Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Hey, a scientist said it so it has to be true. They did a study and everything:
According to Dr. Karen Weatherby, a gerontologist and author of the study, gawking at women's breasts is a healthy practice, almost at par with an intense exercise regime, that prolongs the lifespan of a man by five years.She added, "Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female, is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out."
Don't attack the messenger, now. I'm just reporting on the scientific data. Though, to be honest, the methodology seems a bit suspect:
Researchers at three hospitals in Frankfurt, Germany did an in-depth analysis of 200 healthy males over a period of five years. Half the volunteers were instructed to ogle at the breasts of women daily, while the rest were told to refrain from doing so.At the close of the study, the researchers noted that the men who stared at the breasts of females on a regular basis exhibited lower blood pressure, slower resting pulse rates and lesser episodes of coronary artery [a blood vessel that carries oxygenated blood away from the heart to the body.] disease.
Okay, I don't buy that they had a control group here. They think merely telling men to refrain from staring at breasts is going to get them to stop doing so? Not bloody likely. The only way you have a valid control group on this one is if they're all blind.
By the way, I'm betting that staring at shoes has the same effect on Dr. Isis.
Comments
Uh-oh. I'm in trouble.
Posted by: Rick R | December 13, 2009 9:26 AM
If this is true my blood pressure should be below zero.... 8^)
Posted by: Biggboy | December 13, 2009 9:31 AM
Do women have to stare at themselves to derive these health benefits? Wouldn't that make it extremely difficult for them to walk and drive safely?
Posted by: Dogbert | December 13, 2009 9:32 AM
So what are the legal implications for this? Can we use the health benefits of ogling women as an excuse for driving carelessly, as Jerry Seinfeld did when that woman just wore a bra out on the street? Get me Jackie Chiles on the phone!
Posted by: Rob Monkey | December 13, 2009 9:37 AM
Ah! So Carrie (Bucket o' Blood) Perjean, didn't get a breast augmentation for herself, she did it for the nation's health. How selflessly Christian of her! :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 13, 2009 9:37 AM
I wonder, does it work for gay men too? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 13, 2009 9:40 AM
My favorite line in the story:
Posted by: Anon | December 13, 2009 9:48 AM
you know if this study said looking at Big Ole booties had health benefits. i would probably live longer than Noah of the bible. i dont mind so much being labeled as a pervert.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 9:49 AM
*sigh*
http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp
Posted by: Anon | December 13, 2009 9:50 AM
As they say, more then a mouthful is waste.
Posted by: SLC | December 13, 2009 9:53 AM
Maybe this explains why my health improved so greatly after I became an artist!
Posted by: Rodney | December 13, 2009 10:01 AM
SLC @10,
Good one. That line has many interpretations for different sexual orientations. But in the same vein, I generally prefer ogling smaller breasts. Does that mean my health benefit is reduced?
Posted by: MikeMa | December 13, 2009 10:22 AM
"I generally prefer ogling smaller breasts. Does that mean my health benefit is reduced?"
I'm with you. I think the research means we just have to do more ogling to get the same return.
Posted by: dean | December 13, 2009 10:29 AM
Looooow blood pressure.
Posted by: barry21 | December 13, 2009 10:36 AM
I would propose an alternate understanding of the results. Men who enjoy looking at women's breasts are healthier by allowing themselves to do what is natural for them. Men who force themselves to avoid doing so suffer health effects by not doing what men naturally enjoy doing. This increases anxiety, pulse rate and the other symtoms mentioned.
This would be similar to studies that find that openly gay men are as happy. healthy and productive as others, while men who try to repress their gay feelings and behaviors may, as the American Psychiatric Association has found, suffer from increased anxiety, depression and self destructive behaviors including suicide.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Bill Ware | December 13, 2009 10:42 AM
"They think merely telling men to refrain from staring at breasts is going to get them to stop doing so? Not bloody likely."
No, but the stress of trying raises their blood pressure so much that they die five years sooner.
They misinterpreted their data.
Posted by: Equisetum | December 13, 2009 10:44 AM
LOL.. well if staring at boobs keeps you healthy.. I am afraid my bf will not survive as long as most.. sigh.
Posted by: Lise | December 13, 2009 10:45 AM
Yeah, the control group problem is difficult.
I see three possible solutions: the controls are (1) blind; (2) gay; or (3) spend the study period outside, in the winter, in Boise or Oslo or Vladivostok.
And for the experimental subjects - if the woma(e)n being contemplated do(es) aerobics during that ten minutes, how much greater of a risk do(es) the ma(e)n observing have of collapsing from cardiac overload?
(Irregular plurals be a bitch!)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 13, 2009 11:13 AM
Guys, see comment #9.
The original source for this story is the late, lamented Weekly World News.
Posted by: mad the swine | December 13, 2009 11:17 AM
So does that mean GNC is now going to stock Playboy and Penthouse?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 13, 2009 11:42 AM
Were gay men thrown under the bus in the study?
I wonder if the converse is true--does looking at cute guys' packages or their dainty little butts do straight women or gay/bisexual men good in the health department?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 13, 2009 11:47 AM
Will looking at gay women who are teh HAWT do me any good?
I was at a concert the other night, front row center. The guest soloist was a beautiful and virtuosic violinist from Romania. She was wearing a clingy, low cut gown and yet, her playing was so exquisite that I only thought, "My GOD, what a rack!!" about once--a minute.
I woke up the next morning feeling like the Hulk!!
Posted by: democommie | December 13, 2009 11:52 AM
Didn't that British show, Brainiac: Science Abuse test this one? As I recall, their conclusion was that staring at topless women was as good as exercise, but only for a very short period (circa 5 minutes), after that the effect fell off rapidly.
But, that's okay, I'm told it's better if you exercise in small amounts throughout the day anyway.
Of course, Brainiac got in trouble for faking results in another test, so this may be no better than the Weekly World News source.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 13, 2009 12:32 PM
Hmmm, does this mean that if I ask a random woman on the street to take her top off and she refuses, I can sue her for trying to kill me? : - )
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 13, 2009 12:34 PM
Gays wouldn't work as a control, they have other things to ogle. Just use Republican congressmen, they've spent a lifetime trying to repress their urges, I'm sure their vitals would fit the control group well :P
Posted by: paul | December 13, 2009 12:40 PM
I am filled with a feminist rage at the idea that this study was
A) thought up by a group of probably intelligent people.
B) considered a good enough idea to be written up as a proposed study.
C) actually approved and given funding.
Unless of course it is a lie, created as yet another excuse for dirty old men to ogle jailbait. The alternative is that it is the truth, created as yet another excuse for dirty old men to ogle jailbait.
Creeps: making women feel unsafe since forever.
"But our HEALTH!"
Know what else is healthy? GOING TO THE GYM. I'm sure there are lots of studies telling men how healthy this is, but do they do it?
Posted by: flameeverlasting | December 13, 2009 1:23 PM
Democommie;
Female violinist add to the hottness factor,
however, i can do without the viola players.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 1:25 PM
Flameeverlasting:
if someone looking at you makes you feel unsafe. i suggest perhaps you have some serious issues.
I stare at birds,flowers,females ,puppy dogs all these thinsg are visually appealing to me and none fo them are unsafe because of it.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 1:28 PM
While flameeverlasting's post was waaaaay over the top, I would remind Vic Vanity of the difference between noticing someone attractive and staring at them like you're a pedophile at Disneyland. You might know that the woman whose rack you've been gawking at for five straight minutes is perfectly safe, but she doesn't, and it's still creepy as hell.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 1:53 PM
Old myths never die, do they?
Posted by: llewelly | December 13, 2009 2:07 PM
Gretchen:
that sounds rather irrational to me. if i get watched while walking down teh street i dont fear being robbed. i simply go about my business ( and yes i have been robbed before).
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 2:12 PM
It's not irrational, Vic. There is a huge difference between an unintentional glance and a creepy, prolonged stare. The creepy, prolonged stare has the surprising effect of being, um, creepy.
Posted by: Leni | December 13, 2009 2:22 PM
Vic,
If you've reached adulthood without learning that 1) staring is rude in general, and 2) sustained staring at women makes them uncomfortable, I really can't help you. Maybe you could catch my meaning by going to a gay bar and being stared at by a dozen muscle-bound 250 lb. men for a while.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 2:27 PM
I should probably add the the creepiness factor really depends on how the person is doing it. I once caught a guy checking me out and he just smiled and did a little shrug like "Busted!" and went on his way. I smiled back and went on mine. It was funny and sort of made my day. Then I used to work with a guy who would spend almost every conversation I had with him staring at my tits. That was not so funny.
It's not necessarily the looking that's creepy. It's the creepy looking that's creepy.
Posted by: Leni | December 13, 2009 2:30 PM
Think I'm going to go do some exercise over at fleshbot.com now.
Posted by: Marcus Christian | December 13, 2009 2:32 PM
I'm with Bill Ware and Equisetum on this one. And it might not even be stress of not looking at boobs. Have you ever told someone not to think or say the word "rhinoceros?" It can be comical if the person is fairly suggestible.
