"Neighbor boys peep at my scantily clad daughters. Should I have them cover up?"

[Sunstone]

You laugh, but I had to take four different internet IQ tests to score that high. It's not easy to become a genius. No laughing matter.

Only four tests? You're way ahead of me, then.

 

[Skwim]

Can't even bring yourself to admitting to straw-man.

Nice.

So your game here is what, trolling people until you get them to admit what you want them to? First you said you "assumed" I was using a strawman.

"I assume you are using straw-man."
​

Now you're operating under the notion that I actually was using a strawman.

"Can't even bring yourself to admitting to straw-man.

Nice."
​

So, "Nice" right back at ya for your game playing. :slap:

You don't address why the audience matters, which would possibly have direct implications on what this thread is about. Mike is referencing a "certain element" and you are more or less agreeing that a "certain element" would matter, but not so far explaining why.

Gee, how astute of you to notice. But instead of beating around the bush why not simply ask me, "Hey Skwim, why does the audience matter? But it's a matter of game playing isn't it.

And I'm saying dad is not evidently fine with it, otherwise there wouldn't be the question asked / doubt raised.

And I'd say the dad seems to be quite fine with the way his daughters are dressing, but is trying to placate his neighbor. "Is it unreasonable to ask my daughters to cover up a bit? I've had problems with difficult neighbors in the past and feel sometimes it is necessary to make small sacrifices in order to keep the peace."

And what form of behavior are the scantily dressed girls presenting?

They are exhibiting behavior befitting the weather conditions. "It's hot here much of the year, and they typically wear short shorts and tank tops or bikini tops."

behavior (b-hvyr)
1. The actions displayed by an organism in response to its environment.
​

You don't know what Mike is expecting. He made a request and you are assuming he is doing nothing in relation to his sons, thus you are presenting once again straw man.

And, I don't think you know what a strawman is. But that lack aside, I and everyone else knows what Mike is expecting; that his request: "He asked if I could please have my girls not wear such revealing clothing if they're going to be outside," be honored. If he wasn't expecting it to be honored he wouldn't have made it.

Also I think the principle at work would change on a dime if it were Mike coming over and saying his 30 year old brother-in-law, a registered sex offender, is looking on the girls who are dressing this way. Suddenly dad may have desire to 'violate the girl's simple, most innocent, behavior' because of a 'certain element.' Which in reality nothing would be all that different, since we are just talking about 'people looking.' If girls want to dress however girls want to dress, then why would dad care who the audience is, as long as they stay to themselves?

And just what principle do you seek to impose on the situation?

But methinks with stigma that goes along with 'registered sex offender' people on this thread who agree with wifey would magically change their position in a heart beat.

My guess is that they would too, but so what? What seems to be your problem here is a misunderstanding of the principle involved. But before I get into that, I want to first see what you perceive to be the principle.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Only four tests? You're way ahead of me, then.

Hey, I had to take the same test over 174 times before I finally got the score I knew my IQ was.

 

[Alceste]

Hey, I had to take the same test over 174 times before I finally got the score I knew my IQ was.

I feel your pain, brother. I did poorly on the timed ones cuz the phone kept ringing and people kept bugging me to do stuff for them. What do people think I come to work for? Work? Pff.

 

[Acim]

First you said you "assumed" I was using a strawman.

"I assume you are using straw-man."
​

Now you're operating under the notion that I actually was using a strawman.

I was operating under the notion when I assumed it. I was just using your language to help make the obvious point, of straw man.

Gee, how astute of you to notice. But instead of beating around the bush why not simply ask me, "Hey Skwim, why does the audience matter? But it's a matter of game playing isn't it.

Playing at your level, so you can keep up.

And I'd say the dad seems to be quite fine with the way his daughters are dressing, but is trying to placate his neighbor. "Is it unreasonable to ask my daughters to cover up a bit? I've had problems with difficult neighbors in the past and feel sometimes it is necessary to make small sacrifices in order to keep the peace."

I don't get dad being quite fine from anything in the article. If dad was quite fine, this wouldn't have made it to question form. Mike would've been told by dad to shove it, if dad were 'quite fine' with it.

