!	MODNOTE Title changed to avoid confusion. Spinozasgalt

TMB wrote:

Paul1 wrote:I think the "Go to the top floor of shopping mals and stare at guys" and "Bitch about your ex" are my favourite parts, along with "Which male friend would we rather shag" and "Which male friends probably have small penises"

Remember guys, next time I'm shopping with your gf, you ARE being judged

Why do women react in this way? Here we see a direct attempt to beliitle and scorn men physically. The topic certainly objectifies women but not in the way this poster has responded to males. There was no implication that men were trying to point out how many women have fat bums for exmaple. Also note that women spend a lot of time money and angst trying to make various parts of ther body desirable objects. High heels to lengthen legs and push out the bottom, cosmetics for skin, eyes, surgery for boobs, nose etc, clothes to hide and enhance. How is it that women are able to so consistently and successfully able to deny responsibility for their role in making themselves desirable objects?

A) Suggesting "women react in this way" is blatantly sexist. Some women do. So do some men. Lots of people of both sexes don't.

B) Paul appears to be a dude. He also appears to be behaving facetiously.

C) Not all women spend time, money or angst on their appearance.

D) The fact some women (and men) emphasise their physical appearance by no means suggests they wish for the fact they are human beings to be overlooked and want to be treated as objects. That they're physically attractive does not make them objects nor does it force anyone to treat them as such. Putting effort into one's appearance does not discount that they are a person and people aren't objects.

!	MODNOTE Split off from the GD thread about "The Sexiest Part of a Woman's Body" . Durro

Bronwyn, you said,
Why do women react in this way? Here we see a direct attempt to beliitle and scorn men physically. The topic certainly objectifies women but not in the way this poster has responded to males. There was no implication that men were trying to point out how many women have fat bums for exmaple. Also note that women spend a lot of time money and angst trying to make various parts of ther body desirable objects. High heels to lengthen legs and push out the bottom, cosmetics for skin, eyes, surgery for boobs, nose etc, clothes to hide and enhance. How is it that women are able to so consistently and successfully able to deny responsibility for their role in making themselves desirable objects?

A) Suggesting "women react in this way" is blatantly sexist. Some women do. So do some men. Lots of people of both sexes don't.

This is using ‘sexist’ as a get-out-of-jail-card. Either what I am saying is correct or it is not. Separating men and women for the Olympics is also sexist, but it is done for a good reason. What exactly are you suggesting that some men and some women do? I have asserted that women tend to push the responsibility to men looking at women in terms of body parts, without taking any upon themselves. I have also said that women spend significant time enhancing their own body parts in order to present themselves better to society. Are you suggesting that women do take responsibility for their role in the way men react and assess their bodies? If they do how do we know this?

B) Paul appears to be a dude. He also appears to be behaving facetiously.

Paul1 might be a dude, I did not see this as a facetious comment however.

C) Not all women spend time, money or angst on their appearance.

That is certainly true, however this hides the fact that many, many women of all ages do behave this way. There are also men who do the same, however if I were to assess the population at large (lets say in the western world) and all the measures one might look at – for example womens magazines that cater for their readers interests, I would not find much about cosmetics or clothes in mens magazines, when compared to what I might find in womens magazines. If I looked at interests in teenagers, I would find a far stronger interest in the girls on things like shoes, handbag, hair and makeup than I would find in the boys. Certainly there are many boys who buy designer labels and ornament their bodies, however I suggest their motives are not the same as the girls.

D) The fact some women (and men) emphasise their physical appearance by no means suggests they wish for the fact they are human beings to be overlooked and want to be treated as objects.

I did not suggest that this is what people wanted, in fact this is what they do not want. It is a complex process for women to use the way they look to get those things from males that they want. They run the risk that the males will use and discard, however if they do not advertise, the males will go to those who do advertise. Go and watch the process in new teens and see how the girls dress competitively, each trying to retain some control, but still staying in the game.

That they're physically attractive does not make them objects nor does it force anyone to treat them as such. Putting effort into one's appearance does not discount that they are a person and people aren't objects.

