What women (don't) want.

[mjsell]

So to me, if there's an issue to address, it's how male sexuality is expressed through objectifying women, and how female sexuality is expressed through being objectified. Even, ironically, when women are just trying not to be hot!

 

All very true, but solving this issue isn't getting me any closer to wearing shorts at work is it!

 

Women can wear whatever they want, however they want. As long as I can wear shorts, is that too much to ask?

[feral chile]

All very true, but solving this issue isn't getting me any closer to wearing shorts at work is it!

 

Women can wear whatever they want, however they want. As long as I can wear shorts, is that too much to ask?

 

I agree, men in my workplace can and do wear shorts, and nobody claims their legs are a distraction

[eFestivals]

nobody has ever told any of the men that their shorts are too short, or that their appearance distracts the women.

 

because men are seen as sexually threatening/not viewed via their sexuality rather than seductive.

 

So to me, if there's an issue to address, it's how male sexuality is expressed through objectifying women, and how female sexuality is expressed through being objectified.

 

I'd say you're over-simplifying it, by not having thought everything thru to conclusion - to the 'why' for how it ends up like that.

 

That's not me saying there's nothing to address, btw.

 

But, if you think it's simply the case that men freely chose to dominate and women are 'weak' enough to end up going along with that, I'd say you're wrong.

[feral chile]

I'd say you're over-simplifying it, by not having thought everything thru to conclusion - to the 'why' for how it ends up like that.

 

That's not me saying there's nothing to address, btw.

 

But, if you think it's simply the case that men freely chose to dominate and women are 'weak' enough to end up going along with that, I'd say you're wrong.

 

I'm aware of how unconscious this is, and the complexity f it, I don't think choice is involved at all - we don't question cultural values enough. These men are feeling wrong-footed into being pervs, and they feel like they've copped a peek at something they shouldn't. It's the entire notion that anything about this is pervy that I'm against. what I'm saying is, men feel embarrassed and uncomfortable, and instead of understanding that women are showing exactly the same amount of flesh as they are (less usually), they project this onto women.

 

I'm well aware as to historical and cultural reasons for this. The psychological process is well known, projecting uncomfortable feelings onto the object of them is nothing new - it's the social conditioning that's so hard to address.

 

I felt like challenging what was being said, but was sympathetic to both sides of the people involved, and their dilemma. There was no nastiness involved, it was more horror at seeing something they hadn't meant to. And possible sexual arousal and guilt, maybe?

 

 It wasn't the time for a feminist debate - but when ever is? If we keep waiting for the right time to get people to think, it'll never happen.

 

And this was a skirt, rather than shorts, so it's not quite the same thing.

 

The choice would come in after recognising the unconscious bias. It's more that what counts as flashing or indecent, is different according to gender.

Edited July 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm well aware as to historical and cultural reasons for this. The psychological process is well known, projecting uncomfortable feelings onto the object of them is nothing new - it's the social conditioning that's so hard to address.

 

You're not getting me. Very little of it is about any of this tho it's in the mix, but just at the end of things. It's not the cause.

[feral chile]

You're not getting me. Very little of it is about any of this tho it's in the mix, but just at the end of things. It's not the cause.

 

 

 

what then?

[eFestivals]

what then?

 

You're working from the idea that ultimately males are freely choosing to dominate females in this way and that females choose to go along with it.

 

I'd say there's something much more biological going on at the heart of things, or, at closer to what you say, a 'socialisation' that is a consequence of our biology and ultimately unavoidable because of that - so not really a socialisation but a consequence of human existence.

 

I'd say that from that base cause we then do build extra pieces on top that are able to be altered, but that we won't make much ground with those alterations for all of the while that we approach it from the view that it's a purely psychological (or sociological) thing. It needs something different.

 

Let's face it ... if men were coming into work with their dicks hanging out - which is merely an extension of flesh beyond the 'too much leg' complaint - women would be making similar "inappropriate" noises, tho with a bit of the reverse thinking going on within that.

 

Perhaps, to a large degree, it's how we're designed to be?

[feral chile]

Oh I agree with you about sexual display, but surely what counts as sexual display is socialised?

[kaosmark2]

Biologically, nudity is normal. Biologically, both genders have a sec drive but one they can control.

I'm very sure it's social.

[eFestivals]

Oh I agree with you about sexual display, but surely what counts as sexual display is socialised?

Is it? How do you know?