Posted by: BaldApe | December 13, 2009 2:37 PM
Unfortunately, this is an urban legend. See for example http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp
The original post should be updated to reflect this so people don't get bad info.
(reposting since previous seems to have been caught by having too many links)
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 13, 2009 2:43 PM
DJ, I'm sure the health benefits for gay men would be similar, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be breasts they would be staring at. In fact, the more likely anatomical candidate exists only in male members of the human species (and those others with male reproductive features) and is considerably more posterior on the ventral surface. If you know what I mean.
flameeverlasting, this was, of course, a wonderful story from the late WWN, so I must take exception to your angry tone over it. Besides, what better place to observe anatomical function (outside the bedroom, at least) than visiting a place where skimpily-clad specimens flex, stretch and move that which we find so interesting? Hey, wait a minute - does that mean I can get all the benefits of going to the gym even if I don't exercise there? My inner slob is ashamed; to think that I was working out at gyms while staring at men when I could simply have worked behind the counter!
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 13, 2009 2:56 PM
Gretchen:
Gretchen , it is irrational, and 2. i wouldnt be creeped out at a gay bar with a bunch of people staring at me. i would probably be a bit flattered my experience at a Gay bar was probably one of the most fun nights out at a bar i ever had. no fights everyone was havinga good time the drag show was entertaining and The people there once they found out i was straight went out of their way to make me and my date feel included. now if someone was holding a sing that said he i am gonna slaughter you and then stared yeah that would be creepy but just staring is Harmless (even though it might be uncomfortable).
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 3:51 PM
Vic Vanity,
I didn't say that staring was harmful. I said it could be creepy, and make women feel uncomfortable. You appear to agree that it can make them feel uncomfortable, and presumably that making people feel uncomfortable is not a good thing. I'll leave it there.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 4:30 PM
Joshua Zelinksy wrote:
I would probably do that except that anyone who treats this as "info" probably deserves what they get. It was treated as a joke in the post and in the comments as well.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2009 5:16 PM
gawking at women's breasts is a healthy practice, almost at par with an intense exercise regime, that prolongs the lifespan of a man by five years.
Unless your wife or girlfriend is present, in which case it will reduce your lifespan. Immediately.
Posted by: Shay | December 13, 2009 5:42 PM
Leni, #35
Nail on the head. Now define "creepy".
Posted by: Susannah | December 13, 2009 6:37 PM
Shay,
LOl thats why men should always wear dark sunglasses,
Gretchen,
Of course i agree it can make someone uncomfortable, but that is along way from fear"unsafe".
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 6:38 PM
I think just the fact our society discourages and direct shame on open ogling of women's breasts causes the health problem measured than the act itself being a plus. It's like saying being openly gay causes better health. No not living in self denial or castigation supports better health.
In tribal societies or nudist groups, a woman's naked breasts is not much of a fetish object to cause strong immediate physical changes in males or inclined females. It's like looking at a vase or painting, mildly appreciated but not ogled.
Posted by: megan | December 13, 2009 7:01 PM
Vic Vanity-
A) "10 minutes of staring", as the study suggests, is not "looking", it is ogling. And it is creepy.
B) when you stare at a puppy for ten minutes you're not undressing it with your eyes. You don't get an erection from looking at flowers. These things remain 'safe' because looking is all you really want to do to them.
Clearly the study is suggesting that sexual arousal, however mild, plays a part in male health. I say that the grope-y old men who frequent the bar I work at would (and will) seize it (be it an actual study or not) as another rationalization to stare at my always excessively covered double-d's. They will say "for my health!" as they down another barley-pop and grab at me.
They don't need any more excuses.
Posted by: flameeverlasting | December 13, 2009 7:05 PM
Nothing strange in that study. I've known this for over 20yrs, when I read the 'Sensuous Dirty Old Man' by Dr. A.
He states that that the dirty old man will get a vigorous workout watching the nipple movement of a well endowed Bosom. but he causes that to do so to long will cause muscle strain in the eyes and can lead to falling down which is embarrassing in the presence of a lovely lady.
Although out of print I HIGHLY recommend it to the budding dirty old man as it is full of sage advice.
Posted by: CybrgnX | December 13, 2009 7:30 PM
Vic Vanity,
I didn't say that a woman should feel unsafe if a guy is staring at her. I said that she doesn't know whether she's safe. And generally speaking, women don't have much reason to assume benign intentions from strange men who apparently don't mind making them feel uncomfortable.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 7:37 PM
I heartily second everything Gretchen has said in this thread. I have been put off by unwelcome leering and staring since I was fourteen, and you'd better believe I felt unsafe then.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 13, 2009 7:43 PM
flameeverlasting:
No one is actually taking this seriously and using it as an excuse for anything. It isn't even a real study. It's just a joke.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2009 8:12 PM
Ed Brayton: My eyes are up here.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 13, 2009 8:24 PM
So, are bisexuals healthier than monosexuals, for having more to enjoy?
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | December 13, 2009 8:26 PM
Sadie, Gretchen, flameeverlasting, I wonder what you have to say about men who get ogled by women? You might think it doesn't happen, or you might think that it doesn't matter as much, but the fact is that men are made uncomfortable all the time by women who treat them as sex objects. The only difference is that women are not seen as being as "threatening" as men and so it tends to fade into the background more. Also, for some reason men don't tend to mind being perceived as sexually interesting as women do - a cultural phenomenon I believe has much to do with our current patristic society and the feminism it has inspired.
That still doesn't excuse acting like a righteous priss, though. Being made uncomfortable is something that will happen in your lifetime; nobody is required to consider your feelings when staring at your boobies, and straight men who like looking good are silly to become upset when another man shows his appreciation. I understand becoming offended when some slimeball keeps staring at your funbags from across the room, but that guy isn't the same as a man who is impressed by your beauty and who doesn't intend to make you uncomfortable. Worry about the real creeps out there - by the way, they don't just come in the shape of ugly cusses who ogle a woman's cleavage - and stop getting bent out of shape over a freaking joke already.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 13, 2009 8:32 PM
I'm sorry that our sharing (as some of the few women who comment on this blog) our perspectives about how it feels when we are temporarily objectified has obviously threatened you so much, Ryan.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 13, 2009 8:39 PM
God bless science!
Posted by: JeffConn | December 13, 2009 9:01 PM
Sadie, you haven't been paying attention. I am a gay man, so I have no reason to - and don't - feel threatened by your feelings on this matter at all. As a matter of fact, you might want to reread my response for the part where I validated your position by putting it in the proper context. I simply don't see why you're so offended by this particular issue.
And thank you for completely dismissing any feelings I may have on being objectified by straight women I have no interest in, by the way. But would it not be rather surprising for you to express your appreciation of a man's beauty and have him threaten to kill you for it? That's the reason I'm not understanding your somewhat extreme reaction to a joke, just so you know.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 13, 2009 9:03 PM
Ryan @53 said:
I would say it's probably not fun at all, and I don't support women staring creepily any more than men doing so.
Good, because that's all I've been talking about.
If you can point out where I've been acting in such a way, by all means do so.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 9:24 PM
Ed, I've seen at least two other blogs that apparently took this seriously, so I'm not sure you can be confident that people are going to take this as a joke.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | December 13, 2009 9:40 PM
I see Feminism hasn't grown a sense of humour yet. Maybe next year...
Incidentally, it's pretty clear that some clothing is designed to attract your eyes to the cleavage/hairy blinged-up chest.
And people who wear that clothing *must* know it.
It sometimes makes me wonder when I'm sitting in a meeting where every one of the men present has a shirt and tie on, or at least a shirt buttoned-up to the collar, and there's a woman sitting there with her tits lapping at the edge of her low-cut top. WTF is she thinking? Maybe she's a feminist in search of a law-suit?
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | December 13, 2009 10:05 PM
Gretchen, I'm glad you understand that I appreciate your position.
I wasn't trying to say that you, specifically, are a righteous priss. I don't try to label people in such a fashion and instead describe typical behaviors. However: You are correct, of course. But if you go out at night in a gorgeous dress with your hair done up, you obviously intend to look good. When a man admires your beauty, you can either feel offended by it or you can feel complimented by it. And if you feel offended, you should probably get to "hello" and ask that person to stop staring at you. If he doesn't, you're probably right to feel threatened.What I don't get is when a woman goes out and becomes offended by men who stare at her, but she never does anything other than complain about it. She's beautiful! If she doesn't want people admiring her beauty, then she should go make herself look ugly, I suppose. The simple fact is that people are attracted to beauty and like to look at it - and a person doesn't get to choose who does the looking. It's no use to complain about what is and always will be present in your life, so why get worked up over it? You might be surprised what happens when you tell someone you are flattered by their admiration but you would appreciate somewhat less blatant regard.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 13, 2009 10:19 PM
I wonder what the health effect is for the women being ogled?
Posted by: catgirl | December 13, 2009 10:21 PM
Are you honestly suggesting that men don't have self-control? I thought it was the feminists who are the man-haters, but you seem to have a pretty low opinion of men if you think they can't control their own actions.
