Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Just how are men supposed to know under what ``mode'' a woman is
    operating?
    
    I think Carly is suggesting a few things, one of which is that tge
    peacock with the brightest feathers gets the most attention at first.
    
    But, ultimately, men and women form lasting, satisfying relationships
    once the initial ``catch his/her eye'' phase is over.
    
    The woman in the song who _didn't_ catch Dwight's attention sort
    of put Dwight down as a man interested only in appearance. So why
    is she lamenting?
    
    Does she really think she'd be happy with Dwight, who (apparently)
    sees only makeup and high heels?
    
    One would think that such a sensitive, thoughtful woman would seek
    fulfillment in a place other than a singles bar.
    
    
    WW
     

    One key phrase I was trying to address in the basenote contains
    the words: 
    
       We put on our heels and went out for a walk
       More for a drink and to have a few eyes on us
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
               
    Often, some women lament that they go to a club and end up being
    ogled by men all night long.
    
    Stated succinctly, are there some women who enjoy being "women-
    watched", particularly in a casual atmosphere (in the song's setting,
    a lounge/nightclub)? 
    
    And, originally unasked, but implied never-the-less, are there some 
    women who will openly acknowledge this enjoyment?
    
    On a related subject, some women readily admit to the "crotch-bulge"
    or "butt-watching" of males. Do some men feel uncomfortable when
    they realize they're being...ah..er.. sized-up by women, so to speak?
      
    Alan                                           
                                                   

    RE: .2
    
    Would I be going out on a limb to suggest that you are, in a roundabout
    way, hoping some of the women who read your question, ``Do some women dress
    up to be ogled?'' to answer ``yes'', ...so you'll feel better about
    ogling? 
    
    I can't understand why else you'd be wondering about this, unless you're
    a sociology buff.   
    
    
    WW
    

    
    	Affirmations of the self-attributes, whether obtained externally
    or generated internally, are needed by the spirit every so often.
    You have to admit, few feelings of excitement come as close as
    when the word "yes" is heard, in affirmation of one or all of your
    features. So, I believe "to have a few eyes on us" is to seek 
    affirmations.
    	At one time in my life, I recall asking someone out, getting
    a "yes" - but we never went out. All I really wanted/needed was
    the "yes" - an affirmation of value - so the actual date never
    happened. I'm sure this happens all the time...
    	Perhaps women who are very self-affirmed are some of the ones
    that dont seem to mind being looked at, but would rather not be
    approached.         
    	Perhaps some of the others that dont mind are just interested
    in the affirmation as I once was...and that's OK.
    	I dont know how you'd distinguish when someone's interests stop
    at "affirmation" vs going all the way to "consummation".
    	I guess you'd know.
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    RE: .3
    
       >   -< Isn't the answer an obvious "yes"? >-
    
    In fact, the answer is not an obvious "yes", as least as given by
    some women. Some state they dress up (or dress down) to "feel good
    about themselves, even if no-one is around".
    
       > Would I be going out on a limb to suggest that you are, in
       > a roundabout way, hoping some of the women who read your
       > question, "Do some women dress up to be ogled?" to answer
       > "yes", ...so you'll feel better about ogling?
    
    Actually, I have no hidden agenda nor devious motives for asking
    the question. Nor do I need to feel better or worse about ogling,
    should ogling be my choice.
    
       > I can't understand why else you'd be wondering about this,
       > unless you're a sociology buff.
    
    If anything, I'm a buff of human nature, and the myriad rationali-
    zations that we humans give for our actions never cease to fascinate
    me.
    
    BTW, if I'm not being too personal, what sex are you? "WW" is one
    of those gender-neutral set of initials and it's hard to tell. :-)
    
      Alan

    re .6 
    
    Ahah!  Bingo!  (ie. I agree with the statement)
    
    Lee

    RE: .6
    
    Steven, you're lucky to have Eagle-Vision, and can ogle
    freely_and_often from three miles up (jeez, Steven, do you have any 
    idea what a pain in the ass it is, putting those underscores 
    in, especially for a_very_less_than_ideal_typist_like_me?).
    
