together on the topic. We REALLY are. 


Faithful Wife said:


> *Work on the issues that each gender faces but not from the “problem” end of it, start at the beginning. Why do kids bully each other? This has been studied and continues to be. I understand too that some amount of play and rough and tumble is completely natural, and animals in the wild actually do bully each other, so it is not unnatural behavior at all. However, I think most can agree that the level to which humans bully each other doesn’t seem so natural and there is more to it than biology. If this is incorrect and it IS simply biology (and maybe someone will “discover” this one day), then great. Make every child self-aware that they have a bully inside of them…but make them understand that this doesn’t mean they must bully it just means they may feel the urge to do so. In fact, I see the need for a lot of compassion for the bullies of the world, because they are no different than us, they just had their lives turned in a certain direction for whatever reason. Sh*t happens. Let’s not shame and blame the bullies, let’s educate them before they become bullies, and have compassion for the ones who already are. But there are consequences of being a bully (this is also being studied) so these consequences can be explained to young people and adults.


I’ll start by saying I DO believe it is biology. I’ll add that I believe in so many ways we have exceeded our biology and this is part of it – a part in which we should embrace that transcendence. We are truly “better than that”. There is very little I would lay at the feet and walk away for “how our biology works”. 

I’ll directly disagree with the shame and blame bit. Bullies should ABSOLUTELY have to OWN their behavior. If they are ashamed of it, GOOD. They should be. And they SHOULD be blamed. THEY did it, no one made them, they made a choice, and as you said, there’s a consequence. 

I truly understand the no shaming aspect of tons of other situations, but I do not “grok” this one AT ALL. Someone who does something totally socially unacceptable, PARTICULARLY if it isn’t technically against the law, should immediately be shamed/subjected to the full brunt of the public’s disapproval. 


Faithful Wife said:


> *Get more anti-bullying programs into laws in the workplace. I attended a 3 day BOLI seminar recently, and they are actually doing this. Let’s do it more. In fact a good rule of thumb might be, if you would get fired for it, don't do it on the street.
> 
> All of these baby steps and many more + a lot of time (probably a decade or so) = My Proposed Solution May Become a Reality


This is where the nuts and bolts of finding the demarcating line really need to be pinned down. I’ll grant that anti-bullying legislation is out there – but the question is has it been effective? And here we might get into an even larger philosophical disagreement. I personally think very little of “legislation”. My insight seems to be that public perception/social acceptance changes, and THEN laws start popping up. Laws don’t change society, because generally they have to have enough support to become laws in the first place. Then they just become punishment mechanisms, and in some cases, ways to threaten/harass people by claiming victim status. I fully expect you to disagree with me here – and that’s ok. 

I look throughout human history and see TONS of things that weren’t acceptable and were squashed not through law or physical force, but through social pressure and yes, shaming. You might say that shaming is a weapon that can be over-used and taken overly far. YES. So are laws. Especially when they focus on something as gray and broad as the line between acceptable appreciations of another person’s good looks and unwelcome looks that make someone “feel” bad. And if a law is taken too far – it can quite literally ruin the rest of your life. 

All in all I like where you’re going with this. However, it’s not something (other than the legislation) that isn’t in effect already. I know myself and every guy I’ve ever talked about the subject is well aware that there is a difference between the “creepy” state and checking a woman/girl out, and were taught by our families about it. And the vast majority of us don’t even come close to that line. A smaller but (I hope) still majority would stand up against a man/group of men that cross that line publicly. And yet it pervades. 

Adding legislation won’t stop the people who do bad things in the dark in an alley. It will absolutely ruin some dude’s life who looked sulkily at the hot chick who couldn’t stand him because he’s fat, ugly, and poor.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> ...
> I find your first quoted paragraph above fascinating. Heck, I've ogled and cat called women along side men myself lots of times (they started it but I joined) and so it is odd to me that you never, ever witnessed it? The times I've seen it and joined in on it, were young guys hollaring at young girls but age appropriate, and there was the chance of actually talked to each other. You've never at least seen that?...


Never. 4 years in Hawaii attached to a submarine (although I admittedly didn't "go out" much - racism against non-tourist whites pervades on Oahu). 4 more year between training and being an instructor. I've overheard lots of talk ABOUT women, I've watched guys drool all over themselves over a woman (who generally was not in a position to notice). Seen men line up to pay attention to/dote on an attractive lady. But NEVER the stereotypical cat-call line, not once. Maybe I'm just sheltered?


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, thankfully. And I'm thankful I've never actually been sexually assaulted (since many women have been). I just know deep inside, like with an animal instinct, that I was in real danger around several of those men.


As I mentioned, I HAVE been sexually assaulted. I know what that feels like. I know being powerless to stop someone from doing things to you you don't welcome. I know the fear that is associated with anything to do with a similar situation. And I get called a homophobe all the time for it. Usually by gay men or liberal women. Some empathy, huh?

I liken it to a car wreck. I was a motorcycle rider many moons ago. I was struck from behind by a very poor driver. While I didn't suffer any serious damage, I was gunshy on the road for quite some time. And I mean, seriously, terrified that any second I was going to be hit again. Screeching tires - oh wow, instant flop sweat white-knuckling the steering wheel. Revving engines -uh oh, watch out. 

After a while - I got to realize that these people weren't all out to get me. They weren't the boogey man. It was everyday, normal stuff. I stayed more AWARE. I became more defensive and passive a driver. But I eventually worked my way out of all of the fear. 

Now imagine if, due to having had a bad accident, and the subsequent fear I had, I went on a campaign to get laws on the books that would punish people who might instill this fear in me. Laws that while not "fully" as bad, would deliver the same connotation as being a reckless driver/DUI/vehicular homicide. Further, said laws would be based on a subjective "feeling" from a driver such as myself, with very little proof required (because if positive proof were required, most would "get away with it"). Most people would think me ludicrous. 

This is where the pushback you and others have been experiencing comes from. Not that the problem doesn't exist, or you are all just a bunch of liberal lesbian man-hating harpies (although I see why you took that from some - it wasn't helpful). But that the remedies available are so unproductive or downright counterproductive. 

As another mentioned, there clearly has been a time with male dominance (particularly white). That doesn't mean the solution is to swing the pendulum all the way the other way and allow a different group to be dominant and hope their "empathy" prevents them from abusing it. Because it won't. Because Biology.


----------



## yours4ever

If you can't wear a bra, then put on a scarf, covering your bosom. So easy.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not sure what protection has to do with this conversation. What do you think about how THEY feel about being stared at?


Let me share a little story:

I was picking my sister up from a day care school early one day. She was somewhere around 4 or 5 years old. (I was MUCH older)

Well, for reasons only known to the minds of 5 year olds, the kids started chanting her name: 'Jess I ca! Jess I ca!" over and over again.

She clearly was uncomfortable. There was very little one can do in that situation, so I ignored it. I could have overreacted and shouted at the kids. I could have caused a scene.

But...I considered it a life lesson. Character and fortitude are created by dealing with 'things that make you uncomfortable.' Yes, I felt an urge to protect her, but sometimes there *is no solution!*

Men will look. Some men will look odiously. Most men, catching the idea that the woman is uncomfortable, will feel badly about causing that discomfort and look away, not really intending hurting her feelings.

And because some women will get offended at a glance at her breasts and some will not...there is no 'fix'.

Since women, like men, want to know if a man is interested, a man looking at them is a perfectly good indicator of the same. So a woman who wants more attention can 'up her game' and a woman who doesn't can make her disinterest shown.

This is actually a pretty decent tool. Not getting the hate at looking.

LEERING is another matter.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> So generally I am not discomfited by anyone who does anything pretty much since I was 12. I guess I am just surprised how little concern is voiced on these kinds of threads about the experience or feelings of the women in men's lives around these kinds of events.
> 
> I am really glad for my Dad's approach to this when I was younger. He never said men are gonna be men and if you don't understand what they are on about, then really get over yourself. His message was more about, you know who you are. Make your choices wisely. And ignore those doofuses. Which I find good advice.


Um...ignoring the doofuses is essentially allowing those men to be the men they were. I see no daylight between the two responses you find so contrary.

Woman who needs to 'get over herself': ignores the male attention.

Woman 'ignoring the doofuses': ignores the male attention.

See?



> So I am clearly missing something. Who is asking anyone to take on new obligations?


I don't mind how you feel about 'leerers'. But some folks are asking men to modify their behaviors based on their 'feelings'.

Some people are scared of people in leather jackets and mohawks. It is certainly a more likely indicator of anti-social attitudes and activities than a middle class man who spends a few too many seconds looking at you bending over.

So...should Mohawk tonsured leather jacket wearing people be 'mindful of the discomfort they cause' and get a haircut and a blazer?

Just asking.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> I don't mind how you feel about 'leerers'. But some folks are asking men to modify their behaviors based on their 'feelings'.


So here is what I would see my husband do and what he would suggest my son do. If seeing odious behavior, comment "Dude, don't be that guy" or some such. Just a thought.


----------



## always_alone

ET1SSJonota said:


> This is where the pushback you and others have been experiencing comes from. Not that the problem doesn't exist, or you are all just a bunch of liberal lesbian man-hating harpies (although I see why you took that from some - it wasn't helpful). But that the remedies available are so unproductive or downright counterproductive.
> 
> As another mentioned, there clearly has been a time with male dominance (particularly white). That doesn't mean the solution is to swing the pendulum all the way the other way and allow a different group to be dominant and hope their "empathy" prevents them from abusing it. Because it won't. Because Biology.


But FW's solution was mostly about education. Education, open discussion and respect for other people. How is this counter-productive? How is this letting the pendulum swing so far that it, what, makes women dominant over men? I don't see that at all.

The point about education and creating and enforcing workplace policies has nothing to do with the fear-based revenge and control in your analogy. It has to do with changing a culture.

And this is where I see the heart of the disagreements on this thread. You want to throw your hands up in the air and say nothing can or should be done. Because biology.

But it isn't biology, it's culture and behaviour. 

Let's go back to your analogy: Would it make sense other driver to blame you for driving too close to the front of their car?

Because that's essentially what responses like "Get over it" or "Cover up" are doing. Basically, it's telling the person that they are the one at fault, and it's only their problem to deal with. 

I find the "cover up" one especially telling, as this is pretty much exactly what women in Middle East repressive countries are told: men cannot be expected to control themselves, so whatever they do to you, well it's your fault for making them do it.

Wouldn't it be ever so much more productive to educate people that this really isn't a reasonable line of thinking, and that we can do much better?


----------



## Wolf1974

ET1SSJonota said:


> Never. 4 years in Hawaii attached to a submarine (although I admittedly didn't "go out" much - racism against non-tourist whites pervades on Oahu). 4 more year between training and being an instructor. I've overheard lots of talk ABOUT women, I've watched guys drool all over themselves over a woman (who generally was not in a position to notice). Seen men line up to pay attention to/dote on an attractive lady. But NEVER the stereotypical cat-call line, not once. Maybe I'm just sheltered?


Not likely. I am anything but sheltered and I have never seen cat calling a woman anywhere but in the movies. I am aware it likely does happen but I don't think it's happening every corner USA either. Some places are naturally more aggressive probably


----------



## Thundarr

intheory said:


> She didn't drape a blankie or shawl over that side of her body; but she wasn't hanging out all over the place.
> 
> A grown man and 3 very young teenaged boys (13, 14 y.o.) stood on the bleacher directly above and behind her, and looked over her shoulder; I'm guessing to see as much exposed breast as possible. They also held their phones (cameras?) over her too. There was a lot of nervous giggling amongst these guys. They were able to make it seem that they were standing up on the bleachers in order to get a better view of the soccer. They could have claimed they were taking pictures of the game.


There's nothing sexual about seeing a boob with a baby on it. I understand that teenage boys who've never seen a boob might gawk or stare but it's odd to me for a man to stare. We would be much healthier society if more women breastfed. I tend to think that if more boobs were out there doing their intended natural purpose then the allure to stare at them would diminish. For that matter exposed boobs in general should not be taboo. I mean who made the rules about women covering them at all times? But women do have to fight gravity and inertia so those are good reasons to strap them in I suppose.


----------



## jb02157

yeah_right said:


> That sounds more rapey than charming, actually.


I think this makes my point. Some women think it's hot and some think that it's "rapey". The thing is, if you dress to attract men, your taking on the consequences that come if some of those you attract may not be to your liking. If you want to walk around braless, whether for medical reasons or not, and guys look at you, you have no right to expect men not to look at you or to insinuate they are perverts when they do.


----------



## Lionelhutz

Wolf1974 said:


> Not likely. I am anything but sheltered and I have never seen cat calling a woman anywhere but in the movies. I am aware it likely does happen but I don't think it's happening every corner USA either. Some places are naturally more aggressive probably


I have never cat called or come close to thinking it was anything but not only demeaning to her but to me. I've never hung around men who cat called and would have been pissed and embarrassed to be around someone did.

But I have seen it, particularly when travelling or when out at nightclubs and alcohol is usually involved. It does seem to be more common in some countries and cultures than others. But I have also seen a huge range in reactions. I have seen it illicit both fear and active encouragement and flirting.

My wife has been ogled at on a couple of occasions. I have only gotten involved once since she clearly enjoys the attention as long as it is not menacing or she is being forced to acknowledge it.

In most situations it strikes me as one of those many social "rules" that is simply a matter of doing your best to mind the comfort level of others.


----------



## Anon Pink

Thundarr said:


> There's nothing sexual about seeing a boob with a baby on it. I understand that teenage boys who've never seen a boob might gawk or stare but it's odd to me for a man to stare. We would be much healthier society if more women breastfed. I tend to think that if more boobs were out there doing their intended natural purpose then the allure to stare at them would diminish. For that matter exposed boobs in general should not be taboo. I mean who made the rules about women covering them at all times? *But women do have to fight gravity and inertia so those are good reasons to strap them in I suppose*.


Just to clear things up, since this was a major concern for me after that damn surgery.

Bras will not prevent sagging...at all. As we age, we actually lose breast tissue. The skin remains, thus causing a sagging appearance. As we age, the ligaments that hold the breasts to the chest wall lose elasticity, no bra will prevent this from happening. The placement of the nipple in relation to the rest of the breast will make the breast appear more or less saggy. So it's a combination of genetics (nipple placement) gravity and age. 

*No bra will correct or prevent ligament stretch, gravity, or aging.*

I completely agree that chest/breast exposure should not be taboo. 

Had I seen a bunch of boys sniggering at a woman's breast while nursing I would have given them AND their repugnant father one of my famous strongly worded lectures! 

But had I seen them taking pictures... OMG ballistic would not be far off the mark! :gun:


----------



## Anon Pink

jb02157 said:


> I think this makes my point. Some women think it's hot and some think that it's "rapey". The thing is, if you dress to attract men, your taking on the consequences that come if some of those you attract may not be to your liking. If you want to walk around braless, whether for medical reasons or not, and guys look at you, you have no right to expect men not to look at you or to insinuate they are perverts when they do.


Can you describe what attire you refer to when you say "if you dress to attract men..." I don't know if you mean jeans and a tee, yoga pants and a tee, a business suit, or mini skirt and tube top?

While you're at it, can you expand on the "consequences" you refer to? Because it really sounds as if you are close to suggesting any woman NOT dressed in a burka is fair game for leering, cat calls, invasion of personal space... And that all sounds rather rapey to just about every woman everywhere.


----------



## razgor

Anon Pink said:


> Can you describe what attire you refer to when you say "if you dress to attract men..." I don't know if you mean jeans and a tee, yoga pants and a tee, a business suit, or mini skirt and tube top?
> 
> While you're at it, can you expand on the "consequences" you refer to? Because it really sounds as if you are close to suggesting any woman NOT dressed in a burka is fair game for leering, cat calls, invasion of personal space... And that all sounds rather rapey to just about every woman everywhere.


Burka's are probably a pretty safe bet! So is super baggy sweat pants and top with no make up!

But seriously, there will come a time in your life when men will no longer notice you. And you may miss it. 

So I guess, you gotta take the good with the bad. Cause men will not stop checking out women anytime soon!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think that people should expect some attention if they dress for attention. By "attention" I mean looks, and possibly polite comment, not catcalls or assault. 

By "dress for attention" I don't mean any typical dress for the area, but something clearly worn for attention.

This applies to men as well as women. In my area if a guy wears cowboy boots, had, and a frilled-leather vest, he is going to get stared at because it is extremely unusual here. It might be perfectly normal in other areas.

Same goes for dramatic visible tattoos, unusual hair colors, very visible piercings, etc.

Heck, around here you would get stared at if you work a Bukhara, but in summer really short shorts wouldn't be noticed.


----------



## Racer

I’ll bring up something I haven’t seen mentioned even though ‘groups’ got brought up. 

Some of that catcalling stuff while it seems it is directed at you and targeting, you are really the secondary target. It’s meant more for the rest of the guys; a machismo thing of impressing others. And I wouldn’t say it’s a gender thing either. I’ve witnessed groups of woman where one needs to be ‘the crazy friend’ who pushes boundaries, comfort zones and taboo. They are doing the same thing; trying to impress their friends.


----------



## jb02157

razgor said:


> Burka's are probably a pretty safe bet! So is super baggy sweat pants and top with no make up!
> 
> But seriously, there will come a time in your life when men will no longer notice you. And you may miss it.
> 
> So I guess, you gotta take the good with the bad. Cause men will not stop checking out women anytime soon!


Exactly! Great post!


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Wouldn't it be ever so much more productive to educate people that this really isn't a reasonable line of thinking, and that we can do much better?


It is a reasonable line of thinking, and I would say we do a pretty good job of that already. Do you know anyone who doesn't understand that leering at a woman is not socially acceptable in this country? I don't know of any who haven't received the message. Everyone on this forum 'gets it'. 

Yet there will still be leering by those who don't care what you think of them or what unease they cause in you. So I don't think it's primarily an education problem. I don't think better education on the subject is wrong, but I'm also not convinced that it would be very effective. 

The information campaign to stop drunk driving has made it a near certainty that everyone in the country with a driving license understands that driving drunk is dangerous. The continued problem with drunk driving is not a lack of education. 

I want to be very clear, since some may try to twist this as being insensitive to the problem. It is not. I am thinking "outcome based". If we're going to propose solutions, I think it's also reasonable to discuss whether or not those solutions would bring about the change we desire.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> There's nothing sexual about seeing a boob with a baby on it. I understand that teenage boys who've never seen a boob might gawk or stare but it's odd to me for a man to stare. We would be much healthier society if more women breastfed. I tend to think that if more boobs were out there doing their intended natural purpose then the allure to stare at them would diminish. For that matter exposed boobs in general should not be taboo. I mean who made the rules about women covering them at all times?


Yes! There is some pretty interesting research that makes it clear that the over-sexualization of boobs is a cultural, not a biological thing.

In places where boobs regularly hang out in the open and do what they are designed to do (feed babies), they are not at all an object for gawking, cat-calls, or any other sexually intimidating behaviour. They are just there.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> But had I seen them taking pictures... OMG ballistic would not be far off the mark! :gun:


Do you realize that you are actually freer to engage men for this behavior than I am? Three guys acting like sh*ts may subject themselves to a dressing down by a woman, but they might not be so accommodating to a dude.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> In places where boobs regularly hang out in the open and do what they are designed to do (feed babies), they are not at all an object for gawking, cat-calls, or any other sexually intimidating behaviour. They are just there.


This is without a doubt true. 

The only problem is I don't think you're going to like the solution we'd have to adopt to get to that point here.


----------



## Anon Pink

Razgor, if you are referring to being noticed, as in a look but not a leer, I agree with you. Women are beautiful and they will be noticed by men and women do take a small bit of pleasure in being noticed...so long as it is politely done. But as this thread suggests, there is a line between being noticed, being check out, and being leered at. I think it's safe to assume most women are okay with being noticed. Some women are not okay with anything further while other are. Most women are not okay with being leered at.

If you wish to think of yourself as a gentleman, it's on you to find that line yourself. It's your responsibility, as a gentleman, to observe proper manners and not make others feel uncomfortable. However, if you don't care about making others uncomfortable... behave as you see fit but don't blame women and our "confusing signals" when you inevitably get called out for being insufferably rude.



Richard you bring reason to this thread.

As I stated in my opening post, I cannot wear a bra. During the winter this present no issue at all. During the summer in the heat, wearing enough clothing to disguise the girls is damn near impossible. I get that men, and women, will notice. I get that they might look long enough to be certain, "she clearly isn't wearing a bra!" I get that they may look even longer considering if I'm not wearing a bra because I want to have attention. What bothers me is they assume I'm not wearing a bra because I want their attention. I get that it's only natural, considering today's bra standards, to assume I'm seeking attention. I am not usually angry, but disappointed that society is what it is.

I go through this every spring. Knowing what the summer months will bring. I can't change society, nor men for assuming I am seeking attention and the men providing it, nor women for assuming the same and then jumping to conclusions about me. I am being judged because I do not conform to standards of modesty.


Racer, I agree. The mob mentality at its worst. But at some point boys grow up and learn to think of others and men would never intentionally make a woman feel discomfort or worse, threatened.


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> Do you realize that you are actually freer to engage men for this behavior than I am? Three guys acting like sh*ts may subject themselves to a dressing down by a woman, but they might not be so accommodating to a dude.


You bet I do! One of the perks of being an old lady!


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> The information campaign to stop drunk driving has made it a near certainty that everyone in the country with a driving license understands that driving drunk is dangerous. The continued problem with drunk driving is not a lack of education.


Yes, and do you realize just how effective that campaign was? Drinking and driving went from an everyday normal activity where everyone thought there was no problem, no harm, no foul, no issue whatsoever, and drove drunk all the time to one where almost everyone realizes how dangerous and stupid it is, and almost no one does it anymore.

Education is a powerful tool.

We have made progress in terms of education about leering. But not enough because too many people think there is no harm, no foul, and that women should just "get over it" or "cover up".

It's actually interesting to me that so many will hold up the women who "get used to" leering, "are numb to it", or "don't let it bother them" as the role models, the ones we should all aspire to be. But is that what we really want? Women who are numb to their sexuality, always walking straight ahead, blinders on, on the defensive? Women who start shutting down sexually, or are unwilling to express their own desires, or are resentful because they think men only want sex from them? 

Do you not see any connections there? I do.


----------



## razgor

Anon Pink said:


> Razgor, if you are referring to being noticed, as in a look but not a leer, I agree with you. Women are beautiful and they will be noticed by men and women do take a small bit of pleasure in being noticed...so long as it is politely done. But as this thread suggests, there is a line between being noticed, being check out, and being leered at. I think it's safe to assume most women are okay with being noticed. Some women are not okay with anything further while other are. Most women are not okay with being leered at.
> 
> If you wish to think of yourself as a gentleman, it's on you to find that line yourself. It's your responsibility, as a gentleman, to observe proper manners and not make others feel uncomfortable. However, if you don't care about making others uncomfortable... behave as you see fit but don't blame women and our "confusing signals" when you inevitably get called out for being insufferably rude.
> 
> 
> 
> Richard you bring reason to this thread.
> 
> As I stated in my opening post, I cannot wear a bra. During the winter this present no issue at all. During the summer in the heat, wearing enough clothing to disguise the girls is damn near impossible. I get that men, and women, will notice. I get that they might look long enough to be certain, "she clearly isn't wearing a bra!" I get that they may look even longer considering if I'm not wearing a bra because I want to have attention. What bothers me is they assume I'm not wearing a bra because I want their attention. I get that it's only natural, considering today's bra standards, to assume I'm seeking attention. I am not usually angry, but disappointed that society is what it is.
> 
> I go through this every spring. Knowing what the summer months will bring. I can't change society, nor men for assuming I am seeking attention and the men providing it, nor women for assuming the same and then jumping to conclusions about me. I am being judged because I do not conform to standards of modesty.
> 
> 
> Racer, I agree. The mob mentality at its worst. But at some point boys grow up and learn to think of others and men would never intentionally make a woman feel discomfort or worse, threatened.


I have never been called for being an insufferably rude before, so I guess I am not crossing the line. To be honest, I never cat call or tried to intrude on a womans personal space. I think the vast majority of men don't. But as you mentioned yourself, it is entirely subjective to the person receiving the attention. What bothers you may not bother someone else. Or vice verse. 

Being a man, my natural inclination is to try to offer a solution. But there really is not one. Other then live with it. You will not have much success trying to "educate" young men or older men about the horrors of cat calling. There are lots of areas where I am disappointed with society. But I am just one grain of sand on the beach. 

But, I am working on my communication skills with the wife. So I will use this as a time to practice them! I can understand why leering bothers you and it truly must be annoying. It is just terrible that you are still too attractive.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> This is without a doubt true.
> 
> The only problem is I don't think you're going to like the solution we'd have to adopt to get to that point here.


And you would probably be wrong.

Women shut down sexually in this world largely because we feel we have to, to protect ourselves. If we didn't (feel we) have to, we wouldn't do it. 

I have no problem with nudity, with bodies, with sexuality. I have a huge problem with someone treating my body as though its only purpose is to please them.


----------



## Wolf1974

Lionelhutz said:


> I have never cat called or come close to thinking it was anything but not only demeaning to her but to me. I've never hung around men who cat called and would have been pissed and embarrassed to be around someone did.
> 
> But I have seen it, particularly when travelling or when out at nightclubs and alcohol is usually involved. It does seem to be more common in some countries and cultures than others. But I have also seen a huge range in reactions. I have seen it illicit both fear and active encouragement and flirting.
> 
> My wife has been ogled at on a couple of occasions. I have only gotten involved once since she clearly enjoys the attention as long as it is not menacing or she is being forced to acknowledge it.
> 
> In most situations it strikes me as one of those many social "rules" that is simply a matter of doing your best to mind the comfort level of others.


 I guess in thinking about this more this morning I have sorta seen cat calling like this once. Was on vacation in NYC downtown Manhattan taking in the sites. I heard whistling, hey babies, damn boy you fine. This was mixed in with a thousand people walking and constant horn honking. It was so chaotic you couldn't tell who was whistling who or what. It was like an overload of senses going off and couldn't really process any of it. I have been downtown Chicago, LA, New Orleans and never experienced the same. Downtown Manhattan is about as close as I could come to a memory of witnessing cat calling

Now leering..... I just need to head to the gym to see that one lol


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> I guess in thinking about this more this morning I have sorta seen cat calling like this once. Was on vacation in NYC downtown Manhattan taking in the sites. I heard whistling, hey babies, damn boy you fine. This was mixed in with a thousand people walking and constant horn honking. It was so chaotic you couldn't tell who was whistling who or what. It was like an overload of senses going off and couldn't really process any of it. I have been downtown Chicago, LA, New Orleans and never experienced the same. Downtown Manhattan is about as close as I could come to a memory of witnessing cat calling


You are just not aware of it then. Perhaps because it's not directed at you?

Any big city will yield multiple cat-calls and countless leers per day for a young and attractive woman. Heck, even as an old hag like me, you'll get some of that action in a place like New Orleans.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Yes, and do you realize just how effective that campaign was? Drinking and driving went from an everyday normal activity where everyone thought there was no problem, no harm, no foul, no issue whatsoever, and drove drunk all the time to one where almost everyone realizes how dangerous and stupid it is, and almost no one does it anymore.


That's simply not true, that's just a perception. ~40% of all traffic fatalities today are related to alcohol. That number has not budged in the last decade. 

Which is exactly my point. Everyone knows they shouldn't be doing it, but 10s of thousands a year still die from it. 



> We have made progress in terms of education about leering. But not enough because too many people think there is no harm, no foul, and that women should just "get over it" or "cover up".


I'm not apologetic about my position that "get over it" is still pretty good advice. Because in the end, just like drunk driving, you won't be able to eliminate it, so you'll still need a coping strategy that you can employ which involves you and only you, albeit less than before. 



> Women who are numb to their sexuality, always walking straight ahead, blinders on, on the defensive? Women who start shutting down sexually, or are unwilling to express their own desires, or are resentful because they think men only want sex from them?
> 
> Do you not see any connections there? I do.


Honestly, with no varnish? I think the woman or man who lets a stranger on the subway do this to his or her sexuality is just as broken as the leering idiot. That is a reaction that is way out of proportion to the problem. That's the sort of response you might expect from a rape survivor, not a leer survivor. It does not reasonably follow that a leering stranger implies that all men only want one thing from you. It might mean that this one man only wants one thing, and you are free to not provide it. It's also perfectly understandable that you should be uncomfortable in the moment, but the moment shouldn't extend to your own bedroom. 

I've been held up at gunpoint 3 times in my life. Should I use that as an excuse to hole up in my house and never go out in public again? That is a far more violent event than suffering some unwelcome leering on a bus.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> You are just not aware of it then. Perhaps because it's not directed at you?
> 
> Any big city will yield multiple cat-calls and countless leers per day for a young and attractive woman. Heck, even as an old hag like me, you'll get some of that action in a place like New Orleans.


Hell, on Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras _I_ would get offers to show my rack.


----------



## Anon Pink

razgor said:


> It is just terrible that you are still too attractive.



T'is a heavy cross to bear. But bear it I will.


----------



## Anon Pink

Cletus said:


> think the woman or man who lets a stranger on the subway do this to his or her sexuality is just as broken as the leering idiot. That is a reaction that is way out of proportion to the problem. That's the sort of response you might expect from a rape survivor, not a leer survivor. It does not reasonably follow that a leering stranger implies that all men only want one thing from you. It might mean that this one man only wants one thing, and you are free to not provide it. It's also perfectly understandable that you should be uncomfortable in the moment, but the moment shouldn't extend to your own bedroom.
> 
> .



