Merged Sexual Harrasment, after the fact? (Inez Sainz)

[SpuriusMaximus]

So, to be clear, is your contention that there is no such thing as 'dressing sexy'?

That women never dress in a way to deliberately increase their sex appeal or highlight sexually appealing attributes?

That when I've looked at women at red carpet functions with very low cut dresses exposing their cleavage and thought 'my, that looks sexy' what I actually should have been thinking was 'my, that woman is dressing in a comfortable manner'?

[qimg]http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2546/hotdayg.jpg[/qimg]

Whew! must have been 40 degrees in the shade!

So, to make it clear, women are all drones in a Borg collective, and because one dresses in a sheer dress for shock value, a different one can't possibly wear a shirt and jeans for any other reason, right? We can safely assume that they're all mind-linked with Lady Gaga and Madonna and that girl in your photo, and there's no possible reason not to judge a woman or her reasons by what a different woman did before, right?

Also, just to make it clear, we can judge what women wear and why everywhere by, umm, what looks at a wild guess like a fashion show, right? Because we all know that women everywhere wore something like that or like:

at least once before, and we can judge them on that, right?

I mean, everyone actually wears the stuff you see in those fashion shows, right?

Makes sense to me, come to think of it

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I just happened to come across this....

Yikes, talk about provocative!

http://www.wwtdd.com/2010/09/this-is-lady-gaga-at-the-airport/

And I think it's safe to say that in this scenario, provocation is the point.

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/09/13/jets-owner-apologizes-female-tv-reporter/

So, she wasn't upset after all?

I get the feeling it's other reporters who were bothered.

 

[Puppycow]

Here is a photo of how she was dressed that she posted herself:
http://twitpic.com/2nu00w

Oh, Lordy. I wonder if those are implants.

I find nothing sexy or sexual about her outfit,

I'm sorry, but what planet are you from?

 

[lomiller]

It the Jets owner really named Woody Johnson

Sainz said Monday that Jets owner Woody Johnson called her to apologize. ESPNNewYork.com reported earlier Monday that Johnson said he offered an "open apology" to her.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I find nothing sexy or sexual about her outfit, besides the fact that it shows that she has a body that is considered "feminine". These pants are pretty damned tight and the uniform highlights the ass, thighs, shoulder, and groin area of a man. How provocative!

Oooh, honey, I know, and when the pants are light-colored and the players kind of bend over a little to lean in to the huddle, you can see their jock straps right through the fabric.

Lol

These conversations are verging on the absurd.

Football players wear football equipment because it enhances their abilities on the field.

I haven't seen that many reporters show the kind of cleavage Ms. Sainz was showing in that interview, or wear pants that hike quite so high up the bum as those jeans.

However, leaving aside the question of whether or not the jeans Sainz wore were or were not provocative i.e. whether they did or did not deliberately highlight her sexual attractiveness, let's move along to what I feel are the more interesting questions:

1) do women (men) ever dress in a way designed to draw attention to their sexually attractive attributes?
2) if 'yes', what is the appropriate level of response to this invocation of sexuality?

Women sometimes do dress in a way to highlight their sexually attractive attributes. Whistles, cat calls, raunchy comments, and other stereotypical male reactions are never appropriate, however. Showing off parts of her figure that you may find attractive doesn't make her your girl toy to be treated with any sort of disrespect that it might cross your mind to display.

Why do some men find this so hard to understand? Just because an attractive woman dresses in such a way as to look more attractive doesn't mean she needs to be informed minute-by-minute, at the top of your voice, about your physical responses to her appearance, or even that she wants to be.

 

[Chris C]

The thing you have to understand about sexual harrassment is it has to be unwanted. Just because Sainz didn't feel uncomfortable about what was happening doesn't necessarily mean other people that where witnessed the situation felt the same way. If you have 10 guys and 1 girl in a room, and they are talking about things of sexual nature to the girl and she has no problem with it. Its not sexual harrassment. However, If one person there feels its sexual harrassment, even if its one of the guys, then there is an issue of sexual harrassment. I've listened to many sexual harrassment seminars, and all of them mention, UNWANTED.

 

[Puppycow]

The thing you have to understand about sexual harrassment is it has to be unwanted. Just because Sainz didn't feel uncomfortable about what was happening doesn't necessarily mean other people that where witnessed the situation felt the same way. If you have 10 guys and 1 girl in a room, and they are talking about things of sexual nature to the girl and she has no problem with it. Its not sexual harrassment. However, If one person there feels its sexual harrassment, even if its one of the guys, then there is an issue of sexual harrassment. I've listened to many sexual harrassment seminars, and all of them mention, UNWANTED.

