The morality of breasts

[Guest Manny]

Professionalism is synonymous with good behaviour, etiquette and respect. That's hard to achieve when someone is in a bikini. Or generally racy clothes, for those who take everything literally.

[Guest American Woman]

Really? What about men, is anyone allowed to make them feel uncomfortable?

Obviously I was speaking in reference to ogling women's breasts. Of course women aren't allowed to make men feel uncomfortable sexually, either, but that hasn't been the topic of discussion.

Sorry but there are no laws in our society that prevent one from making someone else feel uncomfortable. Free speech on controversial topics can make people feel uncomfortable too, but it's protected.

Sorry, but there are sexual harassment rules/policies in most work places.

Harassment is one thing, making someone feel uncomfortable is someone else. And any workplace that reprimands people for making someone "feel uncomfortable" isn't going to last long. Unless it's a government agency of course.

What is workplace harassment?

Workplace harassment is any unwelcome or unwanted conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or an aversion toward another person on the basis of any characteristic protected by law, which includes an individual's race, color, gender, ethnic or national origin, age, religion, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristic protected by law. A conduct is unwelcome if the employee did not solicit, instigate or provoke it, and the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.

I would say behavior that makes one feel uncomfortable is "undesirable."

So fairness only applies to women? How fair is it to accuse someone whose eyes accidentally flick down to someone else's chest for a fraction of a second of harassment and potentially ruin their career?

Yeah, right..... we're talking about someone's eyes accidentally flicking down to a woman's breasts for a fraction of a second.

Only you are talking about "leering".

I sincerely doubt it. I don't think most here are talking about "someone whose eyes accidentally flicked down on a woman's breasts for a fraction of a second." If that's the issue, it's the most ridiculous discussion ever.

[Bonam]

I sincerely doubt it. I don't think most here are talking about "someone whose eyes accidentally flicked down on a woman's breasts for a fraction of a second." If that's the issue, it's the most ridiculous discussion ever.

Feel free to reread the thread, starting from the OP.

[Guest American Woman]

Feel free to reread the thread, starting from the OP.

I did read the OP. I read the rest of the thread too, thank you very much.

[WWWTT]

Argus, you made my morning. I have to agree...why on earth would we have women in the workplace, if they aren't young and attractive enough to appeal to their male coworkers? Once they've reached their "best before" date, they obviously have nothing left to offer, and should probably be hidden away in the "fat old lady with a moustache" department, to make room for the hot young things with bazoongas.

Holy man that's freekin funny!

I have absolutely nothing to add to this thread.

I am only reading the comments for entertainment value and so far this is the best one!

WWWTT

[Argus]

I think you're the only one talking about simply noticing.

No, I think you're simply on a different topic entirely. Or perhaps to you there really is no difference.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I think you're simply on a different topic entirely. Or perhaps to you there really is no difference.

From your opening post:

The other day, I had a conversation with a colleague on the subject of the ethics and morality of eying/staring at/ogling/getting glimpses of the female breast. A friend of ours was once chastised by management for allegedly getting too good a look, if you know what I mean.

Doesn't sound like an accidental micro-second flick of the eyes downward.

[WWWTT]

If a woman is wearing a tight shirt with a push up bra I'm going to look, I cannot help it. A glance yes, anything more? No. That is creepy.

Man you're supposed to look when she's not noticing!

Am I the only one here that knows how to check someone out?

I guess I was wrong,I do have something to add to this thread.

WWWTT

[jacee]

What most men who ogle women really look like ...

:lol:

Edited September 30, 2012 by jacee

[Moonlight Graham]

But my thinking is not so much on the mechanics of determining guilt or innocence but the oppressive atmosphere towards what I regard as the natural instinct of men to see, to look at, to notice, attractive women.

I also have natural instincts to fondle the breasts and pinch the butts of many women I pass everyday, but it's just not appropriate behavior in most environments, especially in a professional setting, so I refrain (not to mentioned it being disrespectful). My desire to fondle the boobs of attractive females I don't know is perfectly natural and healthy, and the desire to do so is NOT perverted. I don't think anyone is a pervert, we all have sexual desires and all sexual desires/thoughts are instinctual and not a choice, only our actions can be controlled.

In a professional setting, using hilarious profanity like I do at home isn't appropriate professional behaviour, nor is wearing my Metallica t-shirts, nor is fondling the breasts of a coworker, and nor is looking at a coworker's boobs to the point that someone notices.

Out on the street, I think it's fine to stare at good looking people of the opposite sex. It isn't touching, everyone should be able to look at whatever they want as long as they aren't invading privacy or stalking etc. I sympathize with you Argus and see your point, I wish all women went topless to work LOL, but in a professional setting certain things are usually inappropriate for a reason.

[Argus]

From your opening post:

The other day, I had a conversation with a colleague on the subject of the ethics and morality of eying/staring at/ogling/getting glimpses of the female breast. A friend of ours was once chastised by management for allegedly getting too good a look, if you know what I mean.

Doesn't sound like an accidental micro-second flick of the eyes downward.

The problem you have, AW, is you get obsessed on micro-points which are largely, if not entirely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and once you're on them you're like a dog with a bone and continue harping on until the ends of time. It's both boring and irritating and contributes nothing to the discussion.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

The problem you have, AW, is you get obsessed on micro-points which are largely, if not entirely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and once you're on them you're like a dog with a bone and continue harping on until the ends of time. It's both boring and irritating and contributes nothing to the discussion.

The problem you have, Argus, is lack of self control. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. Fact of the matter is, considering what I think of the source, your not liking what I have to say pleases me no end.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Like kick them in the nuts? Or did you mean more along the lines of filing a complaint with Human Resources?

Cover them up maybe.

It's not like women don't look at the male package or butt or anything. Bunch of hypocrits.

