Zuska is the kick-ass alter-ego of Suzanne E Franks. When not dispensing Zuska's wisdom, Suzanne can often be found gardening, reading, or having one of her thrice-weekly migraines.
A reader named Paul Murray left this comment on a older blog post of mine:
The comments on tit-staring make me wish the women could occupy a man's body for a day. Ignoring tits in your visual field is as easy as it is for a woman to simply ignore a cute baby in the vicinity.
I was flabbergasted, to say the least. What to be more annoyed at? The suggestion that women are somehow programmed - biologically, of course, I am sure - with some sort of infant-adoration module? Or Mr. Murray's casual insult to his fellow men, that they are simply incapable of behaving decently? That's quite some theory Mr. Murray's proposing - that because women have tits, and because they are visible, men must stare at them. It's the women's fault, you see. If only they didn't have the tits. Or hey, maybe if they covered them up! With a hijab! Then they wouldn't provoke indecent male behavior!
Yeah. Bitch PhD has something to say about that in a post with the apt title It's More Than Just Your Eyes, Dickwad. Clearly it's not the visual presence of women's tits that is responsible for harassment and other shameful male behavior. She notes:
Because the fact is, there is no rhyme or reason as to who gets harassed and who doesn't, and what kind of behavior/clothing/location/makeup/companionship you have when you get harassed is totally not determinative.
I'll leave you with one more fabulous quote from her, but you really need to read the whole post.
...[T]he daily drumbeat of the world treating you like you're a piece of meat every time you step out of the house takes a toll on your psyche that nothing can erase.
Dudes, I totally believe you are able to look away from the magic tits. Do the world a big favor and start acting like adults who are in control of their behavior and able to make choices about their actions. Sheesh. Feminists get accused of whining and playing victim, but I've never seen such whining acolytes of victimhood as the poor menz whose bodies rule their minds.
Education & Careers
Comments
As the primary caretaker for a very cute baby for large portions of time, I believe that men and women have stereotypically different and fairly consistent reactions to babies (in the culture in which I was in ... east coast US) Men seemed to be either indifferent or mildly interested in the goo goo ga ga sense. Women seemed to give vibes of either intentions of infanticide or kidnapping the baby because it was so cute.
I'm speaking here of strangers on the street, of course. and that was 12/13 years ago ... these things do change, despite the appearance of "innateness" (which is a red herring in and of itself).
Posted by: greg laden | August 19, 2008 9:30 PM
So if I have trouble not making ga-ga faces at babies and breasts (as somewhat seperate things, although I honestly find breastfeeding pretty facinating), am I just terminally immature and incapable of acting as an adult?
Posted by: Becca | August 19, 2008 10:10 PM
I think if you are going "goo goo ga ga" and making bendy bendy motions with your finger when you see women's breasts then you should reconsider your approach.
Posted by: greg laden | August 19, 2008 10:25 PM
My husband, too, insists that guys can't help looking at tits. He also insists that one can do it without being obvious. He's demonstrated it a few times when we're out together. (He also married me even though I'm somewhat short in that department; we've been married for 28 years. I don't mind at all that he looks, but I'd be really annoyed if he leered.)
So maybe growing up doesn't mean tit-fanciers stop looking, just that they learn to do it without leering or refusing to look the bearer in the eye.
Posted by: Karen | August 19, 2008 10:25 PM
I'm male, and my mates and I are capable of avoiding ogling every pair of breasts that come along. But, honestly, there are just some women that some heterosexual men find it near impossible not to get some sort of gander at. It's really all in how you do it. We feel that if we make it obvious in any way whatsoever, chances are we're running the risk of being offensive on some level to someone. So, we work to find just the right opportunity (that doesn't appear intentional) to quickly shift our field of vision across the woman's chest or the rest of her body and onto some other object, making it appear as if we were intending to look at only that object all along and not her breasts or the rest of her body. I'd like to think this makes it a relatively harmless act. But, hey, I suppose the final verdict of that would have to come from the particular females being observed.
Posted by: Keith B | August 19, 2008 10:26 PM
How about we try to use science instead of petty name-calling and anecdotes? There is a VERY large literature on automatic stimulus-driven capture of attention in the human visual system, and there's no particular reason to believe that executive functioning is capable of overriding involuntary shifts of attention in all circumstances.
I honestly could care less about whether it's boob or baby-driven. I'm just eager for people to remember that we ARE animals and that at some basic level, there must be some processes in the brain that cannot simply be over-ruled by intention. You can't force a neuron not to fire.
Sentences like "poor menz whose bodies rule their minds" smack of a misunderstanding of where behavior comes from. Penises don't make brains act differently. Brains make penises act differently.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Brian | August 19, 2008 10:33 PM
My informal survey of male friends indicates they spend between 50 and 100 percent of their idle time in public gazing at either breasts or buttocks. I used to be shocked, but I've given up. In the meantime, I don't even find babies cute, much less enjoy gazing at them. It's totally unfair.
Posted by: bioephemera | August 19, 2008 10:35 PM
You're absolutely right, the next time I see a young fit co-ed running with a pair of those shorts that has "JUICY" printed on the backside in large neon type, I'm definitely not going to look!
Well, unless I'm driving at night and they're reflective -- it could save her life!
Posted by: Larry | August 19, 2008 11:41 PM
Somewhere between where it was written on the screen and where you understood it in your brain, tits are to men as yarn is to kittens, transformed into, it's women's fault men like breasts and women should all cover up in the most extreme religious garb you can think of. One that also happens to symbolize terrible and systematic abuse of women, something that wasn't in the offending post at all.
Did Paul Murray say that? No. Why put words in Paul Murray's mouth when his own words are right there for themselves. I don't read any whining or cries of being a victim from Paul Murray's post.