They are exhibiting behavior befitting the weather conditions. "It's hot here much of the year, and they typically wear short shorts and tank tops or bikini tops."

behavior (b-hvyr)
1. The actions displayed by an organism in response to its environment.
​

What someone wears is 'actions?' Just seems like a stretch to call that behavior. But you feel differently, and apparently strongly about this being behavior. As a 'behavior' it does seem like something that could be changed / addressed, without necessarily having to change the daughter's wardrobe (entirely). Furthermore, if the behavior is right, the audience shouldn't matter, but I'm still under the impression (I may be mistaken) that if the audience was different, the argument for different 'behavior' would be put forth.

And, I don't think you know what a straw-man is.

I think I do.
"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

In the first time I used the term, you had said:

I assume if you were in that situation you'd be willing to tell the girls they couldn't dress as they wanted, but would have to dress in a way acceptable to Mike and Mary. Interesting.

And you (apparently) got this from:

If it were me, I'd want to discuss things with Mike, up to a point and come to some agreement. Though obviously Dad and wife have to be on same page to make things work all the way around. Daughters can be offended all they want, but in world we live in, tough tooties if they disagree with Dad and wife's position.

And so the straw-man (misrepresentation) is you are saying I would tell the girls they have to dress in way that is acceptable to Mike and Mary, when clearly my main point is dad and wife must be on same page, and perhaps an agreement can be made with Mike and Mary. For me that agreement doesn't equal Mike and Mary are the ones to be placated here, nor does it mean daughters are complete right (or wrong). Generally discussions like this, among neighbors, rather than those on forum, have more give and take, and agreements are reached to hopefully please all. Not hurt one party to placate another. As I stated before, and at least one other time, I'd want to discuss things with Mike, up to a point and come to some agreement.

The 2nd time I used straw-man in this thread with regards to something you said,

I don't consider Mikes request to be reasonable. He is expecting others to modify their behavior instead of expecting his two boys to modify theirs. If he can't control his two sons it's unreasonable to put that burden on someone else.

And you are getting this from:

The other day Mike said he wanted us to have a "serious" discussion and told me he caught his boys watching my girls from a bedroom window. He asked if I could please have my girls not wear such revealing clothing if they're going to be outside, as he is trying to protect his kids from "certain elements of the world" and doesn't want them influenced by "overly sexualized displays."

There is no basis from what is written to assume Mike is not talking to his own kids, so to suggest he is expecting others change while his boys don't is misrepresentation, and also misrepresentation to say he expects it. He made a request, not a demand. If I ask you, "will you please define straw-man," are you taking this as, "Acim expects me to do the definition of this term instead of expecting this of himself?"

But that lack aside, I and everyone else knows what Mike is expecting; that his request: "He asked if I could please have my girls not wear such revealing clothing if they're going to be outside," be honored. If he wasn't expecting it to be honored he wouldn't have made it.

Disagree. I'm sure every adult reading this has had neighbor discussion before, and sometimes requests are just requests. There may be 'hope' that the neighbor receiving the request will go along with what is being asked, but I would say many times it is just more in vein of, "hey would you mind doing things this way?" And if there is desire to maintain sense of harmony, the neighbor receiving the request will listen and discuss. If not desiring harmony (for many reasons), neighbor receiving request could be like "shove it."

And just what principle do you seek to impose on the situation?

None, this question is misrepresenting what I was getting at.

What seems to be your problem here is a misunderstanding of the principle involved. But before I get into that, I want to first see what you perceive to be the principle.

The principle I perceive others to be invoking is along lines of 'freedom of expression' (wear whatever I feel like wearing) regardless of sensitivities of those around me. Regardless of the audience. I think the principle could be understood a few ways, and is ultimately in vein of line that the TV show "Lost" brought up (often), when characters would say, "don't tell me what I can't do."

 

[Skwim]

Because this exchange is getting wearisome I'm only going reply to your last comment.

The principle I perceive others to be invoking is along lines of 'freedom of expression' (wear whatever I feel like wearing) regardless of sensitivities of those around me. Regardless of the audience.

Scanning all the posts, Invisible Pink Unicorn appears to be the only one who takes such a broad position, the other posts all speaking to the issue in its context.

