RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/3/2016 11:10:46 PM)

It's easy to see what some of the socks/peewits on here are thinking...........they are all just like the page between the old and the new testament



crumpets -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 12:09:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KinkyForFun
Most women, especially attractive younger ones, are primarily interested in receiving attention from the top 10-15% of men (tall, handsome, well dressed etc). In other words, female interest, or who they want interest from is relative. Not absolute.


The problem is that "dress" per se, is a basal tactic. There's nothing to it. It appeals virtually to all men. Given that the tactic appeals to virtually all men, the tactic alone is NOT going to help them "receive attention from only the top 10-15% of men).

They need to use some other tactic (in addition to the dress tactic) in order to avoid interesting the the other 85-90% of the men.

I wrote to someone in the mail just now this, which was designed to illustrate the inherent problem with non-selective tactics:

quote:


What I gathered from the discussion was a better understanding of the underlying tactics that women employ to achieve their strategic goals.

The huge problem, that I think some women wholly fail to recognize, is that their tactics are so base as to appeal to ALL men. Then, when all men respond, they're creeped out. Well one goes with the other. I tried to underscore that by discussion Maxwell's Equations just now, meaning if the women employed a far more esoteric tactic, then they wouldn't appeal to so many men, and they'd not have the leering creepers to deal with (because they'd be of no interest to those leering creepers).

So, women are doomed to suffer the consequences of the tactics they employ. (BTW, men are doomed to the same type of fate - based on the tactics we employ, so nobody is immune to the consequence of tactics that appeal to too large or too small an audience).


With respect to the perennial complaint of women about objectification, I wrote:
quote:


I don't think I ever said anyone should walk up to anyone else and objectify them; however I did way that if women didn't WANT to be objectified (which I believe is the case), then we have to understand WHY they do things that expose them to objectification.

If I don't want to get into a snowball fight, the very first thing I do is I don't start throwing snowballs at the other kids.

I can't realistically throw those snowballs at EVERYONE (clothing choice in public is non targeted), and then not expect some of the creepers to throw snowballs back.

That's where I opened the thread with the fact that women make no sense. I opened with they THINK that they don't want to be objectified, and then they DO the opposite of what anyone logical and reasonable would do. It was only about five pages in that I realized WHY they did such seemingly illogical things - and then vehemently complained about the perfectly logical (and inevitable) side effects.


With respect to dungeon rules...
quote:


If I throw snowballs at every passing car, but there is a rule that people shouldn't get out of their cars for any reason, then I can reasonably expect to get away with it, just as you can dress sexy in a dungeon which has similar rules.

Or, if there is a rule that, when they do throw the snowballs, they don't do it rudely (e.g., they don't put ice or rocks inside), then that's the other analogy to what you're saying which is that even though you're dressed sexy, you still don't want the creepers leering.

What you're saying is that there are underlying social rules. Sure, you're throwing the snowballs at everyone, and you'll get a reaction out of some, but you still don't want a rude reaction. That only works when/if the rules work. And the rules will only work on those willing to follow the rules (i.e., the higher-class men).


Lastly, we discussed this admittedly touchy subject of cheerleaders not being responsible for their actions.
quote:


We have to be careful here when we talk about cheerleaders, because many of them are innocent impressionable young girls, just 5th, 6th, and 7th graders, who are simply following the directives of an adult coach.

However, at some point, young girls turn into young women and at some point they have to be responsible for their own actions. When does that happen? I don't know. Let's say 18, but, somewhere in the years before or after 18, those "girls" need to turn into "adults" who can decide for themselves if they want to assume a doggy pose in the middle of the stadium in front of thousands of people with their panties sticking up in the air like a proud flag.

At some point they can't blame the coach's choreography anymore; that point is where girls turn into women who can actually take responsibility for what they do.


Someone (me? LC?) brought up Halloween, which is essentially the same concept with respect to non-specific tactics employed to achieve a specific goal.
[image]http://melanysguydlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/happy-national-dress-like-a-hooker-day-halloween-hooker-slut-demotivational-poster-1254892869-300x2381.jpg[/image]




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 2:40:24 AM)

A whole page [#7] of trolling from crumpets.

Of the 20 posts, only 6 were from others.
Two of them were an overflow from the previous page.

He's had several (3? 4?) threads on this very subject and he's ignored everything that everyone has told him previously.

