Posts by Emma Hart
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Lilith __,
No, Lilith, it's not mine. It's from... Chile? Argentina? Somewhere like that. So it also wouldn't accidentally be anyone else's school photo.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Jolisa,
Who do you think gave me this magnificent chestal region?
Unfortunately, according to 75% of their respondents, seeing a girl's chest bounce is something called a "stumbling block". I'm assuming this means that, as I walk, young fundamentalism Christian men have to be very careful they don't trip over and hurt themselves.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Robert Urquhart,
(And thanks for the tip on its ultimate origin [adds to collection of lore].)
Looking back here (he's the one in the chair) I may be wrong about the year, it might have been 1988. But... I don't think it was. It was still fresh enough for plenty of people to want to tell me about it when I started going out with him.
-
So first year women more commonly have sex with lots of members of the opposite sex than first year men? Or that the women who do it fall into the definition of promiscuous more than men? I don’t understand.
Allow me to offer additional contextual information.
Examples would be one night stands or the tour de first year (that when people – usually women – have sex with plenty of young 18 year old first years – usually men – at university).
Tour de First Year is a KAOS award - part of the jokey End of Year Awards. I've no idea if it's still given, but I do know its origin. It was first instituted in 1989 to commemorate the behaviour of a male KAOS member. Whom I dated the next year. My first year. In a KAOS context, the reason it would most often be given to a woman (I've no idea, either, if it actually IS) is the hugely uneven gender ratio.
Though I'll note that "plenty" still isn't a number.
Will you ever proscribe clothing choices on your own kids? ie – “there’s no way you are leaving this house like that!” a la Brian Edwards.
Seriously? You're seriously asking? You don't already know the answer to that?
-
(Emma, Friday = TOFO, yes?)
Assuming it's anything above nipple-shatteringly freezing, damn straight. I don't actually own any short skirts, but there will be visible cleavage and lots of it. I will not be sexually available, nor sending a message that I am sexually available. And you know what? The vast majority of men I deal with are perfectly capable of working that out, even with the pudding-licking.
So, yes, Christchurch. TOFO and drinkies, Friday night. Venue TBA, but we're so gob-smackingly lazy it'll probably be the Dux. I can call Megan a slut if that helps.
Although, assuming I’m wrong, what behavior do you all think is acceptable for teenagers? And yes, good point about 16 being the age for sexual consent. I mean are guys pro-teen promiscuity?
Again, as with the 'okay, so what clothes aren't acceptable?' argument, like I'm that fucking stupid. I don't proscribe or prescribe behaviour "for teenagers". Nor, actually, do I have any idea what you consider "promiscuity" to be. Except that I have a very stable long-term relationship, so it couldn't be anything I've done.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Tess Rooney,
Tess, if the KAOS party thing wasn't relevant, why did you bring it up?
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Tess Rooney,
I once went to a party where one gay man was wearing skin tight silver hotpants and nothing else, okay I lie, maybe a bow-tie too. Are these the kind of shorts you are wearin? Because if so, then yes, you look like sexually available.
Tess, you've been to enough KAOS parties to know perfectly well that there's no correlation between style of dress and actual sexual availability, and that treating someone as sexually available to you on the basis of their clothes will get you kicked to the kerb - figuratively and sometimes literally. So why, then, would you continue to perceive this as 'looking sexually available'?
-
We think, I’m pretty confident in asserting, that it’s neither helpful nor useful – for the girls or society – to reinforce the conviction that what women wear is a guide to their sexual availability.
I'm just popping out to get Lucy a pony.
-
Hard News: Do you like what we've done…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Bart: I know the answer to this cause I kind of had to ask. The Recent Posts are the most recent posts that aren't also featured posts. So generally, as a post comes off the 'featured' rotate it'll drop down to the 'recent' block.
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to Tess Rooney,
Tess, both here and on Edwards’ blog, you’ve made flat, unnuanced statements about why females dress the way they do, and you’ve particularly attached this to skirt length. If you started saying, “Women wear short skirts to attract male attention, and also for a busload of other reasons”, you wouldn’t be having this argument. As long as you argue absolutes, every other reason and context for short-skirt wearing is perfectly relevant. You’ve also not succeeded in demonstrating any kind of link between skirt length and sexual promiscuity.
Why is it so shocking to observe that human animals send sexual signals to one another?
Is there any way you could confine yourself to arguing against things people have actually said?