September 14, 2010

Hot Sports Reporter Ines Sainz Was Sexually Harassed

sainz.jpg
according to my script, I'm supposed to be crying


The New York Jets are playing defense off the field, after allegations that players and coaches sexually harassed a female reporter.

Ines Sainz, reporter from Mexican TV, somehow slipped across the border undetected to steal our jobs, only to have players throwing the ball towards her so they could bump up against her, and when she went to the locker room to interview the QB, they started "making remarks."

Complicating the matter is that the reporter in question looked like this:


ines-sainz-pictures.jpg
Two camps:

  • another example of men acting disgustingly, and protected by the NFL; women being degraded and disrespected, being treated as objects.
  • Look at her, she asked for it!  Dressed like that, what did she expect.  Listen, ladies, you can't flaunt it and then get angry when someone notices.
Yes, if only either of these two had anything to do with the real issue.  Come on, people, first principles: What do the writers want to be true?

II.

While it's not a justification, it is a perfectly legitimate query: how can you dress like that and not expect the attention?

Attention is one thing, lewd comments maybe another, but as Marc Maron pointed out, sexiness isn't a smart bomb, you can't select your targets, you put it out there and there's going to be some collateral damage.

"I don't want to be thought of only as a sex object."  You don't see the irony of your thinking.  You want people to have a certain thought, yet you also demand that they don't only have a certain thought.  You're trying to control their minds just as much as you claim they're labeling you.

You don't get to make that decision, ever.   As much as anyone wishes they could make everyone else accept the identity they've invented for themselves, the ugly existential truth is everyone has their own mind and they seem to have decided that you are a sex object.  They may be wrong, they may be right, you can certainly try and alter this perception, but you cannot tell other people not to have it.  

"You can't label me!"  Throw the cognitive kill switch, after which I'm supposed to be left shuddering, did I label her?  All I meant was, hey you got me all wrong, wait a second, that's not what I meant (is it?)...

Well, I ain't going out like that.  I'll accept that I'm a big jerk for thinking what I think, I'll accept that I may even be wrong, but I will not accept that my limited experience as a human and the information you are giving me has lead me to a few conclusions about you that I am not allowed to have.

"I know who I am." No you don't, that's my point, if you knew who you were you wouldn't be playing multiple characters, in this case eye candy and serious reporter.   "Well, I have to act this way for the job, for TV."  They didn't spring this on you last minute.  It may be wrong to expect a reporter to be sexy on TV, but if you say you have to be sexy as part of the job, you can't double back and say you weren't being sexy.

What you want is to be able to behave sexy, or rude, or ridiculous, or offensive-- and still demand to be seen the way you want to be seen. 

It may be unfair, but it is the most important fact of human existence: people exist independently of you.


III.

Before all the men form a celebratory circle jerk, let me back up: it's 2010.  'Well, what did she expect?' doesn't fly in Human Resources's America.  Like it or not, that's reality, and you don't get to change reality.  She's not a ninja, and if she feels harassed she's going to fight back using whatever she's got, and if what's she's got are lawyers, well, what did you expect?

"We don't want her to fight back, we just want her to take it."  Got it.  See II.

IV.

Note the power set up.  All you fools think that female reporters are in the locker rooms because it is some sort of measure of equality, "why should the males get the best interviews?" that this is somehow a success for equality, something that women had to struggle to earn, and you think that because you were told that.

Women didn't earn this over the resistance of an old boy network; the media conglomerates decided it would be awesome to televise a hyperfemale in a locker room with a nearly naked hypermale and pretend there's no sexuality implied.  So anything that goes wrong is between individuals, nothing to do with the Machine.

CFNM, right there on ESPN.

V.

Take a look at another sideline picture of her:
 

ines_sainz-2.jpg
I can't believe I am the only one to notice this: she has a big ass, and 70% of the Jets are black.  Hi.

"What's that got to do with it?"  That has everything to do with it.  Sandy Flatbutt and Ines Sainz both want an interview.  Who does Marquice Cole choose to talk to longer?  Which interview is going to have more sexual tension to display TV, so that everyone in America can think, "look at this guy, he hasn't heard a word she said, all he wants to do is---"


sainz-player.jpgno, seriously, it's not real leather



That's how "professional news" is run. Bring the sexual energy as high as you can and then pretend it isn't there.  Quoting Marshall McLuhan, "make sure the message has a nice ass."

VI. 

But now we're in the middle of it. 

Whatever else you may think about Sainz, this is a woman who can handle herself, and men, and players.   That's the problem.

I want to say that I'm not the one who made the charge (of harassment), because I didn't even feel bad about that... the ones who say that there was something wrong was the rest of the media.
Uh oh.  So nothing I wrote in this post applies to Ines Sainz; in fact, none of the controversy you are hearing applies to her, because she didn't care that much.  If she can handle players, if she can dismiss this as boys will be boys, what are the other reporters supposed to do?

The question isn't whether the players' behavior will be tolerated by Sainz; the question is will Sainz's behavior be tolerated by other reporters, like a hussy walking past the First Wives Club.  Oh, hell no.  She cannot be allowed to walk away from this.  Meanwhile, the networks couldn't be happier even if they planned this, which they did, which is the whole point.

I can see the unfair advantage that if she's ok with it and someone else isn't, she'll get all the good interviews, but I would like to point out that this is the contract you media fools started, the Pretend Contract, we all pretend her looks weren't part of the reason she got the job, and she pretends no one is looking at her that way.

Oops-- she broke the contract, stupid Mexican, by labeling herself the Hottest Sports Reporter.  She's made subtext into text, and everyone in media knows you don't do that, ever.  "Cat's out of the bag, mofos, what are we going to do?"

Plan B: rewrite the story.

---

http://twitter.com/thelastpsych


 










Comments

"Quoting Marshall McLuha... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 5:09 AM | Posted by Dave: | Reply

"Quoting Marshall McLuhan, "make sure the message has a nice ass."

Classic. Bet you caught Annie Hall on IFC again over the weekend too.

Good post. You're actually on a nice streak of good posts. Time to swap out the comment system here with Disqus though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
"Quoting Marshall McLuhan .... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 5:22 AM | Posted by Z. Constantine: | Reply

"Quoting Marshall McLuhan ..."

I think you left out the part about the massage..?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
but did he forget the "mass... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 8:24 AM | Posted, in reply to Z. Constantine's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

but did he forget the "massage"....he did seem to imply a happy ending...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
Overall, the point is that ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 8:36 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Overall, the point is that the news - and sports are traditionally dealt with as news and not entertainment by networks and newspapers - the media needs to pretend to itself and viewers that it's "news" is not constructed to be merely entertainment with a veneer of truthiness (or maybe "realitiness")...that their "real" is entirely fake. When news actually was news, this wasn't necessary simply because people could more easily tell the difference between fact and fiction on TV (for the most part) because there was an actual difference (aesthetically as well as in terms of content). Now it's all the same pablum just with different colour sparkles sprinkled on top....you're meant to be paying attention to the sparkles and if it's "serious sparkle" you're not meant to question why it tastes the same as "fluff sparkle"...or why it all tastes like pablum.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Wow, a post that's both rac... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 9:13 AM | Posted by Katie: | Reply

Wow, a post that's both racist and sexist! I think you need to examine your male privilege. You are allowed to think whatever you want about anybody, but if you are working with a woman in a professional setting, you also have to treat here as a professional. That means actually working with her rather than just staring at her tits the whole time, or making inappropriate comments.

In addition, whether a woman chooses to play into sexism and flaunt her sexuality for the camera or not, that should have no bearing on how she is treated. She deserves basic human respect even if she is a sellout. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -90 (120 votes cast)
RTFA and ROFL. Of course sh... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 9:36 AM | Posted, in reply to Katie's comment, by Inez Sainz's Agent: | Reply

RTFA and ROFL. Of course she deserves respect, but she isn't the one who felt disrespected, you are, which, as Alone would say, is the reason you're reading and the reason they wrote it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 22 (32 votes cast)
"whether a woman chooses to... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 9:46 AM | Posted, in reply to Katie's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"whether a woman chooses to play into sexism and flaunt her sexuality for the camera or not, that should have no bearing on how she is treated"

Regardless of the nature of any behavior, it ALWAYS has a "bearing" on how someone is treated. You've interacted with other humans, yes?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 26 (34 votes cast)
Kate - "In addition, whethe... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 9:49 AM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

Kate - "In addition, whether a woman chooses to play into sexism and flaunt her sexuality for the camera or not, that should have no bearing on how she is treated. She deserves basic human respect even if she is a sellout. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

As a woman I'm calling you on a bullshit double standard Kate. How we are treated should be connected to how we behave, whether we're a man or a woman. Grownups realize actions/behaviors have consequences. I resent you making out that women should be treated like children without the intelligence or self determination to deal with cause and effect. Respect is something you earn (that's why patriarchy and class are bullshit, it's no less bullshit if a woman feels entitled to something she didn't earn). She may deserve to be treated politely, as do all people who haven't made that impossible to do - but don't confuse politeness with actual respect. Or subservience for that matter.

Just like there's no real freedom without being responsible for yourself, there's no true form of respect that isn't earned.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 55 (61 votes cast)
"Examine your male privileg... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 9:49 AM | Posted, in reply to Katie's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Examine your male privilege"? What an incredibly banal response. This post was more about the media construal of the event, and the reporter's willingness to buy into her own stereotypes, something which happened quite independent of male privilege. (Also as others have pointed out, she's made her career out of going into mens' locker rooms while wearing skimpy clothing. I'm pretty sure that she could give a rat's ass about male privilege.)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 28 (28 votes cast)
The way many women dress to... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 10:41 AM | Posted by Ron: | Reply

The way many women dress today, with half their breasts exposed, is an expression of total disrespect for men. Men are left with three possible responses. To grab the woman, which is illegal; to ogle the woman, which is socially unacceptable; or to affect not to notice the woman at all, which is emasculating. A culture that normalizes such female behavior--i.e. not only not noticing or objecting to it, but prohibiting any objection to it--is extremely sick.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (71 votes cast)
Oh shit, this made the fron... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 11:11 AM | Posted by DCF: | Reply

Oh shit, this made the front page of delicious

Here come the "newf*gs"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (15 votes cast)
It's not women's jobs to ma... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 11:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

It's not women's jobs to manage men's sexuality for them - despite what the Taliban and Christian Fundies (and other men who don't want to take responsibility for themselves) think. Just because you can't come up to a mature way to handle being aroused, and treat the person who arouses you as a person and not an object that's all about you and your desires, doesn't mean women are being "disrespectful" to you. Nor does it follow that because you have a desire that it's unfair (or disrespectful) if someone doesn't fill it for you. That's narcissism, viewing others as objects that should conform to your desires or needs, and not taking responsibility for your own actions and feelings and seeking control of yourself through using others is also a symptom of narcissistic thinking.