I do not understand what point you are making here. Using the words objects is not exactly correct, resource is probably a better one. We usually base our appearance on social norms, in other words there will be a social standard for physical attractiveness for women, based upon weight, breast size, height, nose shape/size, hair length/cut etc. Males will be attracted initially to the best of these, however since they compete with other males, they will compromise and set their expectations accordingly. In young adults these criteria result in many casual liaisons (depending upon the moral norms of their society), without looking into anything more about the persons less physical attributes – perhaps their patience, tolerance, ability to love etc. See how many womens magazines write articles on how the reader might become more patient, or giving or intellectual – they don’t happen much.

Men on the other hand are a different resource to women than vice versa. Looks are important, but an ugly man with power is far more attractive than an ugly woman with power. Groupies are mostly female, and they will go to great lengths to have sex with a male celebrity, they can even feel they are in love with them. Males can also be groupies to celebrity women, but they are prepared to sleep with low status females, often regardless of how they look but will always choose the more attractive ones.

We put effort into our appearance and status because we are competing with our own gender to get access to the best resource from the opposite gender (mostly). This means women run the risk of being sexually objectified and if they are too readily available, men will sleep with them and move on. If they show restraint and the males work harder, there will be a compromise and more balance between the essentially selfish interests of both sexes. For men, they run the risk of becoming soldier or provider resources, they get damaged in personally dangerous situations, and can just become a slave to their jobs just to maintain a certain social status, that will attract a mate.

As I said ‘object’ is a poor description of the complex way males and females form unions and judge the value of the union to themselves. Bonding mechanism like love and fidelity, exist and are good ways t mask the biological imperatives that drive our behaviour. Being treated as an object is disempowering, however truly rising (some people adopt a don’t care attitude that belies how much they do care) above the social pressure for looks is uncommon. Women are far more aware of the double edged sword offered by physical looks, while males appear not to understand that mate selection drives them to fight in national and personal wars.

Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males? There is an answer.

TMB wrote:Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males? There is an answer.

how do you accept responsibility for being attractive

cherries wrote:

TMB wrote:Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males? There is an answer.

how do you accept responsibility for being attractive

Wear a burkha?

cherries wrote:

TMB wrote:Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males? There is an answer.

how do you accept responsibility for being attractive

Thats good question, and as I consider that women do not do this, I am unsure as to how they would go about doing so. Since you have cherry picked (no pun intended) my post, If you want something more substantive back from me, I suggest you do something more substantive with the rest of my post first.

TMB wrote:do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males?

TMB, your long post seems to present observed trends as if they were universal behaviours. In your closing question above, you again revert to talk of "women", when it would cost nothing, end controversy and be more accurate to simply say "some women"; or "most women" if you must. It is the unqualified and uncalled-for generalisation that appears sexist, ignoring the different choices made by individuals - who might, for instance, be perfectly aware of all the trends you mention and consequently act in a more informed and less instinctual manner.

Since you have cherry picked (no pun intended) my post...

cherries did not 'cherry-pick' your post: she addressed the question that you started with and led up to again. Your response suggests you regard "women" as "unwilling" to do something that you yourself can see no way for them to do. Way to undermine your own argument.

Bronwyn, you said,
Why do women react in this way? Here we see a direct attempt to beliitle and scorn men physically. The topic certainly objectifies women but not in the way this poster has responded to males. There was no implication that men were trying to point out how many women have fat bums for exmaple. Also note that women spend a lot of time money and angst trying to make various parts of ther body desirable objects. High heels to lengthen legs and push out the bottom, cosmetics for skin, eyes, surgery for boobs, nose etc, clothes to hide and enhance. How is it that women are able to so consistently and successfully able to deny responsibility for their role in making themselves desirable objects?

I never stated any such thing. This vast array of sexist generalisations applied to women came from TMB.

I did say this:

A) Suggesting "women react in this way" is blatantly sexist. Some women do. So do some men. Lots of people of both sexes don't.

This is using ‘sexist’ as a get-out-of-jail-card.

