A Rare Bit Of Realism On Female Sexual Display
Great piece by Heather E. Heying at Quillette on what she calls "toxic femininity":
Sex and gender roles have been formed over hundreds of thousands of years in human evolution, indeed, over hundreds of millions of years in our animal lineage. Aspects of those roles are in rapid flux, but ancient truths still exist. Historical appetites and desires persist. Straight men will look at beautiful women, especially if those women are a) young and hot and b) actively displaying. Display invites attention.Hotness-amplifying femininity puts on a full display, advertising fertility and urgent sexuality. It invites male attention by, for instance, revealing flesh, or by painting on signals of sexual receptivity. This, I would argue, is inviting trouble. No, I did not just say that she was asking for it. I did, however, just say that she was displaying herself, and of course she was going to get looked at.
The amplification of hotness is not, in and of itself, toxic, although personally, I don't respect it, and never have. Hotness fades, wisdom grows-- wise young women will invest accordingly. Femininity becomes toxic when it cries foul, chastising men for responding to a provocative display.
Where we set our boundaries is a question about which reasonable people might disagree, but two bright-lines are widely agreed upon: Every woman has the right not to be touched if she does not wish to be; and coercive quid pro quo, in which sexual favors are demanded for the possibility of career advancement, is unacceptable. But when women doll themselves up in clothes that highlight sexually-selected anatomy, and put on make-up that hints at impending orgasm, it is toxic--yes, toxic--to demand that men do not look, do not approach, do not query.
Young women have vast sexual power. Everyone who is being honest with themselves knows this: Women in their sexual prime who are anywhere near the beauty-norms for their culture have a kind of power that nobody else has. They are also all but certain to lack the wisdom to manage it. Toxic femininity is an abuse of that power, in which hotness is maximized, and victim status is then claimed when straight men don't treat them as peers.
Oh, and I fucking love this example -- and Heying's response:
I had a student on one of my study abroad trips who had a perennial problem with clothing. She was never wearing enough of it. She was smart, athletic, and beautiful, but also intent on advertising hotness at all moments. At a field station in a jungle in Latin America, she approached me to complain that the local men were looking at her. The rest of us were wearing field gear--a distinctly unrevealing and unsexy garb. She was in a swimsuit. "Put on more clothes," I told her. She was aghast. She wanted me to change the men, to talk to them about where to point their eyes. Here in their home, where we were visitors, and one of the gringos had shown up nearly naked, she wanted the men to change.
This is what it's come to -- the most unreasonable demand by countless women that they live with a sort of forcefield around them, that they can do anything, wear anything, and no man *should* respond in any way. Not even with a flicker of a look.
This.
Conan the Grammarian at July 9, 2018 9:58 PM
Long thick eyelashes mimic higher levels of testosterone in women which signals a biologically driven higher interest in sex
lujlp at July 9, 2018 11:33 PM
I would disagree that hotness amplifying is not always toxic.
I think it depends.
Foot harm is one that comes up, be it super high heels or binding. That is incredibly harmful. I know so many old women with serious foot problems, not so much the old men.
Corsets when well-fitted are fine. When the fashion is for super tight lacing not so much.
In addition if cultural standards involve a routine that takes too long, it could be to the detriment of spending time on more important things.
I think it's OK to question excess, and question how much emphasis we spend on it, and in addition remember that what is considered beautiful changes from culture to culture and time period to time period.
Otherwise, sure, making yourself beautiful is a good thing.
NicoleK at July 10, 2018 1:43 AM
When you go somewhere, you respect the local culture.
NicoleK at July 10, 2018 4:10 AM
Oooh, thoughtcrime. I see some reeducation in Heather's future. Wonder which camp she'll be sent to?
roadgeek at July 10, 2018 4:47 AM
"... that they can do anything, wear anything, and no man *should* respond in any way. Not even with a flicker of a look."
Not quite. Even men not responding is not acceptable. They want the ability to control all men they interact with. And don't understand just how totalitarian as well as impossible that is. This lady didn't want no one to respond. She wanted only the 'right' men to respond.
On a somewhat similar note, NPR had a story about a new line of sexy, sassy, oil field coveralls someone is selling. Apparently all of the current coveralls are to boxy and manish. So female rig workers don't feel feminine. I applaud the creator for her entrepreneurial spirit. But the very vast majority of rig workers are men. So I don't see much of a market for this line of clothing. Also, after working for over 24 hours solid on a giant bomb and getting covered in tar and grease looking sexy isn't an issue I would have considered. Sleep, food, a way to clean your hands and face so you aren't eating god know what chemicals, and especially for women the bathroom issue (i.e. there isn't one) are all issues I knew about. But not looking sexy enough wasn't one of them. But hey, more power to them.