I agree with this. However, having been on the side of allowing that damaged thinking to extend to my own bedroom, it's not so easy to adopt a sense of safety when it was ripped out in childhood.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anon Pink said:


> T'is a heavy cross to bear. But bear it I will.


She can't help it, she's just drawn that way.

But seriously, it isn't about being attractive.

The problem is when it is sexual intimidation, which is not about attraction at all and could be directed toward anyone, including children, men and older people. Anyone who is vulnerable in the moment either by size or by gender or whatever is a target.

We (women) all know the difference between genuine appreciation for our beauty and sexual intimidation. I agree with Always that there is certainly hope for change in this through education. Just like condom/safe sex campaigns. Just like drunk driving campaigns. Just like other human rights campaigns.

If it doesn't affect you (anyone reading), then why be "against" it? If you’ve never seen it happen and it has never happened to any woman you know then great, you have somehow been insulated from this issue.

But that doesn’t mean others don’t experience it. Why would you even have an opinion about something others experience which you have no knowledge of?

That’s kinda like me going into a discussion about racial equality and saying “well I’ve never seen anyone harassing someone based on the color of their skin and I don’t do it myself and all my friends love diversity, so why are YOU all even having this discussing, get over it!”


----------



## Cletus

So to shift from quibbling over the details, if education is seen as the best solution to this issue, I think that's a fair reaction. It doesn't criminalize anything that's not enforceable, it doesn't set anyone's rights above those of others, and it almost certainly doesn't suffer from the law of unintended consequences unless random strangers are suddenly unable to find dates on subways because of a fear of being creepy, but I expect they'll adjust. 

See? That wasn't so hard. That as a solution is acceptable to me because it probably can't hurt, it might help, and it directly addresses the problem. But I couldn't weigh the cost of working on the issue until someone proposed what they wanted to see done.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> I’ll bring up something I haven’t seen mentioned even though ‘groups’ got brought up.
> 
> Some of that catcalling stuff while it seems it is directed at you and targeting, you are really the secondary target. It’s meant more for the rest of the guys; a machismo thing of impressing others. And I wouldn’t say it’s a gender thing either. I’ve witnessed groups of woman where one needs to be ‘the crazy friend’ who pushes boundaries, comfort zones and taboo. They are doing the same thing; trying to impress their friends.


I can tell the difference. Usually this type of group isn't trying to intimidate you, they are just making noise and clearly encouraging each other much more than talking to you. In fact if you stop and actually talk to a man in a group like this, a lot of times they stutter and back down and suddenly have nothing to say.


----------



## Cletus

Anon Pink said:


> I agree with this. However, having been on the side of allowing that damaged thinking to extend to my own bedroom, it's not so easy to adopt a sense of safety when it was ripped out in childhood.


No, of course not, but your sense of safety was ripped out in childhood, not on the bus. Part of healing from abuse is learning when your radar is out of whack from your past experiences, is it not?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> That's simply not true, that's just a perception. ~40% of all traffic fatalities today are related to alcohol. That number has not budged in the last decade.
> 
> Which is exactly my point. Everyone knows they shouldn't be doing it, but 10s of thousands a year still die from it.


Yes, people still die from it, but the rates have dropped considerably from the 1980s to now: http://resources.prev.org/documents/FittoDrive.pdf



> From 1982 to 1999, rates of alcohol related (BAC
> >.00) crashes declined, as did the total number of alcohol related crashes in the United States. In 1982, there were 26,173 alcohol related fatalities in the United States, 60 percent of the total number of people killed on U.S. roadways. By 1999, that percentage had fallen to 40 percent and alcohol related fatalities fell to 16,572; decreases of 33.3% and 36.7% respectively. The most dramatic declines occurred from 1982 to 1994.30





Cletus said:


> I've been held up at gunpoint 3 times in my life. Should I use that as an excuse to hole up in my house and never go out in public again? That is a far more violent event than suffering some unwelcome leering on a bus.


The more isolated the incidents, the less likely they are to affect you. I can pretty much guarantee that if you faced this as an ongoing threat in your life, you would have a very different attitude to it.

It is not just whether or not you have had certain experiences; it's also the culture and climate in which you live.

Call people broken for their attitudes all you want. But when there is a culture encouraging them to hold such attitudes, don't be surprised when it has consequences that you don't like. 

For example, your advice is "get over it". What is it exactly that you want them to "get over"? Because my thinking is that this is exactly what many women are doing and it's playing out in ways that most men are here on TAM to vent and complain about. 

What sort of life would you rather have?


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> What sort of life would you rather have?


I'll leave that question unanswered, since I think it's clear that our world views are pretty far apart, I'm not convinced of the causal relationship you're drawing, and we're at an impasse. 

So I'll just leave it as I acknowledge the problem and agree to increased education as a reasonable course of action. After that, I guess we just wait and see what happens. If I really wanted to go after the root of the cause of much of our sexual hangups today, this wouldn't make my list of the top 10.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I'll leave that question unanswered, since I think it's clear that our world views are pretty far apart, I'm not convinced of the causal relationship you're drawing, and we're at an impasse.
> 
> So I'll just leave it as I acknowledge the problem and agree to increased education as a reasonable course of action. After that, I guess we just wait and see what happens. If I really wanted to go after the root of the cause of much of our sexual hangups today, this wouldn't make my list of the top 10.


I am not at all saying that there is causal relationship. What I am pointing to is a culture of sexual intimidation that women often grow up in. Some have it worse than others, but most women experience it at least to some degree from a very young age.


Leering is only one part of that culture, granted. And maybe not the most important part. But it is still a part, and it is, to my mind, still worth talking about.

That culture affects how women see themselves, their sexuality, and the sexuality of men. And do we not want all people, regardless of gender or orientation, to have as positive experience as possible?


----------



## razgor

Faithful Wife said:


> The problem is when it is sexual intimidation, which is not about attraction at all and could be directed toward anyone, including children, men and older people. Anyone who is vulnerable in the moment either by size or by gender or whatever is a target.
> 
> We (women) all know the difference between genuine appreciation for our beauty and sexual intimidation. I agree with Always that there is certainly hope for change in this through education. Just like condom/safe sex campaigns. Just like drunk driving campaigns. Just like other human rights campaigns.
> 
> That’s kinda like me going into a discussion about racial equality and saying “well I’ve never seen anyone harassing someone based on the color of their skin and I don’t do it myself and all my friends love diversity, so why are YOU all even having this discussing, get over it!”


Sorry, but cat calling is no where near as damaging as the other issues you list. It seems petty. And frankly it belittles the other issues. Cat Calling < Drunk Driving. I have not seem anyone die from Cat Calling.

Cat calling ain't rape, it is not sexual intimidation and it is not assault. You want people to recognize your beauty on your terms. Good luck with that.

Trying to "educate" people on the horrors of cat calling will just push the average person further away from feminism.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I am not at all saying that there is causal relationship. What I am pointing to is a culture of sexual intimidation that women often grow up in. *Some have it worse than others, but most women experience it at least to some degree from a very young age.*
> 
> Leering is only one part of that culture, granted. And maybe not the most important part. But it is still a part, and it is, to my mind, still worth talking about.



And of course decent men who don't pose any threat to 12 y/o girls (or boys) don't know about these other men who DO post a threat. The actual creepers aren't going to expose themselves to other men, why would they? They know decent men won't approve. So they save their creepshow for the use of intimidation of the 12 y/o girls and boys (or whoever).

So with education campaigns, one of the positive things that could come from it would be to allow the young people who have been intimidated like this to talk about it openly. To discuss it with adults and other kids. So that they don't have to just silently wonder what the heck was going on with those creepers? So that they can be acknowledged that they may have been terrorized and they can help make sense of it for themselves. This will also help other adults understand that it happens when they are NOT looking and are NOT able to be there to help or defend the young people.

That will help adults keep their eyes open for this stuff more often. Since they are largely unaware of it happening, this is necessary. Kids can't be the ones to come to us after the fact and try to explain what has happened, they won't do that, they are too naive to understand it at all. But if in a group they are encouraged to talk about it, adults listening will be made more aware by it.


----------



## jb02157

razgor said:


> Sorry, but cat calling is no where near as damaging as the other issues you list. It seems petty. And frankly it belittles the other issues. Cat Calling < Drunk Driving. I have not seem anyone die from Cat Calling.
> 
> Cat calling ain't rape, it is not sexual intimidation and it is not assault. You want people to recognize your beauty on your terms. Good luck with that.
> 
> Trying to "educate" people on the horrors of cat calling will just push the average person further away from feminism.


Excellent post!

Yep absolutely, women want men to do recognize their beauty on THEIR terms and when they don't get that, they get pissy.

"educating" men not to respond also won't work. It would be better to educate women that dressing to attract will sometimes get you unwanted results, so do so at your own risk.


----------



## Faithful Wife

razgor said:


> Sorry, but cat calling is no where near as damaging as the other issues you list. It seems petty. And frankly it belittles the other issues. Cat Calling < Drunk Driving. I have not seem anyone die from Cat Calling.
> 
> Cat calling ain't rape, it is not sexual intimidation and it is not assault. You want people to recognize your beauty on your terms. Good luck with that.
> 
> Trying to "educate" people on the horrors of cat calling will just push the average person further away from feminism.


Except I'm not talking about cat calling I'm talking about bullying and sexual intimidation. If you are going to disagree with me, at least make sure you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening razgo
Some women feel threatened by cat calling - they see is as a possible pre-cursor to assault. Maybe its real. Maybe its that too many movies show rapes starting with cat calling. I don't know if the fear is accurate, but why make someone uncomfortable? 









razgor said:


> Sorry, but cat calling is no where near as damaging as the other issues you list. It seems petty. And frankly it belittles the other issues. Cat Calling < Drunk Driving. I have not seem anyone die from Cat Calling.
> 
> Cat calling ain't rape, it is not sexual intimidation and it is not assault. You want people to recognize your beauty on your terms. Good luck with that.
> 
> Trying to "educate" people on the horrors of cat calling will just push the average person further away from feminism.


----------



## razgor

*deleted* Since I misunderstood FW.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> I can tell the difference. Usually this type of group isn't trying to intimidate you, they are just making noise and clearly encouraging each other much more than talking to you. In fact if you stop and actually talk to a man in a group like this, a lot of times they stutter and back down and suddenly have nothing to say.


Deciding to call their bluff though gets into a whole new weird dynamic. It's a risk because you have no idea how far they might go to save face. 

The worst ones though are when our girlfriends/sisters/friends, etc. escalate it by confronting; "Whatcha looking at!?" (then nudging me toward them). Some of my worst experiences are that exact situation; I'm with a girl or in a group with girls who've adopted a "solution" and a false bravado that she's got a defender. Stupid knight in shining armor syndrome rescuing her from would be villains and righting the wrongs of the world. I help old ladies across the street, not fight because some guy recognized you are seriously hot (which we agree with); that's not worth losing teeth over and we note that you are betting our years of braces to get that dazzling smile, not risking your own.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The funny thing is, as far as I can tell (I think I've read all the posts here but may have missed some)....*I* am the only person here who has admitted to any cat calling. I also straight up admit to enjoying turning heads, and I turn plenty. I ALSO have said I do not feel intimidated by anyone leering at me (other than predatory older people when I was still a minor).

I also admit to not being able to keep my eyes off of women sometimes. Men too sometimes but they don't show as much skin.

Yet it is easy for me to distinguish all these behaviors from bullying and sexual intimidation.

And also easy for me to accept that Always and some other people don't like being leered at. Which is why I do attempt to not leer, rather just look. (Sometimes I am not successful, get caught, and am labeled a creep). I am happy to submit myself to more education about this topic, and I'm sure that somewhere, someone is already working on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> Deciding to call their bluff though gets into a whole new weird dynamic. It's a risk because you have no idea how far they might go to save face.
> 
> The worst ones though are when our girlfriends/sisters/friends, etc. escalate it by confronting; "Whatcha looking at!?" (then nudging me toward them). Some of my worst experiences are that exact situation; I'm with a girl or in a group with girls who've adopted a "solution" and a false bravado that she's got a defender. Stupid knight in shining armor syndrome rescuing her from would be villains and righting the wrongs of the world. I help old ladies across the street, not fight because some guy recognized you are seriously hot (which we agree with); that's not worth losing teeth over and we note that you are betting our years of braces to get that dazzling smile, not risking your own.


I'd never put a man out there and offer him up in my defense.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening razgo
> Some women feel threatened by cat calling - they see is as a possible pre-cursor to assault. Maybe its real. Maybe its that too many movies show rapes starting with cat calling. I don't know if the fear is accurate, but why make someone uncomfortable?


I agree with your overall sentiment here, richard, but just want to comment on this question of whether the fear is real.

Things like cat-calling, leering, etc., aren't always a precursor to assault and women know this. But they create a certain climate, if you will, where it can be very difficult to just go about your life, commute to work, walk in the park, hang out on the beach, or any other of a myriad of ordinary activities, without someone getting in your face.

This, all on its own, independent of whether there is assault or rape, has a psychological effect that makes a person feel unsafe, harassed, and intimidated. It works this way for both men and women.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I'd never put a man out there and offer him up in my defense.


Seriously! What a bloody obnoxious thing to do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ET1SSJonota said:


> As I mentioned, I HAVE been sexually assaulted. I know what that feels like. I know being powerless to stop someone from doing things to you you don't welcome. I know the fear that is associated with anything to do with a similar situation. And I get called a homophobe all the time for it.
> 
> (snip...)
> 
> Now imagine if, due to having had a bad accident, and the subsequent fear I had, I went on a campaign to get laws on the books that would punish people who might instill this fear in me. Laws that while not "fully" as bad, *would deliver the same connotation as being a reckless driver/DUI/vehicular homicide*. Further, said laws would be based on a subjective "feeling" from a driver such as myself, with very little proof required (because if positive proof were required, most would "get away with it"). Most people would think me ludicrous.


I'm sorry to hear about the sexual assault. 

I don't quite understand your other point above though, because whether it is about safer driving or clamping down on sexual assault, many people who have been victimized DO and HAVE gone on to create awareness and educational campaigns and changes in the law. There's nothing odd or radical about this.

But the radical point you seem to be making doesn't make sense. No one here ever said that there should be "the same" consequences for sexual bullying as anything else (I assume you're referring to rape charges?) So I don't get what point your strawman has.


----------



## razgor

always_alone said:


> I agree with your overall sentiment here, richard, but just want to comment on this question of whether the fear is real.
> 
> Things like cat-calling, leering, etc., aren't always a precursor to assault and women know this. But they create a certain climate, if you will, where it can be very difficult to just go about your life, commute to work, walk in the park, hang out on the beach, or any other of a myriad of ordinary activities, without someone getting in your face.
> 
> This, all on its own, independent of whether there is assault or rape, has a psychological effect that makes a person feel unsafe, harassed, and intimidated. It works this way for both men and women.


I get that leering bothers some woman. But there are lots of things on this earth that makes me feel uncomfortable. Do we as a society try to educate or pass laws against anything that makes anyone uncomfortable?

Where do you draw the line? As a society we currently draw the line at assault or workplace sexual harassment. But staring to long long or whistling on the streets? Come on, that is virtually unenforceable. And invites all kinds of silliness.

Like it or not we all have the right to be an a-hole!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

It seems to be a theme across many threads that what women are ultimately complaining about is powerlessness. It sounds like literally everything is intimidating. Don't check her out, you might be leering and that's intimidating. Don't compliment her, you might be cat calling and that's intimidating. Don't do anything out of knowledge that women typically respond to it, or you're a player/pick-up artist. Don't strike up a random conversation in public in effort to meet her, you might intimidate her you creepy stranger guy.

In a nutshell, don't talk to or look at women you don't know. (not really sure how you're going to know any women at this point lol)

Pray tell, what is the "right way"? Because at this point it appears limited to "ask a mutual friend to set you up", and dating websites. lol

I'm inclined to think that no matter what men do, women will have complaints. Whether she judges the advance appropriate or not seems to depend more on whether she turns out to be interested in the guy than anything else. I'd say men ought to just sit back and do nothing and let the women do all the "work" since they're the ones with the complaints about how it is done, except that the average guy out there already knows that nothing is what usually comes of doing nothing.


----------



## jb02157

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It seems to be a theme across many threads that what women are ultimately complaining about is powerlessness. It sounds like literally everything is intimidating. Don't check her out, you might be leering and that's intimidating. Don't compliment her, you might be cat calling and that's intimidating. Don't do anything out of knowledge that women typically respond to it, or you're a player/pick-up artist. Don't strike up a random conversation in public in effort to meet her, you might intimidate her you creepy stranger guy.
> 
> In a nutshell, don't talk to or look at women you don't know. (not really sure how you're going to know any women at this point lol)
> 
> Pray tell, what is the "right way"? Because at this point it appears limited to "ask a mutual friend to set you up", and dating websites. lol
> 
> I'm inclined to think that no matter what men do, women will have complaints. Whether she judges the advance appropriate or not seems to depend more on whether she turns out to be interested in the guy than anything else. I'd say men ought to just sit back and do nothing and let the women do all the "work" since they're the ones with the complaints about how it is done, except that the average guy out there already knows that nothing is what usually comes of doing nothing.


This is truly as excellent post. Women dress sexy, they are noticed by someone who doesn't fit their taste...and that's a problem...and quite literally any notice they get from some they don't like they consider preverse and "rapey" but from someone they like...it's hot. As long as noone interferes with the double standard they are use to and expect, they are ok with that.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd say men ought to just sit back and do nothing and let the women do all the "work" since they're the ones with the complaints about how it is done.


I rather like this idea, I have to say. Would be very interesting to see what happens ...

But honestly, Dvls, that you would even post the rest of what you wrote shows only that you haven't understood at all what the issues are. The "right" way is to treat people with respect and try not to exploit your "right" to be an a$$hole.


----------



## bandit.45

I wear dark sunglasses...


----------



## NobodySpecial

razgor said:


> I get that leering bothers some woman. But there are lots of things on this earth that makes me feel uncomfortable. Do we as a society try to educate or pass laws against anything that makes anyone uncomfortable?


I am not sure what is wrong with education. Seems to me learning things is good for you brain at the very least. I thought I had read the entire thread. I did not see anyone call for new legislation. If you were willing and able to post a link to that post #, I would appreciate it. That makes me kind of curious.

For me, the education comes solely in the form of conversations between my family and I. I would not personally engage in a Facebook campaign or anything like that. But through conversations with me and being more observant based on them, my husband has seen things that he previously hadn't. 

As for my kids, the lesson is one of be the best person you can be, and that doesn't include an entitled attitude that guys look so you need to get over it. They DO look (really mean leer here. A look is a look.) ,and ultimately when that happens, it is in my DD's best interest to get over it. But that does not mean my son has to be that guy. I sure as heck would not advocate my DD date a guy like that! But it will be her choice, and she will be young and immature too. So who knows.

I am in my late forties. No one hollers at me anymore, thank goodness. It was definitely frightening as a young child, especially since I grew up in a very repressive family. It was almost by accident that I shared my concern with my Dad. I am glad I did.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> I rather like this idea, I have to say. Would be very interesting to see what happens ...


I've seen it happen plenty. Women can and will be the ones pursuing men when they want to (some women will do it, some won't, is what I mean by "when they want to"). We also cat call and grab butts and sexually harass men. We also ask them on dates. 

Sexually aggressive women can be delightful or scary, just like sexually aggressive men.


----------



## jb02157

always_alone said:


> I rather like this idea, I have to say. Would be very interesting to see what happens ...
> 
> But honestly, Dvls, that you would even post the rest of what you wrote shows only that you haven't understood at all what the issues are. The "right" way is to treat people with respect and try not to exploit your "right" to be an a$$hole.


No, the rest of his post shows that he definitely understands the issues fully and has the same frustrations I do about the issue. In your eyes, he's wrong because you don't agree with him.


----------



## jb02157

razgor said:


> I get that leering bothers some woman. But there are lots of things on this earth that makes me feel uncomfortable. Do we as a society try to educate or pass laws against anything that makes anyone uncomfortable?
> 
> Where do you draw the line? As a society we currently draw the line at assault or workplace sexual harassment. But staring to long long or whistling on the streets? Come on, that is virtually unenforceable. And invites all kinds of silliness.
> 
> Like it or not we all have the right to be an a-hole!


Right on...that women dress the way they do makes some men uncomfortable at times, so do we make women get educated on how to dress...oh no that would not "impower" women and that's a sin!!


----------



## NobodySpecial

jb02157 said:


> Right on...that women dress the way they do makes some men uncomfortable at times, so do we make women get educated on how to dress...oh no that would not "impower" women and that's a sin!!


I am curious. What makes your uncomfortable? What about it makes you uncomfortable? And what should we know about how you feel about it?


----------



## jb02157

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious. What makes your uncomfortable? What about it makes you uncomfortable? And what should we know about how you feel about it?


For me, personally, I don't like the fact that if I happen to look at a woman dressed with a very open top for fricken 0.5 seconds too long I'm considered a pervert and if it happens at work I could lose my job. What about women dressed unappropriately losing their jobs???? No, that wouldn't "impower" women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jb02157 said:


> For me, personally, I don't like the fact that if I happen to look at a woman dressed with a very open top for fricken 0.5 seconds too long I'm considered a pervert and if it happens at work I could lose my job. What about women dressed unappropriately losing their jobs???? No, that wouldn't "impower" women.


Is there a realm where loosing your job over where your eyes are for less than a second is reality? I am asking in all honesty since this is news to me.

What is "inappropriately"?


----------



## NobodySpecial

I guess I fundamentally don't get what the conflict is. It is clearly in women's and girls' and men's and boys' best interest to learn to grow thick skin. There is no harm in understanding what behavior can be damaging to other people. Where the conflict?


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> Is there a realm where loosing your job over where your eyes are for less than a second is reality? I am asking in all honesty since this is news to me.
> 
> What is "inappropriately"?


I don't know in practice.

I do know what we are taught during our annual sexual harassment training - harassment is in the eye of the harassed. You do not have to intend to harass someone to be guilty. As I remember it's not completely open ended - every accusation is not de facto harassment - I think there's a "reasonable interpretation" standard, but the person who feels they have been harassed has most of the power in the conflict. 

We are taught to completely avoid saying anything to someone that might be construed as harassment. No comments about appearance, personality, hair cut, dating, whatever. When at work, talk about work or the weather.


----------



## jb02157

Cletus said:


> I don't know in practice.
> 
> I do know what we are taught during our annual sexual harassment training - harassment is in the eye of the harassed. You do not have to intend to harass someone to be guilty. As I remember it's not completely open ended - every accusation is not de facto harassment - I think there's a "reasonable interpretation" standard, but the person who feels they have been harassed has most of the power in the conflict.
> 
> We are taught to completely avoid saying anything to someone that might be construed as harassment. No comments about appearance, personality, hair cut, dating, whatever. When at work, talk about work or the weather.


I know, personally, men that have been fired for "looking" at a woman "inappropriately". "Inappropriately" is defined by the woman, so, yes, if the woman feels 0.5 seconds is too long then you get fired. I personally feel that if a woman is dressed "inappropriately" for a business setting then she should get fired.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jb02157 said:


> I know, personally, men that have been fired for "looking" at a woman "inappropriately". "Inappropriately" is defined by the woman, so, yes, if the woman feels 0.5 is too long then you get fired. I personally feel that if a woman is dressed "inappropriately" for a business setting then she should get fired.


Wow. I have never heard of this. That is pretty awful. Nothing like our harassment policy. Does this company have a dress policy? Was she violating it? This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Maybe not a bad thing, despite how little I like litigation.


----------



## NobodySpecial

The one place I have never had the smallest spec of inappropriate behavior is in the workplace. That is just bad.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I rather like this idea, I have to say. Would be very interesting to see what happens ...


Perhaps it would change with the prohibition against male advance, but I think most men already know what happens (give or take a few): Nothing (or little). I can speak from my own experience, that if I sit and wait for women to approach me I'm going to do a lot of waiting... and honestly, I think I'm a decent looking guy. It doesn't happen much even from women I don't find attractive, much less the ones I do. I even accept FW's proposition that some women do advance. Some women even do so aggressively (I don't know where she gets that it's scary). The crux however, is that most women do not. I am not always interested in pursuing women when I go out, particularly if I already have a girlfriend, and yet... there are only a handful of times I've received even innocuous unsolicited conversation from a strange female, much less a clear show of interest. If I sit back and wait, usually nothing will happen. If I go and get, I'm usually successful. Does that not say something?

I suspect the reason my idea has appeal is the same as the root of these other complaints. Feeling powerless in the status quo. The idea would give you the control you want, you need? to feel safe. It's not the advance that's necessarily wrong, it's your state of mind and just the wrong guy. And you want to be able to avoid the advances of the ones you don't want, because you have a generalized feeling of vulnerability. You don't want him, but what if he didn't stop? A thought that doesn't really occur for the guy you find attractive. There's an implicit trust behind the attraction.



always_alone said:


> But honestly, Dvls, that you would even post the rest of what you wrote shows only that you haven't understood at all what the issues are. The "right" way is to treat people with respect and try not to exploit your "right" to be an a$$hole.


"Lookin' good girl!" Cat call or compliment? Wherein lies disrespect?

I have understood the issue. Excepting vulgarity, the issue is that you deem it wrong when you don't welcome it from that specific guy. The general sense of powerlessness causes you to resent and be intimidated by a vast array of even innocuous approaches. ie My habit of striking up a conversation playing on shared circumstance has been called "creepy" by several women on this forum. It's just a friendly conversation in a public place!

There's a paradox to it. Like, "don't ask the question unless she answers yes".

Complimenting a woman doesn't make a man an @sshole. Doing something he knows women tend to respond well to doesn't make him an @sshole. Looking might show poor social etiquette, but it doesn't make him an @sshole. Do you see the control issue? You want to control his very eyes! Unless you're attracted to him, then yay.

At each step this sense of intimidation looks like nothing more than being powerless to control everything to be exactly as you want it to be. "Only men I want shall look at me or talk to me, and they shall do so only in the ways I prefer."

Everyone else is an @sshole, you see.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I've seen it happen plenty. Women can and will be the ones pursuing men when they want to (some women will do it, some won't, is what I mean by "when they want to"). We also cat call and grab butts and sexually harass men. We also ask them on dates.
> 
> Sexually aggressive women can be delightful or scary, just like sexually aggressive men.


Oh, I know. I've seen it plenty too. I was thinking more along the lines of a full reversal of the stereotype where only women pursued and men never did.

It would be interesting to see if the dynamic changes any. Or if more and more women start doing the same disrespectful sexual intimidation stuff.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Oh, I know. I've seen it plenty too. I was thinking more along the lines of a full reversal of the stereotype where only women pursued and men never did.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if the dynamic changes any. Or if more and more women start doing the same disrespectful sexual intimidation stuff.


I think if EVERYTHING were switched around, then yes, women would do the same intimidation stuff. Ie: if we were bigger and stronger and if we'd had the same history that men do, we'd be the bullies and the murderers and the sexual intimidators.

IOW, I believe this is a human problem, not a man or woman problem.

I don't think women are naturally kinder or more appropriate or more law abiding. I simply think the way society and history have played out, this is what we've got as a result. Change history and society, men and women would be different.

I remember learning about slavery as a child, and some people naturally saying they were shocked to think of how people were in the past and how THEY would NEVER have been that way. And even then I was like, really?? Because how would we know how we would be and feel as individuals, without being raised in the time and place and by the people who lived back then? I do not think I am better than anyone else, nor are they worse than me. I think all humans have the potential to be cruel and evil, given the right place and time and upbringing. This is why I have compassion for creepers.

BUT....

For the same reason, this means we could actually socialize everyone differently in future generations. More compassion, more empathy, more kindness...these are things children learn and adopt easily, if we try.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have understood the issue. Excepting vulgarity, the issue is that you deem it wrong when you don't welcome it from that specific guy. The general sense of powerlessness causes you to resent and be intimidated by a vast array of even innocuous approaches. ie My habit of striking up a conversation playing on shared circumstance has been called "creepy" by several women on this forum. It's just a friendly conversation in a public place!
> 
> There's a paradox to it. Like, "don't ask the question unless she answers yes".
> 
> Complimenting a woman doesn't make a man an @sshole. Doing something he knows women tend to respond well to doesn't make him an @sshole. Looking might show poor social etiquette, but it doesn't make him an @sshole. Do you see the control issue? You want to control his very eyes! Unless you're attracted to him, then yay.
> 
> At each step this sense of intimidation looks like nothing more than being powerless to control everything to be exactly as you want it to be. "Only men I want shall look at me or talk to me, and they shall do so only in the ways I prefer."
> 
> Everyone else is an @sshole, you see.


I actually often have random conversations, and am not at all creeped out by someone who casually strikes up a conversation, or gives me a compliment. Even if I find him completely unattractive.

Why? Because I relate to people as people, and I frankly don't care what a guy looks like in the context of who I work with or the random strangers I encounter in the street. 

So you're wrong. It isn't about my default powerlessness or need for control of the situation. My assessment of creepiness has nothing to do with whether I am attracted, and hot guys can be just as creepy.

"Creepiness", IMHO, comes when the encounters are laden with entitlement and expectation. Somehow the leer-ee is supposed to appreciate the attention, be flattered by it, start swooning, and well fvck them if they don't, their body is for my pleasure. This can be entirely unspoken, btw, conveyed through body language and stance. Leerers can also be very persistent and increasingly hostile if you don't feed their sense of entitlement. If anyone is a powerless person seeking control, it is the entitled leerer, not me.

