Platonic relationships

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:21 pm UTC

Now the really funny thing about nerds is that while they may interpret "Hi, how are you?" as a pick-up line, they tend to interpret "Let's go fool around in the closet." as "I'm going to kill you and bury your body out back beneath the oak tree."

I did this in high school all the time when approached, rather directly really, by some of the hottest girls in the school. Admittedly, they were also party girls and in a couple of cases total whores (and in those cases I wouldn't trust their hand without a condom.), but they were smoking hot and coming on to me.

Note to self: go visit those girls in hometown. Carry lots of high-quality condoms with big label: "for team practices".

Anyway... platonic relationships are possible. Quite easy, too. All you have to do is get it out in the open like mature folk that the relationship will not evolve into any kind of sexual or romantic relationship. Once that happens, most men and women can be friends without any unwanted tension.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Dark Ragnarok
Posts: 1406
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 9:12 pm UTC

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Dark Ragnarok » Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:32 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Anyway... platonic relationships are possible. Quite easy, too. All you have to do is get it out in the open like mature folk that the relationship will not evolve into any kind of sexual or romantic relationship. Once that happens, most men and women can be friends without any unwanted tension.


That=Yes.

biolution wrote:Yeah, see, this is why they didn't go so well: you're such a tease. I jest, but it would be nice if you could tell us why, exactly, your opinion is going to be biased. Also, as I encounter more people, I'm beginning to believe men misreading women isn't so common, but is very prevalent in male nerd (for lack of a better term) groups.


Because my experience is limited to girl only my age or younger (usually younger) And so many girls at that age have been very stupid. Just like me. Second. I have/had a VERY **high** tendency to somehow meet the most needy girls I'll ever know. At least 1/3 of my friends that were girls were all very needy. My friend Cat told me herself "Miguel, I don;t know how, but you're a magnet for problematic girls". Ugh... You seriously don't know how true that is.

In any case point taken. I'm a nerd. So there's validity in your point. Anything else you want to know?

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Pai » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:36 am UTC

On the topic of women being criticized for complaining about 'unwanted advances' when dressed a certain way (which is very commonly used as a reason for why a victim of a rape was 'at fault' for her own assault, this is a comment from a topic on sexual assault I read recently:

Even if they might want one special person to touch them, that doesn't mean they want everyone to touch them.

This idea that women should just expect to get touched by anyone drives me BATSHIT NUTZ.
As I've said like a billion times before, any assertion that a woman's attire does not matter is routinely met with an eye roll or a snort or an exhortation to admit that a woman dressed "a certain way" probably wants to get laid, as if I am being deliberately obtuse about what message is typically being sent by a short skirt and a low-cut blouse or w/ev.

Of course I'm not ignorant of these particular cultural cues.
I am, however, intractably resistant to the notion that a woman who wants to get laid is giving explicit consent to anyone who wants to fuck her.

I have this crazy notion that a woman has a choice about who gets access to her body, and that men have to respect it. Zany!

It's reminiscent of the scene that all of us have seen played out in bars, clubs, in the office, on the sidewalk, and in countless films in which a provocatively dressed woman refuses the advances of a man who then angrily demands to know why she's dressed "like she wants it" if she doesn't. Naturally, she may very well want "it," but perhaps not from him.


I find that if a woman is dressed 'provocatively' guys often tend to assume she'll be willing to accept an aggressive come-on from them, and get angry when she isn't. I think it's based on a flawed assumption that a woman who is sexual is somehow making that sexuality a public commodity to anyone who's in the market. I don't see why else they'd feel so cranky when such a woman turns them down, as if she was 'teasing' them just by being there. I think that's why women like that are often called 'slutty' -- because there's this cultural assumption that women who display themselves are somehow communicating that they're willing to take any guy who makes an offer.

Which is not true. Sometimes a woman just likes dressing up. Maybe she's dressing up for another woman. All these assumptions that are drawn about a woman's sexual availability based on what's she's wearing seems really stupid, imo. And lots of women get unwanted come-ons dressed in jeans and a sweatshirt, too, so it's not even a consistent excuse.