The fact you lack the integrity to take responsibility for your sexism is your problem, not mine.

Either what I am saying is correct or it is not.

Or it’s only correct when applied to certain individuals OF BOTH SEXES and incorrect when applied to others making the sweeping generalisations you made about women exclusively profoundly sexist.

Separating men and women for the Olympics is also sexist, but it is done for a good reason.

It’s founded in the reality that men and women are physically different and that people with more similar bodies provide fairer competition to one another. There’s nothing sexist about it.

On the other hand, saying “women spend a lot of time money and angst trying to make various parts of ther body desirable objects. High heels to lengthen legs and push out the bottom, cosmetics for skin, eyes, surgery for boobs, nose etc, clothes to hide and enhance” is NOT founded in reality. It`s negative stereotyping of females and completely overlooks the fact the negative stereotype applies to individual men just as it applies to individual women.

What exactly are you suggesting that some men and some women do?

Exactly what you accuse women in general of doing in the chunk of your post I was responding to:

Why do women react in this way? Here we see a direct attempt to beliitle and scorn men physically. The topic certainly objectifies women but not in the way this poster has responded to males.

Some women belittle and scorn men. Some men belittle and scorn men. You’ve opted to apply this behaviour to women in general though. Not individuals. Not even individual women. You have applied this sweeping generalisation regarding treatment of men to “women” as if it’s a universal female behaviour.

I have asserted that women tend to push the responsibility to men looking at women in terms of body parts, without taking any upon themselves.

Because, by being attractive, women FORCE men to look at them and their attractive bits. Give me a break. I’m perfectly capable of looking away when a dude with a nice ass wears a well fitted pair of jeans. The jeans and nice ass certainly don’t make me treat him like a “desirable object” as you claim women are responsible for when men do so because, GASP, they dare to look good!

You haven’t stated any such thing anyways. What you did assert was:

How is it that women are able to so consistently and successfully able to deny responsibility for their role in making themselves desirable objects?

I have also said that women spend significant time enhancing their own body parts in order to present themselves better to society.

Which is a sexist generalisation because a) many women do not which you make absolutely no note of and instead apply the generalisation to all women and b) completely overlook the fact many men do it too and it’s not a female characteristic. It’s a human characteristic some people wear on their sleeve. You apply it women in general only though and overlook the fact many are not guilty of doing what you’re accusing all women of while some men are.

Are you suggesting that women do take responsibility for their role in the way men react and assess their bodies? If they do how do we know this?

You’re not even paying attention to what I was responding to and are applying completely irrelevant remarks of mine to what you perceive as the core message of your tirade.

B) Paul appears to be a dude. He also appears to be behaving facetiously.

Paul1 might be a dude, I did not see this as a facetious comment however.

Then we’ll just have to ask Paul, won’t we?

C) Not all women spend time, money or angst on their appearance.

That is certainly true, however this hides the fact that many, many women of all ages do behave this way.

No, it addresses what you, up until this point, have refused to: that the behaviours you keep applying to women do not apply to all females nor are they exclusively female behaviours. They’re behaviours some people of both sexes exhibit. All you have done is apply them to “women”. Not some women or some men and women but women in general.

There are also men who do the same, however if I were to assess the population at large (lets say in the western world) and all the measures one might look at – for example womens magazines that cater for their readers interests, I would not find much about cosmetics or clothes in mens magazines, when compared to what I might find in womens magazines.

Because women’s magazines are a perfect representation of women. Hint: most women don’t buy magazines. They cater to a portion of women, not most or women in general.

If I looked at interests in teenagers, I would find a far stronger interest in the girls on things like shoes, handbag, hair and makeup than I would find in the boys.

And this can all be explained away by social constructions of gender which make shoes, handbags, hair and makeup appropriate interests for teenage girls but not boys. It’s not at all the result of their sex.

Certainly there are many boys who buy designer labels and ornament their bodies, however I suggest their motives are not the same as the girls.

Here we go. Females don’t work on their appearance because it makes them feel good like males do. Females do it because they want something.