I am one who has called your descriptions of hitting on women creepy. And the reason is, the way you describe it, your encounters are heavily laden with expectation. It isn't just friendly, casual interactions for the sake of enjoying the moment and each other; it's targeted, with very specific goals and strategies in mind. She doesn't ever sound like a person in those descriptions. More like a squirrel you're trying to trap.

But obviously I don't really know you or how you come across IRL.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> But FW's solution was mostly about education. Education, open discussion and respect for other people. How is this counter-productive? How is this letting the pendulum swing so far that it, what, makes women dominant over men? I don't see that at all.


I love it. “Mostly” about education. And those points, I “mostly” completely agreed with. Do you actually read to comprehend my posts? The only thing I didn’t agree with rather wholeheartedly was talking legislation when we can’t even come close to identifying the actual “boundary” that might be crossed. 


always_alone said:


> The point about education and creating and enforcing workplace policies has nothing to do with the fear-based revenge and control in your analogy. It has to do with changing a culture. And this is where I see the heart of the disagreements on this thread. You want to throw your hands up in the air and say nothing can or should be done. Because biology. But it isn't biology, it's culture and behaviour.


I did NOT say nothing could be done. I favored awareness and education. But it is 100% clear that nothing will make the problem go away. Even with legislation against it, we have murder still. We have rape still. FAR worse issues than “leering”. Here we are in the weeds with a relative non-problem. Note I said RELATIVE, as in “far down the line”, but still a concern to some degree. 



always_alone said:


> Let's go back to your analogy: Would it make sense other driver to blame you for driving too close to the front of their car? Because that's essentially what responses like "Get over it" or "Cover up" are doing. Basically, it's telling the person that they are the one at fault, and it's only their problem to deal with.


No, that wouldn’t make sense, and what you are suggesting is an apples to oranges clear difference. My “fear” is based on something that actually happened BEFORE, but isn’t happening now. So no lines have been crossed – it is up to me to overcome the fear. Should someone actually cross the line and rear end me (or someone be touched or assaulted), then the already established line has been crossed and consequences ensue. 



always_alone said:


> I find the "cover up" one especially telling, as this is pretty much exactly what women in Middle East repressive countries are told: men cannot be expected to control themselves, so whatever they do to you, well it's your fault for making them do it. Wouldn't it be ever so much more productive to educate people that this really isn't a reasonable line of thinking, and that we can do much better?


This is not the Middle East. Strawman much? Relatively few are suggesting that is the way to deal with things. Those few are focusing on those who are concerned about their “inner feelings” - and that IS currently the best way to avoid the looks that bother them. You suggest, what, exactly?


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry to hear about the sexual assault.


I got over it. I don’t dwell on it, but I do think it gives me a good understanding of where some people may be coming from out of fear –rightly or wrongly.


Faithful Wife said:


> I don't quite understand your other point above though, because whether it is about safer driving or clamping down on sexual assault, many people who have been victimized DO and HAVE gone on to create awareness and educational campaigns and changes in the law. There's nothing odd or radical about this.


Is there something wrong or radical with people going on from their experiences to enact positive change? No, I commend that. But surely you must see that those are exactly the type of people that might push and convince people to go TOO far. So there is a temperance there as well. Again – the pendulum swing. Let’s work towards the middle where it is as fair and equitable as it can be.

Or are we suggesting that that outcome is not plausible? Because if that is what you (FW) and AA are suggesting, then we are not dealing with the same realities. 



Faithful Wife said:


> But the radical point you seem to be making doesn't make sense. No one here ever said that there should be "the same" consequences for sexual bullying as anything else (I assume you're referring to rape charges?) So I don't get what point your strawman has.


Tell that to someone who has been slapped with sexual offender status for succumbing while drunk to the advances of someone only marginally younger (I have family in this situation). A good person, with a potentially bright future, who is now basically under a ruined decade. No matter how innocuous the actual offense is, being in the “spectrum” so to speak carries with it a crushing judgment. 

This is my point with the proposal of legislation when we have NO IDEA what the boundary might be. Far too many might just raise their hands and sign onto the bandwagon, oh yes we MUST DO SOMETHING!!!! Everyone can agree that X, Y, and Z are clearly wrong!! Then the fuzzy boundary is instituted, some take it farther than others, and lives are ruined. All because someone didn’t like “feeling” creeped out. 

Again, if I’m out in left field in your mind, that speaks to us seeing the world in completely different lights.


----------



## always_alone

ET1SSJonota said:


> I
> No, that wouldn’t make sense, and what you are suggesting is an apples to oranges clear difference. My “fear” is based on something that actually happened BEFORE, but isn’t happening now. So no lines have been crossed – it is up to me to overcome the fear. Should someone actually cross the line and rear end me (or someone be touched or assaulted), then the already established line has been crossed and consequences ensue.


I don't understand. :scratchhead:

Was the point of your analogy then to say that anyone who accuses someone of leering is just making a fear-based judgment caused by some past experience?


----------



## dtc37

Wouldn't it be less creepy to approach the woman?? Instead of staring or leering. Say she does catch you staring. Approach have a conversation making it known you're not a filthy dog and you know how to converse.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> I don't understand. :scratchhead:
> 
> Was the point of your analogy then to say that anyone who accuses someone of leering is just making a fear-based judgment caused by some past experience?


I would not use the word "is". I would replace that with "could be". And the determination thereof would be EXTREMELY tricky. Hence the difficulty in getting behind nebulous suggestions of "legislation". 

Can you not see the extremely lopsided result of someone being in serious legal trouble over an improperly timed sidelong glance, and someone who is "uncomfortable" with a look not getting their "justice"? 

As mentioned, I'm all for education. I consider that a positive under pretty much all circumstances. With the caveat of course that as FW mentions this is a all-inclusive gender discussion, where healthy appreciation for attractive people is also a highlight, not just how terrible we leering men are.


----------



## always_alone

ET1SSJonota said:


> Can you not see the extremely lopsided result of someone being in serious legal trouble over an improperly timed sidelong glance, and someone who is "uncomfortable" with a look not getting their "justice"?


Of course I can. But since I have not at all suggested such a lopsided arrangement, indeed haven't talked at all about legislation, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think it so important to keep making this point.

I mean, it's true, the word legislation did come up in the thread, but I didn't get the sense that anyone was advocating crazy penalties for innocuous action.




ET1SSJonota said:


> As mentioned, I'm all for education. I consider that a positive under pretty much all circumstances. With the caveat of course that as FW mentions this is a all-inclusive gender discussion, where healthy appreciation for attractive people is also a highlight, not just how terrible we leering men are.


Leering women are just as obnoxious. One in particular was practically stalking me, and she really creeped me out.

Now maybe you think you'd love it if it happened on the regular. But I doubt it.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> Of course I can. But since I have not at all suggested such a lopsided arrangement, indeed haven't talked at all about legislation, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think it so important to keep making this point.
> I mean, it's true, the word legislation did come up in the thread, but I didn't get the sense that anyone was advocating crazy penalties for innocuous action.


Again – do you even actually read the entirety of what I post, or just read the first thing that draws your ire, out of context, and post in response to it?

I have said (numerous times) that I’m all for the remedy you would like (education). I have further said that if legislation is part of the discussion, I’d want specifics because of the “slippery slope” effect. You seem to suggest and understanding of this argument – but you don’t see how it is important? 

Since I support what you want, and you aren’t talking about legislation, what is your interest in asking me these questions, since it doesn’t pertain to anything you were suggesting?



always_alone said:


> Leering women are just as obnoxious. One in particular was practically stalking me, and she really creeped me out.
> *Now maybe you think you'd love it if it happened on the regular.* But I doubt it.


I’d love to her your explanation for how you think the bolded statement is appropriate or warranted in this situation. For someone so sensitive to people suggesting you’re an “ugly feminazi b1tch”, you sure have absolutely no problem casting aspersions of your own or making sexist remarks. Good grief. How old are you? At least FW attempts to have above the board discuss on subjects (which BTW FW, I truly appreciate you sharing without getting nasty).

Maybe read back a bit. I’ve been leered at, as well as sexually assaulted. I get it. You have no idea HOW WELL I get it clearly, with suggesting something like that. But hey, good “man stabbing” Always. Really “made your point” and put me in my place.

Whether or not your realize it AA, much of the negative responses you get are directly due to your tone. You seem to not actually want "equality", you seem to want vengeance. You want others to "suffer" as you and "all women" have suffered. I'm not into that kind of "equality". I'm into the actual kind. The kind FW discusses, where we can all live our lives peacefully. I recognize it's a pipe dream - but I'd rather that one than the one seem to envision.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ET1SSJonota said:


> This is my point with the proposal of legislation when we have NO IDEA what the boundary might be. Far too many might just raise their hands and sign onto the bandwagon, oh yes we MUST DO SOMETHING!!!! Everyone can agree that X, Y, and Z are clearly wrong!! Then the fuzzy boundary is instituted, some take it farther than others, and lives are ruined. All because someone didn’t like “feeling” creeped out.
> 
> Again, if I’m out in left field in your mind, that speaks to us seeing the world in completely different lights.


I don't know where you are getting this. Can you quote me from somewhere that would show how you got this from what I said? You're so focused on punishment (I think?) yet I said not one word about punishment, and in fact I encouraged compassion. 

I did give it a shot to try to actually discuss my ideas on this, as you asked. You apparently couldn't/didn't hear me. I'm really not sure why.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't know where you are getting this. Can you quote me from somewhere that would show how you got this from what I said? You're so focused on punishment (I think?) yet I said not one word about punishment, and in fact I encouraged compassion.
> 
> I did give it a shot to try to actually discuss my ideas on this, as you asked. You apparently couldn't/didn't hear me. I'm really not sure why.


You mentioned the legislation – which inherently implies punishment. I’ve made it abundantly clear that more legislation is exactly the thing that makes the menfolk nervous – there is so much gray area and interpretation required that it’s a sure mess. The rest of your items I pretty much agreed with. And then this kind of response??

I don’t get it. Are you ladies hell bent on being contrary? Intentionally misrepresenting what we’re saying? I don’t think just about anything you said was off-base, just remove the discussion of legislation until we can identify an actual boundary. Is that so hard? You want to “find common ground”, there’s literally acres and acres of fertile common ground. And yet it gets ignored. 

Yes I was being sarcastic with my reply, intentional hyperbole. Nothing too out there, and I wasn’t denigrating what you said or putting words in your mouth. I was painting the picture of the slippery slope and directly replying to your discussion of the outcomes of people who are traumatizing going too far in response to something. That’s it. 

I thought we were having a decent discussion FW. Does continuing it in a method you don’t approve of suddenly mean we didn’t discuss anything civilly? I even thanked you for presenting it. There was a lot of effort put into it, and I appreciate that. Is it truly impossible to have a cross-gender or cross-political discussion on the internet without it getting nasty?


----------



## always_alone

ET1SSJonota said:


> Again – do you even actually read the entirety of what I post, or just read the first thing that draws your ire, out of context, and post in response to it?


I am wondering the same about you, I have to say. For some reason, you seem bent on interpreting everything I say as a personal attack on you, on the men on this thread, and on all men.

Not sure where you are getting this from. I am talking about behaviours. Behaviours that both men and women are guilty of and that both men and women have to deal with somehow. 

I've never said anything different.

I'm just not satisfied, though, with saying *that* it is a problem and just "getting over it". And while I appreciate what you are saying about heavy-handed legislation and ruining people's lives because they looked at someone the wrong way, I don't accept that this means that leer-ees are too oversensitive, projecting their past trauma onto every circumstance, or out to punish men. All of this serves to simply deny the reality and experience of those who have to put up with it. 

And yes, I have heard you that you know what the experience is like and can appreciate what it's about. And obviously we all have no choice but to "get over it" because we all do have to just go on living. 

But to keep saying this in the context of a discussion on leering is effectively to shut that discussion down. Problem acknowledged; problem solved. But, IMHO, it just isn't that simple, and there's a lot more to say.

But that doesn't mean that what there is to say is a personal attack on you or anyone else participating in this thread. It's more directed at the guy who recently stared me down at the beach, making rude gestures with his tongue. WTF am I supposed to do about him? He won't be ignored, and what, I have no choice but to pack up and go home now?


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> I am wondering the same about you, I have to say. For some reason, you seem bent on interpreting everything I say as a personal attack on you, on the men on this thread, and on all men.
> 
> Not sure where you are getting this from. I am talking about behaviours. Behaviours that both men and women are guilty of and that both men and women have to deal with somehow.
> 
> I've never said anything different.
> 
> I'm just not satisfied, though, with saying *that* it is a problem and just "getting over it". And while I appreciate what you are saying about heavy-handed legislation and ruining people's lives because they looked at someone the wrong way, I don't accept that this means that leer-ees are too oversensitive, projecting their past trauma onto every circumstance, or out to punish men. All of this serves to simply deny the reality and experience of those who have to put up with it.
> 
> And yes, I have heard you that you know what the experience is like and can appreciate what it's about. And obviously we all have no choice but to "get over it" because we all do have to just go on living.
> 
> But to keep saying this in the context of a discussion on leering is effectively to shut that discussion down. Problem acknowledged; problem solved. But, IMHO, it just isn't that simple, and there's a lot more to say.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that what there is to say is a personal attack on you or anyone else participating in this thread. It's more directed at the guy who recently stared me down at the beach, making rude gestures with his tongue. *WTF am I supposed to do about him? He won't be ignored, and what, I have no choice but to pack up and go home now?*




I'm coming in and out of this thread as it's becoming the all too typical gender bash nonsense but I caught this part and wanted to respond. Why didn't you confront him? You're in a public venue, he is making an ass of himself so why not confront him? If you are the one offended by the behavior then isn't it really up to you to do something about it. 

Was your husband there with you? If so did you tell him about it and what was his reaction?


----------



## razgor

I am all for education if it is parents teaching their children morals and values. I would not want to see this be some institutional education program. 

Our culture is already running full steam ahead in the wimpification of men. The last thing we need to do is start trying to formally educate our children that men should not stare at women. If you want to go down that path, then you need to educate women formally how not to dress like a prostitute. And I bet that statement will get a rise out of a women. But seriously, you can not tell men not to stare and then prance around in a bikini at the beach!

It just seems like Political Correctness gone crazy. And I say that as a pretty liberal guy.


----------



## dtc37

Do not be ashamed to be a man! It is what men do. It is a part of our DNA. from the start of human existence during tribal times men took what he wanted and never looked for approval. Now as we evolve that instinct is being more and more suppressed and IMO staring is a unconscious method of suppressing that instinct 

I believe if more men weren't shamed and put in the corner for being a man, more men would approach a woman and start a conversation. 

On another note if a younger woman saw an older man with white hair and face wrinkles starring she would be creeped out but if that man approached her and it turns out that man is billionaire Richard Branson the founder of virgin, then he wouldn't be so creepy now would he.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ET1SSJonota said:


> I thought we were having a decent discussion FW. Does continuing it in a method you don’t approve of suddenly mean we didn’t discuss anything civilly? I even thanked you for presenting it. There was a lot of effort put into it, and I appreciate that. Is it truly impossible to have a cross-gender or cross-political discussion on the internet without it getting nasty?


I don't see the point for the hyperbole if this is a civil discussion. When we use hyperbole, you act like it is silly. So I have deliberately avoided it, and besides, I think it is silly, too. I do not think it is mature discussion and it just makes things too confusing to know what your real ideas are versus what is meant just to knock down the other "debate team" or whatever. So no, I do not believe we are on the same track if we can't just actually talk without the snark and sarcasm. But I did try. Oh well.

Anon Pink...love ya girl, and thank you for the discussion in the thread.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
Men are distinguished from animals by our ability to control our instincts. We don't run when we are afraid, we don't simply take what we want. We follow societal rules so that we can spend time posting on social media rather than hitting each other with clubs all the time - or at least so that we have time to make better clubs.






dtc37 said:


> Do not be ashamed to be a man! It is what men do. It is a part of our DNA. from the start of human existence during tribal times men took what he wanted and never looked for approval. Now as we evolve that instinct is being more and more suppressed and IMO staring is a unconscious method of suppressing that instinct
> 
> I believe if more men weren't shamed and put in the corner for being a man, more men would approach a woman and start a conversation.
> 
> On another note if a younger woman saw an older man with white hair and face wrinkles starring she would be creeped out but if that man approached her and it turns out that man is billionaire Richard Branson the founder of virgin, then he wouldn't be so creepy now would he.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> [/B]
> 
> Why didn't you confront him? You're in a public venue, he is making an ass of himself so why not confront him?


Because that sort of thing never works out well. Only pokes the bear, as it were, and I end up with a really hostile guy who really wants to make me miserable.


----------



## always_alone

razgor said:


> Our culture is already running full steam ahead in the wimpification of men. The last thing we need to do is start trying to formally educate our children that men should not stare at women. If you want to go down that path, then you need to educate women formally how not to dress like a prostitute.


Oh dear. Respect is wimpification?


Oh dear.


----------



## razgor

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Men are distinguished from animals by our ability to control our instincts. We don't run when we are afraid, we don't simply take what we want. We follow societal rules so that we can spend time posting on social media rather than hitting each other with clubs all the time - or at least so that we have time to make better clubs.


I agree! But hitting someone with a club is not the same thing as leering! Leering is a fancy word for looking at someone! What is next, lets educate men not to talk to women?! Because a women feels intimated by a man talking to her?

OK, I am sure lots of young men feel heartbroken when they are rudely rejected by a woman! Lets educate women on how to reject men in a nice manner.

Where do you draw the line with this stuff. It can go on and on. The world is not always rainbows and unicorns. Sometimes you got to deal with jerks - both men and women.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Because that sort of thing never works out well. Only pokes the bear, as it were, and I end up with a really hostile guy who really wants to make me miserable.


I disagree. Generally people who do this type of behavior are cowards and easily embarrassed when called out. This is the exact thing I would and have informed my daughters to do.....stand up to crass/ bullying behavior. If I had son I would advise same thing. Thier are occasions when you can put yourself in danger true, but a public place with a guy who acts like that has a high probability of only doing this because he thinks you won't do anything. Chances are that he does this type of behavior often with women he targets, as weak or submissive. He repeats this because he has never been exposed or embarrassed.

You never answered the other question. Was your husband there?


----------



## razgor

always_alone said:


> Oh dear. Respect is wimpification?
> 
> 
> Oh dear.



I am all for trying to teach our children to respect each other! Nothing wrong with that at all. But singling out leering as needing additional institutional education is just down right wimpy. 

Here is the thing, the offensiveness of leering is entirely situational and personal. Like it if the guy is hot. Hate if he is fat. Some people may like a man to smile at them, some people may hate it. You want your standards to apply to everyone. Even something as simple as walking down the street and being looked at!


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Oh dear. Respect is wimpification?
> 
> 
> Oh dear.


Can be. I have noticed a sharp wimpification of our society since I was a kid. We can't play dodge ball because someone might get hurt. My kids are not supposed to protect themselves from bullies because of the 0 tolerance policy. But the school does not protect them? In New England, kids don't go out to recess at THIRTY DEGREES. 

Those of us who seek respect must gain credibility by facing where things have gone awry. Classrooms used to be most appropriate for male students. The pendulum has swung the other way to the point that normal male behavior is not tolerated and considered misbehavior or worse a clinical condition. Recess cuts, PE cuts all have a greater negative impact on boys.

The fact of the matter is, while I support that we should teach our children how to be good people, we also need to teach them how to deal with those who aren't. How to heal and be resilient and not ALLOW others to hurt us permanently. 

Balance.


----------



## dtc37

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> 
> Men are distinguished from animals by our ability to control our instincts. We don't run when we are afraid, we don't simply take what we want. We follow societal rules so that we can spend time posting on social media rather than hitting each other with clubs all the time - or at least so that we have time to make better clubs.



And I believe the byproduct of controlling instinct is UNCONSCIOUSLY staring at what we want or attracted to.. This argument can go forever. 
One can argue that women want to be stared at. If you look at it at one angle, women spend countless HOURS out of their drastically important lives to get dressed, argue with themselves about their outfits, change 5 times ". get into the bathroom with their THOUSANDS of dollars worth of products for beautifying themselves just to even leave the house and say they DONT WANT attention or to be looked at Is complete BS. They just don't want attention from a loser that will stare at them like a puttz. Women want to be noticed, not stared at like a object. One can also argue that most men are losers and will blankly stare at an attractive women no matter what. Some will whistle and rudely try to make the woman uncomfortable to feel superior. So you see how this can be looked and argued


----------



## NobodySpecial

I meant to include a link to a cool book if anyone is interested.

The Wonder of Boys


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> But that doesn't mean that what there is to say is a personal attack on you or anyone else participating in this thread. It's more directed at the guy who recently stared me down at the beach, making rude gestures with his tongue. WTF am I supposed to do about him? He won't be ignored, and what, I have no choice but to pack up and go home now?


Ok, what other choice would you like in your tool belt? 

This is the answer no one seems to want to give here. It certainly feels like you'd like to be able to do more than just educate this guy. He might be one of those who doesn't take well to educatin'. 

You have the choice to ignore him or leave. You seem to be insinuating that there should be a third choice. What is it?


----------



## Wolf1974

Cletus said:


> Ok, what other choice would you like in your tool belt?
> 
> This is the answer no one seems to want to give here. It certainly feels like you'd like to be able to do more than just educate this guy. He might be one of those who doesn't take well to educatin'.
> 
> You have the choice to ignore him or leave. You seem to be insinuating that there should be a third choice. What is it?


Well the third choice is to confront and stand up for yourself. But that's what I was trying to understand as well...what solution do we want when someone is acting like an asshat.

In all forms of confrontation you only have these three solutions. 

Ignor it
Attack it
Leave it

The purposed education approach could have some merit to those who are unaware. But those who leer with THE INTENT to make other uncomfortable are not going to listen to anyone about how it's not the right thing to do


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> Well the third choice is to confront and stand up for yourself. But that's what I was trying to understand as well...what solution do we want when someone is acting like an asshat.
> 
> In all forms of confrontation you only have these three solutions.
> 
> Ignor it
> Attack it
> Leave it
> 
> The purposed education approach could have some merit to those who are unaware. But those who leer with THE INTENT to make other uncomfortable are not going to listen to anyone about how it's not the right thing to do


I guess the question amount to one of what one wants from "society" and whether or not it is possible to achieve. I don't believe that it is either possible or particularly desirable to shield one from every possible harm.


----------



## Marduk

Wolf1974 said:


> Well the third choice is to confront and stand up for yourself. But that's what I was trying to understand as well...what solution do we want when someone is acting like an asshat.
> 
> In all forms of confrontation you only have these three solutions.
> 
> Ignor it
> Attack it
> Leave it
> 
> The purposed education approach could have some merit to those who are unaware. But those who leer with THE INTENT to make other uncomfortable are not going to listen to anyone about how it's not the right thing to do


You're missing one 'solution.'

Go on the internet and complain about it


----------



## Cletus

"Confront it" has two sub-options as well, of course. There's "get in his face right then and there", or there's "get in his face with the force and authority of the state".


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> "Confront it" has two sub-options as well, of course. There's "get in his face right then and there", or there's "get in his face with the force and authority of the state".


I have seen people refer to the recommendation to change laws but cannot find anyone suggesting actually changing the law. What was suggested regarding legal changes? Are there really people advocating that someone lolling their tongue in a suggestive manner be illegal?


----------



## Marduk

I'm kidding of course.

What I mean to say is that there's been a bunch of ideological stuff talked about here, and I wonder if it might serve one better to think of this pragmatically.

People are going to look at other people. Nobody's gonna stop that.

People are gonna offend other people. Nobody's gonna stop that, either.

Sometimes that offense is going to be people being offensive, sometimes it's people being too sensitive, sometimes a combination of them both.

At the end of the day, you need to be reasonable and try to create an environment conducive to what you want.

If you want everyone to defer and walk on eggshells around you and you think you can actually acheive that, then go ahead and be sensitive about everything.

If you want everyone to think you're an a-hole and a bit of a loser, then go ahead and offend everyone by gawking at them.

You have every right to do those things. Whether you should, of course, is up to you.

But me, I like people to be reasonably comfortable around me. I like people. Life seems to be easier, that way. And more fun.


----------



## Cletus

NobodySpecial said:


> I have seen people refer to the recommendation to change laws but cannot find anyone suggesting actually changing the law. What was suggested regarding legal changes? Are there really people advocating that someone lolling their tongue in a suggestive manner be illegal?


No one has said this directly, and I'm not accusing anyone of having done that. The point arises from the question of "do I have no other choices in this situation?", which was posted.

Well, yes, but other than ignore or walk away, there aren't too many other options that don't involve confrontation of one sort or another.

Until that question is answered outright, we have to speculate.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
I agree. Its a risk / benefit question. In many cases confronting someone will make them stop, but in some they will escalate. In a few they will become violent. You risk turning an annoying situation into a dangerous one. 



always_alone said:


> Because that sort of thing never works out well. Only pokes the bear, as it were, and I end up with a really hostile guy who really wants to make me miserable.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening razgor
this is central to the discussion. What is mean by "leering"?

I think most people think a quick look / glance is fine. 

I think most people consider persistent staring, especially if accompanied by facial expressions or words that objectify the target to not be OK.





razgor said:


> snip
> Leering is a fancy word for looking at someone! What is next, lets educate men not to talk to women?! Because a women feels intimated by a man talking to her?
> 
> .


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess the question amount to one of what one wants from "society" and whether or not it is possible to achieve. I don't believe that it is either possible or particularly desirable to shield one from every possible harm.


Well I agree. Those are the real world options you have. I wish we lived in a utopia as well but that's just not the real world. Wanting the world to be better is a terrific goal and something society should always strive for. But at the same time we have to acknowledge the way the world is and deal with it


----------



## soccermom2three

always_alone said:


> Because that sort of thing never works out well. Only pokes the bear, as it were, and I end up with a really hostile guy who really wants to make me miserable.


I agree. I think it's really easy to tell women to confront these jerks but for a lot of us, (me included), we were told by our mothers to ignore it, that they will get bored and go away. It can be hard to overcome childhood conditioning.


----------



## Wolf1974

soccermom2three said:


> I agree. I think it's really easy to tell women to confront these jerks but for a lot of us, (me included), we were told by our mothers to ignore it, that they will get bored and go away. It can be hard to overcome childhood conditioning.


And that is exactly...EXACTLY what they count on


----------



## NobodySpecial

soccermom2three said:


> I agree. I think it's really easy to tell women to confront these jerks but for a lot of us, (me included), we were told by our mothers to ignore it, that they will get bored and go away. It can be hard to overcome childhood conditioning.


This makes no sense. We grow up. The think. We reason. We do what's in our best interest. I don't ignore these tools because I was told to. I ignore these tools because it is in my best interest to do so, and does no good to to anything else.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> And that is exactly...EXACTLY what they count on


What would the purpose of doing anything else be? What would it serve?


----------



## razgor

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening razgor
> this is central to the discussion. What is mean by "leering"?
> 
> I think most people think a quick look / glance is fine.
> 
> I think most people consider persistent staring, especially if accompanied by facial expressions or words that objectify the target to not be OK.



First, I think we all agree that a person making obscene gesteres to another person is just rude. Whether that is a man waving his tongue at a woman or a driver flipping the bird at another driver. And I a pretty sure the person doing it knows it is rude! People can be jerks. Even nice people can be jerks sometimes!

So if you want to push society to be less jerky, then fine. But don't single out a leering at woman as needing specific institutional education. I certainly do not think that young boys need to have "How to look at a lady" classes in school! 

Again, things like just staring or smiling are entirely subjective. The person doing it may not even be focusing on the women who is being offended. And staring does not even offend certain women. It just seems like silliness to me to go down this road. Which is why my advise to woman is just ignore it. You are not trapped in that environment, ignore the person and move to a different area.

Ha, or have your husband knock the jerks teeth out.


----------



## always_alone

razgor said:


> Which is why my advise to woman is just ignore it. You are not trapped in that environment, ignore the person and move to a different area.


Yes, that is what I do/have done. And so I relocate myself and relocate myself and relocate myself.

And I reserve the right to be cranky about that, especially when some are so certain that I should be the one to relocate and so adamantly opposed to any suggestion that the leerer should learn how to show a modicum of respect.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Yes, that is what I do/have done. And so I relocate myself and relocate myself and relocate myself.
> 
> And *I reserve the right to be cranky about that*.


It is too bad. The only person you hurt is yourself.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> It is too bad. The only person you hurt is yourself.


Perhaps. But if even one single person hears me and thinks to themselves, "oh, maybe we should be more conscious about how this behaviour can affect people" then it is totally worth my while.

IMHO.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Yes, that is what I do/have done. And so I relocate myself and relocate myself and relocate myself.


Where the hell do you live that a conservatively dressed woman of average looks gets leered at incessantly? 

Maybe you should move.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Where the hell do you live that a conservatively dressed woman of average looks gets leered at incessantly?
> 
> Maybe you should move.


Oh goody, another relocation.

And the problem *still* isn't about widespread acceptance of bad behaviour.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> Oh goody, another relocation.
> 
> And the problem *still* isn't about widespread acceptance of bad behaviour.


That would depend on how much of the problem is oversensitivity on your part. C'mon. You're talking like this happens to you over and over and over again during the course of a week.

And truthfully, I find that a little hard to reconcile with the amount of leering that I see in public places like city streets, subways, restaurants, and other places I frequent, unless you're an '11' dressed like a prostitute. 