I don't think any normal woman would react violently negative to a respectful flirt, even if she wasn't interested. I think the problem comes from when a guy makes an assumption based on unrelated factors (such as her clothes) as to how much leeway he has in how he approaches her, and when he oversteps the bounds of actual polite inquiry, he gets rebuffed rudely (because he was actually rude) and instead of realizing that he assumed something based on no real evidence, he chalks up the women to being 'bitchy' and giving 'mixed signals'. You only get that idea if the 'signal' of sexy clothing means something that in reality, it doesn't.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Maurog » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:49 pm UTC

Incorrect. You are implying slutty women who dress provocatively to attract guys don't exist, or aren't numerous enough to make an impact. I actually suspect they are the majority of slutty-dressed women, even if we wave aside prostitutes, who do it for professional reasons (and why would we do that? They contribute just like any other women).

The whole "slutty outfit" concept is persistent because it's fueled by real-life examples. Again, wearing labels will get you labeled whether you are aware of it or not, and it's not like you're not aware of the society's definitions of sluttiness. I mean, if you walk around dressed as a clown, even for your own personal reasons, do you have the right to complain that people come to you and demand entertainment? Some may even go as far as squeezing your long fake nose to produce a honking sound, which is clearly a breach of personal space. Do you now have the high moral ground to declare that these people (and especially children) are jerks who apply lables where they shouldn't?
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Pai » Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:27 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:Incorrect. You are implying slutty women who dress provocatively to attract guys don't exist


Uh, I actually didn't said that. I said, her dressing a certain way is not a 'silent permission' for any random guy who feels like it to take liberties with her without her explicit consent. Looking for a one night stand or whatever does not mean someone is going to jump at the first person who makes a move on her even if he's not her type/rude/etc. I mean, come on, the logic that 'any woman looking for sex = a slut who should take anyone who gives her the time of day' is really kind of offensive assumption. And guys who make that assumption are the ones who feel 'cheated' or 'tricked' when they get turned down or snubbed by such a woman, as if just because she's advertising, it means she'll tolerate anyone, even someone who acts rudely or with assumed liberties that she hasn't actually allowed them.

Guys go trolling for sex all the time, and feel as if it's their right to turn down women (or men) they're not attracted to.Why would the rules be any different for women? Why does she get accused of 'false advertising' for exercising the right of preference in who she sleeps with? Nobody's saying she isn't out for sex. Being out for sex doesn't somehow erase your human right to bodily integrity and respect, however.

This idea that 'sexual' people are somehow standardless sluts who give up their right to basic respect is wrong and archaic. What's wanting sex have to do with how you treat another person? Why are they considered as having 'forfeited' their right to be treated decently? That reasoning makes no sense.

You're saying a woman advertising her sexual availability somehow equals her making herself a public commodity. Which is wrong. Her body and sexuality is hers to offer to whomever she chooses, on her own terms. She's still a human being with rights to her own self, it doesn't matter what she's wearing. Guys who get pissy when they're not the one she happens to choose, are forgetting that fact -- they're not entitled to a favorable response when she's dressed a certain way. Her wanting sex =/ wanting sex with them.
THAT was my point.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:00 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:Incorrect. You are implying slutty women who dress provocatively to attract guys don't exist, or aren't numerous enough to make an impact.

No one was implying any such thing. Stop putting up straw men.

Pai already responded to you, but you seem to have missed the point completely the first time, so maybe you have trouble with longer posts.

Here's a summary version:

Wanting sex is not the same as wanting sex with you. So however she dresses, rebuffing you when you approach her, especially if you're an ass about it, does not make her a bitch giving "mixed signals" or whatever the fuck guys in that situation like to think.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:05 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Wanting sex is not the same as wanting sex with you.