This is a good point. It is often a third party that is the victim of sexual harrassment (maybe there should be another word for it in this case). If the 'harrassed' person gets an unfair benefit in exchange for playing along, then the victims are the third parties that get unfair treatment as a result.

 

[C_Felix]

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/09/13/jets-owner-apologizes-female-tv-reporter/

So, she wasn't upset after all?

I get the feeling it's other reporters who were bothered.

This is why I'm intrigued about all of this.
When the story first broke, it was all muddled.

• I heard that someone else complained.
• I heard that she was cool with it.
• I then heard that she complained.
• Then I heard that after someone else complained and the NFL called her to ask her what happened, that is when she felt uncomfortable.

Now, its coming out that it was another reporter who complained.

Sexual harrasment by proxy?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Way I understand the sequence of events:

1. The other reporter was bothered.
2. The other reporter told her what they said.
3. Then she was bothered too.

I dunno, way I see it, just because someone incidentally didn't hear or understand something, doesn't make it less "unwanted." If I holler of at someone who has their headphones on, it doesn't make it less "unwanted", way I see it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm a Washington Redskins fan. Our running back, Clinton Portis, had this to say on the radio:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/09/clinton_portis_on_ines_sainz_s.html
You know man, I think you put women reporters in the locker room in positions to see guys walking around naked, and you sit in the locker room with 53 guys, and all of the sudden you see a nice woman in the locker room, I think men are gonna tend to turn and look and want to say something to that woman. For the woman, I think they make it so much that you can't interact and you can't be involved with athletes, you can't talk to these guys, you can't interact with these guys.

"And I mean, you put a woman and you give her a choice of 53 athletes, somebody got to be appealing to her. You know, somebody got to spark her interest, or she's gonna want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's packages. And you're just sitting here, saying 'Oh, none of this is attractive to me.' I know you're doing a job, but at the same time, the same way I'm gonna cut my eye if I see somebody worth talking to, I'm sure they do the same thing."

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Women sometimes do dress in a way to highlight their sexually attractive attributes. Whistles, cat calls, raunchy comments, and other stereotypical male reactions are never appropriate, however. Showing off parts of her figure that you may find attractive doesn't make her your girl toy to be treated with any sort of disrespect that it might cross your mind to display.

Why do some men find this so hard to understand? Just because an attractive woman dresses in such a way as to look more attractive doesn't mean she needs to be informed minute-by-minute, at the top of your voice, about your physical responses to her appearance, or even that she wants to be.

Okay, so we have agreement that women sometimes do dress in a way to enhance their sexual attractiveness. This, by definition, means that they are dressing in a way that elicits or is intended to elicit a sexual reaction on some level. "Sexual reaction" doesn't mean giant boners or hooting and hollering, (the latter of which is, we both agree, inappropriate, and the first of which should probably be shamefully hidden), but at the least it means some form of arousal or piquing of interest.

So, given that such dress is intended to elicit a sexual reaction (I'm assuming we agree on this), what level of reaction is appropriate? Is it OK to look at the areas highlighted by the woman's clothing? Is it OK to try and hit on the woman when you might not hit on a more modestly dressed woman? Such dress is intended to elicit some form of response in the observer, but should this response be entirely internal i.e. just thinking to yourself 'ah that's hot!'?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, that is exactly what's not a given.

You've only connected it in a "by association" way. That's what I've been trying to tell you in that "Borg hive" message.

The formalized way of saying the underlying implication would be: "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property P is true for x, then for all x in S the property P must be true." You've shown that at least one woman exists (and probably many more, actually) who dresses to elicit a reaction, but you haven't shown that all women do. Hence jumping from the girl in your photo to the harassed reporter is really just an implicit association fallacy.

In fact, it's three of them on top of each other. Yes, some women, at some times, dress with an intention to stir some guys hormones. It does not mean that this woman, at this time, for the particular guy doing the reaction. That's three different things that are not a given at all.

1. Some women do, some women don't.

2. Even someone who dresses to elicit a reaction at some times, might not be doing that at any other given time.

3. Even someone who dresses to elicit a reaction from a certain guy or certain guys, isn't necessarily doing it for all guys in existence.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm a Washington Redskins fan. Our running back, Clinton Portis, had this to say on the radio:

Ouch. You have my compassion for having to listen to that stupidity. But then I guess it's kinda expected that that guy wasn't chosen on the sports team for being a genius

 

[Uncayimmy]

Ouch. You have my compassion for having to listen to that stupidity. But then I guess it's kinda expected that that guy wasn't chosen on the sports team for being a genius

First off, Woody Johnson? <snicker>

Second, Portis is certainly colorful. He's a lot of fun. He's also not all that articulate. I could be projecting, but I took his comments to be making two points. The first is, "Are you telling me that a locker room full of half-naked and fully naked, testosterone-laden athletes in their 20s riding the high of an elite level sporting event is now off-limits to bawdy behavior?" The second is, "Hey, don't you think some of us felt uncomfortable having someone gawk at our half-naked or fully naked, finely honed bodies as we're trying to change into our civvies?"