    Some of us more ground-based critters, even with contact lenses,
    have to wear sun-glasses (or be wall-eyed), since we have to be
    a bit closer.
    
    Gives a whole new meaning to the term "that's for the birds". :-)
    
      Alan

    
    I guess that both men and women liked to be looked at some of the
    time depending on mood, or maybe depending on how well we've prepaired
    in the moring (dressed up etc.). It seems that women spend twice
    as much time getting ready in the a.m.!!! Must be in self defense
    cause we (men) seem to crane our necks more than women do.
         
    jack

    There are times when I'm feeling a little down, maybe a lacking
    attention and it does feel a little good to "dress" and go out.
    
    I like a look that shows I'm looking good, but hate being "ogled".
    

    
    I think it depends on (a) the woman's mood and (b) the occasion.
    For instance, if I'm not feeling very good about myself, a bit of
    ogling can give the ego just the boost it needed to make me feel
    better.
    
    As for attire, I always feel better with hair and make-up done just
    right and dressing to the hilt.  I'm not really comfortable wearing
    jeans outside of Digital.
    
    Each to their own, I guess.
    

    RE: .10
    
    >  I like a look that shows I'm looking good, but hate being "ogled".
    
    Cindy, how do you, in your own mind, distinguish between a "look
    that shows you're looking good" and an "ogle"? (Maybe, that's part
    of the problem - the word "ogle" like "leer" is such a negative,
    emotionally-charged one).
    
      Alan

    RE: .12 Good question Alan; I too was wondering.

    re .12,.13
    
    when s/he's ogling and your eyes meet, s/he looks hungry and leers.
    	when s/he's appreciating and your eyes meet, s/he smiles, nicely.
    
    again, it's up to a very subjective interpretation by the person
    being "admired".

    and men aren't the only ones who ogle.
    
    ---L

    Ok, here goes a shot.....
    
    A man can look at you with an appreciative eye, hopefully ending
    somewhere in your facial area (ie. eye-contact) and you can tell
    your looking good by his eyes or smile.
    
    Then there's the ones that mouths drop open, stare at you, grab
    at their pants, or give you little motions with their tongue.
    They make me gag.
    
    Now, where "ogle" fits in, you tell me...
    
    (How'd I do?)
    
                                         cj 
    

    da...um....da foist one? :-)
    i'm not following you, honest!
                                        @L

    Aw man, I don't know how to explain it.  There *is* a difference
    though.  Think of how *you* act when you see women.  Is it as
    bad as my second paragraph?  If not, then you DO know what I
    mean.
    
    Can anyone else help me out?  Carla, you're good with words,
    how do you describe *that* look as opposed to being raped with
    someone eyes?
    
                                        cj
    

    cj, I understand your explanation perfectly. Just remember
    that part of your second description can be an overt flirt!
    There-in lies the problem.
    
    I like a nice smile in return for a nice smile. (She appreciates
    that I appreciate, by your definition.)
    
    I hate the scowl in return for the nice smile. (What are you
    looking at buster, by my definition.)
    
    I'm saddened by the nose in the air-hrumph in return for the
    nice smile. (You low-life pig/eat-you-heart-out, by my definition)
    
    I feel sorry for the sudden-look-at-the-floor response. (Very
    insecure in my definition.)
    
    I'm sure there are more interpretations out there.???
    
    Bob Mc
    

    re: .17 (cj)
    
    	Okay, I'll give it a go!
    
    	I feel very uneasy and uncomfortable when I walk into a bar and 
    	a group of men (numbers don't really matter) TURN around, nod 
    	their heads, mumble "yeah" once or twice, and then proceed to 
    	hang off the nearest rafter trying to get you to notice them.  
    
    	I also feel very uneasy when I'm sitting in a bar (as I was
    	last night with a girlfriend) and a man walks past, only to
    	leer at me and walk backwards as he passes my table, as if he
    	KNEW there was nothing I could do to resist his persuasive 
    	charms he was about to bestow upon me.  Barfola!!!!!!  The
    	type of man who just ASSUMES you want him.
    