The fact is that "revealing" or "sexual" is completely relative. If all women wore turtle-neck sweaters, then a woman that showed her clavicle would be considered an attention-whore. Way back when all women wore floor-length skirts, mid-calf length skirts were considered risque. There are places where women (and men) wear very little clothing at all, and people just get used to seeing boobs and get on with their lives. No matter what, someone will always be wearing something more revealing than someone else. There are only three ways to stop that from happening: mandatory uniforms 24/7, burqas, or everyone could just go naked all the time, because you can't possibly get more revealing than that. I personally prefer the last option, but the only downside is that we'd have to wait until we develop outdoor climate control. Or, each person can be responsible for their own actions and not ogle others just because they assume that person wants to be ogled.
FWIW, sometimes people really don't realize that they are drawing attention to themselves. This is especially true if they move from an area where one type of clothing is common, then move to a different area where the same clothing is less acceptable.
But I'm just a humorless feminist, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter. The value of statements should rest completely on my ability to just take a joke, so you can confidently disregard everything else I typed.
Posted by: catgirl | December 13, 2009 10:31 PM
Ryan,
I think if a woman goes out wearing something surprising-- such as a chicken costume, or an evening gown to a football game, or a two-foot tall blue mohawk-- she should expect to get stared at. But I don't think women should have to ask men to stop staring at them just because they're beautiful. You're basically saying that the price of being attractive is having to continually confront people, and I don't buy that. It shifts the burden of responsibility from the person who is being rude to the one who isn't. And I would remind you again that I didn't say anything was wrong with admiring beauty-- I was talking about creepy staring, and those two really shouldn't be hard to differentiate.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 10:35 PM
There are different types of "admiration". Also, sometimes it's nice to have "admiration" from certain guys, but not from other guys.
Ha! You've obviously had very few men hit on you. While most men are decent, sane people, there are enough men that would take "hello" as an invitation and then hit on the women relentlessly. I was once walking down a street and a creepy dude said "hey", and I looked away but smiled politely because we have this societal thing against being rude for no reason. Due to my chronic back pain, I stopped a walking a few seconds after he walked past me. He turned around, saw that I was stopped, and assumed that I had stopped because I wanted to talk to him. I politely explained that I had only stopped because of pain from walking, but he thought I was just playing hard-to-get. There have been plenty of other men who were almost as bad. I absolutely hate lying, but I've resorted to making up a boyfriend/husband, and that's still not enough to stop some guys. More than one creepy dude has insisted that my boyfriend "wouldn't mind", or that I should leave him.
Then there's the problem that no one handles rejection well, and that includes men. If you approach a man and ask him to stop ogling you, you're basically rejecting him before he even hits on you. Honestly, how many men do you think will just politely stop ogling and move on? The men who would handle this situation well wouldn't be ogling in the first place. If the guy doesn't take the "hello" as an invitation to hit on the woman, he'll most likely get angry and insult her, or else try to guilt her into feeling sorry for him.
I'm sure that you would never do these things, so it's hard for you to imagine that other men will. Most men aren't jerks, but enough of them are. And here's the problem: women can't tell which ones are the good ones and which ones are the jerks just by looking at them.
Posted by: catgirl | December 13, 2009 10:43 PM
Oh, also I would like to point out that sometimes people are just rude staring creeps, even when a woman makes an effort to look unattractive. Having naturally large breasts since I was teenager, I've had to deal with this problem, and I've noticed that it varies by location. When I was in Philadelphia, for example, I would purposely wear a loose t-shirt, sweatpants, glasses, no make-up, and not wash my hair for a few days and creepy strange guys would still hit on me wherever I went. In fact, guys seemed to hit on me more often when I dressed that way, because I guess they thought I'd have lower standards or something. In other cities, it doesn't happen as often. I've also traveled to a lot of different places, and a red-head in Egypt or a blond in southern Italy is gonna stand out no matter what, even in tourist cities.
Posted by: catgirl | December 13, 2009 10:48 PM
Reading these comments reminds of this SNL skit with Tom Brady.
Posted by: Taz | December 13, 2009 10:54 PM
Gretchen:
No, I certainly believe people should try not to be rude, and I also believe that constantly staring at someone is rude, but not everyone realizes they are staring at someone. It's a reaction. True, you shouldn't have to confront people, but that's not an excuse to blame them for the fact that they like looking at beauty. It's just a simple fact of life - no burden-shifting or blame need be involved in it. Feel offended all you want, but if you don't point it out, you're also not doing anything to stop it. They are because the best way to do so is to confront it. You've already made clear that you don't want to confront it. So what other tools would you have to do so? What you perceive as being creepy may simply be a particularly shy man not understanding the effect he is having on you. As I have said before, you can sometimes spot the creeps, but most of the time you have to get to know someone at least a little bit before you know his motivations. If you don't do that, then you are prejudging someone. Again, be offended all you want (and you have the right to do so), but you aren't helping anyone if that's all you do.
Catgirl:
Not that you would know with such scant evidence; so it's not as "obvious" as you claim. Besides, this really isn't about me, now is it?
I think you misappropriated my intent from my response earlier. I wasn't saying that men aren't ever creeps (even the gay ones are), and I wasn't saying that women should feel completely comfortable when men stare at them. I completely understand the situation a woman is in when she walks down the street and gets hit on; I've been both the object and the objectifier in multiple situations, and I can't admit that either case was by any means comfortable (even if momentarily entertaining). I also understand that sometimes asking a man to stop or telling him that he's barking up the wrong tree doesn't work. I have been raped by a man, so I certainly know how far things can go just because someone finds you attractive.
The problem is that you aren't going to change who you are or how you look because you like it when you are complimented on your beauty. Not every man who opens the door for you sees you as an inferior to be protected or honored; in the same way, not every man who admires your beauty is mentally undressing you. It does happen and you have to deal with it sometimes, but that's no reason for a woman to walk around feeling offended all the time.
So what if a man stares at your boobs? You are going to be objectified and it sucks. Yes, men really should be more considerate (especially if they want any type of relationship with you, friendship or otherwise), but that doesn't automatically make them pigs for liking what they see. You could rather take it as a compliment and worry about the real pigs when they come by.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 13, 2009 11:18 PM
Are you talking about me personally? If you are, then you clearly missed my post on how I specifically did change how I look. And it didn't work anyway. There are some things you just can't hide, even with the baggiest t-shirts.
Confronting it is not always the best option. It's often not effective, and it's not nearly as easy as you think it is.
It's not that easy to tell who is a "real pig" and who is just ogling women as a compliment. It's not like creeps wear nametags saying "I'm a pig". Movies aren't real life, and jerks don't always act like the guys in MTV reality shows. They usually look just like everyone else.
Posted by: catgirl | December 13, 2009 11:24 PM
I've seen very attractive men. It's my reaction to stare at them, but I don't do it. I have basic self-awareness and social skills. It's not every hot man's job to confront me and tell me not to be rude. If I can manage to control myself, then men can too. It's not a compliment; it's just a sign that he lacks self-control and/or self-awareness. "Ogling as a compliment" and putting the burden on the person being stared at are two lines of thought that have the potential to go very wrong if you follow them too far. I'm sure you're not there yet, but I'm going to strongly suggest that you be very cautious if you find yourself taking those arguments past a certain line.
Posted by: catgirl | December 13, 2009 11:33 PM
Ryan,
Do you really believe you're saying anything new by reminding women that there are guys who are going to be too clueless or rude to know or care that their staring is obnoxious? I'm pretty sure we know that. That doesn't mean they're not clueless and/or rude.
No shit. I'm not blaming them for the fact that they like looking at beauty-- I'm blaming them for allowing it to turn them into hyenas. You're really doing a disservice to men by implying that they're so emotionally stunted as to be incapable of distinguishing the difference between an appreciative look and a creepy stare. This should be something every man-- every person-- knows full well before they're finished being a teenager.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 13, 2009 11:47 PM
You know , I cant help it that i am so hot, that i make fire stop drop and roll.
people stare its harmless move on..
Catgirl, yeah many people do not handle rejection well and those who can usally are phone solicitors,
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 13, 2009 11:48 PM
This is dangerously close to saying, "Ladies, you should just be flattered that you're ogled and leered at." No, I'm not.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 13, 2009 11:55 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that women seem to predispose themselves to take offense at the things I say. Some of the things you ladies are reacting against are completely contrary to the obvious meaning I give to the words. One of you is even reading much more deeply into my words than would seem to be indicated in this situation.
In any case, my statements stand for themselves without any need for defense. I wasn't trying to start a fight, after all - I was simply pointing out that there is more than is perceived in any situation. Like any supposed male-centrist thinking I may have, for instance (thank you for that implication, Gretchen). Or that I would ever call ogling a compliment and put the burden for feeling offended on the recipient of unwanted attention (my thanks to you, catgirl). I don't think any more needs said on this issue.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 14, 2009 12:22 AM
flameeverlasting - In an earlier thread (I couldn't find it, sorry) one commenter related that one of his/her best friends during his/her teens was black. He/she remember well the sound of shop doors slamming shut and the clicking of locks, women clutching their purses tighter (and even crossing the street) as they approached. This behaviour is, of course, racist and wrong*.
