Single women gamers

[incognito]

the 3% (part 2)

Buttercup's reply:
I haven't noticed any of the women who posted their pictures being annoyed about the reactions those pics elicited. I was the one who said it annoys me when I try to have a conversation with someone who stares at my chest.

Incognito (me): Buttercup, It's entirely possible that I would glance at your chest if it was attractive, and you were wearing a tight shirt, or displaying cleavage. I am not giong to ONLY look at your chest, but you can bet that it will happen. When the reverse of this happens to me, I am flattered. My comment was pointed at beautiful women in general, and their affect on men (or vice versa - although it is clearly more pronounced in men - even from a physiology standpoint, if we take it to that extreme). I can understand becoming tired at constantly being viewed as a desireable object, but this is one of the truisms of the human condition. It would be like me being angry becasue I am short(ish), or have wavy hair. It is incumbent upon a person to be more than meets the eye, and I find that generally speaking, if I converse with someone longer than 10 seocnds, I can begin to get past what my eyes see (but it is STILL there).

quote:
"I cannot imagine a gaming table that has mixed gender yet is devoid of a *little* sexual tension..."

Buttercup's reply:
"I guess it's a good thing we don't game together then. And it's even better that we don't work together..... "

Incognito (me): I think you are naive in the extreme if you don't think that coupleings weren't happening on those committe's - now, just becasue you did not take part...

At my work, we have no less than three office romances that have not only resulted in marriage, but also children. There's the proof in the pudding, no? There is a big differne between acknowleging that sex tension exists, and making everything a d*ck joke (pardon me, Eric's grandma).

Ok - it seems this thread might have does, but perhaps it will stir up agian - I hope buttercup will at reply, if only to say "I agree to disagree."

 

[Arravis]

It is an interesting topic... and I hope to see some opposing views.

I do disagree with some of your points (especially about loosing respect for someone just becauce they don't meet your standards in all aspects of life.), but overall I think you are being more "realistic" about it then others here might be. Political correctness isn't truth... I think that's something that is too often forgotten.

Our one evolutionary imperative is reproduction... I think it's unrealistic to think that it doesn't work our way into every aspect of our lives (even if we aren't aware of it). I'm not claiming that we should act like sex-crazed teenagers... but it is on the minds and, more often then some may care to admit, in our actions. As we grow older and more mature, we learn to control the impulses and to act on those feelings in a more subtle manner.

Just my 2 cents... I could go on all day, but I'll stop here, lol.

 

[Rel]

Our one evolutionary imperative is reproduction... I could go on all day.

Good for you, Arravis! 5 or 6 hours is all I can manage now that I'm old.

 

[Omega Lord]

Just to throw something out there.

One thing about american society (check that ,the whole of western civilization) that constantly amuses me is some people's simultaneous preoccupation with sex and their denial that they are preoccupied. Granted im speaking in very broad generalizations, but society at large seems to have this idea. Case and point, the skewed moralities taught by our church and our TV (thank god i dont watch anything but movies anymore). Personally, thanks to a recent reorganization of my way of thinking prompted by some truly profound literature i got my hands on recently (and no i dont mean the core rulebooks ) I have come to terms with my own views on sex and sexuality. Ill stop ranting about my personal revelations now . Anyway thoughts?, comments?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: the 3% !

Incognito (me): Not caring what society thinks of you, is...almost...the definition of uncool. Having 'society' approve and want to be like you would be cool. Not too many guys coming up to me and saying "Hey! You should've seen the way I took down that dragon last Friday! Power Attack and Brilliant energy weapons rock!" But I do have poeple talk about the Football game, the Soprano's, how many pints they had on Friday. And Hey don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying that from a societal point of view, roleplaying = not cool.

Societal conformity = not cool. When the term "cool" was invented, it applied to those who didn't care what society thought of them. They did their own thing regardless of what people thought of them.

THAT'S cool.

Subsequent redefinition of the term "cool" by the baby boomers so they could keep thinking they were cool is irrelevant.

What you're espousing is conformity. Happy droning.

 

[RobNJ]

Anyway thoughts?, comments?

Yes, though I doubt they have anything to do with what you said.

It's, simply, about respect. Sexualizing women ignores their other assets. It's disrespectful to ignore everything about someone but one, even if it's something they're proud of or cherish. For example, let's say you're able to cook really well. It's something you're proud of and, moreover, it's something that's necessary to live (well, eating is anyway).

However, you don't want every single conversation you have to be about food. You don't want people only talking about food to you, or only thinking about food no matter what it is they may actually be talking about. It would be disrespectful and dehumanizing to you.

Is being interested in your ability to cook well appropriate? Sure. Is it appropriate to focus solely on food and ignore the other things you have to say? No.

That said, I'm probably fairly sex-obsessed. I'm just good at also being polite.

There's a bit of a reactionary thread hereabouts that's kind of disturbing and depressing. I just wanted to sing a different, discordant, tune.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm recently become single.

Whether this means I am more, or less, sex-obsessed than I was say two months ago is debatable.

 

[kenjib]

Political correctness isn't truth... I think that's something that is too often forgotten.

Anti-PC isn't truth either. So, really this point is completely meaningless. There's no need to apply labels to things. I like to argue based on the merits of the points made rather than broad labels that may or may not have anything to do with someone's position on something.

 

[maddman75]

Incognito - I share a lot of your attitudes. While I don't hide that I play D&D, I certainly don't bring it up to some girl I'm chatting up down at the bar.

There's been several posts saying things like

It's, simply, about respect. Sexualizing women ignores their other assets. It's disrespectful to ignore everything about someone but one, even if it's something they're proud of or cherish. For example, let's say you're able to cook really well. It's something you're proud of and, moreover, it's something that's necessary to live (well, eating is anyway).

However, you don't want every single conversation you have to be about food. You don't want people only talking about food to you, or only thinking about food no matter what it is they may actually be talking about. It would be disrespectful and dehumanizing to you.

This is my attitude - these things are unrelated. To get this you have to understand that I am not looking for a wife, soul mate, or any other such thing. Been there done that. I look for friends, and what we have in common determines what we do together.

Friend one is a good cook (to use RobNJ's example) so maybe we hang out and she cooks for me. We go out to eat at restraunts. Whether we do everything together or not depends on what else we have in common. Do we like the same movies? Do we like gaming? Are we attacted to each other?

If you give up the idea that you must find One Special Person to be all things to you, you gain a lot of freedom. It does not mean that you don't respect someone if they have or don't have certain qualities. I also realize that most people don't think this way.

 

[Rel]

It's, simply, about respect. Sexualizing women ignores their other assets. It's disrespectful to ignore everything about someone but one, even if it's something they're proud of or cherish. For example, let's say you're able to cook really well. It's something you're proud of and, moreover, it's something that's necessary to live (well, eating is anyway).

However, you don't want every single conversation you have to be about food. You don't want people only talking about food to you, or only thinking about food no matter what it is they may actually be talking about. It would be disrespectful and dehumanizing to you.

Eloquently put, Rob. And a good point too.

One further extension of your analogy, however: If every time I see you, you offer me a gourmet meal that you happen to have on you, I'm going to associate you with food more strongly than if you cook me a meal every once in a while on special occasions.

What I'm saying is that the trend in fashion is more and more toward low cut jeans that are painted on and high cut tops that are barely there. So if a woman constantly dresses in a way that draws attention to her appearance, I feel justified in paying attention to her appearance.

All of which is not in any way to suggest that I would consider it the most important criteria in choosing who I would like to associate with.