Only the guys who see women as sexual conquests who must be undressed, had fun with, and then left behind. I think it is entirely possible to not be turned on automatically by the sight of a woman's naked body and yet be a) attracted to the woman and b) turned on by the actions of a woman. If your wife/girlfriend walked around the house regularly, chances are you wouldn't spend your whole home life turned on. But once you two got into the bedroom (or wherever "action" took place), the actions of the two of you would be the trigger, not her naked body in and of itself.
Actually, I am. (My wife's, specifically.) However, I recognize that they aren't merely sexual objects but are a part of a woman's body with a function completely separate from anything sexual (i.e. Breastfeeding). Would you support a law which called for men to cover their tops at all times because some women were turned on by the sight of a bare chested man?
The question isn't "Is it considered vulgar right now" but rather "Why is it considered vulgar?" As other posters have pointed out, showing a woman's ankles was, at one point, considered vulgar in the US. Why can we show nearly the entire breast in a skimpy bikini, but showing a single nipple is not allowed. Is the nipple itself vulgar? Is it the whole breast? If it is the whole breast, would a shirt that covered a woman's entire top (obscuring the shape and size of her breasts) be alright if it exposed her nipples? If it is just the nipples, than why is that small patch of skin considered so disgusting or sexually exciting that it must be covered up at all times under penalty of law?
Exactly my point. Society right now says showing breasts is taboo. Were that taboo to be magically lifted tomorrow, and women were to walk around topless on a regular basis, seeing a naked breast would lose most of the sexual thrill. There would be a small adjustment period (where some vulgar guys would walk around bug-eyed and drooling), but people would adjust quickly.
I think some people call the breast a sexual object and thus justify the taboo of not showing it. In reality, the "breast must be hidden" taboo is a major reason why it is viewed as a sexual object.
I was watching the History Channel one day and the History of Sex came on. During the program, they mentioned that Victorians thought legs were so sexually exciting to a man that even a glimpse of a table leg would incite him to sexual frenzy. Therefore, they covered tables with table skirts to prevent any man/furniture unions. Now, I don't know about you, but I've never had any desires for my dining room set no matter how much of a "frenzy" I'm in! (Maybe Victorians were just weird like that.)
Except this monitoring was done apparently without any parental approval. Monitoring (away from school) should be done only by parents. I have no problem with my child's school doing random locker checks to make sure there are no drugs in the school, but they have no authority to do a "random house check" to make sure kids aren't doing anything inappropriate at home.
Not sure how I missed that. I must have skipped a paragraph or two midway through. Still, my point remains valid. It is the job of the parents, not the school, to police what kids do at home.
This brings to mind the recent case where a student was using a school-provided laptop at home and the administrators turned on the webcam remotely "for security reasons." The student was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home." The school never said what the conduct was. Some theorized it was sexual in nature while others said he was eating Mike & Ikes which the administrator mistook for drugs.
In any case, if my child is doing something improper at home, it is my job to punish him, not the school's. If it impacts his schoolwork then the school can either give him bad grades, work with me to correct the behavior and/or take action if the action "spills over" into school (e.g. he comes to school high/drunk even though he wasn't taking drugs/drinking at school). But punishing a child for actions that apparently were exclusively done outside of school is *NOT* the job of teachers, principals or any other school official.
If that sounds like a trite platitude, consider how few people in the U.S. seem to question the rule that you can show a man's chest on television but not a woman's chest.
It's even more ridiculous than that. In 1999, Lil' Kim went to the MYV video music awards with one breast hanging out. She covered her nipple with a pasty and all was well. So breasts are allowed, but showing a woman's nipple turns it from a normal (ok, maybe slightly more-than-normal) show of skin into "OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
In addition, we've gotten to the point that we (as a society) can't seem to see a woman's breast as anything other than a sexual object. If a woman breastfeeds her child in public, she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone doesn't get that her breast isn't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child. She might even be told to take it to the bathroom. As if anyone really would like to eat their meal sitting atop a toilet! But breasts are involved so therefore someone, somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.
I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want. Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second. After a few weeks of that, seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life. It would be like seeing a woman's leg: Yes, a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy, but it wouldn't cause him to go into a frenzy. Of course, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part, calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.
Actually, I was talking about the original Sid Meier's Civilization. In it, you could use diplomats to bribe units, establish embassies, sabotage cities, incite revolts or outright subvert cities. (The latter cost twice as much than inciting a revolt, IIRC.)