Bitch PhD's post is not even about anything like what Paul Murray said. You're using Bitch PhD's post about actual sexual harassment suffered by women in Egypt to try and score points against somebody who simply said men find it difficult to ignore breasts and you're belittling the real suffering of countless women in the world in the process.
Posted by: tincture | August 19, 2008 11:52 PM
Staring and ogling and generally being a creep are things men can and should avoid. There's no excuse for leering and making people uncomfortable by appraising a body like it were on display at a butcher's.
On the other hand, noticing an attractive woman is just not something a heterosexual man can avoid. It's biologically hardwired. Murray's phrasing might not have been the best, but not automatically noticing is on the same order of difficulty as sneezing with your eyes open.
Posted by: Matt Springer | August 20, 2008 12:24 AM
"Because the fact is, there is no rhyme or reason as to who gets harassed and who doesn't, and what kind of behavior/clothing/location/makeup/companionship you have when you get harassed is totally not determinative."
I saw something like this on the "Dr Feelgood" show a while back. Dr Feelgood (a woman) attempted to show that men are visually driven by putting a pair of twins in different outfits ("slutty" vs "sedate") and getting the men in the live audience to vote. To her obvious constrnation, the male audience was split pretty evenly.
Duh.
Only a woman could think that *clothing* makes a hell of a lot of difference, because that's what they see when they look at men. As far as men are concerned, the twins were twins - same age, same body shape, equally hawt. Clothing and makeup is ephemera (although yes, it does have some effect).
Making a similar mistake, this comment above states that "behavior/clothing/location/makeup/companionship" doesn't matter and takes that as some sort of proof that the staring is all deliberate. Double duh. Duh because its an utter non-sequitur: how earth does that demonstrate that "Clearly it's not the visual presence of women's tits"? And duh because the lack of variation in the behaviour has a far simpler explanation. The things that matter are youth, prettiness, and breast size ... perhaps race, height etc depending on the man. Physical attributes, in other words. *Of course* a given female individual will notice no variation in male behaviour towards her - except as she ages.
As for the claim that there can just be no possible biological basis for all this, that women don't go go-go over babies except as culturally dictated: get some facts. You can jump up and down about how unfair it is to your PhD's heart's content. If is true that there is a biological basis for staring, then all you're doing is the old fingers-jammed-in-the-ears yelling "Is not is not is not!" trick.
It's also hypocritical to insist that men are not biologicaly disposed to tit-staring, and yet at the same time to insist that women can't help but feel victimised and threatened by it. Look - do we physically react to other's appearance, presence, and actions as part of our DNA or not? Do - *can* - our hormones - be they sex, fear, anger or maternal - perk in response to what we *see*, or not? Or do you want to play "my feelings are ok but yours are not"? You talk about men not behaving like adults, then insist that your bad feelings at being started at be fixed by *someone else*. Adults. Men.
There was another study done recently on how men and women rect to being started directly at by a presenter. Women were very greatly affected (they found the presentation far more persuasive), and men far less so. IOW: we don't realise we are doing it, and we honestly don't understand what the fuss is about because we are not affected staring like you are. It's like being colour blind, and hearing all the women complain about all the chartreuse.
And finally - since when were adults "in control" of their behaviour?
Posted by: Paul Murray | August 20, 2008 1:34 AM
Brian #6
Sentences like "I honestly could care less about whether it's boob or baby-driven." smack of a misunderstanding of the English language. I believe what you meant to say is COULDN'T CARE LESS. Before you try to get on your high horse, proofread.
Posted by: Sabine | August 20, 2008 1:38 AM
we work to find just the right opportunity (that doesn't appear intentional) to quickly shift our field of vision across the woman's chest or the rest of her body and onto some other object, making it appear as if we were intending to look at only that object all along and not her breasts or the rest of her body.
Dear men: We can see you doing this. Regards, the be-titted.
Posted by: Maria | August 20, 2008 3:43 AM
My chauvanistic streak gets the better of me.
I'll agree with Murray. But I won't just limit the cute-baby response to women.
I like boobs. Boobs are nice to look at. If there are boobs within my field of view, my vision is going to be naturally attracted to them.
Just as much as they are likely to be attracted to a cute baby, a TV screen, or a nice car.
I don't expect every woman to be happy that guys look at there breasts. But I would also be unimpressed if women were so shallow as to think any guy who might occassion a glance at something interesting in their field of view immediately jump to the conclusion they are a some kind pervert or doing something wrong.
Murray doesn't mention staring. He says "not ignoring". I do not think "not ignoring" really constitutes harassment.
Posted by: zayzayem | August 20, 2008 4:26 AM
O BTW
B OFFENDED BY TEH LOLS
Posted by: zayzayem | August 20, 2008 4:35 AM
Shorter Paul Murray: I don't understand your problem and I don't give a shit.
Posted by: student_b | August 20, 2008 4:45 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake. Blatant tit-staring, like any other kind of harassment, isn't something we get irrationally het up about that the poor helpless menz can't stop themselves doing. It's an ugly display of power and it's meant to be threatening. It's intended to remind us that we're Different and Don't Belong. That's why tit-stares are more frequent, and more obvious, the more powerful the starer and the more powerless the staree.
In fact, many men - even senior ones - are perfectly capable of treating women with respect in a professional setting. I've seen it happen, even with my tits on!
Posted by: MissPrism | August 20, 2008 5:43 AM
Hasn't this been fairly well dealt with in eye-tracking studies? IIRC, Both women and men look at the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex, it's just that women are more subtle about it.
But yeah, blatant staring is a completely different matter, and entirely down to privilege.
Posted by: Dunc | August 20, 2008 5:54 AM
And of course the fact that the breast obsession is largely a northwestern european obsession tends to give lie to the claim that men are incapable of not staring. I will also note that as a man who knows a lot of men I can tell you we are entirely capable of not ogling if we choose to not ogle. Just because Mr. Murray lacks tact and/or class gives him no right to impugn all men.
