posted
Is it just me or do teen females who have not gone through majority dress inapprops? I mean I admit I'm a bit sensitive on the topic...but here is a good example. There is a teenaged girl who is in some kind of program so she is a TA in my son's transitional kindergarten. She is 16-17 at a guess. She daily wears skin tight clothing. Nothing is exposed per say, but nothing is left up to the imagination. I fully admit to being clueless to fashion. But come on! Every day I pull up at TK I see her bent over kids equipment in, wiping off the dew so the kids can play. I avert my eyes as I do not want to ogle a teen (or anyone really), nor teach such bad behavior to my son. But come on!
To my way of thinking dressing like that is "hunting for a husband" type attention seeking. And forget about it when it gets warmer...daisy duke cut off jean shorts cut so low that the pocket linings bottoms stick out!
Now I'm happily married, and I put forth effort to not let my eye wonder, but it is difficult. Not because I'm not fully and utterly devoted to my best friend, life partner, mother of my children, wife...more like my brain is telling me *look over here*...like trying to concentrate and drive when there is a eye catching sunset in the background. It's distracting!
posted
What it is ultimately is that whether or not a woman is dressing "appropriately" is best left untended by the metric of whether it is distractingly appealing to a man or leads men to temptation. That's the logic of dumb religions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just learn some self-control, man. I can't and shouldn't eat every lasagna I see, either, but I don't complain about encountering delicious-looking lasagna everywhere I go simply because I can't help but imagine -- or wish, or daydream -- that it's been set out for me to eat. The lasagna isn't all about me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something to consider: perhaps the way her choice in clothing makes a random male passing by feel should have less input into her clothing choices than you appear to think it should?
Also, unrelated matter. Even though the effect of this statement will be mitigated by making it: if I were halfway as hostile towards you, now or in the past, as you have sometimes felt I am, you would be hearing at great length about terms like sexism, self control, fear of women, entitlement, well the list would go on at length and none of it would be flattering and most of it would take the form of extremely critical personal observations/attacks.
But, you asked the question and I believe you asked it honestly, so the last paragraph isnt asking for credit or anything, it's just to address a recurring point.
Anyway, I'll admit to incredulity that this woman-and it's likely she's older, I suspect, high school students not often serving as teacher's aids outside their own school to my knowledge-actually wears daisy dukes as short as you describe. Were you exaggerating?
Anyway, what your post has basically said is that it somehow is inappropriate for this woman to reveal the shape of her body where you might see it, even without exposing skin...because you will look and it will make you uncomfortable. Do you see the common factor there? Which is the more valuable lesson to learn? That women who dress 'inappropriately' are to be shunned and criticized and made to feel bad because of how their fashion makes men feel? Or would it be more valuable to exert some willpower in the long term and teach yourself not to stare and check her out?
I guarantee you it's possible. It is *certainly* possible to teach yourself not to deliberately stare or check her out when she's not looking. It is not in fact an involuntary reaction, to see someone attractive and stare. It feels pleasant to do, but then again so does shooting up some junk or so I'm told.
You should expect some reactions much more hostile than this from others, particularly women, and take some advice: just go with it. Don't get defensive. You put this question out there, take what comes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To DB: Considering you believe that -literally anything you say to me-, offensive or not, will be taken as hostility...you said so...you are still talking to me...comparing me to the most misogynistic poster on the board. Without bothering to even explain.
Buy a clue dude...they are not expensive.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer another question, though, it's not just you-there are a *ton* of men and women, girls and boys, who feel the exact same way. Which is a helpful thing when it comes to the endurance of this kind of thinking.
How many others think it is a poor reason to start or stop doing something, though. Even though it's a very common one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What it is ultimately is that whether or not a woman is dressing "appropriately" is best left untended by the metric of whether it is distractingly appealing to a man or leads men to temptation. That's the logic of dumb religions.
I specifically state not women, but teens who do not have the right to have sex yet, those who the law will prosecute their partners (unless they are similarly aged) regardless of consent.
If you're of age and want to catch eyes, I don't blink...that's an adult decision, by an adult.
Physically (likely not mentally or emotionally) 16 year olds are ready for sex, but in my state, are not legally able to do so.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Just learn some self-control, man. I can't and shouldn't eat every lasagna I see, either, but I don't complain about encountering delicious-looking lasagna everywhere I go simply because I can't help but imagine -- or wish, or daydream -- that it's been set out for me to eat. The lasagna isn't all about me.
It isn't self control...I -don't- look. And it isn't lasagna...because eating lasagna isn't illegal or immoral.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To DB: Considering you believe that -literally anything you say to me-, offensive or not, will be taken as hostility...you said so...you are still talking to me...comparing me to the most misogynistic poster on the board. Without bothering to even explain.