I think the principle could be understood a few ways, and is ultimately in vein of line that the TV show "Lost" brought up (often), when characters would say, "don't tell me what I can't do."

As I see it , the principle revolves around four major elements:

Two girls free to dress in a specific way on their property.

Two boys who enjoy looking at the girls dressed in that specific way.

A parent of the boys who objects to the boys looking at the girls dressed in that specific way .

The parent seeking to change the way the girls dress.
​

The issue then comes down to whose position should prevail. But first . . .

Did the girls have the right to dress in the manner they did? Yes, because their parents approved.

We can fairly conclude the parents approved because we saw no objection to it. In fact, the father even said it was "typical" dress, and defended it because "It's hot here much of the year, . . ." The mother also showed her support because she thought Mike should "shove it." So, the girls, their father, and their mother all felt they were in the right---were morally proper---to dress in the manner they did on their property.

In comes neighbor Mike who feels the girls are "overly sexualized displays" and that they amounted to "certain elements of the world" he wanted to protect his kids from." In other words, I think it's safe to say he felt the girls were dressed immorally.

So the principle I see at issue here is the imposition of one moral position on another. Should anyone expect their morals to trump the morals of someone else, especially when other options are available? If he wanted, Mike could block the view of his neighbor's yard from the bedroom window. Instead, he sought to get his neighbors to drop their moral position in favor of his.

If asked, would you drop a moral principle in favor of one in direct opposition? Would you expect anyone to do it for you ?

 

[Me Myself]

So am I - but I watched a half hour debate on just this subject last Sunday, and I can understand (if not agree) with the man.

In an ideal world, we should be able to go about dressed however we wish to be - but human nature being human nature, there are those for whom a scantilly clad woman is - to them - sending out a signal. Of course, those people are wrong (in the main) - but you try explaining that to them!

I understand that you, as a social being, would want to explain it to them.

Personally I´ve found that when explaining fails sometimes is better just to point at them and laugh.

If they still don´t get how ridiculous their train of stuff is, they diserve their own frustration.

Some things are bigger than you matey

 

[Me Myself]

Because this exchange is getting wearisome I'm only going reply to your last comment.

Scanning all the posts, Invisible Pink Unicorn appears to be the only one who takes such a broad position, the other posts all speaking to the issue in its context.

As I see it , the principle revolves around four major elements:

Two girls free to dress in a specific way on their property.

Two boys who enjoy looking at the girls dressed in that specific way.

A parent of the boys who objects to the boys looking at the girls dressed in that specific way .

The parent seeking to change the way the girls dress.
​

The issue then comes down to whose position should prevail. But first . . .

Did the girls have the right to dress in the manner they did? Yes, because their parents approved.

We can fairly conclude the parents approved because we saw no objection to it. In fact, the father even said it was "typical" dress, and defended it because "It's hot here much of the year, . . ." The mother also showed her support because she thought Mike should "shove it." So, the girls, their father, and their mother all felt they were in the right---were morally proper---to dress in the manner they did on their property.

In comes neighbor Mike who feels the girls are "overly sexualized displays" and that they amounted to "certain elements of the world" he wanted to protect his kids from." In other words, I think it's safe to say he felt the girls were dressed immorally.

So the principle I see at issue here is the imposition of one moral position on another. Should anyone expect their morals to trump the morals of someone else, especially when other options are available? If he wanted, Mike could block the view of his neighbor's yard from the bedroom window. Instead, he sought to get his neighbors to drop their moral position in favor of his.

If asked, would you drop a moral principle in favor of one in direct opposition? Would you expect anyone to do it for you ?

I agree with you in general.

The saddest part of all is, that the father is doing to their kids the stupidest thing he can do: he is sheltering them from the world.

They will never be able to face the world in a mature way and be secure of themselves, because when they go out there the world will be too eerie for them. If the father truly thinks that sexuality is a sin and his sons actually buy it, I can prophetize a sh*tload of traumas in those poor kids future when they actually go out.

 

[Pegg]

IMO, this is the same line of thinking that leads to scantily clad women being raped and the rapist saying that they wanted it based on their clothing choice...

look, i'll be the first to say that we should all be able to walk around naked and not think anything of it.

