Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    >I do admit men on the whole do look at women more.
    
       I disagree.  I know I handle it differently than I've seen many
    men handle it, but I think I look just as much as they do.
    
    
                                      L.J.

    re .-1

    	Then it seems to me that there is no problem. Let's enjoy the
    scenery.


    			Wayne

    Who me?
      Never! Ever! No no no no no no.

    Well, are they?  I most certainly hope so.  Sometimes there is nothing
    I want so much as to be seen as a sex object.  Window shopping,
    regardless of the sex of the shopper or of the "merchandise," can be
    highly enjoyable for both...
    
    -d

At the risk of starting trouble, I'll admit I look if there's something to
look at; what bothers me about being looked at is if the looking is
mixed with 'slimey' comments. I guess it's just the 'tone' of the looking,
if that makes sense. Appreciating beauty (of any kind) shouldn't be wrong;
degrading a person by reducing them to something only physical is something
different. No, I don't know how to define it clearer than that...something
about respect, or lack of it, that makes the difference to me.

My opinion only, of course.

Julie

    
    I know what you mean.
    
    CQ

    
    
    I think the reason you seem to be upset by this is that men do not
    get complimented as much on their appearance as frequently as women.
    Think of it, when was the last time you were given a compliment on
    your appearance.  Now think of the last time you complimented a
    woman on her appearance?
    
    If you ask your average male when was the last time he was complimemted
    on his appearance, most would not be able to tell you when.  It is a
    social thing.  Before women were a part of the mainstream workforce,
    part of their "job" of being a homemaker was to look pretty for the
    hubby.  They would lavish on the praise to their man telling him how
    wonderful and handsome he is.  Now when there is barely enough time
    to spend time together with work and family, these little niceties
    have fallen by the wayside.
    
    
    A nice body is going to be looked at whether or not it wants to be or
    not.  That is human nature.  It is once that looking turns into
    unwanted attention that a problem arises.  I love to look at men.
    Some of my favorite people are men.  I think they look great.  I must
    admit when I see my SO in a suit he looks good.  He feels good.  He
    projects a positive image about himself that one might not see when
    he is in a pair of shorts and a T-shirt.  It is attractive.  
    
    
    People need positive reinforcement to their self esteem.  If you 
    think someone looks good regardless of whether or not they are a
    male or a female, let them know.  It will make both of you feel better.
    
    Michele

    
    
    "women don't feel good about themself's unless they do"
    
    
    I think this is a remark which is way off base.  I wear clothes
    which highlight my looks when I feel like I want to be noticed
    for what I am wearing and not noticed for who I am.  Mind you
    this is the exception not the norm. BTW just what made you
    come to this conclusion?
    
    Michele

    "My, what a lovely outfit you're wearing today, Mr. Cleaver!"
    
    -edie haskell

Women have a much greater choice in the variety and type of clothes they can 
wear, both formally and informally. Men's clothing choices are much more
restricted, and boring.

I've always felt somewhat envious because, as a man, my choice of clothing type
is somewhat restricted. And I don't mean I want to wear women's clothes or
underwear or cross-dress. But men's clothing is pretty well restricted to pants, 
shirts, and, for more formal attire, that most horrible and ugly article, a tie.

I think that women have much greater freedom to pick and choose clothing that
corresponds more closely with their looks, figure, and personality. How many 
men look sexy in a three-piece suit?

Bruce

    but Bruce, (traditional, June-Cleaver-type) women's clothing does not
    have nearly enough
    
    
    		P O C K E T S !!!!!
    
    
    (This is a major gripe of mine!)
    
    Sara
    

    RE. 10
    
    What would you like to wear?
    
    And yes, a number of men do look sexy in suits - you know women look at
    bums (sorry, "buns" in the US, isn't it?): some suits fit some men just
    right for that!
    
    Alice T.

Alice,

I would like to be able to wear whatever I felt comfortable in, rather
than being ridiculed if I appeared in public in something considered
too far out of the straight-and-narrow.

I would like to be able to wear a suit without creating the impression
that I'm out interviewing.

I would wear a kilt in my clan tartan if I knew I would not be laughed
at or pitied behind my back.  But I wouldn't wear it all the time -- and
I have just bought the fabric to make myself a tartan shirt, which I can
wear with relative impunity.  :-)

-d

    Whenever I wear something people laugh at, I feel proud of myself for
    having the courage to do so.
    
    Go for it!!
    
    Alice T.

    Me too, Sara, I gotta have *POCKETS*.

    well, your wife and I clearly have different priorities about clothes!
    I once bought a women's suit jacket (more like a sport coat) for the
    sole reason that it had inside-the-lapel pockets...
    
    each to their own taste and preferences!
    
    Sara
    

BRUCE,

Do you shave every Saturday and Sunday morning? Do you wear a three-piece
suit when you get dressed on weekends? After all, you want to look nice for your
wife.

If you don't do this, then you should not complain about how your wife dresses
when she is not going to work.

(And if she has been laid off from her job, she needs support from you more than
she needs sartorial comments.)

Bruce (the *other* Bruce)

re : "women don't feel good about themself's unless they do"
    
>    I have watched my wife take hours to as she puts it put on her face
>    to go to the super-market. WHY??? Who is going to be there? Other
>    tired shoppers.

        In a culture where a woman's value is often equated with her
	looks, how she looks can often translate to others as how she
	feels about herself.  This is NOT the same as saying that being
	dressed up or made up is innately and inextricably tied to her 
	self-worth, but that dress can be a tool for projecting a positive
	self-image (whether or not that's actually what you have).

	There are some women who honestly don't feel good about themselves
	unless they're dressed up; I won't deny it.  However, I believe
	this is illustrative of a possible self-esteem problem and not of 
	an innate female characteristic.

>    I also have not seen my wife in a skirt since she
>    was layed off at the bank she worked at. I guess I don't count to look
>    good for.

	More probably, it's that she feels you know her well enough that
	you wouldn't judge her by how she dresses.

	(I'm mischevously tempted to generalize this statement to "men
	don't feel they count unless their wives are dressed up", but I
	won't :-)

>    When she was going to a bridal shower she had to buy a new
>    skirt for this. She also was glowing like I haven't seen in a long time
>    when I asked her why she said "I feel good because I have dressed up"

	"If I dress up, then I feel good" is *not* the same as saying
	"I don't feel good unless I dress up".  (And did she say she felt
	good before or after the heels started hurting, I wonder?)

>    	Now the next thing you may say is well your situation is different.
>    Well-- I am not the only one that see's this as several of my male
>    friends have made similar comments about there wifes.

	"Since several of my male friends also say this about their
	wives, your situation can't be different".  Bruce, do you realize 
	what you've just said?

	    Sharon

    I hate it when my wife dresses up.  I don't feel like I can touch her.
    I hate kissing lipstick.  I love simple comfortable cotton clothes.
    Jeans and a cotton print blouse, for example.  They look sexy to me
    because they look comfortable.  She dresses up for work, which is fine,
    but I can't wait for her to slip into something a little more
    comfortable when she gets home.  :^)
    
    I've always thought that men's suits were designed to cover up men's
    bulges.  I don't like dressing myself up either, even though my wife
    compliments me whenever I wear a suit.  
    
    							- Vick

one of the greatest advantages to growing older (it offsets all the downs
as far as I'm concerned) is the realization that my worth is NOT TIED TO
HOW MEN OR WOMEN THINK I LOOK.  I LOVE it!  I dress with COMFORT as the first
and most important criteria, neatness and marginal acceptablilty run close
second.  Period.  This means:

	No high heels ever for any reason.  These are not shoes, but torture
	tools (invented by men for men initially, FYI)....sane women don't
	like walking on their toes all day because it hurts and strains the
	muscles and ligaments of the legs and feet.  "Heels" also are a proven
	reason your podiatrist is putting his kids through harvard without
	scholarships.

	No skirts for everyday work.  They are a hassle on stairs, ugly
	for getting in and out of cars, etc.  I wear dresses for important
	occasions like weddings, the theater, and funerals...I will also
	wear a dress if meeting a particularly stuffy client for Digital,
	but now that I'm in california, it is less common to meet such.
	Out here, they usually wear jeans and t-shirts....my slacks and tunics
	or pant suits are more than adequate for a techie.

	No belts.  No fitted waists - my dresses are all chemise or trapeze
	style because they are comfortable.  If I lose all my excess weight,
	I'll still wear chemise and trapeze style dresses and tunics and
	slacks -- they are comfortable for movement.

	makeup on a whim when I feel like it - rarely - purely for my own
	entertainment - most of the time I just wear moisturizer with
	sunscreen.

	simple, easy care for hair.

Nope.  Not sexy.  But, quite frankly, I don't give a d*amned.

    There was no looking at my date this past weekend any other way!  
    
    Yeow! (woof!)
    
    S.

    braggart!

    I couldn't resist.  He deserves to be bragged about!
    
    S.

    I would like to experience this being considered a sex object, at least,
    for a little while. :-}
    
    Richard

     Sorry Richard; for most of us it's just another fantasy...

It's not all it's cracked up to be, though.

	(It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.)
	-- Charles

    can't afford it ;-)

    I will graciously accept all pictures of male noters from this
    conference to analyze their sex object potential.  All at the
    low, low fee of 5 bucks.  The photo becomes my property and cannot
    be returned.  Please send a self-addressed, stamped envelope so
    that I may return your analysis promptly!
    
    
    
                         L.J. :^)

    Where do I send my piccie ???
    
    
    Jerome who's_got_5_bucks_to_spare.

    you'll be sooorrrryyyyyy!

    only as punishment 

L.J.,

Send me $5.00 and I'll be happy to send you my picture.

Bruce

so how does L.J. know you men are sending her your *own* picture, and not some
snapshot your kid took at the beach this summer of some hunk?

;-) ;-) ;-)

ah, the perils of nation-wide networking

Sara

>so how does L.J. know you men are sending her your *own* picture, and not some
>snapshot your kid took at the beach this summer of some hunk?
    
    This reminds me. When I go to the astrologer, I always try to figure
    out what birth date would give me the best news and tell her that one.
    Is this dishonest?
    
    Worried,
    Ray

    re.37 Now Sara, would *I* lie? Everybody who knows me knows I'm 6'4"
    tall, slim but muscular, blond-haired and blue-eyed? (And look
    great in posing trunks, right L.J.?)

    I'm not L.J.
    
    but *right* Dana ;-)
    
    BJ

    re: counter-offer (L.J.'s)
    
         Send *me* the $5.00, and I'll send you a photo of
    L.J.!  (She's worth the money, you'll see!)  ;-)
    
    Frederick
    

                  Why should anyone care???

                                                -Robert Brown III

    > Why should anyone care???
    
    That's a strange question.  It seems insulting to the man who entered
    .0 (now deleted).  He cared enough to enter a note even if you don't.
    Why be rude?
    
    Mary

    
    
    RE: .45
    
    I think .43 has a lot of validity to it.  
    
    If people look at other people as sex objects, is that wrong?  I don't
    think so as long as they don't forget the fact that there ARE other
    aspects to people....and as long as they don't treat the people they
    are looking at as lower than themselves.
    
    I look at my SO as a sex object sometimes (as well as other people)...Who 
    cares?  
    
    I think the question should centered around the TREATMENT of other
    people, not the way someone happens to view another person.
    
    For so long society has treated sex as a bad, dirty, disgusting thing. 
    Isn't it about time to we blew that myth out of the water?
    
    kathy

    Kathy,
    
    I agree with what you said in .46, except for the first line.
    Perhaps I misunderstood .43, but I did not see it as saying "What's
    wrong with it?" but rather "Why waste time talking about it?"
    
    Mary

my mother handed this bit of wisdom to me years ago:

If you cannot find SOMETHING attractive or sexy about a man, you probably
won't stand around long enough to decide if he can really be your friend.
All healthy relationships between men and women have an "awareness of sex" as
a factor in them.  You can spend your time enjoying the aspects that his
'opposite sex' bring to the relationship, or you can spend your time AVOIDING
recognition of them, but your relationship WILL be affected by the fact that
you are of different sexes.

This being the case, I think that all women do look at men, at least some
of the time, as "sex objects" - if that definition includes recognizing the
"maleness" of men and appreciating the affects this maleness has on the
relationship.  I just don't think men should expect us to be actively 
lusting after every man that we meet....quite frankly, that would make me
far too distracted to be functional at work...and quite tired.

    
    re: .48 (Dian)
    
    > I think that all women do look at men, at least some of the time, 
    > as "sex objects" 
    
    Perhaps all heterosexual women, but certainly not all _women_.  (I
    admit to doing so with some unique male specimens, but I know many
    lesbians who most definitely do not.)
    
    Carla
    

    Re: .43 et seq.
    
    > Why should anyone care [whether women think of men as sex objects]???
    
    If this were France in the 18th Century, the question posed in .43
    might well be considered, by the writer of .0, as being rude enough to
    constitute grounds for a challenge.
    
    The fact that someone *does* care is sufficient justification.  Period. 
    No further explanation is required, except perhaps to a person who is
    so enthralled with hir own interests as to deny that others' concerns
    matter.
    
    -d

    
    
    RE: .47
    
    > Perhaps I misunderstood .43, but I did not see it as saying "What's
    >    wrong with it?" but rather "Why waste time talking about it?"
    
    That's an interpretation you gave to the comment.  If you read the
    comment at face value, without adding your emotional ties, beliefs and
    perceptions to it, you'll see that it simply says (at least the way I
    see it) exactly what it SAYS that it says.
    
    Mary, you're the owner of your perceptions of what you read.  You (and
    others) have to understand that any emotional content that is added to
    your perception of what you read is YOUR addition to the meaning.
    Emotional attitude can not be interjected into a slightly convex screen
    with little letters on it.  
    
    The choice of wording might not be the best, but the perception that is
    says "Why waste time talking about it?" is purely yours.
    
    We have to read things literally without attributing our own emotional 
    perceptions and we have to be WILLING to confirm our emotional
    perceptions before jumping.
    
    It's easier and far better to kindly ask for clarification before
    jumping.  However, it's not easy (I'll agree with that one!).
    
    From one who jumps a lot (and is trying to break the habit).
    
    kath

    
    
    RE: .50 
    
    Perhaps if the writer of .43 had written "Why DOES anyone care?"
    instead of "Why SHOULD anyone care?" I would consider your point.  But
    because the word was "should," I tend to wholeheartedly disagree with
    you.
    
    kath

    
    I appreciate nice atheletic bodies (male and female).
    I don't look at them as sex objects, though. I look at them
    as objects of art, like nice hairdos, etc.
    There is one exception - I do look at my husband that way sometimes ;-)
    (I think I am entitled to it...)
    
    
    Eva

 > (I think I am entitled to it.)

So is your husband!

Bruce

re: .52

I understood .43 as saying, "What's the justification for anyone's
caring about it?"  If the words had been, "Why should I care..." I would
respond differently.

You own your perceptions, I own mine.

-d

    Kathy, *all* perceptions go through an emotional filter: yours, mine,
    ever member of womannotes and every person on earth.  Every statement
    longer than two words carries some connotations.  Connotations carry
    a large amount of content in our language; ignoring them is like
    deliberately ignoring information presented.  It's like ignoring (in
    real-lie conversation0 body language and tone of voice in favor of "the
    words". In truth, the literal words carry less than 10% of the
    communication that occurs in verbal conversation.
    
    I disagree with your statement (stated as fact) that we "have to" take
    words at their face value.  Context (including when, where and who said
    it), connotations, etc are all further clues as to the meaning of what
    someone says.
    
    Why limit your bandwidth to 300 baud when you have a 9600 link???
    
    Your interpretation of what the referenced author meant is *one*
    interpretation.  Mine is another.  -d's is another.  No one is more
    guaranteed to be "right" than the other, until we hear from the author. 
    (And, if you are a Freudian, which I am to a certain degree, even that
    won't clear it up; because the choice of words and tone a person
    chooses reflects feelings and biases that even they may not be aware
    of.)
    
    D!

    But I'm just *sure* no one would send me a picture not of themselves!
    
    And I do apologize for this, but...my costs are going to have to
    increase to $10 a photo...I'm just so swamped with all the replies! ;^)
    
    And Fred doesn't even *have* a picture of me, so nyah!  ;^)
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

    
    
    RE: .56  (D!)
    
    My mileage varies.
    
    
    k

    Re: .51

    Kathy,

    I think you and I are mostly in agreement.  It is true that I have
    added my own interpretation to the comment and I willingly take
    ownership of my perceptions.

    It is also true that you have added your own interpretation to the
    comment.  You chose to take it at face value.  That's a perfectly
    valid interpretation.   But it sounds like you are saying that
    taking the comment at face value is a more valid interpretation
    than any other.  (Correct me if I'm wrong about that.)
    
    I chose my interpretation not because I think it is the only one, nor
    because I think it is the correct one, but because I think it is the
    most likely one.  I can never be 100% sure that my interpretation is
    correct.  I could be wrong and so could you.  For me, taking everything 
    at face value would be denying the possibilty of some other meaning --
    denying that language has any emotional content.
    
    I do what works for me and I am not unaware that I have added my own
    perceptions and may be jumping to conclusions.

    Mary
    
    And, D!, I loved your creative typo "real-lie conversation".  Ain't
    it the truth.  :-)

    
    
    RE: .59 (Mary)
    
    I wouldn't ever say that anything I had chosen was the "best" or "most
    correct" choice.
    
    However, I might point out that reading something at face value is
    probably the SAFEST choice......especially when not asking for
    clarification from the author.  (The choice least likely to cause an
    argument).
    
    
    
    kath