xXxJessicaxXx said:
Treblaine said:
If a woman says she is not okay with you leering at her it does not suddenly make it okay to do so if she is wearing revealing clothing.
A woman has every right to say 'Stop doing that you are making me feel uncomfortable' which was the initial point I complained about. The idea that the minute a woman wears revealing clothing she has no right to try and assert her feelings.
By objectified I mean that men think women are there for them to look at and so even if a woman says 'Please stop' they can justify it to themselves with 'Oh but she's wearing revealing clothing that means she's fair game for me to look at'
It completely bypasses the feelings and desires of the woman ie: objectification.
If she says she doesn't want you to leer at her then she
doesn't want you to and has a right to complain about it. I am confused about what part of this is hard to understand?
Leering. Looking. You know those are different, yet you use them like they are the same or trying to have it both ways.
Of course
I will look away if asked but what if I see some other guys who keep looking? Am I supposed to punch their lights out? Or confront them and risk getting my teeth knocked out? What is the appropriate response for something as benign and passive as looking? I have no truck with absolutes of "it is wrong". How wrong? Worth calling the cops? "This guy is LOOKING at me in a PUBLIC place!"
Where is the tolerance? We are asked to be SOO TOLERANT of so many things in modern society, from foreign customs to political/religious expression, how can one be so offended by looking?
It sets a worrying precedent if so many wear eye-catching clothing but demands not to be looked at you'll offend so many just simply trying to navigate the environment. Really this is an issue of personal freedom, it should not be a crime to look at anything placed in the public; a completely passive and benign act with public being pretty much DEFINED as being allowed to look where you like (opposite of private). It sets a precedent of what else can you not look at and screws up what the meaning of "public" is. It just reminds me too much of in the Dark Ages when peasants were forced to avert their eyes from royalty and would be punished if they dared to look up without permission: their eyes were not worthy of seeing royalty. The precedent stands on both ends of the scale: lack of respect for the most basic personal freedoms.
To avert your gaze on request cannot be an obligation, it is a courtesy to sacrifice a portion of public freedom to look where really you have every right to look.
Now if by leering you mean making lewd expressions and gestures along WITH looking, THEN THAT is something else completely different, especially if it includes following/stalking and other harassment. (I think you missed this distinction that I did make last time). IF that is what you mean by "leering" well that is antagonising interaction, that is well established as not permissible in public where society and the law has a right to step in.
I have been in that situation of everyone looking at me and it wasn't for anything I had any control over but I had to suck it up and deal with it as it just was not practical to make a scene and demand EVERYONE to not look at me. That's not the way people work. You scream "don't look at me" as then people ARE going to look at you. People look at people all the time!
What is the problem with looking? Surely people must realise that going in public however one is dressed then they will be seen that way, that people will look at them. This is a rule EVERYONE follows - man, woman, child, animal, anything - if someone donesn't want to be stared at then they must present themselves in a mundane way.
You know what, everyone "doesn't want" a whole lot of things. I don't want to hear annoying ringtones. I don't want people to look at me to judge my wealth (or lack thereof) from my natty clothes. I don't want to have to hear religious sermons on the high-street from evangelistic preachers. But tough, because you cannot have Freedom without Tolerance. I believe in freedom. And I am deeply thoughtful of how a "right not be be looked at" encroaches on the basic rights and freedoms of others in public space.
SO in summary: My concern is the issue of freedom and tolerance. Looking does not and cannot be forbidden in public.
Leering however is distinct as it comes with it certain other practices that would otherwise be threatening, where it should and IS rightly deterred.
...It completely bypasses the feelings and desires of the woman ie: objectification
Your definition isn't very good. As by that definition; as many men objectify OTHER MEN as they sure as hell don't care about their feelings/desires and just get what they want out of them.
Objectification is a term in media where for example a woman's role in the plot could be replaced by an object, like replace "get princess out of castle" to "get magical orb out of castle" without hardly changing anything.