There is a place for scantily clad women and its usually on the beach...yes, there's nothing wrong with tank tops and bikinis in the proper setting. Would I wear it to the shops? No.


But I do think that, as long as there are perverted people who look for opportunities to rape and then blame the victim because of what she wore, women should take caution from that and be very careful not to attract that type of person. Of course she has every right to wear what she wants...thats not in question. But is the danger of doing so really worth it... imo, NO.

 

[Sunstone]

look, i'll be the first to say that we should all be able to walk around naked and not think anything of it.

There is a place for scantily clad women and its usually on the beach...yes, there's nothing wrong with tank tops and bikinis in the proper setting. Would I wear it to the shops? No.


But I do think that, as long as there are perverted people who look for opportunities to rape and then blame the victim because of what she wore, women should take caution from that and be very careful not to attract that type of person. Of course she has every right to wear what she wants...thats not in question. But is the danger of doing so really worth it... imo, NO.

Rapists are not so much attracted by how a woman dresses as by how she conducts herself. Shy little girls lacking self confidence get raped more frequently than brazen women.

 

[Alceste]

Rapists are not so much attracted by how a woman dresses as by how she conducts herself. Shy little girls lacking self confidence get raped more frequently than brazen women.

True enough. Violent offenders look for signs of weakness and vulnerability when choosing a victim. They don't give a toss about the victim's fashion sense. In that sense, women who are submissive toward their husband or their church are "asking for it" far more effectively than confident women in mini-skirts and halter tops.

But of course I would never say such a thing or treat it as a readonable claim: no woman is asking for it, regardless of what she wears or how obedient and submissive she is.

 

[Me Myself]

True enough. Violent offenders look for signs of weakness and vulnerability when choosing a victim. They don't give a toss about the victim's fashion sense. In that sense, women who are submissive toward their husband or their church are "asking for it" far more effectively than confident women in mini-skirts and halter tops.

But of course I would never say such a thing or treat it as a readonable claim: no woman is asking for it, regardless of what she wears or how obedient and submissive she is.

Indeed. It´s a true shame, if a women is just sincetrely that way that people can damage them so frigging much . The worst of all is that most of those are the weakest to the emotional thrauma that will create them.

People can really be *edit*

 

[Gentoo]

But I do think that, as long as there are perverted people who look for opportunities to rape and then blame the victim because of what she wore, women should take caution from that and be very careful not to attract that type of person. Of course she has every right to wear what she wants...thats not in question. But is the danger of doing so really worth it... imo, NO.

I know I brought it up, but I don't want to turn it totally off-topic, however this is totally victim-blaming..

 

[Me Myself]

I know I brought it up, but I don't want to turn it totally off-topic, however this is totally victim-blaming..

not necesarily. I seriously doubt that was the intent.

If you go out at night with a rolex to the bad parts of your city... well you shuoldn´t. You have the right to, and by law nobody should blame you, and the city shouldn´t have a bad part in the first place, and the robber that robbed you still sucks... but it is reasonable to say that you shouldn´t go out at night to the bad parts of the city with expensive stuff.

Now I agree on that disgracefully, the rape victims tend to be the more shy ones, but as inacurate as I think Pegg´s statement was (and I just think it is inaccurate, I have nothing similar to statistics or anything conclusive besides my impression)it was intended to be something in the lines of "don´t bring expensive stuff to the bad part of the neighborhood".

Now, that is just my impression too, Pegg would probably enlighten us with her impression if she comes by and see this part

 

[Acim]

As I see it , the principle revolves around four major elements:

Two girls free to dress in a specific way on their property.

Two boys who enjoy looking at the girls dressed in that specific way.

A parent of the boys who objects to the boys looking at the girls dressed in that specific way .

The parent seeking to change the way the girls dress.
​

The issue then comes down to whose position should prevail. But first . . .

Did the girls have the right to dress in the manner they did? Yes, because their parents approved.

