This is topic Slutwear is so last year... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027570

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
I don't know about you... but I'm relieved.


 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Yes, provided young women go to CNN Money for their fashion tips...
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
hehehe
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Man, that article is biased. Could they not find a better term than 'slutwear'? I mean, really.

edit: Yes, I know that's a slow pitch. But I do think the term is offensive.

[ September 21, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by DocCoyote (Member # 5612) on :
 
I have to admit to a certain confusion. Why would a teenage girl with bad posture want to wear clothes which accentuate an emerging potbelly, when us 40-something women are trying so hard to suck it in and take it back to the old flat-tummy days?

I'll be glad to see that style go away.

Lisa
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yes, the term is offensive.

Which is why I support using it.

Sometimes it's better to give something offensive an offensive name.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Honestly, I will miss this look.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
I was suprised when I heard that on the news the other day myself.

I hope it's true. Self Respect is an important image to portray IMHO.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Off topic – the title made me think of a phrase that keeps popping up on another board I’ve been reading (yes, Hatrack, I’ve been cheating on you ) The second most common phrase to express disapproval of something (after “tacky”) seems to be “___ is so eighties.” Has anyone else heard/seen this? When did the eighties become the epitome of uncoolness?
 

---

Posted by DocCoyote (Member # 5612) on :
 
Errr, oh yeah, gotta admit when I get the abs back where they belong, i.e., firmly situated, I WILL wear jeans that show navel.

Not sure whether I am suffering from jealousy that young folks get to wear the cool clothes, or a desire not to see pre-pubescent girls dressed like tarts. Some of each, I suspect.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
80's uncool! No way! I grew up during the 80's. That was back when Michael Jackson was BLACK and Break Dancing was all the fad.

And remember "Ghetto Blasters?" Plastic Jackets and rolled up pants.

Woot!
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Hey... nothing is wrong with the 80's!

*sings the "I love the 80's" song from VH1*
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I remember when the 70s were the epitome of tackiness.

Then they decided to make it cool again.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
It is true that "That 70's Show" is a hit and "That 80's Show" lasted half an episode. If you judge by that, then the 80's did blow.

I had fun though. Innocent and carefree were my days then the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up and we watched it on TV at school. That was when reality of the world set in.

[ September 21, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

Then they decided to make it cool again.

---

quote:

---

Hip to be modest

---

Yay!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Sometimes it's better to give something offensive an offensive name.

---

I'm guessing these times remarkably coincide with those times you find things offensive.

Seriously, I'm suprised you say this. It isn't usually tolerated on Hatrack, if at all. I don't even really see you doing it in your posts. Why larger society but not Hatrack?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Slutwear will be back. This was just the latest update of the hot pants.

I figure we have at least 15 years, even if the cycles are speeding up.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I find it rather amusing that these new fashions seem to be described as rather extreme modesty, but I applaud the very, very large step in the right direction. Well presuming this is actually what's going to happen....

I find the current ... female fashions to be very bothersome. It's distracting to me, and everytime I see a girl walk by dressed like ... well in this type of clothing I always feel the need to look away, or at the ground. At a college campus I've come to truely appreciate the magnficiences that is the concrete under me. My only refuge is in riding my bike everywhere way too fast so that I barely have time to recognize if someone iss there so I can avoid them, I go by way too fast sometimes to even notice gender. Unforuntaly, I don't always have this luxury, and I'll be glad if this becomes less of a factor.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Whereas I, quite frankly, appreciate the distraction.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Granted, standards differ from audience to audience, but when the fashion resembles something you'd see standing on a street corner at 03:30 in the morning, working the docks...well.

A little teasing, a little flirting can be very fun and personally, I like having something left to the imagination rather than really bad attempts to show off what you haven't got.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 

 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Hence why some schools have gone to separately educating boys and girls (some successfully or so I've heard).

It's part of that phenomenon of I want to flaunt it but damn you if you look at it.

I don't get it.

Show it all and then get mad when someone doesn't talk to you in the face.


 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
You can't let the chemise fall from the shoulder if you aren't wearing a chemise, only pasties.


 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Do more modest clothes make it so you don't have these distractions, Hobbes? The hint of flesh, the shape of an object hinted at, is often much more provocative and erotic for me than the actual uncovered object itself. I mean, you guys do realize that women aren't going to revert to wearing chadors so that the various lovely curves of the female body are going to be hidden?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'm happy with the idea - I do my best to maintain eye contact, but if you're wearing a top that might be better suited to my back pocket as a hanky, so sorry.

If you don't want people looking, next time pick a top with more than two square inches of fabric.

Granted, this in no way should ever be construed as an excuse or license to touch, but c'mon - you have no right to complain if you happen to draw an audience.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I think the rules of the game are that you look when not directly addressing the woman. It's mostly rude to talk to a woman's breasts or lick your chops while your eyes travel up and down her body.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
So has anyone else heard the "so eighties" thing before or not?
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Not till today...
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I have once, dkw, recently. But I just may not have been paying attention.

