Wapsi Square Forum

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote:So Atsali can walk around in this dress and, in a perfect world, she would not be seen as a sexual object and her choice of clothing would not be interpreted as a sexual message of any kind... UNTIL she decides to intentionally turn up the heat for Nadette.

Granted, Atsali seems too oblivious to be able to consciously send that sort of message, but the point still stands.

At some point instinct(s) is gonna kick in.

For people wearing minimal clothing or none at all or the people looking at them?

And, in the Mixed Messages department, there's this joke:

• Plastic Surgeon: So, just how large do you want to be?
  
  Conniving Lady: Large enough so I can yell at men for staring at them!

RE: General Patton - "You are always on parade."

People who demand All-or-Nothing thinking from others make life a pain, because very few things are completely binary. Those who jump to conclusions are similarly annoying.

Is Jin aware of Atsali's inability to "read" others? Delightful and dramatic as the dress may be, she could be setting up Atsali for a miserable time. Then comes the blame game, and she wouldn't see that it falls on Jin.

Or, I'm reading too much into this. Then again why should we care about some people's opinions when they dress like this?

GlytchMeister wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote:Granted, Atsali seems too oblivious to be able to consciously send that sort of message, but the point still stands.

At some point instinct(s) is gonna kick in.

For people wearing minimal clothing or none at all or the people looking at them?

I was thinking of siren/succubus instincts.

Deuce wrote:Oh good. I'm not the only one confused by Jin's statement.

I think the message I'm meant to come away with is maaaaaybe that while Atsali might want to/enjoy evoking a sexual response from her partner, the fact she is wearing the dress she is is not meant to be a sexual statement. It's not an invitation for random people to start hitting on her just because of the amount of skin shes' showing...

That sounds good. Let us not forget, Atsali is vulnerable to body shaming. Jin knows this, the pool incident is what brought her actively onto Atsali's side. It is possible she is trying to tell her adopted niece, who has real problems with this human sexuality business, that being nude (mostly) is not the same as being lewd.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:At some point instinct(s) is gonna kick in.

That would complicate matters even more.




(Dave places a large can of tomato juice into the Groan Jar)

Well, that answers my question from yesterday.
It's painted on, and Atsali is supporting the whole show.
I think Jin is aware of what kind of impression Atsali will actually make, but is trying not to let on so as to prevent pre-event angst, or even an outright refusal to go. Atsali does need to be exposed to the full social spectrum as early in life as possible.

I mean I'm not gonna lie, while she may be the Queen Bee of the school(even if we've never had any arc dealing with that specifically other than her now friends flipping out at the pool). What kid goes to their prom in a dress that'd turn heads at a multi-billion dollar business party?

Akeche wrote:I mean I'm not gonna lie, while she may be the Queen Bee of the school(even if we've never had any arc dealing with that specifically other than her now friends flipping out at the pool). What kid goes to their prom in a dress that'd turn heads at a multi-billion dollar business party?

The dress is for NYE at the Cerberus Club.

Thor wrote:Yes, and no. Showing skin in America is culturally associated with sexuality . . . except in those situations where it isn't, like going to the doctor, taking a bath, nudist camps, artistic expression, and of course protesting the way the culture tends to associate total or partial nudity with sexuality (which is the whole point of the "Free The Nipple" movement). There are plenty of counterexamples from other cultures that show us that associating sexuality with nudity isn't an inevitable or universal conclusion.

My snark above is not "Nudity is sexual! Duh! " but rather that Jin's statement is the Very Model of a Modern Mixed Message. In one sentence she implies that Nadette will be all moist in the loins when she sees the dress, and in the next sentence she asserts that there is nothing about the way she will be dressed that is sexual in any manner.

Of course, she might be implying merely that Nadette will be impressed by the aesthetics of Atsali in the dress, but that would that Jin knows absolutely nothing about Nadette, who is all but humping Atsali's leg half the time.

And you are quite incorrect in that it is a mixed message, because you've missed the whole point.