Did you go into a tizzy over a nipple being exposed on TV? Was that taunting you and your unfulfilled desires so she must be controlled so you can't control yourself? Does breastfeeding in public bother you because it interferes with how you think about breasts or arouses you? Grow the fuck up already. Sure beautiful boobs can be distracting for a moment - for both men and women btw (and not just lesbian women) - so can bad breath or smelling like farts, or a really gorgeous man if you're a woman or gay man. Other people's bodies and sexuality aren't all about you, and if you're helpless in front of your desires and don't know how to respond consider going to see a therapist to work YOUR stuff out instead of doing the Taliban/Fundie whine about how women need to cover up because you get a woodie and don't have the mental/emotional resources to deal with a nice rack on display. Me, I'd prefer to enjoy the scenery and just treat the person with the nice rack as a person with a nice rack. Really, it's that simple...stop thinking about the other person as an object and their sexuality as being all about you and you'll have way less problems AND be able to appreciate a nice rack in a non-creepy way instead of getting oppressive. It may even get you laid one day.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (66 votes cast)
great post! i agree with a ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 11:53 AM | Posted by Fritz: | Reply

great post! i agree with a previous poster, that the last few posts have all been awesome. damn all the politically correct fools who won't let you say what you want to say.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (12 votes cast)
Truth spoke again in this a... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 11:53 AM | Posted by larrykoubiak: | Reply

Truth spoke again in this article. I couldn't help to remember the South Park episode "Sexual Healing" where male politicians were "trying to find why successful rich men were trying to have sex with beautiful women outside their marriage" and were saying it out loud when women were around.
This circus is to me nothing more than trying to qualify a fairly obvious behaviour as unacceptable so that you appear like you would never do such a thing yourself.

On a sidenote, you got the following quote attribution wrong :

"but as Marc Maron pointed out, sexiness isn't a smart bomb, you can't select your targets, you put it out there and there's going to be some collateral damage"

It's Greg Giraldo who made that point on his first CD. But i do recommend listening to Marc Maron too, they are both great comedians. (end of balls busting)

Keep saying it like it is chief, i desperately need people like you to make a little sense of all this bullshit.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
That said, there's obviousl... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 11:58 AM | Posted by brainchild: | Reply

That said, there's obviously a subset of women like Kate who don't want to be responsible for themselves or their sexuality either. So you have juvenile women and men both accusing each other of not being "respectful" when it's pretty obvious that what they mean by "respect" is "I feel entitled to be treated a certain way no matter how I act and don't want to take responsibility for my feelings or my actions". A bit like how so many people who claim they're fighting for "freedom" really mean "I feel entitled to do whatever I want without there being consequences".

Real respect is earned, you're not entitled to it. Politeness can and perhaps should be expected in certain contexts - but that needs to be reciprocal for it to work in society.

Freedom requires responsibility, if you don't take responsibility for your own feelings and actions then you're in a constant state of reaction - this means you're being controlled by external forces (we all are to some degree but the difference is whether we act or reaction, action is freedom, reaction is being trapped in a dynamic). Feeling entitled to have a temper tantrum, isn't freedom, it's demanding to be indulged like the spoiled child you apparently are (and it's very often related to being a bully). Just like demanding others respect you, irrelevant of who you actually are and what you do is, is a sense of false entitlement and won't actually garner real respect (maybe some subservience if you can hurt the other person but subservience isn't respect and only narcissists mistake it for such).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 18 (24 votes cast)
This is as good a place to ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 12:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Katie's comment, by Fargo: | Reply

This is as good a place to put this as any- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uscmRI9ZrE

That said, I have no idea what actually happened and don't care enough to hunt down details. It's very likely that everyone that went into creating this story is some kind of jackass, but that's just a guess.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 13 (13 votes cast)
What's "emasculating" is re... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 12:18 PM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by brainchild: | Reply

What's "emasculating" is revealing that you're not much of a man because you can't even manage your own desires...that you're always reacting and controlled by circumstances and not actually master of your domain (your domain being your own body). Don't mistake feeling like a petulant child who's didn't get what they want for actually being emasculated. You've got to actually be a man before someone can emasculate you, and you're keeping yourself emasculated and powerless by not actually learning how to manage your own feelings and being master of your domain. It's not actually easier to control other people, it's just a way to avoid actually owning up to who you really are and prop up that false self image.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (24 votes cast)
Fritz-The point is that som... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 12:30 PM | Posted, in reply to Fritz's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Fritz-The point is that some people commenting don't even understand what Alone is getting at, they're simply reacting to a script and not really reading what he wrote. They're avoiding the complexity of reality by choosing to think in a black/white (or in this case men vs women) way instead because it means not questioning any of their own assumptions.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Marlo Stanfield's got a sim... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 1:15 PM | Posted by Frock: | Reply

Marlo Stanfield's got a similar way of seeing the reality of a thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY

Pretty much counters all crazy liberal fantasies...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
If you're an alpha male, yo... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 1:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by Man: | Reply

If you're an alpha male, you ogle her. And when she sees you doing it, don't look away. That's how she knows you're in charge. Otherwise you're displaying weakness.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (31 votes cast)
Kate is def an ugly chick. ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 1:47 PM | Posted by Captain Obvious: | Reply

Kate is def an ugly chick. Attractive woman don't get offended about their looks being noticed even if it is in an "inappropriate" way. Look if you don't want to be "harassed" don't walk into a room of 60 men in there 20's and 30's that are naked and you're dressed like an attention whore. The fact that this is news is ridiculous. "in recent news a lion ate a gazelle"....crazy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -13 (37 votes cast)
Attractive women don't like... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 2:04 PM | Posted, in reply to Captain Obvious's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Attractive women don't like being harassed by assholes any more than unattractive women (and men harass all kinds of women because it's rarely actually done to impress the woman, it's usually to prove what a man they are to other men - sometimes their mean daddy whose voice still echoes in their head). And, no, women who don't want to sleep with you aren't all lesbians.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 12 (24 votes cast)
And there are all kinds of ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 2:08 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

And there are all kinds of men who simply treat women as people, even when they find them attractive. They don't suffer the same kind of confusion as men who see and treat women as objects, and then get all freaked out when a person responds not a their projected desire.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 24 (26 votes cast)
Anonymous is failing to gra... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 2:26 PM | Posted by Ron: | Reply

Anonymous is failing to grapple with the issue I'm writing about here. He's writing as though we were, say, in the early 1980s instead of 2008. The subject here is not the generic subject of female beauty and how men respond to it and ought to respond to it; the subject is the female body exposed in public in a way that has never been the case before. . He is seeing the present through the model of a past, relatively more innocent, world, and thus not seeing it at all.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
Does it matter if the "Firs... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 3:39 PM | Posted by karen: | Reply

Does it matter if the "First Wives" were actually male reporters believing that their ability to do their jobs are being affected by unprofessional behavior in the lockerroom? If so, then this really does read as much like a story about outsourcing...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I watched her interview on ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 3:54 PM | Posted by Bernardo: | Reply

I watched her interview on GMA (I think) and the first thing that crossed my mind was - this woman isn't on script! There was this whole set up about how she was objectified and vilified by the team and then "I didn't even feel bad about it, I was focused on my interview".

ANYHOO. One thing for me was clear. Big ass or not, the players only pulled this stunt because it's Conchita Ramirez from Guacamole TV. They would NEVER have done it if she was working for ESPN or NBC.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
You can always look in pass... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by Adrian: | Reply

You can always look in passing and enjoy...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Men who can't act nonchalan... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 4:50 PM | Posted by wisegirl: | Reply

Men who can't act nonchalant around sexy women are so uncool.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Attractive women don't l... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 6:31 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Reader: | Reply

Attractive women don't like being harassed by assholes any more than unattractive women
Oh so right. Except you left out the part that ugly chicks think every guy who notices any woman is an asshole. Hot chicks make a distinction between flirting and assholery. Wait...could that be because the ugly chicks are never noticed?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (28 votes cast)
Heh, and you're all assumin... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Bernardo's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Heh, and you're all assuming that all the men in that locker room are straight. That locker room has some closets too. Seems to me this may actually be a total insecurity about masculinity manifesting itself - a desire to reinforce the image that male athletes are all macho straight men. It's part of what sports is selling to guys who spend their lives watching other guys play sports on tv (often in tight pants and in the exclusive company of other men) and believe wearing a team's jersey somehow makes them more of a man by being associated by what they consider alpha/successful males. This narrative is about the media and its fears more than it's about her.

There's been a slowly opening crack in the highly mediatised sports closet - this strikes me more as an attempt to scream "look how straight football is!!!" than a real rebuke against the sexism of pro sports. It's not like anyone discussing any of the real issues regarding sexism that could be raised or even something as obvious as cheerleaders.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
Well I'm not a dude, dude. ... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 10:32 PM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Well I'm not a dude, dude. And it's actually 2010, not 2008. And, you're kind of missing the point, just treating other people as people and not objects is not some passing trend, it's what human relationships are about and require if they're to be genuine and ultimately fulfilling.

Ron, you seem pretty hysterical about women's bodies and needing to cover them up so you don't feel uncomfortable, or because you're afraid society will break down because a nipple is exposed.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
Stop...In what biz... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 10:33 PM | Posted by AnonyMouse: | Reply

Stop...

In what bizzaro upside down world are we living in does this woman qualify as "pretty"? Yes, I'm serious.

There is nothing "hyper-feminine" about her, in fact there is nothing feminine about her at all. She looks like plastic. She looks like an android that's trying to disguise itself as a human being and doing a poor job of it. She is not what a natural human woman looks like in the slightest. Her hair is fake, her eyelashes are fake, her smile is fake, her tan is fake... but the manjaw looks real.

The level of the ridiculousness of the Orwellian matrix we live in hit new heights when robo-bests like this started being viewed as attractive women.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (21 votes cast)
This sort of revealing dres... (Below threshold)

September 15, 2010 11:17 PM | Posted by Sarah: | Reply

This sort of revealing dress in professional settings is a last-ditch effort by women to salvage their femininity. They are living daily lives of masculine aggression and drive. They are pressured to destroy their inherent selflessness and desire to serve. They make their breasts appear overblown, near-to-bursting balloons as a way of diverting attention from what they have become.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (14 votes cast)
> Her hair is fake, her eye... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:12 AM | Posted by Anon: | Reply

> Her hair is fake, her eyelashes are fake, her smile is fake, her tan is fake... but the manjaw looks real.

Um, it's not her face men are looking at!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
The emasculation of men is ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:26 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by der Sherpa: | Reply

The emasculation of men is one of the effects of the Feminist model through which we're expected to perform these interactions.

The desire to consider the breasts of the woman you conjure in your post is to do exactly what is considered inappropriate. Assuming you're heterosexual, you're supposed to look at Ms. Sainz as you would a man, whether she's dressed like a hooker or not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -9 (13 votes cast)
Ron's response is the real ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:27 AM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Ron's response is the real reason this post exists, and why Katie's post was thumbed down 26 times.

Ron is exemplifying the crux of the issue : all men are slightly or significantly narcissistic and autistic, which means all men live for their own gratification and find it difficult to impossible to realize that other things are seperate from themselves, others have their own priorities and they matter just asmuch as their own, etc.


The issue is that men feel ENTITLED to own or control or basically use as they see fit any thing or any one in their prospective or immediate environment. So, when a woman dresses sexually, it blows the guy's MIND that she is doing so because he is incapable of realizing her behavior has little to no relationship to his pathetic thoughts desires wants needs etc. The man can't realize that so he is preoccupied with all these thoughts like "she wants me" and "she deserves what I say/do" and basically various forms of retarded irrational self-focused internal dialogue.