When it came to the unlimited money cheat, I would mostly use it to cover expenses. This way I didn't need to worry about budgeting costs versus income. I always was bad with that sort of thing in games. I guess it seemed too close to real-life to me to be entertaining. Once I was freed of worrying about cash in the game, I was able to play it pretty much any way I wanted. Victory wasn't assured (diplomats could be killed by a strong opponent and couldn't bribe all units), but it certainly increased my enjoyment of the game.
I have many fond memories of playing Civilization, but most don't involve playing it without cheating. I was never too good at it and so would always wind up giving myself "unlimited money" via a cheat. (There was a funds limit, but when you can refill it at any time, it is effectively unlimited.) I would then develop Diplomacy as quickly as possible and counter all offensives with Diplomats. My diplomats would buy out enemy troops and cities, eventually leaving them with just their home city (immune to my diplomats) standing. I'd usually just keep those cities around to keep the game running while I built my space station, but occasionally I'd tire of them and squash them. Ah, the memories.
And if they're that way for years? They'll owe the government back taxes (and presumably interest) if/when they finally get back on their feet? And meanwhile they'll a) be treated as tax evaders and b) not have a voice in the government. Sounds like a great way to marginalize poor people so they can't vote.
Sorry, but my vote goes for hosting it on Bittorrent. The police just need some creative naming and the data will be backed up in multiple places at minimal cost.
Hey, they can look at my data. It will bore them to death.
And the police will be the only ones looking at your data, right? Russian hackers will never figure out how to break into the police-only system. And even if they don't, police will always be ethical, right? An officer with gambling debts won't start looking up information to sell on the black market, right? Or another officer with some petty grudge won't look up information on you to get something (no matter how small/petty) to nail you on, right?
We can solve this problem simply and easily. A person can donate as much money to any candidate they can vote for, otherwise it is strictly forbidden.
I'm guessing by this you mean companies are forbidden from contributing but people can. No problem, my very wealthy Company Inc will just fund a Interested Persons group which will write checks to top members. They get to cash the checks and keep 10% if they write another check giving the remaining 90% of the amount to Candidate Joe Smith.
I'd also make sure that EVERYONE over 18 had to write a check out to the IRS, for some amount, say $25 (or so) "person" tax. The reason for this is because people who don't pay ANY taxes (now about 50% of the population) don't care about how government spends other people's money.
And how are you going to make the Miller family who lost their house and all of their savings from bad investments, scammers, job loss, or whatever other reason pay the $25 fee? Would this mean that people who are desperate for food/shelter/medical protection/etc won't have a voice in the government?
Insofar as the article recommends helping the victims gain better social skills, I agree with it. However, it seems to paint bullying as too much a problem of "oh, that kid has poor social skills so he's picked on, it's his fault" and not a problem of "oh, that kid wants to seem important in the pecking order so he picks on that kid with poor social skills." The article's remedies for bullying don't address the bullies at all.
We'll never be able to get everyone 100% in line socially. There will always be people who lag behind (even if a small bit). Bullies will pick up on these people and torment them. Once it starts, it can become a vicious cycle with the victim dropping further and further back socially. I would suggest punishment for the bullies as well as counseling or some kind of social assistance for the victims.
I'd agree with you with one minor modification: Sometimes the victims of bullying do need any help with socialization, but most times that's because the bullies reduce the possibility that the victim will socialize at all.
That's how it was for me. In every social situation, the fear of being made fun of/bullied was so great, I'd back myself up against the wall and work to be as invisible as possible. I even tried to walk as quietly as possible lest I be noticed because being noticed meant being made fun of (in my High School mind).
That didn't stop it for me. One kid made fun of me so much I couldn't take it anymore. So I grabbed his hand, pulled him towards me and executed a perfect clothesline, knocking him to the ground. (I was a fan of wrestling at the time. It may be fake, but those moves - if properly pulled off - can hurt.)
The next group of kids who made fun of me were... well, a group of kids. If I passed one of them in the hall, they wouldn't say anything, however if two or more of them were there, they'd tease me. They'd follow me from class to class taunting me. If I tried losing them, they'd keep up and taunt me more for trying to lose them. They'd also block my entrance into my classes. (Classes that they weren't in.) One time, while trying to push my way through, I saw red. And I don't mean that as a metaphor. The world literally took on a red hue and I was about to go for the throat of the nearest kid when my teacher arrived and drove them away. If it wasn't for his arrival, I think things would have turned very ugly, very fast. I might have even done some permanent damage to the kid.