We only know that we do it, and that we'll often believe ourselves to not be playing any part in what might be called 'mating rituals' when we quite possibly are..

You say men are fearful off too much flesh our of a fear for what it might cause them to think or do, and I alluded above to women having a similar fear but for the different reason of what they fear might be done to them.

 

Is that difference socialised? Or is that a part of our humanity? Or actually, much wider - our animal instincts?

 

I don't have a problem recognising that some of it definitely is socialised, but there's nothing beyond an idea to say that it all is, whilst much of the same actions and reactions can be identified thru-out the animal kingdom.

 

What I'm getting at is that I think fixing the issues around it go way deeper than (basically) telling men they need to think differently.

 

[eFestivals]

Biologically, nudity is normal. Biologically, both genders have a sec drive but one they can control.

 

if that's an absolute, evolution would have barely got past the amoeba stage. Think about it.

Edited July 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

if that's an absolute, evolution would have barely got past the amoeba stage. Think about it.

Humanity evolved social skills and a degree of sexual restraint. Other animals have as well (koalas and chimpanzees come to mind).

 

When it comes to behaviour, far far more of it is social that biologically driven instinct. "What we're biologically coded to" is as much a misnomer as "what god wants us to do" or "what the government has programmed us to do". Influence (possibly imaginary) rather than absolute control.

[eFestivals]

Humanity evolved social skills and a degree of sexual restraint.

 

a degree of sexual restraint, I agree.

 

But absolute sexual restraint? Nope.

 

Sex is not something we freely choose to do in the same way we might choose other things, say going to a festival or smoking fags or not. Things with freedom involved don't tend to have almost total uptake, and particularly not across all levels of society.

 

I'd say that that the fact that there's something there driving on our urge to procreate isn't something that can be put away as lightly as feral suggested.

[zero000]

That's if you think free will exists at all though

[kaosmark2]

a degree of sexual restraint, I agree.

 

But absolute sexual restraint? Nope.

 

Sex is not something we freely choose to do in the same way we might choose other things, say going to a festival or smoking fags or not. Things with freedom involved don't tend to have almost total uptake, and particularly not across all levels of society.

 

I'd say that that the fact that there's something there driving on our urge to procreate isn't something that can be put away as lightly as feral suggested.

I agree with all of that. I do however, think that the clothing issues feral referenced are socially driven responses to sexual desire, as opposed to ones intrinsically linked to animal mating patterns.

[zero000]

When it comes to behaviour, far far more of it is social that biologically driven instinct. "What we're biologically coded to" is as much a misnomer as "what god wants us to do" or "what the government has programmed us to do". Influence (possibly imaginary) rather than absolute control.

How can you tell that a behaviour is more socially driven? Our biology makes up who we are, we are not blank slates all created the same, physically or mentally. The way social factors impact upon us is going to be determined by (in part) our genetic background. It's not deterministic to say that our biology is important to who we are and how we act. Ignoring these differences rules out an important part of the picture.

[kaosmark2]

How can you tell that a behaviour is more socially driven? Our biology makes up who we are, we are not blank slates all created the same, physically or mentally. The way social factors impact upon us is going to be determined by (in part) our genetic background. It's not deterministic to say that our biology is important to who we are and how we act. Ignoring these differences rules out an important part of the picture.

To be more precise with my wording: behavioural patterns common throughout our society are going to be socially driven rather than a product of evolution. Trends that appear couldn't have been evolved unless they have been a core aspect of humanity for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

I was talking about group behaviour. The degree to which individual behaviour is driven by social influence vs personal hormonal/physiological is a lot harder to judge.

[zero000]

To be more precise with my wording: behavioural patterns common throughout our society are going to be socially driven rather than a product of evolution. Trends that appear couldn't have been evolved unless they have been a core aspect of humanity for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

I was talking about group behaviour. The degree to which individual behaviour is driven by social influence vs personal hormonal/physiological is a lot harder to judge.

I agree with all of that. I just think that it's useful on occasion to step back and appreciate that some of the nastier aspects of human sexuality are imbued in us for a reason. It doesn't make them acceptable, but they're still present.

 

[eFestivals]

I agree with all of that. I do however, think that the clothing issues feral referenced are socially driven responses to sexual desire, as opposed to ones intrinsically linked to animal mating patterns.

 

I'd say they're part of animal mating patterns that we've ended up socialising into that form as a way of dealing (suppressing) with them.

 

And so, if some campaign was to be successful in telling men to think/act differently, I strongly suspect it would simply end up coming out in a different form where just as many holes could be picked in it as what we have now.