    	But a man who looks my way and smiles at me without *expecting*
    	any type of reaction other than a returned smile is a man who's 
    	most likely giving me an *appreciative* look.  A look that is 
    	reassuring, that makes me feel good...a look that I remember.
    	
        In summary, a man who notices me without trying to make sure 
    	I notice him noticing me is a man *appreciating* the way I look.

    	There's a BIG difference between that and a look that makes me 
    	run to the restroom to check the mirror to make sure I've zipped 
    	all zippers, and if I HAVE sufficiently covered myself makes me 
    	want to put on *more* clothes!!!!

    						Carla
        

    re .18
    
    Your interpretations of "looks" had me in stitches!  It's funny
    but I think I recognized a couple myself, and think I'm going to
    be a lot more conscious of them in the future.  I'm more inclined
    toward a smile-then-look-at-the-floor, because I do have a tendency
    toward shyness (at times...). But just wait a second, I'll look
    back up  :-)
    
    re.19
    
    Thanks Carla, knew you'd pull through...
    
                                      cj *->
    

    re .19
    Those actions are in the class of adolescent behavior. Haven't
    grown up yet. But, as far as everyone turning around to see who
    just walked in the door, either its a close nit place or they're
    bored with those already there (or waiting for someone specific).
    I've had that happen when walking into a club or restaurant with
    a group of people. In reference to the-singles-scene, they, also,
    turn when a guy comes in and its funny to watch the expectant looks
    turn to 'aw crap, another guy'.
    
    re .20
    The smile-then-look-at-the-floor is definitely the embarassed reaction.
    I think what I was referring to is the automatic avoidance of eye
    contact type.
    
    I can't remember very many WOMEN being impressed by the rooster
    strutting I.E. adolescent behavior thing. But let's turn the tables
    a bit. Women seem to universally decry the guys passing by their
    table and *leering* at them or overemphasizing double-takes. What
    do you think it makes a guy feel like, when he passes a table of
    women that immediately start whispering to their friends or giggling?
    I usually check my zipper if they start giggling, but it makes you
    wonder what's up when they start whispering.
    
    On a more serious note, when a guy stops dead in his tracks, whips
    his head around and makes any number of actions that denote approval,
    you should interpret that as at least a 9.5 if not a 10 on his scale.
    
    Bob Mc

    The very existence of this note suggests that the writer isn't sure
    that women are people but possibly beings from another world whose
    actions and reactions are strange and mystifying and need
    interpretation.
    
    How do you know ANYTHING about ANY stranger?  You don't.  You stay
    detached, general and well-mannered until you DO know that you are
    accepted as more than a passing stranger.  Now try and understand
    this next part - women are just like that too!  Sure there are some
    strutters of BOTH sexes but does the presence of an exception allow
    anyone to disregard the rules of human decency?  It seems like a
    hefty rationalization to me too when men ask, infer or state that
    women do exist who like to be "noticed".  Isn't that a little like
    saying "Some cars are built for tough terrain - therefore we can
    take this little Lamborghini into the sand dunes and have a blast
    cuz maybe it can take it!"
    
    Because jeeps exist, are you acting rationally taking a Carrera
    into the woods?  Not in my book.  And a Carrera doesn't even warrant
    basic HUMAN respect because it doesn't have feelings.  Women do
    so you need to be even MORE sure before you take an unknown one
    "off the road" and risk scratching her paint and dragging her wheels 
    in the mud.
    
    If you are an ill-mannered boor who places your own lascivious desires
    above basic human dignity, then no matter HOW many women exist who
    would welcome such treatment, you are still an ill-mannered boor.
    
    Everyone wants to be appreciated.  Men do, women do.  And every
    man knows when he is appreciating and when he is doing something
    more than that.  This note represents the timeless male question, 
    "Yes, but how FAR can I go?"  
    
