7 ms·

Hmm, there are a few things on that list that don't seem to ring true, or at least seem to be leaving out large portions of the picture. For example: "41. Ass

Hmm, there are a few things on that list that don't seem to ring true, or at least seem to be leaving out large portions of the picture. For example: "41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer." The last issue of Playboy that I have seen had more topless men in it than women. Perhaps the author is better at visually tuning out advertisements than I. Of course the same is true of the last... dozen? action movies I've seen. And then there are the issues of reproductive/child rearing rights, which are currently heavily skewed against men. A woman who has unprotected sex (or for that matter sometimes protected sex) is in a much better position than a man who does the same. In fact, in nearly anything concerning children in the slightest men are decidedly discriminated against. What is my point here? Real life is more complicated than a list or two might suggest.

waqf 15y ago
Right, and "22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex." Supposing you are caught speeding down the freeway at 110mph on Saturday night. What sex is everyone going to expect you to be?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Or this one "25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability." Compare: A woman wearing pants. A man wearing a dress. One person is going to have their sexuality judged. And it's not going to be the woman.
  - skore 15y ago
    That's funny, but not insightful. I assume that with pants, you don't mean plain jeans, but a pantsuit (because this isn't the 60's). There are pantsuits designed for women, but no dresses designed for men. Even further than that - a dress is very specific to female anatomy in a way that a suit isn't, to male anatomy. The real issue, however, is that a woman wearing a suit is perceived in a certain way (as aggressive and, funnily enough, "only imitating men") while a man wearing a dress happens to be an often frequented motif in comedy. Finally, a man can wear a dress specifically to underline just how male he is, because "even a dress can't take that manliness away".
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case. I was not attempting to be funny at all. ^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.
      - skore 15y ago
        Yes, and I maintain that jeans simply aren't as gender specific as a dress. I have never heard that jeans are 'male'. That's why it's not a comparison of opposites.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        That jeans have ceased to be gender specific is my point in a nutshell.
        skore 15y ago
        That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument. Also - jeans ceased to be considered gender specific in society while also never being, in their shape and technical form, gender specific to begin with.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        "That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument." No. You must be misunderstanding my initial argument if you think that it does. You are definitely missing my point if you don't think that I understand that about jeans...
        skore 15y ago
        Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point. That you appear to insist on the 60s idea of pants being inherently male (not as your argument, but you still use it as an argument, which makes no sense) further takes away from it. Actually, I really thought you were only pulling a lame joke in the beginning. If that's really your entire argument then I'm not sure why we bother arguing it in the first place. It seems like you don't care elaborating on your point anyhow. Edit: Hey Downvote Police, what about stepping out and adding reasoning to your downvotes? Thanks.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw Or a man wearing a pantsuit? Edit: The point of posting this wasn't just a funny fake political ad but also the nuances of suggesting that Bill Clinton wears the pantsuit, instead of Hillary wearing the pants.
  - wazoox 15y ago
    Actually misrepresenting reality. Do you consider William Wallace as a wimp because he wore skirts ?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      He wore a kilt, which is actually an interesting addition to my point. Despite the strong masculinity of a kilt, they do not appear to be very popular in modern society. I would suggest without evidence that this is in no small part due to a potential association with "feminine" skirts.
      - skore 15y ago
        They are not popular, but men wearing them won't have their sexuality judged, so they probably don't have significance to your original point. I think they are not popular because they have a strong cultural association with being Scottish.
wpietri 15y ago
Are you seriously equating topless men and topless women as socially equivalent, disempowering sexual objectification? That seems of a piece with your theory that the point of topless men in Playboy ads and action movies is to appeal sexually to women.
overgryphon 15y ago
That particular list has been around for years. While a recent issue of Playboy may have topless men, it is historically a men's magazine. If you counted the pictures of women and men in the last year, what would you find? "A woman who has unprotected sex (or for that matter sometimes protected sex) is in a much better position than a man who does the same." Men who have unprotected sex are expected to pay a state-determined minimum tax essentially to provide for their children. For men, children are abstracted into a financial problem. A woman who has an unexpected child has much more than finances to worry about.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  Divorced fathers face state-imposed poverty if not being caged for the sin of existing in a bad economy. Divorced mothers, after a decision that's wholly up to them, can free ride on half of the child's mandated "standard of living" which has almost no relationship to the actual cost of raising a child. We urgently need less unreliable, primitive, unpleasant contraception for men.

