"FOCUS!"
The husband of the President of Finland is being widely ridiculed in the news media after being caught by a journalist’s camera as he plainly ogled the cleavage of Princess Mary of Denmark and was seemingly caught in the act by the Princess as well. Unfair. He allowed his gaze to linger a bit long, perhaps, and one’s manners are supposed to be somewhat elevated, theoretically, in the presence of royalty, but Pentti Arajarvi was mostly a victim of the sad reality that being discrete, once the primary etiquette requirement of men relentlessly drawn to a woman’s comely assets, is no longer possible in public and often in private as well. President Obama, you will recall, was caught doing a classic male turnaround to catch the spectacle of a perfect female butt passing by.
Even more unfair, and ridiculous, are the opportunistic women’s rights warriors who use such incidents to show how women are still treated as sex objects by men in the workplace and elsewhere. The all-time low in this regard occurred last fall when former Pussycat Doll singer and then judge on Simon Cowell’s “X-Factor” Nicole Scherzinger appeared on “Conan” wearing a dress that would have gotten her arrested in Boston not all that long ago. Conan O’Brien’s attention understandably strayed from Scherzinger’s inane blather—as viewers of “X-Factor” quickly discovered, she is a self-absorbed cretin—to her only arguable justification for celebrity, her boobs. Scherzinger decided to embarrass the host on the air by shouting, “FOCUS!” at him. This, from a women dressed as intentionally immodestly as the famous-for-her-breasts pseudo-singer, nicely exposed the hypocrisy inherent in such situations. A woman wears an outfit that might as well have a blinking neon sign attached to it that says, “Look at us!!!” and feigns indignation when men obey. Conan, as you will see in the YouTube clip, had an appropriate response:
This is not to say that women wearing provocative clothing consent to being harassed. A Chicago restaurant called The Tilted Kilt dresses its waitresses in knee-highs, tartan mini skirts and push-up bras while exposing bare midriffs, is being sued by its waitresses after a series of blatant harassing episodes. This has prompted more than a few mocking headlines. some from sources that obviously know better, like “Scantily Clad Waitresses Are Surprised By Sexual Harassment, Sue Over It in Federal Court.” Nothing the women wore justified despicable (and criminal) conduct like this, from their complaint:
- Taking a straw full of water, placing it down at least one of the Plainitiffs’ dresses, releasing the water and making comments such as “I’m trying to get your panties wet” and “That’s how Daddy likes it – with your panties wet.”
- Making comments to one or more Plaintiffs such as “You don’t know what I’d like to do to you”.
- Telling one or more of the Plaintiffs: “I want to fuck you so bad”.
- Asking one or more Plaintiffs to “smell my finger.”
- Saying things about riding his handlebars when referring to his mustache and women
- Asking a Plaintiff to have her and a female friend participate in a ménage a trois.
- Telling a Plaintiff that the way to get to a promotion was to have sex with him.
- Telling a Plaintiff that the way to get to a promotion was to have sex with him.
- Grabbing one or more of Plaintiffs’ breasts.
- Grabbing one or more of Plaintiffs’ buttocks.
- Attempting to kiss one or more of the Plaintiffs on the mouth.
Yes, I’d say that Nicole would have been within her rights to beef if Conan tried any of that. But the staring—indeed, men should be discreet, and make every attempt not to make any woman feel uncomfortable. However, if a woman doesn’t want to make a man look, she shouldn’t dress in a manner that says, “Look!”, and she certainly shouldn’t set out to embarrass a man who does.
Ethics Alarms 
That’s pretty funny. If society asks men to be discreet so should women. I like people watching at those times. To see the reactions of both the Princess and the husband of the president were funny in itself, but then to catch someone watching the reaction of both is pretty funny as well. It’s expected to happen when people are provocatively dressed. But the people that catch it happening who claim harrassment are looking at the same thing. Blatant verbal and at times nonverbal sexual harassment no matter how one is dressed should be admonished. Thus, the women in the restaurant have a case. The only thing is that they should have been somewhat prepared because of what they were wearing. Provocative dress is going to provoke “knuckleheads”. The “peanut gallery” is still wrong.