    Go as far as your conscience allows and take your lumps.  I don't
    think any public forum consisting of women is going to respond
    positively to this topic and let men "off the hook".  That seems
    to me to always be the motive behind this topic when a male introduces
    it.  He WANTS to hear from a woman that there exists, somewhere, in
    some remote corner of his culture, at least ONE woman who wants
    to see his tongue when she passes him.  Just one of us needs to
    say it and men will mentally close the subject and head out into
    the sunshine to "ogle" and "leer" to their hearts content believing
    that the subjects of their attentions are most likely enjoying it
    or otherwise have some personality problem.
    
    So trash those Jaguars when you can, guys - you never know when you'll 
    come across one that's been specifically customized for the rough road!!!
                
    
    
    

    I'd say that .0 was seriously looking for some hints on how
    to act and how to interpret others actions. He could have used
    an old song like 'where the boys are', or it could have been
    a woman using an old Beach Boys song about cruisin on a saturday
    night. I'm not going to re-read all 22 replys to refresh my memory
    as to responses by men-women etc., but I don't think anyone else
    attacked him for *asking*.
    
    You make some very good points in .23, but the basic message is
    lost in your rabid, anti-male sentiments. Classify men as a group
    and stereotype their behavior...
    
    Bob Mc

    RE: .24
    
    Bob, thanks for your comments.
    
    When I first read Ms. Ciccolini's vitriolic response, I was
    undecided as to whether I should reply, but then decided she
    must have taken double her daily dosage of "righteous anger pills", 
    before she sat down at her keyboard.
    
    Now if she could only get *some* of the women who responded (both
    here and in Note 637 in Womannotes) to recant *their* replies.....
    
    RE: .23
    
    > If you are an ill-mannered boor who places your own lascivious
    > desires above basic human dignity, then no matter HOW many women
    > exist who would welcome such treatment, you are still an ill-mannered
    > boor.
    
    Judging from the tone of your response, as well as the way you seem
    to feel that *you* really know what *my* (hidden) motives are, I
    have to say that I certainly don't seem to have the edge on boorish
    behavior. 
    
    In fact, you're far ahead.
    
    Congratulations. 
    
      Alan
                    

    But he wasn't asking how to interpret the actions of "others" but
    the actions of women.  That assumes that women are different than
    "people in general".  That assumption always bothers me and I'm
    sorry if I let it show.  The question tells so much about basic
    underlying attitudes that I guess I ignored the question and went
    straight to the heart of those attitudes.
    
    No one is stopping any man from looking at anything - a tree, a
    dog, a piece of litter, a cloud, a woman... but suddenly there's
    this whole note about looking at women.  What's so different about
    it?  Is there a note asking whether it's ok to look at a horse-drawn
    carriage if you glimpse one?  Or if the horse minds?
    
    So since we all know we all have eyes and tend to keep them open when 
    we're outside walking around, what is the REAL question here?  Do
    women "like" it?  Like what?  Being visible?  Are we bothered that
    we cast actual shadows and our forms can be picked up by the average
    male retina?  If that's the question the answer is no.  I don't
    think men are bothered by the knowledge that they are visible. 
    Why should women be?  Or is there something else the base note writer
    is expecting women might be bothered by?  What might that be?  Probably
    the same thing any human might be bothered by.  Embarrassing, unwanted
    attention from immature strangers would bother anybody.  Even women!
    Is that was he didn't know?
    
    The question just sounds like a man asking how FAR he can go in
    his "looking" because everybody knows that anybody can just "look".
    My answer is that human dignity demands you go no further.  But
    I sense that a desire to go further, to perhaps stare, to say something
    lewd, to grab is the real basis for a question that would be so
    easily and obviously answered were no such desire present.
    
    No one wonders HOW far you can go looking at a cloud.  No one questions
    whether it's rude to "appreciate" a flower or a horse.  Why should
    it be rude to look at a woman?  And what is the motivation behind
    trying to find out if she likes it or not?  So you can do MORE of
    it perhaps?  So you can do MORE than what you would do were she
    a cloud or a flower or a car?
    
    Well you're right.  I ignored the question and attacked what I believed
    were the attitudes that prompted the question.  I admit that when
    someone doesn't assume that women are just female-people I have an
    overwhelming desire to deal with that.  The actual question involved
    is irrelevant to me when weighed against the broader attitude. 
    I suppose I felt if I pointed out the attitude everyone would see
    that the question was groundless.  I was wrong.  No one wants to
    hear about the underlying attitudes.  Just the facts, ma'am!
    