Give me strength.

D) The fact some women (and men) emphasise their physical appearance by no means suggests they wish for the fact they are human beings to be overlooked and want to be treated as objects.

I did not suggest that this is what people wanted, in fact this is what they do not want. It is a complex process for women to use the way they look to get those things from males that they want.

Yes, because the reason women work on their appearance is because they want something from men.

Didn’t I predict this? I think I did!

They run the risk that the males will use and discard, however if they do not advertise, the males will go to those who do advertise.

Because males are only interested in women who emphasise their bodies. Nice to see you hold men in the same low regard you hold women.

Has it ever occurred to you that women have the power to say no to being used and discarded whether they emphasise their physical beauty or not? And that their physical beauty might be something they work on for themselves and aren’t using to seek what they want from males?

Go and watch the process in new teens and see how the girls dress competitively, each trying to retain some control, but still staying in the game.

More generalisations about females and the motivation behind some of their decisions to emphasise their physical attractiveness.

If you spent any (quality) time with young people you’d realise most of us raise them not to be shallow and to ignore any suggestions that they engage in the superficial pettiness you ascribe to teenage females.

Lots of teenage girls dress however they like because it makes them feel good. Lots don’t give a hoot about their appearance. Lots aren’t competitive. Lots are secure without engaging in petty superficial combat with their peers.

And there are plenty of teenage boys guilty of doing all those things. They are also plenty who don’t do any.

More importantly, teenage boys have nothing to offer so there’s nothing for teenage girls to compete for.

That they're physically attractive does not make them objects nor does it force anyone to treat them as such. Putting effort into one's appearance does not discount that they are a person and people aren't objects.

I do not understand what point you are making here.

That you’re wrong: women who emphasise their physical attractiveness aren’t responsible for making themselves into and making men treat them as what you refer to as “desirable objects”.

Using the words objects is not exactly correct, resource is probably a better one.

Object is your word. Resource, frankly, just further objectifies the individuals you apply it to.

We usually base our appearance on social norms, in other words there will be a social standard for physical attractiveness for women, based upon weight, breast size, height, nose shape/size, hair length/cut etc. Males will be attracted initially to the best of these, however since they compete with other males, they will compromise and set their expectations accordingly.

Wow. So, the only things men are initially interested in in women are physical attributes. Nice.

Lots (and by lots I mean MOST in my personal experience) of men absolutely do not set their expectations accordingly as they do not feel they are in competition with other males and go after whatever appeals to them, no matter how “out of their league” it is. The vast majority of dudes who go after me are old and take extremely poor care of themselves. Lots of women are guilty of doing the exact same because they do not view courtship as some kind of competition with others vying for the same prize as they. For most of us, it’s personal and has to do with ourselves and whatever we’re after, not who we might be competing with.

And lots of men AND women aren’t so shallow that they go after the first they they find physically attractive.

In young adults these criteria result in many casual liaisons (depending upon the moral norms of their society), without looking into anything more about the persons less physical attributes – perhaps their patience, tolerance, ability to love etc.

As if this is something unique or overly prominent amongst young people. It’s something some young people engage in as do some old and middle aged people. These generalisations are making me dizzy.

See how many womens magazines write articles on how the reader might become more patient, or giving or intellectual – they don’t happen much.

Again, as if women’s magazines represent women in general.

Cosmo is absolutely full of that sort of shit, by the way. They have all kinds of “How to be a better partner” articles.

Men on the other hand are a different resource to women than vice versa. Looks are important, but an ugly man with power is far more attractive than an ugly woman with power.

Wow. This is my favourite generalisation yet. Pray tell, what study did you conduct that clearly demonstrated ugly powerful men are more attractive then ugly powerful women?

Groupies are mostly female

Rock is still a predominantly male industry and most rock stars and their groupies are straight. It has nothing to do with the behaviours associated with groupies being predominantly female. Were there more female rock and rollers for whom being sexually open and outgoing wasn’t stigmatised, there would be male groupies all over them too. Societal expectations set these things into play, not differences between the sexes. For a woman to be sexually open and for a man to seek a woman is considered degrading.

and they will go to great lengths to have sex with a male celebrity, they can even feel they are in love with them.

