I have enjoyed flicking through this Month's Jive Magazine. There was something in it that stuck out a little as odd though. I wonder if you agree. This month's Letters to the Editor includes this exchange:
"I have a persistent problem with men looking down my top when I am dancing. Now the novelty has worn off I wonder if you have any suggestions as to how to solve this problem. I realise that this may be a bigger issue than just my dancing style, but it's getting very difficult to maintain eye contact."
The Editor replies:
"You are writing about a problem that many women have to deal with. unfortunately as we are all individuals it appears that there are some (men) who are more interested in your body than your dancing. You can try the obvious 'covering up more' but I can hear your reply immediately of 'why should I cover up'.... and I quite agree. The problem is generated by the guy not you. As a man it's human nature to look once, but more than that can be construed as rude. Eye contact is the most obvious thing and if you can maintain that then your partner may find it more difficult (or embarrassing) to look down. If you are looking around the room then perhaps he will have more 'opportunity' to have an oggle [sic] and the situation is perpetuated. If your partner is a consistent offender on the dancefloor then you have the option to decline his dances in the future - but sometimes a disapproving look is all that is needed to correct his gaze. Please keep us informed of your progress - as I am sure its [sic] not a problem which will be solved overnight."
This exchange raised a couple of questions with me. Firstly she says "Now the novelty has worn off...", suggesting that she was - at some point - enjoying the extra attention her cleavage was getting her, but now she's changed her mind. Talk about mixing your signals? She also asks for suggestions to "solve this problem". The Editor dismisses the most obvious solution to this problem - wear a slightly higher neckline - by suggesting that she would reply "why should I". You should, I would imagine, because you don't like people looking down your top (anymore), which is why you've bothered to write into a magazine and ask for a solution.
The Editor goes on to say "The problem is generated by the guy not you." which is odd, because from the letter it would seem that she is the one with the problem here, that's why she's written in! The guys don't have a problem at all. There's a lady who doesn't mind you looking down her skimpy top and she's asking you to dance (only she's changed her mind about the looking at her tatters part now the novelty has worn off but she's neglected to mention that to anyone). I would challenge the Editor's summary of the situation by asking ladies who wear roll neck tops if they have this sort of major problem with guys.
It just doesn't add up - some (men) who are more interested in your body and then a few lines later - As a man it's human nature to look...
The Editor then neatly covers his tail in case at some point he gets seen in the future looking at some half exposed boobies by saying one look is "human nature". So one ogle is OK but two ogles turns you into a cad. With reasoning like - you don't have to accept ANY responsibility for your own actions effecting your situation, and it's all the fault of someone else (men) and you shouldn't look.... but one look is fine! I am thinking that this Editor guy would make a great member of Parliament
I know this is a new magazine, and I am sure that they're doing their best not to say the wrong thing... but this is political correctness driven past the edge of reason and out onto the vast grassy plains of lunacy isn't it?
Bookmarks