 

I don't claim to have the answers, just a belief that there's much more about this than any most other behavioural changes, and that it needs a different approach.

[eFestivals]

To be more precise with my wording: behavioural patterns common throughout our society are going to be socially driven rather than a product of evolution.

 

the need to procreate is not a socially driven thing. Nor is the need to feel protective about our young.

 

Something of these factors are what is coming out in the reactions to a bit too much leg in an office.

[feral chile]

the need to procreate is not a socially driven thing. Nor is the need to feel protective about our young.

 

Something of these factors are what is coming out in the reactions to a bit too much leg in an office.

 

it's so difficult to separate nature/nurture though. Even where it seems obvious - say, you have a distressed female who a man responds to by having sex with her - socially, we'd think 'what a bastard'. But it's possible that the male protective instinct is to bring vulnerable females under his protection. Physical comfort is something we primates seek when vulnerable, it may be a way of group bonding etc. Funerals and sex for instance - we know there are links between death and sex - t's easy to see how they're biologically driven.

 

We have such an artificial culture now - I have a lot of sympathy with both sexes trying to cope with all the contradictions.

 

Of course we don't want the threat of rape - but at the same time, the sex drive itself is natural and healthy, and somehow that's getting twisted by our culture. Who's to say rape is a 'natural' phenomenon without socialisation repressing it?

 

there's often that unspoken assumption that unfettered male sexuality would involve total subjugation of the female - I'm not convinced.

Edited July 3, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I think where my opinion is diverging from neil's is that I to, think sexual desire is part of this, but because of sexual taboos, and sexism, men feel/fear arousal when presented with a female, who may be producing mixed sexual display signals, whether innate or cultural, but then it becomes the female who is disciplined.

 

I agree that socialisation is conflicting with natural drives, though I don't necessarily think domination would be the end result. But neither would procreation, in an office

 

I suppose it's the corporate speech crap that I object to most. That's why I feel ambivalent about it - my first reaction was the playing field should be level. but it's not level.

 

We're trying to deal with sexual displays in a setting that's far removed from 'real life' (primate behaviour).

 

It's the whole situation that I find wrong - that men are made to feel bad about finding females attractive (in work) and that women are being advised to 'dress appropriately' to avoid 'distracting colleagues'.

 

We're creating layer upon layer of artificial, socially constructed crap, and while progress is good, it's also shit.

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I got curious about primate mating behaviour, and found this:

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/coercion.html

Edited July 3, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

it's so difficult to separate nature/nurture though.

I didn't say it was easy.

What is easy is to invent a wrong rule just because the truth is inconvenient to the methods available.

[feral chile]

I'd say they're part of animal mating patterns that we've ended up socialising into that form as a way of dealing (suppressing) with them.

 

And so, if some campaign was to be successful in telling men to think/act differently, I strongly suspect it would simply end up coming out in a different form where just as many holes could be picked in it as what we have now.

 

I don't claim to have the answers, just a belief that there's much more about this than any most other behavioural changes, and that it needs a different approach.

 

I do agree with this, maybe I'm not making myself clear. I think what we regard as sexual signals/display may be cultural, the need for procreation will be present, and biologically driven, but the interpretation of it may be shaped culturally.

 

So, you have a girl who flashes a bit too much - if you kind of remove dress conventions and get to the naked ape, so to speak - this poor guy presumably had a biological reaction to what his body read as a mating display. Social taboos set in and he experienced embarrassment and guilt, and suppressed it.

 

 

It's not this part that produced much interest for me.

 

It's how humans in an artificial setting (workplace) then deal with it. Should it have stopped there? The taboo did its job, after all. But to 'save embarrassment' (of the male) the responsibility then shifted to the behaviour of the female (no embarrassment saved there then).

 

So, corporate-speak dressed this all up as a dress code ruling.

 

My first reaction was 'hang on, men don't have to worry about showing a bit of leg' - feminist response to a work rule being used in a gender specific way.

 

My second reaction was 'there are biological and behaviour differences between genders, and a conflict between drives and norms' - psychology grad response.

 

And I wondered about the function of the tweaking of the 'no dress code'. Who is it protecting, the male (from negative feelings, temptation etc.), the female (from social censure from other females, possible attack, etc.) or the group (from potential conflict)?

 

As in, the unconscious function, which then gets muddied over by cultural rationalisation?

Edited July 4, 2015 by feral chile