[Inspector Lagomorf]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 February 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Respect toward women should not be based on the amount of clothes they wear.

[CruX]

Paul B, on 28 February 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

if it was your women out in public and you respected her I think the general consensus would land somewhere between flirty and proper. =)

You should really just stay out of topics related to society. You always end up looking sorta stupid. And sorta bigoted.

[Master Fibbles]

The problem here is that everyone is envisioning a woman who looks good in "whore" or "asking for it" wearing those skirt lengths. Frankly, not every body type looks good in those skirts.


Also, if you boys are OK with any young woman you happen to have drugged into dating you wearing provocative clothing in public and are not concerned about them cheating on you, that is your own prerogative.

[CruX]

Mr.Flibble, on 28 February 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

The problem here is that everyone is envisioning a woman who looks good in "whore" or "asking for it" wearing those skirt lengths. Frankly, not every body type looks good in those skirts.

Yeah, skirts do seem kinda pointless if you happen to be a double amputee. In any other case though, I think what looks "good" is relative, regardless of body type.

[Sangman]

Forge, on 28 February 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

absolutely right!

it should be based on the amount of clothes they're willing to take off

I genuinely laughed out loud. Have my +.

[Jimmy]

I'm a jokester in the punk and metal scenes, and I've seen some chicks in wacky shit. Doesn't bother me, doesn't make me think less of them. People are just retarded.

[Radar]

What was wrong with what Paul said? For goodness sakes it wasn't like he was suggesting extra matronly and a veil over the head; he merely said between flirty and proper.

Emerica, on 28 February 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

You should really just stay out of topics related to society. You always end up looking sorta stupid. And sorta bigoted.

I hope he keeps posting just because you want him out. It's called freedom of speech, and it was made specifically to protect objective ideas. Sure, you get the bigots and blowhards every now and then but that's the price you pay for equal expression. He can participate in topics pertaining to society as much as he wants.

And I'd say it's pretty naive not to expect posts like that in a thread like this.

[Paul B]

Basically, it boils down to the less clothes a girl wears the less she cares about her appearance and the less she respects herself hence the title of slut being the at the top of the leg. I am not here to start a fight in a funny forum topic. =)

Thank you Radar, well said.

[Radar]

Well even though she may not respect herself supposedly, you should still respect her. It doesn't change the fact that she's a human being.

Though that's another good point. If we're all supposed to respect them either way (rightfully so), than why are the shortest choices blatantly titled "whore" and "slut"? I wouldn't call those very respectful terms at all.

[Jimmy]

Paul B, on 28 February 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Basically, it boils down to the less clothes a girl wears the less she cares about her appearance and the less she respects herself hence the title of slut being the at the top of the leg.

Yeah no. Just because you perceive that to be true doesn't make it true.

[Paul B]

Captain Awesome, on 28 February 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Yeah no. Just because you perceive that to be true doesn't make it true.

its true for me.. it doesn't have to be true for you.

[Jimmy]

Yeah, but when you're talking about someone else' self-respect and self-image, what you think doesn't enter into it.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Edit: Redacted.

[Jimmy]

DOUBLE REDACTED

[Mikko]

Paul B, on 28 February 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Basically, it boils down to the less clothes a girl wears the less she cares about her appearance and the less she respects herself

Okay, if there's logic behind this statement, I fail to see it. Care to explain?

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Radar, on 28 February 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Though that's another good point. If we're all supposed to respect them either way (rightfully so), than why are the shortest choices blatantly titled "whore" and "slut"? I wouldn't call those very respectful terms at all.

Well, only "whores" and "sluts" would wear skirts that short! I mean, think about it, girls are put here on Earth for only one reason - and that's to have sex with men.[/rampant sarcasm]

[Paul B]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 February 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Okay, if there's logic behind this statement, I fail to see it. Care to explain?

I do not need to explain it any further. I'm now done in this thread. I think it is already pretty self explanatory to anyone who reads this thread. I don't like the direction this is heading. Thanks for the time.

[Radar]

Run for the hills, boy! The flame's a brewin'!

[Jimmy]

[Hank]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 February 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

Congratulations for the most sexist comment in this topic so far!

Respect toward women should not be based on the amount of clothes they wear.

Really? If a woman is running around in a mini shirt, I ought to respect her? Bull shit, I want to get right into her panties. Hot legs, pretty face, juices are flowing, powerful juices.

Political correct thinking has one huge flaw, it does not take into consideration human instincts. It's OK for a school girl to dress in a mini skirt, methinks, but real woman should (unless they are stupid) realize they attract dicks, not respect. That is the whole idea of dressing sexy.

[Lunick]

I honestly thought this was a reasonably harmless thread

[Radar]

I knew it was going to take this course from the beginning.

[CruX]

Radar, on 28 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I hope he keeps posting just because you want him out. It's called freedom of speech, and it was made specifically to protect objective ideas. Sure, you get the bigots and blowhards every now and then but that's the price you pay for equal expression. He can participate in topics pertaining to society as much as he wants.

And I'd say it's pretty naive not to expect posts like that in a thread like this.

I'm saying he should be quiet for his own good, not anyone else's. I could care less if he wants to spout his ignorant, ass-backwards ideas of sexuality and gender on a forum where virtually no one agrees with him, but he'll do himself a favor if he doesn't. It's a suggestion, not a demand.

[Kathy]

With this thread I decided to give Duke4.net forums another chance, but now... Now all is lost. Forever.

[Radar]

Oh geez, c'mon. If they wanted to, they could tidy up things around here without even trying. All the mods have to do is lock all the political threads, temporarily ban a few dudes every time there's a little quarrel, IP ban the frequent trolls, censor every swear word, silence all discussion of secret commercial projects, etc. But that would destroy the concept of discussing things. Even if we're just slapping each other around the whole time, are we not allowed to agree to disagree?

[Jimmy]

[Master Fibbles]

Emerica, on 28 February 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

his ignorant, ass-backwards ideas of sexuality and gender

Where men treat women with respect instead of like pieces of meat for sexual pleasure?

You're right, that is ass-backwards and very forward thinking.

[CruX]

That "respect" is worthless when it's based on how much she's wearing, as Mikko already aptly pointed out. That isn't respect at all, far as I'm concerned, it's archaic.

[Striker]

Doesn't matter to me. All I care about is the quality of character of the individual. I know girls who dress like absolute whores, who are smart, kind and sweet. Some even more level-headed than most. I've also seen girls who dress "proper" who are complete and utter psychopaths...

All the clothes really tell me, is what clothes they like to wear. And in some cases, how open they are about their sexual nature... which to me, is something I can respect. I personally wouldn't have the confidence to show my body off like that, even if I were a girl.

I'm bi, so gender doesn't mean a thing to me. I like someone for their personality, but, I am not going to lie, having someone who is dead sexy as well is just the cherry on top.

[Mikko]

Hank, on 28 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Really? If a woman is running around in a mini shirt, I ought to respect her? Bull shit, I want to get right into her panties. Hot legs, pretty face, juices are flowing, powerful juices.

Political correct thinking has one huge flaw, it does not take into consideration human instincts. It's OK for a school girl to dress in a mini skirt, methinks, but real woman should (unless they are stupid) realize they attract dicks, not respect. That is the whole idea of dressing sexy.

Since when have looking hot and be deserving of respect been mutually exclusive?

If some narrow-minded, subhuman asshole cannot respect a woman when he's turned on by the way the woman dresses then that is an arguement for the narrow-minded, subhuman asshole to change his way of thinking, not for the woman to change the way she dresses.