He is sooo obsessed with this subject (and the CS errors, of his own doing) that I'm having to put him on Hide.
Shame. He used to be a good contributor to these forums.



NookieNotes -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 3:11:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
PS: While the strategy is sound, the tactics are bound to leave women forever frustrated, because they have absolutely no control over the rabble that they, themselves, have stirred up. Yet, their incessant seemingly untoward complaints now make absolutely perfect sense. Women will NEVER solve their problem (because of their tactics, they're doomed); but at least the soundness of their strategy makes logical sense out of the seemingly incongruous tactics.


It's only incongruous for some.

I don't mind when people look. Or even comment politely (with decorum, I should say). When they start being lewd or touching, I get annoyed. LOOKING a particular way does not ever invite rudeness or touch without consent. Period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KinkyForFun
"He is a creeper, or creepy"
Closest english male translation: "His sexual market value is to low relative to mine to do what ever it is he did."


THIS made me laugh.


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Cheerleaders doing their job is not sexual.

Let's agree to disagree.

I can prove to you that there isn't a single cheerleader "position" that you can find that I can't find a MILLION pictures of in porn shoots.


You're missing the point.

THE CHEERLEADERS doing the JOB are not being sexual. The job includes sexual positions. THEY are not being sexual.

They are focused on doing their job RIGHT, as it needs to be done, in a VERY competitive field where MALE attention is part of the ROI.

Do you see now?

Let's turn it around. The accountant who has an artistic soul, yet makes good money and supports his family with accounting. Numbers are what he does for work/for a living. Not who he is as a person.

Cheerleading has NOTHING to do with personal dating/attraction tactics is what she's telling you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
At some point they can't blame the coach's choreography anymore; that point is where girls turn into women who can actually take responsibility for what they do.


Yes, and overt sexual moves are PART OF THE JOB. And if they don't do their job well, they lose it.

Again, it's a job, not a personal philosophy. There is no blame. There is fulfilling the requirements and not (and being replaced). Period.



LadyConstanze -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 3:59:27 AM)

You don't get it, others can notice, it still gives them no right to leer.

And as for us dressing up in any way we like, it doesn't make us objects. A guy who doesn't get it is obviously not somebody I would associate with.

Let's assume for a moment that men all of a sudden would find our faces terribly arousing, so would that mean to avoid that we'd all have to wear burkas?

Seriously, it's not our job to hide ourselves just because the odd idiot can't control his impulses.



Cinnamongirl67 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 5:16:59 AM)

Hi Crumpets.
You do seem very obsessed with women's dress.
Let me give you another perspective.
I am a woman 100% heterosexual. I love to watch the cheerleaders. I love the dance, the gymnastics, the smiles, the enthusiasm.
Their job is to get the fans fired up and it's entertaining. It's also their job to look cute.
While I'm enjoying the show, I'm not even thinking about panties.
That brings me to the American football players. Their uniforms don't have their junk hanging out but woohoo, the gluts in the pants are sexy!
This may or may not help. [:D][:D]



Lucylastic -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 5:38:20 AM)

A controversial ‘pick up artist’ who believes ‘rape should be legalised on private property’ has organised events in eight UK cities so like-minded men can meet up.

The anti-feminist blogger Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the name ‘Roosh V’, shares tips on how to ‘pick-up' women on his website – such as “stop asking for permission” – and in his self-published books, which give advice on how to have more sex with women in different countries.


Roosh V labels protesters calling for him to be banned 'stupid'
Some of his titles include Bang: The Pickup Bible That Helps You Get More Lays and Bang Iceland, “a travel guide designed to help you sleep with Icelandic women in Iceland without paying for it”.
One of Valizadeh’s blog posts in February 2015 was widely condemned for advocating legalising rape in order to force women to take responsibility for their security and events “that are easily preventable”. The post, entitled ‘How to stop rape’, said some women would claim they were assaulted the day after having sex just because they felt “awkward, sad, or guilty after a sexual encounter they didn’t fully remember”.