    OK.  Yes, some women like to have eyes on them.  Lots of eyes. 
    Some women like men to make what they consider sexy remarks when
    they walk by.  It makes them feel very desirable.  Some women spend
    all their money and all their time on their image and trot it out 
    for men to drool over and desire.  Some women are hurt if they walk
    by a construction site and no one yells or screams.  Some women
    feel that if they just had bigger boobs, longer hair, whiter teeth,
    fresher breath, longer nails, smoother skin, different color eyes,
    you-name-it, their love lives would improve.  Some women want visible
    evidence that men appreciate all the time and expense the women
    have brought to this moment.
    
    The base not author didn't know this?  Really?  Well now that you
    all do, how will that change things?  What's different now?  You
    wanted to know this in order to ... what?

    As a matter of fact, have you ever wondered what the horse thinks
    when you say 'What a beautiful horse!' and stroke their flanks?
    
    "Of course, I'm the best thing around!"

    "What's this stupid human doing touching my body?"
    
    "I sure hope they don't work in a glue factory!"
Bob Mc
    ps, DON'T pick the flowers!

    In some important ways, Sandy is positively wasted here at DEC. She
    should be getting paid as a cultural anthropologist:  her ability to
    illuminate the unacknowledged assumptions on which our culture operates
    seems really fine to me. I almost always get a new insight, or get some
    half-formed idea clarified from what she writes.  She sometimes misses
    fire, and she is often less than gentle to innocent people (such as
    Alan) when she is intent on exposing some raw spot, but what fine
    thinking! 
    
    						=maggie

RE: .21

"What do you think it makes a guy feel like, when he passes a table of women
that immediately start whispering to their friends or giggling? I usually check
my zipper if they start giggling, but it makes you wonder what's up when they
start whispering."

Yup, women embarass men too...  I've known that too..

RE: .23

"And every man knows when he is appreciating and when he is doing something more
than that."

Obviously there are times when men do not; and obviously there are time when
women do not either.

"That seems to me to always be the motive behind this topic when a male
introduces it."

Allways???  You see what you want to see.

"But he wasn't asking how to interpret the actions of "others" but the actions
of women.  That assumes that women are different than "people in general"."

To quote .0

"The problems come when men are not sensitive to these various modes (moods)
under which a woman may be operating.  Is there any best way for a man to know?"

The topic seems to have degenerated into 'how far *should* you go?'.

Women are different from men.  Men don't seem to have or reaction to the
same sort of problem.  Why do you assume a underhanded motive?

"but suddenly there's this whole note about looking at women.  What's so
different about it?"

Women seem to mind sometimes, and like it other times.

"Embarrassing, unwanted attention from immature strangers would bother anybody."

The embarassment and immaturity happens on either side.

"Is that was he didn't know?"

No.

"My answer is that human dignity demands you go no further."

Other human emotions on either side may equally '''demand''' that you do go
further. 

"But I sense that a desire to go further, to perhaps stare, to say something
lewd, to grab is the real basis for a question that would be so easily and
obviously answered were no such desire present."

You see what you want to see.  You assume such a desire exists when in fact it
may not.

"Why should it be rude to look at a woman?"

Because sometimes women don't want to be looked at.

"And what is the motivation behind trying to find out if she likes it or not?"

To avoid being rude.

"The actual question involved is irrelevant to me when weighed against the
broader attitude."

Perhaps to those interested in the question, your replies are irrelevant.

"The base not author didn't know this?  Really?"

How does one *really* know unless one gets it straight from the horses mouth?

"Well now that you all do, how will that change things?"

I will no longer envy men making fools of themselves for women.

Jim. 

    (29 replies later)
    
    
    I have been bothered by this discussion since reading the
    base note.  Perhaps I've misunderstood.  I DID go back and
    re-read the song.  
    