Your question seems to be asking if anyone here shares your view about teenage girls dressing "inapprops". To which I reply: no, probably not until Clive manages to crawl out from until his rock and register another account here as he invariably does whenever these discussions arise. Then it won't just be you.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Something to consider: perhaps the way her choice in clothing makes a random male passing by feel should have less input into her clothing choices than you appear to think it should?
So, if it's hot, and you are a young woman (18 or older) and say you are in SanFran...you decide to go out starkers. It's legal. Is this really about freedom or eliciting a response?
quote:Also, unrelated matter. Even though the effect of this statement will be mitigated by making it: if I were halfway as hostile towards you, now or in the past, as you have sometimes felt I am, you would be hearing at great length about terms like sexism, self control, fear of women, entitlement, well the list would go on at length and none of it would be flattering and most of it would take the form of extremely critical personal observations/attacks.
But, you asked the question and I believe you asked it honestly, so the last paragraph isnt asking for credit or anything, it's just to address a recurring point.
Recurring in the past...the only thing that I claim of you is that at times you lack perspective on me personally because of our heated history. And I of you. I don't think your hostile...anymore. Did you read my apology on the former "Dog Fight" thread?
quote:Anyway, I'll admit to incredulity that this woman-and it's likely she's older, I suspect, high school students not often serving as teacher's aids outside their own school to my knowledge
I don't know the details, but she (and others, they switch off) were introduced to the parents as high schoolers...student aids.
quote:...-actually wears daisy dukes as short as you describe. Were you exaggerating?
Sorry, I could see how you would be confused...daisy dukes were a general comment about how teens dress in the heat...not about this particular person.[/quote]
quote:Anyway, what your post has basically said is that it somehow is inappropriate for this woman to reveal the shape of her body where you might see it, even without exposing skin...because you will look and it will make you uncomfortable. Do you see the common factor there? Which is the more valuable lesson to learn?
It's not only my comfort level I'm concerned with. This person regularly works, with the authority of the school, with five year old kids. And is a student herself. I think she is dressed inappropriately for both.
quote:You should expect some reactions much more hostile than this from others, particularly women, and take some advice: just go with it. Don't get defensive. You put this question out there, take what comes.
I am fully committed to keeping my cool or walking away. Thank you for the concern. Honestly.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like there are a couple of questions baked into the one you asked.
1. Is there such a thing as "innapropriate clothing? 2. If so, what is it? 3. What is an acceptable reaction to clothing and does it matter if it's innapropriate clothes?
So, answers: 1. Yes. If nothing else, you need enough clothing to avoid charges of public indecency. 2. It depends on the situation. Booty shorts are not appropriate for a meeting with the customer. In this situation? No idea, though anything that seriously impedes movement would be a bad idea. 3. As a general rule, it's not your business to pass judgement on what other people wear. In the absence of communication, it's best to assume you aren't the target audience and therefore should pretend not to notice. Unless you're somehow responsible for what someone wears, the obligation to ignore it becomes stronger the less appropriate the clothes.
I find that "it's not my fault", "it's not my problem," and "it's not my job" are useful reactions to avoid getting worked up over other people's personal decisions.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To DB: Considering you believe that -literally anything you say to me-, offensive or not, will be taken as hostility...you said so...you are still talking to me...comparing me to the most misogynistic poster on the board. Without bothering to even explain.
Your question seems to be asking if anyone here shares your view about teenage girls dressing "inapprops". To which I reply: no, probably not until Clive manages to crawl out from until his rock and register another account here as he invariably does whenever these discussions arise. Then it won't just be you.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath (yesterday): Really, it's fairly clear that if I post *anything* here... he's going to perceive it as deeply antagonistic...
Either you don't believe this or you do and really are antagonizing me...which is it?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say if Stone_Wolf turned out to be Sa'eed, I'd be impressed with his new found ability to blend in more.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, as a question of fact, it's likely Dog is right, SW. Clive or a 'new member' *is* one of the only posters in this community who would reply to your question 'it's not just you'.
By itself that's obviously not reason to abandon your opinion. But it may be a reason to reconsider.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, I'm not really sure if there is a graceful way to transition from child to adult. I know it wasn't easy for me, I can only imagine it must be a million times more difficult for a female to do the same, especially given how sexually fueled our culture is, not to mention the near obsession with youthful features (understandable given the short window of human fertility and only slightly longer window of human lifespan). I just wish sometimes they would wear clothing that was appropriate to their status, i.e. unavailable. Not that I'm looking. But my daughter is four. I'm not sure given only a decade I'll be okay with this before she is dressed similarly.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I will say if Stone_Wolf turned out to be Sa'eed, I'd be impressed with his new found ability to blend in more.
