Saturday, December 2, 2017

When You Like Their Looks It's "Admiring" When You Don't Like They're Looks It's "Leering" Maybe You Need To Remember That You're Looking Too

OK, I didn't want to get into this in any more detailed way than I have but to start with, remember, I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING THAT NO ONE TOUCH ANYONE IN ANY WAY AT WORK, IN CLASS, AFTER CLASS, ETC.  And that all such touching and. especially, sexual contact of any kind only be engaged in on the basis of explicit, verbal (if this gets worse, I'll go to written) consent.  I have also, in the past, advocated that there be a strict wall between teachers getting involved with students and bosses getting involved with those they exercise power over.

That's a prelude because I know you're going to misrepresent what I said because you already have.

There is a total and complete difference between looking at someone and touching them or even looking at someone and making comments on their appearance.  Touching someone or making comments should be considered something you might be able to take action over, someone looking at you in a way you don't like isn't.  Or it certainly shouldn't because, as the saying goes, even a cat may look on a king.

If you try to dress in a way that is attractive, that is sexy, what the hell do you expect to happen?  You can reasonably expect and demand someone to not touch you unless you say they can because doing that is a moderately serious violation of your person, you can reasonably expect that should be punishable, though the proportion of punishment should depend on the nature of the act - WHICH IS WHY EVEN FRIENDLY TOUCHING WILL LEAD TO TROUBLE, ESPECIALLY AS MORES AND FASHIONS IN THIS KIND OF THING SHIFT, AS THEY DO.

It's also why there used to be rules in workplaces and in schools and, generally, more informal rules against making personal remarks about people and sexual remarks about them, in general.  Men who made those comments were considered sleazy cads, women who made them were considered the same way, only different words were used.  It's true that men usually got away with that better than the women did but show biz giving people permission to be sleazy and cheap certainly didn't improve things.  What was funny when Mae West said it in a movie because she was sending up the double standard doesn't work so well for women in real life, unless you want the kind of life that getting involved with the kind of man who finds that attractive will get you.  Again, life among the Hollywood actors - only without the money - isn't something any mature person would want.

But as to looking without touching, without comment, if you didn't want people to look at you why did you you put out a visual invitation for them to do so?    To attract the kind of attention you complain about when you get it from people you aren't interested in, quite often on the basis of their appearance.  Well, you're looking too, aren't you.  If the professor you're complaining about was gorgeous and rich and charming, I doubt you'd be complaining.  Well, dressing and showing off what you've got to attract the attention of the ones you want is also going to attract the attention of those you don't want.  That's just how things are.   As long a they don't make comments or touch you, get over it.

How did you get to be an adult without knowing this? 

Oh, and let me point out, men who get looked at by other men in ways they don't like are probably the biggest babies about it.  That's something any gay man should be able to understand.

I wonder if all those 60s and 70s TV psychologists and the writers of pop books that advocated all of that touchy-feely-kissy stuff weren't a bunch of dirty old men and women who just wanted to be able to grope people without getting into trouble.   It certainly hasn't seemed to make anyone more mature and self assured and to feel happily cherished, as promised on TV.   It's a fraud and a cheat, just like everything else they sell you on TV.

No comments:

Post a Comment