Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger
I find it funny that she feels the need to be non conformist in a stadium full of people and a television crew.
|
Meh...maybe there were all sorts of women wearing bikinis at the game, but only GaGa got the attention because she is famous. I see ads all the time on TV for Victoria's Secrets lingerie...and even here in our tiny Iowan mall, they've got a Victoria's Secrets with gigantic pictures of women in panties and skimpy bras...so I don't know how "non-conformist" wearing a bikini to a ballgame really is.
And anyway (like Goblin Tears says) a lot of men go completely topless and no one gets their undies all in a wedgie over that. Or maybe they do, depending on who it is going topless!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
Scenario: Relatives are having a funeral for their recently departed loved one. Do you:
A) Run through the graveyard screaming and yelling with barely any clothes on, disrupting the entire funeral?
B) Quietly and reverently show up to the funeral with barely any clothes on, disrupting the entire funeral?
C) Put some fucking clothes on and have a little empathy and respect for someone other than yourself?
|
B. I also wear running shoes when I go visit people's churches, because running shoes are the most comfortable, and I don't like this "dress for respect" idea. If the dead person felt, when alive, that I needed to dress up to please him or her or to prove that I liked him or her, then probably that person wasn't much of a friend, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
If we're going to get down to respecting lines drawn by society, we can go all the way. Do you think rapists are just non-conformists? What's so different from a rapist forcing his will on a woman than a woman forcing her will on someone else who may not want to be exposed to it? Why is relevance to law the only thing you apparently think matters in the scheme of society?
|
The difference between me showing up in my skimpy bikini at a ballgame, forcing the sight on people who look in my direction, and a man raping me is that in the former case I cause no direct physical damage or physical harm to anyone. They may be shocked, even horrified...but not a hair on their head will be damaged (if their heads have hair).
Yes, rapists are non-conformists, because they are violating our society's strongest line that we are not supposed to cross: they are physically violating someone, crossing the boundary of space and physically manipulating and handling someone against the victim's will. They are
also conformists, conforming to the tired and ancient notion that men "should have power over women."
I actually don't think the law *is* the most important thing, Freebase. I disgree with the laws in the U.S. that allow a man but not a woman to go topless at a sports game. The law is unfair and sexist.
If people are offended by someone wearing something scanty in public, and berate the person, this is no different than people being offended by and targeting someone who is homosexual or bi or transgender and wears "non-conformist" clothing. (And GaGa *was* kissing a woman). I side with people's right to freedom of dress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goblin Tears
Anyway, I've been to some sports matches, and a lot of guys go topless, some showing just as much skin as GaGa. And yes, people should be aware of what impact they have on others, but people are responsible for their own emotional reactions to non-harmful behaviours. This shouldn't be a one way street either, the guys who are booing GaGa are honestly far more immature and inconsiderate than she is. I recently read about a lesbian who was denied access to her prom because she wanted to wear a tuxedo; were the organizers of that event considering the feelings of the girl in question? No.
|
Bingo! Yes, yes, and yes, Goblin! I agree with you completely. I also read about the girl denied access to her prom. The school district ended up canceling the prom, and a federal judge said that not allowing Constance (the girl) to go with her female partner was a violation of constitutional rights.