I don't know you, what you look like, where you live, or where you go during the day so I can't exactly call bull****. But my bull**** detector is pinging nonetheless over this tsunami of leering you seem to have to avoid. 

My two cents, worth just about that.


----------



## soccermom2three

I don't know why this is so hard for some to believe. I have a 19 year old, very attractive, daughter. She doesn't dress like a prostitute. When I'm with her I see her getting leered at, it's totally obvious. Sheesh.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I But my bull**** detector is pinging nonetheless over this tsunami of leering you seem to have to avoid.


Here's the real, unvarnished truth. I am older now, and leering is rare these days. I still encounter aggressive leerers from time to time, but it really is occasional. An event, if you will.

When I was younger I was leered at and cat-called daily, often more than once. Sitting alone in any public place for any length of time without someone accosting me was pretty much impossible This was living in a big city. And it wasn't because I am so attractive or dressed like a slvt. 

And no, I'm not particularly sensitive, and am quite likely oblivious to much that is going on around me. But I do seem to be a bit of a magnet for this sort of bad behaviour. I don't really understand why, but I also think it's way more common that a lot of people realize. 

People can show some pretty unsavoury attitudes/character traits when they think no one is looking, or that they won't get caught. I've seen quite a few "pillars of the community" show a pretty dark underbelly.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> What would the purpose of doing anything else be? What would it serve?


They do it to get off on the control of making others, in this case women, uncomfortable


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Perhaps. But if even one single person hears me and thinks to themselves, "oh, maybe we should be more conscious about how this behaviour can affect people" then it is totally worth my while.
> 
> IMHO.


And you think the people who do this, make obscene gestures simulating a sex act care ?

You can't can't honestly think that. People who prey on others don't care


----------



## always_alone

soccermom2three said:


> I don't know why this is so hard for some to believe. I have a 19 year old, very attractive, daughter. She doesn't dress like a prostitute. When I'm with her I see her getting leered at, it's totally obvious. Sheesh.


Well, and how many posts on this thread are all "you can't stop me from looking", and "just wear sunglasses" and "men take what they want".

*These* posts are believable, but the other side of the coin is not?


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> People can show some pretty unsavoury attitudes/character traits when they think no one is looking, or that they won't get caught. I've seen quite a few "pillars of the community" show a pretty dark underbelly.


Ok, this is a useful distinction. I see plenty of attractive women getting leered at in public, if we adopt the "looked at for more than 3 seconds rule" as leering, but almost universally only when they think the woman under observation doesn't see them doing it. As soon as they get noticed, they stop.

That to me is nominally respecting an attractive woman. No one can be made uncomfortable who isn't aware of her being observed. If she becomes aware, and you break off, that might not make the cut for being considered a full gentleman, but it's the next best thing. 

Can we restrict the definition to the guy who, even after you've wrinkled your brow and pursed your lips, refuses to stop? That's the guy who's being disrespectful. I'm pretty sure they're a minority of the men looking.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

I just think leering is not such a problem in USA society now. I think minimal education iis needed, and it needs to be extended not just on cat-calling, but to the more general idea that being a good citizen means respecting other citizens around you in public areas. Cat-calling and leering are disrespectful. Shouting ethnic/sexuality slurs are disrespectful. Showing aggressive behavior to start a fight is disrespectful. 

Nearly all men and women are educated in this. I think we can educate perhaps younger citizens such as teenagers to delay this behavior and make it not cool (much like the anti-bullying campaign) so that that behavior isn't accepted as being done by the cool crowd.

I do think in other countries that education like this is needed and that is where the real sexual harassment problem is. Countries and cultures where women have the burden on them to not be sexually assaulted and when they are assaulted they are accused of adultery. 

I know that may sound imperialistic or colonialist, and I am aware of those implications, but that is where I think the real fight is needed.

I think here in the USA, we just have to continue to affirm the boundaries we have and accept that there will always be anti-social people and attitudes and decide what we will do in those situations and how much reasonable control we have.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> They do it to get off on the control of making others, in this case women, uncomfortable


Yes! That's exactly what I've been saying...


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> Yes, that is what I do/have done. And so I relocate myself and relocate myself and relocate myself.
> 
> And I reserve the right to be cranky about that, especially when some are so certain that I should be the one to relocate and so adamantly opposed to any suggestion that the leerer should learn how to show a modicum of respect.


Instead, maybe you should confront it. If the same thing you've done over and over in the past isn't working for you, try something new. 

The beach incident is interesting. I can't THINK of a better time to confront someone acting in such a manner in public. For starters, because you're most likely surrounded by good people who don't want to tolerate the behavior - but might "ignore it" or "turn a blind eye". But if someone were to stand up and make a scene, they'd easily support that person. No "dark outcomes" there. Unless you think the beach is littered with nasty people - and that's a whole 'nother issue.

In a dark alley at night - sure walk away and ignore. In public, surrounded by others - CONFRONT. Not just for yourself either - show other people that they shouldn't just tolerate it, and that the vast majority will stand behind the person looking for peace in public.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

always_alone said:


> I am wondering the same about you, I have to say. For some reason, you seem bent on interpreting everything I say as a personal attack on you, on the men on this thread, and on all men. Not sure where you are getting this from. I am talking about behaviours. Behaviours that both men and women are guilty of and that both men and women have to deal with somehow.
> I've never said anything different.


Haven’t seen you react with the negative snark/mean-spiritedness to any other female’s post. But plenty of males. I don’t take this “personal” unless you direct it at me. Which you have. And I’ll note didn’t address that at all. 



always_alone said:


> I'm just not satisfied, though, with saying *that* it is a problem and just "getting over it". And while I appreciate what you are saying about heavy-handed legislation and ruining people's lives because they looked at someone the wrong way, I don't accept that this means that leer-ees are too oversensitive, projecting their past trauma onto every circumstance, or out to punish men. All of this serves to simply deny the reality and experience of those who have to put up with it.


You seem to have an empathy problem yourself, and seem to suggest by way of ignoring any requests that those be addressed that it should just be “gotten over”. Tit-for-tat? 

Some suggest “getting over it” because they see no better solution, or solutions that make things worse. Others, like myself, are totally on board with more education and empathy. Somehow, that turns into ignoring and minimizing you. I’m still not clear on how that works, I’m imagining it has to do with not saying things 100% your way, or perhaps because I’m male.


I’ve said this to you (as have others) in other forums. Have you considered that the responses to you so frequently suggesting you have some Unrepressed anger towards men might have some basis in reality? Because it gets pointed out in what seems to be a majority of the threads you are in. 

Now – it MAY be that we’re all just pigs and you’re an angel and we can’t see it, but have you considered that occasionally you might want to apply an empathy filter for men and the way you talk to/about them? Especially while suggesting they need one for an issue you care about?



always_alone said:


> And yes, I have heard you that you know what the experience is like and can appreciate what it's about. And obviously we all have no choice but to "get over it" because we all do have to just go on living. But to keep saying this in the context of a discussion on leering is effectively to shut that discussion down. Problem acknowledged; problem solved. But, IMHO, it just isn't that simple, and there's a lot more to say.
> But that doesn't mean that what there is to say is a personal attack on you or anyone else participating in this thread. It's more directed at the guy who recently stared me down at the beach, making rude gestures with his tongue. WTF am I supposed to do about him? He won't be ignored, and what, I have no choice but to pack up and go home now?


Again – never said there’s no other choice. I support awareness, education, increased compassion and caring for our fellow citizens of all stripes. 

As to the beach guy, as already discussed – confront HIM. Be angry with HIM. Don’t carry it around and unleash it on whatever male says something that triggers you.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't see the point for the hyperbole if this is a civil discussion. When we use hyperbole, you act like it is silly. So I have deliberately avoided it, and besides, I think it is silly, too. I do not think it is mature discussion and it just makes things too confusing to know what your real ideas are versus what is meant just to knock down the other "debate team" or whatever. So no, I do not believe we are on the same track if we can't just actually talk without the snark and sarcasm. But I did try. Oh well.
> 
> Anon Pink...love ya girl, and thank you for the discussion in the thread.





ET1SSJonota said:


> Does continuing it in a method you don’t approve of suddenly mean we didn’t discuss anything civilly?


 - So that would be a YES.

SIGH.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Yes! That's exactly what I've been saying...


Then why do you think you can change these clowns opinion??


----------



## Tubbalard

-Brochures
-Pamphlets
-Seminars
-Blogs
-Advertising
-Videos
-Kickstarter
-Indiegogo
-Women's group

All sure fire ways for you to start taking action. Otherwise you're just blowing hot smoke for venting purposes only.

If it's this serious to you, do something about it. Otherwise it's just hot steam.

Women's problems
1. equality in the workplace
2. equal pay
3. Rape victims
4. sexual assault....
5. Dead beat dads


99. Title 9- Women's sports
500. Leering


----------



## Thundarr

It should be noted that none of us like the guy making obscene gestures with his tongue or hip thrust. None of us like the preacher ogling his flock. None of us like the grown man ogling the 12 year old girl. None of us like the FIL ogling his son's wife. None of us like the 30 plus year old ogling his wife's 17 year old sis. None of us like the man ogling the girls to spend the night with his daughter. None of us like the guy ogling to prove that he has the right to.

I suspect almost all of us are okay with the guy fishing for interests from someone he finds attractive. Even when he offends someone on rare occasion, we understand that the motive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I think if EVERYTHING were switched around, then yes, women would do the same intimidation stuff. Ie: if we were bigger and stronger and if we'd had the same history that men do, we'd be the bullies and the murderers and the sexual intimidators..


If bigger and stronger, perhaps. But then again, I'm not a big guy and there are a couple female bodybuilders in my gym who are bigger than me. I can't say that I find them intimidating. Maybe if every female was bigger/stronger?

Still, the majority of women I know are not very intimidated by or fearful of men. It's more that they're annoyed at having to deal with the constant attempts by men.

It's completely foreign to most men. Women hitting on you everywhere you go? The immediate reaction of most men is going to be something like: yay.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cletus said:


> That would depend on how much of the problem is oversensitivity on your part. C'mon.  You're talking like this happens to you over and over and over again during the course of a week.
> 
> And truthfully, I find that a little hard to reconcile with the amount of leering that I see in public places like city streets, subways, restaurants, and other places I frequent, unless you're an '11' dressed like a prostitute.



It is also the case that men who are not aware of the phenomenon are less likely to notice it. My husband has told me that he really thought I was imagining things until he started paying attention and noticing it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wolf1974 said:


> They do it to get off on the control of making others, in this case women, uncomfortable


No I meant what would be served by "calling them out" or "defending yourself" as some people have suggested? These people are douche bags who want to be douche bags.


----------



## always_alone

intheory said:


> always,
> 
> I agree with others that suggest you confront in the specific circumstance of a public beach, populated with plenty of other people.
> You could verbally tell a clown like this, that what he is doing offends you. Undoubtedly he will escalate. Wouldn't it be great to then fill a bucket (or "pail" in your case?) full of sand and just dump it all over his dumb face.


My experience is that confronting is not worth it. It will either escalate the situation, which is not a great thing when you're talking about a big muscle-bound dude. Or he'll just deny everything and put and say pretty much what people are saying on this thread:. Not doing anything, she's just oversensitive, nothing to worry about or see here.




intheory said:


> But I don't think that's what most men are doing when they check you out for a few seconds. At least _I _don't think so.


I've been trying to be clear that I'm not really talking about a few seconds look, but about sexual intimidation in leering.




intheory said:


> Btw, since you are very passionate about changing this behavior in our society, to one of more respect and consideration; what are you going to do about it? I only ask because you are the kind of person who could start a movement if you wanted to.


What I do about it is talk. Point out why it's not just harmless, the effects it can have, and why it should be discouraged instead of condoned.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> It should be noted that none of us like the guy making obscene gestures with his tongue or hip thrust. None of us like the preacher ogling his flock. None of us like the grown man ogling the 12 year old girl. None of us like the FIL ogling his son's wife. None of us like the 30 plus year old ogling his wife's 17 year old sis. None of us like the man ogling the girls to spend the night with his daughter. None of us like the guy ogling to prove that he has the right to.
> 
> I suspect almost all of us are okay with the guy fishing for interests from someone he finds attractive. Even when he offends someone on rare occasion, we understand that the motive.


If you don't like them, then why is it so contentious to point out the effects of this sort of unwanted attention?

When I first started reading this thread, I enjoyed the comments that showed awareness of, respect and consideration for women in looking practices. It was the posts about how harmless it is, how women love it, how you can't possibly stop men from acting this way, and how only women who are over-sensitive or jealous uggos could possibly have a problem with it that prompted me to respond. Because these claims simply aren't true, IMHO.

Fishing for interests can and is often done in a respectful way. So why the pushback to insist that leering, crossing those boundaries, is "harmless" and that it's always up to her to "get over it" because "that's what men do"?


----------



## badcompany

Red Sonja said:


> :iagree: and, I am a woman. Leer all you want and I'll feel free to ignore you and carry on about my business.
> 
> My problem is with touching or personal comments from strangers after the looking/leering. That part is intrusive to me.
> 
> I cannot tell you how many times I have had men and women (complete strangers) feel compelled to comment on and then touch eek my hair or the skin of my face ... even in the grocery store with my kid in tow! I don't understand this at all; I was raised to believe it is impolite to make personal comments on the appearance of strangers and/or touch them without permission (barring accidents or emergencies of course).
> 
> And, don't get me started on the people who feel free to lean in and smell you when in line at the check-out.


Only in LA, well maybe NY too, ugh.
Maybe you have a "Purdy mouth", just kidding lol! Any guys go truck driver on you like in Thelma and Louise?


----------



## coffee4me

NobodySpecial said:


> It is also the case that men who are not aware of the phenomenon are less likely to notice it. My husband has told me that he really thought I was imagining things until he started paying attention and noticing it.


My brother is a man who is aware of looks, leers etc. He's used to being around women who attract attention but even he was a little put off when he had my daughter on vacation with him recently. 

He walks behind her on the crowded city streets and he's on alert because males of every age look at her. Most are just looking but there are leers mixed in. He said he was uncomfortable for her and he had to put on his "back the f--- off face". He did that so they did not approach or try talk to her but also to scare off the ash--- leering at her. When he told me that I said, "welcome to my world". 

This doesn't just happen to my daughter just in crowded city streets. I'm sensitive to it now because she hasn't developed her armor yet. She's not used to being gawked at while sitting in the car, followed at the mall, having to move near the life guard so she can enjoy herself at the beach instead of having men trying to talk to her and make her uncomfortable. 

My daughter is 13 years old. She will get used it in a few years but its takes a while. We've had a lot of talks about avoiding situations. Until she learns how to handle the situations they will make her uncomfortable she is just a kid.

ETA: I am also trying to adjust as I constantly remind myself that the guy trying to hit on her doesn't know she's 13. I am trying to not go off on the 20 something guys craning their neck as she walks by. The guys that say things in another language out loud as she walks by. They don't know her age, she is beautiful, I understand men will look but ... sometimes I just wish she could be shielded from it a little longer. That's not reality so I help her develop her armor.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I actually often have random conversations, and am not at all creeped out by someone who casually strikes up a conversation, or gives me a compliment. Even if I find him completely unattractive.
> 
> Why? Because I relate to people as people, and I frankly don't care what a guy looks like in the context of who I work with or the random strangers I encounter in the street.
> 
> So you're wrong. It isn't about my default powerlessness or need for control of the situation. My assessment of creepiness has nothing to do with whether I am attracted, and hot guys can be just as creepy.
> 
> "Creepiness", IMHO, comes when the encounters are laden with entitlement and expectation. Somehow the leer-ee is supposed to appreciate the attention, be flattered by it, start swooning, and well fvck them if they don't, their body is for my pleasure. This can be entirely unspoken, btw, conveyed through body language and stance.


We have women who admit to seeking and enjoying getting attention/looks - like FW (to her credit for admitting; I'm not trying to admonish). In addition to the many things many other women do that we interpret as "attention needy or attention seeking" (Oh, look... yet another selfie of Sarah on instagram... same sh*t different hour!). It's ridiculously common. I'd argue more common than creepy comments and leers (I'm 100% positive I could find an example posted within the last 5 minutes on any social media). We're literally inundated with "my new bikini!!", "working out *Like a Girl* (muscle pose)", or kissy faces or duck faces or idiotic pictures of herself in the car. Nonstop... "like me", "like me", "like me", "look at me", "look at me", "look at me". The reasonable conclusion drawn by many men will be "most women seem to want attention"... and so they offer it. Presumably, FW will consider many of the men whose attention she gets "creepy". Are these men really doing things so differently than the men whose attention she sought? Do we get to pick exactly what kind of attention we draw? I don't think so. When you seek attention, you get all sorts of attention. Some you want, some you don't. And tbh, we don't really know who is seeking attention... if it's mentioned, the immediate defense is "I wore this super sexy thing for ME!!"

So, knowing that some women purposefully seek attention, is it at all difficult to understand how men would might think giving that attention is positive?

The idea that there is an expectation of sex is hyperbole. The notion that such attention means they think your body exists only for their pleasure is also hyperbole. That's mostly in your mind, but sure, there are some wild-eyed @ssholes in the world... but they're a small minority by which to judge men in general. I think the excessive scope of this perception is rooted in that vulnerability I mentioned... even being stronger or weaker depending on your assessment of the environment. Literally anyone who talks to you, in any way whatsoever, in a dark alley... you'd probably automatically judge "creepy"... yet it's not an intrinsic attribute of theirs. Also, most of the negative reactions of men are in response to sheer disregard and dismissal of someone being nice. It's about impropriety or violation of social convention. It's the irritation of holding a door for someone who doesn't bother to say thank you. "Well don't you look pretty today." -says a guy to a woman he sees in passing occasionally, wants to meet, but hasn't quite managed a opportunity for lasting conversation. All he generally wants is to be noticed and start building rapport, maybe start a conversation. She ignores him as if he doesn't exist. His response, even if only in his head, "Well f*ck you too." Generally speaking, hostility over such an incident isn't about her not being interested in him or that he's not getting laid. It's over being disrespected like he's not even worth being acknowledged and he would think the exact same thing of a man who did so. There's nothing crude, rude or negative in his statement and it's only social etiquette to acknowledge someone speaking to you.

The same thing goes for men:

Example-
Guy 1: "Dude! Nice car!"
Guy 2: *guy with nice car ignores "rabble"*
Guy 1: *thinks he hasn't been heard* "Dude!! Awesome car!"
Guy 2: Unmistakably ignoring.
Guy 1: "d-bag"

When a guy ignores something said, it's because he feels intimidated (someone is trying to set me up to be robbed) or he simply feels above the person speaking (they're effectively squatters not worth talking to; ie wall street exec being complimented on his car buy some scrubs hanging out on the street corner).

Both concepts are rather insulting. That one is perceived as dangerous for offering a compliment, or that someone else thinks they're so above you that they won't acknowledge a compliment. If you agree that social etiquette demands that we acknowledge others when they're speaking to us, then all you have left is women thinking they're better than a guy, or women feeling vulnerable. My intuition leans on the latter. You feel vulnerable. 

I say it's dependent on the guy, because on many many occasions I've been witness to (even in company of) females who blow off one guy as arbitrarily creepy, but are excited about another guy who did the exact same things. "Ugh this creeper keeps looking at me across the bar" vs "He's checking me out again! *excited* He needs to come over here already! I'm not going over there! Man up big boy!"

I've seen this sort of thing so many times I've lost count. 



always_alone said:


> Leerers can also be very persistent and increasingly hostile if you don't feed their sense of entitlement. If anyone is a powerless person seeking control, it is the entitled leerer, not me.


Is the person who holds a door for you and expects a simple thank you similarly full of a sense of entitlement? Generally this is the motivation for hostility I've seen (not always - some guys are in fact d*cks); usually it's the sense that the other person has shown you disrespect by ignoring you entirely.

Myself, generally I'll just shake my head or roll my eyes at most... "oooh kaaaay..." The most hostility I've ever shown to it was humor or snark. Was out and waiting on friends to arrive and I saw a girl waiting too... so I said "Hi. You early too?" -no response. "How's it going?" -no response; turns away. So I turned to go inside, walking back into view, waved and said "bye bye". As it turned out, she was waiting on a mutual friend who I saw a little while later. I came by to say hello to her (the girl I knew) and she introduced me to the girl who ignored me. I said, "Oh yeah. I already met your deaf friend." Then I raised my voice and said something like "Are you enjoying your night!?" I still know her today. And I still initially play like I'm talking to someone who can't hear well when I see her. 



always_alone said:


> I am one who has called your descriptions of hitting on women creepy. And the reason is, the way you describe it, your encounters are heavily laden with expectation. It isn't just friendly, casual interactions for the sake of enjoying the moment and each other; it's targeted, with very specific goals and strategies in mind. She doesn't ever sound like a person in those descriptions. More like a squirrel you're trying to trap.


I have reasons for starting the conversation, yes. It's not for my health. I'm interested in her. But expectations? Of what? The only expectation I could be said to have is to be acknowledged - no different from someone saying thank you for my holding a door. Exactly the same for a conversation with a guy in fact (often motivated by my desire to pass the time). I have no expectation of what further will come from the interaction - a new guy friend? a date with this girl? I don't know the person in the slightest. What I'm doing is trying to meet them - at most. If you don't want to meet someone, that's fine too. Simple insincere "thanks", "yep" or otherwise short answers are appropriate ways to be polite to what has been said, and show a lack of interest in maintaining conversation. I'm not going to follow you down the street or though the store. THAT's creepy.

Whatever the definition of creepy is on this forum, the way it's applied makes it FAR too broad.



always_alone said:


> But obviously I don't really know you or how you come across IRL.


At least you give me some benefit of doubt!


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> No I meant what would be served by "calling them out" or "defending yourself" as some people have suggested? These people are douche bags who want to be douche bags.


Calling people out can be a catch22 for several reasons. You're right that some guys don't care. Plus there's another group of guys who would react badly from being embarrassment about being called out even if they look back on it and know they deserved it at the time. And then I'm sure some women have called out a guy for leering and then see a deer in headlights embarrassed look on his face and kind of feel bad about it. After all it feels kind of crappy to hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## always_alone

coffee4me said:


> This doesn't just happen to my daughter just in crowded city streets. I'm sensitive to it now because she hasn't developed her armor yet. She's not used to being gawked at while sitting in the car, followed at the mall, having to move near the life guard so she can enjoy herself at the beach instead of having men trying to talk to her and make her uncomfortable.
> 
> My daughter is 13 years old. She will get used it in a few years but its takes a while. We've had a lot of talks about avoiding situations. Until she learns how to handle the situations they will make her uncomfortable she is just a kid.


Yes, 13 to about 18 are the hardest years. You can't do anything without being leered at, followed, and so on. And it takes a while to build the skills to deflect I properly, without provoking anger or even worse behaviour. It's tricky.

But she'll get there. And thankfully has lots of parental support and protection to help her.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We have women who admit to seeking and enjoying getting attention/looks - like FW (to her credit for admitting; I'm not trying to admonish). In addition to the many things many other women do that we interpret as "attention needy or attention seeking" (Oh, look... yet another selfie of Sarah on instagram... same sh*t different hour!). It's ridiculously common. I'd argue more common than creepy comments and leers (I'm 100% positive I could find an example posted within the last 5 minutes on any social media). We're literally inundated with "my new bikini!!", "working out *Like a Girl* (muscle pose)", or kissy faces or duck faces or idiotic pictures of herself in the car. Nonstop... "like me", "like me", "like me", "look at me", "look at me", "look at me". The reasonable conclusion drawn by many men will be "most women seem to want attention"... and so they offer it. Presumably, FW will consider many of the men whose attention she gets "creepy". Are these men really doing things so differently than the men whose attention she sought? Do we get to pick exactly what kind of attention we draw? I don't think so. When you seek attention, you get all sorts of attention. Some you want, some you don't. And tbh, we don't really know who is seeking attention... if it's mentioned, the immediate defense is "I wore this super sexy thing for ME!!"


Yes, absolutely, some women very much enjoy attention and seek it out. And by all means, if that's what they want and you want, then it is simply a win/win situation.

But the reason that one woman ignored you was most likely because she didn't *want* your attention. And tried to convey that to you by body language and ignoring you. What else would you have her do? Tell you to fvck off? That would be even more rude. Chat politely to you? Well, the danger in that is that you'll take it as a sign that she *wants* your attention.

So what exactly is she supposed to do?

And yes, obviously is a woman is sexually interested in you, she will be receptive to your sexual interest in her. Why is it so hard to see that if she isn't interested, she will brush you off in one way or the other. You would do the same to a woman who was after you that you had no interest in too.

Re hyperbole:. I really don't think it is. If someone gets pissy with you because you don't want them sizing up your body, then they clearly have some expectations about what you "owe" them. 

I imagine that the more aggressive ones don't necessarily expect actual sex, but there is definitely the sense --and you can see this in some of the responses here --that a woman ought not have any complaints or objections about this -- and if she does, well, it's all up to her to "just deal" because well "too bad".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But the reason that one woman ignored you was most likely because she didn't *want* your attention. And tried to convey that to you by body language and ignoring you. What else would you have her do? Tell you to fvck off? That would be even more rude. Chat politely to you? Well, the danger in that is that you'll take it as a sign that she *wants* your attention.
> 
> So what exactly is she supposed to do?


I expect her to act like a regular, decent person. If I say "nice dress", you say "thanks". If I say, "man it sure is hot outside today", you say "yep". If she's thinking "Omg, he's going to think I want the D!!", then she's the creepy one.

But let's say I do take her simple non-talkative replies as more than polite... let's say I think she's being positive toward me. Oh dear... that means more conversation! Maybe some more personal questions. Or *gasp*, I might ask her name and tell her mine.

No, clearly I'm a creepy rapist and intent on taking her in Isle 5 (insert cleanup joke here). And once again, we're back to this control and vulnerability issue.

If he's misread your polite, boring replies poorly and you want to go about your business, it's quite simple: "I'm sorry, I'm really into this book so..." (or I have to do that; or need to finish shopping... take it easy. etc etc)". Whatever you would say to a WOMAN making run-on conversation! Because to this point, he's done nothing but hold friendly conversation with you. Gender and romance haven't begun to play a part in the conversation, so there's no need to tell him you're not interest (not interested in what? talking about the weather??). It's really not hard to move on from a conversation politely and assertively.

Women want guys to get to know them, to treat them as people no? Yet even treating them this way is very often viewed as creepy. In order to know me, you have to already know me... because I feel vulnerable to everything. If only I had more control...

"Don't ask the question unless the answer is yes. We're afraid of being looked at. We're afraid of being talked to. We're afraid of rejecting. We're afraid of men. We're afraid."

That's a damn shame given how few men actually deserve being fearful of.




always_alone said:


> Why is it so hard to see that if she isn't interested, she will brush you off in one way or the other. You would do the same to a woman who was after you that you had no interest in too.


Because you don't have to be interested to be friendly. I've never given a woman the sort of brush offs I've gotten from women. I have never completely ignored a woman who said hi to me. I'm not an @sshole (well, not most of the time anyway. ).



always_alone said:


> Re hyperbole:. I really don't think it is. If someone gets pissy with you because you don't want them sizing up your body, then they clearly have some expectations about what you "owe" them.


You don't get to declare who may or may not "size up" your body. Still don't think there's a control issue? Where does this even imply something is owed?



always_alone said:


> I imagine that the more aggressive ones don't necessarily expect actual sex, but there is definitely the sense --and you can see this in some of the responses here --that a woman ought not have any complaints or objections about this -- and if she does, well, it's all up to her to "just deal" because well "too bad".


By all means have complaints and objections. What I'm trying to get at is that this small subset is taken and applied across a huge range of interaction with men. So much as to make my saying "hi" some kind of creepy thing! It's absurd!

The same sort of "aggressive ones" are the ones itching to start a fight in a bar. By all means complain about them, they're problems, but don't over state their place merely because they're loud or obnoxious. I don't avoid talking to men in bars because a few men in bars are jerks looking for a fight. Most men are just fine. That a fraction of men crudely cat call you is not reasonable justification to ignore every man who says hello. That some rare creep might follow you around a store is not reasonable justification to avoid having a simple conversation with a guy at a store ... maybe, just possibly, you even end up enjoying it. Maybe you even hit it off. You can't know. The probability that something bad will happen there is infinitesimally low (clean-up isle 5!!.. there's blood and rape everywhere!).

The alternative is so fearful and fatalistic. You're in public, you're more than likely safe. You still can't have a regular platonic conversation? The vast majority of men won't harm you, and would in fact help you if you were attacked.

Part of me kinda hoped women were just ridiculously nervous (because I'm so good looking!  :rofl: jk) or something. Now I'm depressed. haha


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The notion that such attention means they think your body exists only for their pleasure is also hyperbole. That's mostly in your mind, but sure, there are some wild-eyed @ssholes in the world... but they're a small minority by which to judge men in general. I think the excessive scope of this perception is rooted in that vulnerability I mentioned... even being stronger or weaker depending on your assessment of the environment.


This is an area where I think further talk and explanation is needed. When I read the other thread which discussed specifically checking out the body parts of a female family member, I did not at all get the impression that what you stated above is true. I want it to be true but that is not what I gathered from the other thread. 

If a man is checking out your body parts such a your breasts, crotch or a$$, I do not interpret that as a look. A look encompasses my entire body including my face. I interpret a look as an appreciation of the fact that, to that person I'm attractive. When someone breaks that look off into focusing on my breasts, crotch or a$$, I interpret that as sexual and objectifying my body as a sum total of parts. Not seeing me as a person but my sexual parts. I don't feel it's a compliment to my appearance. Other women may feel differently , I understand that. 