We can fairly conclude the parents approved because we saw no objection to it. In fact, the father even said it was "typical" dress, and defended it because "It's hot here much of the year, . . ." The mother also showed her support because she thought Mike should "shove it." So, the girls, their father, and their mother all felt they were in the right---were morally proper---to dress in the manner they did on their property.

In comes neighbor Mike who feels the girls are "overly sexualized displays" and that they amounted to "certain elements of the world" he wanted to protect his kids from." In other words, I think it's safe to say he felt the girls were dressed immorally.

So the principle I see at issue here is the imposition of one moral position on another. Should anyone expect their morals to trump the morals of someone else, especially when other options are available? If he wanted, Mike could block the view of his neighbor's yard from the bedroom window. Instead, he sought to get his neighbors to drop their moral position in favor of his.

If asked, would you drop a moral principle in favor of one in direct opposition? Would you expect anyone to do it for you ?

We are not understanding principle in same way. You are saying principle for those who responded is a reaction to a negative principle, and one I still see as misrepresenting position of Mike. He is making a request.

If I walk around inside of my house nude with windows not covered, and you are my neighbor, you might ask me if I would put covering on my windows when I choose to walk around naked. My wife might tell me to tell you to shove it. And I might say something along lines of, I hear your request, can we discuss this and reach amicable solution? Because I really feel comfortable doing this in my house, but at same time, I'd like for you to be comfortable being my neighbor.

IMO, it is not proper to say both parents approved because they didn't object. In fact, I would say mom comes off as defensive and dad as not sure of proper etiquette in this neighborly situation and because he has doubts he is seeking advice from 3rd party advisor. Why would he do this if he is "perfectly fine with this?"

Let's go back to you and I as neighbors and this time you are walking around naked, and are comfortable doing so. I ask you to cover your windows, but like your wife, you are slightly offended I'd even insinuate that you have to change something in your environment so I can feel comfortable. Are you going to then write to an advice columnist asking what to do? I say no, you wouldn't. Why? Because you are comfortable with your body, with the arrangement, and feel it is not up to you to placate me. Tough tooties if I don't like it, you heard my request and will continue to do as you so please.

Now, it becomes "imposition" if I go to something like town hall and try to pass some ordinance that says you must cover your window if anyone in house is naked in rooms where windows are exposed. That would be imposition. Did Mike do that? Uh no.

When you say Mike could block view of neighbors yard, and this I agree with as possible option. It is what I'd be wanting to discuss with Mike if I were neighbor. And for all we know, Mike is reasonable. Perhaps he thought of this block idea, but wanted to make request that does match his sense of morals, and feel out what level neighbors might accommodate, realizing they don't have to do anything, and may in fact play hardball, a la shove it Mike. But Mike and Mary may be all too happy to erect wall that keeps neighbors at bay and presents amicable solution for all. Perhaps after this, Mike, Mary, dad and wife, and all the kids share Sunday dinner together, once a week for next 30 years. We may never know.

To me, principle at work for those who agree with wife, and me putting things generously (giving benefit of doubt) is people believe in fundamental right to do whatever they desire to do on their property as long as it is not breaking any laws or local ordinances. If a neighbor asks something to change in which no law is being broken, but neighbor wants the change nonetheless, I think most people on this thread would listen up to a point, and may even accommodate in some fashion. I think some would possibly jump to logic that is essentially, "screw you, I do what I want, when I want on my property and if you don't like it, you can shove it." I think that would be minority of people on this thread and in our world.

 

[Poisonshady313]

For me, the issues is about 'getting along with the neighbors who are making a request.' If I were dad in this situation, and Mike came over and demanded I dress my daughters differently all the time, I'd be more inclined to tell Mike to shove it. I would still listen up to a point and have discussion up to a point, but if it were only righteousness being espoused, I would probably have little willingness to accommodate. But if neighbor Mike or anyone on block makes a request, I'd want to discuss it with hopefully a reasonable, amicable resolution being found.

A reasonable resolution for a reasonable request.

There is nothing about Mike's request that was reasonable. Mike shouldn't have even gone to his neighbors about this issue. He needed to deal with his boys.

When a person goes about their daily life, not bothering anybody, their manner of dress is nobody's business, especially when they're on their own property.