Here's a clue: if a woman is attractive, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. YOU ARE MEANINGLESS. SHE IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF YOU. SHE IS AN ENTIRELY SEPERATE PERSON. If you happen to find her appearance attractive, she doesn't care what you do or don't do, but it's to be expected that like any human in our society she demands respect and equal treatment - you cannot grab her, harrass her, or attack her obvoiusly. So you can sit there in your head and think whatever thoughts you are thinking, but the line is crossed when you take it upon yourself to claim her as an extension of yourself by 1) being angry with her and express violence for dressing sexuallly and then not having sex with you 2) verbally or physically assaulting her to vent your sexual frustration and flaunt your power 3) make an attempt to degrade her professionally and personally due to your feelings of helplessness over your sexual desire


So for a whole FUCKING BLOG dedicated to narcissism I'm going to clue all you guys in:sexism is epitome of narcissism, and I would argue narcissistic traits evolved and are rampant in men today precisely because it may have been beneficial to male strategy for reproduction. If you view your world as a bunch of objects, if you are preoccupied with satisfying your urges and gratification with NO regard to the emotional consequences of everyone else around you, it doesn't take rocket scientist to figure that might be beneficial for male reproductive strategy (to successfully have sex with as many women as possible basically). And those traits are the FOUNDATION of narcissism, autism, sociopathy, and various other male personality afflictions. Image preoccupiation of narcissism is incidental to the fact that we are socialized creatures, if we were not you would find narcissism to be nothing more than a preoccupation with base need and urges (which are sublimated into status seeking image preoccupation in a narcissist... which are manifest in raw form in the sociopath... both personality deviants which are overwhelmingly male).


I really can't believe how men pose this question from their perspective - "she's dressed like that... what am i to do?" it has nothing to do with you. She wants attention obviously but how in the FUCK did you conclude from that point that you had any right to do or say anything, or that your own internal feelings and thoughts were relevant to her AT ALL?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (45 votes cast)
I would at this point say b... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:34 AM | Posted, in reply to brainchild's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I would at this point say brainchild's posts in this thread make it MORE THAN EVIDENT she is a below average looking woman, because any attractive woman knows exactly what katie is talking about ... hordes ofmen harrassing you all the time, no one taking you seriously, oogling you, etc. Seeing as brainchild isn't even relevant to the discussion as she is a homely sort of woman, why is she even RESPONDING and trying to comment on how average and attractive looking women should feel and deal with the ridiculous behavior of men?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -19 (21 votes cast)
Your comment has revealed y... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:49 AM | Posted, in reply to AnonyMouse's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Your comment has revealed you for being either an unattractive woman OR a gay man.

Any heterosexual man ho says Sainz is ugly needs to omit the 'heterosexual" from that description. She's obviously sexy.
Your comment screams of being a jellllly woman, since gay men usually are more entertaining when they bitch out.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -11 (17 votes cast)
I almost had faith that the... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 3:22 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I almost had faith that the human race could expand on indefinitely in some kind of social or otherwise harmony. Then I got to the second to last paragraph. We're either all going to kill each other or ourselves or women are going to have to adapt to an increasingly narcissistic male population. The last one should be easy. All they have to do is walk around naked and not be fat or otherwise determined to be sexually non-consumable as the blatant and obvious objects for male desire that they are.

Let's not discount the other obvious fact that these interviews take place in locker rooms after intense physical activity that spikes testosterone levels in men. Of course, I'm not sanctioning sexual harassment, but the difference between harassment and flirting is so personally identifiable that it's like defining obscenity in the US Supreme Court.

What could she have done? Having not read the article or seen the tape because whatever happened is largely irrelevant to anyone that enjoys porn instead of its pageantry that is professional sports, I'm going to go ahead and say that she demand some tongue action if he's going to be talking like that. If you want to talk about cognitive kill switches, put the player on the spot. At worst, each will go down in journalistic history as having had the most honest quasi-interview in the farce that is sports journalism after Craig Kilborn left Sports Center.

I propose the simplest solution possible which is harassing the harassers in an effort to socialize the act. Unless anal sodomy or bruises were involved, I'm not sure the story constitutes more than a momentum machine for the lady's career and the plaintiff's reputation back in the locker room with the rest of the players. The best part, though, is that by not caring about it, she has effectively moved the female population one step closer to an equally socio-autistic center of narcissistic gravity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Ahem, one does most emphati... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 5:08 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Aan'allein: | Reply

Ahem, one does most emphatically not have to be "an unattractive woman OR a gay man" to not find Ms. Sainz attractive, also I bet there are plenty of said unattractive women who *would* find her beautiful enough, as well as gay men who are able to perceive her as pretty even if they are not sexually attracted to her. What I'm getting at is that tastes vary, a great deal, and I for one have always resented generalizing when it comes to this.

I'm a heterosexual man and find Ms. Sainz only slightly above average in attractiveness if that -- for one, I don't prefer a woman who is *only* comely from behind, as her facial features and almost total lack of bosom tend to make her (to me). For those people getting their verbal flame throwers ready, I also realize that my perception of her attractiveness has nothing to do with her value or audacity a person or a professional, nor should I let them affect the way I interacted with her say, on work field. I simply wanted to point out that attempting to paint commenters with your brush (single-color, at that) is quite futile and limiting besides, for yourself as well.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
to the female anon respondi... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 6:18 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Steve: | Reply

to the female anon responding to ron with cat-lady like disgusting sexism and lunacy:

ah come on. Women oogle me all the time, they make appreciative remarks, they grab my ass in clubs. It's flattering and enjoyable, only a crazy person would have any problem with that.

You are also an hypocrite. You ramble about sexism, yet you label the whole male gender as narcissists. Or all the other criticism about males. And since when exactly is sexism the epitome of narcissism?

In my experience women tend to objectify men more. They pretend that you offer your body to them, be it to beat someone they do not like (you don't know how often it happens to me to have female wanting me to intimidate someone for whatever reason). And if you reject their advances "you are gay"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (14 votes cast)
She broke the subtext by ad... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 8:26 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

She broke the subtext by admitting that she was hypersexual. Now she's breaking it again by saying that she didn't feel harassed.

Do they transfer her to the weather now? Do other women journalist feel treathened by her presence and secretly loathe her freedom ("She can be sexual? I can't be sexual! No one can be sexual! What a dumb bimbo.)? Do men tacitely agree but don't know what the fuck to do?

What's a good third rewrite is what I'm asking. Is there even a third rewrite?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Re: "She's not a ninja, ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 8:30 AM | Posted by hermitian operator: | Reply

Re: "She's not a ninja, and if she feels harassed, she's going to fight back using whatever she's got, and if what's she's got are lawyers, well, what did you expect?""

Sainz is not an employee of the NFL nor the Jets. Sexual harassment law does not apply. This is a non-story between the NFL and it's players and coaches. Sainz has nothing to do with it. The Jets apologized not because of any potential legal action from Sainz. But because they damaged the brand.

The NFL recognizes that it provides entertainment. The last thing it wants is controversy of any kind that detracts/distracts from the product (football). That's why Rush Limbaugh got fired from Monday Night Football. Not because of his politics, but because he brought politics into the announcers booth.


Sainz is free to wear whatever she wants on private property and the NFL is free to allow or disallow the media onto its properties. It's a symbiotic marketing, not legal relationship. And both will do whatever they can to best move their "product".

It's just business...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Anonymous' (can you at leas... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 8:54 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by der Sherpa: | Reply

Anonymous' (can you at least come up with a unique pseudonym?) post is a reason these discussions get so heated. is it overreaching to guess she is not a man and doesn't wish to actually observe the situation from outside of her own epistemology. Is it going too far to say her epic statements and apparent desire to yell the men on this thread into silence indicate a little megalomania? Probably.

Men are often expected to conform today to a gender role very different from what had been normal in Western culture for thousands of years. The reason is a just one - it's generally accepted that women should be given no less respect than men regarding their faculties and abilities.

But part of masculinity is emotional response to visual nonverbal communication. Dressing in a provocative way is not only about the individual dresser - it is a means of attracting attention, and the male half of the equation is to be attracted and respond. To say "If you happen to find her appearance attractive, she doesn't care what you do or don't do" is somewhat nonsense. Surely some women who dress as she did do so simply because it's something to wear. But most, unless they happen to be exceptionally dim, make the choice to wear such clothing around men who's response mechanism will tend to be exaggerated by the tendency to compete (for social position, for mates, whatever) as an explicit action.

She chooses to present herself as sexually attractive, then expects the men who see her to neuter themselves and pretend she is a trout at the market?

It doesn't strike me as healthy, I guess. It strikes me as manipulative and self-centered.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (20 votes cast)
A woman wearing clothes lik... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 9:01 AM | Posted by plum: | Reply

A woman wearing clothes like Sainz is indeed sexual harassment. Of men. It is not all about men controlling themselves. I find it very easy to control myself, and I would never make any kind of sexual remarks to a woman whether she's putting her sexuality in the window or not. However, no one can dictate their instincts. A woman who has sexed herself up is deliberately provoking the sexual instincts of men, which is very much like harassment when the setting is inappropriate. That is the crux that a lot of commenters still don't get. For some, it's always about how women are harassed, about how men are responding in this or that way, how men don't undestand, etc. How about for a change focusing on the fact that a woman dressed like Sainz provokes the sexual feelings of any heterosexual man whether the man enjoys his sexual feelings being provoked or not. That is why it is not appropriate to dress like Sainz does in the environment she's in just as it is inappropriate, inconsiderate, and selfish in many other settings as well.

I have to say the post ranting about male narcissism and autism misses something essential about sexual provocation/stimulation big time.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (23 votes cast)
Dude, If the NFL wants me t... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 9:09 AM | Posted, in reply to hermitian operator's comment, by TheCoconutChef: | Reply

Dude, If the NFL wants me to know something, it's that there is a bunch of SEXY ASS reporter on the side line for me to look at and interact with the player.

I understand how they would throw politic out, but having a little "sexual harassement" talk doesn't bother them. It certainly doesn't bother people writing article about her (and posting many, many, many pictures of her ass. Millions of picture of her ass, everywhere, click click click click).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
She's Mexican, of course sh... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 9:11 AM | Posted by Sammy: | Reply

She's Mexican, of course she doesn't really care. Mexicans build an entire lifestyle out of sexual harassment.

Not trying to profile an entire people, but I lived in San Antonio, TX for a few years and there wasn't a day that went by that I wasn't catcalled or had car horns honked at me or was offered rides at the bus stop. Several times a day, in fact.

Just something you get used to.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Sorry buddie but i'm going ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 9:57 AM | Posted, in reply to Aan'allein's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Sorry buddie but i'm going to have to call you on this (same ranting anon from yesterday).

Have you been to a walmart lately?

DO you know what "aveage" means?

I am certain she is not average looking but she is clearly attractive. Perhaps it is a stretch to say she is the hottest sports reporter but she is clearly an attractive sexy woman.

Everything you just said SCREAMS of being a gay man. I don't know and have never in my life met a straight man who speaks like this (" her facial features make her only slightly above average") and such sounds just so totally gay... I mean that's how gay men and women talk about other women.

I'm not being mean but it's foolish of you to judge something you clearly can't feel, but rationally you should be able to accept that a woman who looks and dresses like that is going to be appreciated by straight men. Duh.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
Again plum,, since you are ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 10:03 AM | Posted, in reply to plum's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Again plum,, since you are slow on the intake:

YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. OTHERS ARE NOT AN EXTENSION OF YOURELF. This seems so hard for many men to understand, but OTHER PEOPLE ARE OTHER PEOPLE they are seperate from you. What anotherperson does has nothing to do with you. If you *happen* to get turned on or whatever, deal with it. You do not own anyone, no rights over anyone. It might be better for you to move to the islamic world where women are covered with burkas precisely because of male control of their female objects (and note this sort of narcissistic centered thinking is why terrorism is so *natural* for these people).