Lots of groupies are nuts. That they behave bizarrely has nothing to do with their sex.

Males can also be groupies to celebrity women, but they are prepared to sleep with low status females, often regardless of how they look but will always choose the more attractive ones.

Again, what comprehensive studies have you conducted or been privy to that clearly demonstrate this to be the case for men?

We put effort into our appearance and status because we are competing with our own gender to get access to the best resource from the opposite gender (mostly).

That’s an assumption and a half and not one you can demonstrate to have any veracity whatsoever. Will it sometimes be the case? Sure. Are there all kinds of reasons people make themselves look good outside of competition for desired resources? Yes. Is suggesting women emphasising their physical attractiveness something they do in order to compete with other women for desired members of the opposite sex an incredibly offensive sweeping generalisation about women and their behaviour? Yes.

This means women run the risk of being sexually objectified and if they are too readily available, men will sleep with them and move on.

More generalisations about men. Lovely.

If they show restraint and the males work harder, there will be a compromise and more balance between the essentially selfish interests of both sexes.

Because no one openly communicates with their partner. It’s all just a game men and women play in order to get what they want.

For men, they run the risk of becoming soldier or provider resources, they get damaged in personally dangerous situations, and can just become a slave to their jobs just to maintain a certain social status, that will attract a mate.

More generalisations about how women view and treat men. As if no man has ever sought a female partner for exactly these reasons and made a slave of her.

Believe it or not, LOTS of women AND men wouldn’t do this to the people they engage in relationships because for them relationships go a little further than game playing and getting what they want. If all you know of relationships is competition and self-interests, I don’t know where to begin.

I said ‘object’ is a poor description of the complex way males and females form unions and judge the value of the union to themselves. Bonding mechanism like love and fidelity, exist and are good ways t mask the biological imperatives that drive our behaviour.

We’ve developed psychologically to a degree where “bonding mechanisms” are of significantly more importance to us in relationships than what you claim are the real reasons people seek one another. If they were simply masking the reality of the situation there would be no such thing as people choosing to be childless and primary earning women.

Being treated as an object is disempowering, however truly rising (some people adopt a don’t care attitude that belies how much they do care) above the social pressure for looks is uncommon. Women are far more aware of the double edged sword offered by physical looks, while males appear not to understand that mate selection drives them to fight in national and personal wars.

Blah, blah, blah, generalisations I can’t demonstrate to have any veracity, blah, blah, blah.

Seriously, all you’ve done is spout textual diarrhoea. You haven’t provided a lick of evidence for any of your claims. You think typing lots of words is a convincing argument?

Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males?

Which is a completely different notion from your original:

How is it that women are able to so consistently and successfully able to deny responsibility for their role in making themselves desirable objects?

Maybe if you keep moving the goalpost you goal will become more attainable.

There is an answer.

And thank goodness there are people like yourself with such profound understanding of the female psyche to provide us with the answers.

Shouldn’t you be preaching the wonders of homeopathy elsewhere anyways?

For everyone, I want to make it clear I did NOT create this thread. While I’m perfectly aware my name is being attributed to its creation due to my post being the first in the split, I haven’t any clue why TMB’s bungled post which suggests some of his comments are in fact mine is being identified as the point at which the split occurred. It’s not. I’m quite uncomfortable being associated with such profoundly offensive content towards both sexes.

I find this type of discussion, particularly with this type of person, boring and never would have created a thread dedicated to it. I consider it rather insulting and degrading to everyone on this forum that such profoundly offensive generalisations primarily about females though also about males are allowed to be spewed as fact without evidence being required.

I find the 'taking responsibility for their own attractiveness' line to be a little disturbing. There can be no definitive idea of something as subjective as attractiveness, one mans beauty is anothers beast. Given that what should a woman do to prevent inflaming the wild ardour of any local males (who, of course, are completely incapable of controlling themselves [/irony]).