waqf 15y ago

Right, and "22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex." Supposing you are caught speeding down the freeway at 110mph on Saturday night. What sex is everyone going to expect you to be?

burgerbrain 15y ago
Or this one "25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability." Compare: A woman wearing pants. A man wearing a dress. One person is going to have their sexuality judged. And it's not going to be the woman.
- skore 15y ago
  That's funny, but not insightful. I assume that with pants, you don't mean plain jeans, but a pantsuit (because this isn't the 60's). There are pantsuits designed for women, but no dresses designed for men. Even further than that - a dress is very specific to female anatomy in a way that a suit isn't, to male anatomy. The real issue, however, is that a woman wearing a suit is perceived in a certain way (as aggressive and, funnily enough, "only imitating men") while a man wearing a dress happens to be an often frequented motif in comedy. Finally, a man can wear a dress specifically to underline just how male he is, because "even a dress can't take that manliness away".
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    No, I mean regular old jeans. Women seem to be able to "get away" with wearing "female" clothing, as well as "male" clothing without any questions asked. At least in the circles I am in^. The opposite is certainly not the case. I was not attempting to be funny at all. ^And anybody wearing a "suit"-anything is just a stiff. The people I consider my peers don't do that either at work or casually.
    - skore 15y ago
      Yes, and I maintain that jeans simply aren't as gender specific as a dress. I have never heard that jeans are 'male'. That's why it's not a comparison of opposites.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        That jeans have ceased to be gender specific is my point in a nutshell.
        skore 15y ago
        That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument. Also - jeans ceased to be considered gender specific in society while also never being, in their shape and technical form, gender specific to begin with.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        "That dresses haven't still breaks your initial argument." No. You must be misunderstanding my initial argument if you think that it does. You are definitely missing my point if you don't think that I understand that about jeans...
        skore 15y ago
        Your initial argument was about having your sexuality judged if you are a man wearing a dress, but not if you're a woman wearing pants. You must concede that my point - that dresses being so specifically female (let's face facts - a man just cannot fill that cleavage without surgical help) makes it possible to even wear them as a comedic statement or an underlining of manliness - at least greatly reduces your point. That you appear to insist on the 60s idea of pants being inherently male (not as your argument, but you still use it as an argument, which makes no sense) further takes away from it. Actually, I really thought you were only pulling a lame joke in the beginning. If that's really your entire argument then I'm not sure why we bother arguing it in the first place. It seems like you don't care elaborating on your point anyhow. Edit: Hey Downvote Police, what about stepping out and adding reasoning to your downvotes? Thanks.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWuJbOB1kdw Or a man wearing a pantsuit? Edit: The point of posting this wasn't just a funny fake political ad but also the nuances of suggesting that Bill Clinton wears the pantsuit, instead of Hillary wearing the pants.
- wazoox 15y ago
  Actually misrepresenting reality. Do you consider William Wallace as a wimp because he wore skirts ?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    He wore a kilt, which is actually an interesting addition to my point. Despite the strong masculinity of a kilt, they do not appear to be very popular in modern society. I would suggest without evidence that this is in no small part due to a potential association with "feminine" skirts.
    - skore 15y ago
      They are not popular, but men wearing them won't have their sexuality judged, so they probably don't have significance to your original point. I think they are not popular because they have a strong cultural association with being Scottish.

wpietri 15y ago

Are you seriously equating topless men and topless women as socially equivalent, disempowering sexual objectification? That seems of a piece with your theory that the point of topless men in Playboy ads and action movies is to appeal sexually to women.

overgryphon 15y ago

That particular list has been around for years. While a recent issue of Playboy may have topless men, it is historically a men's magazine. If you counted the pictures of women and men in the last year, what would you find? "A woman who has unprotected sex (or for that matter sometimes protected sex) is in a much better position than a man who does the same." Men who have unprotected sex are expected to pay a state-determined minimum tax essentially to provide for their children. For men, children are abstracted into a financial problem. A woman who has an unexpected child has much more than finances to worry about.

prodigal_erik 15y ago
Divorced fathers face state-imposed poverty if not being caged for the sin of existing in a bad economy. Divorced mothers, after a decision that's wholly up to them, can free ride on half of the child's mandated "standard of living" which has almost no relationship to the actual cost of raising a child. We urgently need less unreliable, primitive, unpleasant contraception for men.