Now if we could just get everyone to write that on the board a couple thousand times until it sinks in....
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
rachel
Witch (?)
Posts: 2478
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby rachel » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:11 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Wanting sex is not the same as wanting sex with you. So however she dresses, rebuffing you when you approach her, especially if you're an ass about it, does not make her a bitch giving "mixed signals" or whatever the fuck guys in that situation like to think.


It's good to know that there are some of you out there who can understand that. Just because a woman is dressed a certain way, that doesn't mean she's dressed a certain way for anyone in the room. More often than not, it's for certain person/people. Just because you're upset that she wants nothing to do with you in the way you want something to do with her doesn't mean she's done anything wrong, and everyone should probably remember that the next time they get turned down and spout off to their friends about how that girl's just a whore because she's dressed a certain way or acts a certain way. In fact, her turning you down implies the very opposite.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I played "porn" against my sister last night.
Meaux_Pas wrote:So in otherwords, it's like the best cake ever, covered in bees.


j&r-bffl

User avatar
shinybaby
In-Tents
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:41 pm UTC
Location: formerly Toronto, now London (Ontario)... anyone here??
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby shinybaby » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:32 pm UTC

Maurog wrote: I mean, if you walk around dressed as a clown, even for your own personal reasons, do you have the right to complain that people come to you and demand entertainment? Some may even go as far as squeezing your long fake nose to produce a honking sound, which is clearly a breach of personal space. Do you now have the high moral ground to declare that these people (and especially children) are jerks who apply lables where they shouldn't?


yes. yes you do. people have every right to apply a label to you... "hey look, it's a clown" is an acceptable response to such a sight. but wearing a clown costume in no way makes void your right to personal space. children might violate this, but this is when a parental figure should be stepping in and saying "look, don't touch". that's how children learn. the child not understanding an action is wrong doesn't make it any more correct.
Last edited by shinybaby on Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Gordon wrote:1) Meet Gordon
2) Deploy Gordon
3) ...
4) Profit!!!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:33 pm UTC

Also, one should probably aspire to a behavioural standard slightly higher than a child, anyway.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
shinybaby
In-Tents
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:41 pm UTC
Location: formerly Toronto, now London (Ontario)... anyone here??
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby shinybaby » Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:37 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Also, one should probably aspire to a behavioural standard slightly higher than a child, anyway.


one would think! :D
Gordon wrote:1) Meet Gordon
2) Deploy Gordon
3) ...
4) Profit!!!

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Maurog » Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Agree to all of the above. My analogy was perfect, as usual.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:22 am UTC

Maurog wrote:Agree to all of the above. My analogy was perfect, as usual.

Wait, so have you changed your opinion then? Or just explained it really poorly above? Because everything between your last post and this was disagreeing with you...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:31 am UTC

Wanting sex is not the same as wanting sex with you. So however she dresses, rebuffing you when you approach her, especially if you're an ass about it, does not make her a bitch giving "mixed signals" or whatever the fuck guys in that situation like to think.

No, what makes her a bitch is dressing like a slut instead of growing some ovaries and going straight for the (wo)man she really wants while sending clear signals to those of us without a snowball's chance in hell that we don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
clarbri
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Southern Illinois
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby clarbri » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:23 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
Wanting sex is not the same as wanting sex with you. So however she dresses, rebuffing you when you approach her, especially if you're an ass about it, does not make her a bitch giving "mixed signals" or whatever the fuck guys in that situation like to think.

No, what makes her a bitch is dressing like a slut instead of growing some ovaries and going straight for the (wo)man she really wants while sending clear signals to those of us without a snowball's chance in hell that we don't have a snowball's chance in hell.


I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think dressing provocatively (or even in a slightly sexual manner) is code for "I'll take any piece of meat that comes along". And so I don't really see why that makes her a bitch if she turns you down.