It also claimed women should be made responsible for ensuring they were not raped, instead of teaching men not to rape. “I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds,” he wrote.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/militant-pro-rape-pick-up-artist-has-organised-events-in-eight-uk-cities-a6846716.html

Nothing to do with cheerleaders and nothing to do with creeps and leches. A lot of us have dealt with them since puberty from one kind or another not just girls, but boys too.
They are just frustrated idiots.
When they turn to verbal appreciation, its an eye roll.
When they get verbally nasty and angry or get too close its more troubling, again, that is THEIR lousy reaction but YOU are the object of their righteous ire. Of course its your fault because, yanno....women

By the way, once again Crumpets, You asked the question, women have responded to you, yet you still push your "but cheerleaders"
If you were expecting to get mostly men responding with definitive answers, its clearly an 8 page failure.
AGAIN
you can make all the presumptions you want based on porn and cheerleaders, you are using way too small a sample, of your both evidence and expectations.
It would be so nice if women could have freedom of expression without getting hit on by people who shouldnt believe what they think, let alone voice it.







CodeOfSilence -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 6:20:09 AM)

Sexualization is a form of self expression.


I'm not even sure what's going on here since I'm not reading this entire thread but if you're arguing that there isn't hypocricy in the societial vis-á-vis individual level then your willfully ignorant to the fact.
It's the same old hypocrisy that exists everywhere, frankly making life easier the bigger asshole you are.

It's the reason why there are leaks of tearful reporters crying their eyes out over some tragedy while when they think they're off camera insult the victims while at the same time pretending to be offended when someone comes in with a FHRITP or what ever else it may be.
Why politicians like Cameron lead supposedly conservative parties while getting wasted naked in weird masks and fucking pigs.
This is why a certain breed of females will use Sex in both ways. To entice and to accuse. (Julian Assange and the two bitches that screwed him over come to mind.)
Or men, like the ones that you posted above, that will entice, fuck and then discard bodies and hearts.



People like crumpets can't understand why people would manipulate others while some other people are bloody blind to the manipulation itself.

Now the majority of people are somewhere in between. And I do not mean in between manipulating and not manipulating people. I mean in between these values. A normal value system would mean public and private life would be more similar, just like it is in a smaller town where people really know each other. But in big cities and on the global stage there is the public life and there is those who use it to their advantage while really caring far less than anyone else.

edit: Further more, it is this sick society based on manipulation that pushes even normal people into doing things they not necessarily would do in a normal case. We manipulate feelings, achievements, opinions ....just to fit in, to get a job, to get a BF or GF in all the competition that there is. Competition full of dishonesty.
And so on one side we accuse, on the other side we entice.



Lucylastic -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 6:25:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

Sexualization is a form of self expression.


I'm not even sure what's going on here since I'm not reading this entire thread but if you're arguing that there isn't hypocricy in the societial vis-á-vis individual level then your willfully ignorant to the fact.
It's the same old hypocrisy that exists everywhere, frankly making life easier the bigger asshole you are.

It's the reason why there are leaks of tearful reporters crying their eyes out over some tragedy while when they think they're off camera insult the victims while at the same time pretending to be offended when someone comes in with a FHRITP or what ever else it may be.
Why politicians like Cameron lead supposedly conservative parties while getting wasted naked in weird masks and fucking pigs.
This is why a certain breed of females will use Sex in both ways. To entice and to accuse.
Or men, like the ones that you posted above, that will entice, fuck and then discard bodies and hearts.
Im not arguing


People like crumpets can't understand why people would manipulate others while some other people are bloody blind to the manipulation itself.

Now the majority of people are somewhere in between. And I do not mean in between manipulating and not manipulating people. I mean in between these values. A normal value system would mean public and private life would be more similar, just like it is in a smaller town where people really know each other. But in big cities and on the global stage there is the public life and there is those who use it to their advantage while really caring far less than anyone else.



LOL no Im not arguing there isnt hypocrisy, im neither wilfully ignorant.
sorry.



CodeOfSilence -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 6:32:04 AM)

What's then this crap about "if women could have freedom of expression without getting hit on by people who shouldnt believe what they think, let alone voice it. "?



The psychological mindfuck that would be. So you want women to potentially dress in sexualized clothes in pubs and clubs without having men flirting with them?
That's precisely the hypocrisy I'm talking about.

Normal women dress sexy because they want to be PERCEIVED as sexy. You dress to look.
When I dress in some fine shit I want people to notice it, I do not want people to ignore it and "mind their own business".
Frankly I do not go to feasts or pubs to "mind my own business" to begin with.
Someone dressing very revealingly and not wanting the attention is either confused or worse.


If you do not want the attention I suggest you do as per Gretas advice.