Posted by: Rev Matt | August 20, 2008 6:45 AM
Are they actually more subtle about it, or do people not notice as much because women supposedly aren't as visually/physically attracted, and therefore they aren't expecting to see women noticing as much?
As for my perspective, while I certainly understand that blatant ogling makes people (in this context, women, but people in general) uncomfortable and should be avoided, I also agree with the observation that this post seems to wad a number of different social phenomena up under a narrow label, in a fashion that's vaguely reminiscent of the concerns that have been raised about the "harm" done to children by "violence" in the media, where none of the relevant terms are defined or specified.
To establish a baseline, what degree of looking would you (plural) consider acceptable?
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 20, 2008 7:29 AM
"Sentences like "I honestly could care less about whether it's boob or baby-driven." smack of a misunderstanding of the English language. I believe what you meant to say is COULDN'T CARE LESS. Before you try to get on your high horse, proofread."
It's an idiom -- and you obviously didn't misunderstand the meaning. Undernegation here is also quite common. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=290
_________
On topic: As a man I can say that yes, I look at women's bodies. I'd hope I don't do it too much or too overbearingly. (I'm guessing I don't, as I seem to be able to keep a number of good female friends, many of whom are very attractive.) As for the hard-wired vs free will bit -- nothing about human behavior is as simple as that. It's a gray area that shades in many different directions: biological "programming", culture, environmental pressure on development, random brain malfunctions. I'm not on either side with that last point -- just want to point out that it's very complicated and some actual data could be useful.
Posted by: GAC | August 20, 2008 7:58 AM
Dear men: We can see you doing this. Regards, the be-titted.
yes ... and, so can we other men. Everybody can see what everyone else is doing, and many/most sighted people do something with their eyes when they are interacting with those around them. We humans are so good at observing each other's eyes that you can tell when someone in the room with you is starting to look (trying to not be noticed) for a clock, and you can tel when they find it, and you can tell what person/body part an individualis looking at/for even if all the action is going on way down the street.
Although I appreciate the idea that some guys get together and decide "we're going to do this subtly so no one notices it" ... I appreciate that because I'm willing to assume this is an effort to be good in some way ... it really is not a lot different to say "I'm going to ogle subtly" vs "I'm going to ogle period" or to not even think about it.
There are cultural variations across space and time, gender differences (not just male/female), age, class, and other differences in how this all works, it is all quite complex and dynamic, but we all look at all aspects of each other and this looking is part of our interaction. Everybody looks at everybody like everybody talks to everybody in ways that reflect our attitudes, our thinking about individuals and the specific nature of our relationship. I'm not talking about men looking at specific female body parts, I'm talking about the simple fact that most of our communication involves our eyes in important ways. This should be obvious.
A blanket statement about a sex is uninformative, not very useful and in some cases is not only sexist but is also racist/classist. Men ogle, therefore men are bad. But really, this means that white highly educated males are usually OK (because they hardly ever ogle) but Mexican worker are usually bad (because it is fairly normal to set one's eyes on a passing female and just watch as though she was a TV with legs). There are so many slippery slopes here I don't even know where to start.
But I do think that for those guys who are part of US western society (for example) who have not thought about this, do heed Maria's words. Who you look at and in what manner is utterly obvious to everyone.
So the answer is simple: Don't look what you wouldn't say, and please speak respectfully where respect is due, which includes of course the instance where you do not know someone. And if you don't have anything nice to say, do consider not saying it, etc. etc.
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 20, 2008 8:11 AM
I found, going into puberty, that suddenly it was hard to avoid looking at certain parts of a woman's anatomy. Eventually you learn to control it, but there is definitely a biological basis for it.
Look, if a young teenager, not far into puberty, is in a lift, everyone's packing in and an attractive young woman, by the movement of the crowd, just happens to be pressed against him, and a he gets an erection, whose fault is it? Is he being perverted?
FWIW, in that situation, just about every guy I know would be thinking of arctic wastes and praying that their blood pressure will drop far enough to prevent a reaction. It's embarrassing to have your body - like the muscles that scan your central vision around the area in front of you to examine things of interest - suddenly doing things you can't control and you know other people will find offensive. Luckily, the eye thing is at least somewhat under our control. But there is an element of biological imperative about it too. The same way you can't prevent yourself from jumping at sudden noises, males cannot prevent themselves from constantly examining those around them for desirable secondary sexual characteristics.
From an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, it makes sense. There's a balance here. It's involuntary that the eye is drawn towards that which is desirable, but we also have enough control to hide it so that we have a reasonable chance of getting that which is desirable, whether it be a beautiful member of the opposite sex* we have to charm or a banana that no one else in the tribe has noticed yet.
*note the gender-neutral language in this sentence; I know my female friends can't keep their eyes off an attractive male either, and I think one of the other commenters cites studies showing that both sexes examine secondary sexual characteristics on the opposite sex (if heterosexual).
Posted by: wazza | August 20, 2008 8:38 AM
Give me a break! A professional situation is not the beach. When I am at the beach, I expect a little eye wandering from both men and women (NOT staring, leering or oggling--that is always inappropriate behavior designed to make the leer-ee feel like an object).
In a professional situation, I generally keep my eyes on people's faces and expect the same courtesy given to me. My colleagues have no problems addressing me, not my tits (or any other sexualized body part of interest--not all men are tit obsessed). In my workplace, I don't find that my women-oriented colleagues look at my tits at all. I don't know if they have extra-bonus self-control or what, but I am not buying Paul Murray's argument that he can't help it. Do you also stare at handicapped people?
Posted by: JaneDoh | August 20, 2008 9:11 AM
@maria: Dear men: We can see you doing this. Regards, the be-titted.
