Male and Gender Critical

[Letmespeak82]

Anyone else find being associated with some of the male Gender Critical activists a bit…well embarrassing? I’m not even going to deal with the dumpster fire that is Glinner (though it seems many on this board love him). But now we have James Esses who is hyper focused on what this woman is wearing. What difference does it make if she wears revealing clothes or not? Typical gross male attitude.

I'm with you on this one. I've a soft spot for Dennis.

I follow glinner and James as well but don't tend to retweet them much but Dennis is one of the few where I'm likely to comment and retweet.

You realise that with each post that someone uses that insult it has less and less actual meaning don't you?. It just starts to sound like blah blah blah blah blah.

You mean the issue in the thread title?

No, the bit where you said Personally would like to see them go away and leave the fight to us.

Us being women, I assume. But you must know by now that all sorts are involved in the fight. You can choose to ignore them and do your own thing.

Yeah I know you're right. I'd just like to see a little less misogyny and lunacy (in the case of Glinner and DNK) as they join us in the fight.

@ItsFunToBeAVampire
Thanks, i was looking for that very meme!

@Letmespeak82
If by "availability" you mean that the woman would have no choice or agency, I would hope no man would see her like that. "Availability" means in the right circumstances, with the right person, she would be up for it. Why shouldn't a man see that? He can approach her, she can refuse him. Or encourage him. Up to her.

Why does a woman signalling an interest in sex imply overridden consent or lack of agency to you?

Yeah I know you're right. I'd just like to see a little less misogyny and lunacy (in the case of Glinner and DNK) as they join us in the fight.

Have they joined us or have we joined/followed them? DNK is coming at it from a gay perspective.

I will say, however, I don't follow male detransitioners as they join in the fight.

Men, women, lefties, eighties, centrists, religious, agnostic, atheist, homosexuals, heterosexuals, child-free or parents, we are all coming to this from different angles and with different priorities. That's fine as far as I am concerned.

Indeed. Fighting against children being encouraged towards drugs and surgery that render them infertile and harmed for life is something that should unite us all. I'm pleased to see all of them speaking out. And like Alison, have a huge admiration for Dennis - such a powerful advocate.

*lefties, righties

It's been interesting joining Twitter. I've gone for if me and another user agree on something I'll follow them which has led to some interesting tweets being thrown up for me. I'm been interesting to see all these different people with different backgrounds , political views sexual preferences etc etc all being in agreement that the current gender ideology is harming more people than its helping.

No it's nothing to do with lack of consent or agency. It's about assumptions about the individuals wants/desires/habits/availability. Yes this sometimes arises in cases of consent. In rape cases where a jury might believe she must have consented because she was wearing revealing clothes and therefore "is that kind of girl". But it's not only in rape cases. Wearing revealing clothes does not mean you are more interested, more sexual, more open-to-chat than anyone else. I know this. I've worn revealing clothes to clubs with zero intention of meeting a partner.

People will read sexual symbols in the way they are normally intended to be read. Just like any language. Of course you can go to a club in very revealing clothing and not be looking for a partner - I've done it myself. But you can't expect other people not to think that you might be interested and somehow divine your lack of interest in sex from the fact of your signalling the opposite.
If your tummy rumbles or you say "I'm hungry", it's not oppressive or offensive for someone to assume that you are in fact hungry and to offer you food. How is anyone else supposed to know that you are intentionally fasting that day?

I don't think James is saying that because she's wearing bondage gear she must be up for sex.

I think he's saying that going on about not wanting sex, whilst wearing typically sexualised clothing, is attention-seeking bollocks.

I agree with him.

With you, yes, with anyone there or anyone in particular, yes. She doesn’t have to have sex with anyone she doesn’t want to ever. But it is strange to wear clothes that do highlight sexuality while claiming to be ace. She’s not just at the beach in a bikini.

if clothes are just clothes all the time people on this board wouldn’t object so much more to the drag queens when h they are in burlesque stripper outfits with penis just about hanging out.

I think James Esses is mostly fairly measured. There was a horrible pile on last night on a man wearing a dress on a shops Insta who sell fairly traditional modest prairie type linen dresses. And his Insta looked just like a man who wore dresses, lots of amazing ones actually. Which is totally ok by me. I think that was awful and women completely missing the point and would much rather object loudly to that.

@Letmespeak82
Forgot to say, I think the first part of your post does link showing an interest in sex (whether a woman is or is not actually interested at the time) with "asking for it". That dressing sexily is implied consent to any man who fancies her.

That is the idea that we should be challenging - that the appearance of being interested in sex = implied and irrevocable consent to sex, or "asking for it". It's ridiculous to claim the clothes are not sexual, or that posing in a way to emphasise sexualised body parts is not sexual. Neither your feelings about your clothes, or your intention in wearing them, change their meaning for other people. Because that meaning already exists.

Nobody has to act on it. And a woman can refuse or withdraw consent at any time.

Clothes ARE symbols. If you pace the streets in a police uniform, people are likely to ask you for directions and advice on dealing with anti-social neighbours. Some people who dislike the police might shout insults & throw stuff at you. And then you'll be arrested for impersonating a police officer.

