xXxJessicaxXx said:
So you think making someone feel uncomfortable is okay?
I'm not really talking about someone glancing at you more like staring or leering.
And my point was that nowhere would anyone say that guy had loose morals, but if a woman was wandering around dress liked that it would be a different story.
Here is the thing, people get uncomfortable by lots of things. People get uncomfortable by gays holding hands in public and they demand (unfairly) that they not show any affection towards each other. People don't like to hear babies crying on a plane, people don't like to have to AVOID looking at someone who is exposing their cleavage or buttocks.
But today we live in a much more tolerant society.
Really there is no actual difference between looking and leering. It is purely subjective on whether the person being looked at approves of them being looked at or not. You can't forbid anything more than a glance, you can't order people where to direct their eyeballs. Eyes are COMPLETELY PASSIVE! It has been utterly debunked as superstition that the eyes cast a "gaze" onto people and objects. All eyes do is absorb and detect light.
It's not like the gazers are invading the sparse-dresser's privacy as they chose the dress that way in public. It's not like someone who is disrobed by some other factor against their will where they never intended their body to be fully on view in which case there is the obligation to avert gaze in recognition that it was an injustice for them to have been disrobed against their will.
Associating a person's morality with their dress code is quite irrelevant to the issue of where to look. Any mature adult knows better than to judge by appearance but rather by interaction. There are a Thousand and One reasons why anyone dresses any way and often it is deliberately contradictory, it is impossible to guess what they intend as a person except by subtle interaction, communication to gauge level of interaction. Looking isn't interaction.
It's also impossible to judge someone from where they look, or what part of someone they look at. Just because someone looks at a person with prominently displayed cleavage DOES NOT MEAN always they consider the woman of "loose morals". Just admiring a part of the human body some have a natural fascination with.
"And my point was that nowhere would anyone say that guy had loose morals just that he looked after himself or his appearance"
I think ALL men are ALREADY assumed to have loose morals regardless of how they dress. Whether wearing low-riding jeans to priestly robes.
Personally I treat all men as likely rapist until proven otherwise and give all women the benefit of the doubt on their intended interaction. Is that sexist? I see it as practical in the same sense that if you have light skin pigment you should generally use more sunscreen for intense sunlight.