Fearing a whole genus because of the bad behaviour of a tiny minority (or no-one at all) is wrong.
So why is it that in some circumstances the person being afraid is wrong; in others the person causing the fear is automatically wrong? - Curiously DJ
-----------------
* Similarly fearing anyone who looks like they might be of 'Middle-Eastern appearance' (whatever that means) is also wrong.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 14, 2009 12:26 AM
A bit of advice that’s always served me well, look at women’s breasts like you would the sun, glance to get a sense then look away. I have since built upon this sound foundation and added the following. The use of sunglasses can allow for slightly longer observation, but you should still limit yourself to a few seconds to avoid discomfort or even injury. If you really feel the need to for prolonged scrutiny, there are numerous observatories that allows for relatively safe viewing for a modest price. Quality tends to vary directly with amount of money being requested. But I'm told the donations end up largely funding collage educations. So you can feel good about that. Finally, the use of personal telescopes is strongly discouraged, as it can lead to injury and/or a host of other unwanted complications. Yep, looking at boobies is just like looking at the sun.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 14, 2009 12:46 AM
For the record, this study is a joke. Even if it was a real study, it would still be a joke. Anyone who takes it as an actual excuse to leer at women is, frankly, an idiot and he almost certainly did not need such a study to justify their behavior. I posted it only because I saw it as a chance to laugh at ourselves. I encourage you all to do that once in a while (perhaps me most of all).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 14, 2009 12:48 AM
Abby - Thanks for the advice. Who knew that 'boobies'* emit retina-frying UV light? :) -DJ
---------------
* is this true of Shags, Cormorants, Albatross and other sea-birds?
Posted by: DingoJack | December 14, 2009 1:01 AM
Boobies?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 14, 2009 1:06 AM
MO - Blue Footed Boobies!
Shagadelic Baby! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 14, 2009 1:21 AM
Thank you, Ed, I did laugh. I, for one, don't get upset when either men or women stare at me, though I am no dreamboat. It's rather cute to catch someone in the act and smile at it - those poor people look so embarrassed! Sometimes, especially if it's a harmless old queen, I'll even tease a bit just to give a thrill. Who needs sunglasses? I lost whatever shame I had of my body a long time ago and I only worry about the real weirdos who want to do more than just look.
For the record, though, people who stare at boobies are just weird, especially when they do it through binoculars. Even worse is when they call to those boobies to get a fleeting glimpse. Sick, sick people those are. Never let those people stare at your boobies or you'll never be rid of them. It's even worse if you let them pet your boobies, since they usually only get to view them from afar. There's a word for them, too: ornithologists. You have been warned!
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 14, 2009 1:36 AM
Ryan;
i think your attitude on the situation is spot on.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 14, 2009 1:47 AM
The controversy on this thread is, for me, really rather depressing.
You're all arguing about whether it is or isn't acceptable to stare at attractive people. But those of us who are physically unattractive feel rather excluded from this whole conversation. To my knowledge, no one has ever found me physically appealing enough to want to stare at me. If anyone were to do so, it would be a massive self-esteem boost.
Nature is deeply unfair when it comes to looks, and our society accentuates this unfairness. Our culture is completely obsessed with sex appeal; those of us who are physically unattractive are expected not to express our sexual feelings, and, if we ever do so, we're marginalised as "ugly" and "creepy" (and a whole range of other epithets). Physically unattractive people seem to be the one minority against whom it's socially acceptable to discriminate.
Posted by: Walton | December 14, 2009 7:48 AM
How dare you, Ed!?! Men looking at women's breasts in public is a super serious problem!
Posted by: Shygetz | December 14, 2009 8:38 AM
Please update this post to note that this is an urban legend that originated in the Weekly World News in 1997, as documented here:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/breasts.asp
And also, when you encounter a strange study, I suggest considering how people could have come up with a hypothesis like this and managed to fund and carry out a five-year (!) study on it, and check what journal it was published in. Smart, careful people should not have been fooled by this.
Posted by: Michael | December 14, 2009 8:44 AM
Michael - And how's that total humour bypass working out for you? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 14, 2009 9:46 AM
On a trip into town I once met a young woman with an amazing pair of boobies. I had never seen anything like them except on TV or in magazines. Fascinated, I decided to introduce myself to her. We got to talking and seemed to hit it off. But I was distracted and my gaze kept wandering to her fascinating boobies. She noticed, of course, and was very sweet about it. She told me she’d gotten them from her mother, which made her laugh for some reason I didn’t understand. But I smiled anyway. By now it was getting late and she invited me back to her family farm for dinner, an offer I quickly accepted.
After we arrived she was lead me to the farmhouse. As she walked ahead of me I noticed the most fantastic ass I’d ever seen. I must have made a sound because she looked back and saw me staring. “Do you like it?” she asked with a knowing smile. I just nodded. “I’ve been told it’s the nicest ass in three counties. You know, if you play your cards right I might just let you ride it later,” she added with a wink.
Dinner was uneventful. I met her family and we talked about the weather and such. Before too long dinner was done and it was just her and me again. We’d been talking for hours. But neither of us wanted to stop. So we went up to her room. No sooner had I entered than she presented me with her pussy. It was the sweetest little thing, one of the nicest pussies I’ve seen in fact. Next thing I know it’s on my lap and I naturally started stroking it. It was very soft and warm. I told her as much and she seemed pleased. This went on for hours as we just enjoyed each other company.
But we must have drifted off, because the next thing I know I’m getting a rather rude awakening from her father’s cock. I couldn’t believe it! I jumped up and just started running. I was out the door like a shot and racing for home. As I ran I thought back on the girl with the fantastic boobies, amazing ass, and oh so soft pussy. I hoped I’d be able to see her again soon, well away from her father’s troublesome cock.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 14, 2009 10:06 AM
Refraining from staring at attractive women may not actually deprive me of any real health benefits, but I'm not going to risk it.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 14, 2009 10:53 AM
Abby, I'm really disappointed with the story. what does a rooster and a mule have to do with a fantastic set of funbags? I felt cheated for having read something so long without more sex pillows. Oh, well - maybe I just didn't "get" it. Happens all the time.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 14, 2009 11:35 AM
The term funbags is highly offensive. Please immediately switch to the non-confrontational and inoffensive term "enjoyment sacks." That is all.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 14, 2009 12:15 PM
This comments thread is terrifically hostile to women, to whom street harassment (and the assumption of women's bodies as public property that it's based on) is a legitimate problem. This is why the post and most of the resultant comments thread is not so funny to most of the women I've seen comment.
But that's probably just my broken funny bone! Or maybe I'm just predisposed to taking people's words wrong! Of course, that must be it! After all, men ogling women in public is SO not a super-serious problem, so says Shygets who totes speaks for all women everywhere! Except for the women who have, y'know, commented in this thread. But they don't count, with their humorless lack of humor.
So don't bother to think about where the basis for this joke comes from (BOOBS IS AWESOME, WOMEN ARE REDUCIBLE TO BODY PARTS FOR MEN TO LOOK AT, HAR HAR I ARE ORIGINAL), and certainly don't worry your simple little head about how the perpetuation of those ideas will affect women.
After all, can't I just take a joke?
...
(Cue the gaggle of honking eedjits with their "rebuttals" copy/pasted from Derailing for Dummies.)
Posted by: Muse142 | December 14, 2009 1:19 PM
Posted by: Derailer | December 14, 2009 1:31 PM
Derailer: I think it's a pretty fair response to several pages of "BAWW HUMORLESS FEMINISTS ARE HUMORLESS, also staring at bewbs is totally awesome because I'm male". Hard to poison a well if it's already well-established as toxic. Also my first paragraph makes an actual point -- If you have some useful bit of info that might actually rebut the whole women's-bodies-as-public-property-hurts-women thing, let's hear it.
Posted by: Muse142 | December 14, 2009 1:58 PM
I would have to say that I consider ogling and harassment to be two different things. You may disagree, of course.
I consider handsome breasts to be beautiful. This opinion does necessarily mean that I think of women as being reducible to body parts.
I do my best not to ogle, unless of course I'm in an ogling friendly situation. That's just me, though. I will admit that the primary reason I avoid ogling is because I know from experience that it makes people uncomfortable. I would rather people find out how creepy I am from experience, rather than making a snap judgement.
The idea that anyone's body is public property is certainly harmful. However, I'm not sure I see the connection with looking at something and assuming you own it.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 14, 2009 2:19 PM
Captain Mike--
The connection is in the other direction: men who assume they own women's bodies ogle. They get upset and confrontational if told not to. They treat any reaction by a woman, from a smile to "please stop staring at me" to "go away, you asshole" as permission to impose on the woman further.
And part of why they keep doing that is that it works. It may not get them sex, but it doesn't carry a downside for the creep. Some of them would rather yell at a strange woman for being a "bitch" (i.e. considering her own desires about her body to be what matter) than simply ignore her. Their logic is that if they are polite, they won't get laid, so they have nothing to lose by pushing. And as long as the people whose opinions matter to them--many if not all of whom are probably male, for these particular men--treat it as trivial, they're likely to keep doing it. Why not? Their friends think it's normal, all in good fun, and keep inviting them to things. An occasional shop clerk might be upset, but the most that's likely to happen there is that she ducks in back and the male cashier serves them.