I was disappointed by the responses in the other thread because the majority of the men suggested that its fine to look at a woman in this way as a sum of sexual parts. Just be discreet about it. The only thing that makes you an a$$ is being overt about it. Then we split hairs and justify that she's a legal adult, not a blood related family member, it's just biology. 

Can you understand where a woman gets the idea that men think her body exists for a mans pleasure when even male family members think its fine to check out her body, look at her body parts as long as they are discreet about doing so? When they are checking out her rack are they seeing her as a person or an object? 

I can understand that men you don't know and who don't know you look at you like a piece of meat. But a family member? Why were the majority of responses , look but be discreet. 

How about other men telling him not to check out her boobs, a$$ and crotch as if she was a sum of sexual parts and not a person that you know and is a member of your own family. How about men telling other men not to do it discreetly but not to do it at all because its disrespectful.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> No I meant what would be served by "calling them out" or "defending yourself" as some people have suggested? These people are douche bags who want to be douche bags.


Because the bully mentality works because no one does call them out. If my whole goal is to make someone uncomfortable and I am somewhat good at identifying meek people to intimidate then I seek them out specifically to get off on the bad behavior. It's a common line through most all of these types. Take a peeping Tom for example. They don't go up to strong confident women to open the trench coat. They pick out kids, teen girls, isolated women alone. Not guys my size who they know would start a conflict. I remember one such incident of the same in my city where a guy did this to a teen girl jogging on a path in town. Unknown to him she was here on an Olympic scholarship to train in judo. She tore his whole world apart. and we applauded her as we took him to jail

So yes direct confrontation does work. Embarrassing a guy like that who had likely never been confronted does work. That's my point. Books upon books have been written on th criminal mindset about HOW criminals pick thier victims. It's rarely random. Further thier are books and books, classes on self defense and defensive tactics that employ these same techniques. I have taught them myself and as already said will teach to my daughters. Of course some common sense and safety are built in but in a public venue like that is an ideal situation to call attention to bad behavior


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening coffee4me
Maybe a majority of POSTERS, I hope its not true of a majority of MEN.



coffee4me said:


> snip
> 
> I was disappointed by the responses in the other thread because the majority of the men suggested that its fine to look at a woman in this way as a sum of sexual parts.
> snip


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Part of me kinda hoped women were just ridiculously nervous (because I'm so good looking!  :rofl: jk) or something. Now I'm depressed. haha


It's a double edged sword sometimes huh Dvls. Many of the things you described above about 1 word responses etc are true. My daughter walks the line between being polite, not offending someone so he calls her an uppity B and not encouraging them. Difficult line to walk at 13 years old. 

I try my best to let a guy off the hook by swooping in and stopping the attempted conversation by saying "gotta go, excuse us time to get to the homework, 8th grade homework is a bear". Now he understands why she's reluctant to talk to him but also feels pervy realizing he was hitting on a kid.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I expect her to act like a regular, decent person. If I say "nice dress", you say "thanks". If I say, "man it sure is hot outside today", you say "yep". If she's thinking "Omg, he's going to think I want the D!!", then she's the creepy one.


You have the internal dialogue all wrong. Not even close.

It starts off as a question: what does he want? 

Unless, of course, it's totally obvious what he wants.

Then it's simply common knowledge that if you smile or are friendly, he will most likely interpret that as a signal to pursue more.

So the next question is: Do I actually want to talk to this guy?

If the answer is yes, she will engage; if the answer is no, she won't.

Only after persistent unwanted behaviour will she start getting either annoyed or worried (or both) depending on the context, circumstances, and the way the interaction unfolds.

Those that are ignoring you from the get go have probably assessed (quite correctly, it would seem) that you want something from them that they don't care to give. Now maybe you think she could be more polite about it, and maybe you're right. But my experience is that when you say things like, "oh, sorry, I'm really into my book", the response isn't to take the hint and go, but to further the conversation "oh, what's it about"?

So you just ignore the person and hope they go away.

And honestly, I, for one, really don't see why I should have to make polite conversation with someone just because he wants to look at my tits.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> I remember one such incident of the same in my city where a guy did this to a teen girl jogging on a path in town. Unknown to him she was here on an Olympic scholarship to train in judo. She tore his whole world apart. and we applauded her as we took him to jail
> 
> So yes direct confrontation does work. Embarrassing a guy like that who had likely never been confronted does work. That's my point.


So this is fine if you're a judo expert or big burly guy, but I for one am not going to take on a 6ft muscle-bound dude. I'm just not.

Now it is true that you can derive safety from the crowd, and that is what I did. But he was still there, in the background, trying to catch my eye. And he'd wander off to gawp at someone else, and then circle back again. He quite literally did this to pretty much every woman on the beach, and not one called him out, and not one of their bfs or husbands even gave him the glare. Even the ones who knew full well what was going on.

Not one.

Because, well, he wasn't doing anything but looking, fishing for interest, I guess, and we all just need to get over it.

Plus, he was a big muscle-bound dude.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> So this is fine if you're a judo expert or big burly guy, but I for one am not going to take on a 6ft muscle-bound dude. I'm just not.
> 
> Now it is true that you can derive safety from the crowd, and that is what I did. But he was still there, in the background, trying to catch my eye. And he'd wander off to gawp at someone else, and then circle back again. He quite literally did this to pretty much every woman on the beach, and not one called him out, and not one of their bfs or husbands even gave him the glare. Even the ones who knew full well what was going on.
> 
> Not one.
> 
> Because, well, he wasn't doing anything but looking, fishing for interest, I guess, and we all just need to get over it.
> 
> Plus, he was a big muscle-bound dude.


Well them afraid we have run the gambit of available options. Nothing wrong with the do nothing option if that's what feels most comfortable to you was just offering an alternative.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You have the internal dialogue all wrong. Not even close.
> 
> It starts off as a question: what does he want?
> 
> Unless, of course, it's totally obvious what he wants.


So, assume anyone who is interested in you has bad intentions? What exactly are those bad intentions anyway? A desire to at some point mate? What a jerk. :\

And here I thought that was a natural part of being male and female.



always_alone said:


> Then it's simply common knowledge that if you smile or are friendly, he will most likely interpret that as a signal to pursue more.


There is a huge difference between being friendly and being polite. If you engage in significant conversation and interact, you're friendly, and yeah, I would take that as a positive sign and get more personal.

Polite is acknowledging someone is speaking to you and answering, however short. You simply don't help him keep the conversation going. We can tell when we're talking to ourselves. Women may be annoyed by it, but there's nothing wrong on the guy's part with wanting to talk. Very few guys are going to take this as a positive sign and continue for long. Even fewer are going to take it as an insult. You responded. You just had no enthusiasm for him and didn't add to the conversation. You're polite, but either not interested or boring.



always_alone said:


> So the next question is: Do I actually want to talk to this guy?
> 
> If the answer is yes, she will engage; if the answer is no, she won't.


Odd. Do you ask yourself this question of any stranger? A woman starts talking about the weather... and you think "do I actually want to talk to this woman?"

Doubtful. You do for the man because you automatically think he has bad intentions. You assume he has bad intentions because at the heart of it, you're afraid of or dismissive of men. Innocent conversation ought to be perceived as innocent conversation. Whether you involve yourself in more depends.



always_alone said:


> Only after persistent unwanted behaviour will she start getting either annoyed or worried (or both) depending on the context, circumstances, and the way the interaction unfolds.


Then why call the interactions I've described myself as having "creepy"? I'm very much reading her level of engagement. If she ignores me, I think she's an @sshole. If she only responds politely, while I do all the conversational heavy lifting, she's not interested. If she's really conversational, then she might be interested - and I continue to follow up.

I seriously doubt I've ever made any woman feel "worried", beyond some base universal caution with men. 



always_alone said:


> Those that are ignoring you from the get go have probably assessed (quite correctly, it would seem) that you want something from them that they don't care to give. Now maybe you think she could be more polite about it, and maybe you're right. But my experience is that when you say things like, "oh, sorry, I'm really into my book", the response isn't to take the hint and go, but to further the conversation "oh, what's it about"?
> 
> So you just ignore the person and hope they go away.


What do I want from them that they don't care to give? Sex? Funny... I'm not trying to get laid right there in the book store. So you're absolutely wrong. What I want in that moment is to meet someone new that I find attractive. Obviously the end aim is sexual, hence it's someone I find attractive (duh?). That aim doesn't preclude friendship, relationship, or anything else the future may hold.

An attractive guy can try to start a conversation with you and you'll ignore it out of the assumption... no... inevitability that a guy talking because he finds you attractive is interested in you sexually? No kidding! Do you think the guy you fall/fell in love with and marry wasn't interested in you sexually? lol That is always there. It doesn't exclude everything else.

So seriously here, what is the difference between the guy you eventually marry (meeting him must have been by introduction or otherwise fortuitous) and an attractive guy striking up conversation? Just you. The only difference is you. Your mindset. Fears allayed by introduction or happenstance vs knee jerk defenses against those scary scary men making small talk in public.

As for continuing with book girl, that's actually an example from my experience. I started the conversation by asking about the book. I mentioned loving another book by the same author and asked if she had read it. She gave me pretty good enthusiastic replies and we had a short chit chat. I was about to ask her if I could get her a cup of coffee when she mentioned wanting to get back to reading. So I said "Oh yeah, of course, enjoy the book."

The conversation is about connecting and making impressions, not faux information gathering. It's not "what are you doing/what is it about?" It's "what do we have in common?"

Sometimes I've moved on not because she showed no interest, but because I couldn't find any connection. We had nothing in common really. These can still be positive interactions. All of these can be positive interactions. It's a shame many women operate on assumptions of some terrible thing a man might do... like stalk her around the store, even though the vast majority of men are fairly decent. Or act as though conversation is some awful thing.



always_alone said:


> And honestly, I, for one, really don't see why I should have to make polite conversation with someone just because he wants to look at my tits.


That's a delightful attitude to have. Just a heads up, your husband wanted to look at your tits too and his wanting to was entirely healthy and human of him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> It's a double edged sword sometimes huh Dvls. Many of the things you described above about 1 word responses etc are true. My daughter walks the line between being polite, not offending someone so he calls her an uppity B and not encouraging them. Difficult line to walk at 13 years old.
> 
> I try my best to let a guy off the hook by swooping in and stopping the attempted conversation by saying "gotta go, excuse us time to get to the homework, 8th grade homework is a bear". Now he understands why she's reluctant to talk to him but also feels pervy realizing he was hitting on a kid.


I don't understand the context... an adult was talking to your daughter and called her an uppity B for "only" being polite?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So, assume anyone who is interested in you has bad intentions? What exactly are those bad intentions anyway? A desire to at some point mate?


For me, that would not be a welcome interest from a complete stranger on the street.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> For me, that would not be a welcome interest from a complete stranger on the street.


Uhm... at one point, your SO was a stranger no?

Mating is after all, the reason there are sexes. Seems quite odd that one of the primary reasons for coupling existing at all is thought a bad motivation for seeking the opposite sex.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> For me, that would not be a welcome interest from a complete stranger on the street.
> 
> 
> 
> DvlsAdvc8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... at one point, your SO was a stranger no?
> 
> Mating is after all, the reason there are sexes. Seems quite odd that one of the primary reasons for pairing is thought a bad motivation.
Click to expand...

I'll raise you one and say 99.99999999% of us are the result of successful mating. It would be 100% except for cloning and all .


----------



## john117

Maybe the previous poster lives in an area where moral standards  are a bit, ehem, lax, but I have lived in the Midwest, Deep South, and both coasts and can't recall a case where a 13 year old would be leered at by grown men. My family - including two very attractive daughters, both college aged, have not experienced this either thru travels in the USA and Europe as well...


----------



## coffee4me

john117 said:


> Maybe the previous poster lives in an area where moral standards  are a bit, ehem, lax, but I have lived in the Midwest, Deep South, and both coasts and can't recall a case where a 13 year old would be leered at by grown men. My family - including two very attractive daughters, both college aged, have not experienced this either thru travels in the USA and Europe as well...


As I said in my previous post I try to keep in mind that these men do not know she is 13. I try not to be offended because I realize she looks older. She easily passes for 16/17 and I supposed if you are really bad at looking at a person and knowing their age some guys might be clueless. She's tall also and I think that lends to men thinking she older.


----------



## john117

I suppose... My girls are not tall (5 ft 3 and 5 ft 4, 110 lbs - courtesy of their half Asian side) but still...


----------



## Tubbalard

I actually don't mind women ignoring guys. I think men Leer and women ignore. I've seen situations where it was best for a woman not to say anything.

Just as a man is free to leer, a woman is free to not be "polite" or say hi back.

Not every "good morning" means good morning. Men aren't polite just to be polite.


----------



## coffee4me

john117 said:


> I suppose... My girls are not tall (5 ft 3 and 5 ft 4, 110 lbs - courtesy of their half Asian side) but still...


But still... Many women in this thread have stated that they have been leered at around age 12. But still... the men say that's unusual guess all the women who posted this are exceptions . We all must live in obscure places.


----------



## NobodySpecial

coffee4me said:


> But still... Many women in this thread have stated that they have been leered at around age 12. But still... the men say that's unusual guess all the women who posted this are exceptions . We all must live in obscure places.



And forgot to wear our burkas that morning.


----------



## john117

Maybe so. I don't think around here in the Midwest one would go far with this behavior. Also the weather is such that for months at a time everyone dresses for cold...

Kind of hard to get leered at stuffed in a parka


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So, assume anyone who is interested in you has bad intentions? What exactly are those bad intentions anyway? A desire to at some point mate? What a jerk. :\
> 
> And here I thought that was a natural part of being male and female.


Again, you have the internal dialogue all wrong.

I do not assume bad intentions. If someone speaks to me in the moment, I will respond. If someone makes a point of speaking to me, then I will wonder what they want. Maybe it's just to tell me I left the lights on in the car. Or that I dropped something. Or to ask for money. Or whatever. 

And maybe you are good at reading signals that someone isn't really interested in engaging, and leaving them alone. But many people aren't. They decide, for whatever reason, that you giving them the brush off is good reason for them to start calling you an uppity b1tch, for example. Or that they need to teach you lessons about talking to strangers. Or whatever. 

And the fact is that the intentions of most of people who fall into the creepy category are completely obvious and on the surface. And they do have expectations and entitlements about what they have "rights" to. You speak like there is no possible way that anyone can have any idea what a person is about, but this is simply not true. Granted, we may not always be 100% accurate in reading strangers, but you can tell an awful lot by attitude, stance, approach, and most importantly, the look in the eyes.

And you speak as though the intentions are always good, or at least benign. And that simply isn't true either.

The difference with my SO and other guys I've dated was that they actually saw and engaged with a real person, not just a pair of tits. The creeps, on the other hand, only see tits.


----------



## always_alone

coffee4me said:


> But still... Many women in this thread have stated that they have been leered at around age 12. But still... the men say that's unusual guess all the women who posted this are exceptions . We all must live in obscure places.


Every woman I have ever known has dealt with this problem, starting from age 12 to 13, sometimes younger. Every woman on his thread has said the same thing.

But we still cannot agree that there is widespread acceptance of bad behaviour, and it is still cast as just a couple of creeps ruining it for everyone.

I don't buy it. It most certainly is not all men. Many really do relate to women as people, not sexual objects. But it is still very, very common. Male friends of mine have said pretty much the same thing. My SO once told me that he often found men's attitudes quite despicable, saying something along the lines of, "c'mon dude, you say you like women. So treat them that way."


----------



## Faithful Wife

I've never been on a date with anyone who started out by leering at me, and never would be.

Although I have said several times, being leered at doesn't actually annoy me or make me feel threatened. Yet if a man who is leering speaks to me, that's it, he's a creep now. Yep, that's it. That's all I need to know. I know the difference between looking at me with appreciation and attraction and then approaching me to talk to me....and leering at me and then trying to force me to speak to him.

So the argument that at one time someone was a stranger and had to look at you and talk to you to end up being your husband or SO is total bunk.

Example: my husband spied me from across a crowded room and made his way across it to deliberately speak to me. As it happened, I turned around as he was coming to talk to me and walked right past him. So he went back to his original spot for a bit to just wait it out and see where I would go because when I turned around it would have looked like he was being too pushy to talk to me right then.

I then made my way to his original spot on my own and he struck up a conversation.

So of course, the whole evening he was looking at me...watching me...checking me out.

But not leering, whistling, or screeching "hey baby show me the goods!"

And no man who acts like that is actually interested in YOU they just want to harass you or intimidate you. Normal guys see you and respectfully check you out and then speak to you in a tone that conveys interest, not lust.

It doesn't matter if a normal guy is actually feeling lust, they don't convey it. If they open with some kind of lusty joke, fine. "Are your legs tired" or whatever. That in itself isn't actually a problem IF the two are in an environment where meeting people happens that way.

But if any guy thinks that leering first is a way that any woman ends up with a man, wow, just so off base.


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> Maybe the previous poster lives in an area where moral standards  are a bit, ehem, lax, but I have lived in the Midwest, Deep South, and both coasts and can't recall a case where a 13 year old would be leered at by grown men. My family - including two very attractive daughters, both college aged, have not experienced this either thru travels in the USA and Europe as well...


John...just because you haven't witnessed this with your daughters doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It mostly happens to young girls when they are alone...the creepers don't do it with any witnesses. Doesn't that just make sense? Why would you guys doubt this, yet at the same time go on and on about biology? (I'm not saying you in particular go on and on about biology but hopefully you see the point?)

I'm talking particularly about the minors. Since we all agree and know that men will leer and be creeps to full grown women, there's no argument there. 

But I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble...creepiness DOES go all the way on down to child girls. I know you don't like thinking this, but it is most definitely true.

There was a movie on Netflix recently that I started watching because it looked edgy and took place at Disneyland (oh cool, edgy + Disneyland!) But it was about a guy who is having some kind of crisis...he is at Dland with his wife and kids...and two very young girls maybe 12 and 14 are in line near him waiting for a ride. They are both beautiful and blossoming. Then he sees them in another line and the older girl starts chatting with him. Then he sees them later and I could see this ramping up to where something sickening was going to happen....I shut it off. Ugh, gross.

But you would say that this doesn't happen, it isn't common? Even though it must be common enough (to feel lust for 12 - 14 y/o girls) that this movie would be understood by viewers?

Even though less than 100 years ago, girls were frequently married by age 13 (and still are in some countries)?

I don't get why there is resistance for decent men to understand how common this is, just because you don't do it, doesn't mean all men are decent.

And to be clear...the sexual attractiveness of young people is evident and I don't fault anyone for merely *noticing* it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also I wonder if people who have lack of empathy in general have trouble understanding this issue. 

People usually lack empathy due to personality disorders or brain disorders like Aspergers syndrome or other spectrum disorder. People like this can often seem completely normal to others and it is the lack of empathy that clues them in to the disorders.

I have a few people in my life with various disorders that lack empathy, and issues like this one are just way beyond their ability to understand because of that disconnect of not being able to imagine the feelings of someone else.


----------



## NobodySpecial

My husband did not check me out at all. We were hanging out in a group of friends, many male, who were not all about getting in my pants. Our first conversation over a beer is how we knew the mutual friends and the jobs we worked together at...


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I know the difference between looking at me with appreciation and attraction and then approaching me to talk to me....and leering at me and then trying to force me to speak to him.


Yep, exactly, this. Big difference. And leering is always a complete non-starter. I don't care if you're the king of Siam, no way I'd give even my name to someone who first targeted me with a leer.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> John...just because you haven't witnessed this with your daughters doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It mostly happens to young girls when they are alone...the creepers don't do it with any witnesses.


Yeah, no one ever leered at me in front of my dad. Or my mom.

I have been leered at in the presence of my SO and previous bfs, but only when their backs were turned.


----------



## john117

I believe it happens when they're alone but mostly by peers - not grown men.

I don't know in what universe young teens go out and about for hours on end unsupervised.

In high school based on the informal dress code I observed, leering would be the mildest form of complement given the outfits some of the girls would feature. Eventually the school clamped down and established near Sharia dress code which most parents welcomed. 

Again, context is king.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Yeah, no one ever leered at me in front of my dad. Or my mom.
> 
> I have been leered at in the presence of my SO and previous bfs, but only when their backs were turned.


I m very observant - work requirement - and the only time my brood has been blatantly leered has been when in full cruise formal night attire. Which is the point 

At the risk of being stoned here may I ask what attire we are talking about? Design studio T-shirt and yoga pants covered in plaster dust or anatomy lab scrubs isn't exactly leer worthy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

john117 said:


> I m very observant - work requirement - and the only time my brood has been blatantly leered has been when in full cruise formal night attire. Which is the point
> 
> At the risk of being stoned here may I ask what attire we are talking about? Design studio T-shirt and yoga pants covered in plaster dust or anatomy lab scrubs isn't exactly leer worthy.


I probably should not answer this because it pisses me off. The perpetual cast back of responsibility. But whatever. When I was 13, one was able to get a permit to get a job with parental permission. I was wearing my Dunkin Donut uniform, probably minus the apron. When I was 11, I was wearing a calf length pleated skirt with tights, a blouse and a cardigan sweater. Believe it or not, Catholic school girl uniforms are anything but sexy. Those I remember what I was doing at the time.

ANd it means what, exactly? That it is my fault for wearing "costumes"?


----------



## john117

Let's just say that pigs will be pigs. And that things were different back then in many ways.

One can wear anything they wish, but some piggish behavior tends to be more prevalent depending on certain circumstances. Not just costume but all kinds of parameters. It doesn't make it right obviously.


----------



## Faithful Wife

John, sadly, the fact that decent men like you doubt this (creepers going after 12 yos) happens as much as it does (because you are decent therefore you aren't aware of it), is part of why it occurs.

When this happened to me as a child, do you think I told anyone about it? No. 

Thankfully, I talked to my D and her friends about these things as they were coming of age, and they DID talk to me about it. I heard about it more than once. The poor young girls having no idea why full grown men would be making such statements or leering in such ways. And me having to discuss safety and the best options for them.

Doubt it happens? Stay part of the problem. Aware it happens? At least this helps by acknowledging that something DOES happen that you aren't aware of, and therefore, maybe some of your previous assumptions about how intimidated women feel (since we have been trained since childhood to know these dangerous creepers are out there by our own experiences) can also change. Maybe you can have more compassion if you try to imagine that your daughters DID go through this, more than once. Just because they didn't, millions of daughters DO. And it isn't cool and it IS so common that most women carry this forward into their lives.

It is fine for anyone to say "meh, get over it, leering doesn't hurt you". Ok, great. I accept that may be someone's stance. But I really think that if that same person actually understood how powerfully mind altering those experiences are to young girls, if men really understood how vulnerable and even sometimes terrorized we have been...you may be more compassionate.

This is why I tried to bring up a few pages back, the fact that boys are terrorized by bullying too and that all of our children should be "heard" about these problems.


----------



## john117

FW, I agree in principle. But like the weather, it's all local. I don't see leering going on by adults in the Midwest - not to the extent described at least. As I said, lot of peer leering, much of it part of the growing up process. But grown men running head first into poles while leering at 12 year olds? Not around here.

Granted, we live in the high rent district  of the Midwest and that could be the reason. But my wife lived in a Title X something apartment on the other side of the tracks and never had an issue either 30 - 35 years ago. The most leering I recall was from my fellow country men who were TA's and had to deal with lightly dressed undergrads and 95F temperatures.

I'm not saying it does not happen. But as a cynical foreign born person I taught my girls to expect the worse from people. So they're not oblivious to this - they simply did not put themselves into bad situations.

My understanding is that in general when younger girls are assaulted it often is an inside job - teacher, relative, family friend... 

Both my girls are in college now, one in one of the most party ranked schools in the country. They have adjusted well. 

It almost looks to me that America is turning more and more morally conservative - and some people, the creeps in question at least, are not adjusting. So we teach our daughters to play it safe with strangers. Then they are assaulted by insiders...

Also schools do a great job teaching and reinforcing safety. Both my girls' schools have copious amounts of courses dealing with the stuff... In my days, nada.


----------



## Faithful Wife

John...one more time now...creepers do not do this in front of decent men. That is why you don't see it. Not because of where you live. "I don't see it so it is just a localized phenomenon" is keeping your head in the sand.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also....wow....your daughters don't "put themselves in dangerous situations"...so you're implying if a creeper creeps on a young girl, it must have been because she put herself into harms way. 

Unbelievable.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> John, sadly, the fact that decent men like you doubt this (creepers going after 12 yos) happens as much as it does (because you are decent therefore you aren't aware of it), is part of why it occurs.
> 
> When this happened to me as a child, do you think I told anyone about it? No.
> 
> Thankfully, I talked to my D and her friends about these things as they were coming of age, and they DID talk to me about it. I heard about it more than once. The poor young girls having no idea why full grown men would be making such statements or leering in such ways. And me having to discuss safety and the best options for them.
> 
> Doubt it happens? Stay part of the problem. Aware it happens? At least this helps by acknowledging that something DOES happen that you aren't aware of, and therefore, maybe some of your previous assumptions about how intimidated women feel (since we have been trained since childhood to know these dangerous creepers are out there by our own experiences) can also change. Maybe you can have more compassion if you try to imagine that your daughters DID go through this, more than once. Just because they didn't, millions of daughters DO. And it isn't cool and it IS so common that most women carry this forward into their lives.
> 
> It is fine for anyone to say "meh, get over it, leering doesn't hurt you". Ok, great. I accept that may be someone's stance. But I really think that if that same person actually understood how powerfully mind altering those experiences are to young girls, if men really understood how vulnerable and even sometimes terrorized we have been...you may be more compassionate.
> 
> This is why I tried to bring up a few pages back, the fact that boys are terrorized by bullying too and that all of our children should be "heard" about these problems.


Creeps going after kids doesn't just happen to girls. It happens everywhere. If you think geography has any bearing on whether or not there are pedo's around, think again. My daughters hate me sometimes because of how close I keep an eye on them.

I'm not going to let happen to them what happened to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes Fozzy it can happen to anyone who is vulnerable.

I was going to add on this thread that whether any parent wants to hear this or not, creeps are leering and creeping on your young sons, too. Just because your child may have never told you something like this has happened to them doesn't mean it hasn't.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> John...one more time now...creepers do not do this in front of decent men. That is why you don't see it. Not because of where you live. "I don't see it so it is just a localized phenomenon" is keeping your head in the sand.



Not so sure. My girls used to do all the teenage mall hang out etc with friends, without related adults nearby and never saw any of it from not so decent adults.

But to be honest, much of that is because they know better than to put themselves into the wrong spot to begin with, have situational awareness, and not trust anyone. Where we live is relevant only because the creep to decent man ratio favors decent men and because parents proactively teach the girls to be aware and self confident.

I had no concern sending my girls out of state for college or study abroad. They have seen the good and some of the bad side of the world. But I'm not going to raise them with the idea everyone is a creep. There is a fine line between being aware and being freaked out.

Would they go out dressed like Miley Cyrus? Probably not, but not because of creepsters


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> Also....wow....your daughters don't "put themselves in dangerous situations"...so you're implying if a creeper creeps on a young girl, it must have been because she put herself into harms way.
> 
> Unbelievable.



Let's not put words in people's mouths here. Are you afraid to send your young teens to the mall? Movie? 

Exactly where in America are young girls being leered on en masse? Like locations they're likely to be. If my girl says she's going to the mall that's one thing. But if she's 15 and going to the local bar strip? Shady district? 

I'm not living in a gated community or anything but we are not in the Wild West either. Some places are out of limits for younger folk, that is all.


----------



## coffee4me

I was going to respond to the above posts but I give up. 

The best thing that I get out of these threads is an appreciation for the remarkable men in my family. I'm so thankful they get it, they understand a woman does not have to do a single thing but exist for a man to creep on her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Me, too. Silly me for trying again. And like you are saying, wow do I love my husband right now, for getting this and wanting to protect us all (and understanding that even if he doesn't see it, it still goes on, even worse, actually).


----------



## soccermom2three

Wow, I'm pretty disgusted by the last few posts. Can't believe how naive some can be.


----------



## Tubbalard

john117 said:


> Exactly where in America are young girls being leered on en masse? Like locations they're likely to be. If my girl says she's going to the mall that's one thing. But if she's 15 and going to the local bar strip? Shady district?


Top places would most likely be:

1. Miami- It's a Leering city and girls welcome it. 
Due to the weather, women dress in scantily clad 
Costumes all year round.
2- NYC
3. LA
4. New Orleans- Leering is promoted and welcomed with beads
5. Houston
6. Atlanta
7. San Diego
8. San Francisco- Leer at your own risk. Could be a man.


----------



## NobodySpecial

john117 said:


> Let's not put words in people's mouths here. Are you afraid to send your young teens to the mall? Movie?
> 
> Exactly where in America are young girls being leered on en masse? Like locations they're likely to be. If my girl says she's going to the mall that's one thing. But if she's 15 and going to the local bar strip? Shady district?
> 
> I'm not living in a gated community or anything but we are not in the Wild West either. Some places are out of limits for younger folk, that is all.


Nobody said anything about en masse. These shady district examples I have for you. The shopping mall. Outside the Dunkin Donuts. On the street in front of my school. Those really scary places you shouldn't be.


----------



## NobodySpecial

This thread is very frustrating.


----------



## john117

So, how many of us would send our young daughters unaccompanied to the depths of Miami or NOLA during Mardi Gras, beads and all? Where "evil men" would hound them? 