It's like you are mentally incapable of getting the fact that other people have nothing to do with you. If a woman dresses sexy and wants attention, it doesn't mean anything to you personally you have zero power and control over her and you have no right at all* to make any demands and expectations of her.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (18 votes cast)
I do not think I ever said ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 10:35 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Aan'allein: | Reply

I do not think I ever said her looks would not be appreciated by straight men. In fact, I pressed that tastes vary-- naturally many, perhaps even most heterosexual men will find her attractive. That is beside my point though, which was to say that just because a man does not consider her the epitome of sexiness does not mean they are gay. And indeed, how can you think you are entitled to say that someone is "clearly" --insert quality here--, so much so that no one else's opinion on the matter, even one that just slightly differs from yours, counts? Or instantly labels the one with said opinion in your mind "clearly" --insert another quality here that you seem to find disparaging--. You presume much, young padawan.

I could go on to say that any man who is ready to admit she looks smoking hot from behind (I said comely, I know, but I'm just weird that way when it comes to words, sometimes) is hardly gay. But that would be even more beside the point. Anyway, it doesn't seem as if you are able to take advice on not insta-painting people with brushes based on their comments since that really seems to be what most of your posts are about. Oh well.

Oh and no, I haven't been to Walmart ever. Also I believe averageness, just as much as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'll add that I live in Scandinavia and English is not my native language. Hope you'll forgive me for not conforming to how straight men are supposed to talk, in your mind, but if you won't I think I'll live with that, too.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
Am I the only one who had t... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 12:15 PM | Posted by naked male: | Reply

Am I the only one who had to google to figure out what CFNM stands for, or did just no one else read down that far in the post?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
And thus God invented the b... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Posted by Mahmoud: | Reply

And thus God invented the burqa, and he saw that it was good.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
Wow, the matrix really has ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:23 PM | Posted by AnonyMouse: | Reply

Wow, the matrix really has wtfpwned most of you hasn't it?

If you think this woman is sexy, then you are the gay ones. She's old, wrinkly, nasty old shrived up grape. She looks like a MAN, and by my dark gods look at that manjaw! If we could harvest that manjaw as a natural resource we could give it to one of the U.S. soldiers fighting in the Middle East to use against ze terrorists.

I can see it now: the brave soldier holding the manjaw up high above his head as a symbol to rally behind like the weapons of olde: Excalibur or Thor's mighty hammer Mjöllnir. With manjaw in hand this soldier could no doubt rip our enemies arms from their very sockets like Beowulf did to Grendel.

Patriarchy now! Patriarchy forever!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -9 (19 votes cast)
The overall theme of the po... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:26 PM | Posted by dewfish: | Reply

The overall theme of the post is accurate, but the author should leave the race talk to someone who knows what they are talking about. You can't one one hand say "as a red blooded straight male, i'm attracted to this", then turn around and play the race card, and say "well those black guys are obviously gonna go crazy over that." The general tone of the posts on here are okay, but the unnecessary playing of the race card when its already been established that most men, black or not would find her attractive, is nonsense.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
What do you mean by "dresse... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Posted by HKB: | Reply

What do you mean by "dressed like that"? The lady is wearing a T shirt and jeans. The issue is that she's a woman, with a body type that some men have been conditioned to instantly register as a sexual object that they are entitled to ogle mostly for the benefit of other men "look how not gay we are!" Other than a burlap sack nothing she could do would spare her that kind of attention.

Plum thinks when a woman he has no interaction with is looking sexy to him that's sexual harassment! "Deliberately provoking the instincts of men" is really rape-y sounding. Be responsible for yourself, no one makes you harass/ogle women no matter what they look like. If you have an uncomfortable sexual response that's least of all a stranger's problem.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
I'd tap that!... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 2:24 PM | Posted by GT: | Reply

I'd tap that!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
(I don't know your family s... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 2:56 PM | Posted, in reply to HKB's comment, by der Sherpa: | Reply

(I don't know your family situation, so a little leeway por favor) If you had/have/have had a 14 year-old daughter, would you send her to school, or out into the world in general, dressed as Ms. Sainz dresses in these pictures? Shirts with backs low enough to see her Lumbar curvature? Pants tight enough you have to wonder if she took a hot bath after putting them on to make sure there was no slack whatsoever?

The answer is hopefully "No." And for that reason, she is not just "wearing a T shirt and jeans."

And please, for the love of something holy, have a little respect for people who've actually been (or are close to someone who's experienced) rape. Throwing that word into the discussion as you do is revolting.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
Okay, in my work dress code... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 3:21 PM | Posted by wisegirl: | Reply

Okay, in my work dress code policy it states that women cannot dress provactively. Yet there is no such statement for men. That got me thinking, is it even posssible for a man to dress provactively? If a man with a great body wore tight shirts that showed off his muscular chest and arms should it be banned since women might be distracted? There really is a double standard.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Title of Alone's next post?... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 3:44 PM | Posted, in reply to GT's comment, by TheCoconutChef: | Reply

Title of Alone's next post?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You people shouldn't be hav... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 4:13 PM | Posted by Dave: | Reply

You people shouldn't be having trouble understanding what is sexual harassment and what isn't. What should be sexual harassment and what shouldn't be doesn't really matter, since that's not going to change anytime soon, and none of you have any kind of power to change it.

What does matter is understanding the point that we have a media that _intentionally_ uses our feelings about the issues surrounding sexual harassment to get us to watch their shows while disguising that that is what they are doing.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
When a woman dresses provoc... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 4:57 PM | Posted, in reply to wisegirl's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

When a woman dresses provocatively it's called sexy, when a man dresses provocatively that's called gay. There's no double standard BC men don't dress that way. Unless they're gay: then it doesn't matter to you, does it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
To support your/anonymous' ... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 8:27 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Lexi: | Reply

To support your/anonymous' comment re "have you been to a walmart lately" I offer you for future usage "People of Walmart" http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

I agree, Sainz is def above average in appearance. Even in LA. Certainly in SF, and definitely in the mid west and Texas.

And to the guy ( Aan'allein's) talking about average as in the eye of the beholder, what? That's like saying the average of 2, 4, 6, 6, 8 and 24 is up for debate. What you are attracted to is in the eye of the beholder, but what you are attracted too, and what is consensus reality attractive or average is not. The average woman in American is 5'4" and 140 lbs. That jelly's got some roll (ie, does not come close to approaching ideal waist/hip proportion, and does not mean not attractive to some, but is average.), unless she's built like a brick house. Sainz is clearly not average.

Unrelated, I admire her posture.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
Der Sherpa, yes I would let... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 9:32 PM | Posted by HKB: | Reply

Der Sherpa, yes I would let my daughter wear a somewhat tight tshirt and jeans. WTF. Do you ever go outside? You are aware that it is 2010 right? Seeing someone dressed like that is not unusual, provocative or even really all that sexual ESPECIALLY on a 14 year old. If you see a 14 year old girl dressed like that and think that's a sexual thing that is your problem, not the kid's or the parent's.

I have no idea what your issue with my use of the word rape-y is. I was warning Plum that he was coming very close to the "women are asking for rape when they dress like ____" argument. I believe it was the word "provoking" that implied it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (13 votes cast)
Pretending that you can run... (Below threshold)

September 16, 2010 11:41 PM | Posted by AnonyMouse: | Reply

Pretending that you can run around dressed however you like and that it won't effect other's behavior is some of the most profound feminist narcissism in our culture. When women run around dressed like slags the only men who won't react are the hetero ones who have been psychologically, or literally, castrated.

Women's "freedom" has been perhaps the single most important element in the denouncement of the Western world. Our fertility rates are now below replacement levels. Our governments are slouching towards socialism and national bankruptcies. Those same governments are also timid in the face of aggressive Islamic expansion and their implementation of sharia law in Western democracies.

With the new misandrist social norms and laws stacked against men, the average man has been disenfranchised from civilization because he is unable to form a family. You can see this most profoundly in the black ghettos of the U.S.. Those living in the hell of the ghetto don't live that way because they are black or even because they are poor: they live that way because the ghetto is a woman-run world. Everywhere in the West where matriarchy has been implemented, social breakdown has followed. If women had run the world since the start we'd still all be living in mud huts.

Men have been the law-bringers, men have been the ones to create civilization. They have achieved this most successfully when there have been patriarchies that forced monogamy on women. Women are not naturally monogamous, they are naturally hypergamous. In a real way, patriarchy is civilization.

Women who run around dressing and behaving like slags are certainly effecting other people's lives. When women behave like slags they are letting men know that these women are not mentally stable enough for the formation of a family. Without family formation, men will come to under-perform and largely grow apathetic about the world around them. Thus the ghetto.

Feminism and civilization cannot coexist. As you have more of one you have less of the other. Two thousand years from now, when Islamic archeologists are trying to understand why the West collapsed a second time (the first being Rome) they look at all the data and two words will come to their lips: "woman's suffrage".

Allahu Akbar.

Also, there is hard data that slags can never make good wives. See here: http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/why-sluts-make-bad-wives/

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -11 (23 votes cast)
Oh I get it... in addition ... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 12:09 AM | Posted, in reply to AnonyMouse's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Oh I get it... in addition to being a closeted homosexual you are also violent and insane.

If you accept your sexual orientation you may find some of your internal anger toward women to dissipate. It's not their fault you feel nothing looking at them.

So much of what you just said not only supports you CLEARLY EVIDENT closeted homosexuality (wtf, as if men and women were two species? hello) but it also outs you as a bigtime violent loonie.

I would also argue your moniker isn't a simple play on words but suggests much of your internalized conflict (feelings of weakness and powerlessness, an inability to confront face or deal with things).


Either way you are irrelevant, I simply hope you can avoid either beating women or raping men on the street like Dahmer or what not.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
"Women who run around dress... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 12:40 AM | Posted by HKB: | Reply

"Women who run around dressing and behaving like slags are certainly effecting other people's lives. When women behave like slags they are letting men know that these women are not mentally stable enough for the formation of a family. Without family formation, men will come to under-perform and largely grow apathetic about the world around them. Thus the ghetto."

Really? You REALLY believe that the reason there are ghettos is because women don't wear as much clothing as you want them to? That is so stupid.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Eh. I'd rather have sex th... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 1:29 AM | Posted by America: | Reply

Eh. I'd rather have sex than read this entry. Love my man and do forgive him for looking at this woman's a##.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
"Men are left with three... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 2:06 AM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by someone: | Reply

"Men are left with three possible responses. To grab the woman, which is illegal; to ogle the woman, which is socially unacceptable; or to affect not to notice the woman at all, which is emasculating."

It's only emasculating if your entire identity as a man is tied to your success with women. Of course, that means you're not a man at all.

Man: "If you're an alpha male, you ogle her. And when she sees you doing it, don't look away. That's how she knows you're in charge. Otherwise you're displaying weakness."

There is no such thing as an alpha male just like there is no such thing as a beta male. These are imaginary (and very inconsistently defined) concepts dreamed up by "pickup artists." Also, it's impolite to ogle at people, but I guess you "alpha males" have no need for basic etiquette.

Anonymous: "Ron is exemplifying the crux of the issue : all men are slightly or significantly narcissistic and autistic."

Where is your evidence proving that I, as an individual man, am "slightly or significantly narcissistic or autistic?" You don't know me or anything about me. You've never met me. You've never even heard of me. You might as well claim that you know for a fact what I look like.

"All men live for their own gratification and find it difficult to impossible to realize that other things are seperate from themselves."

This statement would hold some water if you were describing the Islamic world, but you are presumably talking about the Western world. Try leaving your house every once in a while, you might notice that men aren't systematically hunting down women and dragging them to their caves.

"And those traits are the FOUNDATION of narcissism, autism, sociopathy, and various other male personality afflictions."

As we all know, these are exclusively male traits.

Steve: "ah come on. Women oogle me all the time, they make appreciative remarks, they grab my ass in clubs. It's flattering and enjoyable, only a crazy person would have any problem with that."