The last thing we need is more people agreeing that ogling is trivial, because it's only ogling. They may say "it's only looking," but they'll make some similar excuse for harassing a woman while she waits for the bus, or invading a coworker's personal space, or demanding that someone give a reason for not going out with them, and then dismissing whatever reason she gives, from "I don't want to" to "I'm married."
Posted by: Vicki | December 14, 2009 2:31 PM
Ryan Egesdahl @88
Who said anything about funbags? I was talking about her pet seabirds.
Joking aside for a (brief) moment. Objectification, particularly of women, is certainly a problem. It’s a exceptionally pernicious problem because people are objects (just like everything else with mass in the universe). As objects we have aesthetic qualities and there’s nothing wrong with appreciating them. Further, as animals with sex drives we have a natural urge to notice those qualities in people. This too is fine. But for some, and all to often, the value of a woman as a person is determine by the aesthetic value of that woman as an object, or more specifically as a sex object. I’ll take it as a given, at least for now, that everyone sees the harm in that.
So here we are, dancing the line between the natural and normal observation of human objects without judgment of their value as people and the harmful blurring of those ideas. Accepting the former without promoting the latter is tricky business. I’m not sure I have any good answers as to how best to move forward. My basic strategy is simply to raise awareness about the issue as I see it and let people figure it out for themselves.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 14, 2009 3:54 PM
Ryan@73 said:
What's that saying? Something like, if you detect a pattern in how people react to your behavior, then remember that the common denominator in those interactions is you. Perhaps, just maybe, you're actually saying offensive things. Namely, what bothers me is your continuing refusal to differentiate between "appreciating beauty" and ogling. Nobody here-- at least, nobody that I've seen-- has said that there's anything wrong with the former, yet you keep insisting that's what we think.
I implied no such thing. Quite to the contrary, I suggested that you were doing men no favors by portraying them as somehow incapable of recognizing when they're being rude.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 14, 2009 4:04 PM
Physically unattractive people seem to be the one minority against whom it's socially acceptable to discriminate.
Alas, physically unattractive people are hardly a minority.
**ducks as brick flies past**
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 14, 2009 4:14 PM
"So here we are, dancing the line between the natural and normal observation of human objects without judgment of their value as people and the harmful blurring of those ideas. Accepting the former without promoting the latter is tricky business. I’m not sure I have any good answers as to how best to move forward. My basic strategy is simply to raise awareness about the issue as I see it and let people figure it out for themselves." - Abby Normal
Really? My basic strategy is to hide under a pile of coats and hope the problem goes away. It worked with the Berlin Wall.
Seriously, though, the real problem is the same one that has plagued humanity throughout all of history: assholes. I'm not saying that means we should give up, but JC on a pogo stick do we have a long road ahead.
By the way, has anyone else on here ever got in trouble for an accidental ogle? The situation I'm thinking of is one time when I appeared to be staring, loose lipped and flap jawed, at a woman's breasts. In reality, I was (and had been for some minutes before she arrived) staring off into some private hyperspace. Embarrassing.
Vicki, I think you might be making an unwarranted assumption. While I don't doubt that some men consider women's bodies to be property (either explicitly or implicitly), that does not necessarily mean that all oglers feel that way. Some may have simply have exceptionally poor social skills.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 14, 2009 4:51 PM
I think the unwarranted assumption is yours: I said "creeps tend to do X" and you thought I was saying "anyone who does X is a creep."
The thing is, if we teach everyone that that sort of behavior, from prolonged ogling of strangers through demanding that women interrupt whatever we're doing whenever any man wants our attention, to physical groping and actual assault, is inappropriate, that'll teach the guys with poor social skills. The well-intentioned male with poor social skills, who doesn't believe that he automatically has more right to my attention than my book or my conversation with my sister, isn't going to learn to stop ogling and that "I don't want to talk" is a legitimate answer if lots of less-decent men around him insist that of course it's okay to interrupt or grab women.
Of course, if you'd rather work on teaching poorly socialized males that ogling women is very rarely appropriate, and that those few ogling-appropriate spaces are clearly labeled, that might also be a worthwhile use of your time. You have the advantage that, being in the non-target group, you'd be less likely to be accused of "having no sense of humor" (though you probably would be called "uptight").
Posted by: Vicki | December 14, 2009 5:11 PM
Well it’s hard to argue with success.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 14, 2009 5:31 PM
Ryan: aside from your comments, the only other places where I've seen the term "funbags" commonly used, are voyeur-porn sites. Also, in my opinion at least, using that word makes you sound, not merely juvenile, but infantile. Seriously, if you want women to stop being offended by what you say, maybe you should try not to sound like an overgrown prepube. And if you're going to get ideas from porn, at least try to look for classier porn.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 14, 2009 5:38 PM
Oh, and the best way to ogle breasts can be learned in drivers-ed: it's called peripheral vision. At the very least, wait till she's looking at something else before scoping the curves directly.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 14, 2009 5:40 PM
Raging Bee "Oh, and the best way to ogle breasts can be learned in drivers-ed: it's called peripheral vision."
...except that peripheral vision tries to become, um, ipheral vision, leading to you having to take your driver's test again. Add into that a case of well-earned target fixation and you're suddenly charged with vehicular manslaughter.
Or so I've heard.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 14, 2009 6:03 PM
Vicki, I get that you're trying to win points via competitive assertion of victimhood. (Someone I'm not attracted to stared at me and now I'm all worried!) But this crumbles when you imply that men need a woman's permission to speak to or look at someone.
They don't.
And when you feel uneasy from the stories you tell yourself about those people (They think my body is their property! Staring means they want to hurt me!), then your emotional regulation is your own damn problem. Don't try to pawn that job off on strangers on the street. Society does not owe you comfort or inoffensiveness.
Make a scene. Break out the pepper spray if a guy's getting too physical. And good luck convincing the rest of humanity to breed assholes out of existence.
Posted by: Spaulding | December 14, 2009 6:23 PM
Captain Mike:
I LoLed at that. (You should probably know that it was in my humorless, feminist witch cackle, though.)
@ Catgirl. I know exactly what you are talking about with the down-dressing. It just seems to attract more creeps. I don't have large breasts, but I've certainly had my fair share of creeps. They seem to do that no matter what, but I'd guess the frequency, duration and amplitude of creepy episodes increases with cup size.
I've also discovered that telling them you are a lesbian only makes them work harder. And attempt to invite themselves into your home.
Gretchen wrote:
I was a little irritated by that, too.
I wonder if they'd have such a hard time telling the difference if they saw older men (for example) ogling their 15 year old daughters.
I have, lol. To a coworker. She asked me something and I looked down to think about it and realized after a second that I was totally staring at her boobs. Plus, she has really, really big boobs and is several inches taller than me so they were just right there. Talk about awkward.
Posted by: Leni | December 14, 2009 6:41 PM
In other words, you're saying that people have a constitutional right to be assholes. And you're right about that. Don't expect me or anyone else to condone that behavior, though. Do expect me to loudly condemn it every chance I get.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 14, 2009 6:54 PM
The right to be an asshole is one of those unenumerated rights. At least, I don't think it's actually in there anywhere.
I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
III. It's perfectly legal to be a total douche. Who's gonna stop you? The King of England? Fat chance!
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 14, 2009 7:42 PM
Captain Mike, I think the term for what you're doing is "barking up the wrong tree." You're trying to use humor on people who seem to have all sense of it permanently damaged. Think about it; these are the same people who took a joke article presented in tounge-in-cheek fashion and turned it into a feminist cause. I don't hold out much hope for your success.
Oh, you big, mean, poopiehead! I'm gonna go find my copy of Debbie Does Dallas and really find a good insult for you! But for now, I'll just resort to Space Vixens IV and call you an erect nipple!
It's really interesting how some people like to assume I call a woman's breasts "funbags" all the time - or that I tend to use prepubescent vocabulary - from a handful of comments on a joke post. Or that I give a rat's ass who is offended by what I say, for that matter. Seriously, let the bugs die up your collective asses die. Walking around saying you are offended all the time is a great way to get attention from people who love to push your buttons. Speaking irreverently about a woman's body does not in any way make her less equal than myself, nor does it validate those who put women down. Get over your seriously inflamed egos already. If it makes you feel better, you can start talking about my one-eyed snake for all I care.
Get a life already. Words are words, and sex is a fun pastime. You're making all of this out to be way more than it really is.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 14, 2009 10:14 PM
I think that German study just solved our health-care reform impasse. We don't need a public option. We don't need to expand Medicare. We only need the federal government to subsidize the establishment of a Hooters restaurant in every town.
Oh, and maybe a Chippendale's too... for the distaff side.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 14, 2009 10:25 PM
Vicki - Please re-read my comment #74.