As for platonic friendships...I'm honestly not sure. My sexual orientation makes this a little hard for me to suss out. I've been sexually attracted to roughly 90% of the people I've been friends with. I can count the number of them that I've slept with (or even passionately kissed) on one finger. But I don't really worry about it. Of course, I've never had to break it to someone that "no, I don't want a sexual relationship with you", either.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:33 am UTC

I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think dressing provocatively (or even in a slightly sexual manner) is code for "I'll take any piece of meat that comes along". And so I don't really see why that makes her a bitch if she turns you down.

It's like putting up a sign that says "FREE COOKIES!" but telling everyone who came along that the cookies were meant for someone else without evening finding the person for whom there are cookies and telling them the cookies are theirs.

Do I think any woman dressed like a slut deserves rape, or even harassment? No. But it's certainly impolite and in bad taste.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:36 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
Wanting sex is not the same as wanting sex with you. So however she dresses, rebuffing you when you approach her, especially if you're an ass about it, does not make her a bitch giving "mixed signals" or whatever the fuck guys in that situation like to think.

No, what makes her a bitch is dressing like a slut instead of growing some ovaries and going straight for the (wo)man she really wants while sending clear signals to those of us without a snowball's chance in hell that we don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

But she doesn't have any more reason to assume the person she's interested in feels the same way about her, as you have to assume she has any interest in you. So going straight for that person could legitimately be received just as poorly as if you go straight for any woman who just happens to be dressed "like a slut", as you so eloquently put it.

aleflamedyud wrote:It's like putting up a sign that says "FREE COOKIES!"


NO. IT. FUCKING. ISN'T.

The whole point of this here discussion is that dressing a certain way does not mean "free sex". "I like to look good," maybe. Or even, "I would like to have sex with someone with whom I share a mutual attraction." But it doesn't mean, "I will have sex with anyone who shows any interest in me."

In this way, it is not at all like a "free cookies" sign. Perhaps something more like, "If you like cookies and I like the baked goods you're offering, maybe we can work something out."
Last edited by gmalivuk on Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:39 am UTC

....so, aleflamedyud, how does one dress to provoke only one person? Or only people one likes?

Answer: You can't. You can just dress to look hot, and then pursue the people you want.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Maurog » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:39 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Wait, so have you changed your opinion then? Or just explained it really poorly above? Because everything between your last post and this was disagreeing with you...
Actually, I never stated my opinion in the first place. My post was a reply to the "You only get that idea if the 'signal' of sexy clothing means something that in reality, it doesn't" conclusive line, and tried to show that meaning is given to signals by the surroundings rather than your own ideas of how things should work.

If you want my opinion, here it is: The guys that feel so cranky when such a provocatively-dressed woman turns them down are assholes, but on the other hand, the woman should be aware that assholes exist (mainly because they aren't going anywhere), when deciding which labels to wear. No acting all surprised. Offended, yes, annoyed, disappointed in men in general and assholes in particular. Never surprised.

As a clown crossdresser, you may want all children to disappear from the face of the planet, but it ain't gonna happen.

Now, go ahead and disagree with me all you like.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:41 am UTC

OK, has this hypothetical girl of ours never heard of layers? If she finds the right person, the sweatshirt comes right off to reveal what she really wanted him/her to see. If she doesn't, nobody gets any false impressions that she's generally available.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:45 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:OK, has this hypothetical girl of ours never heard of layers? If she finds the right person, the sweatshirt comes right off to reveal what she really wanted him/her to see. If she doesn't, nobody gets any false impressions that she's generally available.


Why would you ever get the idea that she is "generally available"? Do you know *anyone* who is just open to all comers? Won't say no to anyone?

Even most *prostitutes* exert more discretion than that.

So, if we can assume that there are no (or very, very few) people just giving away free sex to anyone who asks, then we can assume that dressing in revealing clothes (which many people do) does not mean that.

EVER.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:46 am UTC

Who the hell said anything about giving away free sex? It's more like giving away free "sexual process", which is a process that people often abandon long before they reach actual sex.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:47 am UTC

Apply the same question substituting whatever it is you're talking about.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:48 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:OK, has this hypothetical girl of ours never heard of layers? If she finds the right person, the sweatshirt comes right off to reveal what she really wanted him/her to see. If she doesn't, nobody gets any false impressions that she's generally available.