If a woman grabbed my ass, I would punch her in the face.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
Just got recommended to you... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 4:18 AM | Posted by Reed the Viking: | Reply

Just got recommended to your blog by a commenter, love what I've read so far. Keep up the good work :).

-Reed the Viking

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
If you read carefully you'd... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 6:46 AM | Posted, in reply to Lexi's comment, by Aan'allein: | Reply

If you read carefully you'd notice I did place her above average, *in my mind*. I suppose what I was getting at is that while within the framework of western culture she is considered (more or less) "clearly" (you people sure seem to like using that word) above average in looks, there are many, many places around the world where they would give you a blank stare if you were to rant about "ideal waist/hip proportion". And if you asked them, instead of banging them over the head with American norms of averageness and beauty, they would quite likely go on to say Ms. Sainz is, in their mind, "clearly" pretty/ugly/a goddess/nondescript/too skinny/just perfect or whatever their cultural and personal perception dictates.

I don't know if it's fair to assume everyone commenting on this blog is supposed to share the American ideas of attractiveness by default -- not yet, anyway. That does seem to be the general direction the world is heading, however. Whether that's good or bad is for some other discussion. But in the meanwhile, yours, mine and everyone else's opinion of Ms. Sainz attractiveness or averageness should be considered equally important, though you are free to think your cultural backing is superior. Savvy?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Sauce for the goose is not ... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 11:34 AM | Posted by Jeremy: | Reply

Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander


http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/09/16/meredith-vieira-sauce-for-the-goose-is-not-sauce-for-the-gander/

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
After she cooks me some goo... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 12:57 PM | Posted, in reply to Jeremy's comment, by GT: | Reply

After she cooks me some goose, I'll give her some gander!

She is so FINE!!!! I'm in LOVE!!!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
I can't tell if that was su... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Posted, in reply to AnonyMouse's comment, by Dave: | Reply

I can't tell if that was supposed to be satire or if you really misunderstand the world that severely. Either way, you need to brush up on your humor.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Just because you can't c... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 2:26 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Iris: | Reply

Just because you can't come up to a mature way to handle being aroused, and treat the person who arouses you as a person and not an object that's all about you and your desires...

...viewing others as objects that should conform to your desires or needs, and not taking responsibility for your own actions and feelings and seeking control of yourself through using others is also a symptom of narcissistic thinking.

Amen! Couldn't have said it better!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
WELL that's not the same si... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to Jeremy's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

WELL that's not the same situation at all.

Mrs Veiria is clearly only flirting with the young man. She is restrained and keeps her distance, and she is doing this flirting in front of EVERYONE. SHe is monitoring for verbal and nonverbal cues as to whether or not he is uncomfortable, and the young man is clearly reciprocating the flirting ("would you like me to give you one?")
She is not leveraging power over him. The whole nation is there. The fact the guy is laughing and flirting in return shows this as pretty harmless behavior.

The issue with Sainz was different. She was trapped (could not leave) a locker room filled with several naked men who were making lude comments toward her. There was no flirtng at all and it was clearly evident she was uncomfortable/slightly threatened.

I don't think the issue with Sainz was OMG so seroius myself, nothing happened and she had to expect such a response dressed the way she was dressed in a locker room full of football players. I'm not half as sexy as Sainz and I would totally expect a similar result if I just decided to meander into a locker room full of football players. She would be ridiculously naive NOT to expect that reaction to her presence.

So even though I don't think this story is a big deal at all, it is CLEARLY different from what was going on that game show ... there was reciprocation and the power dynamics weren't skewed so badly.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Aan--Sure, only sl... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 7:05 PM | Posted, in reply to Aan'allein's comment, by Lexi: | Reply

Aan--

Sure, only slightly above. You did also say average-ness was in the eye of the beholder. It might be more accurate for you to say that she might only be slightly above a 5 on what is attractive to you scale, but in terms of what is actually average, she is certainly slimmer and more fit than average, and not just slightly, from that frame, you could say she is below average, when speaking of weight/height proportions.

You're right, I'm sure I'd get blank looks if I ranted about math and beauty, but if I just used pictures and pointed and matched cultural posture and dress the ratio, even if the weight was different, each culture would have a rough range of ratio it would find healthy (it is a signifier of health and fertility), ie Marilyn Monroe and Kate Moss, differently sized women, same waist/hip ratio. Not that wikipedia is the be all end all of 'evidence', it is a good starting point "There appear to be universal standards regarding attractiveness both within and across cultures and ethnic groups.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness. The difference in what is attractive ranges from .6 - .9 . . . and it is also not to say that other factors won't weight more heavily than ratios. Because they certainly do, otherwise, generally below average people wouldn't get mates.

Anyway, I brought up American culture and what is the average, not because I think it is superior, but to point out the differences between her, and them, and to say, X is actually average here, the context in which she may or may not have been harassed. She is not average compared to the pond she is in. I'm not even saying what American's consider beautiful, which most average women cannot attain, is worthy of upholding, simply that she is not average. And that what is average is not up for debate, whether or not it is attractive, is.

A lot of people conflate what they are attracted to as being above average, and what they are not very attracted to as being average or below, with what is actual average, and what is actually close to cultural ideals, and what is close to cultural signs of ill-health.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Meh. She's not THAT hot.</... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 9:17 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Meh. She's not THAT hot.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
I agree with @brainchild - ... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 10:05 PM | Posted by DrCastellanos: | Reply

I agree with @brainchild - other people respond to our behaviors. You cannot provoke human nature and then complain that people acted on that provocation. It's like the movie "I [heart] Huckabees" - "Look at me! Don't look at me! Look at me! Don't look at me!!" Everyone can bitch and moan about correctness and respect and what SHOULD happen, but that is to ignore the fact that this woman often puts herself in what is supposed to be a professional position, but dressed in very casual and revealing clothing. (go check out some of her other pictures!) Male sportscasters are dressed in business suits, but she has on skin tight jeans and a halter top! What is this a club? I think she is getting exactly what she wants - publicity. After all, how many of you had heard about her before a couple of weeks ago?

http://ReclaimYourSexuality.com

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
It is really interesting, h... (Below threshold)

September 17, 2010 11:59 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It is really interesting, how many people read "not seeing sexy women = emasculation" and eagerly grabbed their chance to explain to everyone that a man is supposed to control his desires.
The thing is, that "not seeing" might have notning to do with desires, just like it is really emasculating, when women start telling men how they should act - it IS emasculating, but has nothing to do with desires whatsoever.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
It is really interesting, h... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 12:03 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

It is really interesting, how many people read "not seeing sexy women = emasculation" and eagerly grabbed their chance to explain to everyone that a man is supposed to control his desires.
The thing is, that "not seeing" might have notning to do with desires, just like it is really emasculating, when women start telling men how they should act - it IS emasculating, but has nothing to do with desires whatsoever.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Doc C/Brainchild sounds lik... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 3:42 AM | Posted, in reply to DrCastellanos's comment, by L: | Reply

Doc C/Brainchild sounds like you are talking about:
Situational awareness is something that is necessary in situations like these, for the players, and the reporter. "Situation awareness (SA) involves being aware of what is happening around you to understand how information, events, and your own actions will impact your goals and objectives, both now and in the near future. "(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness or
http://www.stratfor.com/threats_situational_awareness_and_perspective)

--

So with that in mind, if her goal is to not be harassed, it might help to cover up but it would help even more to avoid many men and some women in general. And if they don't want to be sued, they might want to be aware that what they say has a high probability of being recorded, and familiarize themselves with sexual harassment laws.

If her goal was to get publicity, then she was very situation-ally aware.

But I think she would have been harassed no matter what she was wearing, and if she covered up more, she might have felt harassed. But maybe not. Counter intuitive, I know.

It is more likely, that both sides are lacking in situational awareness, and the blog readers are more or less split down the middle about whose fault that is, and who should be responsible. (all of us, including them.) Because rather than seeing the system in action, we'd all rather take it personally, even whether or not she was hot.

As an aside, I don't believe any victim is responsible for a perpetrator's bad behavior, at the same time, I'm not going to leave my phone charger visible in my car parked in my crime filled hippy city(it is crazy what people will break into your car for). It is not my fault some yahoo broke into my car (it's all the liberals that gave cash to homeless junkies . . .) But I'm also aware of the context of my crime filled hippy city (lots of junkies in a small area) and don't want the pain in the ass that comes with that. Someone from a town where everyone knows and trusts everyone might do that and in one context it is safer than the other.

--

As far as how what she was wearing relates to harassment . . . not as much as everyone wants to think. If you think it is about what she is wearing, it gives you the illusion that you can make it not happen to you, or the women you care about. That it is easier to protect yourself/them, than it really is. Go go gadget, just world phenomenon! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon)

Harassment isn't always about how a girl is dressed. I've been harassed while trying to make myself not noticeable, baggy clothes, long sleeves, hat and big glasses, no make-up. I always feel worse when I get harassed when I'm conforming to the blame the victim model, which is to say, hide my shape as best I can and I still get cat-called.

I and other students have been harassed at school, by a teacher in the 9th grade, we weren't dressing sexy then either (I'm the one that spoke up and he got fired). I've been harassed by a fellow grad student, and as soon as I spoke up, over half the women in the class spoke up too, stating that they had been harassed by him, and at least half of them were not as hot as me. And never mind all the times before, in between and after that I've been harassed, when I wasn't 'asking for it' with how I dressed. I know how to dress that way, that wasn't it.

Anyway, point being, sometimes how you are dressed has nothing to do with being harassed. Like those nice ladies in the burkas that get acid thrown on their faces for being too demure. Makes me glad I live in a culture where verbal harassment is the norm!

I am good at recognizing and gently turning away bad attempts at flirting, I don't consider that harassment. I enjoy good flirts, but a good flirt requires that he has awareness of the other person as a person on some level, even if on another the other person is a hit for that validation crack pipe. I don't consider flirting at all to be harassment. I make this statement mostly because I know there are women out there that take any form of sexual notice/flattery as harassment (they don't get dates, can't figure that one out).

For the guy that thought men only had 3 choices, it seems you have a very limited imagination when it comes to stirring up sexual desire for you in a woman you have desire for . . .

Outside of work, I don't consider guys telling me I'm sexy/pretty/looking-good harassment when I'm dressed for it, and even at work I mostly don't care, but I mostly work with women, or libertarians, but not at the same time.


And I've been groped often enough in a variety of settings and outfits by strangers and classmates, and really, that is never appropriate no matter what I'm wearing, more appalling, it has always happened when I haven't been dressed for attention.

To *someone*, I lol'd when you said you'd punch a woman in the face if she groped you . . . the last guy that grabbed me without permission, also got punched. It was a reflex . . .

So maybe these ballers would have harassed her if she was wearing a suit too. And she would have felt worse, because then she wasn't 'asking for it' and got it anyway.

Anyway, I wasn't there. Maybe no one got butt hurt except on this thread. Anyone got it on video?

Sexism comes from men and women, against the other gender and their own gender. Women can be emasculating and men can rape. Whatever. Ultimately all of it stems from ignorance.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
No, it's not racist or sexi... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 5:48 AM | Posted, in reply to Katie's comment, by caeia: | Reply

No, it's not racist or sexist. The point is perception. She's playing herself off as "Hot Latina Serious News Journalist" and crying when people notice the Hot Latina part of her schtick. Including allowing herself to go into a locker room full of testosterone and naked men. You can't do that and NOT get sexually harrassed. It would be like wearing Lady Gaga's meat suit and climbing into the lion cage at feeding time. If you can't figure out what is likely to happen at that point, you deserve what you get.