OK let's construct a Venn Diagram here. The set of 'oglers' intersects with the set of 'creeps'*. Reducing the set of 'oglers' might reduce the set that are 'creeps' & 'oglers', but it probably won't reduce the set of 'creeps' as a whole. Reducing the set of 'creeps' would be a more effective method to reduce 'creep'-like behavior I would say.
The most embarrassing ogling that I have ever been involved in went like this: I was having a drink a pub and this man kept staring at me fixedly. Finally, I got stick of it and walked up to him and said: "You got a problem, mate?" It was only then I saw the white cane and guide dog. Oops. Sometimes it pays not to jump to conclusions. - DJ
------------
* the terms 'creeps' and 'oglers' need stronger, more robust definitions.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 14, 2009 11:01 PM
Joshua Zelinsky wrote: "Ed, I've seen at least two other blogs that apparently took this seriously, so I'm not sure you can be confident that people are going to take this as a joke."
And it was mentioned on a local radio station this morning. The story was treated jokingly, but I didn't get the sense that they thought it was a joke. So, yes, it seems some people haven't gotten the word.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 14, 2009 11:08 PM
ManCome on, Ed, can't you keep this cesspool of white male privilege in line? ;)Posted by: Mr. B | December 14, 2009 11:12 PM
Says the hysterical man who's responding to one person's post as if several people wrote it and threatening to watch Debbie Does Dallas as if anyone here would care.
I think you're being way too defensive about this whole thing and maybe aren't so good in the listening department, but I agree with you about the funbags. It doesn't offend me at all. At least not in the context you used it. That doesn't mean there aren't contexts in which it would. Also, stop digging. Put down the shovel and back slowly away...
Posted by: Leni | December 15, 2009 12:21 AM
Leni, I was trying to keep my response short in responding to several people. When I respond to one person I generally direct it at that person by name. Besides, the Debbie Does Dallas thing was a joke. Seriously, what is with the near-complete lack of laughter around here? Should I have had my sense of humor surgically removed before becoming a raging liberal or something? I understand that inflection doesn't transmit across the Internet very well, but I had thought that making reference to a seriously cheesy old-timey straight porno (keep in mind that I am gay) as classy porn should have been the ultimate tip-off.
And yes, by the way, I do understand that "funbags" can be used in offensive contexts. The difference between "offensive" and "funny" is time and the audience's sense of humor. Might I remind you once more that I am gay and wouldn't care if a woman wanted me to stare at her breasts. Making as if I am fascinated by the things is quite obviously a freaking joke and it's seriously distressing to see people getting bent out of shape over a few words. Dogs, but political correctness sucks!
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | December 15, 2009 12:44 AM
Leni - perhaps you need to re-read mine at #74 too.
Some posters here seem to be saying* that humorous references to any part of any female person, in any & all circumstances is wrong. This seems to be because they go straight to the 'I'm offended, you're a bad person' position without considering the context of the other person's behaviour and/or speech.
I'd say such an exaggerated response to a nonsense study, published as a joke in a magazine that is not even considered vaguely seriously, would classify the reaction as hysterical (IMHO). - DJ
-----------
* This, of course, couldn't be the case, intelligent persons couldn't believe this, I must be wrong.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 1:34 AM
BREASTS:
APPLES,BALCONY,BALLOONS,BANGERS.BAZONGAS.BAZOOMS,BEAN BAGS
BIG BROWN EYES,BON-BONS,BOOBIES,BOOBS,BOTTLES,BOULDERS
BULLETS,BUMPERS,BUSTERS,BUTTERBAGS,CANTELOUPES,FunBags
GAZONGAS,GLANDS,GLOBES,GRAPEFRUITS,GUAVAS,HANDFUL
HAND-WARMERS,HEADERS,HEADliGHTS,HILLS,HONKERS,HOOTERS
HOWITZERS,JABOOS,JIBS,JUGS,JUMBOS,KAZONGAS.KNOBS,KNOCKERS
LACTOIDS,LOAVES,LOBLOLLIES,LOVE BUBBLES,LOVE MUFFINS
LULUS,LUNGS,MAMMETS,MAMS,MANGOES,MEATBALLS,MEAT LOAVES
MELONS,MILK CANS,MILK SHOP,MOUNDS,MOUNT OF ULIES
MOUNTAINS,MUFFINS,MULLIGANS,MURPHIES,NANCIES,NATURE’S FONTS
NIBLETS,NINNIES,NIPPERS,NODULES,NOOGIES,NUBBIES,NUTS
ORANGES,ORBS,OTTOMANS,PAIR,PALOOKAS,PAPAYAS,PAPS,PEACHES
PEAKS,PEARS,PECTS,PEEPERS,PILLOWS,PIPS,POKERS,PONTOONS
POTATOES,PUMPKINS,PUMPS,RIB CUSHIONS,ROUNDIES,SANDBAGS
SCONES,SCOOPS,SET,SHAKERS,SHIMMIES,SKIN SACKS,SNUGGLE PUPS
SPHERES,SPUDS,STACKS,STUFFING,SWEATER MEAT,SWEET ROLLS
SWINGERS,TAMALES,TETONS,TIDBITS,TITS,TITTERS,TI=IES,TOMATOES
TOOTERS,TORPEDOES,TWANGERS,TWIN PEAKS,TWOFERS,UMLAUTS
UPPER DECK,WALDOS,WARHEADS,WARTS,WATERMELONS,WHOPPERS
WOBBLERS,WONGAS,YABBOS,YAMs ANd ZEPPELINS
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 15, 2009 1:46 AM
I blame Darwin!
I mean, Humans have the largest breasts (and penises/testes) of all primates relative to their body size. Curse that sexist sexual selection! [shakes fist at portrait of Darwin]
:) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 2:46 AM
Nothing funnier than a bunch of dudes telling women how they should handle harassment that they are never subject to. Did I say funny? I meant disgusting.
Quote after quote of dudes telling women not to get scared or uncomfortable. Heres a clue: you have NO CLUE what it is like to experience creepy ogling in public. NONE. You have no idea what it is like to live in this culture as a woman, when women can get blamed for their rapes depending on what they do or what they wear. Women are scared in these situations because it is SANE to be afraid of people who display a complete disregard for your wishes. I would really like to see you guys talk about how to react when dudes are getting ogled in prison, since that is one of the only places where a comparable level of risk of sexual assault exists for dudes. I don't really know any women who haven't been groped by strangers, followed home, given creepy letters/phone calls, or otherwise harassed above and beyond creepy stares. This is our reality, and its terrifying. Having someone think that women indicating that they don't want attention means 'I should keep doing this' is SCARY. No amount of parental sounding advice or dismissive comments will change the reality of the situation. I can't believe so many dudes here think that actual women are not a primary source on information about what it is like to deal with this; they prefer to tell US what it is. I have literally made no other argument than "people who get harassed know what harassment is like". You have to listen to understand the experience, you can't define it or dictate it for us.
Have any of you guys calling women 'humorless' ever considered that you just aren't funny? How the hell is that my problem? I can't think of any other time bombing on a joke is widely considered the audience's fault. Having a sense of humor apparently means that you don't have a problem with sexism, and if you do you just shut up about it. cuz omg, boys won't like you if you say the r word! riiiight. this is so not about humor, its about submission. it is about dismissing valid concerns. All the posts on here pointing out how totally in bad taste a lot of racist 'jokes' are shows that you guys superficially understand what is wrong with the whole 'you are just humorless' reaction, but cannot seem to apply the same logic to women. or is sexism ok but racism not?
Once again ed thinks that his intention changes what the post actually is within the cultural context. *sigh*
Posted by: skeptifem | December 15, 2009 4:59 AM
Oh for peters sake , who cares what you find funny or dont find funny, i wonder how dismissive you are of men who claim they dont want to be alone in teh same room as a woman because he is afraid of being accused of sexual harassment or rape..but yeah thats just the big mean boys, trying to silence you women. or how we find assault of males by females funny (kickinga guy in the balls) or how its an acceptable joke to take about cutting off a mans penis.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 15, 2009 5:32 AM
"Heres a clue: you have NO CLUE what it is like to experience creepy ogling in public. NONE. "
How, exactly, are you able to speak to the life experience of a group 150,000,000 people?
Posted by: JohnV | December 15, 2009 9:01 AM
Yeah. Chicks stare at my package all the time. Not just glance, but stare; silently with wide eyes and trembling lips. Then they scream and hit me with whatever comes to hand until I leave the ladies room.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 15, 2009 9:09 AM
How, exactly, are you able to speak to the life experience of a group 150,000,000 people?
OIC. But when quite a few women keep telling men that they do not like to be oggled at, we are just ignored and told to get a sense of humor.
I SEE.
Basically, it only matters if a man says it! We should just shut our pretty little mouths and accept harrassment!
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 9:47 AM
I'm sorry, when did I say that marilove?
Posted by: JohnV | December 15, 2009 9:48 AM
"Here's a clue: you have NO CLUE what it is like to experience creepy ogling in public. NONE."
Wrong. And I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 15, 2009 10:39 AM
"Here's a clue: you have NO CLUE what it is like to experience creepy ogling in public. NONE."