I "sacrificed" some of my future fun and earnings potential to live in a boring yet relatively decent place. So I don't disagree my kids are sheltered but at the same time this choice is open to everyone. 

We really don't need to freak our kids out about everyone being a perv. Common sense and guidance goes a long way too. I'm sure it happens a lot but is it at the national crisis level? Should the Feds appoint a task force? 

Agree with Miami tho.


----------



## john117

NobodySpecial said:


> Nobody said anything about en masse. These shady district examples I have for you. The shopping mall. Outside the Dunkin Donuts. On the street in front of my school. Those really scary places you shouldn't be.



My kids have done the requisite rotations thru said places from age young teen and up and never reported adult leering or other pervasions. Lots of those from peers tho. 

If adults are leering openly in front of high schools your community has bigger issues than leering in my opinion. 

I have lived in strange places and for the most part, physical safety concerns trumped leering. I did a stint in Detroit (lolz) and we went to dinner downtown in the mid 80's. Business as usual. One of my friends' purse was stolen from her chair and a post dinner walk turned out to be not so good an idea after all personal safety wise - but we were young and stupid. 

Things have changed. Downtown Chicago is a thousand times better now than in the 80's. NYC too. 

Anyhow.


----------



## soccermom2three

John, I live in one of the top rank safest cities in the U.S. (a suburb) and it happens. Leering has nothing to do with living in a seedy area. You really just need to get that out of your head.

ETA: I really can't believe that you think degenerates only live in seedy areas. Are you thinking that these guys are bums and drunks on street corners? These guys can be your doctor, lawyer, pastor and live with their family right next door to you.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> Nobody said anything about en masse. These shady district examples I have for you. The shopping mall. Outside the Dunkin Donuts. On the street in front of my school. Those really scary places you shouldn't be.


Let's not forget softball practice, Uncle Willy's house, the community swimming pool, the greasy spoon down the street from your high school...

All clearly super shady dangerous areas that no one in their right minds would frequent (except, of course, those incredibly rare creeper tyoes).


----------



## Faithful Wife

It is really a matter of "I don't see it, therefore it doesn't happen". I think a lot of people are under this misconception. Sadly, this adds to the overall problem and makes it so that young people don't know they have rights and should be able to speak up about this.


----------



## john117

No, it is not.

It is more "to what extent it happens and what are the confounding factors". 

I think I know the general area you describe relatively well, having lived there for a month on assignment a dozen years ago. Agreed, it is not ground zero for degenerates, not any more than where I live. 

So it becomes a question of how often this happens, to whom, by whom, and so on. It is like ethnic or cultural discrimination. Yea, it happens, but if I filed a federal lawsuit every time someone mispronounces my last name or made an ethnic joke I would be in court 24/7. My wife on the other hand, every criticism or comment or perceived mishap is Immediately discrimination  not so.

Do we teach our daughters to dress like Miley and stroll in downtown Flint after hours? No. But we don't teach them to freak out if someone looks at them either. The whole point of raising well adjusted confident girls is to explain what things look like and the general rules of the game and let them see how it works. 

My older girl was probably leered on in Paris and Rome last summer more than she's ever been in 23 years stateside  was she gravely offended? No. She knows pigs will be pigs.

I understand 14 year olds are less mature than 23 year olds but I have worked very hard to get my kids to see the good and bad side of the world. And to not freak out when the bad side of the world rears it's ugly head. 

So, once again, it does happen anywhere, to anyone, and the important part is to prepare our daughters to deal with it, not go ape over every last chance.


----------



## soccermom2three

I've never seen a million dollars but I know it exists.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Sticking my fingers in my ears. La La La I can't hear you!


----------



## john117

For further reading...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Now let me get on my bike and enjoy the "view" on our MUP's

View attachment 33594


----------



## EleGirl

If leering/looking at women is harmless, why do some men get so upset when they do out with their gf/wife and other men obviously are looking her over?


.


----------



## richie33

Men would feel the same way women do on this forum. When the person that is leering is attractive its welcomed, when they are not they are a creep. Thats been stated plenty of times on this site.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> was she gravely offended? No. She knows pigs will be pigs.


Right. Because at 23, she knows full well that pigs are pigs and there's no point in saying or doing anything about it. 

They just say, "get over it." Just like they all said "get over it" to racism.... Oh wait....


----------



## john117

I have seen racism - my kids have also. You deal with it. If needed you take action, and we have.

But making a career out of being overly sensitive? Pfeh. Pigs have one redeeming value, thick skin...

If someone's attitude towards me impedes my life I deal with it. If not, the Almighty didn't put me on this earth to be the arbiter of all things moral. If others have this much energy, I am happy for them


----------



## ET1SSJonota

NobodySpecial said:


> This thread is very frustrating.


Of course. Pack a bunch of highly opinionated people who feel the need to pick at every little thing that they think is "wrong" with someone elses' thinking, and I think that's the exact recipe for "frustration". 

No one in this thread is very far from one another. Some take it to an extreme in trying to portray _how_ bad this is. And then act offended when people don't agree with them (but have no problem offending others).


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> But making a career out of being overly sensitive? Pfeh. Pigs have one redeeming value, thick skin...


There's a great false dichotomy. Either "get over it and STFU" or "make a career out of being overly sensitive."

Because, you know, gawd forbid that anyone talks about how this widespread condoning of piggishness affects them. Or seeks to raise awareness of the many and varied ways that piggishness has become the sexual climate that women grow up in. Or considers how the effort of constantly ignoring piggishness encourages women to shut down their sexuality.

No, anything like that just smacks of making a career out of being overly sensitive. Better just to have women STFU and put up with whatever, no matter how it might affect them. Because like who care?


----------



## john117

Add it to the list of things that impact our lives and we have to deal with - my family has had to deal with problems from racial discrimination, job competition from offshore, age discrimination, and everything else. Add leering to the queue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Whatever your problems are, mine are worse".


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> "Whatever your problems are, mine are worse".



"Blessed be those who have addressed all the major issues in their lives and have enough energy left to devote to life's little pleasures - or nuisances"

That's what it boils down to, doesn't it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nope. Blessed are those who have compassion for others, even when they cannot empathize.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> "Blessed be those who have addressed all the major issues in their lives and have enough energy left to devote to life's little pleasures - or nuisances"
> 
> That's what it boils down to, doesn't it?


You define it as just a nuisance, but there actually is a ton of fallout that you simply do not seem to care about. 

Sexual vulnerability encourages women to become (or stay) sexually repressed, and much more likely to view sexual overtures with suspicion. Even those from their loving partners.

You have a background in psychology. Surely you're familiar with the power of intermittent negative reinforcement?


----------



## john117

I'm afraid we will agree to disagree. As I indicated many times in this thread, I can sympathize with those who are made uncomfortable by such unwelcome behavior. I do not doubt the issue exists, and that it impacts people. I question the frequency and impact it has in general, not to a given individual. 

My PERSONAL take on this as a hyphenated American with biracial kids is that down the road MY girls will likely encounter other issues that makes leering a bit low on their priority list.

As they grew up they encountered other issues like any other American teenager - identity, drugs, sex, relationships, parents, money, college... And once again, such issues - for MY children - tended to be more important up the food chain than someone leering at them.

Peace


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Again, you have the internal dialogue all wrong.
> 
> I do not assume bad intentions. If someone speaks to me in the moment, I will respond.
> 
> And maybe you are good at reading signals that someone isn't really interested in engaging, and leaving them alone. But many people aren't. They decide, for whatever reason, that you giving them the brush off is good reason for them to start calling you an uppity b1tch, for example.


Then you're not an example of someone I'd consider rude. As for someone not leaving you alone in spite of short disinterested responses or calling you an uppity bish... well, I consider that rude too.

Both are a shame.



always_alone said:


> And the fact is that the intentions of most of people who fall into the creepy category are completely obvious and on the surface. And they do have expectations and entitlements about what they have "rights" to. You speak like there is no possible way that anyone can have any idea what a person is about, but this is simply not true. Granted, we may not always be 100% accurate in reading strangers, but you can tell an awful lot by attitude, stance, approach, and most importantly, the look in the eyes.


I'm certainly not saying we can't read people. I'm only saying that talking to someone because you're attracted to them isn't exactly a creepy intention.



always_alone said:


> The difference with my SO and other guys I've dated was that they actually saw and engaged with a real person, not just a pair of tits. The creeps, on the other hand, only see tits.


But... you've implied that I have a creep vibe in my stories, yet I'm only having casual conversation with a stranger I'm attracted to. You read an awful lot of negativity into my intentions. I'm attracted. I want to talk to her. I want to relate. I want a date. I want to have fun. I want sex (for that matter, why do you feel sex or physical attraction is seemingly automatically a negative intention?). I might end up wanting a relationship the person. That's all a natural process. I have a hard time understanding what's creepy about it.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But... you've implied that I have a creep vibe in my stories, yet I'm only having casual conversation with a stranger I'm attracted to. You read an awful lot of negativity into my intentions. I'm attracted. I want to talk to her. I want to relate. I want a date. I want to have fun. I want sex (for that matter, why do you feel sex or physical attraction is seemingly automatically a negative intention?). I might end up wanting a relationship the person. That's all a natural process. I have a hard time understanding what's creepy about it.


The creepy vibe in your stories isn't because you want to relate or to date, or even to have sex. The creepy vibe in your stories is because it doesn't sound at all like "relating" to me. It sounds like manipulation.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> *identity*, drugs, *sex, relationships*, parents, money, college...


And yet, on that list are 3 things that are quite pertinent to the topic of leering. 

Go figure.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I've never been on a date with anyone who started out by leering at me, and never would be.


Honest question -

What is the difference between the "eye game" and leering? Couldn't a guy who is trying to "give the eyes" be considered flirting by a woman who him attractive, and leering by a woman who does not?



Faithful Wife said:


> So the argument that at one time someone was a stranger and had to look at you and talk to you to end up being your husband or SO is total bunk.
> 
> Example: my husband spied me from across a crowded room and made his way across it to deliberately speak to me. As it happened, I turned around as he was coming to talk to me and walked right past him. So he went back to his original spot for a bit to just wait it out and see where I would go because when I turned around it would have looked like he was being too pushy to talk to me right then.
> 
> I then made my way to his original spot on my own and he struck up a conversation.
> 
> So of course, the whole evening he was looking at me...watching me...checking me out.


So what differentiate this from leering to you? This sounds like a rather extended "look", and it was followed with an attempt to talk to you. Per the preferences you stated, he would have been rejected had he gotten on with his approach instead of you happening to walk by him.

Also, why the pushy perception if he had said hello as you walk by?


whistling, or screeching "hey baby show me the goods!"



Faithful Wife said:


> And no man who acts like that is actually interested in YOU they just want to harass you or intimidate you.


Agree with you on that one. It's not about realistically courting. As such, it's not all that different than the way some guys will pick a fight or attempt to bully other guys. It's about power and intimidation.



Faithful Wife said:


> It doesn't matter if a normal guy is actually feeling lust, they don't convey it. If they open with some kind of lusty joke, fine. "Are your legs tired" or whatever. That in itself isn't actually a problem IF the two are in an environment where meeting people happens that way.


I very much agree, with maybe a slight exception of some colorful, bold, overt comments. But as you said, those rightfully occur in an environment where they might be expected. I'm sure some women can't relate and would be put off, but others respond to the nerve or ballsy-ness it took to say. It's totally a "feel" thing that's hard to relate here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope. Blessed are those who have compassion for others, even when they cannot empathize.


The interesting thing to me is how vigorously acknowledgement is avoided. Like how hard is Thundarr's attitude of simple acknowledgement? I know it was pretty nice for me when my husband acknowledged that he was formerly unaware of this issue.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> The creepy vibe in your stories isn't because you want to relate or to date, or even to have sex. The creepy vibe in your stories is because it doesn't sound at all like "relating" to me. It sounds like manipulation.


:scratchhead:

This is really splitting hairs. You could call almost any human interaction done with any intentions manipulation if you really wanted to.

I like her. I want to know more. I want her to like me so I have an opportunity to know more. What I say is honest, even though it leverages my experience of what most often encourages a positive response.

If in spite of my attempts, I'm unable to relate to her, that's fine. I don't want someone I can't relate to so that's the end of that. Maybe she doesn't find me attractive. Maybe she's already taken. Or maybe we just have nothing in common.

You still try by putting your best foot forward and making good impressions.


----------



## Forest

Faithful Wife said:


> "Whatever your problems are, mine are worse".


40 pages worth.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> The interesting thing to me is how vigorously acknowledgement is avoided. Like how hard is Thundarr's attitude of simple acknowledgement? I know it was pretty nice for me when my husband acknowledged that he was formerly unaware of this issue.


Acknowledgement of something is difficult when the topic can be overly broad, subjective or critical.

For example, how am I to acknowledge a position which calls me creepy and manipulative, when I don't think it's creepy or manipulative? And given I get positive responses much more often than negative, why should I believe my behavior creepy or manipulative?

I acknowledge leering and cat calling as rude generally speaking, but there are still some vague areas in that the "eye game" can arbitrarily be thought leering when unwelcome and flirting when welcome. Or how a compliment can be cat calling when unwelcome or ego boosting when welcome. Or how some women admittedly intentionally seek overt male attention, while others basically reject any sexual/attraction based attention. The inconsistency is mind boggling. What are men to do with this information?

I think the lack of acknowledgement stems from the desire for better/more consistent standards. And it tends to go both ways... the lack of acknowledging rude behaviors like outright ignoring polite men, or the insult felt from the sort of default hostile regard for men you don't know as if we're all bad (or even that sexual attraction is an automatic negative). There is reason on both sides.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A Or how some women admittedly intentionally seek overt male attention, while others basically reject any sexual/attraction based attention. The inconsistency is mind boggling. What are men to do with this information?


Ummm, realize that women are different?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> This is really splitting hairs. You could call almost any human interaction done with any intentions manipulation if you really wanted to.


Well, yeah, I could. But I don't. Why? Because not everything is manipulative.

It's only manipulative when you are deliberately engineering every situation to go your way.

I'm not saying you actually do this IRL, because frankly, I have no idea what you are really like in person. But that is how your posts read to me. Lots and lots of overt work to make other people respond to you in the way that you want them to respond to you -- until you, of course, decide that she isn't good enough for you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Ummm, realize that women are different?


*sigh*

So, do what we do, and ignore those that call it creepy while others like it just fine.

Well great, because that's mostly what we do.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh*
> 
> So, do what we do, and ignore those that call it creepy while others like it just fine.
> 
> Well great, because that's mostly what we do.


Or, save yourself some grief and dish it out only to those who like it just fine.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Well, yeah, I could. But I don't. Why? Because not everything is manipulative.
> 
> It's only manipulative when you are deliberately engineering every situation to go your way.
> 
> I'm not saying you actually do this IRL, because frankly, I have no idea what you are really like in person. But that is how your posts read to me. Lots and lots of overt work to make other people respond to you in the way that you want them to respond to you -- until you, of course, decide that she isn't good enough for you.


Can't argue with that. I do deliberately engineer every situation to go my way. Seems pretty dumb not to. Why wouldn't I do the best I can? Why would anyone want something to not go their way? 

The Valentine's date I planned and dinner I cooked for my gf definitely went my way. And let me tell you, she must have really, really enjoyed my way.

Overt work? It's just awareness. No different than planning a date to an Italian restaurant because you know she loves Italian. Getting her to talk about a subject of shared interest when you discover her interest. Manipulative? Or relating?

As for deciding she's not "good enough", well, a relationship should end if you're very dissatisfied with that person. So yeah, when I decide they're not "good enough", I leave. Unsurprisingly, when they decide I'm not "good enough", they also leave. You're really gonna knock me for that? This is something everyone should do. Being aware of when it's no longer working for you and ending it is healthy. I haven't always been that aware, and it was a huge mistake and waste of time.

Guilty as charged I guess. We'll have to agree to disagree on these being bad things.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Or, save yourself some grief and dish it out only to those who like it just fine.


You're a logic person aren't you AA? INTP no? Exactly how does one discern someone's "likes" without talking to them? You can't right? So how is one to save "grief"? I really wish I could better convey how perfectly you're demonstrating the paradoxical principle I posted earlier: "Don't ask unless she says yes." 

Approaching is full of unknowns. I accept that women are different. I know women also have a lot in common. I'll always speak to the common stuff when I don't know someone yet. That's just good sense if I want to meet a woman.


----------



## Forest

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *sigh*
> 
> So, do what we do, and ignore those that call it creepy while others like it just fine.
> 
> Well great, because that's mostly what we do.


What is a leer, anyway?

You're probably at a disadvantage. You leer.

The hedge fund manager in the convertible Mercedes with the designer sunglasses, sport coat and Rolex does not leer. He "casts a fixing glance that imparts impenetrable depth of emotion and character. (wealth) It captivates while it alludes to so much hidden, waiting to be explored."


----------



## Tubbalard

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Can't argue with that. I do deliberately engineer every situation to go my way. Seems pretty dumb not to. Why wouldn't I do the best I can? Why would anyone want something to not go their way?


From my perspective, it is exactly this attitude that makes some of your posts come off as creepy.

Sure, we all want things to go our way, but the more we "engineer" people, the more we try to control them, their reactions, the more we are treating them as a means to our ends rather than an end to themselves. 

You have to realize that I'm not talking about inviting someone out to an Italian dinner?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're a logic person aren't you AA? INTP no? Exactly how does one discern someone's "likes" without talking to them? You can't right? So how is one to save "grief"? I really wish I could better convey how perfectly you're demonstrating the paradoxical principle I posted earlier: "Don't ask unless she says yes."


You're the one who pointed out all of the very clear signs that *women* love attention. So, look for those signs.

My only point was that it's also very common for women to not be seeking that sort of attention. Guess what? They don't display those signs.

Logic.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> From my perspective, it is exactly this attitude that makes some of your posts come off as creepy.
> 
> Sure, we all want things to go our way, but the more we "engineer" people, the more we try to control them, their reactions, the more we are treating them as a means to our ends rather than an end to themselves.


My bf had a really hard time understanding this. I want x, therefor I am going to push and push until I get x. I mean who wouldn't? Except when I don't want x, and he is pushing me for x, that is directly oppositional to caring about ME. He finally understood after I dumped him. I took him back. And he really, really does now get it.

It is similar to the idea of trying to "get" someone to go out with you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> From my perspective, it is this attitude that makes some of your posts come off as creepy.
> 
> Sure, we all want things to go our way, but the more we "engineer" people, the more we try to control them, their reactions, *the more we are treating them as a means to our ends rather than an end to themselves.*


In all sincerity and meaning no disrespect, this bold part is fluff to me. You chose someone because they suited you and what YOU want. That's all anyone does. Desire isn't a matter of charity with someone being "an end to themselves" irrespective of our wants. If that's all it was, anyone would meet it and you'd just take the first needy fool off the street.

I'm curious if you find all attempts at persuasion similarly "engineering" people. Do you dress professionally at work? For a job interview? We all put our best foot forward and encourage the outcomes we desire. I have zero control over reactions. I just know what the reaction to a given thing usually is. Everyone knows at least some of these things.



always_alone said:


> You have to realize that I'm not talking about inviting someone out to an Italian dinner?
> 
> I'm talking about your descriptions of your machinations to prevent women from "rabbiting", when you have clearly acknowledged that you don't give a damn about anything about her but how hot she is. To me this doesn't sound like relating at all.


You have to realize it's the same logic. Actions necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

We listen and learn the preferences of someone during initial dating (ie Italian) because we seek to improve relationship standing by demonstrating care and concern. The underlying motive is to show the person that you value them in order to build on the relationship.

Preventing a woman from "rabbiting" is EXACTLY the same underlying principle. If I'm interested in her, I don't want her to rabbit - which is by definition fleeing from my approach as a result of some non-specific/generalized fear or defensiveness - not necessarily ME. So I'm going to do what I can to encourage her NOT to rabbit. My actions will demonstrate my safety and promote her comfort with my presence. If all goes well, and many steps later, soon I'll be taking her to Italian.

It's all the same attraction/relationship building process. It's always "I feel this way about you, and I'm going to do what I can to encourage you to feel the same about me." Encourage is really the best word, because the truth is you can't really *make* someone do anything. But action informed by awareness of common things goes a long way to encouraging outcomes that I want.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You're the one who pointed out all of the very clear signs that *women* love attention. So, look for those signs.
> 
> My only point was that it's also very common for women to not be seeking that sort of attention. Guess what? They don't display those signs.
> 
> Logic.


I didn't point out signs. 

I said "many women admittedly want male attention" - because FW and many women I know own up to it. And there's nothing wrong with them wanting that attention, but imo, with a couple exceptions, there is very little that differentiates a woman who wants attention from a woman who doesn't, nor what sort of attention they desire. The only way to find out is to talk to her, as I said.

Maybe you tell me the signs. Because as far as I can tell, it's yet another matter of "Don't ask unless she says yes". Regardless of what she's doing, whether the attention was wanted or not seemingly depends more on the guy giving the attention than anything else.

If there's is a handy dandy formula to determining whether a woman wants to be approached by men, well by all means ladies, hook us up. I think we both know there isn't one. I've met and gotten dates with women of all different sorts everywhere, and I've been rejected by women of all different sorts everywhere. I see no pattern here.

Besides, there would still be a little problem. *I* want to talk to this one, and I'm not going to self-reject on an assumption she doesn't want me. I'm going to find out. I generally expect her to be as polite as I am. The same as I expect of anyone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> My bf had a really hard time understanding this. I want x, therefor I am going to push and push until I get x. I mean who wouldn't? Except when I don't want x, and he is pushing me for x, that is directly oppositional to caring about ME. He finally understood after I dumped him. I took him back. And he really, really does now get it.
> 
> It is similar to the idea of trying to "get" someone to go out with you.


IMO, this is a useless and one-sided, if not paradoxical concept. By your logic, he should leave you alone to show he cares. So how does he ever get what he wants? By your grace? Absurd. You aren't the only person in the equation. It's not all about you, and it shouldn't be. Perhaps you prefer a passive guy? That's less common.


----------



## antechomai

It's been three years and I still remember this man even older than me saying "That's Corrected Sir."
He noticed, that I noticed, this perfect form of a woman, and when I shook my head and looked back down to my grocery list, then he commented.
I kind of like being referred to as Sir.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I really wish I could better convey how perfectly you're demonstrating the paradoxical principle I posted earlier: "Don't ask unless she says yes."


I really wish I could better convey how the only reason this is a paradox for you is that "no" is an unacceptable answer in your books.

I mean, really, the whole thing is painfully simple: ask girl out. If she says yes, she's into you. If she says no, she's not. Easy peasy. But because "yes" is the only "right" answer in your books, you encounter all sorts of difficult paradoxes. Her reasons aren't good enough, aren't understandable enough, don't make it easy for you to apply the same formula to every situation and succeed, etc.

This is what I mean by treating someone as a means to an end. Call it "fluff", if you will, but it is a basic principle in the moral treatment of others that we appreciate that they are autonomous human beings with their own desires, needs, feelings.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

There are a lot of ways to ask a girl out AA. Let's just say plainly asking a girl out that you've never as much as talked to isn't a good way.

I'm totally good with "no" actually. But why deal with a "no" when you could have had "yes", but for a different approach? That's really the whole point... these days I rarely hear a "no", because by the time I'm asking, I already know what the answer will be, because more goes into it than "ask a girl out".

You imagine some kind of scripted formula I guess, but it doesn't work like that. Every encounter is different, dynamic and you adjust on the fly. Anything else would be surreal and artificial feeling. The only things that stay the same are some general principles and common preferences.

Opting for ways that are more likely to get a date than randomly "ask a girl out" doesn't mean one is not "appreciating that they are autonomous human beings with their own desires, needs, feelings." It's not a magic spell or date rape. They can say no. They just do so less often than otherwise. What in the blue blazes is wrong with that? lol


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There are a lot of ways to ask a girl out AA. Let's just say plainly asking a girl out that you've never as much as talked to isn't a good way.
> 
> I'm totally good with "no" actually. But why deal with a "no" when you could have had "yes", but for a different approach? That's really the whole point... these days I rarely hear a "no", because by the time I'm asking, I already know what the answer will be, because more goes into it than "ask a girl out".
> 
> You imagine some kind of scripted formula I guess, but it doesn't work like that. Every encounter is different, dynamic and you adjust on the fly. Anything else would be surreal and artificial feeling. The only things that stay the same are some general principles and common preferences.
> 
> Opting for ways that are more likely to get a date than randomly "ask a girl out" doesn't mean one is not "appreciating that they are autonomous human beings with their own desires, needs, feelings." It's not a magic spell or date rape. They can say no. They just do so less often than otherwise. What in the blue blazes is wrong with that? lol


Most successful people have learned that there is often absolutely nothing simple, easy or permanent about a "no".

If it were that easy with every woman I wouldn't be married today to the love of my life. She was still saying "no, I don't want to be with you" long after it was apparent she felt otherwise, while she was being consumed by envy as I, her platonic best friend, dated another woman. She'll tell you today, and every day before that for the last 15 years, that she's glad I knew her well enough to not take "no" for an answer.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

This is getting off topic. To get back on topic, I'd appreciate an explanation of what differentiates unwelcome leering from a welcome guy giving you the eyes, other than your interest in the guy. You're judging guys as creepy based on whether you like the guy or not no?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I agree Jaquen, its rarely as simple as yes and no. Hell, women rarely say "no" period. Thats too assertive apparently and many dont like being made to say no. No usually comes in the form of some bizarre passive distance, avoidance or false excuses. Its laughable really. But yeah, there's usually a lot more dancing and conversation involved than simple yes and no finality.


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is getting off topic. To get back on topic, I'd appreciate an explanation of what differentiates unwelcome leering from a welcome guy giving you the eyes, other than your interest in the guy. You're judging guys as creepy based on whether you like the guy or not no?


A female TAMer whose posts I enjoy stated point blank in another thread recently that for her, and most of the women she knows, the dividing line between "leering" creep and a someone whose lingering gaze captivates often comes down to how attractive they find the man. 

Often, though obviously not always, the litmus test for "leering" is:

Danny DeVito's gaze = Creep
Ryan Gosling's gaze = Flattered


----------



## Faithful Wife

Funny, a man just made the exact same comment on my sexualizing men more in the ladies lounge. That I must not understand just HOW uncomfortable it is when a woman 20 years older than him hits on him, "ugh".

So....it must not be only women who have this standard of creep measure, is it?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree Jaquen, its rarely as simple as yes and no. Hell, women rarely say "no" period. Thats too assertive apparently and many dont like being made to say no. No usually comes in the form of some bizarre passive distance, avoidance or *false excuses*. Its laughable really. But yeah, there's usually a lot more dancing and conversation involved than simple yes and no finality.


Because only the excuses you agree with are REAL "excuses". DH asked me out. I said Hells Yes.


----------



## always_alone

jaquen said:


> Most successful people have learned that there is often absolutely nothing simple, easy or permanent about a "no".
> 
> If it were that easy with every woman I wouldn't be married today to the love of my life. She was still saying "no, I don't want to be with you" long after it was apparent she felt otherwise, while she was being consumed by envy as I, her platonic best friend, dated another woman. She'll tell you today, and every day before that for the last 15 years, that she's glad I knew her well enough to not take "no" for an answer.


Admittedly, there is something romantic about pursuing the love of your life, despite her resistance, especially as her best friend that knows her well.

But, as a general principle, I would think that "don't take no for an answer" is much more likely to be thought creepy than romantic.

As for looks, many women may judge on this basis alone, but for me, it is much more about vibe and behaviour. The guy on the beach I was describing earlier, for example, was very buff, muscular, tall, square jaw, "objectively" quite good looking -- except for the "I-want-to-carve-you-into-little-bits" expression on his face. That plus behaviour equals creepy!


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Funny, a man just made the exact same comment on my sexualizing men more in the ladies lounge. That I must not understand just HOW uncomfortable it is when a woman 20 years older than him hits on him, "ugh".
> 
> So....it must not be only women who have this standard of creep measure, is it?


Well but here is the thing FW. As I think back to the women who outwardly hit on me several were very unattractive in one way or another.....as the term goes creepy. So yes I have found Very creepy behavior in some women. I just don't take it the 10th degree of offensiveness. I just smile and move on with my day.

Have no doubt though that women can be every bit as creepy as guys can


----------



## Faithful Wife

The 10th degree of offensiveness? This is something you are projecting/assuming. Just because there is back and forth on this thread between men and women who have a different stance, does not mean that JUST the women are at the 10th degree of offensiveness. Have you not also noticed just HOW offended some of the men here are when their leers and advances are rejected? 

I don't see any point in trying to paint one side as "better" or less offended than the other. Men get PLENTY offended by all kinds of things that do not offend women so much.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Because only the excuses you agree with are REAL "excuses". DH asked me out. I said Hells Yes.


Truth and lie are not a matter of my agreement. You dislike when men to lie to you right? Is it too much of men to expect the same from women?

It's a simple thing to politely end a conversation without a lying excuse. "I'm sorry, I suck at small talk... I'm just here for coffee." The end.

You already knew your hubby didn't you? Meeting someone and getting a date usually takes a bit more than just "wanna go out?"


----------



## Married but Happy

Faithful Wife said:


> Funny, a man just made the exact same comment on my sexualizing men more in the ladies lounge. That I must not understand just HOW uncomfortable it is when a woman 20 years older than him hits on him, "ugh".
> 
> So....it must not be only women who have this standard of creep measure, is it?