Maybe it's hot? Maybe she doesn't like sweatshirts? Maybe she doesn't think she should tailor the way she dresses to the stupid ideas people like you get into their heads about what "signals" that sends?

The problem here is not that she is dressing one way or another. The problem here is that you insist on interpreting revealing clothing as a signal that she's "generally available" when it means no such thing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby VannA » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:50 am UTC

WTF is wrong with some of you?

Provocatively dressed girl is approached by me.

I say "Can I buy you a drink, or other such indicative line."

One gets turned down (Or accepted :D).. then you say.. "Have fun."

Where's the problem?

People being Arseholes are Arseholes.. she can be a bitch if she takes the drink then fucks you over, or plays you.. but just being there doesn't cut it.

"This free-cookie stand reserves the right to refuse service."
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:53 am UTC

But VAAAANAAA! She got us all worked up by letting us see BOOOOBIEEEES!!!! She owes us sex NOOOOW!
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:57 am UTC

By this logic I would owe the whole man thread sex. Especially Pollywog.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Alisto
Crazy like a BOX!
Posts: 3998
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:14 pm UTC
Location: South Jersey
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Alisto » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:03 am UTC

What do you call an emo slut?
Spoiler:
A cookie cutter.


What do you call a slut who doesn't use condoms?
Spoiler:
Cookie dough; she likes it raw.


What do you call a jackass who thinks he is entitled to every vagina and set of breasts he so much as glances?
[spoilr]aleflamedyud[/spoilr]

Oops. I guess those last tags didn't work.
Bad grammar makes me [sic].
Crazy like a BOX!
<Jauss> Because karaoke, especially karaoke + lesbians = Alisto, amirite?
<rachel> Old people ain't got shit to do but look at clocks.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:05 am UTC

Okay, that's enough of that. Back to being serious.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Pai » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:06 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:OK, has this hypothetical girl of ours never heard of layers? If she finds the right person, the sweatshirt comes right off to reveal what she really wanted him/her to see. If she doesn't, nobody gets any false impressions that she's generally available.


It's easy to say that when you're not the gender who gets labeled 'a slutty bitch' if you wear a tank top and shorts and have the nerve turn down propositions from strangers you're not attracted to.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
shinybaby
In-Tents
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:41 pm UTC
Location: formerly Toronto, now London (Ontario)... anyone here??
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby shinybaby » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:36 am UTC

i have to admit to being more than a little boggled by the concept that some people think it's okay to blame someone else for their actions/reactions.

it doesn't matter what a person wears or doesn't wear, your actions are still your own. a woman could be holding a sign saying "come here, right now, i want to have sex with you. yes, you." and you'd still be responsible for being courteous. she has every right to turn you away if you come up to her and treat her like a piece of meat...even if it *was* you she was trying to attract!

it's about respect. for me, that's a big part of my relationships, platonic and otherwise. if i feel comfortable with and respected by a man, i'm much more inclined to be attracted to him. if it works out and we are mutually attracted, fabulous. if it doesn't (for whatever reason, be it bad timing, incompatibility, whatever) i still have someone i respect and care for in my life. also fabulous.
Gordon wrote:1) Meet Gordon
2) Deploy Gordon
3) ...
4) Profit!!!

User avatar
biolution
Ken
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:05 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby biolution » Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:12 am UTC

shinybaby wrote:it doesn't matter what a person wears or doesn't wear, your actions are still your own. a woman could be holding a sign saying "come here, right now, i want to have sex with you. yes, you." and you'd still be responsible for being courteous. she has every right to turn you away if you come up to her and treat her like a piece of meat...even if it *was* you she was trying to attract!