True, the media is manipulating both sides. It's a manufactured controversy designed to get more viewers and get her name out there. And sexual harrassment seems to imply sexyness.

Personally I think the "black men" angle is also part of the manufactured story. It plays off the old racist stereotype of black males raping white women. You aren't supposed to notice that either -- but it's used to play up how sexy she is.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
...and eagerly grabbed t... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 9:52 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Iris: | Reply

...and eagerly grabbed their chance to explain to everyone that a man is supposed to control his desires.

Wow, you got it all wrong. The scenario is this: I wear capris to flaunt my ankles. He starts crying and blaming me for his inability to control his desires. I'm not crying. The only one who thinks he's supposed to control his desires is him (I don't really care why, but probably partly because he thinks it's a sin, and mostly because he's lost control - not over himself but women and other men who may also be ogling my ankles).

The point with TLP's post was, Inez Sainz isn't crying either.

Gotta throw this in.
The box says "A historic moment at the Software Programmer's Union office" and the speech bubble says "One of our members has been sexually harassed on the job. This calls for a celebration!"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Oh yes she is!! She is HAWT... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 10:03 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Oh yes she is!! She is HAWT!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
No, he was not crying that ... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 12:00 PM | Posted, in reply to Iris's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

No, he was not crying that he cannot control his desires, he said that one option was not to look and it was emasculating. It's you who willingly wanted to read desires into these words.
No, here is no desire. Just that not to look is indeed emasculating because men are manipulated into it. The same thing is that when women tell men what to do, how to think and what to like - it is also emasculating, but here's no desire in this either.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
There's nothing emasculatin... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 12:04 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by someone: | Reply

There's nothing emasculating about not looking at women. You're delusional.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Nothing. If a man does not ... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 1:26 PM | Posted, in reply to someone's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Nothing. If a man does not want to.
But if he does or does not do anything at all because some woman told him (not) to - everything is emasculating in it. Easy.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Nothing. If a man does not ... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 1:31 PM | Posted, in reply to someone's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Nothing. If a man does not want to.
But if he does or does not do anything at all because some woman told him (not) to, then everything is emasculating in it. Easy.

Women do not want to hear what men think about their dressing habits, but ah so eager to dispence unwanted opinions on what it is to be a man, a "real" man.
Don't bother.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
I'm not a woman. Looks like... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 3:32 PM | Posted by someone: | Reply

I'm not a woman. Looks like you're still delusional.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You can be a vegetable for ... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 3:34 PM | Posted, in reply to someone's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

You can be a vegetable for all I care.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I wasn't talking about Anon... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 4:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Iris: | Reply

I wasn't talking about Anonymous, but all men who fit the "fundie" description, ie. require this or that of women because they see women as a reflection and extension of themselves, not as individuals who have thoughts, feelings, ambitions and shortcomings just like they do.

Women do not want to hear what men think about their dressing habits, but ah so eager to dispence unwanted opinions on what it is to be a man, a "real" man.

'Cause you're a bunch of whiners, that's why. Why not try to work on yourselves instead of constantly looking elsewhere for ego fixes? It can't go on forever.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
The women commenting these ... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 4:58 PM | Posted by Steve: | Reply

The women commenting these articles want to dictate how males should behave and what they should think about women.

They are the epitome of narcissism

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (11 votes cast)
Hey, maybe it's just me but... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 6:21 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Hey, maybe it's just me but I think Christine O'Donell is kinda cute. I wouldn't mind tapping her, too!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
No, we are not a bunch of a... (Below threshold)

September 18, 2010 10:52 PM | Posted, in reply to Iris's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

No, we are not a bunch of anything at all.
But seems like you would want us to be all the same, uniform beasty bunch, controlled by desire towards you, right? Wishful thinking.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
Wrong, again. I said that y... (Below threshold)

September 19, 2010 1:26 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Iris: | Reply

Wrong, again. I said that you need to you get a life of your own. We weren't messing with yours before you started messing with ours.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
I hate most of you people c... (Below threshold)

September 19, 2010 3:55 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I hate most of you people commenting. I think these blogs are decreasing in quality and so are the readers.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
It's funny how most feminis... (Below threshold)

September 19, 2010 6:31 PM | Posted by David: | Reply

It's funny how most feminist arguments are based on the fact that what men do makes women feel "uncomfortable" and "dis-empowered." Yet, when men complain about how women make them "feel uncomfortable or dis-empowered", women attack them and say they are not real men. When will the shaming tactic ever end.

The above being the case, I'd ignore most feminist arguments because usually, the same women who criticize masculinity, are the same ones trying to dictate to men what "real masculinity" actually is. In the grand scheme of things, feminism is about controlling masculinity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (11 votes cast)
These comments make me feel... (Below threshold)

September 19, 2010 6:53 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

These comments make me feel like I am in walmart in the south.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Also, how can feminists fee... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 4:23 AM | Posted by someone: | Reply

Also, how can feminists feel disempowered by such petty matters when they're always better than men and don't need them anyway because they're just that strong and independent.

And yes, controlling men is one of the central tasks of feminism.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
On the derailment from TLP'... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 8:32 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

On the derailment from TLP's point, which is not about feminism or sexual harrasment, or women vs men, but rather the medias use of our responses to those topics; I think TLP pretty much covered that concept and there isn't much to say. Therefore commenting has reverted to, "Hey I have things to say about hotness, and how feminists suck, and how men are assholes, and how hot that chicks ass is... etc."

Along that line of thinking I have some things to say about hotness too. Threesomes? Yeah. That's hot. And also, men with muscles? Things I like to do when a man with muscles is (deleted by author for extreme hotness.)

On another note TLP put up a bunch of hot pictures of a chicks ass and talked about things related to sex. The media pulled this and no one noticed, TLP pulled this on viewers and no one noticed. Why did YOU click on this article? I clicked because it said "hot". Hot. All I want to talk about in the following comments is related to hot sex. And how hot it is. Threesomes...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
I'm sure CFNM is the next D... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 8:35 AM | Posted, in reply to naked male's comment, by Diagnosed Perv: | Reply

I'm sure CFNM is the next DSM.

This is probably the best posts ever on this blog, and I've been reading it on and off for a couple of years now.

The "nucular reactions" in the comments are also a new high here.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Please, continue on with th... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 11:19 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Please, continue on with the topic of threesomes!!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I clicked it because whatev... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 1:37 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Lexi: | Reply

I clicked it because whatever TLP writes makes me hot . . . (except when it doesn't)

And while you deleted things for extreme hotness, my imagination took over . . . I think that's your fault ;) nevermind what is already in my mind . . .

Unrelated to your hotness points . . .

Two things come to mind-- from reading what everyone else is saying --

a) the concept of situational awareness (http://www.stratfor.com/threats_situational_awareness_and_perspective), which, if her aim was anything other than publicity or she doesn't care, she seemed to be lacking. So did the locker room jocks, given there is a high likely-hood of a reporter having a recording device, to I don't know give evidence of harassment? I prefer a state of relaxed awareness. Whatever, people at the end of the day do what they want and there are sometimes consequences and sometimes not. I'd rather be conscious than not.

b) Just World phenomenon. I hear a lot of people complaining about various shit-- if she had done XYZ she wouldn't have been harassed, is the one that hits my button. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon I think she'd have gotten harassed no matter what she was wearing, the media just wouldn't have been able to polarize it so much. I know it has happened before.

c) As far as men and women complaining about each other, the biggest mistake I see from a couple of comments from men and women is over-generalizing the entire other gender. yeah there are totally women that give feminism a bad name, that have perverted it away from what it was originally about-- giving women options. And there are totally men that are jerks, or too forward or whatever. I do think the mistake of many (not all) feminists today is polarizing the 'fight' and making men the enemy. Most men are not the enemy. If they were it would be a much scarier world than it really is, but maybe that is just my cognitive dissonance talking. In my limited California experience, most men are kind, strong, decent people trying to figure out their places/roles in society just like most women. I'm sure it is different in parts of Africa.

At the end of the day, nobody is perfect all the time. AND the bad gets highlighted, because the media can play on our fears, it is an emotion that causes humans generally to pay attention to the exclusion of other emotions.

And many of us have confirmation biases that cause us to focus on the worst in each other, making it harder to notice the good in people. It's like when you just buy a BMW, you notice soooo many more BMWs on the road. Or if you just get out of an abusive relationship (maybe you're a man and your woman was abusive, maybe you're same sex relationship, whatever) some people end up more primed to notice little red flags in others than the people that don't have those red flags at all.

And some people have had repeatedly bad experiences, it doesn't mean it will always be that way, but it does make it a lot harder to notice the good. Or to move towards it.

I'm sure some people will hate what I have to say or think I'm too Pollyanna. Maybe I am, but it seems to work for me, taking a broader context and not getting hooked so much by what I'm told to notice. And reading TLP balances out my rose glasses.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
balances them out with rum.... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 1:40 PM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply

balances them out with rum.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You're no pollyanna, you're... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 4:57 PM | Posted, in reply to Lexi's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

You're no pollyanna, you're realistic (and super articulate). Anyone who thinks you are being naive is not just wrong, but wrong and foolish.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
The above being the case... (Below threshold)

September 20, 2010 5:00 PM | Posted, in reply to David's comment, by Iris: | Reply

The above being the case, I'd ignore most feminist arguments because usually, the same women who criticize masculinity, are the same ones trying to dictate to men what "real masculinity" actually is.

If I call one person a smurf and that person happens to be a man, did I say all men are smurfs? No, someone would only think so if they were a male smurf and thought all other men are smurfs too. Which means they just confessed to being smurfs when they could've just said "never even heard of them". Also, who here has criticized masculinity?

When I explained to this poster that this poster wasn't talking about him/herself, I thought it was a one-of-a-kind misunderstanding. But it's beginning to seem more of an art, so I think I'm just going to move on to something else.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I don't think men should ha... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 10:53 AM | Posted, in reply to David's comment, by caeia: | Reply

I don't think men should have to control their behavior beyond the obvious (don't rape her). My point is that in our nation's egocentric culture, we think we can ignore nature -- human or physics or biology. Hate to break it to either side, but the LAWS of nature are called LAWS for a reason. They don't change just because you want them to. Men will always at least ogle an attractive women. Always. They might deny it, but they do -- human nature. Women want to attract male attention to one degree or another -- human nature. Just like a shark will be attracted by the scent of blood -- the shark isn't evil for noticing the blood, he's acting on his feeding instincts. We may like to believe that we can create an asexual business environment, but short of banning one sex or another, it won't happen. We'll notice the sexy man/women sitting in the next cubical.

If you can't live in reality where men and women are by nautre sexual creatures, then wear a burka or join a convent. Otherwise, learn that you can't dress like a streetwalker and go into a lockeroom full of men and expect no sexual harassment. It can't happen, especially for younger men.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
I'll admit, i'm, not the mo... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 11:27 AM | Posted by dewfish: | Reply

I'll admit, i'm, not the most civilized of men, but you can expect more of me than simply "don't rape her". I hope that the standards for men are higher than that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I don't ogle at women. Ther... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 3:08 PM | Posted, in reply to caeia's comment, by someone: | Reply

I don't ogle at women. There goes your "natural law," which also does not account for asexuals, homosexuals and the mentally handicapped.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
The media wants to make mon... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 4:15 PM | Posted by rap1950: | Reply

The media wants to make money and will do anything to make money. The reporter/entertainer wants to make money and has decided to go along with what her network thinks will make them the most money. We all play the best hand we've been dealt: looks, brains, a talent, a skill, youth, age, credentials, connections, whatever. She's very attractive with a nice butt and she's decided to strut-her-stuff. That's the card she is willing to play. So, for the time being, the ratio is reporter(brains)/ENTERTAINER(LOOKS). In the long run, maybe it will hurt her, maybe it won't. Who knows and who fucking cares except her and her network. The network and she have decided to emphasize her sexuality over any other attributes she may possess because they think it will make her and them the most money. The brouhaha is about money. And the fact that she's distancing herself from it is probably all part of the script - she's not a ball buster, the network is. I wish her the best.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Feminism is about forcing t... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 4:43 PM | Posted by Steve: | Reply

Feminism is about forcing the anti scientific concept of equality on society. I mean, I'm all for giving women "opportunities" but who the fuck, and how decided that men and women are equal?