TMB wrote:

cherries wrote:

TMB wrote:Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males? There is an answer.

how do you accept responsibility for being attractive

Thats good question, and as I consider that women do not do this, I am unsure as to how they would go about doing so. Since you have cherry picked (no pun intended) my post, If you want something more substantive back from me, I suggest you do something more substantive with the rest of my post first.

i have no quarrels with most of the rest of your post except that you are generalizing too much.
you're saying something like that women should accept responsibility for the role they play in the sexual enticements of males,can you tell me how they should do that?
women and men can be naturally attractive without doing anything to enhance that,yet the attention they get from the opposite sex would be the same,do you suggest that they would accept responsibility for that too?

j.mills, you said,

TMB, your long post seems to present observed trends as if they were universal behaviours.

You are correct, I have done this,. My reason for doing so is because there are certain physical attributes that distinguish men from women, and allow us to be able to categorise into gender, and I believe there are certain behaviours that have evolved over countless generations that also typify a gender. Having said this there are always exceptions to physical and behavioral stereotypes. Not all people fit neatly into the physical gender categories, the classic XY and XX configuration that we tend to define as men and women have some exceptions, but we still typify the physical genders. I believe it is possible to do this for behaviours, and given that every man and woman alive today is the result of successful breeding of previous generations that pass on their heritable characteristics, and these in turn are driven by their biology, it means we can certainly define behaviours that typify each gender

In your closing question above, you again revert to talk of "women", when it would cost nothing, end controversy and be more accurate to simply say "some women"; or "most women" if you must.

I am not trying to offend anyone but the gender topics creates such antagonism (simply look at the bile that Bronwyn shows in the post following yours – this in itself is an interesting behavioural reaction to my position, but I am not doing it deliberately).
For the behaviors I am suggesting it is appropriate to use a generic terms despite exceptions to this. I have no issue applying this generic term to men as well as women and will argue the case to stereotype. The issue with stereotypes is when they are wrong not that they define real differences across the genders. The issue with the intelligence difference between the sexes was that it was wrong to define women as having lesser intelligence. UIt is however not an issue, but still a stereotype to say that women are unable to compete in most athletics or sport events with men. This is also a stereotype, this time its accurate.

It is the unqualified and uncalled-for generalisation that appears sexist, ignoring the different choices made by individuals - who might, for instance, be perfectly aware of all the trends you mention and consequently act in a more informed and less instinctual manner.

Are you implying that people are able to rise above their instincts and act rationally in a way totally independent of their biology? Information has nothing to do with the motivation for our behaviour. Humans are instinctive animals and obey the same biological imperatives that all living things follow.

Most people accept that our instinct to survive and procreate are strong and linked to our animal makeup, yet the need to control things lies even deeper than this. In order to survive over countless generations, living organisms have only made it this far if they have been inclined to try and direct things in their favour – e. Control outcomes. In this way suicide is a way to control things, and overcome the drive to stay alive. Since humans exhibit all the traits of trying to stay in control (to live, or choose to die, etc) and our pedigree as a sexually selected species is strong, you can be sure that males and females have different behaviours to remain in control.

Consider the female role to carry the responsibility of pregnancy and child rearing versus the male whose role in pregnancy can involve zero responsibility, would it surprise to consider that women have evolved ways to balance this severe responsibility they biologically carry and find ways to pass on other responsibilities to males?
Certainly not all men and women fit this exact mould but the evolved model suggests that women must have found ways to ensure that men carry other forms of responsibility. My example of women using their physical looks to attract males is not universal to women, but it does typify them. My example of men not being biologically as responsible for children is also not universal to males, but it does typify them.