Ben at July 10, 2018 7:11 AM
...and no man *should* respond in any way. Not even with a flicker of a look.
In the not-so-distant future, the outrage and man-blaming will be double when a woman who wants some attention doesn't get it.
bkmale at July 10, 2018 7:17 AM
I've recently seen this play out on Facebook, with a young woman ranting that just because she dolls herself up and dresses attractively, that doesn't give "dudes" (which has apparently become the new feminist derogatory term for men) to attempt to interact with her. When asked for an explanation, she says, "I don't do it for you; I do it for myself". Which makes no sense; if you were on a planet by yourself, would you still dress to be attractive? Not likely, because there would be no point. You want male attention -- but you want it to be entirely on your terms. Sorry, sister.
I've written before that a problem that we have in today's society is that there is almost nothing a young man can do to bring his social status up to that of his female peers. The only thing he can do is age into it, as he gains work experience and his wages increase. By the time he has enough status to be on a level with his female cohort, the females are losing their youthful beauty and are headed down the social status ladder. Neither situation is conducive to good social or personal relations.
The big danger for young women, although not that many seem to realize it, is that they might get their wish -- their male cohort will adopt a stance of ignoring them, no matter what they do to try to make themselves attractive. This is already happening at colleges. We see complaints from college women about how the men on campus either see them solely as meat, or pay no attention to them at all, which means no dates. The bigger but unseen problem there is the men who decide not to attend college in the first place, due to the (perceived or real) reputational and legal risk of interacting with college women. Some of those men will go to trade schools (where there are few women around); in a few years, the diligent ones will have a lucrative trade, but almost no interaction with their female cohort. If they didn't marry in high school, they probably aren't going to get married.
Cousin Dave at July 10, 2018 7:38 AM
When asked for an explanation, she says, "I don't do it for you; I do it for myself". Which makes no sense; if you were on a planet by yourself, would you still dress to be attractive? Not likely, because there would be no point.
________________________________________
Well, it's been said that women dress to impress/annoy OTHER women, not for men.
And the 1950s idea of women vacuuming in heels and pearls didn't likely come out of nowhere.
______________________________________
If they didn't marry in high school, they probably aren't going to get married.
__________________________________________
Huh? In THIS century, people who get married in their teens will usually all get divorced - soon.
lenona at July 10, 2018 9:48 AM
Forgot to say - well said, NicoleK!
lenona at July 10, 2018 9:55 AM
Well, we got it mostly from Leave It to Beaver reruns.
Barbara Billingsley wore a pearl necklace in the show all the time - to cover a hollow in her neck that she didn't want people to see.
She wore high heels all the time on the show because the two boys on the show were growing taller than she was and she didn't want her character to be shorter than her sons.
Conan the Grammarian at July 10, 2018 10:02 AM
When asked for an explanation, she says, "I don't do it for you; I do it for myself".
She does it for herself, so that she can compete against her age cohort. She's dressing for the women in her circle and/or other competitors for male attention. She's attempting to state I'm better than you. And to get her pick of the men available, if she deems them suitable.
Ben is really onto something when he states She wanted only the 'right' men to respond. You may know just how true that is.
When I first moved to Florida, I was close enough to the beach to go frequently. And the eye candy was spectacular. And often enough, said eye candy would glower at you if you were a little too obvious checking them out.
I'm sure if I looked wealthy I would have gotten a different look.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 10, 2018 11:23 AM
What will we hear when women get the equality with men they have been fighting for? Cries of anguish. But don't worry, gals. You will continue to have your cake and eat it, too -- until it all falls apart.
Jay R at July 10, 2018 11:25 AM
This lady didn't want no one to respond. She wanted only the 'right' men to respond.
As Crid might put it: ☑
The woman in the swimsuit didn't perceive high mate value in the natives, so she complained about them ogling her. If they all looked like Antonio Banderas or some other male hottie, things might have been entirely different.
mpetrie98 at July 10, 2018 2:18 PM
In the not-so-distant future, the outrage and man-blaming will be double when a woman who wants some attention doesn't get it. - bkmale
What do you mean future? Its already a form of sexual assault on college campuses to refuse to fuck a woman who wants it
lujlp at July 10, 2018 2:41 PM
> respect the local culture.