______________________________


And someone mentioned faces. Again Greta has made the point for me. She does not wear makeup when she does not want the attention.
Not all makeup screams "Look at me, I want to suck your dick" but some does. Other make up is there to improve your lines, make you look more classy, give an artsy feeling or what ever it may be. All art, even makeup or moda comes or should come with an intention.

I further don't think that there's a real issue with people finding peoples faces or bodies in general so alluring that they can't help themselves.



Lucylastic -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 7:27:41 AM)




What's then this crap about "if women could have freedom of expression without getting hit on by people who shouldnt believe what they think, let alone voice it. "?

That people should be able to keep their hands to themselves around people they dont know. And that their sexual thoughts are only important to them. But jump to conclusions why dont you.



The psychological mindfuck that would be. So you want women to potentially dress in sexualized clothes in pubs and clubs without having men flirting with them?

Please show anything where I have stated such.
Everything can be sexualised, thats why they have a word for it. "fetish"



Normal women dress sexy because they want to be PERCEIVED as sexy. You dress to look.
Yes. I dont dress to be verbally denigrated, touched or assaulted.

When I dress in some fine shit I want people to notice it, I do not want people to ignore it and "mind their own business".
Frankly I do not go to feasts or pubs to "mind my own business" to begin with.
Someone dressing very revealingly and not wanting the attention is either confused or worse.

I most certainly have dressed "sluttily" too many times to count, I dont regret it, and I certainly am not encouraging anyone not to "flirt"
Im a very sexual being, however I will never be happy with a nonconsensual person, who wont take no for an answer.


If you do not want the attention I suggest you do as per Gretas advice.
You can suggest all you like.
I further don't think that there's a real issue with people finding peoples faces or bodies in general so alluring that they can't help themselves.
oh FFS why not look at the crime stats.



CodeOfSilence -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 8:16:52 AM)

Why do you dress "sluttily" while expecting people not to treat you a slut?

Talk about postmodernist confusion.

There are men who are complete dickheads, but there are the women that still love them and fuck them.
It would be a good idea not to dress like their type. Or challenge that demographic for control over that type of style.



Personally I deeply dislike the disjointing of everything in our society. Feel free to tell us what signals you wish to send by dressing "sluttily" and if there are no signals, why are you so mindless? Why style without substance?
Is it perhaps that you just like the way your legs or tits look in those styles? So you're dressing for yourself to look at yourself? Because comfort it isn't.


I'm jumping to conclusions because there are blanks that need to be filled. Feel free to fill them yourself.

I'd say that subconsciously you'd like to have your brains fuck out. At least in the general sense. You here being the general woman of this type.
Now that doesn't mean you'd want to be touched or fucked by anyone nor that anyone has the right to touch or denigrate you in any way you do not want.
But not even wanting the signals or the flirtation? Then you're in the wrong ballpark.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 8:24:00 AM)

To add to Lucy's post -
quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
I further don't think that there's a real issue with people finding peoples faces or bodies in general so alluring that they can't help themselves.

Then they don't belong to a civilized human race.
People that can't help themselves need locking up. Period.
It's about time that these 'people' (usually stupid men with retarded pea-brains) learned that this is NOT acceptable behaviour in today's modern society.
Personally, I'd have them all strung up by the bollocks with rusty razor wire.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
But not even wanting the signals or the flirtation? Then you're in the wrong ballpark.

No... You're reading the signals wrongly.
There's a HUGE difference between thinking about what you'd like to do (fantasy) and actually thinking it's Ok to actually do it, and sometimes carry through with it.



CodeOfSilence -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 8:30:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


To add to Lucy's post -
quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
I further don't think that there's a real issue with people finding peoples faces or bodies in general so alluring that they can't help themselves.

Then they don't belong to a civilized human race.
People that can't help themselves need locking up. Period.
It's about time that these 'people' (usually stupid men with retarded pea-brains) learned that this is NOT acceptable behaviour in today's modern society.
Personally, I'd have them all strung up by the bollocks with rusty razor wire.



I said that there isn't a great deal of those issues out there. People can mostly control yourself. But your views are obviously tilted and warped. The massrape for example that the Soviet Army committed in Germany shows that perfectly normal men, even bred in an atmosphere of "socialist equality" can, with a little bit of hatred, deprivation and group pressure commit heinous stuff.