Indeed, this is what smacks of the complete disingenuity of the initial post's "shock". Of course you notice that we notice -- it's a integral part of your process of mating selection (i.e. you get to control whose glance you "accidentally" CATCH.. embarrass.. SMILE.. initiate.. etc.).
I'm not excusing bad male behavior and certainly not abuse (we all have a right to our bodies, space and privacy), but everything else is simply a very complicated game called "human mating behavior". And yes, I agree with some of the posts above that there is strong evidence this is hard-wired to some degree, hence, intuitive and unconscious in many cases.
While women aren't wired to compulsively look, I am beginning to suspect that women are wired to compulsively "test" potential mates repeatedly. From one perspective the tests appear to be as illogical as possible (attempts to use logic will, by definition fail)-- however there is a certain reproductive logic to this: find a mate who will not be swayed by locally incoherent situations -- this is a stability metric in disguise.
And yes, we can notice you testing us as well.
Posted by: Larry | August 20, 2008 9:11 AM
It's all about empathy. People have it, or they don't. I may not know what it's like to be female, but I can sure empathize with how creepy it would be to have people stare at parts of my body all the time, the creepy part being the thoughts running through the lookers' minds.
Bottom line, do you give a shit about your effect on other people or not? Not that other people's opinions define what I do, but if I didn't care one bit about others' opinions, I'd become the Survivorman and live on my own in the forest. Fact is, 99.9% of us can't and we are dependent on each other for the goods & services we consume. Since we depend on each other, how about we treat each other with respect?
Posted by: Sobex | August 20, 2008 9:22 AM
From an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, it makes sense. There's a balance here. It's involuntary that the eye is drawn towards that which is desirable, but we also have enough control to hide it so that we have a reasonable chance of getting that which is desirable, whether it be a beautiful member of the opposite sex* we have to charm or a banana that no one else in the tribe has noticed yet.
Well, FWIW (WMNBM) the EvoPsych view is somewhat different. Yes, men should be selected to observe certain things and women should be selected to observe certain things, and certain visceral reactions need to happen for reproduction to occur, etc. etc. But it is not the case that the evolved psychology produces ogling and boners in elevators and we then control it despite that psychology.
The actual research on this (again, FWIW) shows that women are generally more often interested in men who are a) indifferent in their gaze and b) spend a fair amount of time self grooming.
So if the young man in the elevator wants to have sex with the girl who randomly wanders into the elevator (sorry, lift) the EvolPsy literature (and theory, actually) suggest that he should ignore her and start picking off lint.
But remember these two things ... very important ... the lint should be on him, NOT on her. Not yet. And, the lint should not be real. Do not cover yourself with lint. Just pretend the lint is there.
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 20, 2008 9:44 AM
I have to agree that men are biologically disposed to look at breasts. No problem with that. But as many men on this thread have said, they can control if they look seriptiously or if they leer and drool. And that is the difference. You can notice my tits but don't treat me like one enormous walking tit here for your viewing pleasure.
I'll tell you why Zuska had such a negative reaction to the comment. The comment was intended to insult and was expressing anger at women. Men don't always get that women are much more vulnerable than they are, if only b/c on average a women has less body strength than a man. As a women who lives in the city, I don't know if that guy leering at me on the bus will just leer and then go on his way or if he will approach and harass me. And that is why obvious starring is threatening. In the back of my mind I always know that if a man chose to attack me I probably wouldn't be able to fight him off. That is the subtext when a random guy openly treats a women as no more than her sexual organs. I don't begrudge men their biology, but I am insulted by the manner of Paul Murray's comment. He seems to be to saying that women don't have a right to expect men to try not to openly ogle us in a way that is intrinsically threatening.
Posted by: The izz | August 20, 2008 11:13 AM
Agree (female) tits are fun to look at.
Agree women should not be treated in a way which threatens them.
Wonder: if having tits noticed is a problem why is so much of fashion geared toward enhancing and displaying said tits?
Seems like a large fraction of folks in this country try to get noticed based on appearance.
Posted by: Jim | August 20, 2008 11:21 AM
A lot of the people in this comment thread sorta miss the point. Okay, very miss the point.
The original post was about _staring at breasts_. The commenter said, in response to such a post, that men (or, rather, any man, since just putting a woman in a man's body would do it) couldn't help looking (or, rather, staring, since he was responding to staring if he wanted to be on point. If he wasn't on point, he was just wasting time to troll) at breasts, and put it at purely biological terms. This means that the commenter's 'argument/complaint', if he were on topic, is that if you have a man, he will look (nay, stare) at breasts, and not just some breasts, but all breasts that are in any way visible, and how dare Zuska be annoyed or offended in any way about that natural inevitable action by any man, ever. (Just like women will, of course, coo over babies.) So, by assuming that the respondent was being honest, Zuska ends up with a solid point to make.
This is an absolute stereotypical joke of an argument, and false on its face, as there are a number of men who do not just go around staring at breasts, in this comment thread and even in the real world (gasp.) All the people reaching for various 'justifications' for why men might want to _look_ at breasts in a 'mate judging' scenario (as opposed to staring) miss the original point, the commenter's actual stated point, and Zuska's response.
Furthermore, it is incredibly insulting, as someone who's got the genes to be a 'man', to be told, 'If you see some tits, by god, you're gonna be staring' or, reversed, 'If you don't stare at those tits, you're not a man.' Wow. There's no problem with saying that, is there? Not in the slightest. No exclusion, no trying to set up a standard by which masculinity is judged by how much you 'can't avoid' staring at woman (especially if other guys are around)... yeah.
