If we are going off context from the photos and making assumptions- I have to agree with you. I wouldn’t say hot- but neither is what most would find repulsive- but to walk by and stare like that at two women just minding their own business is a certainly rude. I’m sure those women get stared at enough without such a breach of decorum on the part of these presumed strangers, a man and woman they don’t know. The couple appears to have some sort of business of their own to attend to which should probably be their primary focus.
Oh dear. We seem to have had a misunderstanding then. Is it the women straddling things, or the asses out alone- or the combination of the two which shouldn’t be done?
It's that there's families and children walking around and as much as I might enjoy seeing it, they shouldn't have to. Save it for the bedroom or something. Of course a man is going to look, they're trying to be sexually provocative, and the girl looks disgusted because that isn't the place for it
Still not clear on which aspect is or- or if it’s a combination of the given aspects of “straddling things” or “having their asses out” which is to be reserved for the bedroom. If they did not have their “asses out” would it be appropriate to straddle things? If so- in deference to kids and families- should these and other women dress in ways which do not show their asses in public? Is it just asses? Most children will have been exposed to the female breast- some breast feed into grade school- so would breasts be alright but not asses? If not- is there a certain amount of breast which can be shown before it becomes non family friendly?
Perhaps it would be safer and simpler for the women to just wear some type of head to toe covering which would uphold modesty? Maybe some sort of pose for ladies to sit in while in public as well to avoid issue?
Or does it apply equally to men- like- if men straddle things is that inappropriate? What if yoga pants- because while the ladies in the foreground are showing more actual skin- the lady with the man appears closer to naked save for the color of her attire and skirt. Is it ok to straddle in skirts? Or are long skirts more decent inherently that pants? I’m rather confused.
I'm keeping this reply as short as possible because this thread has left me unreasonably irritated.
.
It's not a gender issue or a clothing issue it's a behavior issue. And if someone can't articulate why a behavior that is clearly sexually driven in nature is inappropriate in public that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
@guest_ dude, it's not that their wearing short shorts, their literally ramming their shorts up their cracks in a sexual manner. Nobody wants their kids seeing shit like this on the sidewalk
@xvarnah- one can’t mention gender without that making a thing a gender issue to you? My question was specifically if gender had any bearing on the issue for the person who finds it inappropriate as well as to clarify the original question of wether it is the behavior, the manner of dress, or a combination which makes it inappropriate? Would the actions be more appropriate if different clothing were worn? If the clothing is not of some issue why was it alluded to and what weight does it hold in the determination? Etc.
@nicengleman- would it be appropriate- or is there an appropriate way for one to ram their shorts up their crack in a non sexual manner? Generally speaking any laws on decency are usually met if the genitals aren’t visible- for instance a “G-string” or even strategically placed stickers satisfies the definition of not indecent by most laws. So is the fact their butt cheeks are exposed part of what you find indecent? And to the previous questions- are yoga pants indecent by nature because the entire shape and from of the lower body can be clearly seen as if nude?
On the subject of no one wanting their kids to see such a thing- why would I care? Young kids think butts are funny. A staple of immature humor is the exposed buttocks or characters of such. Small children generally do not fully understand adult sexuality and older children are curious- and in 2019 generally have the Internet. Before the internet of course were other outlets going back to National Geographic and the like- or “borrowing” dad or older brothers materials on the subject.
If I go to the store to get oatmeal- I do not care that you are there getting pop tarts or if you are having sex so long as you aren’t in the way of my oatmeal or there is a sanitation or health risk. I see two women dressed as though to go to the gym- and wearing no less clothing for practical purposes than a bathing suit or a skirt with who knows what under it. They are posing in a manner that I find provocative but I doubt a small pre pubescent child would become aroused by aa by definition they aren’t quite there- and any person old enough to be aroused by it is old enough to be aware and educated.
That’s my take, and the source of my confusion and curiosity. I don’t mean to offend- I simply wasn’t raised with puritanical sexual values and so when I encounter them I am at a loss of understanding. Certainly I agree there are limits to what children should be exposed to- the developing or undeveloped sexuality can’t contextualize many fetishes or more brutal and aggressive or seemingly exploitive aspects of sexuality.
It is important to allow children to discover their sexuality and seek things through curiosity and experience, so as to allow them to grow as they build experience to contextualize and understand aspects more complex in sex like power dynamics or the expression of traumas etc- but two ladies sitting funny doesn’t strike me as indecent simply because it’s a public space- perhaps I’d be more inclined to agree if the space was allocated specifically to children and for children such as a children’s amusement park where adult concepts like sexuality are not an aspect of it- but...