Certainly playing the long game for sure.
But to be clear, I by no means meant to imply that to be the case. Just predicting the (very likely) scenario that a new user will appear sometime in the next 2 days and start posting in this thread using terms like "Female Erotic Capital" and so forth.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not only my comfort level I'm concerned with. This person regularly works, with the authority of the school, with five year old kids. And is a student herself. I think she is dressed inappropriately for both.
Is there a dress code? Is she violating the dress code (keeping in mind that both dress codes and enforcement of them can be overtly gendered)? If not, then she's not dressed inappropriately according to the school standards. And if she is violating a dress code, it's still not your place to point it out.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath...please answer my question. You can't have it both ways. Either I'm calm and not reactionary or you are deliberately provoking me? Perhaps that's confusing...let me explain.
You said yesterday that literally *ANYTHING* you said to me would be considered hostility by myself. This is you saying I'm not rational, I'm not calm, I'm gunna think that if your lips are moving that it's personal...but your "lips" are still moving. So it's clear that either you A) don't believe that *ANYTHING* you say to me will be taken as hostility OR you are antagonizing me.
Which is it?
You can't have it both ways!
Either I'm reasonable or stop talking to me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I can only imagine it must be a million times more difficult for a female to do the same,
A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I just wish sometimes they would wear clothing that was appropriate to their status, i.e. unavailable.
She's not dressing for you. She's likely wearing trendy clothes that are fashionable for teens and yeah, those trends may be more sexy then some of us old fogeys would like. Them's the breaks. Get over it. Also, the idea that clothes can indicate whether a woman is available or not is pretty damn appalling - because that's pretty close to someone saying, "It wasn't rape! She was wearing clothes that indicated she was available!" (Yes, I know you didn't say that - but judging women by their clothing has a long unfortunate history).
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not only my comfort level I'm concerned with. This person regularly works, with the authority of the school, with five year old kids. And is a student herself. I think she is dressed inappropriately for both.
Is there a dress code? Is she violating the dress code (keeping in mind that both dress codes and enforcement of them can be overtly gendered)? If not, then she's not dressed inappropriately according to the school standards. And if she is violating a dress code, it's still not your place to point it out.
I don't believe she is violating the dress code. However, if she were to, it would be my place as a father of a five year old child she works directly with to report that. For silly administrative reasons, (I hear one teacher has an entire classroom as their "office" in the brand new elementary school) the Transitional Kindergarten in the town I live is located on the High School campus.
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: It seems like there are a couple of questions baked into the one you asked.
1. Is there such a thing as "innapropriate clothing? 2. If so, what is it? 3. What is an acceptable reaction to clothing and does it matter if it's innapropriate clothes?
So, answers: 1. Yes. If nothing else, you need enough clothing to avoid charges of public indecency. 2. It depends on the situation. Booty shorts are not appropriate for a meeting with the customer. In this situation? No idea, though anything that seriously impedes movement would be a bad idea. 3. As a general rule, it's not your business to pass judgement on what other people wear. In the absence of communication, it's best to assume you aren't the target audience and therefore should pretend not to notice. Unless you're somehow responsible for what someone wears, the obligation to ignore it becomes stronger the less appropriate the clothes.
I find that "it's not my fault", "it's not my problem," and "it's not my job" are useful reactions to avoid getting worked up over other people's personal decisions.
Hello NobleHunter! I believe this is my first interaction with you. Forgive me for not commenting earlier...perhaps I had little to say as what you said is so right on...I guess at the end of the day this is just something I should change in myself, but it isn't easy for me to do so.
It's kind of like if someone were wearing a clown suit in a business meeting. Is it every single person's god given right to dress like a clown if they feel like it, you betcha! But it still might quirk a few eyebrows.
My wife agrees with me that we won't be allowing our daughter to dress like this, but I think she shares yall's frustration with me. Perhaps part of my frustration is that our standards for what is "good" and "bad" are confusing...sex with an underage teen...WRONG...underage teen dressed similarly to adult female seeking male attention...right?
I don't want em wearing the whole hooded get up, just not jeans that people can tell how much money you have in change in your pocket from being skin tight maybe. I'd say the same to a boy. Dress appropriately to the role you are in. It's not a rule per say, but it's a good idea! Because not all fathers are putting forth effort to look the other way. And my children sees that.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps part of my frustration is that our standards for what is "good" and "bad" are confusing...sex with an underage teen...WRONG...underage teen dressed similarly to adult female seeking male attention...right?