When internet first happened in my own personal computer, I kind of dug a woman on Salon as the kind of funny & cosmopolitan voice who'd been excluded from mundane publishing and broadcasting... She was hip and verbal and pleasantly sarcastic. This anecdote was an early clue that not all the perky young things were equipped with the awareness to blossom into an broadly beloved figures in new media:
Crid at July 11, 2018 12:43 AM
Outright staring is rude.
However, dressing inappropriately for the occasion is going to attract staring. If everyone else is wearing jeans and a tshirt, bikinins are not appropriate attire. Obviously there's some flexibility, but in general if you're not wearing clothes in the same "category" as the people around you, people are going to stare. This is true whether you are attractive or not. If you wear a corset and garter belt to yoga class, people are gonna stare. If you wear a ski suit to the beach in July, you're gonna get looks, even leaving the sexiness out of.
That said, it doesn't excuse bad manners, openly ogling and commenting on people, whether because they are weird-looking, sexy-looking or anything else, is rude and obnoxious. Guys don't get a pass because evopsych. The men know it is rude, look at how they tend to react when someone does it to their sister.
If we're evopsyching... has anyone looked into the relationship between how likely someone will approach you and status? If a guy open ogles you, gropes you, etc, there's this sort of assumption he thinks you are a prostitute or low-status woman, available for the taking. It isn't just that you are beautiful, it is that you are perceived to be low.
And Amy, I have to say, you spend an awful lot of time telling women they should wear high heels, make-up, and all the display trappings, and now you seem to be saying if they do then they deserve to be hassled by leering guys. Am I reading your message wrong? Because it feels like a no-win situation.
Anyhow, my summary is: Don't dress drastically different than the other people in the situation, and don't be rude to the people who do.
NicoleK at July 11, 2018 3:40 AM
"When I first moved to Florida, I was close enough to the beach to go frequently. And the eye candy was spectacular. And often enough, said eye candy would glower at you if you were a little too obvious checking them out."
I'm familiar with that phenomenon. I lived in South Florida in the '80s. The problem there is, South Florida is attractive to phonies and con artists of all stripes, so the golddiggers and the trap-women were all in the same general category with the boiler room operators, the Ponzi scheme guys, the scam-artist contractors, and the fly-by-night insurance companies.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2018 7:02 AM
> Outright staring is rude.
Yeah, but thing is, the rest of the world never promised that it would resist casting rudeness toward us if we arrive in stimulating or unusual clothing.
I got busted about five years ago in a Mexican restaurant. The woman looked like a nutritious, enriching sex plaything, one sent from Heaven just to distract me from the unremarkable burrito. I stared; her boyfriend got pissed. I can't even remember what he said, but it was something sarcastic like, Shit, Dude, so now are you just gonna ex-why-zee?? (Take her out, kiss her face, something like that.) I was only a little embarrassed, because she looked like a piece of candy, and they were leaving anyway. She said, "Honey, don't worry about it" to him as she rose from their table.
The Brotherhood has boundaries.
Crid at July 11, 2018 7:05 AM
"And Amy, I have to say, you spend an awful lot of time telling women they should wear high heels, make-up, and all the display trappings, and now you seem to be saying if they do then they deserve to be hassled by leering guys. Am I reading your message wrong? Because it feels like a no-win situation."
Well, the analogous situation for guys is: Pay attention to women, but only how and when she wants it. What you want doesn't enter into the picture.
"If a guy open ogles you, gropes you, etc, there's this sort of assumption he thinks you are a prostitute or low-status woman, available for the taking. "
I think it's less that he considers the woman low status as such -- the error is that he has a wildly inflated opinion of his own status. (Let's face it; sufficiently high-status men can usually get away with that behavior.) It's sort of the Dunning-Krueger Effect of social status.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2018 7:07 AM
- an
Crid at July 11, 2018 8:50 AM
Its already a form of sexual assault on college campuses to refuse to fuck a woman who wants it
______________________________________
Luj, that's a lie and you know it. Why are you talking like that? Don't say that until it becomes a LAW. (Believe me, it won't.)
lenona at July 11, 2018 11:36 AM
Oh, Lenona, often wrong, but never in doubt.
