[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36430317]All come back to one main reason. To attract attention.[/QUOTE]
But not to sexually attract men.
Blah blah blah, art does not require want of attention. AND GOD KNOWS I WEAR SKIRTS IN THE SUMMERTIME TO LURE MEN WITH MY PALE, HAIRY FEMINIST LEGS. awwwwwwwyaaahhh
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36430115]Sounds like a basic cry for attention to me.
They wore safety pins and had spiked hair to show everybody how incredibly individualistic and rebellious they are. If they were truly either of those things, they wouldn't need to resort to such drastic means of self-expression, in my opinion.
Of course, there might be those who actually indulged in punk rock culture because that was who they were. But I still believe a large portion -- if not the majority were posers trying desperately to be different.
I could have a Stalin avatar for all I care, that still wouldnt detract from my point.[/QUOTE]
What's your problem with bold, drastic (harmless) means of expression, if that's how people feel?
I'm not an expert on punk rock, nor do I want to hijack the discussion to be about it, but there's plenty of literature and written social commentary on and of the movement that strikes me as meaningful, earnest and intelligent. There will always be "posers" or people who involve themselves with a movement, because they ~want to be different~ or feel something that they are not able to articulate. Not everybody is capable of expressing themselves as an individual, due to a personal or circumstantial limitation (*cough* relevant to the reason why women adopted fashion as an art form, anyone?). If being a part of a movement is a positive experience for those people, it's hard to imagine why anyone should be upset about it.
More to the point, the "posers" are irrelevant, because they weren't the ones with the ideas. There were people in punk rock who genuinely had some pretty meaty things to express--and they did it through music, film, fashion, and so forth.
And FYI, at least having a Stalin icon would make you appear substantially less hipster, you rampantly intellectual [I]individual[/I], you. (See what I'm getting at?)
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36430457]But not to [b]sexually[/b] attract men.
Blah blah blah, art does not require want of attention. AND GOD KNOWS I WEAR SKIRTS IN THE SUMMERTIME TO LURE MEN WITH MY PALE, HAIRY FEMINIST LEGS. awwwwwwwyaaahhh
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
What's your problem with bold, drastic (harmless) means of expression, if that's how people feel?
I'm not an expert on punk rock, nor do I want to hijack the discussion to be about it, but there's plenty of literature and written social commentary on and of the movement that strikes me as meaningful, earnest and intelligent. There will always be "posers" or people who involve themselves with a movement, because they ~want to be different~ or feel something that they are not able to articulate. Not everybody is capable of expressing themselves as an individual, due to a personal or circumstantial limitation (*cough* relevant to the reason why women adopted fashion as an art form, anyone?). If being a part of a movement is a positive experience for those people, it's hard to imagine why anyone should be upset about it.
More to the point, the "posers" are irrelevant, because they weren't the ones with the ideas. There were people in punk rock who genuinely had some pretty meaty things to express--and they did it through music, film, fashion, and so forth.
And FYI, at least having a Stalin icon would make you appear substantially less hipster, you rampantly intellectual [I]individual[/I], you. (See what I'm getting at?)[/QUOTE]
No one has said that.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36431608]No one has said that.[/QUOTE]
No-one has said that women dress to sexually attract men, or no-one has said that women do not dress to sexually attract men? Because, really, either way...
[QUOTE=jerryleelewis;36430080]I apologise for not responding to you earlier. I'm not in disagreement with you, and I don't believe that I've posted anything that indicates that I am. People design themselves to make a visual impression, but their intentions and motivations may be numerous. That said, I don't think that art must necessarily be created with the intention of provoking a response and, so maybe it is possible to adorn oneself for self-pleasure or simply /because/.[/QUOTE]
No problems, just the last bit of your initial post led me to false conclusion that you completely deny important uneversal attributes of society. And that one exclamation about "poorly socialised shit-lords" witch I found kind of funny to retaliate.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36431608]No one has said that.[/QUOTE]
Uh, that was the basis of the entire argument.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;36424154]Why would a woman wear high heels? The legs are not made to walk in those naturally. So the only point would be to get some looks by guys (which automaticly objectifies the woman, which feminists complain about), as it improves the attractive posture. Just like with showing cleavage. Clear me up, if I am wrong.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36424698]And who do you think they're trying to "look nice" for?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36426875]Why else would they do it then?[/QUOTE]
In fact, you spammed mine and jerryleelewis's posts dumb for pointing out this very fact - that women don't exclusively dress to sexually attract men.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;36439430]Uh, that was the basis of the entire argument.
In fact, you spammed mine and jerryleelewis's posts dumb for pointing out this very fact - that women don't exclusively dress to sexually attract men.[/QUOTE]
I spammed no posts dumb, I simply rated some posts dumb because I felt they were.
And where in any of our posts do you see us talking about sexual attraction? We've consequently been saying attractive, attraction or attract never have we said it was solely sexual attraction.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36442147]I spammed no posts dumb, I simply rated some posts dumb because I felt they were.
And where in any of our posts do you see us talking about sexual attraction? We've consequently been saying attractive, attraction or attract never have we said it was solely sexual attraction.[/QUOTE]
Uhh. Explain to me the difference in this context.
This whole conversation has been about physical attraction. Physical attraction and sexual attraction are basically synonymous.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
Rating box isn't explaining anything.
So could someone explain to me exactly why we're in an argument over why people dress in certain ways?
it's like I picked up some teenager's fashion magazine
[QUOTE=lavacano;36447991]So could someone explain to me exactly why we're in an argument over why people dress in certain ways?
it's like I picked up some teenager's fashion magazine[/QUOTE]
Facepunch can get in an arguement over air if they wanted to.
[QUOTE=Desuh;36413303][IMG]http://www.moviespad.com/photos/samuel-l-jackson-snakes-on-a-plane-censored-f7f38.jpg[/IMG]
"enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking boobs on this motherfucking plane!"[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/3891/sitw.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://waronyou.com/forums/Smileys/default/shaking_head.gif[/IMG]
Looks like a fairly innocuous set of clothing to me...
[quote]
We simply ask that our customers use good judgement and exercise discretion in deference to other customers who depend on us to provide a comfortable travel experience.
[/quote]
Well, that's fair enough. But I don't think any other passengers would've been made uncomfortable by this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.