I’d say that when confronted with such a spectacular display of female “charms”- virtually right in your face- even a saint would be compelled to take a look. I can’t blame the Finnish President too severely if all he did was sneak a peek at the princely paramounts! After all, if Her Royal Highness hadn’t meant for anyone to look, why did she display them as she did? (Allowing, here, for the fact that she’s Danish!)
On the other hand, when Obama and Sarkozy turned to mutually admire the likewise well-displayed derriere of a nearby young woman, it wasn’t just a brief, instinctive glance! In fact, they were grinning and “ogling” her like a couple of frat boys on Spring Vacation. Nothing new for a French President, but Obama could have displayed a little more restraint!
Bah. I ask for a president who doesn’t sleep with his subordinates (Damn you Bill Clinton for tarnishing generally positive policies!), but asking for one who doesn’t check out attractive people? That’s just unnatural.
Anyway, If you dress in a way that is visually attractive, people being visually attracted is to be expected. The Dutch situation is idiotic. If the Twisted Kilt waitresses were upset because guys were starring at them, I’d call them idiots, too.
As for what the Twisted Kilters actually complaining about, depending on the circumstances, speakers, and actions, some of those things are wrong, but not actionable harrassment. Customers hitting on waitresses, even crudely, is not actionable harrassment, but if management refused to warn or kick out unruly customers that crossed the line, that would be creation of a hostile work environment. I’d also consider not backing a waitress that wanted to file charges against the water dripper actionable, even if they kicked the guy out.
In other words, the Clintonesque “Waaal…. ev’rybody does it.”
Nope. Everybody doesn’t. A certain level of propriety SHOULD be expected in public dealings. What’s inappropriate is for someone to present themselves (or be presented so by an employer) in a way as to provoke impropriety. That’s true whether one is a princess or a cocktail waitress. It’s particularly true of men in public office who must restrain themselves… while being sorely tested!
No, not at all, and that’s not even a Clintonesque response.
I say that attraction to attractive objects and sexual attraction are inherent in human nature. Someone would have to be unhuman to avoid an undecorous glance or head twist now and again. I caught my (at the time) 90ish year old great-aunt nun checking out someone once. It happens. It’s not a “everybody does it” argument, it’s a “this is a biological imperative argument.” There’s really no benefit to calling it bad. Doing so doesn’t tarnish my image of someone.
We’re actually in agreement, TGT! I’m just of the opinion that a head of state needs to be very careful as to where his “head” is pointed at any particular time during a public function. Particularly if Royal Melons are involved!
In a noble attempt to be a gentleman, it is difficult to object the laws of human nature.
This blog is one of the few places on the Internet where I actually BEHAVE. Now after reading the post and all the guys’ comments, I feel like Yosemite Sam at Fort Knox in the Bugs Bunny-as-gold-detector-rabbit cartoon. (If you missed that one, you missed some great laughs.)
OhhHHHHHH NO YA DON’T! I’m not gonna look. Jack, you’re not gonna make me look. JACK, I’m NOT gonna LET you MAKE me LOOK! AwwwwWWWW……CRAP! (click)
Of course, there are also situations where even a modestly-dressed woman will have a physique that will guarantee at least a few stares. In those cases, reciprocal ethics seem to work best; men (and possibly lesbians) should do their best not to leer, and women should forgive them for the occasional inevitable “transgression”.
Inevitable. That’s what the transgression is. Even if more than occasional.
I wondered if Arajarvi was looking at the medal pinned to the left of the Princess’ dress…it seemed to be where his gaze was directed, it seemed too low to be looking at her cleavage.
Suuuure he was. I think his reaction after the Princess turned around tells us where he thought SHE thought he was looking, at least.
That’s pretty much what I was going to say, Jack!!
I don’t know. The problem with being a celebrity (and politicians and their spouses, at that level, are celebrities) is that people take a million photos of you, and if there’s one that makes you look foolish or funny, that’s the one that will be publicized.
That said, I generally approve of making harmless fun of the leading classes. They’re wealthy and powerful; they can take a little ribbing.
Everyone can take a little ribbing. Your comment seems to argue that being unfair to someone who is successful, just for being successful, is justified