She got angry and probably wasn't polite. It's frankly probably bad manners on her part. Reverse the situation, would you say the same if a man flew off the handle for a woman looking at him in public?

Yes... because... the statement is "If a woman wears a revealing outfit in public, she has no right to be angry if a man looks at her"

woman - apparently any woman... aged 7 to 77, I guess

revealing - meaning a V neck? a halter top? something inappropriate for the environment she's in? what? I have no idea.

public - the lobby of her condo? her job as a waitress at a fine steak house? her job at Hooters? the beach? the financial district? the farmer's market?

angry - did she go ballistic? does she feel angry but say nothing?

looks - what does that mean? Glances or stares? Leers suggestively? Studies? Is this just any kind of eye contact.

This is not really an answerable question.

It is, however, yet another opportunity in a patriarchal society for men to make it known how women should feel or react.

The whole question at top is just so devoid of meaningful descriptors. It just sounds like the OP got scolded by a woman because he looked at her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable and now he's posting the question looking for absolution. Is that what happened? I don't know, nor care... and readily admit, probably not... But it is, to me, what the question "sounds" like.

But dominance between males is to "claim" territory and as many FEMALES as possible. Everything animals do is either for territory or copulation.

I think it works somehow both ways. Especially when, surprisigly, competitive means "more naked" , lol.

I mean, even if women reject this fact on first level of consciousness, it doesn't change the fact, that proving "i am the alpha male/female" has meaning only on the field of reproduction.

I would say everything we do is connected with reproduction. If a man is buying a fancy car to compete with his friends' cars, it always indirectly determine his chances to get laid. Always.
And if a women is competing with another in some way, it increases her chances to mate with better male than the other female, no matter is she's doing it to cause that effect consciously or not.

What about those in monogamous relationships? Or the celibate? Asexuals?

Monogamous relationships are one thing, original instinct is another thing. Most people in relationships "feed" their instinct just by flirting, some of them cheat sooner or later.

I mean, polygamous relationships are basic for almost every species, and monogamous relationship is what human psychology (and some animals too) developed. I think these two things stay in coflict all your life (id and ego and superego), but i'm not an expert of any kind.

Celibate is the worst of sexual deviations :P

I don't know what the fuck your first two sentences have to do with the rest of them here, but I guess it makes sense in your mind. In any case, I would never... EVER... argue against your later point there. Never.

The first part is utter idiocy though. To say a male cannot have insight into female behavior is to discount like a thousand years of social science and more importantly common sense. You are letting your crusader persona get in the way of rational discussion about behavior patterns. It's either the typical white knight superiority bullshit or you're just itching to annoy people, but either way it's why I called you an asshat.

Also don't say shit like "it's not even worth it" and then actually continue the debate. It's yet another effort on your part to seem superior and above it all while actually still being down in it and it doesn't impress me.

Baloney. Monogamous married women do the same thing; so do women who are not sexually active and don't intend to be. It's a status among fellow women thing. And no, your view of biology is myopic. Not everything is about sex. There's all manner of resources other than desirable mates that humans will fight over.

I'm sorry, but this is bullcrap. Women aren't some race of magical fairy creatures. It's completely possible to understand them and how their minds work. Just basic social science and some basic common sense. Treating them like they're a mysterious race of superbeings that us lowly males have no hope of ever comprehending is a far worse form of sexism then simply making a blanket statement about general female characteristics.

And yes, it works the other way too. Women are perfectly capable of understanding how men work.

Including your posting in this thread?

Maybe. You fancy having sex right now? ;P

If you're going to say that, could you explain to me why not having sex at all is any worse than having unreprodictive sex (i.e homosexual relations, bestial relations, or use of birth control or an abortion)? The result is the same, so if you're going to label celibacy as being "the worst of sexual deviations," wouldn't you have to label those others as being just as bad?

Understand that this is a genuine question, not a jab.
Depends... are you a plump young girl in a turtleneck?

Ahh, I see.

I do need to correct one thing, though... masturbation isn't actually Biblically stated as being a sin. That's one of those things that popular Christian culture "reasons out" as being bad (as part of trying to stay sexually pure before marriage). Thus, it doesn't necessarily follow that someone who follows the Bible thinks that masturbation is a sin. I'm not interested in debating this view, I just want to make sure that you know that it's not an issue like "thou shalt not commit adultery," where it's overtly stated in the Bible and anyone who's making a real effort to follow Biblical teachings is going to see it as a sin.

It's the same for celibacy, in the first chapter of book of eden God says "be fertile and reproduce" to all his creations.

And then, suddenly, wild pope appears and uses celibacy. And it's super effective.

From biblical point of view, all priests should have wives, and it would be better for all of us. But well, sons and daughters have one pretty nasty factor - they INHERIT. And this is what church dislikes the most.

I believe that the Catholic Church is the dominant church in Poland? 'Cause yeah... they have some beliefs that really don't mesh well with Biblical teachings (as do most manifestations of institutionalized Christianity, which is why I usually don't actually refer to myself as any particular brand of Christian. People assume that you believe everything that everyone else in that group believes).

Basically, you're preaching to the choir :P. I've always thought that the whole celibacy thing was pretty silly.

Yeah, catholic church is dominant. I am an atheist, btw. But I have much respect for people who believe in God in "biblical" form. Pure christians, one may say.

I don't respect catholics this much, mostly because, as you've said - many catholic dogmats are conflicted with Bible and priests and pope just don't give a f---k, because most people don't know Bible at all.