"I can't believe so many dudes here think that actual women are not a primary source on information about what it is like to deal with this; they prefer to tell US what it is. I have literally made no other argument than 'people who get harassed know what harassment is like'. You have to listen to understand the experience, you can't define it or dictate it for us." [Emphasis mine]
Nope, no cognitive dissonance there. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 10:51 AM
DingoJack, creepy ogling is always creepy, no matter what the sex of the ogler, but it is FACT, a scientific fact, that women experience sexual harassment of all types FAR MORE then men.
And for a bunch of fucking men to tell women to just have a sense of humor and feel flattered about being objectified and harassed is wrong.
Not to mention the fact that several MEN upthread essentially said: Well if you wear sexy clothes, you should expect it!!
That is classic victim-blaming, not to mention the fact that it implies men can’t control themselves, which is fucking bullshit.
I can wear a TURTLEKNECK and still get leered and ogled at, because I have large breasts. I can’t help that I have large breasts.
But of course, I should just feel flattered about being made into an object! *eye roll*
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 10:54 AM
Also, this happened recently on the street I lived on until a few months ago (the street I live on now isn’t any safer, but my apartment complex is now gated with security guards, so it helps):
A woman was walking down the street. In broad daylight. A man came up and started chatting with her. He seemed nice, so she allowed him to walk with her.
He ended up pulling her into an alley in broad daylight and beat the shit out of her, and raped her.
Thankfully he was caught not long after, hiding in an empty apartment, and she survived.
So, you guys can just stop with the: "It's just leering!! You shouldn’t assume that every man is out to get you! Why are you assuming you’re not safe?!”
Oh, maybe because shit like this happens? In broad daylight?
Or how ‘bout the serial rapist/killer we had here in Phoenix a couple years ago: He grabbed women in broad daylight, many from bus stops, and raped and stabbed them to death. Indeed, I ended up having to call the hotline they had set up because I thought he was taking the same bus as me many mornings – and he continuingly tried to flirt with me, day after day, even when I made it pretty damn clear that I didn’t want to talk to him (even going so far as to saying, “Please leave me alone”) – but of course, he never listened, and every morning he’d sit next to me on the bus, and every morning I’d have to move away. I don’t think it was the same man, after all was said and done, but he looked eerily similar to the description all over the news. You better fucking believe I was thereafter leery of any strange man trying to chat me up at the bus stop, especially considering the MO of the rapist was to chat up and flirt with the women he planned on grabbing in broad daylight to rape and murder.
Not to even mention the fact that the majority of sexual harassment and rape happens from men the women know, so we can’t even feel safe on a fucking date without fear of being taken advantage of because we decided to have a few drinks with someone we thought we could trust.
But, you know, we should just feel flattered by all the attention!!!
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 11:10 AM
Right. All the points made above are all equivalent to "rape is flattering."
Take a deep breath; and wipe the foam away from the corner of your mouth.
Posted by: jws | December 15, 2009 11:21 AM
Yep, I'll totally just calm down. News flash: You do not have a right to tell a woman to calm down. Fuck you.
And clearly you can't read. My point is that many people above seem to think women should just feel flattered when they get unwanted attention from men. Women should just feel flattered to get ogled at. Women shouldn't feel threatened. We shouldn't feel unsafe.
You seem to miss the point that this unwanted attention DOES make us feel unsafe and for very good reasons.
The ogling, the obscene hand gestures, the unwanted touching. It is threatening.
And if you ogle, it's your fault, not mine, when I think you're disgusting and move away from you.
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 11:28 AM
And when you feel uneasy from the stories you tell yourself about those people (They think my body is their property! Staring means they want to hurt me!), then your emotional regulation is your own damn problem. Don't try to pawn that job off on strangers on the street.
Here I totally agree. Drawing conclusions about a stranger's character based solely on the fact that he's looking at you, is -- to put it charitably -- unscientific, and poor threat-assessment. Yes, we're all obligated to be discreet and take reasonable measures to avoid needless offense; but we're also obligated to be aware and make sure we're not jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence.
I look at women's curves all the time, but that doesn't mean I think of them, or would treat them, as anything less than full-fledged human beings. Let's save the paranoia for the real threats, okay?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 15, 2009 11:31 AM
"DingoJack, creepy ogling is always creepy, no matter what the sex of the ogler, but it is FACT, a scientific fact, that women experience sexual harassment of all types FAR MORE then men."
I wouldn't call this a scientific fact, but a statistical one. Sexual harassment – and assault for that matter – of males could very well be massively under reported. I personally believe it to be, based on both personal experience and the stories of men I've spoken with.
Please note that I think you are almost certainly correct, at least in general outline. I simply don't think that your assertion qualifies as a scientific fact.
Women are almost certainly in greater danger than men when it comes to this sort of behaviour. However, all too often the experiences of men are ignored, dismissed, and laughed off. It's actually very similar in tone to what's going on here.
On a unrelated topic (but one that's been bugging me lately) who exactly was it that decided it was okay to instill in girls the belief that violence is okay, as long as it's directed towards boys? Could we please find this person and give them a serious talking to? I'm not sure, but I think they might work for Disney.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 15, 2009 11:40 AM
Firstly, I agree entirely that women are far more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, but that isn't what skeptifem said is it? She claimed that no male can ever know what it's like to be ogled*, before complaining about posters speaking about the experiences of people other than themselves. I called it 'cognitive dissonance' because 'rank hypocrisy' sounded rather harsh^.
Can you actually quote where anyone said; "Well if you wear sexy clothes, you should expect it!!"?
What you're advocating is a kind of 'thought crime'. If a man looks at me he must be going to rape me,therefore he (and by extension all men) are bad people.
I'd absolutely advocate care, but not hysteria. - DJ
-------------
* How do you define 'creepy ogling' or 'ogling'?
^ I suspect that skeptifem may have been sexually assaulted which would explain her 'hypervigilance' and 'anaphylactic reactions'. Explainable certainly, but reasonable no.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 11:40 AM
"Can you actually quote where anyone said; "Well if you wear sexy clothes, you should expect it!!"?"
Sorry DJ, but you're heading down the wrong path with this one. Marilove will, in fact, be able to find at least one comment upstream where that sentiment was expressed, although not in those exact words. I'd look for it myself, but well...lazy. Also, the job I should technically be doing.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 15, 2009 11:50 AM
Here are some examples of men dismissing the concerns of women, which is fucking typical:
Yep, men just can't control themselves! My breasts are large and you cannot hide them. They are always there. But you know, we women exist only so men can stare at our tits. So we should just be flattered!
And oh, we just don't have a sense of humor! Silly me.
And again. "Just get over it! Stop getting bent out of shape over sexism! You humorless feminist you!"
Tip: Stop telling women to "get over it" or "calm down" or "get a sense of humor" when we voice our concerns over sexual harassment. It makes you look like a condescending, sexist, jackass.
Tip 2: Stop telling women it's their fault because they wore "revealing" clothes. A fucking turtleneck looks obscene on me because I have large breasts. But I guess I should just not expect men to control themselves, and wear a shapeless sack, since otherwise I’ll get unwanted attention, and it’ll be all my fault because I happen to have large breasts.
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 11:55 AM
Yep! We should just feel flattered by unwanted sexual harassment, and it's our fault because we're attractive. And yeah, it's totally up to US, the ones receiving the unwanted attention, to tell the creep to stop it. Question: Why isn't the responsibility on the one GIVING the unwanted attention? Why is it always up to the receiver?!
For the record, even unattractive women get this kind of unwanted attention. It doesn't generally have to do with the man feeling attracted to the woman, but rather the man trying to show dominance. This is why you get a group of men cat calling just about every women that walks by, regardless of what she looks like. He's trying to feel macho manly in front of his friends, not find a girlfriend.
Yep, it's our fault for GOING OUT of the house! We should just accept unwanted attention, because we left our house. If we don't want unwanted attention, we should just stay indoors.
You guys seem to be ignoring some key words: Staring. Unwanted attention. Ogling. Not glances -- unwanted, continued attention. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. And no, it is not the woman's fault for existing or because she happens to be wearing a low-cut top. It's the fault of the man who is giving the unwanted attention. Full stop.
I didn't even make it through half the comments. Shall I go on and find some more victim-blaming and suggestions that men just can't help themselves?
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 12:04 PM
Speaking of large breasts, it's also grossly unfair that women with large breasts are automatically assumed by many (most?) people to be promiscuous. Nor is this foolish assumption limited to men. If I recall correctly, the survey that made me aware of this problem also showed that women were more likely to believe this than men were.
The very idea is a pernicious lie. Also, if anyone has spare time this afternoon, can we please try to build a society where promiscuity isn't seen as a character flaw? Please?
Oh, and before I forget again...
@Ryan: Feminists appreciate humour as much as anyone. Do a search on this page for "witch's cackle" and see what you get.
@Vicki: Yep. Total reading comprehension fail on my end. Oops.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 15, 2009 12:05 PM
"Tip: Stop telling women to 'get over it' or 'calm down' or 'get a sense of humor' when we voice our concerns over sexual harassment. It makes you look like a condescending, sexist, jackass."