Thats a rather poor analogy. Given the context, she is unlikely to deny you; she has chosen you already and is looking for sex, who you are, as a person, doesn't matter so much anymore. Whether you walk up and say "Bend over, lets fuck" or "hello milady how are you this fine evening?" doesn't matter. Also, fwiw, courteous never got me far with women.

shinybaby wrote:it's about respect. for me, that's a big part of my relationships, platonic and otherwise. if i feel comfortable with and respected by a man, i'm much more inclined to be attracted to him. if it works out and we are mutually attracted, fabulous. if it doesn't (for whatever reason, be it bad timing, incompatibility, whatever) i still have someone i respect and care for in my life. also fabulous.


To draw an important distinction, since I don't know if this thread is about platonic relationships or simply what slutty clothing means anymore, respect is important in a relationship, yes. But when approaching that girl in the slutty dress, I would argue respect is secondary (thats not related to the thread topic, though) to her being comfortable.

Going back to respect, since its related to the actual thread topic, in thinking about the platonic relationships I have, a core portion of them is respect for the person. Another strong portion is they display an intrinsic value greater than sex with them. That value depends on a lot of things, but they include: social circle, sexual stimulation, and overall potential knowledge/benefit.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:54 am UTC

Alisto wrote:What do you call an emo slut?
Spoiler:
A cookie cutter.


What do you call a slut who doesn't use condoms?
Spoiler:
Cookie dough; she likes it raw.


What do you call a jackass who thinks he is entitled to every vagina and set of breasts he so much as glances?
[spoilr]aleflamedyud[/spoilr]

Oops. I guess those last tags didn't work.

What do you call an idiot who wants women to believe they've got every right to walk around stark-raving naked without being so much as remarked upon ("it's her right as a Womyn") because he wants to see boobies?

Apparently a majority of the male posters to this topic.

I'm more respectful to women than the lot of you, most likely. But in return for being treated as human beings instead of sex objects, I expect them to act like human beings instead of sex objects. But of course, a notion of manners based on reciprocal obligations to respect would take away your opportunity to stare at tightly and scantily clad girls, wouldn't it? You'd have to stop treating them as sex objects by ogling them when you have no intention to so much as introduce yourself to the human being living in that rather good-looking body, wouldn't you?

Nah, can't have that.

You know how to tell if she's not acting like a sex object? Find out if she'd been doing, wearing and saying the same things if the situation contained 0 members of the appropriate sex. If she hasn't modified her behavior for MOAS, she's no sex object. If she has, there's actually a lot of leeway to look nice without looking like a slut, so I don't understand why we need to have all this respect for the women who go beyond plain and beyond all available leeway to actually look like whores. There aren't even that many of them.

Now, of course, what do you call a slut who doesn't use condoms?

Spoiler:
Mom.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby podbaydoor » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:00 am UTC

It seems all this arguing about provocative dress as related to come-ons has ignored all the instances where the people doing the cat-calling/innuendo/hitting-on are female. They are blatantly sexually objectifying the male in question...but how many males are going to take that as an insult? (Especially if he's wearing provocative clothing.) An ego-boost, more like.

Oh god, now I have to write qualifiers for the above statement.

I'm not saying that provocatively dressed females who are *not* looking for sex from all comers should be pleased when they get advances from males. Of course they have the right to turn down anyone they want, and the right not to be harassed or denigrated, same as the male who gets hit on by a female.
But based on reading the last page and half, it seems the general tone is that women should be surprised and righteously indignant every time they get come-ons while they're dressed in slutty clothing, as if they were living in an ideal world where people showing large amounts of skin have no effect on the libidos of others and the person who would dare make an advance based on said abnormally large amounts of visible skin is an anomaly. Would that the world was like that; but it's not, and someone dressed provocatively *should be aware of this.* Thus,
If you want my opinion, here it is: The guys that feel so cranky when such a provocatively-dressed woman turns them down are assholes, but on the other hand, the woman should be aware that assholes exist (mainly because they aren't going anywhere), when deciding which labels to wear. No acting all surprised. Offended, yes, annoyed, disappointed in men in general and assholes in particular. Never surprised.