We are brainwashing males and females alike with the notion of equality- which doesn't make any kind of sense and isn't supported by any kind of proof- when we don't know shit about that. Bullshit like positive discrimination and the endless, annoying propaganda of equality, and same gender schooling, must stop.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (15 votes cast)
I think, Steve, that you ha... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 4:56 PM | Posted by rap1950: | Reply

I think, Steve, that you have created a straw dog. When people talk about equality, they mean equality of opportunity not that men and women are the same. Shoot, men and men aren't the same, women and women neither. What seems obvious to me is that there are no "men" and there are no "women." Like most dualities, its false. Take any attribute that is considered MALE, many women have it. And any attribute that is considered FEMALE, many men have it.

Perhaps, Steve, you are the person who has been brainwashed.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
The responses from every pa... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 5:33 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The responses from every party involved is so stereotypical here.

(1) The media(the reporters of this incident) would frame this story no other way. I would go so far to say that if Alone had given up psychiatry and became the most intelligent news reporter in the world, he would have recited word-for-word the already scripted and edited report on national television. Why would the KABC article be a stereotypical report on the vices of sexual harassment and not an insightful psychiatric article titled "Hot Sports Reporter Ines Sainz Was Sexually Harassed" Because the former is "socially acceptable" while the latter is not(imagine Alone's post as a front page article in the NY Times) And for good reason...

...(2) The consumers of the media watch the news, which enforces the stereotypical response to these kinds of situations learned from previous life experiences- In this case: Celebrities should set a better example, women should be treated with respect. A statistically insignificant percent of the population symphathizes with celebrities: "they should be able to have normal sex lives, and also have sex without an outbreak of sex tapes." And once someone has adopted a stereotypical worldview, it is very difficult to alter that biased perception of reality.

(3) Speaking of difficulty in reforming one's worldview... If you are Catholic.. imagine if you had been born/raised in an Islamic country. What would you have been like? Now imagine that you are going to the Middle East for vacation (and be mandated to pray daily to Allah while your there).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is fantastic. It feels... (Below threshold)

September 21, 2010 10:10 PM | Posted by j: | Reply

This is fantastic. It feels good..

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Most feminists push the ide... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 3:59 AM | Posted, in reply to rap1950's comment, by someone: | Reply

Most feminists push the idea of equal outcome rather than equal opportunity, and believe that there are no differences between men and women (except women are better than men at everything). I've seen feminists claim -- without anyone disagreeing -- that men and women don't even have height differences.

You are also one of these crazy people, because you claim that genders don't even exist. That's about as radical and insane as feminism gets.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Someone, I think rap1950 me... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 7:00 AM | Posted by Aikou: | Reply

Someone, I think rap1950 meant rather that there are no personal attributes that strictly manifest in one gender but not the other, and thus no attribute can reliably be called "masculine" or "feminine" only. Which pretty much makes sense, since I don't think the statement means to try and erase the biological differences between the sexes, just to clarify something about diversity of personal traits, which is also part of human nature.

I might be wrong though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
rap1950, equality of opport... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 7:06 AM | Posted, in reply to rap1950's comment, by Steve: | Reply

rap1950, equality of opportunity is just. But as someone said, feminists focus on equality of outcomes, and I want to add that there is a heavy propaganda still going on about men and women being absolutely equal in absolutely everything, except that women are better.

I think feminism is based on a distorted and fantastic claim. Go back to the rise of the movement. At that point, men did everything in history. They invented civilization, they invented science, they invented government languages electricity, everything. Yet the feminist claimed, with no proof, that somehow women were as capable as men (????).

Now, don't get me wrong, I am 100% favorable to giving women opportunities and educations. But on what basis can feminism claim that women could perform exactly the same as men, after history has been 200% male?

It should have been more of a "ok, maybe we limited your opportunities too much, now we'll give you the tools to reach your potential, do your best and show us how much ass can you kick".

Instead it was a "WOMEN ARE 100% AS CAPABLE AS A MAN, IF WOMEN DO NOT MAKE UP AT LEAST 50% OF THE TOP PAYING AND PRESTIGIOUS PROFESSIONS IT IS BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION, MALES ARE PIGS WOMEN ARE BETTER AT EVERYTHING".

And that's fucked up.

The rest of your argument is nuts, of course the sexes can be generalized, and man with female traits or females with male traits are the exceptions to the rule, and yes they certainly exist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Aikou: RightSteve... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 10:51 AM | Posted by rap1950: | Reply

Aikou: Right

Steve: You need to start getting out more. And read more, and read more widely. And talk to a variety of people.

And generalizations are almost always wrong. That's not nuts. That's the truth.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
TLP was right. "Plan B: rew... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 1:57 PM | Posted by izrik: | Reply

TLP was right. "Plan B: rewrite the story."

From http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/21/sainz-takes-a-shot-as-awsm/ -
"We're not surprised that Sainz, whose statements have been at times inconsistent throughout this episode, would now bite the hand that fed her publicity machine. Then again, with the issue between Sainz and the Jets resolved, Sainz needs to find a way to create even more press and attention for herself. So why not complain publicly about the group that helped her get all that publicity in the first place?"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
So, if you, Ron, want to we... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to Ron's comment, by anon: | Reply

So, if you, Ron, want to wear a speedo to the beach, we girls have the choices:

1)grab your thang

2)stare at your thang

3)be defeminized

See how stupid it sounds?

Choice 4 is to be a mensch.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Trashy is as trashy does!!!... (Below threshold)

September 22, 2010 5:17 PM | Posted by KJ: | Reply

Trashy is as trashy does!!!!!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Lexi - "most men are kind, ... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 9:26 AM | Posted, in reply to Lexi's comment, by brainchild: | Reply

Lexi - "most men are kind, strong, decent people trying to figure out their places/roles in society just like most women."

Yeah, I know a lot of really good guys and people in general too. It makes me a bit sad that so many people apparently don't - but, hey, that's what happens when you treat others as objects, you don't see their humanity. My experience is that there are genuine people who see others as fellow humans and people, and then there are people who see others as objects to be used. It has nothing to do with gender (the identity part of being male, female or some variant) or sex (what category your genitals place you in, the physical part of being male, female or some variant). It does, of course, have a lot to do with Alone's favorite subject - unhealthy or perverted narcissism, aka having a narcissistic personality disorder. If you hate all men or all women, you're objectifying the other and expressing xenophobia. (Not to mention revealing your own inadequacy when it comes to human relationships, and a deep level of fear and anxiety about sex, gender, relationships and yourself.)

Women lose out when they see men as objects just as much as men lose out when they see women as objects. Whether it's sex objects or work objects. You can still recognize that someone has a beautiful body or is sexy if you see them as a person, you just don't feel entitled to use them to your ends irregardless of their desires or blame them for your desires and lack of self control. You know, you act like an adult and not a child. Kind of necessary if you want to have a fulfilling adult relationship and not just some hollow simulation of one.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Another problem perhaps rai... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 11:28 AM | Posted, in reply to brainchild's comment, by der Sherpa: | Reply

Another problem perhaps raised here is response methods within communities.

"You can still recognize that someone has a beautiful body or is sexy if you see them as a person[...]"

I would prefer to start with the assumption that most people do not see other people as toys on a Walmart shelf. (You may choose to disagree, but I'm simply not that cynical.)

If we accept that it is possible for a person-interacting-with-persons to recognize beauty or allure, whether intentionally presented or not, we then identify how that person can be expected to respond.

I would offer that the response both on the field and in the field house were predictable, normal responses.

We know the community with which Ms. Sainz was interacting were early-20's sports jocks in their "native" environment.The community and community schemata can be readily identified.

Cameras, and the more than reasonable expectation that the interactions would be rebroadcast, should have been enough to let the players know their immediate community was augmented by a much larger, more universal community and should have altered their response mechanisms.

But, immediate community as it was, I'll quote TLP above:

""I don't want to be thought of only as a sex object." You don't see the irony of your thinking. You don't want people to have a certain thought, yet you also demand that they don't have a certain thought. You're trying to controlling their minds just as much as you claim they're labeling you.

"You don't get to make that decision, ever. As much as anyone wishes they could make everyone else accept the identity they've invented for themselves, the ugly existential truth is everyone has their own mind and they seem to have decided that you are a sex object. They may be wrong, they may be right, you can certainly try and alter this perception, but you cannot tell other people not to have it."

Ms. Sainz joined in social interaction with a particularly specific community, one that has particularly well-known (or easily assumed) reactions to certain interactions. The collision I see with brainchild, and anon, and some others above is that TLP's Argument II in the OP is largely being ignored.

As much as some of the posters above wish they could make the established, existing community accept the identity they are inventing for Ms. Sainz, the truth is that the members of that community seem to have decided Ms. Sainz has presented herself as a sex object.

To continue the paraphrasing: They may be jerks for thinking what they think, but they are allowed to make those conclusions based on the information presented to them within the social interaction.

Isn't the point of being sexy to present one's self in these social interactions as a potential object (as in, the noun phrase toward which the subject of the idea is acting) for sexual desire? And weren't the players reacting in a completely predictable and mitigable way?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No, Alone's point in the OP... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 12:38 PM | Posted, in reply to der Sherpa's comment, by brainchild: | Reply

No, Alone's point in the OP isn't being ignored in the least by me - nor the larger context of what Alone is generally writing about. Alone's meta-topic - meaning the one that all his other posts refer back to in some way - is disordered narcissism and the media (with an occasional foray into critiquing drug trials). You seem to want to avoid this topic in favour or wading around in the shallow end of the pool.

What's odd is that some people don't seem to be able to see someone as sexy AND as a person - the two aren't mutually exclusive. In real life that is, which is what I was talking about in my post above. What you see on TV or magazines is another story because you're generally seeing constructed identities or, even further removed from individual humanity, symbols or idols. As Alone keeps pointing out over and over again, TV isn't real life and this is where people have problems - they can't differentiate so the media is constructing not only identities they're trying to adopt but their whole concept of what is real. The "manly football players" are no more seen as people than the "sexy sportscaster", which is one of many reasons why so many major league athletes stay in the closet, use drugs, etc. They're trying to live up to the idealized - meaning objectified - image of "manly football player". They're not necessarily being idiots in the locker room because that's "just who they are as men", they're doing so because not doing so would be veering out of their predetermined role. The closeted non-heterosexual guys are likely to be just as loudly sexual in their comments as a means to assert that they fit into the "manly football player" role. Like I said already, this is really done for the benefit of other men (or in this case for the benefit of the media) and has little to do with women in general or sexism in reality.

YOU finding someone or something sexual is not the fault of the person or object you desire - that's the part many men and women making comments don't seem to get, that their desires and their fulfillment isn't someone else's responsibility. Sure Innez should be responsible for her own actions - which she more or less seems to be (as much as one can tell in a PR storm like this, and make no mistake this is really about PR and not really about sexism in the locker room or elsewhere). It's news using a pinup to titillate and then tut-tutting about it - it's a false controversy designed to actually affirm that football is a very manly and heterosexual sport (smell the AXXE, same marketing strategy but without the humour) and to promote Innez as a "hot chick who digs being hit on and won't turn me down like all the other women I don't know who I yell inanities at".

