<p>Well you could choose not to accept the social contract and become a hermit / rebel / gangsta / etc. I guess a problem right now is that people who dissent don’t have a lot of alternative choices. Still, in a way, turning to a life of rebellion is rather like rejecting the social contract – I don’t accept the police, I don’t need them to protect me, I do well in my own State of Nature, etc. </p>
<p>For me, I like to use the social contract more like a predictive thing, that is, like how you speak of market forces or invisible hands, as opposed to the standing law of any one society. If society X enacts unjust law A, social contract forces will tend to push for its repeal, and push for laws that are just. The social contract is an idealised equilibrium.</p>
<p>Well a right comes about because it brings about social good to the members of the contract, which then push for the establishment of said right. There are rights which appear to bring about overall benefit to the members of the social contract, but ultimately get rejected because they indirectly lead to overall detriment. (Majoritarian laws are a good example.)</p>
<p>I’ve have to go to bed, but I think there are some serious flaws in your conception of a social contract. We shall continue this discussion tomorrow!</p>
<p>I’m not like them super hardcore deontological social contractarians, if that’s what you’re saying. The social contract is an evolutionary explanation for why certain social institutions come about (or activistically, which institutions should come about), in the same way that you would explain why worker bees don’t have an evolutionary incentive produce their own children, where the equilibrium for an “arms race” between predator and prey lies, etc. and so on.</p>
<p>“Comfortable” as in not feeling unsafe. If someone were staring at me creepily at length, I would feel very uncomfortable in the way that I mentioned. Similarly, catcalling, etc. is really not appropriate. And “rights” extend beyond our Constitution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they can look attractive without dressing provocatively! Men will still likely stare at them, though. That’s what I am saying. Men will be men, but that doesn’t mean that “typical” behavior should be tolerated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not what I am saying. But insofar as you have control after a reactionary glance (i.e., if you randomly saw a gorilla walking down the street, you would likely look without thinking), you shouldn’t continue to look.</p>
<p>I check out women that are hot. Is it any less creepy because I am a female? Get over it, I’m not doing anything by looking at you, and if you dress provocatively (guys or girls) you’re gonna get looked at. Either don’t do it or shut up about it. My eyes can’t hurt you, I promise. Neither can a smile, a catcall, or this that or the other thing. Your safety is not threatened by these things. Now, if they advance towards you- that’s a completely different story. </p>
<p>Women, if you don’t want men to look at you- don’t show them what you’ve got (and yes, you do make the choice to put on the mini skirt and the tube top). Men- don’t stare for too long, that just makes us a bit uncomfortable.</p>
<p>Exactly. Nobody ever denied that. People shouldn’t stare or catcall at anybody, but there is nothing wrong to check somebody out for a couple of seconds.</p>
<p>Can the mods edit the tags for this thread? Some of them are kind of inappropriate and downright biased. </p>
<p>I have the right to stare at someone if I want to – if I want to comment on their clothes, their awful smoking, their inane political thoughts and fallacies they seem to be using in a conversation with someone else – and this goes beyond checking them out.</p>
<p>Girls give other people “the look” all the time, for trivial things like “OMG look what’s she’s wearing those awful shoes!”.</p>
<p>It’s the public. If I feel like interrupting your metro/bus conversation because you’re airing idiotic views on abortion very loudly, I will. It’s give and take – you affect other people by your actions. If you make very active speech, you should expect a response – free market of ideas. </p>
<p>As Supreme Court cases go, the clothes you wear are a form of speech/expression and are protected under the First Amendment. But so are responses to them.</p>
<p>^ Yeah, obviously everyone has the right to freedom or speech, freedom to dress how they like, freedom of checking people out, we know that. But this wasn’t a thread about legal issues or the constitution, it was about girls thinking it’s creepy when guys stare at them (really more about social skills than legality). As to that, I think this
settled it pretty well. checking people out is fine, we’re all free to look (and fantasize) but deliberately making them uncomfortable by making creepy sexual comments or something isn’t cool and makes someone a creeper.</p>
<p>btw i think the tags are pretty accurate actually. and everything anyone says is automatically biased.</p>
<p>Again, you’re not listening to me. I’m not limiting the definition of “rights” to those acknowledged by the American government. We’re operating on different planes here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not. I’m positing that looking at people sexually is inherently demeaning to them. Sexual thoughts that pop into your head are just that, dwelling on them is something else altogether.</p>
<p>See, this is why some guys will always be losers. Because you do NOT understand women as members of your own species and instead of trying to sort of understand them, you assign them wildly crazy things like “Oh, women never say what they want!” That’s like me going around saying “Oh, men are all boors who like watching football and drinking booze”. True? Maybe for some but certainly not enough to merit the collective plural and lumping all girls in the same category. Learning, get you some.</p>
<p>By the way, if a girl has broken up with some guy for being ‘too nice’, you can bet it wasn’t that he held open doors for her and said his pleases and thank yous. It’s probably because he was a boring lump of a man who let his relationship consume his life because he had no other goals or hobbies. Which is creepy. Get a frickin clue.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with guys looking at me at all no matter what i wear. If i wear low-cut shirts or short skirt/shorts then they can look as long as they don’t touch. If people see something attractive then they look. I look at hot men all the time. If i can see some nice biceps when they wear a tee-shirt or or wife beater then i look, or pants that are a little tight in the back then i’ll even take a peak at their ass. Same thing if i see a pretty shirt, a pretty flower, beach, art etc. Anything i find attractive is something i’ll enjoy looking at. </p>
<p>Now i do understand if men start looking at you like they have never seen a girl before. That gets real creepy. No one should make another person feel uncomfortable by giving a creepy stare down look.</p>