[silly cross-thread posting befuddlement]

[ September 21, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I thought the 80s were coming back. Color me confused.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I haven't.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
They are! At least the music... You go to any club for 20 or 30 somethings and that's all you hear. It's great!
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
If modesty continues to come back, my daughter will finally be cool!

Although, she is even more modest than my standards - she won't wear shorts in the summertimes. Says she doesn't want that much of her legs exposed. She wears capris.

To quote my daughter "Shorts are for running track. They don't make you look good, and you can be just as comfortable and cool in capris."
 

---

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
 
I hope this means I won't see that woman in Wal-Mart with the low-cut sweatpants and thong underwear again ...

That isn't even so 80s - it's just so wrong.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Storm, I find these "slutwear" outfits to be far less "sexy" then something more modest, that also alows for greater freedom of movement, basically what you said, but I find the slutwear (what a werid term, I feel werid just typing it ) far more distracting. For one, it tends to be (though I admit it isn't always) much more... bright! There's also the attitude that goes along with it. I mean let's face it, you don't put the goods on display, if you will, if you're not in the market, it mixes in with the whole attitute of the look.

Hobbes

[ September 21, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Heh, heh. Gotcha.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Actually, though I blush to say it, I find the slutware attractive. At least in the sense that it becomes very difficult to look away.

So I say good riddance. It's a paradoz.
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 

quote:

---

Telp:
nothing is wrong with the 80's

---

I've got a desk full of 80's music, and my buddies all tease me about my "gay band" collection.

Pet Shop Boys anyone?

Back on topic: I will be relieved when thong exposure goes away. Trying not look, and worrying about getting caught looking, and worrying about pitching a tent in public... I'll be relieved.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Of course slutware is "attractive" if it attracts your eyes. It will always be "attractive".
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
What's interesting to me about about this thread is that you see negative objectification coming from the modest crowd, rather than the immodest crowd. If the theories of exposure that the modesty people have espoused were true, it seems like we would see the exact opposite.
 

---

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
 
People in my generation really aren't going to stop wearing clothing that show's everything, maybe a few will.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Chasing time from hour to hour, I spill the drinks and crush the flowers.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
At the risk of interrupting the improv poetry,

Breyer - they will when they get old unless social standards change a lot between now and then.

Eye-catching does not necessarily mean attractive - garish and tacky will draw the eye just as quickly as anything else.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I don't like the term slutwear. Why are we attaching negative moral judgements based on how a woman looks? Just because someone is dressing in a certain way doesn't mean she is promiscuous, and even if she is unless you're her parent (if she's under 18) or her doctor, that's none of your business.

At the same time, I decidedly think there are time and places where more revealing clothes are and are not appropriate. Most places of employement = not appropriate. Most schools probably also = not appropriate. And as I believe we've discussed in the past, the age range for this clothing seems to be getting younger and younger, and that's probably not appropriate. But that's the parent's call, especially when they're buying the clothing.

I also agree that you shouldn't wear it unless you're okay with people looking. It's rather disingenuous to wear tight or skimpy clothing and then complain about people giving you the once-over... but again, there's a difference between looking and touching, between being appreciative and making lewd comments. I'm not going to dress provocativly unless I know where I'm going and who I'm going to be with, and am confident that the situation is going to be safe for me. But I get to make that call, no one else, and if I'm wrong, I'm the one who has to take the responsibility for it.

That said, I'm going to go workout. My vinal hip-huggers are a little tight, and since it's fall I know I'm going to want to wear them again soon.

[ September 21, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I'll repeat what I said in the other thread.

If you dress in a way that allows me to confuse you with a prostitute, then I will refer to what you're wearing as "slutwear". If you wear a white lab jacket, I may call it your doctor wear.

That is all.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's not the most politically correct phrase to use, granted.

And as you say, an unfair evaluation about a person based on their clothing choices.

Hmmm.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Making a judgment based on people's choices is pretty much the fairest way you can judge.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
What does a slut wear?

During an election year, usually three-piece suits.

But, I digress.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Porter, not when that judgement involves complete speculation absent any real evidence.

[ September 21, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Have you ever seen a prostitute? Most of the ones around here at least don't dress like they do in the movies. And they certainly don't dress like the teenage girls I think we're talking about.

And I certainly agree it's fair to judge based on people's choices. I just don't think it's fair that the choice to dress how you think is cool, however misguided you may be, necessarily should equal people making the judgement that you're a slut. In my opinion most of these girls are just trying to look like their friends. It might not be the best choice, but it does not mean they are having sex.

Edit: Okay, just read the other thread. I'll buy that in Tuscon prostitutes dress differently then they do in Minneapolis, especially in the winter.

[ September 21, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
To be perfectly honest, the best way of knowing a prostitute in Tucson is by where they are, how much make-up they're wearing, and how downtrodden they look.
 

---

Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
The prostitutes in Waikiki look just like the ones in movies and on TV... there's no question what they're doing.

My big beef with the revealing clothes is schools that make a big deal out of their dress codes at the beginning of the school year and then don't enforce them after the first week of school.