I've had it happen to me not long ago. I just treat them kindly but firmly indicate I'm not interested. At my age, someone that much older probably has Alzheimer's, and their caretaker will be along soon.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So is there an assumption that when a woman finds a man who is looking or advancing creepy, she goes into some kind of tizzy instead of treating them kindly but firmly? If any of you do hold this assumption, this is just silly. Of course women handle creeps as delicately as possible.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Admittedly, there is something romantic about pursuing the love of your life, despite her resistance, especially as her best friend that knows her well.
> 
> But, as a general principle, I would think that "don't take no for an answer" is much more likely to be thought creepy than romantic.


It's all in how it's done. Though the common opinion is that it comes off desperate more often than creepy.

There's are a few circumstances where determination and perseverance pay off, and all I can say it's there's just a feeling to it. It's usually someone you're already pretty close to. There's a balance of making sure they know they're the one you really want, but still going on with your life. They have a weird habit of coming around when your attention is going elsewhere.

It's not the "pushy" response to "no" you might imagine. It's closer to the notion of "don't burn bridges". 



always_alone said:


> As for looks, many women may judge on this basis alone, but for me, it is much more about vibe and behaviour.


I think you have this in common with the majority of women. This is why meeting new women is challenging. A strange man, even an attractive one, automatically has somewhat of a threat vibe (that's not really the right word, but it's all I have)... especially if she hasn't already noticed him. In order to meet her a guy has to help her feel at ease. It's part of breaking the ice. There are good ways to do it and there are bad ways to do it.

For example, many women feel anxiety when a man approaches merely by the fact that if they end up not liking him, they're not sure how they'll get him to go away. It might not register with all the female fireballs we have on this forum, but in my experience most women don't feel comfortable with rejecting someone. A guy can relieve this anxiety very easily. Within the first couple sentences, all he has to do is make a statement to the effect that he only has a moment to talk. It's a self-imposed time limit, after which you leave her (not necessarily the establishment). Follow-on conversation some time later tends to be far more encouraging. She's not as defensive. Often, they'll end up coming to talk to me or signal me (like the eye game) before I follow-up.

I don't view this as manipulative. I view this as good courting. I don't want her to be defensive toward me for reasons that don't belong to me.

On FW's female creepiness issue... I can't say I've really experienced a female creepy. I've met crazy. I've met needy. I'm not sure what creepy would be. I get hit on /flirted with by older women more often than younger women. I suspect there's an age some women reach where they just go "f - it, I'm not going to repress myself anymore". I'm not interested, but I don't find them creepy. Honestly, I think they're kind of fun.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Truth and lie are not a matter of my agreement. You dislike when men to lie to you right? Is it too much of men to expect the same from women?


No. I am not sure where I suggested otherwise. Thought people are people. You cannot "expect" much except to choose not to associate with turds.



> It's a simple thing to politely end a conversation without a lying excuse. "I'm sorry, I suck at small talk... I'm just here for coffee." *The end.*


Would that it were so! 



> You already knew your hubby didn't you? Meeting someone and getting a date usually takes a bit more than just "wanna go out?"


Huh?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> No. I am not sure where I suggested otherwise. Thought people are people. You cannot "expect" much except to choose not to associate with turds.


In meeting new people, you don't know the turds from the diamonds... until you start talking. This is our common ground. People are people and turds are turds. That's pretty much the answer men give to women complaining about rude men, and we're criticized for it. But when men mention rude women, women tend give the same answer (or worse, deflect everything back to men's fault). 

I'd bet the two even feed off each other. Every @sshole man creates and @sshole woman... and vice versa, who go on to populate the world with @ssholes.

"I knew it! I'm surrounded by @ssholes! Keep firing @sholes!"

Principle: Don't be rude, period. Break the chain. Talking to you doesn't make me an @sshole, so don't be an @sshole and ignore me or rudely turn me down. Regardless of what other men have done. I think most of us are pretty decent.



NobodySpecial said:


> Would that it were so!


It is for me and everyone I know. Could there perhaps be an emphasis bias of sorts at work here? The myriad men who read your disinterest never end up registering as a real approach. Only the men who annoyed you register emphatically, and thus the perception forms that every guy is skeezy and hard to get rid of. Just a thought.



NobodySpecial said:


> Huh?


He didn't ask you out right out of the blue correct? "Hi, my name's Bob, wanna go out?" There's virtually always some sort of song and dance. Getting a date generally requires a little rapport building before asking.

Unless you met in high school.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> quite good looking -- except for the "I-want-to-carve-you-into-little-bits" expression on his face. That plus behaviour equals creepy!


Just curious, was it his "expression" that evoked this feeling in you, or was it just his face?

One of my neighbors has a creepy face. He's a tall white guy, dark complexion, thick black hair, bearded, and always looks like he's scowling. It's hard to describe exactly why, but he just looks mean as hell. I had been moved in for 6 months before ever having a conversation with him, because he seriously always looked pissed off.

Come to find out, he's the nicest guy. He's funny as hell; a great story teller, and remarkably helpful. Literally a "give you the shirt off my back" type guy. He is nothing like his vibe, and I think I read energy pretty well most of the time.

I know if he gave me a hostile vibe, he must really freak women out. He's a single engineer in his late 30s.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It is for me and everyone I know. Could there perhaps be an emphasis bias of sorts at work here?


On the one hand you have to push back to convince her of a yes and on the other no means no. Which is it?

I can share my experience. But you won't really believe me if history serves. In my younger days, from coffee shop to sidewalk to subway train, I have had many men not accept no. I am not the type to make up a BS excuse. I am more likely to tell someone to go... stick it where the sun don't shine. But if I were a less ... type A person, I could imagine why one would make up a BS excuse. Guys think they can and should talk someone into going out with them. Women give BS excuses. Did the chicken come first or the egg? I am not sure I care.



> The myriad men who read your disinterest never end up registering as a real approach. Only the men who annoyed you register emphatically, and thus the perception forms that every guy is skeezy and hard to get rid of. Just a thought.


I have actually never dated a person who tried to pick me up cold. Not my bag. 



> He didn't ask you out right out of the blue correct? "Hi, my name's Bob, wanna go out?"


He asked me after an evening at a group of mutual friends. Rapport building with intent to date makes no sense to me. What would you base it on? Nothing short of looks? Back to object much.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> On the one hand you have to push back to convince her of a yes and on the other no means no. Which is it?


Circumstantial. The circumstances at hand is two people who have never met each other (an extension from the leering topic). No means no, without much wiggle room when you don't know someone at all. If you know someone, no often has quite a bit of more room (Jaquen's example is spot on).

A further problem is women don't often outright reject, in my experience. They don't say no by saying "no". "No" is more often some crazy beat around the bush passive figure it out kind of thing. Now, I respond to this as a no, but since when men been known for their skill at reading subtlety? Even worse, in plain conversation there's often nothing to really say "no" to. It's just chit chat. Gender isn't even at play yet. It's just two people having a plain conversation.

I think the reason you see contradiction, is that casual conversation and rapport building are often necessary/beneficial prior to actually asking for a number or a date, and the average person is hesitant to open up to a stranger. If you view this as a default "no", then the conversation could be thought of as massaging/pushing the potential of getting a "yes". With that perspective you'd see a contradiction where there really isn't one.

If I ask for her number or a date and she says no, I'm done. "Ok, no worries. Have a great day. That's still an awesome dress." And off I go. 





NobodySpecial said:


> Guys think they can and should talk someone into going out with them. Women give BS excuses. Did the chicken come first or the egg? I am not sure I care.


Everyone you'll ever date was a matter of persuasion, unless you date purely for looks. Something about their behavior led to your attraction, whether they are aware of what it is or not. For some reason, awareness bothers you.

BS excuses, aka lying... is wrong. Persuasion is not.



NobodySpecial said:


> I have actually never dated a person who tried to pick me up cold. Not my bag.


Exactly. Hence the importance of that initial conversation. A lot of things have to get done in that short time.



NobodySpecial said:


> He asked me after an evening at a group of mutual friends. Rapport building with intent to date makes no sense to me. What would you base it on? Nothing short of looks? Back to object much.


What? Rapport building is about establishing initial trust. Going on a date or otherwise hanging out is about getting to know someone. All you did was outsource some of this process to "mutual friends" (assuming you didn't already know him well).

Yes, when you don't know someone, it's based on looks/vibe/charisma. Imagine you've dated all of the men you're familiar with and attracted to in your circle of friends. What now? Find new friends so you can date their friends? Why outsource any of the vetting to them? Go meet new guys and date them or don't date them.

I go meet new women. I don't understand the reasoning to limit myself to only women my friends know. Why let my friends choose my dating pool? That's absurd to me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I ask for her number or a date and she says no, I'm done. "Ok, no worries. Have a great day. That's still an awesome dress." And off I go.


You would ask a complete stranger for her phone number??? That is baffling to me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What? Rapport building is about establishing initial trust. Going on a date or otherwise hanging out is about getting to know someone.


Why One Earth would you go on a date with someone you don't know? How would you have any interest in that person? What the heck would you talk about?


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It is for me and everyone I know. Could there perhaps be an emphasis bias of sorts at work here? The myriad men who read your disinterest never end up registering as a real approach. Only the men who annoyed you register emphatically, and thus the perception forms that every guy is skeezy and hard to get rid of. Just a thought.
> .


I don't think the perception is that every one is sleezy and hard to get rid of. It's that you take a chance that he is one of those guys so you put up your armor, just in case. 

It's difficult to describe to a man, that its not about the fact that these incidences register emphatically with a woman. It's about how it changes your ability to be open and accepting of good intentioned men because you are reluctant to take the chance that they will in fact turn out to be sleazy. 

When I was young, I made the mistake of smiling back at a man who was in the car beside me at a traffic light. He then rolled his window down and followed me yelling at me to pull over. How likely am I to smile at the next guy who pulls up at a traffic light next to me? I have been followed in my car 4 times in my life, the other 3 times I did not even make eye contact and yet was followed. 

For the record, before any of my behavior falls into question regarding these situations. 
I do not live on a seedy area, I live in an affluent community with high real estate values and good schools. I do not dress in a provocative manner and I've never had a need to seek additional attention from men. I've been trained by my father to be situationally aware since I a small child, as we traveled extensively and lived on military bases my entire childhood.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> You would ask a complete stranger for her phone number??? That is baffling to me.


Yeah, I have never asked a woman for her phone number, though I have had plenty who have eagerly volunteered it within five minutes of first meeting them.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> Why One Earth would you go on a date with someone you don't know? How would you have any interest in that person? What the heck would you talk about?


Call me crazy, but I thought the whole point of dating was to get to know someone, to find things to talk about...


----------



## coffee4me

NobodySpecial said:


> You would ask a complete stranger for her phone number??? That is baffling to me.


This is the exact situation in which my 13 year old was called an uppity b-. She was attempting to be polite and give one word answers to a guy trying to engage her in conversation. He asked for her number and she said no, sorry. Walks away saying uppity b-.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> The 10th degree of offensiveness? This is something you are projecting/assuming. Just because there is back and forth on this thread between men and women who have a different stance, does not mean that JUST the women are at the 10th degree of offensiveness. Have you not also noticed just HOW offended some of the men here are when their leers and advances are rejected?
> 
> I don't see any point in trying to paint one side as "better" or less offended than the other. Men get PLENTY offended by all kinds of things that do not offend women so much.


Some men, some women get offended not all. 

I'm not projecting just stating it as I have observed. Don't put malice in my statement where none was meant. I was commenting from my viewpoint. I never said some men and some women aren't offended


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Well but here is the thing FW. As I think back to the women who outwardly hit on me several were very unattractive in one way or another.....as the term goes creepy. So yes I have found Very creepy behavior in some women. *I just don't take it the 10th degree of offensiveness*. I just smile and move on with my day.
> 
> Have no doubt though that women can be every bit as creepy as guys can


Ok then...who WERE you referring to when you said "the 10th degree of offensiveness". If you weren't referring to any group or individual, what was the point of saying it? I'm sure you did have a point, correct? Because it is obvious in context that you are referring to someone who "just does" take it to the 10th degree of offensiveness.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Call me crazy, but I thought the whole point of dating was to get to know someone, to find things to talk about...


Buy WHY? I mean if I don't know someone, what would be the common interest that would drive us to go further and DATE? Guh. I might end up having to listen to someone go on about baseball.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok then...who WERE you referring to when you said "the 10th degree of offensiveness". If you weren't referring to any group or individual, what was the point of saying it? I'm sure you did have a point, correct? Because it is obvious in context that you are referring to someone who "just does" take it to the 10th degree of offensiveness.



I do think AA takes a lot of this stuff to the nth degree of offended. Not sure what n is though!


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Call me crazy, but I thought the whole point of dating was to get to know someone, to find things to talk about...


You know what occurs to me? I have never done the post marriage dating thing. I am picturing online profiles and going out on dates. Is that what you mean? I never did that. I went out with people who in my friends group whom I liked well enough to want to hang out with more and on a different level.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok then...who WERE you referring to when you said "the 10th degree of offensiveness". If you weren't referring to any group or individual, what was the point of saying it? I'm sure you did have a point, correct? Because it is obvious in context that you are referring to someone who "just does" take it to the 10th degree of offensiveness.


Yes I was referring to the people like myself who aren't offended, like me, to the people who are HIGHLY offended to the 10th degree. Everyone else falls somewhere between the two extreme points.


My point in making the comment was the same in all your comments I suspect. Just illustrating how one person views it. Have no idea why you take such exception to it but as you say. Oh well


----------



## Faithful Wife

You can't see how I may have took your statement to be a projection about how "some" are taking it to the 10th degree of offensiveness and that those "some" may have been women, either on this thread or IRL? 

Because if you really didn't mean it had anything to do with anyone here or any woman, ok. Yet your post did imply that it did. I know it would imply this to others besides me as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> I do think AA takes a lot of this stuff to the nth degree of offended. Not sure what n is though!


And some men do, as well. Especially those who have been raped by a man or men multiple times, especially in childhood. So I try to have compassion for everyone's position. They came to their position for some reason.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> You know what occurs to me? I have never done the post marriage dating thing. I am picturing online profiles and going out on dates. Is that what you mean? I never did that. I went out with people who in my friends group whom I liked well enough to want to hang out with more and on a different level.


I was at a local meat counter, working with the butcher trying to find a duck breast that was the right one for what I was cooking. The woman in line behind me asked me what I was planning on making for dinner. We talked for a minute about duck, she gave me her number and asked me to call her some time so she could take me to her favorite restaurant. I called her, and we went out on a few dates.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> You can't see how I may have took your statement to be a projection about how "some" are taking it to the 10th degree of offensiveness and that those "some" may have been women, either on this thread or IRL?
> 
> Because if you really didn't mean it had anything to do with anyone here or any woman, ok. Yet your post did imply that it did. I know it would imply this to others besides me as well.


No I don't

I have been posting here long enough that people know I am totally anti gender bash threads. So I don't make sweeping generalizations about the opposite sex. I stated what I stated and in good faith and you projected that it must mean something else. It's not true but you may think as you please on it. And you can certainly ask for clarification on something I post if it's unclear But let's not make it something it was never intended to be 

I don't know personally anyone who gets so highly offended they shut down when being leerd at but I do know they exist. I also have never seen a cat calling scenario anywhere but in the movies but I know they exist as well


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> And some men do, as well. Especially those who have been raped by a man or men multiple times, especially in childhood. So I try to have compassion for everyone's position. They came to their position for some reason.


I can have compassion for it and still think it is not in her best interest.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> You know what occurs to me? I have never done the post marriage dating thing. I am picturing online profiles and going out on dates. Is that what you mean? I never did that. I went out with people who in my friends group whom I liked well enough to want to hang out with more and on a different level.


This is essentially all my dating world is. It's nothing but asking out, asking for numbers and meeting complete strangers. I'm not saying that this system is better than yours but it's the one many have turned to. 

I actually like the online dating process. I know many hate it but it's a great opportunity to meet people outside your social circle and I have found that to be a good thing


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> I was at a local meat counter, working with the butcher trying to find a duck breast that was the right one for what I was cooking. The woman in line behind me asked me what I was planning on making for dinner. We talked for a minute about duck, she gave me her number and asked me to call her some time so she could take me to her favorite restaurant. I called her, and we went out on a few dates.


Different strokes for different folks. Very much not my cup of tea.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> I do think AA takes a lot of this stuff to the nth degree of offended. Not sure what n is though!


I don't know what n is either, and would like to before I agree or disagree with this statement.

I can see that a lot of people here view me as over-reacting, as "making a career out of being oversensitive", as "taking it to the nth degree of offense", of "making a federal case" out of something that really is "lowest on the list of life priorities." 

I find this all a bit odd, and its own form of taking it to the nth degree of offense. I mean, really, all I have done is, speak up on a thread about leering to those who described it as completely harmless and something that we should all just "get over" and STFU about.

And my only point was that it isn't completely harmless, and the "get over its" and the STFUs are merely shutting down and overly dismissive of a lot of women's experiences. 

I get that many do not, will not, see some of the connections I have drawn between leering and sexual intimidation, and many that will outright deny that a climate where this is considered harmless will have an impact on how women view their sexuality, how open some will be with our sexuality, and how some might come to respond sexually. 

But even if you disagree, I hardly think that these observations count as "taking it to the nth degree of offense." Indeed, most of what I'm mentioning strikes me as glaringly obvious, and I'm not really sure why so many are quite so upset about it. After all, I've seen pretty much exactly the same things that I have in this thread said elsewhere by other people, and the only reaction is a bunch of sage nods and "yeps."

But whatever.


----------



## Wolf1974

AA I don't know you personally but my guess is your more middle of the road on how offended you get. You observe the behavoir and don't like it but continue on. Have anxiety about it but it doesn't prevent you from having a life. 

Some people really do shut down in certain situations. They equate the scenario of being leered at with being stressed and stress can have all sorts of effects on people. 

While I certainly don't share your anxiety about being leered at that type of stuff does affect me in other ways. I'm a big guy and can easily intimidate people. And while this has served me well with work it is anxiety to me when approaching women to ask them out because I worry that they would have an apprehensive response because of my demeanor, low voice and size.

It's hard to keep that stuff out of my head and I probably wouldn't be good at dating if not for something like online dating where you can break the ice a bit

Only point being we all have some anxiety about something.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> You would ask a complete stranger for her phone number??? That is baffling to me.
> 
> Why One Earth would you go on a date with someone you don't know? How would you have any interest in that person? What the heck would you talk about?


Yep. Regularly.

I go out with them because I want to get to know them. I spoke to them because I found them attractive. I asked for their number because we had enjoyable conversation and we had some hint of chemistry.

You talk about the same things you talk about with anyone you don't know well. The way it usually goes is that I play on the things I gleaned from our first meeting. There's follow-on text and phone conversations. Then you make concrete plans for a date or you don't. By the time we're on the date, I have plenty of avenues for conversation. It's what I do.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I'm still watching. Perhaps it says something about the basic flaws in my personality. 

I do understand that What Wolf is talking about and What AA is talking about are two separate things. I'm as anti - bully as anyone. BUT, there was a time in my life when the scars built up too much and the testosterone ran high. I tossed a linebacker that I other wise liked into a tree trunk. I slammed a Basket ball center into a steel locker. All these for tiny slights. That was the world I was in then. I had to defend my beaten ego. Fortunately I got over it, mostly. I can see how the inviting gaze some of us are talking about, can be the bullying leer that others are talking about, when it is viewed from the wrong perspective.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok, Wolf. Then I did misunderstand, sorry.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> When I was young, I made the mistake of smiling back at a man who was in the car beside me at a traffic light. He then rolled his window down and followed me yelling at me to pull over. How likely am I to smile at the next guy who pulls up at a traffic light next to me? I have been followed in my car 4 times in my life, the other 3 times I did not even make eye contact and yet was followed.


I met my EW this way. 

She'd seen me before though (never met). We picked up our sisters from the same elementary school. We were in college at the time. She noticed me there, but I never saw her. One day driving home from class, she spotted me in her rear view mirror. From my perspective, I kept thinking this cute chick in front of me was checking me out because she was constantly in her mirrors. From her perspective, she'd seen me half a dozen times and even followed me home one day (I only lived about a block from the elementary school). So she knew exactly where I was going to turn. When I went to make my turn, she stuck her hand out the window and waved at me. I sat there for a second, wondering if she was waving bye mockingly, since I had been trying pretty hard to get an actual good look at her. I decided "eh, screw it" and followed thinking I might have an opportunity to pull up beside her and say something. Turns out she only lived about a block away, and I ended up pulling right up to her house. I pulled up and said hi as she was getting out, we chatted for a second until I mentioned having to go to work but I'd like to call her. She gave me her number and that was that. On the date she told me the whole story, and that she'd watched my car drive by her so many times she had my tag memorized. Everyone I told thought she was a creepy stalker girl and was like "where do you find these girls!?"

After getting married we'd tell the story as it was: we followed each other home. Even if the marriage didn't pan out, I still think was a good experience and good story, and I don't think I'd have had it if I followed the views expressed here.


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I still think was a good experience and good story, and I don't think I'd have had it if I followed the views expressed here.


It's a cute story and not at all the same as I doubt you had fear for your physical safety. 

I seriously doubt you would advise your daughter at age 18 to pull over in her car if a man is waving her down, saying "hey sexy pullover".


----------



## jaquen

Faithful Wife said:


> Funny, a man just made the exact same comment on my sexualizing men more in the ladies lounge. That I must not understand just HOW uncomfortable it is when a woman 20 years older than him hits on him, "ugh".
> 
> So....it must not be only women who have this standard of creep measure, is it?


Yeah, not surprising.

Or when a man does the leering.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> It's a cute story and not at all the same as I doubt you had fear for your physical safety.


Well, no, but that's not the angle I'm trying to relate.

By all accounts here, there are a slew of "creepy" behaviors by both parties (ew and I). She followed me. I followed her.

As for my daughter, well no, I wouldn't advise her to ever pull over. But I don't see anything wrong with conversing at a stop light after playing the eye game with a guy... which gets back to my as of yet unanswered question about leering vs giving the eyes. It seems the same behavior is leering when unwelcome, and flirting when welcome. So, don't ask unless she says yes.


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As for my daughter, well no, I wouldn't advise her to ever pull over. But I don't see anything wrong with conversing at a stop light after playing the eye game with a guy...


Until some guy takes that as a signal of interest and tries to get her to pull over and follows her to her destination. Many women operate under the better safe than sorry mode, especially if you've been followed multiple times.


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> which gets back to my as of yet unanswered question about leering vs giving the eyes. It seems the same behavior is leering when unwelcome, and flirting when welcome. So, don't ask unless she says yes.


Leer- 
look or gaze in an unpleasant, malicious, or lascivious way:

I've been leered at by very attractive men who I might have been interested in flirting with UNTIL they leered at me. 

You see a guy and you think he looks good and maybe I'd like to talk to him. You get closer and he leers at you, gives you a look that is difficult to explain but most women know it and its distinctly unpleasant and creeps you out. That's the end of the attraction. 

So to answer your question for me leering and giving the eyes is not at all the same behavior dependent upon if welcome, unwelcome nor based on how attractive the person is to me. Leering is always unwelcome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Whenever I have been in a nice back and forth "caught each other's eyes" thing, they were only looking at my eyes. They did not keep darting around looking at my body parts. If they tastefully checked out my bod when I could not see them then that's not leering. Making eyes with someone that then leads to actually speaking to them has never happened through the body, it happens in the eye-to-eye contact.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Whenever I have been in a nice back and forth "caught each other's eyes" thing, they were only looking at my eyes. They did not keep darting around looking at my body parts. If they tastefully checked out my bod when I could not see them then that's not leering. Making eyes with someone that then leads to actually speaking to them has never happened through the body, it happens in the eye-to-eye contact.


I'm so happy you accepted "checked out my bod" - because we're all in fact doing that. So the difference between leering and flirting is whether she catches him? :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> Leer-
> look or gaze in an unpleasant, malicious, or lascivious way:
> 
> I've been leered at by very attractive men who I might have been interested in flirting with UNTIL they leered at me.
> 
> You see a guy and you think he looks good and maybe I'd like to talk to him. You get closer and he leers at you, *gives you a look that is difficult to explain but most women know it and its distinctly unpleasant and creeps you out*. That's the end of the attraction.
> 
> So to answer your question for me leering and giving the eyes is not at all the same behavior dependent upon if welcome, unwelcome nor based on how attractive the person is to me. Leering is always unwelcome.


The subjectivity of this makes me twitch. I do appreciate your attempt, but I don't feel like it's any different than what I've already expressed - that it's your feeling that is the difference, not really something objective that he's doing.

What is an unpleasant, malicious, lascivious way of gazing? What characteristic makes a look unpleasant? etc. It's a guy looking at you. I feel like one of you may say he's leering and the other say he's showing interest/flirting... and I honestly would have no way to differentiate. To combine it with FW's thoughts... it's unpleasant, malicious and lascivious that you caught him looking at your @ss? Is it not leering if you don't catch him checking out your bod?

I have a feeling this is another "I know it when I see it" thing I often hear from women, and try as I might to understand... when I hear this without more concrete, my mind is inclined to conclude - "SHE is the variable." 

Can you see where I'm coming from?


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Can you see where I'm coming from?


I can see that you don't see where I'm coming from 

Have you ever seen a man leer at a woman?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What is an unpleasant, malicious, lascivious way of gazing? What characteristic makes a look unpleasant? etc.


You aren't seriously asking these questions, are you? 

Can you tell the difference between a guy glaring at you and a guy acknowledging your presence?


----------



## VermisciousKnid

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The subjectivity of this makes me twitch. I do appreciate your attempt, but I don't feel like it's any different than what I've already expressed - that it's your feeling that is the difference, not really something objective that he's doing.
> 
> What is an unpleasant, malicious, lascivious way of gazing? What characteristic makes a look unpleasant? etc. It's a guy looking at you. I feel like one of you may say he's leering and the other say he's showing interest/flirting... and I honestly would have no way to differentiate. To combine it with FW's thoughts... it's unpleasant, malicious and lascivious that you caught him looking at your @ss? Is it not leering if you don't catch him checking out your bod?
> 
> I have a feeling this is another "I know it when I see it" thing I often hear from women, and try as I might to understand... when I hear this without more concrete, my mind is inclined to conclude - "SHE is the variable."
> 
> Can you see where I'm coming from?


I can see where you are coming from and it's wrong as far as I'm concerned. There are standards that are agreed upon as a society and you are saying that if you don't share them everyone else must have a problem. 

This is easier to understand if you pick an extreme case like staring at an underage girl's body for a prolonged period. Almost everyone, men and women, would find that inappropriate and offensive. The bottom line is that society determines what is offensive, and that overrules an individual's personal feelings. 

The current debate is about what women find offensive about staring and where the line is between looking and staring, and you seem comfortable giving the same weight to your opinion that you give to women's opinions even though you don't have their experience. 

As far as "I know it when I see it", it was good enough for the Supreme Court with respect to obscenity and public standards so why is the reasoning not valid for leering?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You aren't seriously asking these questions, are you?
> 
> Can you tell the difference between a guy glaring at you and a guy acknowledging your presence?


Glaring, to my thinking, would be an extended stare with a scowl - emotive - angry. Acknowledging presence is a mere glance or nod without emotive. There's quite a significant difference there. Let's say I'm staring at a woman with intent to lock eyes and flirt. What turns my gaze into a leer? I wouldn't ask if I knew. The descriptions provided are subjective characterizations - what is the actual expression? Scowling?

I've been checked out by men. I have a number of gay friends and have been to a number of gay bars. I'm secure in my sexuality and am not a homophobe. My experience is that, for whatever reason, straight men tend to be very attractive to gay men, so I get a lot of attention. I've gotten a number of unwelcome looks, yet I can't relate to differentiating some of them as flirting and others as leering or hostility.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Always_alone
To be fair, there are people who have a very difficult time reading social cues (Asperger syndrome). It may not be obvious to them that some types of looks and associated facial expressions disturb people while other types do not.

I have a friend who is like this. He is a nice guy, but simply cannot pick up the usual clues that is is offending people with something he is saying. I understand his issue and get along with him, but many people can't stand him.

People with this problem may not be aware that they have it, since the don't pick up the social clues that would indicate that they have anything to worry about. My friend was in his 40s before he realized he had a problem. Previously he could never understand why people didn't seem to like him.






always_alone said:


> You aren't seriously asking these questions, are you?
> 
> Can you tell the difference between a guy glaring at you and a guy acknowledging your presence?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

VermisciousKnid said:


> The bottom line is that society determines what is offensive, and that overrules an individual's personal feelings.
> 
> The current debate is about what women find offensive about staring and where the line is between looking and staring, and you seem comfortable giving the same weight to your opinion that you give to women's opinions even though you don't have their experience.
> 
> As far as "I know it when I see it", it was good enough for the Supreme Court with respect to obscenity and public standards so why is the reasoning not valid for leering?


The example again hinges on the female - being underage. If you replace the female with an of age woman, is it still leering?

It has nothing to do with my personal feelings or opinion. I simply want to know what objectively makes looking leering vs flirting. If I don't know it when I see it, exactly how am I to know if I am leering or not when I'm trying to flirt? lol Is a man looking at a woman for an extended time, without a discernible expression, leering?

I'm not convinced "I know it when I see it" was good reasoning by the Supreme Court either. What I deem obscene may be entirely different from what you deem obscene. See John Ashcroft covering up the statue of justice.


----------



## john117

Better leering thru optics...