Note that no single human society does not adorn or cover their body in some way, and its seems reasonable certain that we have been this way for many 10,000 of years. The potential for the human body in its natural state to affect those around us is self evident. Naked males or females cause very specific reactions in most societies, and in all cases there is very little desire to take responsibility when doing so. But the reaction to naked women (ie. As they really are without adornment) is quite different to the reaction to naked men – again a strong generalisation, but one that can be argued. The adornment and subtle signals about womens sexual attributes are done within accepted social norms, but still done in order to achieve womens biological objectives.

cherries did not 'cherry-pick' your post: she addressed the question that you started with and led up to again. Your response suggests you regard "women" as "unwilling" to do something that you yourself can see no way for them to do. Way to undermine your own argument.

Cherries did cherry pick. This topic is broad and has a very wide context, so picking this comment and looking for a binary answer is simplistic. A short answer could have been that women wont take responsibility for this because they carry the greater responsibility of the foetus. Once again this is not a position that is arrived at in a vacuum.

Cherries, you said,

i have no quarrels with most of the rest of your post except that you are generalizing too much.

Can you provide a qualified answer to show this? I am asking because your point is a generalisation in itself without anything to support it. If you do not think that women act in the way I have described as distinct from men, you should be able to argue and support this.

you're saying something like that women should accept responsibility for the role they play in the sexual enticements of males,can you tell me how they should do that?

This is a knee jerk reaction from me. Given the responsibility that women carry in incubating offspring and being physically weaker than men, this behaviour is hardly surprising. I just get frustrated when biology seems to dominate our behaviour despite our protestations of being able to overcome it.

women and men can be naturally attractive without doing anything to enhance that,yet the attention they get from the opposite sex would be the same,do you suggest that they would accept responsibility for that too?

To be naturally attractive would mean no clothing for anyone, and we are very far from this state. Given in inherent issues in nudity on a vast scale, we have evolved very convoluted social norms of dress, both in an attempt to moderate overly much stimulation at a social level, while still trying to stay in the race against competition from our own gender. This means that the dress of todays western girls which shows lots of leg and cleavage is permissible because it is so universal in the west, however it offends other societies who consider that women should be covered in these areas. The attention we get is relative to the competition. This is an arms race between women to compete for men, and vice versa. If some women are getting an advantage because of the cleavage they show, other women follow or get left behind. If men are driving F1 motor cars at great speed, then other men will try to drive faster, or find a Mt Everest to climb. That women also compete (to a lesser degree than men in these high status events), is because anything that provides power to the actor will be followed. Men get a few points for displaying their bodies, for example as models, but looks alone do not get them as far as being in powerful positions. For women, their looks can get them access to the most powerful men.

What is meant by 'taking responsibility for your own attractiveness' ?

When I was 18 I received quite a lot of attention from younger girls in my school (by quite a lot I mean considerably more than I got from girls my own age, which isn't saying much ). I saw it as my duty to deal with this in a tactful and responsible manner, which often proved to be easier said than done. For example you wouldn't want to embarrass the girl in public, so it was necessary to arrange for a private moment, which in itself was frought with danger as it could be misunderstood by the girl in question and other parties alike.

In the same vein I think it's appropriate for someone who knows him- or herself to be exceptionally attractive to account for this in their interactions with other people. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an actual duty though, just savoir vivre.

After all people who appear to be full of their own physical attractiveness rarely receive a lot of positive comment on this.

Mr P wrote:I find the 'taking responsibility for their own attractiveness' line to be a little disturbing. There can be no definitive idea of something as subjective as attractiveness, one mans beauty is anothers beast. Given that what should a woman do to prevent inflaming the wild ardour of any local males (who, of course, are completely incapable of controlling themselves [/irony]).

Agreed, I do not rationally expect it to happen. Dawkins describes the mechanism in his book the Extended Phenotype, where animals evolve into something on the basis of influence other organisms, in other words genes do not only limit their influence to the pehotype of the body they inhabit, but other bodies as well.

You are wrong that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While there are exceptions men and women both regard youthfulness and health and symmetry as being key measures of beauty. These do not always maninfest with high fidelity, so you get unhealthily thin models, or people attracted to obese partners, but these also have social and power factors that modify them.