A man withholding sex from his partner is now considered domestic abuse. Feminists make no distinction between degrees of "abuse", so withholding sex = assault as a practical matter, notwithstanding the criminal standards.
Jay R at July 11, 2018 3:20 PM
Here you go lenona (what do you want to bet she doesnt respond JayR?)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/09/withholding-sex-now-considered-sexual-violence-u-m-katherine-timpf/
lujlp at July 11, 2018 3:58 PM
Reminds me of a discussion I had a while ago on the economics of dating. Her claim was men should pay for dates because women had so many costs to get ready for dates: makeup, clothes etc. My counter was men had to have a good car and a good home/apt. But I see now I should have argued the makeup clothes, etc shouldn't count because 'she does it for herself'.
Joe j at July 11, 2018 4:27 PM
"coercive quid pro quo, in which sexual favors are demanded for the possibility of career advancement, is unacceptable."
Of course, there are women who offer sexual favors, unsolicited, for career advancement, and that's OK.
Again, everything has to be on their terms.
bw1 at July 11, 2018 8:17 PM
Lenona, at least one victim of the collegiate Title IX witch hunt is accused of sexual misconduct for refusing to have sex with a woman without a condom.
bw1 at July 11, 2018 8:21 PM
Who considers withholding sex domestic abuse?!
NicoleK at July 12, 2018 4:25 AM
Who considers withholding sex domestic abuse?!
A woman with an agenda or hurt feelz.
bkmale at July 12, 2018 7:25 AM
Luj, if you'd bothered to include that link beforehand (or post it in previous threads - a lot - which, oddly, you didn't) I'd have been less skeptical. Especially considering you were the one talking.
At any rate, it's still not the law of the land, per se.
lenona at July 12, 2018 7:52 AM
On the subject of "dressing for myself," here's something else I consider relevant. It's from "Sexual Etiquette" by Tom Carey, pub. 1987, page 74.
(Yes, I know anatomy isn't the same as clothes, but anyway...)
Q: "My wife seems obsessed with the size of her breasts. She thinks they're too small. They seem all right to me. How can I convince her that size doesn't matter to me?"
A: "I sincerely doubt she wants larger breasts for you. YOU wouldn't have to haul them around, she would. She wants them because she wants to look better, period.
"There is no woman on this Earth who doesn't believe her breasts are too small, big, flat, round, pointed, saggy, etc...
"Luckily, there is no real etiquette problem involved here. It is ALWAYS rude to comment on a lady's breasts, even favorably..."
lenona at July 12, 2018 7:58 AM
Oh, bw1, can you track down that case? All I found was something that seemed to be almost the opposite.
http://www.passhe.edu/PACT/Documents/Title%20IX%20Training%20-%20PACT%20(Oct%202017%20v2).pdf
DUE PROCESS: CONSENT
QUICK CASE SUMMARY
▪
“[Petitioner and complainant] began kissing”
▪
“After a while, the complainant took off both of their shirts”
▪
“Petitioner then removed the rest of their clothing and
asked [her] if she had any condoms, to which she replied
that she did not but that it was ‘fine’ and no reason to worry.”
▪
“The complainant then straddled petitioner from above
while they had sex and, after it was over, asked petitioner if
he had fun.”
-
Haug v. SUNY Potsdam
,
2017 WL
1255697
at
*2.
lenona at July 12, 2018 8:04 AM
Lenona while I cannot find anything online anymore I also remember the expelled for not having sex one. The rough argument was school title IX hearings are not actual courts so they can do whatever the heck they want. Who ever files first wins. So actual facts don't matter. Since she filed first he was expelled.
In a similar vein you can look up the one about the guy who was passed out drunk and was forcibly given a bj, so he was expelled for rape.
And it goes both ways sometimes. Recently there was a situation where a guy and girl had a few drinks and slept together. They sobered up the next day and the guy freaked out since he had read about all these title ix cases and filed rape charges against her. And for him it was a good thing too since she filed a little later. But he filed first so she was expelled. The fact that they both did the exact same thing doesn't matter.
Ben at July 12, 2018 4:01 PM
I'd have been less skeptical. Especially considering you were the one talking.