Perhaps the people dragging out random 'but but but' should drag out 'reading and analysis' instead, along with thinking about _just how insulting it is to be told that men can't possibly do anything but stare at women_, which Zuska ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP before people got spun into a tizzy over trying to read the guy's statement in the most favorable light. Because that's not the only thing men are supposedly unable to keep themselves from doing. (And congratulations, by the way, for saying that adults aren't in control of their behavior, Paul. I assume you will rail against the completely unfair justice system for treating people as responsible for their behavior shortly, and can therefore leave this blog behind. Oy.)
And if the guy wasn't saying what Zuska thought he said... then his reply was off topic/bad faith/trolling, and the people defending his viewpoint should take that into mind too.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | August 20, 2008 11:36 AM
@wazza- the attempt at gender-neutrality is laudable, the hetero-centricity means you need a little more work. Although, it is harder to think about power-imbalances in same-gender relationships in any categorical way.
I think the "erection in the lift" example is an interesting one. Sometimes you do have bodily responses you are not able to get under fully under control. I think the embarrassment serves a function here- it's probably mostly about "breaking social taboo" but if you have a solid dose of "oh no! Am I making that person uncomfortable?" type empathy-embarrassment, that's probably a pretty healthy sign.
Men (people, really) should be embarrassed when women (people, really) are made uncomfortable by their looking. I understand the urge to look is there- it's not limited to men (that was kind of my point with the first tounge-in-cheek post). However, men (especially) need to remember that it is not reasonable to expect the object of their attentions to be able to read their minds. Certain looks are associated with harrassment often enough that some women are justifiably cautious.
Posted by: Becca | August 20, 2008 11:39 AM
I think what we have here is a false dichotomy. It seems like what's being said is "When men look at women, they always stare obnoxiously, and so they shouldn't look at all." Men -don't- always stare obnoxiously, and I think it's the (more or less) innocent glance that Paul Murray was talking about. You can't help glancing at something that attracts your attention, WHATEVER it is. Heck, I'm a straight female, and I can't help glancing at some women walking down the street. (Usually the ones in skimpy tank tops and shorts so short their butts are hanging out. Although it usually winds up turning into disgust rather than admiration.)
I lived in the city for years too, and I dealt with my fair share of horny idiots. I've also learned not to be over sensitive, and how to either get away from, or incapacitate someone if they get too nasty. If a half-second glance is enough to make you feel threatened, the problem is your's. Go take a self defense class and get some freakin' confidence.
Posted by: paceetrate | August 20, 2008 11:52 AM
Jim has a very valid point that women (and men) dress to display their bodies. It is the delicate push and pull between wanting attract a mate and not wanting to attract the wrong mate.
Perhaps a metaphor would is in order. People who buy beautiful and expensive cars want them to be noticed and appreciated. But they would be nervous if someone stood with their nose an inch from windshield to get a better look, angry if someone scratched it, and devastated if someone stole it.
Posted by: the izz | August 20, 2008 11:58 AM
Dear men: We can see you doing this. Regards, the be-titted.
Here, The izz has taken the words out of my brain:
I got stared at by a female in Wal-Mart today. She was young, probably twenty or so, most likely a college student, and she eyed me from face to crotch to face while she was walking towards and past me. I've got to admit, I felt kind of uncomfortable knowing that she just eyed what she could see of my genitalia, simply for the fact that she did it too long and made it so obvious. That's the whole point I was trying to make: which do you really find offensive and worthy of being upset about: the guys who try to make it inconspicuous and quick, thereby trying to offering you some respect over something it's almost impossible to control, or the guys who spend about a fortnight drooling over your anatomy right in front of you?
Posted by: Keith B | August 20, 2008 12:00 PM
(Haven't had coffee yet. Typo: trying to offer you some respect*.)
Posted by: Keith B | August 20, 2008 12:03 PM
I would say that it is practically if not actually impossible for a guy to notice chesticles that are on display. It's no slight, it's not a sign of disrespect, it's a morally neutral inevitability. Now, you don't have to call friends over to stare into the yummy goodness, pinch botty or bark like a dawg. That's almost never appropriate.
And I do think that a lot of blokes feel bad when they are caught sneaking a peak. If it really bothers the woman, she should tell the guy. I think that the overt reinforcement of that social code will keep his eyes where they belong. NO NOT ON HER BUTT YOU MORONS! Sigh.
HJ
Posted by: Bing | August 20, 2008 12:23 PM
Semi-random thoughts.
I once spent a weekend at a nude resort. I witnessed far less ogling of breasts or genitalia at this resort than college bars I used to frequent. At the resort there was a noticible increase in people looking each other in the eyes to talk. At first it is difficult to not notice that people are naked, and some have rather nice bodies to appreciate…but soon you adopt an attitude that its just skin. No white collar, no blue collar, just bags of bones.
To carry on the comparison with college bars…At college bars, on any given night, it is not uncommon to witness sexual assaults on women…”accidental” breast or butt touching, blatant ass grabbing, unwanted kissing, public exposure, etc. At the nude resort this simply did not happen. I know that one example is not proof of a trend, but it would be interesting to see if there are any studies out there detailing sexual behavior at a nude resort.
I’ve dated women who loved it when men obviously noticed them. I’ve dated women who loathed the visual attention men show them. I’ve been in groups where if you did not notice and comment on a female figure you would be harassed for being homosexual. And I’ve been in groups where such noticing was grounds for swift reprisal. My point is that society sends mixed messages to men on how to behave in some situations. I think that most men tend to do okay without going overboard.
Is it worth rationally discussing that sometimes women are to blame for the attention they receive? I’ve never understood how single women out for a night of fun can spend three hours getting ready to go out, making sure her makeup is perfect, hair perfect, thong shows enough to be “sexual but not slutty,” etc. then gets mad when guys stare at them.
If men are not directly threatening women with physical harm, then maybe looking isn’t that bad. If you fear physical attacks, take a karate class. I work in a dangerous area, and when my wife visits I do have some concerns for her. But we don’t hang up signs reminding the gangs to please be nice to the locals, and we don’t post blogs about how the gangs should change. We take precautions in our behavior to minimize the potential of violence.
