Options
For those who don't get it, admiration is acceptable, perving is not
jancee
Posts: 2,881 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Seems some people genuinely don't get what was so offensive about Ken's a*rse comments. 'What's wrong with looking at attractive [insert body part of preference]s? I do!' is typical of quite a few comments on here.
Of course our eyes are drawn to attractive entities, be they people, works of art, whatever.
But when it comes to people, there is a massive difference between a glance of appreciation or admiration and perving, leching, leering, whatever you wish to call it. The former is natural/respectful, the latter objectifies and has the potential to make the person concerned uncomfortable, even fearful.
An additional objectionable layer is added to this when it is an older person commenting or lusting after people young enough to be their sons/daughters - it's just inappropriate - even creepy.
What about Page 3 or whatever the male equivalent is? Well - when someone puts their image in such a context they might expect that image to be stared at but the crucial thing is that it is just that: in that context. It doesn't mean they are fair game, for want of a better phrase, in their everyday lives.
I would add that I object to Page 3 [et al] only because it creates and encourages a social climate where it is seen as acceptable to objectify.
Of course our eyes are drawn to attractive entities, be they people, works of art, whatever.
But when it comes to people, there is a massive difference between a glance of appreciation or admiration and perving, leching, leering, whatever you wish to call it. The former is natural/respectful, the latter objectifies and has the potential to make the person concerned uncomfortable, even fearful.
An additional objectionable layer is added to this when it is an older person commenting or lusting after people young enough to be their sons/daughters - it's just inappropriate - even creepy.
What about Page 3 or whatever the male equivalent is? Well - when someone puts their image in such a context they might expect that image to be stared at but the crucial thing is that it is just that: in that context. It doesn't mean they are fair game, for want of a better phrase, in their everyday lives.
I would add that I object to Page 3 [et al] only because it creates and encourages a social climate where it is seen as acceptable to objectify.
0
Comments
Even more astounding that she's a page 3 model.
If Ken looked at her in a paper is that ok?
Flashing the flesh, as you put it, is a different issue. Are you saying that it's their fault that the poor men can't control their responses or show respect? That's dangerously close to stating they are 'asking for it'.
I agree about the swearing, but from everyone, not just young 'uns.
C'est la vie.
Spectacularly missing the point. Well done.
Nonsense. You're blaming one person for the actions of another,
The answer is in my OP.
Dress appropriately? Does that also translate to 'Asking for it'? Dangerous, dangerous ground.
Not really.
Your opinion reveals much about you.
It always amazes me when I see all these young girls on BB walking around so casually in thongs and skimpy underwear infront of a bunch of strangers.
I personally wouldn't dream of walking around in a thong infront of any man who wasn't my partner.:o:blush:
I think he did this in support of Ken TBH, and I think all the more of him for doing so.
When on earth did we get to the stage where young very attractive girls parading around in next to nothing would be offended if people actually looked at them?
Ageist double standards and total BS
But unfortunately I have this thing called a penis which has ideas of its own.
As long as you don't paint them with it, it's all cool.
women, on the other hand, can't go shirtless because MEN are such uncontrollable beasts that they will definitely and immediately sexualize the woman, and ogle.
so.... "it's for the woman's good"...
oh, how i HATE this line-of-thought.
Hurrah. No car crash, no rubber necking.
Unacceptable for anyone, as I was at pains to make clear in my OP, but additionally objectionable when the person concerned is young enough to be your child.
And just to reiterate - it's in the title - admiration is okay, perving is NOT.
This is just symptomatic of how ageist society is. You think just because you get older your not turned on by sexually attractive people? It's simple biology.
I do too. I think it's a shame what happened because one thing I was enjoying about this series was the developing relationship between Alex and Ken.
In my opinion Alexander had the best take on this, when he spoke of how talking things through about issues such as race with people like Ken is far more beneficial than allowing emotions to run riot.
You don't defeat inconsiderateness or ignorance by being inconsiderate and ignorant in response.
I agree with your last comment in that in this series we seem to have a weird clash between the notions of sexism and ageism.
That's exactly it. If a hunk was sneaking a peek you'd have Emma doing her giggly thing and "Showmance! Showmance coming!"
And shows taken up with half dressed girlies: "He fancies you! "Nah!"... "He does, I've seen him looking at you.".... "Oooh!"
As does yours!
Then why do young women wear tight, or clothes that leave nothing to the imagination if they don't want to be looked at?
And who decides the difference between perving or admiring...is it dependant on how long you look at the woman?
And who judges which is which