That shit is never acceptable. Not just in "our modern society" god fucking damnit.


quote:

No... You're reading the signals wrongly.
There's a HUGE difference between thinking about what you'd like to do (fantasy) and actually thinking it's Ok to actually do it, and sometimes carry through with it.


What are you talking about? The normal HEALTHY thing is to advertise ones intentions with the way one dresses and behaves. Normal social competence will mean that as you progress in a conversation or flirtation you read signals and see how far you two want to take it.

The normal healthy thing is that if I'm in the mood of finding me a partner I advertise it with my behaviour and she advertises it with hers.
Not acting like some confused post-modernist feminist hypocrite and sending dual signals. Which thank god, does NOT happen too often.
Generally speaking, in the real world, girls without a man (or today woman) lover with them will dress and act according to their aims and goals. And that's good, what you are suggesting is sick.


In fact, really normal, healthy, homogeneous societies with hundreds of years or more of developed culture tended to have specific dresses, behaviours and rituals for this type of thing. From Africa to Europe. Asia to America. Precisely so that there wouldn't be any little confused people like you, crumpet or Lucy or the rapists of Cologne or frankly your communal little clusterfuck.



LadyPact -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 8:38:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
Why do you dress "sluttily" while expecting people not to treat you a slut?

Talk about postmodernist confusion.

There are men who are complete dickheads, but there are the women that still love them and fuck them.
It would be a good idea not to dress like their type. Or challenge that demographic for control over that type of style.



Personally I deeply dislike the disjointing of everything in our society. Feel free to tell us what signals you wish to send by dressing "sluttily" and if there are no signals, why are you so mindless? Why style without substance?
Is it perhaps that you just like the way your legs or tits look in those styles? So you're dressing for yourself to look at yourself? Because comfort it isn't.


I'm jumping to conclusions because there are blanks that need to be filled. Feel free to fill them yourself.

I'd say that subconsciously you'd like to have your brains fuck out. At least in the general sense. You here being the general woman of this type.
Now that doesn't mean you'd want to be touched or fucked by anyone nor that anyone has the right to touch or denigrate you in any way you do not want.
But not even wanting the signals or the flirtation? Then you're in the wrong ballpark.

This is a bit more than the scope of the thread but I am going to disagree with you on one point. I am absolutely in support of the gals who dress in very little during the walks/rallies to raise awareness about consent. Literally, the ones with the signs that say "Even if I'm dressed like this, you still have to get my consent to touch me." To me, that is a powerful message. While I'm greatly disappointed that it's a message that has to be sent, I can't disagree that it's something that is necessary.




CodeOfSilence -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 8:46:05 AM)

Well, it's not necessarily a bad thing in a demonstration to make a point. And while I think that the whole "touching is raping" hysteria has gone too far I'll still agree with the general message.

But I do not see the point in dressing like a quote on quote "slut" while not wanting to be identified as a "slut". Not only don't I see a point but I see this type of reconstruction of words, behaviours and their cultural significance as a direct societal threat.
This being perhaps the least concerning aspect of a much wider campaign to rip apart classes, genders, families, traditions and much more so that the glue which is our communal relationships with each other is destroyed.

This is done by creating out of one many cultures. Making each person his or her own identity*, ending generalization and the ability to at a glance relate to others. Back to...slut!
IMO people have the right to be slutty *both guys and gals* but not the right to reconstruct the meaning of "slut".




*As opposed to each person contributing to the identity that the whole Community feels apart of.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 8:55:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


To add to Lucy's post -
quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
I further don't think that there's a real issue with people finding peoples faces or bodies in general so alluring that they can't help themselves.

Then they don't belong to a civilized human race.
People that can't help themselves need locking up. Period.
It's about time that these 'people' (usually stupid men with retarded pea-brains) learned that this is NOT acceptable behaviour in today's modern society.
Personally, I'd have them all strung up by the bollocks with rusty razor wire.



I said that there isn't a great deal of those issues out there. People can mostly control yourself. But your views are obviously tilted and warped. The massrape for example that the Soviet Army committed in Germany shows that perfectly normal men, even bred in an atmosphere of "socialist equality" can, with a little bit of hatred, deprivation and group pressure commit heinous stuff.