    It sounds as if two ladies (?) were out specifically for
    the purpose of being 'picked up.'  Looking for casual sex
    with a stranger.  Not just looking for a few admiring 
    glances.  
    
    So is the question really "Do women appreciate admiring glances?"
    Or is the question "Do women solicit admiring glances hoping to
    find someone with whom to spend the night?"
    
    I appreciate compliments on my appearance, and am not particular
    about the gender of the person issuing the compliment.  I DO NOT
    appreciate comments that hide an unspoken proposition.  At least
    not from a stranger....
    
    
                              Deborah
    
    

    There is a difference from a few eyes on us than the entire place
    standing up and leering.....
    
    If a man who I don't know comes up to me and says to me (making
    some eye contact) "You look terrific in that dress."  I would take
    him alot less threateningly than the man who comes up to me puts
    his arm around my should and scans my body with his eyes continuously
    while syaing the same thing.  Two different types of man.  Same
    falls for women.            
                                
    Awhile ago while I was working in the club we hired a bunch of new
    bouncers.  Most of whom were regulars and I knew previously.  I
    had always given them quick hugs when they came in before and saw
    this as an understood meaning of friends. One of the bouncers started
    to take this a little further and grabbed my ass one night I asked
    him not to do it again.  The next week he was very fresh with me
    (even though he knows I have a boyfriend who I very much love) and
    tried not only to grab my ass but also from the front as well!!!
    I turned around and nailed him.  Were my actions justified? YES! Why?
    Because he was threatening my body with his actions.  No one has
    the right to do that to me.  He was the only person I have ever
    had problems with like this. Most of the guys who come into the
    club know me and I know them plain and simple.  I act slightly aloof
    to avoid the hassles of trying to be picked up.  I don't want to
    be.  But there are people who go there strictly to be picked up
    and the men know who they are.  Simply by the way they dress or
    act.....guys start to generalize that all women are like this and
    we get the incidents that happen.....
    
    Sorry if this is so long winded.................
    
                                   Debbi         
                                
                                

    re .31
    You shoulda nailed him the first time, then told him not to do
    it again.
    
    But women start to generalize and think all men are like that.
    
    Type are types and gender OR race have nothing to do with it! The
    sooner people learn that people are different, the sooner they
    learn to get by in life. What a lousy world it would be if we all
    wore Mao unisex uniforms and subjugated sexual attraction. Hey,
    that's the answer; wear sack cloth and ashes or baggy work clothes
    and the only thing you'll see is people shaking their heads. They
    still might stare, but it won't be in a sexual manner. The rest
    of us pays our money and takes our chances.

    re .32:
    
    	"But women start to generalize and think all men are like that."
    
    As of course, opposed to men, who don't?
    
    	Jon

    re .33
    Did you read all of .31?
    
    Bob Mc

    I think it depends on one's intention and where they chose to "intend"
    it.  I wouldn't dress in tight clothes for the work environment,
    nor would I try to put-on-the-dog when going out with friends to
    a club "unless I had the intention" to be "looked"/"glared"/"stared"/
    "ogled" at.
    
    I would also have to feel good about my general appearance to even
    "try" to put-on-the-dog.  I think if I was over-weight or had a
    noticeable birthmark and if someone were to "look" at me, I might
    perceive that as "they've noticed" what's wrong.
    
    Where I once worked, when the mini-skirt first became the fashion,
    I had to walk thru the manufacturing plant to get to the cafeteria.
    The guys were boring holes in their hands from the lathe machines,
    walking into poles and making wolf-calls.  I was embarrassed and
    uncomfortable.  I wasn't dressed any different than the other females
    in the office and it was not my intention to have these men "look"
    at me.  Although they were making asses out of themselves and I
    was embarrassed, I was also flattered and complimented.
    
    I believe it is the INTENTION of both the giver and receiver of
    "looks" as to whether to reject or accept.  For each of you in your 
    own way know what you're doing, where you're doing it, why you're
    doing it and if you're doing it at all.
    
    

    one small interjection.
    some of us have met and know one major protagonist in this debate.
    we know what color the spots are.
    we know it's not as it should seem.