The problem is that it isn't a mixed message because the attractiveness of the dress does not coincide with the lack of coverage.

It is attractive, irrespective of quantity of skin revealed. However, because it does have a great quantity of skin revealed, the reminder needed to be uttered.

It is attractive, it has a great deal of skin showing. These two are not related. It's like saying 'U238 glows in the dark. It is radioactive'. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything that glows in the dark is automatically radioactive. And not all radioactive isotopes glow in the dark (although many do). The two properties are observed simultaneously, but are not correlated.

Of course, with Atsali, any dress is likely to show some skin, if only due to her curves pushing said dress to its breaking point.

AmriloJim wrote:

Akeche wrote:I mean I'm not gonna lie, while she may be the Queen Bee of the school(even if we've never had any arc dealing with that specifically other than her now friends flipping out at the pool). What kid goes to their prom in a dress that'd turn heads at a multi-billion dollar business party?

The dress is for NYE at the Cerberus Club.

That entirely slipped my mind.

Is this the Teen part of the club is what I'm curious about, I suspect they aren't allowed anywhere near the real club until they're old enough.

My own personal take on Jin's statement:

Atsali's sex appeal and Atsali's sexuality are two entirely separate things.

There are people who would find Atsali in minimal amounts of clothing (or even better, no clothing at all) to be extremely attractive. There are people who would be turned off by that. There are people who might be more attracted to her if she had a different skin colour, or only if she were naked and juggling celery, or if she were naked and playing with toothpaste. While she should certainly have some idea of the common ideas of sex appeal in culture and how her choices are likely to influence people in general around her, her sex appeal has little to do with her in particular and more to do with the tastes of the people viewing her.

If somebody is turned on by her appearance in whatever way, that's their business and that's fine. But what they shouldn't do is to assume that, just because they find seeing her skin to be sexually appealing, she must be consciously trying to appeal to their sex urges and is obligated to have sex with them whenever she is wearing skimpy clothes. Sure, she can be doing it to intentionally appeal to a certain person or to people overall, but the basic fact that she's showing skin ought not be taken as automatically meaning that she's out looking for sex.

So: lots of exposed skin can mean sexy, without meaning "have sex with me".

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:

Thor wrote:Yes, and no. Showing skin in America is culturally associated with sexuality . . . except in those situations where it isn't, like going to the doctor, taking a bath, nudist camps, artistic expression, and of course protesting the way the culture tends to associate total or partial nudity with sexuality (which is the whole point of the "Free The Nipple" movement). There are plenty of counterexamples from other cultures that show us that associating sexuality with nudity isn't an inevitable or universal conclusion.

My snark above is not "Nudity is sexual! Duh! " but rather that Jin's statement is the Very Model of a Modern Mixed Message. In one sentence she implies that Nadette will be all moist in the loins when she sees the dress, and in the next sentence she asserts that there is nothing about the way she will be dressed that is sexual in any manner.

Of course, she might be implying merely that Nadette will be impressed by the aesthetics of Atsali in the dress, but that would that Jin knows absolutely nothing about Nadette, who is all but humping Atsali's leg half the time.

And you are quite incorrect in that it is a mixed message, because you've missed the whole point.

The problem is that it isn't a mixed message because the attractiveness of the dress does not coincide with the lack of coverage.

And the problem here is that you've missed my whole point. Let me simplify it, taking the mechanics of the dress and the relative degree or exposure out of the equation. Jin says that the way she will look will "knock your girlfriend's sock off", implying Nadette's arousal. And in the next sentence, Jin says the way she will look has nothing to do with sexuality. This is the mixed message. She implies that there will be a causal relationship between Nadette's arousal and the way she will look, and then immediately denies that there is any causal relationship between any arousal and the way she will look.