If the clothes are a distraction (and I believe they are, just like t-shirts with inappropriate graphics or lewd language) then do something about it. If they're not a distraction, don't have the dress code in the first place.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
PSI, same here. Which is one of the reasons I don't like the term... these girls don't look like hookers, they're no where near beaten-down enough.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think "slutwear" is a misnomer (and offensive) for the reasons stated. Women-wearing-revealing-clothes does not equal women-who-are-easy (though there may be some correlation). I do, however, think that women-wearing-revealing-clothes often equals women-who-make-men-lust-after-them (depending on how good she looks in the clothes). But I am not a guy, so I don't know.

As much as men may like women to dress provocatively, *I* don't like it. And I am pretty sure that men who believe in "not lusting" and keeping their thoughts pure don't appreciate the added temptation/distraction.

Storm noticed that the people who object to women dressing provocatively are the same people who believe in "not lusting". That is not surprising. Though I imagine a lot of men who may appreciate their peers dressing like that also don't want their daughters to dress like that. Why is that do you think?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

I mean let's face it, you don't put the goods on display, if you will, if you're not in the market, it mixes in with the whole attitute of the look.

---

I don't agree with this Hobbes. I have become more modest in my old age (all of 22 ) but I do sometimes enjoy wearing low-cut tops, or short skirts. I do this because it makes me feel good, and attractive, and confident, and young. But that does not mean I'm 'in the market' in any sense of the word unless in the market somehow means engaged, just bought a house and happily committed.

***

I should say that I find revealing clothing very disturbing when it is on young (say pre-16?) girls. Even more so when it's on pre-pubescent girls. I think the marketing of sexuality to children is irresponsible and I think high heeled boots on 6 year olds is never appropriate. But that's different to young women choosing to dress in a way that they like.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
And anyway, what is wrong with a grown woman choosing to show her body? The body is a beautiful thing, and I don't think anyone should make people ashamed of their body, or equate showing flesh with a lack of morality.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Imogen, you're Australian, yes?

American sensibilities in the mainstream tend to be more reserved than a number of other countries, although never having had the chance to visit Australia, I couldn't compare the particulars.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Yup, Australian.

We have our own conservative streak in the media here, but I think you are right in that mainstream America is much more conservative wth regards to nudity and sex. Not, however with regards to violence - but that's another topic.

***

All that said above, I do agree that if you dress in a way that shows off your body, then you should expect people to look.

But equating what someone wears with their sexual behaviour seems to me getting uncomfortably close to the "but she asked for it, she was wearing a miniskirt" defence.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I think I mentioned that earlier - inviting looking is not the same as an offer to touch.

Although I dare say men who would use the excuse "she was asking for it because she was dressed so" would probably find any reason to justify their actions.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Oh, I agree completely on both counts Trevor.

What I disagree with is inviting looking = person is sexually promiscuous.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I think in clear light of rational thought, we all know one does not equal the other.

But stir in cultural values and observations and people will leap to their own conclusions.

It's not unlike the social fury over bathing suits that showed the knee. For women.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Well, the knee is a sexy bit of leg.

All knobbly and bony...
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Imogen, was that really...sorry, never mind.

-Trevor

Edit: Sorry, my bad pun was successfully deflected.

[ September 21, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Sigh.

"Imogen, was that really kneeded?"

-Trevor

P.S. I'm trying to quit. Really.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 


Unfortunately, I can't think of a pun involving patella.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I can't leggo the topic, although it does have my atten-shin.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
 
from the perspective of a 43-year-old LDS woman with 2 daughters ages 8 and 11 ...

I never want to see my daughters wearing "low-rider" jeans, but I saw them on sale at Wal-Mart in the girls' clothing section.

I never want to see the crack of anybody's butt, whether it's the plumber or the young lady who happens to be walking ahead of me (or Britney Spears).

Your underwear is your business. I will take it on faith that you have some - I don't need to see that either.

Even though some clothes I consider immodest are "cute," the people wearing them are not always in the best physical condition. So, if your tummy resembles the Pillsbury dough boy, maybe a combination of babydoll T and low-rider jeans might not be for you.

I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion - this represents mine. I'm just as critical of a 300-pound person in shorts as I am of someone closer to their ideal weight wearing something that I consider cut too low or high. I call myself "well-rounded in many respects" and I don't wear shorts in public. I don't weight 300 pounds, but I am way overweight. I don't wear things to attract people, but to be clothed. I understand the concept of wanting to attract people, and I don't think that's bad. I question the judgement of people who wear clothes that make other people (meaning me) think, "Ewww, she doesn't have the body for that," or "do her parents know she's wearing that?"

Before I get in trouble for picking on just girls, I don't need to see the waistband of your boxers sticking up 2 inches past the waistband of your jeans - that's just stupid-looking. As is jeans with so many holes that I can see your leg or underwear through them. I still am amazed at seeing that in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

Disclaimer: all uses of the words "you" and "your" are purely in the generic sense and do not refer to anyone at Hatrack.

[/rant] (sorry, didn't mean to go on so long.)
 

---