Yep, telling people what they should do will make you look like 'condescending, sexist, jackass'. :) -DJ
--------------
PS know a lot of women with 'hairy blinged-up chests' do you?
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 12:08 PM
And I didn't even adress the worst problem with this comment. Not only is the unwanted attention our fault for "going out", but it's our fault we didn't do anything about it! Not the fault of the creep, but the fault of the one receiving the unwanted attention.
Yay for victim-blaming!
Let me ask: Do any of you have daughters? What would you tell her if she said: "Dad, every day this man sits on the bus near me and stares at my breasts. I was wearing a purple turtleneck and a khaki skirt to my knees, and yet he kept staring at me and my breasts. He makes me uncomfortable and makes me feel unsafe. I hate that bus ride."
Would you tell your daughter to get a sense of humor? To be flattered? That it was her fault for having breasts? That men just can't help themselves?
I very much hope not.
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 12:09 PM
Actually, what I would say to a man who is afraid of being alone with a woman because he might be accused of sexual harassment is: okay, don't. Turn down those social invitations, or socialize in groups. I'm not arguing that anyone, regardless of gender, should be forced to enter or stay in situations where they're worried about that sort of threat.
Also, with regard to threat assessment: it's not just how likely an outcome is, it's how harmful it would be. In this situation, the outcomes are uneven: on the one hand, a 40% chance of missing a pleasant conversation, and a 10% chance of some stranger being upset that you've classified him as a possible threat. On the other, a 1% chance of my own discomfort, and a lower but nonzero chance that that won't just be emotional discomfort, it will include physical assault. Turn it around, guys: how often would you accept that risk for yourself. The stranger who is muttering to himself in the corner, and comes over and starts to talk to you is probably not going to murder you, and may not even try to touch you. Do you hang around and talk to him? Do you consider yourself and other men morally or socially obligated to give him your time and polite attention?
If not, you recognize that not all strangers are entitled to a person's attention. And the next step is to recognize that each person gets to decide for herself, or himself, who gets that attention. If a woman says "no" in a given case, she may not think you're dangerous: it may just mean that she has other things to do with her time, or isn't up to conversation because she has a headache. Nobody, male or female, should be expected to justify "I'm reading" or "I need to finish this" when a stranger tries to strike up a conversation.
Posted by: Vicki | December 15, 2009 12:12 PM
DingoJack, I was commenting ont he "low-cut top" comment, and you know it.
I don't really think most PEOPLE would stare at a hairy, blinged-up chest. Except maybe to wonder how you found that time machine, since it's clear you came from 1975.
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 12:12 PM
And inevitably, things get so blown out of proportion that everybody's either a humorless man-hating feminist or a patronizing woman-hating misogynist, and never the twain shall meet.
Out of the suggestion that staring at women can be creepy and make them feel uncomfortable.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 15, 2009 12:13 PM
But we should never, ever feel uncomfortable from staring, Gretchen, and if we get stared at and feel uncomfortable, it's our fault for going out, and we shouldn't feel uncomfortable from unwanted staring and attention, anyway. We should feel flattered!
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 12:15 PM
Or out of merely acknowledging men tend to enjoy looking at breasts, depending on your point of view. ;-)
Marilove, out of curiosity what are your feelings about the original post, independent of you feelings about the comments?
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 15, 2009 12:27 PM
"And inevitably, things get so blown out of proportion that everybody's either a humorless man-hating feminist or a patronizing woman-hating misogynist, and never the twain shall meet." - Gretchen
I like to think of myself as a humourless woman hating feminist. Or is it a patronizing man hating misogynist? In any case, it's definitely something fence straddling, which would explain the persistent crotch soreness. Or maybe that's something else.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 15, 2009 12:31 PM
And there is no conflict between those, thank goodness!
Incidentally, I didn't mean to imply that the opposite of "misogynist" is "feminist," though it seems to have been interpreted as such in this thread.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 15, 2009 12:34 PM
Marilove - I probably investigate the bus journey. What if this man was blind or mentally retarded? Would it be OK to brand him as a pervert? Context.
Don't know too many 'bears' do you?
Define 'creepy ogling' & 'unwanted attention'* - DJ
------------
* I'm guessing it's like the famous definition of 'pornography', "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it."
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 12:34 PM
Marilove you got derailed a little, let me try and get things back on track.
I originally asked skeptifem how she feels she can speak to the life experiences of a group of 150,000,000 people (a group to which she does even claim membership). You responded with: "Basically, it only matters if a man says it! We should just shut our pretty little mouths and accept harrassment!"
Have you as of yet been able to locate where I said that? Do you have any response to what I actually asked as opposed to the giant strawperson you constructed?
[Not that you made the original comment, or that whether you had or had not made the comment you're under any obligation to answer my questions (directed or not to you).]
Posted by: JohnV | December 15, 2009 12:35 PM
I've also discovered that telling them you are a lesbian only makes them work harder. And attempt to invite themselves into your home.
What are they, Mormons?
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 15, 2009 12:53 PM
Since none of this really matters let me just make a short comment encapsulating my thoughts:
Its really weird in a comment thread where the major premise is that its extremely wrong to marginalize the feelings and experiences of a population based on their breasts, it is apparently ok to dismiss the experiences of a population based on their dicks.
Posted by: JohnV | December 15, 2009 12:55 PM
Abby Normal: What does unwanted ogling do to the health of the women receiving such unwanted ogling? That's my questions.
It seems to me that this shady "study" is implying that because ogling at women may make a man "healthier" that it's perfectly acceptable to objectify women. Because of course the health of the man (who is too lazy to get on a treadmill) is more important than the women he is staring at.
Posted by: marilove | December 15, 2009 12:59 PM
marilove,
"This study" is not a study, shady or otherwise. It's a joke. If you want to say it's a bad joke, I might agree with you. But let's be clear....it is a joke.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 15, 2009 1:06 PM
Marilove - you are, of course, aware that it's not really a study, aren't you? - DJ
---------------------
see Anon (#9) link here
Posted by: DingoJack | December 15, 2009 1:08 PM
Posted by: Dave | December 15, 2009 1:13 PM
Okay, I'm shutting down the comments on this thread. It is quite annoying to me that I can't post something intended to make us all laugh at ourselves without creating a virtual riot in the comments with, quite frankly, both sides arguing entirely past one another. Gretchen had it exactly right with her comment that many in this thread simply can't see past the most cartoonish depiction of their opponents - everyone is either a "humorless man-hating feminist or a patronizing woman-hating misogynist." There is a rational middle here, folks. If you really don't think there's anything wrong with just gawking and staring at a woman you think is attractive (as opposed to glancing at her and noticing her beauty), then you really do have a serious problem understanding basic social interactions and drawing reasonable boundaries. And if you can't find the line between a non-threatening glance at a beautiful woman and leering at her, then she's probably right to fear you.
On the other hand, if your reaction to even a mention of this silly, non-existent study is "OMG, this is going to make men think it's okay to oppress me!" then you need to calm down. Asshole men don't comb the scientific literature seeking ways to justify their behavior; they're going to continue their behavior regardless of such things. And anyone who took this study seriously, even if it was real, is far too stupid to worry about. The study is a joke, in the sense that it's simply ridiculous even if some scientist had actually tried to do it.
As for those who suggest that sexual harassment or rape of men is anywhere near as common as sexual harassment or rape of women, I have to wonder what planet you're living on. I agree that both sexual harassment and rape of men does go on and I agree that it is probably under reported - what man wants to admit to such a thing, after all? But sexual harassment and rape of women is also vastly under reported, as study after study has shown. And it's not as if the reported statistics are somewhat even; they're not. Like it or not, when it comes to violent crimes men lead the way by a HUGE margin. Men commit murder and rape at a monumentally higher level than women. When it comes to child molestation, for example, it's 96% male. That doesn't make every man a violent predator, of course; not even close. But to pretend that women engage in the sexual exploitation of men at anything remotely like the rate that men do of women is to live in bizarro world.
Contrary to the opinions of a few radicals who take things to a ridiculous extreme in this "cesspool of white male privilege," - yes, I'm talking about you, skeptifem - I am a feminist. I have worked for equal rights and for protection of women from violence. I've raised funds to build and maintain women's shelters and escorted women to and from abortion clinics. I've seen the effects of rape and sexual assault up close and personal. Almost all of the people I've been close to in my life are women and very few of them have not, at one point or another, been raped or physically or emotionally abused by a man. Any suggestion that somehow men are the real victims is pure folly.
But none of that really has anything to do with this post, which was intended only to provide an opportunity to laugh at ourselves and the kind of silly social situations we all find ourselves in every day. Maybe I'm just doing a lousy job of communicating all of this, I don't know. But it's frustrating to me that these kinds of posts, which really should just provoke laughter, are instead sparking nasty fights, often between people I like and respect. And when things get to the point where my friend Gretchen, who is one of the smartest and most reasonable people I know, gets caricatured as a ball-busting man hater -- something that could hardly be further from the truth -- it's time to hit the reset button and start over. I'm going to have to think twice before posting anything like this again. The resulting nastiness just isn't worth it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 15, 2009 1:40 PM