Thor wrote:

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:

Thor wrote:Yes, and no. Showing skin in America is culturally associated with sexuality . . . except in those situations where it isn't, like going to the doctor, taking a bath, nudist camps, artistic expression, and of course protesting the way the culture tends to associate total or partial nudity with sexuality (which is the whole point of the "Free The Nipple" movement). There are plenty of counterexamples from other cultures that show us that associating sexuality with nudity isn't an inevitable or universal conclusion.

My snark above is not "Nudity is sexual! Duh! " but rather that Jin's statement is the Very Model of a Modern Mixed Message. In one sentence she implies that Nadette will be all moist in the loins when she sees the dress, and in the next sentence she asserts that there is nothing about the way she will be dressed that is sexual in any manner.

Of course, she might be implying merely that Nadette will be impressed by the aesthetics of Atsali in the dress, but that would that Jin knows absolutely nothing about Nadette, who is all but humping Atsali's leg half the time.

And you are quite incorrect in that it is a mixed message, because you've missed the whole point.

The problem is that it isn't a mixed message because the attractiveness of the dress does not coincide with the lack of coverage.

And the problem here is that you've missed my whole point. Let me simplify it, taking the mechanics of the dress and the relative degree or exposure out of the equation. Jin says that the way she will look will "knock your girlfriend's sock off", implying Nadette's arousal. And in the next sentence, Jin says the way she will look has nothing to do with sexuality. This is the mixed message. She implies that there will be a causal relationship between Nadette's arousal and the way she will look, and then immediately denies that there is any causal relationship between any arousal and the way she will look.

Again... because you seem to STILL be unable to get it...

A lady can be attractive without showing skin. The attractiveness of the dress, or the lady wearing it, is not impacted by the amount of skin showing. The two are not related in any way.

It isn't saying that the way she looks isn't causing arousal, quite the reverse. It is that she is sexy because she simply is sexy and it is a sexy dress. This is irrespective of the amount of skin showing. The admonishment was in regards to amount of skin showing, not the fact that she's sexy and the dress is sexy and that she is sexy in that dress.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:

Thor wrote:

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:And you are quite incorrect in that it is a mixed message, because you've missed the whole point.

The problem is that it isn't a mixed message because the attractiveness of the dress does not coincide with the lack of coverage.

And the problem here is that you've missed my whole point. Let me simplify it, taking the mechanics of the dress and the relative degree or exposure out of the equation. Jin says that the way she will look will "knock your girlfriend's sock off", implying Nadette's arousal. And in the next sentence, Jin says the way she will look has nothing to do with sexuality. This is the mixed message. She implies that there will be a causal relationship between Nadette's arousal and the way she will look, and then immediately denies that there is any causal relationship between any arousal and the way she will look.

Again... because you seem to STILL be unable to get it...

A lady can be attractive without showing skin. The attractiveness of the dress, or the lady wearing it, is not impacted by the amount of skin showing. The two are not related in any way.

It isn't saying that the way she looks isn't causing arousal, quite the reverse. It is that she is sexy because she simply is sexy and it is a sexy dress. This is irrespective of the amount of skin showing. The admonishment was in regards to amount of skin showing, not the fact that she's sexy and the dress is sexy and that she is sexy in that dress.

I'm not sure why I bother to type words if you are just going to ignore them.

Thor wrote: I'm not sure why I bother to type words if you are just going to ignore them.

I"m not ignoring what you are typing, I'm pointing out how incorrect it is and attempting to educate you. Since this appears to be futile, I'll stop now. Maybe some day you'll discover it for yourself. Hopefully not the hard way.

Thor wrote:Jin says that the way she will look will "knock your girlfriend's sock off", implying Nadette's arousal. And in the next sentence, Jin says the way she will look has nothing to do with sexuality. This is the mixed message. She implies that there will be a causal relationship between Nadette's arousal and the way she will look, and then immediately denies that there is any causal relationship between any arousal and the way she will look.

You're making an implicit assumption here that may not be correct.

