First of all, I said as much in my tagline to this post. Second, when I talk about people, I talk about their public statements (mostly). Third, I do *not* pass judgment on the hotness or not of teenagers.

Do you really take issue with the fact that he thinks she's hot? I mean that's just being a person. We walk around every day and judge people as being attractive or not. If you wanna boil it down to it's most basic, then you can say that it's literally built into our genetic code. The point is not whether one finds her hot or not. It's how you deal with that. For instance, I don't think saying, "wow, she's a good looking athlete" is a bad thing talking about how "you're going to violate her" is totally another. I think Drake highlighted the difference pretty well (that is how you can admire respectfully). I can understand you guys getting a little upset given the context of the article, but in the larger scheme of things you can't pass judgment for him thinking she's good looking.

[edit]

Just saw BDeyeD's post. In light of that fair enough, but it seems like some people are getting upset just cause he thought she's hot. Bitch_PhD claims she does not pass judgment on whether an 18 yo is hot... I don't really buy that, but that's a totally different argument that I'm not willing to get into!

The constant references to her age is a bit disquieting. For one, if she was much older, it'd still be creepy and wrong she had degrading comments made about her. And, for another, dare I say it... I'm sure many of you ogle 18 year old Suicide Girl sets all the time (I know I do). Many SGs and hopefuls first sets were taken at 18 or 19. By choice, of course, but that is the difference.

My problem with this incident has little to do with her age, and everything to do that it was unwanted sexual attention. (Had she been underage, I can understand why her age would matter, btw).

You're right that the issue is *how one deals with finding someone attractive.*

What I said, and what I gave girthy shit for, is feeling the need to *articulate* it. See. You don't actually have to say, in a public forum, "that woman who is feeling violated by everyone talking about how hot she is really *is* hot, you know." Just like I don't have to *say* in a public forum which 18 year olds in my freshman classes are hot. Because that would be, y'know, creepy. Geddit?

Agreed that the age is irrelevant--except inasmuch as it does, I think, entitle her to a little bit of extra consideration. She's *legally* an adult, but she's still, in many ways, kind of a kid.

Oh yeah, I definitely get it. I guess my only point was to say that what he said is not by any means on the same level of what that blogger or the guys responding to his blog said.

Plus, I did say that "I [could] understand you guys getting a little upset given the context of the article."

No, but it's kind of a microcosm of the larger problem.

If he had been crude or demeaning I'd agree with you, but all he did is say she's good looking. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.

[now we're talking not in the context of the article, but just in general]

They
televise
highschool
sports
on
television
here
in
America.

The public eye is the people in the stands watching, the local newspaper photographer sometimes a school newspaper and often times at the senior year stage they have college reps looking for outstanding athletes to recruit them for there college.
My High school had over 2000 in it and a metro area population of 4.5 million so the evening news covering high school sports was broadcast to that many people, before the internet even.

Now the guy taking it to the extreme and circulating to the WWW (etc)...may be a bit innapropriate and she took the correct route to solve the problem.


Can't we all just get along.

Point 1: Actually we are talking about statements made within the context of the article.

I say my mother is afraid she's being obsessed about, that she may be stalked and raped.
You then say "She's hot."

You didn't say anything inherently wrong, did you? I agree about the use of the word " inherent" if it means that instead the conversation was more like this, proves that it was only contextually wrong.

I indicate nothing.
You then say "She's hot".

Point 2: I understand we are pushing for change, so it's really a dialog about what we are seeking. For whatever is the right or wrong of all this, one comparison hasn't been presented.

Gay men obssessing about young male athletes on websites. Women obsessing about attractive male athletes doesnt cause anyone to flinch. However when grown men obsess sexually it's can be a little more unnerving somehow.

Coach Ron

Which is scarier: 30 something men hovering around your attractive 18 yr old son, or 30 something women trolling around him? Why do you suppose that gender difference exists?

