If even 1/10th of the women I met said those words to me, I would be a very happy man. Say what you will about intellectual disappointment; I'm a professional intellectual, and I can still dig it.
If even 1/10th of the women I met said those words to me, I would be a very happy man. Say what you will about intellectual disappointment; I'm a professional intellectual, and I can still dig it.
So, nobody should ever be physically attracted to anyone ever. Got it.
Can you hear me rolling my eyes at you from here?
Starting arguments based on baggage you're still carrying from other, previous arguments, with other people, seems to be a theme with you.
A) I was joking. Had I been trying to start an argument, it would've been because what you said was wrong or annoying in some way, not because of a previous, completely unrelated argument. C) Methinks the gentleman doth project too much. D) Slut shaming is actually a pretty real thing and more than a little annoying.
D) is where you drag baggage from other arguments and use it as your base set of assumptions about the current discussion.
Seriously, you can't look at the ad that I posted, with the "costume" related to the source material only in the barest sense, with key props attached UPSIDE DOWN, and claim that this here is an example of enlightened empowerment.
D) is where you drag baggage from other arguments and use it as your base set of assumptions about the current discussion.
Seriously, you can't look at the ad that I posted, with the "costume" related to the source material only in the barest sense, with key props attached UPSIDE DOWN, and claim that this here is an example of enlightened empowerment.
See, from my perspective, we had moved on from that specific Ghostbusters costume (which is a travesty, I agree) on to the more general argument (that I see all the time, and it's really annoying) against "Sexy Foo" costumes, where Foo==whatever.
Calm down, bro. It's just ones and zeros. I've just happened to disagree with you twice in the same day. Doesn't mean I have a freaking vendetta against you.
on to the more general argument (that I see all the time, and it's really annoying) against "Sexy Foo" costumes, where Foo==whatever.
I don't think anyone but third worlders and Fundamentalist Christians argue that sexy costumes are inherently bad. The issue comes in when titillation (which is easy) is substituted for creativity, repeatedly, and without respite. When the "cool thing" among your social circle is not the most creative, clever, or well-executed costume, but rather the most risque, daring one. There ought to be room for both.
I don't think anyone but third worlders and Fundamentalist Christians argue that sexy costumes are inherently bad.
Read just about any blog where some random geek complains about how "fake geek girls" get by on just doing "sexy whatever costumes". There's a surprising amount of misogyny in the Geek world when it comes to the idea of girls actually being Geeks, and this tends to be one of their bigger weapons.
I guess more to your point, "Superman, but with tits" shouldn't win the costume contest at SDCC, but there's nothing inherently wrong with making a costume that's "Superman, but with tits". If the first part is all you're arguing, then we agree, and I can go back to playing Theaterhythm.
I don't think anyone but third worlders and Fundamentalist Christians argue that sexy costumes are inherently bad.
Read just about any blog where some random geek complains about how "fake geek girls" get by on just doing "sexy whatever costumes". There's a surprising amount of misogyny in the Geek world when it comes to the idea of girls actually being Geeks, and this tends to be one of their bigger weapons.
I guess more to your point, "Superman, but with tits" shouldn't win the costume contest at SDCC, but there's nothing inherently wrong with making a costume that's "Superman, but with tits". If the first part is all you're arguing, then we agree, and I can go back to playing Theaterhythm.
I think a lot of the geek rage comes from girls showing up to parties (or more likely, cons) in a half-assed, barely accurate costume, but getting all of the attention due to their inherent assets. While there's nothing inherently wrong with them having those assets, it certainly can make girls with a certain type of personality act a little lazy and entitled within those circles.
So, it's just one more stereotype like any other stereotype, and only gets treated as special because there are obvious overlaps with women's rights and feminism.
See, I don't have a problem with the specific things you're saying in your first paragraph. It's when you make the leap from "Some girls use their tits to get attention" to "Sexy costumes are inherently bad" that we disagree. You're justifying a generalization based on "Here's something some women do". If I said "All geeks are really socially awkward and probably will die virgins", people would jump all over me. Is that true of some geeks? Yeah, probably. But that's not true of all geeks, certainly. And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to justify a prejudice based on "Well, some women do it"?
Are there terrible, unenlightened males? Yes. Are there women who will use their tits to their advantage? Certainly. Should we condone either of these behaviors? I'd argue no any day of the week. Do either of these groups make up the majority of the larger supersets they belong to? I would like to think no, at the very least.
I didn't say "sexy costumes are inherently bad". I said the opposite. Was that a typo on your part, or did you really misunderstand me so fundamentally? I don't think I was unclear.
And I didn't say "All women." I said "Here's a thing women of a particular personality type do, which has generated this stereotype, which is just a stereotype."
And I didn't say that the stereotype justified any prejudice, just that it's not particularly special, as stereotypes go.
Comments
To each their own.
Starting arguments based on baggage you're still carrying from other, previous arguments, with other people, seems to be a theme with you.
C) Methinks the gentleman doth project too much.
D) Slut shaming is actually a pretty real thing and more than a little annoying.
Seriously, you can't look at the ad that I posted, with the "costume" related to the source material only in the barest sense, with key props attached UPSIDE DOWN, and claim that this here is an example of enlightened empowerment.
Calm down, bro. It's just ones and zeros. I've just happened to disagree with you twice in the same day. Doesn't mean I have a freaking vendetta against you.
I've laid hands on everything from an A to a double G and all have their merits. I think a good, perky C is probably ideal.
Fail; Oh boy I get to spend the best part of a week going through Exchequer records from 1337-47 such fun!
I guess more to your point, "Superman, but with tits" shouldn't win the costume contest at SDCC, but there's nothing inherently wrong with making a costume that's "Superman, but with tits". If the first part is all you're arguing, then we agree, and I can go back to playing Theaterhythm.
So, it's just one more stereotype like any other stereotype, and only gets treated as special because there are obvious overlaps with women's rights and feminism.
Are there terrible, unenlightened males? Yes.
Are there women who will use their tits to their advantage? Certainly.
Should we condone either of these behaviors? I'd argue no any day of the week.
Do either of these groups make up the majority of the larger supersets they belong to? I would like to think no, at the very least.
I didn't say "sexy costumes are inherently bad". I said the opposite. Was that a typo on your part, or did you really misunderstand me so fundamentally? I don't think I was unclear.
And I didn't say "All women." I said "Here's a thing women of a particular personality type do, which has generated this stereotype, which is just a stereotype."
And I didn't say that the stereotype justified any prejudice, just that it's not particularly special, as stereotypes go.
I'm not sure you read what I actually typed...