[jacee]

The problem you have, AW, is you get obsessed on micro-points which are largely, if not entirely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and once you're on them you're like a dog with a bone and continue harping on until the ends of time. It's both boring and irritating and contributes nothing to the discussion.

Let 'em have a glance, next you know they'll be demanding leering rights ... then ogling becomes the norm ...

It's a slippery slope.

[cybercoma]

As usually, Michael, you're exaggerating the actual conflict. No one likes to be 'glowered at' for any reason, or even stared at. We're not talking about staring. We're talking about noticing. We're talking about appreciating. We're talking about mens desire to see attractive young women (not stare at them) and not be accused of being perverts because of that desire.

If she notices you noticing, then you've probably stepped over the noticing line, right through the glance stage, and are somewhere around the looking stage or beyond.

I think the point is that it's completely inappropriate to treat a woman as a thing for consumption. It's dehumanizing.

[cybercoma]

Let's realize there's a difference between being looked at and being attacked. I don't think we should equate the two.

Of course you don't, but then 1 in 3 men aren't sexually abused in their lifetimes.

[cybercoma]

But my thinking is not so much on the mechanics of determining guilt or innocence but the oppressive atmosphere towards what I regard as the natural instinct of men to see, to look at, to notice, attractive women.

They're oppressing an atmosphere that makes some women feel threatened. So you're against oppressing threatening situations for women is what you're saying. Why should they be subjected to that in the workplace or anywhere for that matter?

[cybercoma]

I can't even go through the rest of this thread.

It's completely insulting to men.

A lot of the arguments here equate men to nothing more than animals with uncontrollable urges to gawk, leer, and otherwise stare down women like they're gazelle on the Serengeti.

We're better than that and you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't treat other human beings with dignity and respect. Treating women as though their entire value is tied up in the size and shape of their breasts is disgusting.

Meanwhile, the arguments here are being hedged by using imprecise language, vacillating between words like notice, stare, ogle, gawk, look, and see.

Edited September 30, 2012 by cybercoma

[sharkman]

I can't even go through the rest of this thread.

It's completely insulting to men.

A lot of the arguments here equate men to nothing more than animals with uncontrollable urges to gawk, leer, and otherwise stare down women like they're gazelle on the Serengeti.

We're better than that and you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't treat other human beings with dignity and respect. Treating women as though their entire value is tied up in the size and shape of their breasts is disgusting.

Meanwhile, the arguments here are being hedged by using imprecise language, vacillating between words like notice, stare, ogle, gawk, look, and see.

I wonder how many times you've used the ol' 1 in 3 stat and then get on your silly soap box and yell shame. Relax, you crusader. Equating what's going on in this thread to valuing women by the size or shape of their breasts is the biggest knee jerk reaction on this thread, congrats! There are some good points here, some not so good and some ugly, just like every other thread.

If you can't handle topics like this maybe you should get another hobby.

Edited September 30, 2012 by sharkman

[Bonam]

There are some good points here, some not so good and some ugly, just like every other thread.

If you can't handle topics like this maybe you should get another hobby.

There are some topics that some people are just unable to talk about without letting their emotions get the better of them. For some, it's Muslims or the middle east, for others, its climate change, and for cybercoma here, it's anything to do with women, equality, and gender relations. Everyone has their pet peeves, I suppose. I, for one, can't stand when people try to yell down some science or technology (for example nuclear energy) based on nothing but their own fear and ignorance.

[Mr.Canada]

Lol, you guys rae hilarious. What do you think men should do stare at their feet or at the cieling for fear of glancing at a womans chest? This is just silly. I take a split second to check out her chest when she's not looking and when she walks away I check out her ass. Who cares. We all do it it's human nature. I catch women checking me out all the time. Like I said it's human nature to desire attractive people.

[BC_chick]

"So true."

Not quite.

It was comedy, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Yes, attractive men can be creeps too.

But the point as I understood it, is that if there is a mutual attraction between the man and woman (not necessarily an attractive man), the woman would be more reciprocal to exact same behaviour she may find offensive in another man.

I see some truth to that.

[Mr.Canada]

It was comedy, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Yes, attractive men can be creeps too.

But the point as I understood it, is that if there is a mutual attraction between the man and woman (not necessarily an attractive man), the woman would be more reciprocal to exact same behaviour she may find offensive in another man.

I see some truth to that.

This is why there are so many single women in their 30's. Too bloody uptight. You girls need to relax and realize that not every man isn't out to do you harm.

[Bonam]

It was comedy, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Yes, attractive men can be creeps too.

But the point as I understood it, is that if there is a mutual attraction between the man and woman (not necessarily an attractive man), the woman would be more reciprocal to exact same behaviour she may find offensive in another man.

I see some truth to that.

Indeed. That consideration is even included in the definition of workplace harrassment that was posted earlier:

What is workplace harassment?

Workplace harassment is any unwelcome or unwanted conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or an aversion toward another person on the basis of any characteristic protected by law, which includes an individual's race, color, gender, ethnic or national origin, age, religion, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other personal characteristic protected by law. A conduct is unwelcome if the employee did not solicit, instigate or provoke it,

and the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive.

Needless to say, what may seem undesirable and offensive from one admirer may seem desirable and attractive from another. A woman may interpret one man's actions as acceptable, and another man may get a harassment lawsuit for the same ones. Personally, I believe that laws and rules should be based on things that are more concrete, more objective. Subjectivity is fine when it comes to how people form opinions, and who one wants to have a relationship with, but when it comes to legal consequences, I don't think such definitions are at all appropriate.

[Mr.Canada]

Bonam some of your posts are great then others are way out there. Mostly you seems like a reasonable guy then everyonce in a while in a topic you seem to lose your mind.