What can we do for pro-active change that does not pigeonhole every male who notices breasts?
Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2008 1:07 PM
paceetrate: I think it is pretty clear that Paul was defending staring, both from the context of his initial comment and from his followup on this thread, where he says
If is true that there is a biological basis for staring, then all you're doing is the old fingers-jammed-in-the-ears yelling "Is not is not is not!" trick.
That seems to be pretty clear that he thinks he can't help staring at tits due to his innate biology.
I am really tired of people attributing all sorts of cultural/stereotypical stuff to biology. It seems like an attempt to remove personal responsibility from individual behavior. I mean, if I am really hungry and I pass an outdoor cafe, biology says "take it and eat it", but I highly doubt any respectful person would just grab some food off of someone's plate. Biological urges are not uncontrollable. Not every culture views tits as stare-worthy sex objects, so how can it be a biological imperative to stare at them?
Posted by: JaneDoh | August 20, 2008 1:09 PM
So, my college dorm had a clothing-optional hot tub, and even though the rest of the campus was not what you'd call fighting the good fight for women in science (woo, tech school!)... the hot tub was. In it, I saw lots of men go through a process of desperately staring at a fixed point in space, and then eventually figuring out how to relax and hold a normal conversation with a normal amount of eye contact. It is obvious to me that this is a learned behavior.
I tend to be sympathetic when a guy is clearly trying to practice good social skills, even if he hasn't quite learned them perfectly. It's still awkward and uncomfortable, and it is depressing that so many men make it past adolescence without learning better, but at least he's shouldering his fair share of the embarrassment. But some dude who thinks that my body is his for the ogling as long as he is "subtle" is not actually practicing good social skills. Remember, we're talking about a workplace, not a singles bar.
And Keith, you were talking about "subtle" "spontaneous" ogling that occurs as part of a multi-step process with careful strategizing and forethought, not truly momentary distractions of "ooh tits! oh wait shit face". I don't see why I should consider it respectful for someone to be planning their next glance at my chest when they are supposed to be listening to what I am saying.
Posted by: Maria | August 20, 2008 1:22 PM
I got stared at by a female in Wal-Mart today. She was young, probably twenty or so, most likely a college student, and she eyed me from face to crotch to face while she was walking towards and past me.
That happens to me all the time. I've learned that it usually means something. Like my shirt is on inside out or backwards (or both).
Maria: Good story about the hot tub. Personally, I'm not into hot tubs, but I did live in a shirt-optional society for a few years. And yes, appropriate behavior is all about learning.
Posted by: Greg Ladeng | August 20, 2008 1:34 PM
Men, we can't conceive of what it is like to be a woman and have a man stare at us. Perhaps if we all spent a summer on an island populated with nothing but gay bodybuilders, we'd start to understand. Just how often do you fear getting raped on a first date? That's what their life is like. So don't overtly stare, what seems innocent to us can seem threatening to them. Get some of your female friends to tell you their worst drunken-idiot-in-the-bar stories for some perspective.
And women, please, if you've got beautiful natural C's and you wear a low cut blouse (God I love this summer's fashion trends), men are going to stare, period. If you don't want your beautiful parts stared at, cover them up. That's what I do.
Posted by: Science Avenger | August 20, 2008 2:06 PM
Just as the same behavior isn't appropriate across all situations, it's also important to remember that the same behavior in two different people doesn't always mean the same thing.
A friend was telling me recently about how hard he has to work to not get in trouble for staring. It's difficult to do because he isn't actually staring at breasts. He's just introverted enough that he has trouble thinking about what to say when he's looking someone in the face. In order to remove the distraction, his eyes drop a bit. He's not a breast man, so he doesn't always register what he's looking at. On the other hand, if I ever catch him talking to my butt or my legs, I know he's staring.
So it is a bit unsafe to assume, in the absence of other information, a hostile, power-reinforcing intent to staring. Human interaction is just weird, complicated stuff.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | August 20, 2008 2:24 PM
Stephanie: Or, your friend has concocted a BRILLIANT excuse!
Posted by: Greg Laden | August 20, 2008 2:28 PM
For those of you who weren't able to make the connection: Bitch Phd's post talks about how sexual harassment actually increases when a supermajority of women are coerced into wearing the hajib. The unwanted attention and harassment in that case clearly has nothing to do with the ready visibility of sexy female body parts, because they are all covered up. The whole point of the hajib is supposed to be to "help" women be modest so that men can control their uncontrollable sexual natures but clearly that doesn't work, since the harassment increases. Now, if you are arguing that sexual harassment is mating behavior, then I guess you are going to stick with your biological argument no matter what. But it's really about power and control enacted through sexual domination. Bitch PhD goes on to make the connection between the failed functioning of the hajib and the intimidation women as a class are subject to via harassment. Ogling is one aspect of that widespread harassing behavior we are constantly subjected to.
So. Telling me men "can't help" ogling visible breasts doesn't cut it with me, because clearly covering them up doesn't stop harassing behavior either. Either men choose to learn how to see women as humans worthy of respect, and learn how to treat them just like they'd treat any other person they consider to be a human. Or they choose to see women as sex objects who exist on earth for their ogling and groping pleasure.
It's refreshing to see that at least some commenters remarked on how the harassment of women is one way men perform, define, defend their masculinity to one another. As such, it has less to do with their biological urge to procreate and more with their cultural constituted need to prove they aren't gay.
Posted by: Zuska | August 20, 2008 2:31 PM
I'm not surprised that the hajib is associated with increased harassment--they are both part of a system designed with the intent of forcing male will onto women and their bodies.