"sexy? Wot's wrong with sexy" - Spinal Tap.


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Are men more prone to narci... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 12:46 PM | Posted by anon: | Reply

Are men more prone to narcissism? Yes, white men are. Just as slave owners were more prone to narcissism and so are Islamic males. Why? Because their position in society is both privileged and untenable. They resolve this by devolving into narcissism. They cope with their pain by projecting power/evil unto women or other races. I've lived with white men (didn't marry one) all my life and am an expert on their delusions and coping mechanisms.
The only exceptions are the extremely self-aware and well-educated.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Sherpa- "I would p... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 2:36 PM | Posted, in reply to der Sherpa's comment, by Lexi: | Reply

Sherpa-

"I would prefer to start with the assumption that most people do not see other people as toys on a Walmart shelf. (You may choose to disagree, but I'm simply not that cynical.)"

I would tend to agree that most people don't. However, I also think that some people, will see an attractive person, and something in them will get anxious about it, it activates something-- either an auto rejection of the other person, putting them on a pedestal, something-- that whenever that anxiety, or even in American Culture, what is so common, is the sense of "not good enough" may come up and need to be defended against before it is even noticed, and it is easier, imho, to make the other person wrong, than to look at oneself.

Making them 'wrong' in some way is the scramble to avoid painful feelings in oneself. And anger, hostility, rejection directed outward is much easier to deal with than facing the idea of- whether or not it is true-- "i'm not good enough". Of course I'm generalizing and not everyone has that as a core belief, but enough Americans do that the self-help market makes a killing.

I don't know that most or all people do this, but I've witnessed it happening, and having spent some time in the pick up artist community irl, gotten to see the fears come up and how many (not all) coaches tell the guys to deal with them. (often by dehumanizing the 'target'-- phrases like "knock her off her pedastal, neg her, demonstrate higher value").

But I realize that is a small sample size, relatively. And even within that group, there are some coaches that have a different/ healthier imho approach (ie, find shared value, use anxiety as a point to how important something is (or face it), and inner game . . . but I digress.

"You don't get to make that decision, ever. As much as anyone wishes they could make everyone else accept the identity they've invented for themselves, the ugly existential truth is everyone has their own mind and they seem to have decided that you are a sex object. They may be wrong, they may be right, you can certainly try and alter this perception, but you cannot tell other people not to have it."

For me, I'm actually grateful that not everyone sees me the way I see myself, for better or worse. And just because they see me differently than I see myself doesn't mean I have to own it, or maybe I might want to. I think that is where some people may take issue, is that if someone else sees you a certain way than it 'must' mean you are that way? I am not sure.

re: "Isn't the point of being sexy to present one's self in these social interactions as a potential object (as in, the noun phrase toward which the subject of the idea is acting) for sexual desire? And weren't the players reacting in a completely predictable and mitigable way?"

I'm going to pick a semantic bone-- I don't think anyone can help it if they are inherently sexy or if others find them sexy, but I think what you mean by "being sexy" is "intentionally donning the culture's accouterments of what is accepted/seen as sexy" is that accurate? If so, then I would totally agree with you. And maybe as an adjunct to my interpretation "with the intention of provoking a certain response in others".

And to some of your other points, re the players having more awareness of other contexts coming into their space-- that just goes back to situational awareness, I don't think most people have it, or even know what it is-- and if we don't have some way of passing that idea through the culture (without military training), I'm not sure we can 'blame them' anymore than we can blame her.

As for whether or not she decided to present herself as a sex object-- maybe. Maybe she consciously did it. Or maybe, over time, she noticed consciously or not, a correlation between positive feedback/desired outcomes with certain behaviors styles of dress, and less positive with other things. People and amoeba tend to want to move toward things that feel good, on some level. Getting positive responses from society feels good.

It may have been an unconscious co-creation between her and the society she is in to look like someone that could be labeled as a sex object. It may have been she or the network deliberately imaged her that way. It may be some combination or something else entirely. And as brainchild pointed out in the PR media storm, not sure we'll ever differentiate.


brainchild-

"It makes me a bit sad that so many people apparently don't - but, hey, that's what happens when you treat others as objects, you don't see their humanity."

Yeah. I think I can illuminate-- so, I like to argue, so it isn't a surprise I found myself in an argument one day with a really smart (academically) guy (scored well on the putnam/ivy leaguer) who said that most people over 25 don't have friends. (specifically he said "it's an important if sad fact if correct... Seriously though, why would anyone want to be friends with most people... I'm not joking and I think it is very sad that people aren't given more human capital by their upbringing"). My inner Pollyanna went YIKES!

To my experience of the world this is a ludicrous statement at face value*, given that I have friends and most of my friends have friends. I mean I have 7 people that I consider close enough to be able to go to about anything, and feel safe sharing the deepest parts of myself with them (and vice verse), and any more ranging from activity partner to acquaintance. I get that it may be an unusually high number by some standards . . . but it frames why I couldn't wrap my head around his statement at first.

*When I stepped out of my own experiences and looked at things from his perspective, given how he languages things, the people he is surrounded by, his values etc, it makes sense that he would see things this way, and possibly his family might see things that way too, it is hard for me to want to be close to someone that seems so walled to me. But in the context he finds/puts himself in, I can see why he thinks most people don't have friends.

Anyway, he made a really good point that I think might follow here, that the people that have lot of friends, are largely the people that other people want to be friends with, a form of social proof in some ways. And I think that maybe the kind of person you are reflects how you see the world, because of confirmation bias. Or as some old book says "We see the world as we are, not as it is."

And so while it might be easy for you and I to see the humanity in others, in all its shades and not take it as personally as we could, it might not be so easy for people who have been injured in some way-- maybe seen or used as an object. Which isn't to say you or I haven't been either, I know I have been seen by others that way, but I also know I don't have to take ownership of how they see me and get butthurt about it, unless it physically might threaten me, or it interferes with my job or education and then I gotta take some action.

Or said in short -- it is hard to see the humanity in others, when you can't accept your own. I'm sure I'll get people that disagree with me on this, and I'm curious about their pov's.

Anyway. I'm not sure. (I like arguing because it helps me refine how/what I think).

I also think, to your point about the guys saying stuff for the benefit of other men to see their masculinity-- I think some women do that too. They may dress as objects or objectify themselves not necessarily for men, but for the sake of other women.

Love your Axxe marketing analogy.

""hot chick who digs being hit on and won't turn me down like all the other women I don't know who I yell inanities at". "

While that not only makes her more acceptable among men/sports (her target audience) who hold those ideologies, it makes her less acceptable to the women who fight so hard against those ideologies.

And if someone asks me what I'm working on . . . it's Honey Someone is Wrong on the Internet! (although I largely agree with you)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"They [men] invented civili... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to Steve's comment, by someone: | Reply

"They [men] invented civilization, they invented science, they invented government languages electricity, everything. Yet the feminist claimed, with no proof, that somehow women were as capable as men (????)."

A while ago some feminists told me that women have been primarily responsible for science and philosophy and that they also do most of the important work in society (such as construction, infrastructure, energy and security). When I refused to believe this perfectly reasonable claim, I was banned from their site. Feminists simply don't inhabit the same plane of reality as most other people.


anon: "Are men more prone to narcissism? Yes, white men are. Just as slave owners were more prone to narcissism and so are Islamic males. Why? Because their position in society is both privileged and untenable."

"Privilege" is a code word for "successful." Some people just can't, for whatever reason, stand the advanced and orderly societies created by Europeans and their descendants. The only way for white people to stop being "privileged" is to descend into third world anarchy and poverty.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Lexi,Regarding the... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 5:26 PM | Posted, in reply to Lexi's comment, by der Sherpa: | Reply

Lexi,

Regarding the semantic bone-picking, bingo on "the act of making oneself sexy" vs. the "I've got good genes" usage.

And, regarding whether she consciously accoutered herself in such a way as to "be sexy," I guess I just find it hard to imagine that, while donning an outfit that really hides nothing but skin color, she didn't notice her couture was "sexy". I simply am having difficulty see that as anything other than an explicit choice. I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I have difficulty seeing it from the opposite viewpoint.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
brainchild,The dif... (Below threshold)

September 23, 2010 6:09 PM | Posted, in reply to brainchild's comment, by der Sherpa: | Reply

brainchild,

The differentiation of Jock-as-a-person and jock-as-a-TV-trope is a welcome addition to this discussion. I'm not sure we agree is on where the border between reality and interpretation is drawn.

I think we agree that the general interpretation by "the media" of sexist, improper conduct by the players is generalized, sensationalized and stereotypical. However, it's not clear to me that we agree on what players actually thought or experienced.

I would wager that this group, whether they were asked alone or together where the pressure to conform to social schemas existed, would tell you that they see Ms. Sainz as a person and not as some (please pardon the image) inhuman blow-up doll.

I'm not trying to dodge Alone's favorite topic, mind you, and suggesting that the sole diagnosis may not provide a complete understand is not me playing around in water-wings. A rhetorical analysis of the artifact requires looking past the knee-jerk "Narcissist!" label and "men bandying bravado" stereotype to look for a fuller picture of the various actors.

I guess I'm saying that I'm not satisfied simply saying "These men are slaves to the image the media makes them live up to." That's not a complete picture and is possibly as stereotypical as the schema they are therein assumed to so reverently don.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
someone, my mind hurts by o... (Below threshold)

September 24, 2010 5:54 AM | Posted, in reply to someone's comment, by Steve: | Reply

someone, my mind hurts by only thinking about that. Were do you even begin proving false something so unreasonable and stupid? Considering they can just spew more made up bullshit as a debating technique?

It's just not possible.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
you are such a fucking tool... (Below threshold)

October 16, 2010 4:49 AM | Posted by ph: | Reply

you are such a fucking tool. I bet you never get laid

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
<a href="http://www.asics-u... (Below threshold)

November 2, 2010 2:13 AM | Posted by coach handbags: | Reply

asics running shoes

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Get off your pedestal, this... (Below threshold)

February 3, 2011 5:07 PM | Posted, in reply to Katie's comment, by *!*: | Reply

Get off your pedestal, this is someone's blog and they can speak however they wish. It's not a politically correct news story. ANd if she is dressing in that fashion, then she can take a few cat calls. Don't dress like a hooker if you don;t want to be approached.


And she is hot for Mexio, broad ain't that good looking.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Couldn't. She COULDN'T give... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2013 6:14 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Atarii: | Reply

Couldn't. She COULDN'T give a rat's posterior.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Think of it this way: If yo... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2013 6:20 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Atarii: | Reply

Think of it this way: If you have a really nice car, people are going to talk about how nice your car is.

"Agh!" You might think, "I hate all of these people talking about how nice my car is, but no one ever approaches me and tells me how intelligent I am!"

If you have a nice car, people are going to mention how nice it is. If you don't want to tolerate it, don't have a nice car, or stop washing it and putting fresh coats of wax on it.

If you have a nice body and you wear clothes specifically meant to expose it, then, according to Alone, you have no right to attempt to CONTROL how people perceive you or your sexiness.

"Don't notice my sexiness! Be AWARE of it. Be INTIMIDATED by it, but don't REVEAL that you LIKE it!"

What gives you the right to decide how people act toward you? It is not illegal or immoral to give a person a compliment.

"I just dress that way for myself."

Well, that's the price you pay. Enjoy it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)