Brother Of Jerry
Date: October 11, 2021 10:24PM
First: GNPE hiking nude. Now there's an image I can't unsee. Perhaps it explains the sasquatch sightings.
Second: since I didn't see a lot of expansion on my two letter reply, I'll try and connect a few more dots for those who may have missed my point. Summer looks like she got exactly what I meant, which doesn't surprise me.
When I saw the statement "for sake of this thread, do we agree that males are more visually oriented than females are", the red warning flag immediately went up that I should brace myself for a tsunami of sexist cliches.
And no, I don't agree with the premise. I suspect quite a few women of a certain age thought the bad boy played by Brad Pitt (the role that started him on the path to riches and fame) in Thelma and Louise (30 years ago - argh!) was visually provocative. Same for a number of James Bonds, though that was a somewhat more abstract provocation, and what about all those superhero characters with ripped bods and skin tight outfits. Sure, it is done to impress tenth grade boys, but it is also trying to hook the girls too.
Which brings up another point: OP assumes women dress "provocatively" to ensnare poor defenseless men (yes, believe it or not, OP played the "men are the real victims" card, and thought they should be shown more respect!)
It's not all about the poor men, however much they may consider themselves the center of the universe. Sometime women dress provocatively to impress or intimidate other women, or to annoy/impress mom, or they are just a bit narcissistic, and enjoy the attention. Narcissism can pay well. One word: Kardashian.
Yes, women do sometimes try to provoke interest from the opposite sex (or from the same sex, come to think of it). Up until 50 years ago, they were at such an economic disadvantage, that they used the tools they had - cleavage, flirting, Feregamos (which required money), etc. Men also do things to provoke sexual interest in women (and men) - ripped bods, tight clothes, fancy cars, like Bond's Astin Martin, expensive restaurants, sophisticated martini's, shaken, not stirred, and the rest of the list.
And I bet it would never occur to OP and those for whom the feminist movement may have been a "Whoosh" that they should tell men to maybe forgo the expensive clothes and fancy cars, because they might be too "provocative" (their purpose, after all, is to provoke interest) for women, and therefor disrespectful.
Men don't get chastised for flaunting wealth and power and bod, they are admired and deemed successful. It is only women who are expected to apologize, and show more "respect". [I suppose I should note that men can go way overboard, even by male chauvinist standards and are finally being called to account for it - Epstein, Roger Ailes, Peter Nygard. I lived in Winnipeg back in the 1980s where Nygard was from (and where he is now in a jail awaiting extradition to the US), and even then he had a spectacularly bad reputation that still took another third of a century to catch up with him, sadly. Until recently, men with enough money and power just got away with it.]
I realize some of the posters here formed their worldview about women in the 1950s and 60s, but you really should have picked up some additional points in the ensuing 50 years. This rant is my way of showing that I think it is not too late. The bar can still be raised.