Is it possible to say that men can see women as people they respect with whom they would like to have sex? How about as "sexual beings, too." I mean, I dont think that it is an either/or thing. There are lots of women who I have deeply respected who, at the same time, I would have been delighted to service sexually if they showed any interest. And I mean really respect them. It's certainly possible in affianced couples to desire and respect one another simultaneously, as well as in other relationships, and I'd have a hard time, uh, having a hard time for a female I didn't respect...
HJ
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | August 20, 2008 2:43 PM
Motherfuckers need to grow the fuck up and learn to be respectful of other people's bodily autonomy. It's not difficult to appreciate another human being's appearance and yet not be a drooling leering troglodyte who makes people uncomfortable or fearful.
You can appreciate a woman's breasts--even if they are purposefully displayed in clothing desinged to accentuate their appearance--without leering into her cleavage and trying to get a fucking nipple peek.
This shit has nothing to do with biology, genetics, evolutionary psyfuckingchology, or any other ridiculous happy horseshit. It is not that fucking complicated to be polite.
Posted by: PhysioProf | August 20, 2008 2:59 PM
Is it possible to say that men can see women as people they respect with whom they would like to have sex? How about as "sexual beings, too." I mean, I dont think that it is an either/or thing.
This is not the either/or I was talking about. I didn't say either you can be respectful of women or you can have sex with them. I said either you can be respectful and treat them like humans or you can see women as sex objects who exist on earth for your ogling and groping pleasure. Now, if you equate having a mutually respectful sexual relationship with "seeing women as sex objects who exist on earth for your ogling and groping pleasure" then you are so messed up I cannot help you.
Why the fuck is it that when you ask men not to behave in obnoxious harassing ways, somebody comes along and says "but why don't you want men and women to have teh sex???"
SEX and SEXUAL HARASSMENT are NOT the same thing!!!!!!!!! Seeing (all) women as sex objects is not the same thing as seeing women as equal human beings, some of whom at some point you might possibly engage in a mutually satisfying sexual relationship. Why, why, why is this so difficult to comprehend???
Posted by: Zuska | August 20, 2008 3:09 PM
Zuska, I think it's hard to keep in mind for the same reasons it's hard to have discussions about sexist behavior without some people saying, "But I do these things that I don't think are wrong."
This is behavior where some things are clearly okay, some are clearly not, but most of it is somewhere in the middle based on the people involved. Every eggregious example that is clearly bad has small echoes that reach deep into that middle. Nobody wants to be one of the baddies, so they need to spend time figuring out where in the middle they are relative to your examples.
It isn't that they don't accept that bad is bad. It's just that if they were also clearly bad, they'd be unlikely (aside from a few trolls) to be reading this in the first place.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | August 20, 2008 3:36 PM
Sure. Produce a definition of "respectful treatment" that everyone agrees on and we'll go from there.
A minor note: some of us actually aren't able to pick up this stuff on our own, so it would help if we received a straight answer when we asked about what's acceptable, as opposed to being treated as if we're morally and/or mentally defective for not already holding the same opinion as the person on the other end of the conversation. And I'm not aiming that at any specific commenter, but it seems like most people could benefit from being (metaphorically) clubbed with this advice a few dozen times.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 20, 2008 3:53 PM
Oh, and Greg, he lives half a country away. He's never had the opportunity to need an excuse. We were talking about a third party at the time.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | August 20, 2008 3:55 PM
"SEX and SEXUAL HARASSMENT are NOT the same thing!!!!!!!!!"
The problem here is that despite this statement, your argument seems to entail that looking at a woman's breast and sexual harassment are the same thing. Will you PLEASE at least take the time to define when exactly a stare turns into sexual harassment, and why it crosses that line. To my knowledge, sexual harassment at the very least involves physical force of some kind (whether it's grabbing someone or a higher crime all the way up to rape), not a fucking thought crime. I have some very serious doubt that you actually believe that one person staring at another should constitute 'sexual assault' and the following legal troubles that come from that, but that is what you seem to be saying.
For that matter, you have failed to identify any difference between people who make an attempt at controlling their biological imperative to notice such things by being subtle about it if they do look and those who leer like an idiot. Is there even a line between the two, or is all the same to you? At least clarify this.
One last thing, since everyone seems to be talking past each other in this discussion - people keep referencing that we're speaking of a work environment, not a college bar - are we? Based on the posts I've seen arguing for how hard it is to avoid at least glancing at someone's breasts seem to be talking about general scenarios out in public, whereas the people arguing against them seem to be insisting that we're talking about a work environment - this was only very indirectly implied during the first post so I don't think it's fair to argue against them on that ground. Let's at least establish which environment we're discussing and go on from there.
Posted by: Thomas M. | August 20, 2008 4:33 PM
I'll call false dichotomy on that. I see women both as humans worthy of respect (unless they prove themselves unworthy) and as having physical bodies worth contemplating sexually. The problem is how you define "respect." If a male or a female colleague finds another male or female colleague attractive physically, how do you feel they should observe them? Maintaining eye contact is a given, unless they have a lazy eye or are terribly shy, but should the male or female colleagues at no time examine the other's body?
Posted by: Keith B | August 20, 2008 4:35 PM
"So. Telling me men "can't help" ogling visible breasts doesn't cut it with me, because clearly covering them up doesn't stop harassing behavior either. "
You're big on the "either/or" here Zuska.
Why can't it be:
In our society, men can't help ogling visible breasts, WHILE
In this other society, women are subjugated in a different manner and there is ALSO harassing behavior which is unrelated to visible breasts.
See, in your phrasing, you're assuming that men who claim a natural attraction to looking at breasts pin ALL harassment on ogling behavior, and they're somehow claiming that all harassment would stop if teh boobis was covered.
Can't it be that these are unrelated things? In one country there's ogling. In another country there's severe subjugation, but one is not necessarily the cause or the cure of the other?