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Let's say I'm staring at a woman with intent to lock eyes and flirt. What turns my gaze into a leer? I wouldn't ask if I knew. The descriptions provided are subjective characterizations - what is the actual expression? Scowling?


Staring at her a$$, boobs or crotch for starters. Looking at her up and down the length of her body. The leer feels as thou the man is not interested in the woman he is interested in only her body. Several women in the thread stated that it feels as if they are not viewed as people but a sum of sexual parts. 

If you have never seen a woman leered at then I'm not sure you ever will. I agree there is a component that is as you say subjective or I'd say instinctual. 

I've never had the need to articulate the feeling or the act of leering to the men in my life. They get it. My son seems to instinctively know since he was a kid. He gets a sense around certain boys and men. He will tell me, I don't trust so and so around my sister. I never questioned him on him instincts. Turns out his instincts have been proven spot on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> I can see that you don't see where I'm coming from
> 
> Have you ever seen a man leer at a woman?


If we characterize it with some additional objective detail besides "looking"... like licking your lips. Otherwise no, I wouldn't know why one guy's look is a leer and another guy's look in a flirt. When I've been out in mixed company and one of the women has gotten "looks", the guys looking appear to me to be doing the same things - looking. Whether he's a creeper or not looks to me like it depends on whether she's attracted to him or not. Hence my asking for what detail of the look makes the difference. I'm certainly not an Aspie, but I haven't seen any difference myself on these occasions.


----------



## coffee4me

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If we characterize it with some additional objective detail besides "looking"... like licking your lips. Otherwise no, I wouldn't know why one guy's look is a leer and another guy's look in a flirt. When I've been out in mixed company and one of the women has gotten "looks", the guys looking appear to me to be doing the same things - looking. Whether he's a creeper or not looks to me like it depends on whether she's attracted to him or not. Hence my asking for what detail of the look makes the difference. I'm certainly not an Aspie, but I haven't seen any difference myself on these occasions.


If that's the case some of your previous comments make sense. I don't think you will ever understand the difference between leering and looking. I can only speak for my experiences, when I say it doesn't have anything to do with the man's attractiveness. He maybe attractive but if he leers, he's a creep.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> Staring at her a$$, boobs or crotch for starters.


I'm good with this definition.



coffee4me said:


> Looking at her up and down the length of her body.


This one though, happens any time a guy checks you out, whether you notice or not. In fact, women often do the same. It's the eyes that look you in the face and suddenly drop down, then back up... and often down again. It's often involuntary reflex even - investigating the body when we (men and women) find a face attractive.


coffee4me said:


> The leer feels as thou the man is not interested in the woman he is interested in only her body. Several women in the thread stated that it feels as if they are not viewed as people but a sum of sexual parts.


I'm 100% convinced you feel this way and have not questioned it. I've gotten that feeling from gay men who have checked me out. I guess I can't say I particularly cared or was offended though. It doesn't matter to me that he likes my @ss.



coffee4me said:


> If you have never seen a woman leered at then I'm not sure you ever will. I agree there is a component that is as you say subjective or I'd say instinctual.
> 
> I've never had the need to articulate the feeling or the act of leering to the men in my life. They get it. My son seems to instinctively know since he was a kid. He gets a sense around certain boys and men. He will tell me, I don't trust so and so around my sister. I never questioned him on him instincts. Turns out his instincts have been proven spot on.


Fair enough. Your judgments are your judgments and I don't presume to tell you how to judge men or myself, but to understand. I don't believe my looks are leering, and I've always checked out her body, though I don't stare at t*ts etc. :shug: 

If someone thinks my looks are leering or hostile rather than flirting as intended, they're free to do so.


----------



## soccermom2three

Dvls, I can't remember if you have a daughter. If you do, how old is she?

Just wait until she's a preteen or teenager and whenever you're with her just hang back and watch other men. You will definitely see what leering looks like.


----------



## lifeisbetterthanalternat

I think coffee4me has a point to the extent that most men (probably including myself don't think we "leer"). It find it curious that SOOO many men on this forum think of their "looking" as not having an element of perhaps making another women uncomfortable. Especially since most women here do seem to think they are leered AT. I think this it is denial or being naive. 

I personally have viewed women's body parts with lust and i guess perhaps without regard to the women's feelings.I have to totally make a concerted effort to NOT do this. I try to be discrete. The female body is a beautiful creation and can bring thoughts ranging from "wow looks at those ti$%, that a%%, to actually imagining sexual acts with that person) If I catch myself I will stop myself but my knee jerk is to look...perhaps more than i should. I think men who are making it seem innocent are trying to lessen the negativity of "looking" to the female population. 

I recently was on vacation where there were many families as well as spring breakers. I saw many, many men of all ages shamelessly admiring the lady parts of these young women. I am no angel but, try to be respectful, I also wear dark glasses. 

I have witnessed men looking at my young daughter and I accept it for what it is. I am not saying it is right, or that women should "deal with it" you have the right to feel the way you do. 

I am wondering AP, why is it that you can't wear a bra? it today's world this is uncommon. As a man I would assume if I saw you that you enjoyed the attention, not that you could not wear a bra. I know in Hollywood they wear pasties to cover the tipples sometimes, is this an option. Otherwise, you may have deal with the looks. At some point (somewhere between 30 and 65) gravity will take its toll. Then men will quickly look away at at your braless breasts. Can you now simply take is as a complement? Being a guy in some ways the whole thing does not compute. I mean if a women was looking at me with lust I would take it as a compliment regardless. Anyway....great thread..have learned alot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> At some point (somewhere between 30 and 65) gravity will take its toll. Then men will quickly look away at at your braless breasts.


I agreed with your whole post except this part. Anon is over 50 and has exceptional breasts. :smthumbup:

But not only that...I know (from experience and from my male friends, who I have joined in such endeavors with) that no, they don't quickly look away from braless breasts even though gravity takes its toll. Breasts are still very interesting in the many shapes they can take to MANY men. Maybe not all men, but enough that women in their 60's and up will still have their breasts stared at by men (and some women, such as myself).


----------



## VermisciousKnid

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I am wondering AP, why is it that you can't wear a bra? it today's world this is uncommon. As a man I would assume if I saw you that you enjoyed the attention, not that you could not wear a bra. I know in Hollywood they wear pasties to cover the tipples sometimes, is this an option. Otherwise, you may have deal with the looks. At some point (somewhere between 30 and 65) gravity will take its toll. Then men will quickly look away at at your braless breasts. Can you now simply take is as a complement? Being a guy in some ways the whole thing does not compute. *I mean if a women was looking at me with lust I would take it as a compliment regardless. *Anyway....great thread..have learned alot.


Pick the correct comparison. If a woman was staring directly below your belt buckle at your bulge or lack thereof without even glancing up to see if you have noticed their focus how would you feel? Judged? Offended? Objectified? Perplexed? I wager that excitement, pride, and gratitude wouldn't be among your feelings.


----------



## Thundarr

VermisciousKnid said:


> Pick the correct comparison. If a woman was staring directly below your belt buckle at your bulge or lack thereof without even glancing up to see if you have noticed their focus how would you feel? Judged? Offended? Objectified? Perplexed? I wager that excitement, pride, and gratitude wouldn't be among your feelings.


I understand it's offensive so I don't it (that I know of). But no I've never felt anything negative when I was being gawked at or leered at. I used to catch women looking a lot. I was young and worked out almost every day so it was nice to have my physique noticed. Catching the hot twenty something waitresses peaking at me at seventeen when putting my work shirt? Awesome.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Thundarr said:


> I understand it's offensive so I don't it (that I know of). But no I've never felt anything negative when I was being gawked at or leered at. I used to catch women looking a lot. I was young and worked out almost every day so it was nice to have my physique noticed. Catching the hot twenty something waitresses peaking at me at seventeen when putting my work shirt? Awesome.


I think it may have to do with two things....

One is that even though it is unfair, I know that almost all men are stronger than me. It's just a natural instinct to want to protect yourself.

It would be more like instead of a regular woman looking at you, it was this:

http://www.theironden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Rene-Campbell-_tx5h.jpg

Ok, exaggerated, but I know for me I am always just a tad bit wary of anytime I attract male attention. Not because it is about men themselves, but because I am automatically at a physical disadvantage. 

A second may be culture. Men are the chasers and so when a women looks back, its like he is doing his job. Women are the ones getting chased. So they do like attention, but select attention. Attention by a man that she is interested in pursuing her, and not by other men. They have to filter out a lot more attention and so not every instance is welcome. 

My 2 cents. Not a whole lot going on in this post but whatever.


----------



## Colonel Angus

I avoid leering at the ladies but they do seem to be drawn to Colonel Angus's tongue.



If I overstayed my welcome, just tap me on the head.


----------



## CuddleBug

Anon Pink said:


> Have you ever been caught looking at a woman's body?
> Were you embarrassed?
> Did you notice if she was uncomfortable?
> Have you ever been called out for looking?
> What is your take on the difference between noticing a woman's body and looking/leering at a woman's body?
> 
> I'm continuing this discussion from another thread. Although it was deemed a thread Jack, I think this is an excellent topic to DISCUSS without accusations of evil intent by anyone.
> 
> It's one thing bar hopping while dressed to impress. That is an environment in which looks and leers should be expected, and be ignored. But at work, at the bank, walking down the street, walking around the neighborhood... Hell no!
> 
> I can't wear a bra. During the warm weather, the girls jingle and jangle, high beams and all. I know I'm going to get looks and leers (especially in the grocery store!) and I accept that. What bothers me is what men *might* assume when they see the girls on alert, like I'm advertising something. Like I'm begging for attention from all men everywhere. Most men are pretty good about the quick notice, then look away, and I very much appreciate that. Then I look away. I get that men notice. It is unusual for a woman not to wear a bra now a days.
> 
> Polite men notice quickly and look away. A man who leers, such as the son in law in that other thread is a creep with no manners. Men do not have a right to leer in normal social or business situations.
> 
> It shouldn't be as difficult to control where you look as this...
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rc5G04nJecI
> Share



Mrs.CuddleBug has bigger breasts and wears a wire bra for support. At home she doesn't wear a bra and they do jiggle and I do look.

I always look at women's bodies because they are sexy and the best thing on planet earth.:smthumbup:

I know when its appropriate to flirt or totally check a lady out or just smile and talk. You can tell.

I have never leered at a lady making her uncomfortable. I'm not a pig, I'm discrete.

Ladies dress the way they do because it shows off their sexy bodies, makes them feel great, and get attention for us guys.

If ladies hate that type of attention, then don't dress that way and more professional. Still lady like but not as sexy like.

Mrs.CuddleBug wears a strong wire bra for support and helps her back too. I've had to call the contractor a few times when a wire bra support has found its way into the water pump for the washing machine......

I've seen young ladies in their late teens to early 20's that did take care of themselves and are hot and I've seen some who don't really care and let themselves go.....same with ladies in their 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc.


----------



## Forest

VermisciousKnid said:


> Pick the correct comparison. If a woman was staring directly below your belt buckle at your bulge or lack thereof without even glancing up to see if you have noticed their focus how would you feel? Judged? Offended? Objectified? Perplexed? I wager that excitement, pride, and gratitude wouldn't be among your feelings.


I think Randy Bachman expressed it best:

"Baby, you just ain't seen n-n-n-nothin' yet-
Here's something that you never could forget-"


----------



## john117

Today I convinced my wife that with her body she could wear quite well a loose blouse top from France - striped black and white - showing a reasonable amount of goods (bought by my daughter last year), solid black leggings from Costco, white wedge shoes and some simple jewelry and make up. She did and she did turn some heads at the mall today... And she's not young but with a size 4 body, right curves, and ageless face and skin who cares?


----------



## Thundarr

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I think it may have to do with two things....
> 
> One is that even though it is unfair, I know that almost all men are stronger than me. It's just a natural instinct to want to protect yourself.
> 
> It would be more like instead of a regular woman looking at you, it was this:
> 
> http://www.theironden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Rene-Campbell-_tx5h.jpg
> 
> Ok, exaggerated, but I know for me I am always just a tad bit wary of anytime I attract male attention. Not because it is about men themselves, but because I am automatically at a physical disadvantage.
> 
> A second may be culture. Men are the chasers and so when a women looks back, its like he is doing his job. Women are the ones getting chased. So they do like attention, but select attention. Attention by a man that she is interested in pursuing her, and not by other men. They have to filter out a lot more attention and so not every instance is welcome.
> 
> My 2 cents. Not a whole lot going on in this post but whatever.


I understand what you're saying Maria. Some of the other women have made similar arguments and it makes a lot of sense. My comment was more to just express part of why we (men) don't innately understand it so we have to understand by those we love telling us how they've felt or by communicating like we are in this thread.
Just today my brother, nephew, and I were hiking. At one point we passed a young women (twenties maybe) trekking up the hill and the very first things I thought was, I wonder if she feels safe, I wonder if she has mace, I wonder she's had anyone act like a jerk on the trail.


----------



## Anon Pink

Thundarr said:


> I understand what you're saying Maria. Some of the other women have made similar arguments and it makes a lot of sense. My comment was more to just express part of why we (men) don't innately understand it so we have to understand by those we love telling us how they've felt or by communicating like we are in this thread.
> Just today my brother, nephew, and I were hiking. At one point we passed a young women (twenties maybe) trekking up the hill and the very first things I thought was, *I wonder if she feels safe, I wonder if she has mace, I wonder she's had anyone act like a jerk on the trail*.


Awe, thundarr you're awesome!


----------



## Anon Pink

lifeisbetterthanalternat said:


> I think coffee4me has a point to the extent that most men (probably including myself don't think we "leer"). It find it curious that SOOO many men on this forum think of their "looking" as not having an element of perhaps making another women uncomfortable. Especially since most women here do seem to think they are leered AT. I think this it is denial or being naive.
> 
> *I personally have viewed women's body parts with lust and i guess perhaps without regard to the women's feelings.I have to totally make a concerted effort to NOT do this. I try to be discrete.* The female body is a beautiful creation and can bring thoughts ranging from "wow looks at those ti$%, that a%%, to actually imagining sexual acts with that person) If I catch myself I will stop myself but my knee jerk is to look...perhaps more than i should.* I think men who are making it seem innocent are trying to lessen the negativity of "looking" to the female population*.


Being discrete is being respectful. So, thanks. I think some of the anger from women on this thread has to do with the second bolded part. It feels like our feelings are being invalidated and minimized when men try to pass it off as being a man. Discrete, respectful fine.




> I am wondering AP, why is it that you can't wear a bra? it today's world this is uncommon. As a man I would assume if I saw you that you enjoyed the attention, not that you could not wear a bra. I know in Hollywood they wear pasties to cover the tipples sometimes, is this an option. Otherwise, you may have deal with the looks. At some point (somewhere between 30 and 65) gravity will take its toll. Then men will quickly look away at at your braless breasts. Can you now simply take is as a complement? Being a guy in some ways the whole thing does not compute. I mean if a women was looking at me with lust I would take it as a compliment regardless. Anyway....great thread..have learned alot.


glad you learned a lot.

I've swerved this question twice in the thread already. Those pastie things are one time use and stupidly expensive. So...no.


----------



## john117

We could 3D print you some pasties


----------



## Faithful Wife

I bought these for an outfit I had to go braless in:

http://www.amazon.com/Nippies-Reusa...ADHESIVE/dp/B001O482W4/ref=zg_bs_2364769011_2

I thought they'd be great because they are thick and you need some thickness there if you don't want your nips showing through.

But the problem is they are so thick they show right through your clothes! They look like a tiny boob on top of your boob!

Totally worthless.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

Thundarr said:


> I understand what you're saying Maria. Some of the other women have made similar arguments and it makes a lot of sense. My comment was more to just express part of why we (men) don't innately understand it so we have to understand by those we love telling us how they've felt or by communicating like we are in this thread.
> Just today my brother, nephew, and I were hiking. At one point we passed a young women (twenties maybe) trekking up the hill and the very first things I thought was, I wonder if she feels safe, I wonder if she has mace, I wonder she's had anyone act like a jerk on the trail.


I can't speak for all the women, but that is what it comes down to. It doesn't come down to anything about the sexual interaction between men and women. If men are naturally attracted, if women have lower testosterone or are visual or whatever.

It just happens to come down to, "that person has more muscles, I don't know them, and they are looking at me"

It automatically puts me in a slightly wary position so the attention will always be a little unwanted.


----------



## Anon Pink

john117 said:


> We could 3D print you some pasties


And hypoallergenic adhesive?

Naw, those pastie thingies are useless.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

soccermom2three said:


> Dvls, I can't remember if you have a daughter. If you do, how old is she?
> 
> Just wait until she's a preteen or teenager and whenever you're with her just hang back and watch other men. You will definitely see what leering looks like.


When this happens, I'm quite confident everyone will be leering and yet my reasoning still totally consistent: 

EVERYONE will be unwelcome.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

VermisciousKnid said:


> Pick the correct comparison. If a woman was staring directly below your belt buckle at your bulge or lack thereof without even glancing up to see if you have noticed their focus how would you feel? Judged? Offended? Objectified? Perplexed? I wager that excitement, pride, and gratitude wouldn't be among your feelings.


I think I'd laugh. Women don't tend to be so overt, but gay men do, and they've done exactly that before. I find it 1 part embarrassing (not quite right word... made self-conscious?) to be so extremely the focus of attention, and 1 part laughable/funny that someone stepped so far outside of social norms.

Judged, objectified, perplexed, offended... I don't think I've ever felt that way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I think it may have to do with two things....
> 
> One is that even though it is unfair, I know that almost all men are stronger than me. It's just a natural instinct to want to protect yourself.
> 
> It would be more like instead of a regular woman looking at you, it was this:
> 
> http://www.theironden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Rene-Campbell-_tx5h.jpg
> 
> Ok, exaggerated, but I know for me I am always just a tad bit wary of anytime I attract male attention. Not because it is about men themselves, but because I am automatically at a physical disadvantage.
> 
> A second may be culture. Men are the chasers and so when a women looks back, its like he is doing his job. Women are the ones getting chased. So they do like attention, but select attention. Attention by a man that she is interested in pursuing her, and not by other men. They have to filter out a lot more attention and so not every instance is welcome.
> 
> My 2 cents. Not a whole lot going on in this post but whatever.


It must lean heavily on culture, because the best comparison would be to larger/stronger gay men leering at straight men, and this has never offended me or made me feel threatened. When they say something crude... absolutely it's taken as offensive... but like men cat calling, this isn't an expression of interest but an insult - a declaration of their power. I'd figure this would be the same as women feel, but apparently the "looking" is perceived differently. The insult/cat call of a large gay man might even be more threatening for men - because there is some expectation that you must answer to these things.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It must lean heavily on culture, because the best comparison would be to larger/stronger gay men leering at straight men, and this has never offended me or made me feel threatened. When they say something crude... absolutely it's taken as offensive... but like men cat calling, this isn't an expression of interest but an insult - a declaration of their power. I'd figure this would be the same as women feel, but apparently the "looking" is perceived differently. The insult/cat call of a large gay man might even be more threatening for men - because there is some expectation that you must answer to these things.


I think you have a deeper understanding of that.

What I wrote was just a throw away thought of mine. It stands on shakey ground and I have nothing to back it up. I wanted to see if others thought it had more merit. 

And yeah, I can see how men being expected to answer to that is more threatening. It is more of a direct confrontation.

In my personal opinion, the line between looking and leering is clearly defined. Leering/catcalling is so out of line for me and I think the majority of men agree with that.

I think we are squabbling a lot over the looking.

TBH, there is always a bit of an unwanted edge to it for me because I am aware that I am weaker. "You're bigger than me, more powerful, I don't know you, and you are looking at me." It's not fear, but a neutral feeling to a slight wariness. That doesn't mean I might not also feel flattered, but that other feeling is underlining it as well.

I don't know how to word it without seeming like I am talking down to you, so please try to look past the tone as much as possible and I am going to try to tone it down as much as possible.

While some women can get up to the level of strength of a man and I applaud them, most women do not have a fighting chance against a man. You as a man still have a fighting chance against another man, even if he is stronger than you (please correct me if I am so off on that. I know that I am projecting that as a women to men). I arm-wrestle my fiance for fun. When I am putting all my weight and effort against him including using both my hands, I still cannot move his arm AT ALL. If he just decided to sit on me I could not get him off.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I think we are squabbling a lot over the looking.
> 
> TBH, there is always a bit of an unwanted edge to it for me because I am aware that I am weaker. "You're bigger than me, more powerful, I don't know you, and you are looking at me." It's not fear, but a neutral feeling to a slight wariness. That doesn't mean I might not also feel flattered, but that other feeling is underlining it as well.


This is exactly what I believe to be the case most of the time. And yes, even when facing a larger guy (which for me has been almost every fight I've ever been in), there is still a sense that I can at least hold my own (but I do have a good deal of fighting background - Marine Corps/boxing/krav maga). Still, it's somewhat scary/threatening every time. I figure there's a measure of fear when women are looked at or approached by men - you don't know yet whether he's calm and respectful or aggressive and disrespectful. But for some reason, steps I take to relieve that "wariness" are called manipulative by many women on this forum.

It's bizarre to me that the word manipulative, which has such a negative connotation, is used to characterize making someone feel more comfortable. There's really no answer here except to ignore women we don't know... which isn't going to happen and I suspect wouldn't be what women really want either.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> I understand what you're saying Maria. Some of the other women have made similar arguments and it makes a lot of sense. My comment was more to just express part of why we (men) don't innately understand it so we have to understand by those we love telling us how they've felt or by communicating like we are in this thread.
> Just today my brother, nephew, and I were hiking. At one point we passed a young women (twenties maybe) trekking up the hill and the very first things I thought was, I wonder if she feels safe, I wonder if she has mace, I wonder she's had anyone act like a jerk on the trail.


Wow. Has someone told you recently that you kinda rock? Ok maybe not kinda.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is exactly what I believe to be the case most of the time. And yes, even when facing a larger guy (which for me has been almost every fight I've ever been in), there is still a sense that I can at least hold my own (but I do have a good deal of fighting background - Marine Corps/boxing/krav maga). Still, it's somewhat scary/threatening every time. I figure there's a measure of fear when women are looked at or approached by men - *you don't know yet whether he's calm and respectful or aggressive and disrespectful.* But for some reason, steps I take to relieve that "wariness" are called manipulative by many women on this forum.
> 
> It's bizarre to me that the word manipulative, which has such a negative connotation, is used to characterize making someone feel more comfortable. There's really no answer here except to ignore women we don't know... which isn't going to happen and I suspect wouldn't be what women really want either.


That's just it. With a woman, who I don't know that is also approaching me, I become wary too for the same reason, she's a stranger, but I don't have as great of a sense that I could be overpowered. 

The second part, I do not understand becuase I haven't followed this thread to much. But what steps are you talking about? I would expect that if you are trying to make someone feel more comfortable that is not in and of itself manipulative. It would be manipulative if you were then trying to lower their defenses in order to get something...which would be sociopathic and I am going to assume that does not describe you lol. Otherwise, making someone feel comfortable is respecting the other person


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> That's just it. With a woman, who I don't know that is also approaching me, I become wary too for the same reason, she's a stranger, but I don't have as great of a sense that I could be overpowered.
> 
> The second part, I do not understand becuase I haven't followed this thread to much. But what steps are you talking about? I would expect that if you are trying to make someone feel more comfortable that is not in and of itself manipulative. It would be manipulative if you were then trying to lower their defenses in order to get something...which would be sociopathic and I am going to assume that does not describe you lol. Otherwise, making someone feel comfortable is respecting the other person


Well, obviously in approaching a woman I'm attracted to the intent is to build sufficient rapport and comfort to have a fun conversation and hopefully get a phone number or possibly a date, if I remain interested in her through the conversation.

So yeah, there's something to get. Not that I'd consider that some terrible thing that should be labeled as manipulation. To each their own though.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well, obviously in approaching a woman I'm attracted to the intent is to build sufficient rapport and comfort to have a fun conversation and hopefully get a phone number or possibly a date, if I remain interested in her through the conversation.
> 
> So yeah, there's something to get. Not that I'd consider that some terrible thing that should be labeled as manipulation. To each their own though.


I wouldn't call that manipulative. You still aren't forcing her to give you anything. She can reject the phone number or date if she wishes. She is also an adult. I would also presume that you are not seeking emotional weaknesses in her to see how you can get her home regardless of her well-being That is what I meant by sociopathic.

I have never found a man hitting on me or asking for my number to be manipulative or disturbing. It is when I have said "No thank you" or "I am already seeing someone" and it continues that I have.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> I wouldn't call that manipulative. You still aren't forcing her to give you anything. She can reject the phone number or date if she wishes. She is also an adult. I would also presume that you are not seeking emotional weaknesses in her to see how you can get her home regardless of her well-being That is what I meant by sociopathic.
> 
> I have never found a man hitting on me or asking for my number to be manipulative or disturbing. It is when I have said "No thank you" or "I am already seeing someone" and it continues that I have.


Nope. This is just how I go about getting a date. Admittedly, I do tend to keep talking after the "I have a bf" comment though, if she threw that out there before I even hinted at anything other than a friendly conversation between strangers. 

The reason for continuing is that about half the time, "I have a boyfriend" isn't true... it's a knee jerk flee from the stranger talking to me comment, before I've even had a chance to show I'm a decent guy and conversationalist. Example - I tried to open a conversation with a girl at starbucks (I talk to a lot of people there given my coffee addiction) during a long wait time by saying "I think we're waiting on the beans to arrive from Colombia... what do you think?" Her reply, in the most dismissive voice was nonsensical: "I have a boyfriend." So I just said, "No worries hon, I wasn't asking you out. You know, if your boyfriend gets jealous of a little small talk you really need a new boyfriend. Maybe you should ask me out." She laughed. I didn't get a date, but we did go on to have a playful conversation. If she actually had a bf, and I see her again somewhere and she's single, I have zero doubt she'd start the next conversation. Success isn't just getting a number. Success is meeting women and having positive interactions. You never know when you'll see someone again.

When I ask for a number and get turned down though, that's that. I generally tell them to have a great day and say something positive about them or the conversation as I'm leaving. Again, you never know when you'll see someone again, and women are generally far more receptive the next time.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nope. This is just how I go about getting a date. Admittedly, I do tend to keep talking after the "I have a bf" comment though, if she threw that out there before I even hinted at anything other than a friendly conversation between strangers.
> 
> The reason for continuing is that about half the time, "I have a boyfriend" isn't true... it's a knee jerk flee from the stranger talking to me comment, before I've even had a chance to show I'm a decent guy and conversationalist. Example - I tried to open a conversation with a girl at starbucks (I talk to a lot of people there given my coffee addiction) during a long wait time by saying "I think we're waiting on the beans to arrive from Colombia... what do you think?" Her reply, in the most dismissive voice was nonsensical: "I have a boyfriend." So I just said, "No worries hon, I wasn't asking you out. You know, if your boyfriend gets jealous of a little small talk you really need a new boyfriend. Maybe you should ask me out." She laughed. I didn't get a date, but we did go on to have a playful conversation. If she actually had a bf, and I see her again somewhere and she's single, I have zero doubt she'd start the next conversation. Success isn't just getting a number. Success is meeting women and having positive interactions. You never know when you'll see someone again.
> 
> When I ask for a number and get turned down though, that's that. I generally tell them to have a great day and say something positive about them or the conversation as I'm leaving. Again, you never know when you'll see someone again, and women are generally far more receptive the next time.


Yeah I get completely what you are saying. In my personal life, I have never lied about having a boyfriend to get someone to stop talking to me, so I didn't see your point at first, but now I do. While there is no hard and fast line of demarcation for now this is creepy, for me it is whenever I have clearly defined that I do not want to talk and the "asking out" turns aggressive.

I may say "Thank you, but I would rather not talk." or something else very clearly. Usually a guy will end it on a light note or turn it into a regular conversation. That's just the art of conversation. Aggressive for me is more in the tone/body behavior than specific words I can think off of the top of my head.

I also agree with you that success is having positive conversations. Too many times we define success as getting what we want instead of realizing that honing the skills is part of the success.

I don't think regular flirting between men or women or looking is manipulative. I don't think wanting to have sex with a woman is manipulative. I think crossing someone's boundaries and trying to get something out of someone regardless of their well-being or how they feel about it is manipulative.

Sometimes conversations about this kind of things go straight to the extreme examples and the hyperbolic when in reality the majority of people conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. The only thing that I felt I had to contribute was the mixed emotions that a woman may experience when being approached by a man, and most men understood that when we cleared it all away that we were not talking in hyperbole. Most women also understand that a man wanting to flirt with her is not manipulative but I think that the conversation was swept up in hyperbole as well.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Maria Canosa Gargano said:


> That's just the art of conversation.


Exactly.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> Wow. Has someone told you recently that you kinda rock? Ok maybe not kinda.


Yes but it doesn't count when it's me telling myself . Thank you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hey! I've told you that you rock recently, don't go forgettin' me.


----------



## john117

I'm getting my other eye fixed to 20/20 in early June just in time for leering season!!! Life is good for this mid 50's leering prone cyclist with perfect vision 

(First gift to myself after 50 years of wearing glasses: a pair of genuine RayBan Aviator glasses)


----------



## T&T

john117 said:


> (First gift to myself after 50 years of wearing glasses: a pair of genuine RayBan Aviator glasses)


Ugh, everyone is wearing those, John. get something a little different. 

Ray-Ban RB4171 865/13 54-18 Erika Sunglasses | Ray-Ban USA


----------

