On today’s ride, I saw a guy jogging shirtless, wearing full-length jeans.
3 Likes
Did he also have a mullet and was barefoot?
1 Like
No, and he was jogging in an affluent neighborhood.
I don’t know. Running shirtless in full length jeans, in an affluent neighborhood. That dude wasn’t running to somewhere, he was running from somewhere. I’d wager someone’s husband came home early.
1 Like
This guy?
the Worminator drops and gives us seven!
1 Like
No I think you do mean earlier. I am amazed when I think of what kids on farm learn at what age, compared to kids in a sit.
Had a cousin, who if you asked what he did for a living would say, pull tits and make babies (in an adult setting not to some random kid) He was a dairy farmer.
Farm kids learn about Sex, life, Death, reproduction, like since birth… well not really you but you get my point… than the city folk are like, what you want to talk about sex ed to my 6th grader, you need a permission slip, I want to see all the material first… blah blah blah… Really your kids 11 and doesn’t know how babies are born or what the different parts of the body are and how they are used. Really its funny. (says a parent who had 3 daughter and wife did the sex ed talks way later I think… LOL)
Then again, they had been to a dairy farm and knew what pulling teets and making babies was, and went to state fair nearly every year, and on more than one visit saw live births, (I wonder if they thought human babies were pulled out with chains, or that Drs went shoulder deep in mothers). lol
At least he wasn’t shirtless and wearing lululemon yoga pants? (Unless that’s your thing?)
1 Like
@DavHamm not necessarily. There is a necessary situational difference between a young child on a farm daily/weekly where they are able to place their learned knowledge regularly. It is demystified for them and plays an integral role in their day to day or week to week.
I know this because my cousins own a farm out in rural MN and own the largest veterinary clinic in their surrounding counties. Whenever I go visit I’m either watching livestock births, traveling to neutralizations (I don’t watch), and helping out. This was the norm for my neices and nephew. My niece finally just won this year for showing her goat at the county fair (proud godfather moment).
It’s much different for them. Also, we’re talking about the difference between normal life cycles and sex/physical features for pleasure.
So in that regard I do believe in preserving some innocence in a conservative society that is rapidly shoving it out there often without any guidance.
Yeah, this made me chuckle. I like the detail that they were full-length jeans. I wasn’t sure.
1 Like
Ooh wait a sec. Surprised no one’s picked up and commented (re: the bolded), but this stuck out to me.
A problem arises when there’s an incongruity. A scantily clad woman may be scantily clad because it’s hot (i.e. she certainly shouldn’t be shamed). A dude notices and makes it obvious that he’s enjoying the view, or even “politely watches” - that’s kinda not cool. Because the context here isn’t something supposed to be sexual - but the dude is making it so.
On the other hand, if the scantily clad woman wants to present herself in a sexually appealing way (she’s hot, and it’s not about the weather), and a dude notices, then her charm worked and all’s good.
Situational context matters. If there’s a misinterpretation, that’s when problems come up.
1 Like
@40-Tude I don’t think there’s a misinterpretation at all. I also dont think anyone should be faulted for looking at someone: Man or woman. If a person notices an attractive body walking by and they look with mannerisms within an acceptable standard then what is the issue?
If an attractive woman in a business suit walks by and I take notice of her and watch as she walks past why is that somehow more acceptable than if I’m at the beach and she walks by in a bikini?
Likewise if a woman watches an attractive man walk by in the city wearing a suit why is she not allowed to do the same if he’s physically fit and in a bathing suit at the same hotel pool?
Is there not a minimum acceptable standard for noticing an attractive person in public?
There isn’t an acceptable minimum standard, and I don’t think there can be. Because one person’s “harmless look” is another persons “offensive leering”. And it both parties aren’t on the same page regarding the situational context, it’s a setting ripe for misinterpretation.
Actually, there could be an acceptable minimum standard - a look that remains discreetly under the radar, unnoticed by the other party.
1 Like
Ha! This reminds me of something my mother had told me, something she’d read back years ago (for context, Mother grew up on a dairy farm): some study had been done, and apparently found that it wasn’t that farm kids watched the animals on the farm as to why they had a greater knowledge base about sex and reproduction, it was because they rode the bus to school!
Strange: when you’re on a bus for an hour each way with a bunch of other juveniles, you discuss what juveniles would normally discuss! Not sure a study really needed to done to figure that out, but I guess if you didn’t ride the bus to school…
- Jeff
I think there can be. Simply because someone claims harassment doesn’t mean harassment occurred. Just like someone perceives “offensive leering” doesn’t mean it wasn’t a harmless look.
If there is no exchange between the two parties then we need to examine what we’re talking about. It shouldn’t matter the siruational context.
I can notice an attractive person at a restaurant, the mall, the club, or the beach. If I maintain decorum then that should be close to the acceptable standard. I recognize that men have been considered “creepy” simply for looking at a woman they find attractive but that is the issue. Because the double standard exists. If a person can’t handle the chance of strangers looking as they walk by then they need to stay indoors or be damn sure they’ve never taken notice of an attractive person on their own and watched them for more than a brief second.
There is zero expectation of privacy once you enter public. But there is an expectation of certain behavior. So to think there can be no minimum acceptable standard of behavior for noticing an attractive person, or body is questionable…for both sexes. I just don’t think we can put “watching” a person in the unacceptable column.
Cat calling? Whistling? Shouting? Taking pictures? Following? Yea we can agree on those.
But give me a break if we think someone looking at a woman’s nipples (tangential topic of OP) is obtrusive. Any more so than a woman staring at a guys biceps or butt in public.
We’re hardwired for that shit. But its “reaction vs response” that matters.
let’s try this one. You, through no fault of your own, have suffered an accident and lost your nose. You’ve had surgery to fix it but it’s only so-so. Sometimes you wear a mask but it’s hot and that draws attention too.
every time you walk down the street people range from glancing to looking to staring to gawping. Some heads actually swivel. The attention reminds you daily that you are, in the public’s eye, not an intelligent, caring, productive person, but disfigured [edited].
do you just not go out at crowded times since you’re sensitive to being looked at?
1 Like
Here it’s pretty common, usually it’s trailer park trash looking guys wearing jeans with their shirt draped around their neck.
Sure… but they don’t.
What would you do, Kiki?
I think the answer to your question is “yes.”
I suppose some people never get enough attention and want to be noticed more. I assume there is a level of attention that is just right. Happily I think I’m at the just-right level right now in my life. I go about my business and ignore the people I want to ignore and respond to the attention that I like. No one is touching me or demanding attention too strongly. I just turned 50, and maybe this is the perfect age for me. I also qualified for the Covid antiviral medicine which made me feel great since I turned 50, so I think there may be many benefits to this age. Happy birthday to me!!
But that’s why it can be a gray area. I think your “reaction vs. response” point is similar to what I’m saying. If either a reaction or a response is unexpected (or unwelcomed) by either party, then that’s where problems can arise. On one end, a sexual harassment case is made. On the other, reactions and responses are ignored.
Because we’re hardwired to notice, then “discretion is the better part of valor” could be a guiding standard? Also reminds me of the “if a tree falls in the forest…”. If an issue isn’t made out of it, is it a problem?