Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I just saw a reel where an older woman was complaining about a younger man complaining about the clothing choices women going to gyms becoming too provocative and revealing (no details but nothing being unseen).
Now I'm a for dress as you please. I've worn my national dress (kilt) and had strange women physically try to check what's beneath my kilt and try to politely get out of their attention sphere. I don't tar all women with the brush because some women are inclined to behave inappropriately at times. I roll with it.
However, I knew this behaviour is possible when I kilted up so accept the consequences of my choice of attire. So I get the impact of negative attention 100%. So for sure I'm not likely to end up being overpowered (although drugged and robbed by women) and am not helpless in a similar way but I know as a man I'm unlikely to get a bystander to come to my aid should I be attacked (unlike for most women), so for me it's swings and roundabouts as far as outcome risks.
What my questions are, are for girls who become uncomfortable about perceived (by her) staring and a guy (bystander) stepping in to remove her from the situation so she doesn't have to endure it any longer as opposed to challenging whoever is perceived to be causing the perceived staring behaviour resulting in a risk to myself and or the perceived perpetrator?
For the guys would you step in and challenge the perceived perpetrator and accept the perception of a girl who's dressed in a provocative way at a gym feeling uncomfortable? Whether you've seen either player in this scenario shouldn't be pressured, she's just acted in a way to imply discomfort and not asked you to assist.
I ask this because perceived behaviour is wholly subjective. Consequences of actions for both are negative but only one is lauded (dress as you please).
Thoughts?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
"a girl who's dressed in a provocative way at a gym"
But what a girl dressed in a revealing way reveals is:
Once that, this root, is settled for good, which is not gonna happen tomorrow, then the situation you describe will cease to exist. It doesn't help the current situation you showed. But, here, I prefer looking at underlying causes instead of chatting about the consequences that wouldn't exist if the causes were not here in the first place.
The underlying causes are that men snd women attract each othrr, thst clothes have been designed to be worn to enhance thst attraction due to cultural styles and fashion trends. If everyone were to wear the same clothes that didn't enhance their physique there would still be attraction and more than likely women would be the first ones to adapt their unisuit to enhance their feminine physique thus enhancing their attraction.
Humans are visual creatures and mating is a core driver of humanity's progress.
If you're suggesting humanity becomes asexual then we're pushing an unnatural sociopolitical ideology for a purpose that will end un extinction.
"If you're suggesting humanity becomes asexual"
You have a lot of imagination lol, and I genuinely feel it's cool, but it's really really far from what I'm saying here.
Whatever the attraction, fashion, stuff. I can be attracted to what a girl wears, because it is revealing, but it reveals _my_ attraction, it is _me_ being provoked by _myself_ and _my_ thoughts, it is not her being provocative because she doesn't even target me. I'm pretty certain of _my_ thoughts, and why there are there in my mind, but I have no way to know of _her_ thoughts. I am in fact entirely sure that 99.999 of girls do not dress to provoke me. At best there is one girl who can want to do that and she's my girl.
So if you look at her because you find her attractive, does she have the right to prevent, chastised, accuse, assault, demonise you for that perception as she doesn't find you appealing enough (or other reasons SHE PERCEIVES in her mind)?
You describe a situation that doesn't happen to me. I've learned the social rules around me as a teen already, so when I look, I just look. And if, for some unnamed reason, I'd more than looking, then it's going to be staring, then it would make sense she demonizes me.
Because I broke the social rules, and I know already the result: Doing this, I have jeopardized her psychological safety. As her safety, or her perception of safety is already endangered, constantly, in the streets, from puberty to now.
If a girl was going mad at me, in such an hypothetical scenario, I know that my identity isn't her target. I know that she's looking at me like a stranger, a stranger, member of a group that is manhood. She doesn't know me and she can't, what she has, what she's looking at is a lifelong learned behavior that men are not safe by default. And she is right. So when I stare, I'm just confirming what has already been confirmed too many times. For her. That does not talk about me. That does talk about an image of manhood, that contains some truth. Me is something else, that's also why I can't get mad at her, because, me, myself, isn't the target.
I’m so grammatically confused by this question that I can’t answer.
It's two questions.
Eyes are for seeing which means looking, staring, observing, noticing etc.,
Because other people seeing someone may bring on a subjective perception for the one being observed as intimidating, harmful, creepy, annoying, irrelevant etc., is it right that by being seen one has a right to expect others to quit looking when the subject determines or should looking be regarded as not harmful.
Should a person who senses another looking at them have rights to force them to stop.
Should guys step in if a woman perceived another guy was looking at her and "deal" with the guy? Or should he suggest the girl move on to keep her away from the perceived looking at her guy.
You can only control your own actions, not someone else’s. That’s all I’m going to say.
Exactly, expecting others to bend to your "perception " is coercive and controlling entitlement.
No-one should be allowed to force someone to change their behaviour when it's harming No-one because they "feel" something unpleasant.
Toughen up or go home.
i don't think you can wear a kilt to the gym bro. that's not very sanitary
Why not? You do know that the kilt can be sat on while wearing it just as women don't throw out their skirts when they sit down.
there's a lot of sweat happening in the gym. people don't always wipe down. i really don't think they're staring at it because they wanna see it. it's to make sure you have underwear on. this would never ever ever be allowed in an American gym!
I doubt anyone would wear it to the gym but wearing in public does get looks and sparks interest and attention, so would a kilt wearing man be right to condemn and righteous to expect people staring to quit the behaviour towards them?
my nephew wears a kilt and plays the bagpipes. the girls are not beating down his door or checking it out. what exactly is the point of going commando in a male skirt? women do it to hide the pantyline.
The point is that the kilt is made to be worn that way. This is not the point of the question NOR was it suggested wearing one to the gym. Wearing a kilt attracts attention to men who tend not to be bothered by STARING/OGLING/WATCHING/LOOKING as women do at the gym in revealing "underwear" type outfits then complain about being looked at.
women are going to check your dick out without a kilt on. it's just something they do. they love a bulge or outline of a pressed hard cock wanting to burst through a pantleg. if you catch them staring then take it out for them and say, "Wax it"! they usually know what to do from there.
I think you're fantasising again.
oh? i thought that was pretty standard.