QFT.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:08 am UTC

Fuck that. They don't have the right to be annoyed or offended.

If nobody hit on people who looked like they were aiming for at least one person to hit on them, nobody would ever get laid and we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Oh wait, of course this board full of secularists is going to submit itself, each and every ever-so-proper member, to an old-fashioned process of arranged marriage. Forced arranged marriage, actually, because we wouldn't want men dressed like grooms hitting on women dressed like brides, would we? So obviously we have to forbid any actual participation in the wedding by the two getting married. Everyone should just put guns to their heads until they say the vows and conceive a first child.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby podbaydoor » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:16 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Fuck that. They don't have the right to be annoyed or offended.

If nobody hit on people who looked like they were aiming for at least one person to hit on them, nobody would ever get laid and we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Sure, by all means hit away. Just don't start harassing, badmouthing, getting douchey, etc. once the female has legitimately turned you down. *That* is when she definitely has the right to be annoyed and offended.
If she turned you down as part of a game, well, that's different and subject to individual examination of the situation.
What I'm saying is, someone dressed provocatively is walking around with a label and unfortunately people make assumptions based on labels - I think it's a fundamental way of thinking, though I guess someone's going to call a [citation needed] on me. Anyway, a provocatively dressed person has labeled him/herself and shouldn't be surprised when they get initial come-ons from people they haven't turned down yet.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Pai » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:21 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:But based on reading the last page and half, it seems the general tone is that women should be surprised and righteously indignant every time they get come-ons while they're dressed in slutty clothing, as if they were living in an ideal world where people showing large amounts of skin have no effect on the libidos of others.


It's amazing how what we're actually saying keeps flying over people's heads. This whole "Oh me yarm! You're saying WOMEN should expect to be able to PRANCE AROUND NAKED without comment?!" Is just ridiculously missing the point of what we've actually been saying. Which happens to be nothing of the sort. Go back and actually read what we typed.

If someone really believes that women give 'silent sexual consent to every man who looks at them' by their clothing (based on rules that vary by the individual men's definition of 'suggestive', so the ladies should just be sure to study up on every variation and opinion in order to not look like a 'slut' to every possible point of view -- a totally reasonable request, btw) so that men can blame those 'bitches' for the crime of looking hot and yet not being sexually available to them, there's really nothing anyone can say to convince you of how fundamentally wrong that is.

The other conclusion that I'm coming to, is that some people here seem to not know the difference between 'flirting' and 'harassment', which is also kind of disturbing.
Last edited by Pai on Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:27 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby Belial » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Yeah, nobody's saying "you shouldn't hit on people". Just "just because she's dressed to impress doesn't mean she owes you anything. If she says no, accept it and fuck off, don't gripe about how her skirt was 'false advertising' because you didn't get free sex".

For the record, I've been using "she" because at least in our culture, the revealing clothes and aggressive come-ons dynamic only seems to happen in that direction.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
zingmaster
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:22 pm UTC
Location: Ha!
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby zingmaster » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:43 am UTC

I never understood people who are so horny that they have to actually act upon their fantasies every time. My mind goes crazy every time I see a woman dressed seductively, and I blame my guy-ness for that. But I don't get upset over it.
You get 500 xp.
You collect:
1 :lol: HOBO BONUS :lol:
1 :idea: CHAOS BONUS :idea:
1 rusty dagger

Hold on Dreamaway
You're my sweet charade

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Platonic relationships

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:48 am UTC

No one here has said anything about walking around naked, except for aleflamedyud.
No one has said we shouldn't hit on people, except for aleflamedyud.
No one here has brought up arranged marriages, except for aleflamedyud.
And no one here is being particularly disrespectful of women and of their reasonable expectation of respect for their personal choices.
Except for aleflamedyud.

They don't have the right to be annoyed or offended.

Anyone who says another person doesn't have the right to get annoyed when a rebuffed guy starts calling her a bitch for not wanting to jump his bones that very minute has a hell of a lot to learn about respect.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests