4 ms·

While the construction of this old joke is admittedly good, using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people. It

While the construction of this old joke is admittedly good, using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people. It is complaining that they have a say in who they enter into relationships with. Or it's complaining about the fact that humans are more attracted to attractive people, which is how we define the word "attractive" in the first place. I'd avoid it generally, as you just failed both your stated rules by repeating it.

rimliu 9y ago
It is complaining about double standards, that's it.
jack_h 9y ago
"...using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people." That's an interesting and incendiary interpretation. Do you know for a fact that this person views women as prizes to be won or are you perhaps ascribing more meaning to the comment than can reasonably be inferred?
- rndgermandude 9y ago
  On top of that, the poster might be a straight woman, or a gay man, or whatever and just not into women at all.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  As I explained in another thread, this comment makes no sense if you view the interaction as being about two different behaviours: a welcome advance and an unwelcome advance. It is an impossible argument to make it you assume that the other party has a right to make a choice about who continues to pursue them for whatever damn reason they please.
peoplewindow 9y ago
> using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people How? There's no connection between what was said and the conclusion you drew from it. arkh's post observes that women often apply different standards to men's behaviour based on whether they find them attractive or not. That's not really in dispute, it's the origin of the "hot women being attracted to asshole boyfriends" cultural cliche.
- sidlls 9y ago
  It isn't in dispute? In what sense? I'd dispute it in this sense: women, like humans of any gender, are more likely to apply different standards based on pre-existing status (e.g. whether they're friends already or not) but not to the degree that as a rule they'd welcome a sexual advance from one co-worker and not an identical one from another based simply on attractiveness, or that they'd consider the unwanted one harassment. This isn't hard: women are humans and capable of rational thought, just like men. Your comment diminishes them.
  - friendzis 9y ago
    If you define sexual assault/harassment including term "undesirable/unwanted sexual advances" and accept attractiveness to be one of factors influencing evaluation of another person as potential mate, it becomes not that hard to see lower limits for actions to be labelled "unwanted" as varying based on attractiveness of advancing person regardless of gender or social setting. This would directly translate to welcome a sexual advance from one co-worker but not an identical one from another based simply on attractiveness. Social setting (e.g. workplace) may drive the lower limit below skirting board for some individuals, but that does not make certain social settings universally irrationality free grounds where evaluation as potential mate has no effect on social (and even professional) interactions. While both men and women are capable of rational thought, likewise both are not individuality, emotion and desires free.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      You don't think it's likely that women can view a man as being attractive and still not want sexual advances from him? How about possible? That humans aren't purely rational does not imply irrational behavior is the rule. Your comment reads to me as asserting that women are basically incapable of moderating their behavior based on sexual desire.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  It complains that women apply "different standards" to men's behaviour based on if they find them attractive or not. Viewing social interaction as a series of rules/steps to follow in order to "succeed" or "win" is how you view being attractive as a form of "cheating" or unfairness. This doesn't account for the other party having agency, since the only perspective taken is that of one side of a two sided issue. Even in your post you say "women often apply different standards to men's behaviour based on whether they find them attractive or not". Let's be damn clear: there are no different standards at play, there are two completely different behaviours at play - welcome romantic advances and unwelcome romantic advances.
arkh 9y ago
Women as prizes? Where did you read the word women in my post? I wrote about sexual harassment which can come from a person of any gender unto a person from any other gender. The attractiveness also mean a lot of things to different persons. A man who does not like tattoos may react differently to the same behavior coming from someone with a face tattoo or someone without. But I hope you can reflect on how many things you unconsciously assumed from one comment and where it was posted and how it can relate to its content (double-standard due to bias).
- freshhawk 9y ago
  If you accidentally posted a red-pill talking point with internal logic that requires the loss of agency from one party then I do apologize for making assumptions. We can move on, and now you know that this is a rather famous thing to say among people who are angry that women are allowed to choose who they wish to pursue them romantically.

rimliu 9y ago

It is complaining about double standards, that's it.

jack_h 9y ago

"...using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people." That's an interesting and incendiary interpretation. Do you know for a fact that this person views women as prizes to be won or are you perhaps ascribing more meaning to the comment than can reasonably be inferred?

rndgermandude 9y ago
On top of that, the poster might be a straight woman, or a gay man, or whatever and just not into women at all.
freshhawk 9y ago
As I explained in another thread, this comment makes no sense if you view the interaction as being about two different behaviours: a welcome advance and an unwelcome advance. It is an impossible argument to make it you assume that the other party has a right to make a choice about who continues to pursue them for whatever damn reason they please.

peoplewindow 9y ago

> using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people How? There's no connection between what was said and the conclusion you drew from it. arkh's post observes that women often apply different standards to men's behaviour based on whether they find them attractive or not. That's not really in dispute, it's the origin of the "hot women being attracted to asshole boyfriends" cultural cliche.

sidlls 9y ago
It isn't in dispute? In what sense? I'd dispute it in this sense: women, like humans of any gender, are more likely to apply different standards based on pre-existing status (e.g. whether they're friends already or not) but not to the degree that as a rule they'd welcome a sexual advance from one co-worker and not an identical one from another based simply on attractiveness, or that they'd consider the unwanted one harassment. This isn't hard: women are humans and capable of rational thought, just like men. Your comment diminishes them.
- friendzis 9y ago
  If you define sexual assault/harassment including term "undesirable/unwanted sexual advances" and accept attractiveness to be one of factors influencing evaluation of another person as potential mate, it becomes not that hard to see lower limits for actions to be labelled "unwanted" as varying based on attractiveness of advancing person regardless of gender or social setting. This would directly translate to welcome a sexual advance from one co-worker but not an identical one from another based simply on attractiveness. Social setting (e.g. workplace) may drive the lower limit below skirting board for some individuals, but that does not make certain social settings universally irrationality free grounds where evaluation as potential mate has no effect on social (and even professional) interactions. While both men and women are capable of rational thought, likewise both are not individuality, emotion and desires free.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    You don't think it's likely that women can view a man as being attractive and still not want sexual advances from him? How about possible? That humans aren't purely rational does not imply irrational behavior is the rule. Your comment reads to me as asserting that women are basically incapable of moderating their behavior based on sexual desire.
freshhawk 9y ago
It complains that women apply "different standards" to men's behaviour based on if they find them attractive or not. Viewing social interaction as a series of rules/steps to follow in order to "succeed" or "win" is how you view being attractive as a form of "cheating" or unfairness. This doesn't account for the other party having agency, since the only perspective taken is that of one side of a two sided issue. Even in your post you say "women often apply different standards to men's behaviour based on whether they find them attractive or not". Let's be damn clear: there are no different standards at play, there are two completely different behaviours at play - welcome romantic advances and unwelcome romantic advances.

arkh 9y ago

Women as prizes? Where did you read the word women in my post? I wrote about sexual harassment which can come from a person of any gender unto a person from any other gender. The attractiveness also mean a lot of things to different persons. A man who does not like tattoos may react differently to the same behavior coming from someone with a face tattoo or someone without. But I hope you can reflect on how many things you unconsciously assumed from one comment and where it was posted and how it can relate to its content (double-standard due to bias).

freshhawk 9y ago
If you accidentally posted a red-pill talking point with internal logic that requires the loss of agency from one party then I do apologize for making assumptions. We can move on, and now you know that this is a rather famous thing to say among people who are angry that women are allowed to choose who they wish to pursue them romantically.