You wrote: "The unwanted attention and harassment in that case clearly has nothing to do with the ready visibility of sexy female body parts, because they are all covered up. The whole point of the hajib is supposed to be to "help" women be modest so that men can control their uncontrollable sexual natures but clearly that doesn't work, since the harassment increases."
The harassment behavior could have a different cause, or multiple causes in these societies than in ours. These are very different social expressions, and you are lumping them together as if they are merely the same expression along a single axis of intensity. I am not convinced that they are, and you bring no data to support that notion.
In these other societies, we're talking about a concerted effort to deny women rights and equality... only one small facet of which is to anonymize them in public. Of COURSE there's still harassment. Of COURSE the hajib is not a cure for harassment, what cure there is for harassment (not perfect of course) is liberation, equality and empowerment.
But you seem to be presuming for the sake of argument that if American hetero men are indeed powerless to look away from a teat, then the Burka should eliminate harassment in Saudi Arabia *without even having to control for other cultural differences*. And since the Burka has NOT eliminated harassment in Saudi Arabia for example, then American men CAN ignore the teat.
I'm checking at this point if I'm still on ScienceBlogs, because that 's a pretty broad social science assertion without citing supporting work. I think the sloppiness of your argumentation here is trying to clue us in to the fact that you are attempting to make a political argument and not a scientific one.
Incidentally, you also seem to be reacting with a tone and a temperment beyond what commenters here are using. Put a piece of tape across your exclamation point key, and try adding the word "some" in front of the word "men" when you're making broad statements. Trust me, it'll help you be understood.
Posted by: Siamang | August 20, 2008 5:09 PM
I think the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior are pretty established and most people, most of the time abide by them.
A man who would stare at someone and not care weather or not that someone notices is obviously being a super creepy freak.
But there is also a big difference between "noticing" an attractive person for a moment, and being a weird creep about it.
Clearly, women do not "see" men in the same way that men "see" women. Apparently, it has something to do with men having a hundred times the testosterone than women do.
Personally, I've gotten far more "lingering gazes" from gay men than i ever have from women. And for the overwhelming majority of those instances, i felt flattered and had my self confidence given a boost.
These discussions usually get tangled up because men don't know what it feels like being women and women don't know what it feels like being men.
Posted by: Caliban | August 20, 2008 5:46 PM
On a similar note, since all these anecdotes about cultures where breasts are being completely ignored are being brought up to 'prove' that there is no biological imperative to notice a woman's breasts, I'd like a citation of a paper on this subject, or at least a name so I can do a fucking Wiki search. I have never seen a single one of these cultures mentioned by name, or for that matter, mentioned in any context excluding a conversation like this, though I have heard of cultures that prefer smaller breasts to larger and find the latter 'ugly'. To be fair, my experience in this area of study is limited to two undergraduate courses on anthropology, so I will happily eat my words if someone can provide some evidence of this; I'm just not comfortable accepting this as a divine truth without good reason to do so.
Posted by: Thomas M. | August 20, 2008 5:48 PM
Apparently not, to both.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 20, 2008 6:08 PM
So, I was revisiting this post, and it's amusing to see versions of numbers 5, 6, 7, 9, 26, 27, 31, 32, and 33 turning up in various spots in this thread. I may have missed others.
Good to know that the same old same old keeps coming back.
Posted by: Zuska | August 20, 2008 6:12 PM
Well, the consequences for unacceptable behavior are pretty good deterrents. If you act inappropriately at work, you can get fired. If you act inappropriately in a social setting, people will not want to be around you. Those who don't "get" these professional and social "rules" pay a price for it.
Posted by: Caliban | August 20, 2008 6:15 PM
Feel free to address any of my points, Zuska.
Posted by: Siamang | August 20, 2008 7:00 PM
Wow. Just wow. This is such a petulant response to what amount to - generally - relatively respectful, level-headed criticisms of your post.
I don't recall anyone even implying that "You must not be a scientist", nor that "You must not be a very good scientist". What has been said is that your argument is not very scientific, and I agree; it reads more ideological to me. And you do make assertions about biology, so I'm not entirely sure why you're so miffed that people have responded to them.
Nor has anyone really said "You won't convert anyone with this kind of talk", either. In fact, the vast majority of posts have conceded the point that overt, sustained tit-ogling is offensive, and that there is no excuse, biological or otherwise, for doing so!
"Alas, sexism is evolutionarily predetermined" is also a mischaracterization of what's been said here. Arguing that there may or may not be a biological cause for looking at breasts is not the same thing as arguing that there may or may not be a biological cause for sexism, unless you assume, as you seem to do, that looking at breasts is de facto sexism.
And for what it's worth, boys and girls are different. I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising or upsetting to you.
And as to the last three: Look, the original comment that spawned this post made what essentially boils down to a biological claim, i.e., "It is either true or false that males are 'hard-wired' to look at breasts." But rather than address that, which I think would have actually made a pretty good, informative post, you ignore the biology altogether and make the as-yet unfounded assertion that looking at breasts is yet another example of subjugation of women.
Posted by: Brian | August 20, 2008 7:07 PM
In addition to ignoring the fact that this entire post is about people behaving inappropriately and NOT paying a price, your tone implies that you are either a total fucking sociopath or that you think Pervasive Developmental Disorders are a matter of personal choice. Either way, I'm not impressed.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 20, 2008 7:11 PM
Oh, yeah, and the idea that humans (honestly not sure if it breaks along gender lines) are biologically geared to respond to "cute" cues is not entirely without merit. Just FYI.
Posted by: Brian | August 20, 2008 7:14 PM
Azkyroth wrote:
"your tone implies that you are either a total fucking sociopath"...
Okay that's a needless escalation in tone.
Someone peed in this comment thread's cornflakes this morning.
Posted by: Siamang | August 20, 2008 7:23 PM