___________________________________
For the record, I'd have been a little less skeptical if Crid had said it, despite his class-clown tendencies.
lenona at July 12, 2018 5:44 PM
I'd have been less skeptical. Especially considering you were the one talking
Really, because I doubt you could find any post of mine where I was wrong about factual claims
lujlp at July 12, 2018 11:12 PM
What did you say in the other thread about people not kissing your ass. ;)
Incidentally someone at MIT actually came up with a pill that could make your farts come out scented. They had mint, banana, among other scents. The stuff was never marketed much less sold since it was mostly a concept project. It would probably give you cancer or something. So no flying cars yet but someday we may have bubblicious farts.
Ben at July 13, 2018 8:35 AM
At least one person here has called you a "lunatic," that's why.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/06/17/25_years_on_the.html
Btw, if it were Conan, I'd also have been less skeptical. Not so with the man here who said more than once, in 2013: "No woman in the Western hemisphere need bear a child if she doesn't want to."
As if the Western Hemisphere didn't include Ireland. (Yes, I know the laws got loosened this May.)
But even in the Americas...there are these countries (according to the Guttmacher Institute):
"Abortion is not permitted for any reason in six countries. Nine others allow it almost exclusively to save the woman’s life, with only some offering limited exceptions for rape (Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Panama) and grave fetal anomaly (Chile, Panama and almost half of the states of Mexico)."
lenona at July 13, 2018 2:45 PM
Here's the link:
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-latin-america-and-caribbean
And from Weforum:
"But 26 countries still ban abortion altogether, with no explicit legal reason for exception, according to The Guttmacher Institute. A pregnant woman living in the following states cannot legally terminate a pregnancy, even if it was the result of rape or incest, and whatever the consequences to her own health:
"Andorra; Malta; San Marino; Angola; Congo-Brazzaville; Congo-Kinshasa; Egypt; Gabon; Guinea-Bissau; Madagascar; Mauritania; São Tomé & Príncipe; Senegal; Iraq; Laos; Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Palau; Philippines; Tonga; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Haiti; Honduras; Nicaragua; and Suriname.
"The Center for Reproductive Rights' World Abortion Laws Map 2018 shows the legal situation across the globe."
lenona at July 13, 2018 2:49 PM
lenona you are a gender bigot, your bias is apparent to everyone, you accept in women behavior you claim criminal when exhibited by men, for no other reason than sex
The person who called me a lunatic was perturbed that I suggested the guy who did everything in his power to stay within the law shouldnt be the one punished but the one who lied, ie the female
She was of the opinion that the law was the law, even though in his sentencing the judge made it clear he was punishing the guy for looking for a hook up, not for statutory rape
But again, I doubt you can find a post where I was wrong on a matter of FACT regardless of the vehemence of my argument
lujlp at July 13, 2018 11:30 PM
Regarding your first sentence, kindly give an example or two. (You're the only person that I can remember here who uses vulgarities against me.)
And regarding the statutory rape case, most people in the thread seemed to agree that it's better to be a little too strict than too lenient when it comes to laws in general - and young people. Or, as my favorite columnist said: "When a society abandons its ideals just because most people can't live up to them, behavior gets very ugly indeed." (She wasn't talking about the law, per se.)
Also, regarding vehemence, since that is part of almost every post of yours, why SHOULDN'T people think of you as pretty unstable?
lenona at July 14, 2018 10:06 AM
OK, proof that your bias is known to everyone
__________________________________
Lenona, the problem is that every time Amy posts something about how men's rights are being violated in the academy (or elsewhere), you come along with one of these posts that I'm sure you think of as providing "balance". However, it very much comes across as an attempt to deflect attention from the issue with a "women always have it worse" gainsay. It makes you look like the sort of feminist propagandist that a lot of men, and some women, have gotten sick of because of that good/evil splitting thing that refuses to acknowledge the humanity of "the other". An expression of sympathy that isn't immediately followed by a "but... " statement would be appreciated at times.
Cousin Dave at October 4, 2016 7:56 AM
__________________________________
She then told me that was ridicuclous, and I told her she had been reading too many idiot women’s magazines. Like Lenona does....
Isab at March 1, 2018 4:15 PM
__________________________________
Well, we do stand rebutted, Lenona. I just can't argue with the overwhelming evidence presented in a "1984 TV movie." The only way you could be more persuasive is to start that sentence with something like "My mothers best friends cousin told me..."
The WolfMan at March 5, 2014 3:13 PM
__________________________________
Thanks Lenona.
Like Wolfman, I, too, had never thought rape was okay.