That shit is never acceptable. Not just in "our modern society" god fucking damnit.


quote:

No... You're reading the signals wrongly.
There's a HUGE difference between thinking about what you'd like to do (fantasy) and actually thinking it's Ok to actually do it, and sometimes carry through with it.


What are you talking about? The normal HEALTHY thing is to advertise ones intentions with the way one dresses and behaves. Normal social competence will mean that as you progress in a conversation or flirtation you read signals and see how far you two want to take it.

The normal healthy thing is that if I'm in the mood of finding me a partner I advertise it with my behaviour and she advertises it with hers.
Not acting like some confused post-modernist feminist hypocrite and sending dual signals. Which thank god, does NOT happen too often.
Generally speaking, in the real world, girls without a man (or today woman) lover with them will dress and act according to their aims and goals. And that's good, what you are suggesting is sick.


In fact, really normal, healthy, homogeneous societies with hundreds of years or more of developed culture tended to have specific dresses, behaviours and rituals for this type of thing. From Africa to Europe. Asia to America. Precisely so that there wouldn't be any little confused people like you, crumpet or Lucy or the rapists of Cologne or frankly your communal little clusterfuck.

Nope.
It's these nuances that are escaping you and crumpets.
Not every woman dresses to attract a mate and in most circumstances, they might actually enjoy the attention that the way they are dressed is pleasing to others.
In the majority of cases, either the job description is forcing the behaviour (aka, cheer leaders, waitresses etc), or, they are dressing for themselves.

But, that little nuance is the huge difference between having a fantasy (and keeping it to yourself) and actually thinking it is Ok to behave in a manner that is disrespectful - either with leering looks or making an approach that is inappropriate.
You are making the (bad) assumption that the intention of dressing in such a manner is purely to 'advertise' the intention of picking up a mate or suitable partner.
What we are saying is that it may not (and quite likely not) be the intention.

Sure, in an intimate setting between the two of you, your comments may hold true.
But in general, they are not appropriate outside of that particular context.

Women (or men for that matter) should be able to walk around naked without getting leered at or physically approached with the intent to touch.
However, such dress sense are deemed in our society to be inappropriate unless in the recognised/approved settings.



Lucylastic -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 9:00:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

Why do you dress "sluttily" while expecting people not to treat you a slut?

Talk about postmodernist confusion.

There are men who are complete dickheads, but there are the women that still love them and fuck them.
It would be a good idea not to dress like their type. Or challenge that demographic for control over that type of style.



Personally I deeply dislike the disjointing of everything in our society. Feel free to tell us what signals you wish to send by dressing "sluttily" and if there are no signals, why are you so mindless? Why style without substance?
Is it perhaps that you just like the way your legs or tits look in those styles? So you're dressing for yourself to look at yourself? Because comfort it isn't.


I'm jumping to conclusions because there are blanks that need to be filled. Feel free to fill them yourself.

I'd say that subconsciously you'd like to have your brains fuck out. At least in the general sense. You here being the general woman of this type.
Now that doesn't mean you'd want to be touched or fucked by anyone nor that anyone has the right to touch or denigrate you in any way you do not want.
But not even wanting the signals or the flirtation? Then you're in the wrong ballpark.

your whole post is premised on flirtation.... mine isnt.
Sorry you are blind to what is actually being said.

[image]https://media.giphy.com/media/KFBo5UbG5z6tG/giphy.gif[/image]



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 9:09:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Yes. I dont dress to be verbally denigrated, touched or assaulted.



While you have a right to not be touched without your consent, you do not have the right to not be talked to without your consent.

Dressing in a manner that inspires men to want to make lewd comments, and then bitching when they do make them is nonsensical.

You do not have the right to not be commented on.

If you wish to not be commented on, either do not dress in a manner which will necessarily increase the rate at which you receive such comments OR do not go to places where there's an increase in the number of men who'll make such comment.

But either way, you do not have the right to expect other people to be silent in public, just because you don't happen to like what they've got to say.











[Edited to add] Crumpets, read you damn emails!



Lucylastic -> RE: Someone please explain to me what women are thinking (2/4/2016 9:17:52 AM)

PS...
Slut means woman who has many sex partners.
or a bad hygiene issue.
My use of "sluttily" is from the millions of assumptions that revealing clothing means a chick is open for anyone. Of course its also used as a derogatory term from people , upset after being rebuffed, who cant believe someone said no to them..
flirting is NOT the damn issue.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625