<p>some how i feel i wouldnt receive this kind of flak in normal face to face coversations but through a more anonymous encounter via internet forums</p>
<p>It’s rude to be a creeper, but girls shouldn’t bring a bigger invitation than they already would have by just being female.</p>
<p>** Visioneers ** is truth. ** Visioneers ** is knowledge. Go see ** Visioneers **</p>
<p>Just use the letter “b” between two brackets. And for italics, it’s “i”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just wanted to apologize for what I did earlier. I didn’t mean to show any disrespect towards you, and I actually agree with what you said in your post. I just got a kick out of a random plug of a movie that I saw in another thread. Again, I’m sorry if I insulted you by my previous post, because that really wasn’t what I intended.</p>
<p>follow visioneers on twitter</p>
<p>[Visioneers</a> (Visioneers) on Twitter](<a href=“http://twitter.com/visioneers]Visioneers”>http://twitter.com/visioneers)</p>
<p>I don’t think I did, but if I offended you, I am sorry too.</p>
<p>^^ *lo * ** lol **
ol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true, but clearly there are some limitations to sex – rape, for example, is obviously not really allowed. Because there are issues relating to sex that go beyond “ejaculation.” For example, the right to feel comfortable. A woman forgoes that right, IMO, if she dresses in a particularly slutty way. I still don’t think men should look (note: not glance) at her, but that’s besides the point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not their job to actively avoid appearing attractive so men won’t stare at them. Men shouldn’t do it in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you consider a look and a glance? Like I said before, I don’t think it’s wrong if you look between 2-4 seconds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What amendment of the Constitution is this part of? Amendment I? Amendment V? </p>
<p>You’re in the public! As long as it’s not outright stalking, anyone can look at anybody.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A woman can look attractive without dressing in a provocative manner. Men will always be men and nothing is going to change this, so they should either get over it or stop wearing revealing clothes.</p>
<p>We really should have a game theory table:</p>
<p>xxxxxxxx || men look || men do not look
dress hot ||<strong><em>||
dress cool ||</em></strong>|| </p>
<p>Anyone want to assign some values? I predict Nash equilibrium at “girl dresses hot, and men look” because that becomes the dominant strategy for both sexes.</p>
<p>Simple market economics++</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what, it’s our obligation to actively avert our eyes?</p>
<p>Some people have no sense of a social contract</p>
<p>Nice intellectual masturbation. Does it feel good?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo! That’s what I stated earlier. I find girls more attractive when they don’t wear revealing clothing.</p>
<p>nonantianarchist: it’s not so much that as to get at people who try to use the “rights” concept without knowing what they’re talking about</p>
<p>Ask any expert on the social contract – except where it harms life or limb, or gets followed to the home (the castle) – is “right not to get stared at” a fundamental liberty that brings about social good? No, not really. I say “freedom to look” is an important liberty, because with it, comes the important “freedom to comment/criticise”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a guy finds a girl attractive, he is going to look. It’s as simple as that. It doesn’t matter if she would walk down the street naked or in a snow jacket.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m just going to play devil’s advocate and assume your proposition is true, that women are a minority defending against the demonizing males in this thread. </p>
<p>Because what women say and what women actually do/feel are completely different things. Ask a girl what she wants out of a guy and nine times out of ten you’ll get a response that has been characterized as “the nice guy” in society. Aka the guy that women say is their ideal partner, but the guy that women are unable to feel attraction towards.</p>
<p>What is the nonsense? When an attractive guy looks your direction for a few seconds to check you out, it’s an ego boost? That’s common sense babe, not nonsense.</p>
<p>WuTang,</p>
<p>True. As you probably know though, many people on this site will argue for the sake of arguing. </p>
<p>Anyway, I assume you speak of a social contract as the way rights are attained (or at least protected). How did you and I enter this contract?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So that which brings about “social goodness” is a valid right? Besides all the strange things that premise leads to, that doesn’t seem like a contract to me. Maybe we are miscommunicating?</p>