The constant taunting took its toll on me. Even bus rides without those kids was torture. Kids would be laughing in the back completely unrelated to me, but I was convinced that it was directed at me. Luckily, a friend of mine was on good terms with these kids, told them of how it was really hurting me, and they backed off. To them, it was all in good fun. It didn't even occur to them that their constant taunting, every single school day for years, would have any effect. It took me half of college to get over the mental damage that was done, though.
Not to ruin the joke, but you can sign away your copyrights to your works anytime you want. Just ask any artist under a RIAA label. He just would have to sign his copyright over to The Space Exploration Archive. They, in turn, would release it to the public domain.
I never meant that parents shouldn't get involved. Just don't think that "getting involved" equals "bossing the teacher around." As a counter-point to the "give my kid a grade no matter what" parents, my wife would also encounter the "So long as my kid isn't kicked out of school, I don't care what they do" parents. She hated dealing with both kinds. In the middle, though, were the "I care about my child's education and will work with the teacher (as opposed to ordering the teacher around)" parents. Those my wife loved dealing with. I just wish there were more of those parents and less of the bossy and just-don't-care parents.
My wife worked in a private school for awhile and came upon this attitude. The parents felt that they "owned" the teachers because they were paying for the school. Since they were paying, the kids deserved A's. One father once came up to argue with my wife about the grade his daughter received on her paper. He insisted that he was an English teacher and thus knows that she should get a better grade. My wife asked if he had read the paper. When he said he hadn't read it, she showed it to him and he sheepishly agreed that the low grade was deserved. What possessed him to go off arguing grades with the teacher without looking at the paper itself, I don't know.
I had hoped that this behavior was confined to private schools, but your wife's experience indicates that exists in both private and public schools. That's really sad. If my son does poorly in a subject, I want the teacher to give him a low grade. If he gets A's just for showing up, what's the incentive to actually learn the material?
And, of course, the minute I post this, I read this comment which reminds me that operating systems have done similar things for years. I blame sleep deprivation and the upcoming weekend. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Only the guys who see women as sexual conquests who must be undressed, had fun with, and then left behind. I think it is entirely possible to not be turned on automatically by the sight of a woman's naked body and yet be a) attracted to the woman and b) turned on by the actions of a woman. If your wife/girlfriend walked around the house regularly, chances are you wouldn't spend your whole home life turned on. But once you two got into the bedroom (or wherever "action" took place), the actions of the two of you would be the trigger, not her naked body in and of itself.
Actually, I am. (My wife's, specifically.) However, I recognize that they aren't merely sexual objects but are a part of a woman's body with a function completely separate from anything sexual (i.e. Breastfeeding). Would you support a law which called for men to cover their tops at all times because some women were turned on by the sight of a bare chested man?
The question isn't "Is it considered vulgar right now" but rather "Why is it considered vulgar?" As other posters have pointed out, showing a woman's ankles was, at one point, considered vulgar in the US. Why can we show nearly the entire breast in a skimpy bikini, but showing a single nipple is not allowed. Is the nipple itself vulgar? Is it the whole breast? If it is the whole breast, would a shirt that covered a woman's entire top (obscuring the shape and size of her breasts) be alright if it exposed her nipples? If it is just the nipples, than why is that small patch of skin considered so disgusting or sexually exciting that it must be covered up at all times under penalty of law?
Exactly my point. Society right now says showing breasts is taboo. Were that taboo to be magically lifted tomorrow, and women were to walk around topless on a regular basis, seeing a naked breast would lose most of the sexual thrill. There would be a small adjustment period (where some vulgar guys would walk around bug-eyed and drooling), but people would adjust quickly.
I think some people call the breast a sexual object and thus justify the taboo of not showing it. In reality, the "breast must be hidden" taboo is a major reason why it is viewed as a sexual object.
I was watching the History Channel one day and the History of Sex came on. During the program, they mentioned that Victorians thought legs were so sexually exciting to a man that even a glimpse of a table leg would incite him to sexual frenzy. Therefore, they covered tables with table skirts to prevent any man/furniture unions. Now, I don't know about you, but I've never had any desires for my dining room set no matter how much of a "frenzy" I'm in! (Maybe Victorians were just weird like that.)