My reaction to the whole situation is, "Meh."

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, at the very least he could have found better ways to express that than, basically, saying, "hey, she must have liked at least one of us." But, ah well.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Actually, that is exactly what's not a given.

You've only connected it in a "by association" way. That's what I've been trying to tell you in that "Borg hive" message.

The formalized way of saying the underlying implication would be: "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property P is true for x, then for all x in S the property P must be true." You've shown that at least one woman exists (and probably many more, actually) who dresses to elicit a reaction, but you haven't shown that all women do. Hence jumping from the girl in your photo to the harassed reporter is really just an implicit association fallacy.

Never made that jump; in fact if you read my earlier posts what I said is 'let's leave aside the question of whether the reporter's dress was or was not provocative'. The girl in the photo (J-Lo... don't be fooled by the rocks that she's got, she's still she's still jenny from the block!) was in response to a comment made by Scrhodinger's Cat that when she wore short shorts it was strictly because it was hot outside. This was in response to my query as to whether anyone agreed whether or not women ever dressed sexy to elicit a sexual reaction, and what the appropriate level of reaction to such dress should be. I can't have a conversation about the effects and social mores surrounding sexy attire if I can't find anyone to agree with me that yes, indeed women do dress sexy at times and yes, the point is to arouse. IT took a while to get agreement on this point.

Here we are now.

In fact, it's three of them on top of each other. Yes, some women, at some times, dress with an intention to stir some guys hormones. It does not mean that this woman, at this time, for the particular guy doing the reaction. That's three different things that are not a given at all.

1. Some women do, some women don't.

2. Even someone who dresses to elicit a reaction at some times, might not be doing that at any other given time.

3. Even someone who dresses to elicit a reaction from a certain guy or certain guys, isn't necessarily doing it for all guys in existence.

K so what I understand from this is: yes, sometimes women dress sexy on purpose. BUT, you don't know for sure if the woman who you think is dressing sexy actually is TRYING to look sexy on purpose. Therefore, no level of reaction or response is allowable or socially acceptable. Even prolonged gazing could be construed as sexual harassment if this gazing is unwanted. So if a woman is dressed sexy, the best policy is just to ignore it.

The notion of 'for this particular guy' is problematic for me in some instances, for example when someone is for example at work or walking down the street. Assume a deliberate sexy dresser. Perhaps she's dressing sexy for someone in particular, but if I see her walking along, I will still be like 'wow that's sexy'. The effect that sexy dress has isn't restricted to the intended target.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Well, at the very least he could have found better ways to express that than, basically, saying, "hey, she must have liked at least one of us." But, ah well.

I think what you are asking is whether it would have been better if he found a better way to express it. Asking if he "could have" done it, well, I've been listening to the guy for years in interviews. I'm gonna have to say, "No, he couldn't have." This is the guy who used to dress up for interviews in character.

 

[Cicero]

The Woman Who Cried Wolf Whistle-Ines Sainz, "The Hottest Sports Reporter In Mexico"

Why are reporters allowed in NFL locker rooms?

Olbermann chimes in.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/olbermann-ines-sainz/


"Ines Sainz, a reporter with Mexico's TV Azteca, says she was uncomfortable with catcalls she says were made in the New York Jets' locker room while she was conducting an interview on Sept. 10. Now the NFL is investigating claims that she was sexually harassed. Here, Sainz interviews a player at Media Day at the University of Phoenix Stadium."


"Yes, she wears low-cut shirts, tight jeans and has photos on her employer’s website showing her in a bikini. But that has nothing to do with being a professional sports reporter for Mexico’s TV Azteca, she said today.

“It’s my style,” the 32-year-old television journalist told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” She’s not trying to elicit leers, she said. “It is my style for all my life.”

And she has no plans to change.

“I’m not trying to provoke anything,” she told Meredith Vieira on NBC’s “Today” show this morning. “I don’t think I need to change. They are going to change.“

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/artic...ing-style-is-no-invitation-for-abuse/19632772

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why are reporters allowed in NFL locker rooms?

Because fans would riot if their constant stream of NFL news was interrupted for even a fraction of a second.