But then I was exposed to violent anti-womyn media propaganda like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM-lxsxeXBI
I'd say more but I have to get ready for the Number 6 dance.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 7, 2014 9:09 AM
__________________________________
I'm on leave, Lenona. I don't have time to pick my way through the cloud of your rhetorical smoke bombs.
But I will say this - I don't listen to rap music. I find it to be corrosive, unlistenable noise. I had long since come to grips with the idea that this made me a racist. I am stunned to realize that the mere existence of rap music puts me in need of reeducation because...rape.
And video games peaked at "Asteroids" as far as I'm concerned.
The WolfMan at March 7, 2014 10:52 AM
__________________________________
And that puts your opinion on the same level as lenona's. I've heard a lot of other such anecdotes.
Katrina at May 5, 2016 1:49 PM
__________________________________
Lenona,
Is it your intention to fan the flames of men's increasing antipathy toward females? Well, it's working...
Jay R at February 15, 2017 4:08 PM
__________________________________
Nor do I, personally, want to skip work and family responsibilities to go for jury duty when a young woman decides she's been raped because she'd 'changed her mind' at some late hour. Perhaps Lenona would enjoy such busybody mischief-making in our courts of law. But I wouldn't regard that as a courageous defense of anyone's rights, either.
Crid at February 15, 2017 6:14 PM
__________________________________
lenona: it is one thing to talk about a famous and scary dude like Mike Tyson, but 99% of these campus cases are just some schmuck college boy with no fame or power. To say you are too scared to leave when you are in a dorm full of people...really? Can't call for help? Perhaps "scared" to be humiliated, but actual fear? No.
cc at February 16, 2017 10:24 AM
__________________________________
Your desire that men should "fear" interactions with women is particularly revealing -- and deeply troubling. I suggest you check out Clint Eastwood's "Eiger Sanction" where Clint tells a bodyguard built like a bag of bowling balls, "You scare me. I don't like being scared" -- and then proceeds to beat the living sh!t out of him.
We men don't like being scared ... and women who want to instill a fear of women in men are very foolish indeed.
Jay R at December 27, 2017 11:50 AM
__________________________________
When they want to change Lenona they do. They don't need therapy. It doesn't work. It never has. They need to stop wanting to hurt people. Since it really isn't hard to not hurt people that is the end of it. They don't need lessons. Don't need training. You just don't do it.
Ben at December 28, 2017 4:45 PM
__________________________________
lenona appears to have conceded that she is not a keen observer of the modern adult female, or single men in the dating mode, (esp. a socially- and aesthetically-challenged one).
bkmale at November 2, 2017 11:10 AM
__________________________________
I tried to not post more than one by any given person, but there were so many
lujlp at July 14, 2018 2:40 PM
Surprise surprise, you dodged the request, luj. Very disappointing. That is, you didn't quote anything *I* said or explain what was wrong with it; you only quoted people who disagreed with me in those cases.
I answered most of them, as I remember. Jay R is almost as emotional as you and can't even quote the right people correctly - OR what they actually said. In his case, he took this (Arnab is a man's name!) - "Instead of the woman fearing what might come after a boss’s inappropriate innuendo, it seems entirely decent and moral for the man to live in fear that his UNRIGHTEOUS ACT (emphasis mine) may cost him his job." ARNAB DATTA, WASHINGTON
- and twisted it into this - "Your desire that men should 'fear' interactions with women..."
First, I didn't say that, and neither did Mr. Datta, if one bothers to read FAIRLY. The statement was simply that BAD behavior should lead to bad consequences, and so people who are in the HABIT of behaving badly should think twice from now on and be afraid of not doing so. Why do people like Jay R - and others here - have a problem with that?
Not that childish extremes are acceptable on either side, of course. People shouldn't get fired for telling sexual jokes, IMO - but they can and should be disciplined, depending.
And there are definitely rude as well as polite ways to flirt. Mobs should not be allowed to turn rudeness into a crime, of course, but rudeness is still inexcusable.
lenona at July 16, 2018 2:36 PM
lenona you said "Regarding your first sentence, kindly give an example or two."
Here is my first sentence
"lenona you are a gender bigot, your bias is apparent to everyone"
You asked for examples of your bias being apparent to everyone - I provided you exactly what you asked for
lujlp at July 17, 2018 12:02 AM
No, I was asking for examples/proof of what you said in your FIRST phrase. What's so unusual about that, semantically speaking?
Still scared to give what I asked for, I see.
lenona at July 17, 2018 11:13 AM
Leave a comment