Its not a binary position for women to control, its al relative. If all women covered themselves head to toe in shapeless garments, the woman who let an ankle show would cause a storm. In the west today young girls let much of it hang out within social permitted limits, so legs and cleavage do not get much attention. To really get the boys to react they go further, so the promise in the skimpy clothes usually means they can get some form of sex quite easily without any commitment. Young girls are not as aware of the implications of this behavior as they are when they grow up a bit. The point about men being incapable of controlling themselves. Why do they have to? Unless there are external factors, like social morals, fear of damnation, the girls father or diseas, what gives them any internal mechanism to tell them not to surrender to carnal desire? Its only when something is imposed from their environment that they behave any differently to a dog, there is nothing to suggest innate purity of sexual behavior.

TMB wrote:Its only when something is imposed from their environment that they behave any differently to a dog, there is nothing to suggest innate purity of sexual behavior.

So in your view no man ever declines casual sex out of his own sense of propriety or standards ?

TMB wrote:...The point about men being incapable of controlling themselves. Why do they have to? Unless there are external factors, like social morals, fear of damnation, the girls father or diseas, what gives them any internal mechanism to tell them not to surrender to carnal desire?...

How about the consent of the other party? Having a look is harmless in and of itself but the point of controling our actions is to respect the other parties dignity, a respect brought about by a sense of empathy and a strong desire not to inflict suffering on another.

The logical conclusion for your line of reasoning is; 'she was asking for it, just look at the way she was dressed/all men are penis-wielding potential rapists'. A conclusion I strongly disagree with.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

cherries wrote:

TMB wrote:Like I said at the outset, do you wonder why it is that women are unwilling to accept responsibility for the role they play in sexual enticement of males? There is an answer.

how do you accept responsibility for being attractive

Wear a burkha?

That just results in calls of "Get your nose out for the lads!"

TMB wrote: In the west today young girls let much of it hang out within social permitted limits, so legs and cleavage do not get much attention. To really get the boys to react they go further, so the promise in the skimpy clothes usually means they can get some form of sex quite easily without any commitment. Young girls are not as aware of the implications of this behavior as they are when they grow up a bit.

They're all conforming to fashion. Dressing frumpy or even the wrong shoes with the outfit would make them stand out and inhibit their interactions between peers. That they dress the way they do isn't primarily about attracting men. They want to look good in front of their friends. It's a kind of uniform but more subtle, complex, changeable and varied than any military garment could ever be. With ever varying cues, colour schemes and assorted accessories. The "prize" not going to the one who shows most skin but the most skill in assembling their ensembles.

That's why women like to shop. For very much the same reasons as generals like to plan and beg lots of money from politicians. Tanks, ground to air missiles-shoes and handbags. Same thing although women nearly always spend their own money and for a far worthier cause.

It's not really about men.

TMB wrote: The point about men being incapable of controlling themselves. Why do they have to? Unless there are external factors, like social morals, fear of damnation, the girls father or diseas, what gives them any internal mechanism to tell them not to surrender to carnal desire? Its only when something is imposed from their environment that they behave any differently to a dog, there is nothing to suggest innate purity of sexual behavior.

I think that people with this opinion should learn more about women and learn to enjoy the show. It's fascinating.

cherries wrote:i have no quarrels with most of the rest of your post except that you are generalizing too much.

TMB wrote:Can you provide a qualified answer to show this? I am asking because your point is a generalisation in itself without anything to support it. If you do not think that women act in the way I have described as distinct from men, you should be able to argue and support this.

rachel b.already addressed all that.
i don't see there is such a big difference between men and women anyway,i was brought up not to be "girly" and didn't dress that way,i liked clothes and make up etc but the results were more designed to be repellent rather than attractive,see the new wave punk era
i wonder what kind of people your describing in your observations.

Sgt Kelly wrote:

TMB wrote:Its only when something is imposed from their environment that they behave any differently to a dog, there is nothing to suggest innate purity of sexual behavior.

So in your view no man ever declines casual sex out of his own sense of propriety or standards ?

Where do imagine a person would derive these things independent of their society? Do we have innate moral standards for sex that are hardwired in our genes?