Except this monitoring was done apparently without any parental approval. Monitoring (away from school) should be done only by parents. I have no problem with my child's school doing random locker checks to make sure there are no drugs in the school, but they have no authority to do a "random house check" to make sure kids aren't doing anything inappropriate at home.
Not sure how I missed that. I must have skipped a paragraph or two midway through. Still, my point remains valid. It is the job of the parents, not the school, to police what kids do at home.
This brings to mind the recent case where a student was using a school-provided laptop at home and the administrators turned on the webcam remotely "for security reasons." The student was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home." The school never said what the conduct was. Some theorized it was sexual in nature while others said he was eating Mike & Ikes which the administrator mistook for drugs.
In any case, if my child is doing something improper at home, it is my job to punish him, not the school's. If it impacts his schoolwork then the school can either give him bad grades, work with me to correct the behavior and/or take action if the action "spills over" into school (e.g. he comes to school high/drunk even though he wasn't taking drugs/drinking at school). But punishing a child for actions that apparently were exclusively done outside of school is *NOT* the job of teachers, principals or any other school official.
It's even more ridiculous than that. In 1999, Lil' Kim went to the MYV video music awards with one breast hanging out. She covered her nipple with a pasty and all was well. So breasts are allowed, but showing a woman's nipple turns it from a normal (ok, maybe slightly more-than-normal) show of skin into "OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
In addition, we've gotten to the point that we (as a society) can't seem to see a woman's breast as anything other than a sexual object. If a woman breastfeeds her child in public, she risks being told to cover up her breasts because someone doesn't get that her breast isn't being used in a sexual manner but is being used to feed her child. She might even be told to take it to the bathroom. As if anyone really would like to eat their meal sitting atop a toilet! But breasts are involved so therefore someone, somewhere might see this as sexual and therefore we must push them out of sight entirely.
I often imagine a world where women are free to go topless whenever they want. Yes, a lot of guys likely just started drooling, but really think about it for a second. After a few weeks of that, seeing a topless woman would be just a normal part of life. It would be like seeing a woman's leg: Yes, a guy might be attracted to that piece of her anatomy, but it wouldn't cause him to go into a frenzy. Of course, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd would eventually move on to another body part, calling kids seeing that as inherently harmful and thus required to be hidden from view at all possible times.
Actually, I was talking about the original Sid Meier's Civilization. In it, you could use diplomats to bribe units, establish embassies, sabotage cities, incite revolts or outright subvert cities. (The latter cost twice as much than inciting a revolt, IIRC.)
When it came to the unlimited money cheat, I would mostly use it to cover expenses. This way I didn't need to worry about budgeting costs versus income. I always was bad with that sort of thing in games. I guess it seemed too close to real-life to me to be entertaining. Once I was freed of worrying about cash in the game, I was able to play it pretty much any way I wanted. Victory wasn't assured (diplomats could be killed by a strong opponent and couldn't bribe all units), but it certainly increased my enjoyment of the game.
I have many fond memories of playing Civilization, but most don't involve playing it without cheating. I was never too good at it and so would always wind up giving myself "unlimited money" via a cheat. (There was a funds limit, but when you can refill it at any time, it is effectively unlimited.) I would then develop Diplomacy as quickly as possible and counter all offensives with Diplomats. My diplomats would buy out enemy troops and cities, eventually leaving them with just their home city (immune to my diplomats) standing. I'd usually just keep those cities around to keep the game running while I built my space station, but occasionally I'd tire of them and squash them. Ah, the memories.
Uh oh... I turn 35 this year. I guess I only have a few months left to appreciate new technology before I start yelling at kids to get off my lawn.
And if they're that way for years? They'll owe the government back taxes (and presumably interest) if/when they finally get back on their feet? And meanwhile they'll a) be treated as tax evaders and b) not have a voice in the government. Sounds like a great way to marginalize poor people so they can't vote.
Sorry, but my vote goes for hosting it on Bittorrent. The police just need some creative naming and the data will be backed up in multiple places at minimal cost.
And the police will be the only ones looking at your data, right? Russian hackers will never figure out how to break into the police-only system. And even if they don't, police will always be ethical, right? An officer with gambling debts won't start looking up information to sell on the black market, right? Or another officer with some petty grudge won't look up information on you to get something (no matter how small/petty) to nail you on, right?
I'm guessing by this you mean companies are forbidden from contributing but people can. No problem, my very wealthy Company Inc will just fund a Interested Persons group which will write checks to top members. They get to cash the checks and keep 10% if they write another check giving the remaining 90% of the amount to Candidate Joe Smith.