If these girls were guests in Mike's house, and he asked that they dressed more modestly when in his home, that would be perfectly reasonable, and should be taken seriously.

If these girls attended the same house of worship as Mike and his family, and their manner of dress crossed the line into inappropriate, saying something would be perfectly reasonable, and should be taken seriously.

There was no reason whatsoever for Mike to visit his neighbor on this matter or ask anything of them whatsoever. The worst offender in this whole situation is not the girls, nor the boys, nor the wife who said "shove it"... but Mike. Mike should be ashamed of himself. He should shove it.

 

[Me Myself]

I mean , honestly, he can ASK as he did, but it is a incredibly bad idea. It won´t help his boys that way.

I mean he can´t ask all the city to hide its mature content for when the kids grow up, and they certanly won´t be able to refrain their impulses when they see a sexual trigger if they are nor ALLOWED to see sexual triggers.

 

[Skwim]

A reasonable resolution for a reasonable request.

There is nothing about Mike's request that was reasonable. Mike shouldn't have even gone to his neighbors about this issue. He needed to deal with his boys.

When a person goes about their daily life, not bothering anybody, their manner of dress is nobody's business, especially when they're on their own property.

If these girls were guests in Mike's house, and he asked that they dressed more modestly when in his home, that would be perfectly reasonable, and should be taken seriously.

If these girls attended the same house of worship as Mike and his family, and their manner of dress crossed the line into inappropriate, saying something would be perfectly reasonable, and should be taken seriously.

There was no reason whatsoever for Mike to visit his neighbor on this matter or ask anything of them whatsoever. The worst offender in this whole situation is not the girls, nor the boys, nor the wife who said "shove it"... but Mike. Mike should be ashamed of himself. He should shove it.

Absolutely!

Mikes mistake is attempting to use his neighbor as pawn in resolving his problem with his boys---have the girls change their behavior---rather than addressing the real problem, which is under his own roof; changing the behavior of the boys. After all, the issue isn't that girls often dress in scanty attire, but that his sons are exposed to "certain elements of the world" he wants to protect them from. If Mike had no children would he have complained about the girls? No, because the only reason given for complaining was to protect the boys. So it's the boys, and not the girls, around which the issue revolves. Therefore, given that they're the nexus of Mikes problem they're the ones to which he should address his efforts. Mike's simply a moral jacka$$ who's trying to shove his parental responsibility off on others.

 

[Acim]

There was no reason whatsoever for Mike to visit his neighbor on this matter or ask anything of them whatsoever. The worst offender in this whole situation is not the girls, nor the boys, nor the wife who said "shove it"... but Mike. Mike should be ashamed of himself. He should shove it.

And me I don't see an offense. Seems like an emotional reaction to simple item.

I'm also curious if I choose to walk naked in my house with windows not coverd if you feel any neighbor has right to ask me (or etiquette is to ask me) to cover windows or cover me?

Personally, I'd be very easy going about all this. At same time, I'd see two sides to the story if this sort of thing arose. I think dad in article was seeing that there could be two sides. And given response of advice columnist, I reckon dad more or less told Mike to shove it, though hopefully not in such a mean way.

I am still curious if Mike had come over to say his 30 year old brother-in-law who is registered sex offender that is staying with them is having similar (arguably same) issue with scantily clad girls next door, if people on this thread would change their tune? We may never know, but I'm feeling pretty confident that the 'their manner of dress' would not be overriding idea of those who agree with parents. Instead, I think the reaction of wife and others on this thread, would be something that I think even Mike in this story would be like, whoa whoa whoa Nelly, that's carrying things a bit too the extreme don't cha think?

I mean after all, we're just talking about looking, and that is all. What does it matter who the audience is?

 

[Pegg]

I mean , honestly, he can ASK as he did, but it is a incredibly bad idea. It won´t help his boys that way.

I mean he can´t ask all the city to hide its mature content for when the kids grow up, and they certanly won´t be able to refrain their impulses when they see a sexual trigger if they are nor ALLOWED to see sexual triggers.

the real issue is why a male looks at a female as a 'sexual trigger' in the first place!

it doesnt have to, nor should it be that way... I would like it if the men of the world viewed women as equals first and foremost.