I don't mean to suggest homophobia is justifiable. However there are insensitive predatory gay men just as much as there are super cool gay men, we just don't hear about those differences as often because we aren't in the gay men scene.

What do you guys think? Does that change anything?

Point 3:

When I saw her picture just now, as one of you had linked to it, I instantly felt some shame at being attracted to her. Actually a lot, in proportion to how attractive she is! It took me several minutes to recover and reclaim those sexual feelings as my own.

My point more strongly is, I could be wrong but I think many male members here have has a prior history of shame about pornography, or other ways in which their sexuality seemed to conflict with how women were demanding it should be, and now we like to think we are moving beyond that.

And yet in this process from shame to enjoying SG, as an example, these experiences have all been a product of where the feminist movement has changed from or to. In otherwords we are dependent upon the progress of the feminist movement for our own growth.

Maybe that's something we sometimes regret? Or fear? Or ideologically object to as a definition of manhood? Or ideologically object to because of it's a dependency and we object to dependencies of all kinds?

In otherwords I don't feel surprised by the rough feelings on either side of this discussion.

I understand that. My comments directly before allude to it be inappropriate within the context of the article. Cigarette's reference to a "larger problem" lead me to believe we were no longer discussing within the context of the article, thus my comment.

There was one comment on Bitch_PhD's source blog post.

Pretty disgusting actually.

I wasn't sure. That's why it kind of sounds like agreement with your point towards the end. Maybe it's clearer now.

Were you suggesting that the larger problem may be contextual denial? Because that's kind of everything. It's okay to be a horny devil and talk a hot chick up and down, even pimp her out on websites, in the right context - when it is mutual.

I have such a bad headache right now it's kinda hard to think straight, so I'll just say this: I don't think saying "she's hot" has any significant bearing on the phenomenon of "taking shit way to far". That is, saying or believing someone to be hot has nothing to do with people being disrespectful, and just down right crude and base. Of course, in the context of the article saying one is hot is (I'm kinda reluctant to say inappropriate even if I have before, because it's more like it's) totally irrelevant. However, outside the context of the article I have no problem with it.

I apologize, I couldn't be more wordy if I tried.

I don't think you said "as much".

You did a bit of self-reflection, but essentially we're still where we started, which is, that your blog consists of a set of unasked-for opinions. Glass house, meet stone.

Distinction without a difference? She was photographed outside and in public.

I mean, as far as I see the distinction that I think exists in your mind, it concerns the following: if I say something in public, I am implicitly inviting response, including ones that disagree with me (and including remarks on your blog). However, if I simply walk around outside, keeping myself to myself and getting on with my day, I "should" be left alone and the rest of you should keep your reactions to yourself.

That's a totally unenforceable "should".

I'm not saying we shouldn't be considerate and respectful of others. I get that she's upset. But to reduce this to "If she wanted his opinion, she'd have asked" is to say something akin to "All public commentary must be solicited and approved of beforehand."

Nobody would ever approach someone n a bar and compliment them, by those rules. (Then again, judging by some of what you came out with when you were explaining your views on Paglia to me, maybe that's how you'd prefer things. It's kind of hard to tell.)

And yet, here you are collecting a paycheck from somewhere where hotness (including of teenagers) is a central part of the game.

Deciding on hotness is something that people do, whether we like this or not. (Or, as with most of us, whether we like it in certain circumstances and dislike it in others.)

One way to view this site is as a space created for the consensual sharing of hotness -- people are essentially invited to show themselves off at their hottest, and everyone is invited to comment. Site rules and behavioural norms govern these "transactions" -- compliments are nice, creepy overtones are not. But again, in this territory, there are no fixed markers. Context and interpretation are key.

Anyway, whatever. I really do get that she's young, she didn't ask for the attention, she's just trying to be a good athlete. I hope she's left alone to get on with her life and her sport.

But "if she'd wanted his opinion she'd have asked for it"?

Unasked-for opinions aren't going to stop happening.