And how are you going to make the Miller family who lost their house and all of their savings from bad investments, scammers, job loss, or whatever other reason pay the $25 fee? Would this mean that people who are desperate for food/shelter/medical protection/etc won't have a voice in the government?
I think this would be best explained with a car analogy.... wait, doesn't "Internet Driver's License" have a built-in car analogy?
Insofar as the article recommends helping the victims gain better social skills, I agree with it. However, it seems to paint bullying as too much a problem of "oh, that kid has poor social skills so he's picked on, it's his fault" and not a problem of "oh, that kid wants to seem important in the pecking order so he picks on that kid with poor social skills." The article's remedies for bullying don't address the bullies at all.
We'll never be able to get everyone 100% in line socially. There will always be people who lag behind (even if a small bit). Bullies will pick up on these people and torment them. Once it starts, it can become a vicious cycle with the victim dropping further and further back socially. I would suggest punishment for the bullies as well as counseling or some kind of social assistance for the victims.
I'd agree with you with one minor modification: Sometimes the victims of bullying do need any help with socialization, but most times that's because the bullies reduce the possibility that the victim will socialize at all.
That's how it was for me. In every social situation, the fear of being made fun of/bullied was so great, I'd back myself up against the wall and work to be as invisible as possible. I even tried to walk as quietly as possible lest I be noticed because being noticed meant being made fun of (in my High School mind).
That didn't stop it for me. One kid made fun of me so much I couldn't take it anymore. So I grabbed his hand, pulled him towards me and executed a perfect clothesline, knocking him to the ground. (I was a fan of wrestling at the time. It may be fake, but those moves - if properly pulled off - can hurt.)
The next group of kids who made fun of me were... well, a group of kids. If I passed one of them in the hall, they wouldn't say anything, however if two or more of them were there, they'd tease me. They'd follow me from class to class taunting me. If I tried losing them, they'd keep up and taunt me more for trying to lose them. They'd also block my entrance into my classes. (Classes that they weren't in.) One time, while trying to push my way through, I saw red. And I don't mean that as a metaphor. The world literally took on a red hue and I was about to go for the throat of the nearest kid when my teacher arrived and drove them away. If it wasn't for his arrival, I think things would have turned very ugly, very fast. I might have even done some permanent damage to the kid.
The constant taunting took its toll on me. Even bus rides without those kids was torture. Kids would be laughing in the back completely unrelated to me, but I was convinced that it was directed at me. Luckily, a friend of mine was on good terms with these kids, told them of how it was really hurting me, and they backed off. To them, it was all in good fun. It didn't even occur to them that their constant taunting, every single school day for years, would have any effect. It took me half of college to get over the mental damage that was done, though.
Probably something like Ink Pen.
Not to ruin the joke, but you can sign away your copyrights to your works anytime you want. Just ask any artist under a RIAA label. He just would have to sign his copyright over to The Space Exploration Archive. They, in turn, would release it to the public domain.
I never meant that parents shouldn't get involved. Just don't think that "getting involved" equals "bossing the teacher around." As a counter-point to the "give my kid a grade no matter what" parents, my wife would also encounter the "So long as my kid isn't kicked out of school, I don't care what they do" parents. She hated dealing with both kinds. In the middle, though, were the "I care about my child's education and will work with the teacher (as opposed to ordering the teacher around)" parents. Those my wife loved dealing with. I just wish there were more of those parents and less of the bossy and just-don't-care parents.
My wife worked in a private school for awhile and came upon this attitude. The parents felt that they "owned" the teachers because they were paying for the school. Since they were paying, the kids deserved A's. One father once came up to argue with my wife about the grade his daughter received on her paper. He insisted that he was an English teacher and thus knows that she should get a better grade. My wife asked if he had read the paper. When he said he hadn't read it, she showed it to him and he sheepishly agreed that the low grade was deserved. What possessed him to go off arguing grades with the teacher without looking at the paper itself, I don't know.
I had hoped that this behavior was confined to private schools, but your wife's experience indicates that exists in both private and public schools. That's really sad. If my son does poorly in a subject, I want the teacher to give him a low grade. If he gets A's just for showing up, what's the incentive to actually learn the material?
And, of course, the minute I post this, I read this comment which reminds me that operating systems have done similar things for years. I blame sleep deprivation and the upcoming weekend. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.