Doesn't matter how much you waffle on about "just fabric" and pretend you think it has no meaning. You're wrong, and you know it.

Sex fetish 'uniform' is a symbol for a defined area of preferred sexual activity, which doesn't include preferring no sexual activity. I don't know who this woman is or what she wore, but it sounds as though Esses was right to say she seems very muddled.

OP you are conflating two things.

One is that whatever a person wears does not mean they have agreed to have sex with anyone. Even walking around naked with a big red arrow pointing at her fanny.

However people can wear clothes that sexualixze them, that send a message to others that they are wanting to be looked at as sexual. Not as kind of an "oh what an attractive accountant" but instead that is the main point of the outfit.

People sometimes wear outfits like this on purpose, I am sure many of us here have, which is why we know that it is something young women trying to attract males sometimes do.

Can someone wear this kind of thing without such a purpose? Yes, it's possible. In some cases, particularly with younger girls, they just see it as fashion and are very naive about the bigger picture. Often these girls are a very early stage of being sexually interested themselves.

Older women who are supposedly doing it just for themselves - that is tricky to unpick. The problem is this - if you are saying it's wrong for men to sexualize women, or that they personally don't want to be sexualized,why would anyone wear clothing that is deliberately designed to sexualize women, and that women themselves use for that purpose when it suits them?

It's difficult not to see it as being in some way disingenuous.

Good summary, @Rudderneck.

<goes back to fashion-related discussion elsewhere>

But you've just said you have been to clubs and your clothes indicated nothing. I've said the same. So how can you say that "you can't expect other people not to think that you might be interested and somehow divine your lack of interest in sex from the fact of your signalling the opposite."

How are we signalling the opposite unless you assume that wearing revealing clothes means you are up.for sex. In which case why did we both wear revealing clothes and weren't up for sex?

I think your point is contradictory.

It depends on what you mean by clothes being sexual. If you mean do some people look at them and get turned on. It could mean >50% of people will assume that someone who wears them is more interested in sex than most,etc.

What I mean by clothes are not sexual is that you cannot and should not infer anything about someone's sexual wants or interests from how they dress.

I think that's the idea we should be challenging. Of course we should challenge that a woman who.wears revealing clothing automatically consents. But I'm not even sure that's the issue in many rape cases.

I'm not an expert on them but I don't think it's that a jury sees revealing clothes and thinks there is automatic consent even if the woman says no. It's that they don't believe she said no because if she was wearing those clothes she was looking for sex.

So even with rape cases we should challenge the idea that wearing a certain kind of clothes makes you a certain kind of woman.

I don't just mean might a woman wear revealing clothes and not have sex. I am asking do you and others who disagree with me think that a woman could choose revealing clothes and for it to have nothing to do with HER sexual intentions over the period of time she is choosing and wearing it.

As for James Esses I think it's important to note he never mentions the bdsm aspect. I'm pretty sure he didn't notice it. He only says revealing and scantily clad.

Women can wear what they want.
I'm not asexual, but why the fuck can you not dress so called "sexually" (what even is that, anyway? In the eye of the beholder surely)
I dress for ME.
Not what others think I should or shouldn't be wearing.
Why would it be different here?!
Unless you think instead that if you're asexual that means you must want to automatically go around in buttoned up blouses and floor length skirts 😕 🙄

Exactly
What you wear isn't an indication of if you're "up for it" or not.

I agree and apologies if this doesn't make sense I'm on the verge of falling asleep

I struggle with the what you wear suggests your position on whether your up for it or not. Mainly because i have worn exactly the same outfit (in style not the exact same clothes) for over 40 years. I've worn a tee shirt and jeans when I haven't felt like a shag when I've been in a move and I'll shag you mood and all feelings in between.

I wear what is comfy and what makes me feel good it has no bearing on my sexual mood that day so I can only assume that it works the same for everyone else as well. Clothes are not an indication necessarily, they can be but you can never assume that fact from someone's outfit, as to the wearers state of up for it level.

People should be able to wear what makes them happy. The only caveat I have is that sometimes the circumstances you are dressing for should have a bearing. So I wouldn't go to a funeral in a pair of jogging pants and a t shirt and a pair of Crocs. If there is a dress code or standard of dress required somewhere you have a choice you either conform to it or don't go there whether that's a club a restaurant or work. Or the age of the other people you will be with etc.

But everyone should in their own time be able to wear whatever makes them most comfortable/happy/at ease with themselves without someone assuming their sexual availability, willingness for sex from it.

That being said I do have my own personal limits/views for what I feel is acceptable clothing to be seen in in public, wear to work etc. I've no doubt I make moral judgements on some clothing and feel that some people flout sociatal boundaries in their clothing choices. But I'm also aware that is a me issue and not up to the person I'm making that judgement about to give a shiny shit what I think. So in person i keep my opinons on their clothing choices to myself. I might after they are out of earshot turn to who ever I'm with and make an oh my god did you see the state of that comment but that's my limit.