There's nothing puritanical at all about me, but I feel like different rules apply on a sidewalk. If they were on the beach, fine, if they were in a club, fine, if they were at the gym, fine. But there's a place for everything and this isn't it.
TL:dr- to sum up my view: I don’t see anything more lurid there than an add a person might encounter while walking through a mall- I’ve seen more risqué pictures hanging in the windows of lingerie stores or as posters in music stores. I’ve seen far more explicitly sexual imagery on ads for alcohol. I can’t see being upset at these young ladies for something already in public view. A good chance to talk to the kids about sexuality and about things like exploitation and objectification and who they want to be and be seen as.
You are literally the one that brought gender into it and asked if it would be more acceptable if the behavior had been exhibited by a man. Which, regardless of your motives for doing so, implies the problem stems from it being women behaving in this manner. So yeah, I guess when people suggest something might be a gender issue I do have a weird habit of speaking on it's context as a gender issue.
.
Also, these women literally have their shorts yanked up their asses, straddling rocks in their bras, and you think the woman in the background is "closer to being naked" because her clothing might be workout gear?
Assuming we're talking about the woman in blue, her top is no tighter than the girls on the rocks. And it's not even form fitting - her pants/skirt are baggy, her midriff is covered. She is nowhere near as close to naked as the women literally wedgying themselves (and each other) for sexual attention
At the store I used to work at it became a sport to see who could sneak up and flick another guy's nips the hardest. It was always the worst for anyone that worked in a freezer, they'd come out with pencil erasers
lol did any of you all have "muff"? Where you run up on someone and like... zoom your hand through their hair so they get an burn from the friction while you yell "MUFFF!!!!!!!!" That reminded me of muffs... that shit was hilarious.
I've never heard of that one lol. I just used to run up to people and yell "MINE!" and put my butt on whatever they had to touch
1Reply
·
Edited 4 years ago
deleted
· 4 years ago
I remember how a 25 yo female friend of mine got banned from a New York State supermarket for wearing short pants and an american business friend literally blushing when he saw a woman's nipples thru her shirt in a café in Hamburg. Both In 2015. The infamous american prudity and hipocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Americans produce AND consume most pornography, there's the third.date-rule and young americans (at least those who make holidays in europe) hump anything that doesn't move after three beers but in the year 20fucking19 there's a vivid discussion among young people about how children shouldn't have to see an actual buttcrack. I bet most of those poor, precious children that must be saved from that sight have seen 2girls1cup and worse. All these precautions magically become obsolete though when women wear bikinis the total size of a palm at the beach though, as long as you don't recognize a nipple below that stamp-sized "bra".
Lol. Yeah- I got an earful above for similar sentiments. We can have scantily clad dancing girls for sports (which if you think about it the two things aren’t related in any way that isn’t sexual...) we can have “bikini babes” and sexualized women selling everything from beer to cars to whatever else. We can have sexualized moaning or other over sexed displays of pleasure for shampoo and the like, and the same mall where this isn’t appropriate can have a music store with album covers more sexual, selling music with provocative and sexual lyrics and dancing to kids- movies with sexualized characters and massive violence, blah blah- but what a scandal when two women wear far more than the law requires and pose in public.
Let’s not forget that we are born naked- to young children we must teach them to wear clothes- many will strip their clothes or diapers off any chance they get. We must teach them to feel a need to cover themselves. We teach them that it’s ok to wear yoga pants that leave literally nothing to the imagination but to wear cut off shorts is an affront to family values. We worry that kids who grew up sucking on breasts might somehow be damaged to see them bared too prominently in public. Are we so afraid we might have to talk to our children and have to account for the inevitable “whys” we are asked when their minds- free from a lifetime of doctrine- question the reasons we hold these views? Or worse- we might have to engage them in conversation and explain to them about the world they live in and themselves?
Comments
.
It's not a gender issue or a clothing issue it's a behavior issue. And if someone can't articulate why a behavior that is clearly sexually driven in nature is inappropriate in public that doesn't mean it should be allowed.
.
Also, these women literally have their shorts yanked up their asses, straddling rocks in their bras, and you think the woman in the background is "closer to being naked" because her clothing might be workout gear?
Assuming we're talking about the woman in blue, her top is no tighter than the girls on the rocks. And it's not even form fitting - her pants/skirt are baggy, her midriff is covered. She is nowhere near as close to naked as the women literally wedgying themselves (and each other) for sexual attention