As I've underlined above, you are equating Nadette "having her socks blown off" with Nadette being sexuality aroused. The last time I looked, the "blowing his/her socks off" metaphor covers a great deal more than just sexual arousal... "impressed", "amazed", "astonished", "taken unexpectedly aback in a good way", and so forth. It's perfectly possible to be blown away by the appearance of someone, or something, for whom you have no sexual attraction whatsoever.

Atsali is going to be beautiful in that dress... elegant, stylish, striking, evocative of flight, and powerful... and I think those are things that are independent of sexual attractiveness per se. Even a woman (or gay man) who has no sexual interest in Atsali will see those things, in spades!

The fact that Nadette is Atsali's girlfriend doesn't imply that the only way Atsali can impress Nadette is sexually! At least, I certainly hope not. Intimate human relationships are commonly a lot deeper than that (those that last more than a short while, at least) and I'd hope that the same is true for Paras.

And that, I think, is part of the message that Jin is trying to convey. Atsali has the same right to be beautiful, elegant, and powerful as any woman... and if the dress that helps her convey those attributes happens to be one which displays some skin, that's OK. Wearing such a dress does not imply that Atsali is trying a sexual come-on to anyone... not even Nadette.

Dave wrote:

Thor wrote:Jin says that the way she will look will "knock your girlfriend's sock off", implying Nadette's arousal. And in the next sentence, Jin says the way she will look has nothing to do with sexuality. This is the mixed message. She implies that there will be a causal relationship between Nadette's arousal and the way she will look, and then immediately denies that there is any causal relationship between any arousal and the way she will look.

You're making an implicit assumption here that may not be correct.

As I've underlined above, you are equating Nadette "having her socks blown off" with Nadette being sexuality aroused. The last time I looked, the "blowing his/her socks off" metaphor covers a great deal more than just sexual arousal... "impressed", "amazed", "astonished", "taken unexpectedly aback in a good way", and so forth. It's perfectly possible to be blown away by the appearance of someone, or something, for whom you have no sexual attraction whatsoever.

Atsali is going to be beautiful in that dress... elegant, stylish, striking, evocative of flight, and powerful... and I think those are things that are independent of sexual attractiveness per se. Even a woman (or gay man) who has no sexual interest in Atsali will see those things, in spades!

The fact that Nadette is Atsali's girlfriend doesn't imply that the only way Atsali can impress Nadette is sexually! At least, I certainly hope not. Intimate human relationships are commonly a lot deeper than that (those that last more than a short while, at least) and I'd hope that the same is true for Paras.

And that, I think, is part of the message that Jin is trying to convey. Atsali has the same right to be beautiful, elegant, and powerful as any woman... and if the dress that helps her convey those attributes happens to be one which displays some skin, that's OK. Wearing such a dress does not imply that Atsali is trying a sexual come-on to anyone... not even Nadette.

To be fair, this whole thing is ridiculous because it has been established that it is almost impossible for Nadette to not have her "socks blow off" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by Atsali. Atsali could show up at the dance sealed in a cardboard box, and Nadette would probably still swoon. (And seriously, Nadette, after four-ish year of going out with Atsali, you are still all giddy every time you encounter her? You should be well into the comfortable and contented part of the relationship. )

And since everyone is going to have a different favorite interpretation of what the blowing off of socks connotes, that will lead to irreconcilable interpretations of Jin's point, or points, or lack of a point.

Best just to sum this all up as "Whatever" and wait to see what sort of dormroom hijinx go on between Atsali and her new foil.

Akeche wrote:

AmriloJim wrote:

Akeche wrote:I mean I'm not gonna lie, while she may be the Queen Bee of the school(even if we've never had any arc dealing with that specifically other than her now friends flipping out at the pool). What kid goes to their prom in a dress that'd turn heads at a multi-billion dollar business party?

The dress is for NYE at the Cerberus Club.

That entirely slipped my mind.

Is this the Teen part of the club is what I'm curious about, I suspect they aren't allowed anywhere near the real club until they're old enough.

"All ages" room

And with Jin there - as is implied she will be - anybody who gets too pushy is likely to wind up wondering where that truck came from . . .

--FreeFlier