Other than the issue of your weirdly dehumanizing use of the term "adult female" here (by which you mean "woman") which has already been addressed, you seem to believe that a girl choosing to dress a certain way is to seek "male attention."
No. Simply put, she isn't dressing for you, and you don't get to decide what is or isn't appropriate for her to wear because you feel vaguely guilty about ogling a teenager. You don't know why she chose to dress the way she does, and more importantly it's not at all your business to find out.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: ]A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
I'm not sure how to respond to this, it seems a nitpick of nanite proportions. Is "female" really offensive? Or is this a grammatical concern? I am sincerely confused.
quote:She's not dressing for you. She's likely wearing trendy clothes that are fashionable for teens and yeah, those trends may be more sexy then some of us old fogeys would like. Them's the breaks. Get over it.
I totally get where you are coming from...it's just difficult and frustrating.
quote:Also, the idea that clothes can indicate whether a woman is available or not is pretty damn appalling - because that's pretty close to someone saying, "It wasn't rape! She was wearing clothes that indicated she was available!" (Yes, I know you didn't say that - but judging women by their clothing has a long unfortunate history). [/QB]
Oh my yes! I agree about the history part. And it is disgusting. No means no even if your naked and gyrating. Seriously.
However I disagree that people don't dress differently (both genders) when seeking a mate and when in a committed relationship.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps part of my frustration is that our standards for what is "good" and "bad" are confusing...sex with an underage teen...WRONG...underage teen dressed similarly to adult female seeking male attention...right?
Other than the issue of your weirdly dehumanizing use of the term "adult female" here (by which you mean "woman") which has already been addressed, you seem to believe that a girl choosing to dress a certain way is to seek "male attention."
No. Simply put, she isn't dressing for you, and you don't get to decide what is or isn't appropriate for her to wear because you feel vaguely guilty about ogling a teenager. You don't know why she chose to dress the way she does, and more importantly it's not at all your business to find out.
I'm not going to ignore the part where you declared me too unreasonable to even address dude. Take it back and we can talk about anything you like.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think it would be easier if you took refuge in generalities. It doesn't matter how old she is or why she's wearing those clothes. Unless you have reason to think you're the intended audience for the clothing (regardless of age, sex, or occupation) ignore it.
quote: Because not all fathers are putting forth effort to look the other way. And my children sees that.
Aha! Now there's someone doing something wrong: leering at a teenaged girl. Well, leering at anyone. I suggest you concern yourself more with the inappropriateness of the fathers' behavior rather than what the girl is wearing. Unless you're really worried that your kids will think skin-tight jeans are appropriate playground attire?
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: ]A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
I'm not sure how to respond to this, it seems a nitpick of nanite proportions. Is "female" really offensive? Or is this a grammatical concern? I am sincerely confused.
Most of the time when I encounter someone who uses "female" instead of "woman", they're about to say something sexist - or they're using "female" as a euphemism for "bitch". Neither of which endear me to the term or people who use it. Plus, it is grammatically weird.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, you are just wrong here. People should be able to dress in whatever they feel is comfortable and becoming barring dress codes and safety issues. They may or may not be "seeking male attention" but as the male whose attention they may or may not be seeking is not you, mind your business. Certainly, if one wants to project a professional image, shorts wouldn't be the right choice, but for a playground with kids, shorts are just fine.
Whatever the age, women who are strangers are not dressing for you so use some self-control. Whatever the age and however they dress they are still not available to you.
What Tom, Rakeesh, and DB have stated is correct; You should pay attention. Your reaction is on you. Likewise, you don't get to bar people from conversation because they have pointed out that you react badly to them. Again, that is on you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I totally get where you are coming from...it's just difficult and frustrating.
This seems to be a concern I've seen behind a lot of articles I've seen by concerned Christian women worried about their husbands being tempted into sin. (By such nefarious things as yoga pants, etc.) "It's just so difficult to look away" or "I try and remain pure and holy but the temptation is so difficult." I don't really buy it. If I, as a viral young man can handle going to a beach where girls and women frequently go topless (which I think would give aforementioned husbands a spiritual heart attack of sorts) without finding the experience difficult or frustrating, I'm not convinced men who are much wiser and older than I are so mentally fragile they can't handle the sight of middle-aged women in tight yoga pants. Or in this case, teenage girls in tight clothes. It helps to think of them as fellow human beings first rather than what you think their clothes say about their sexual availability.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if you realize the perverse (not to say sexual, but that certainly ties in) injustice in the idea about 'dress to one's roles' actually is, when talking about the creepy things other people do?
When you point out as one reason for your stance that other fathers won't be teaching their sons properly, and will in fact be leering, what you are actually saying is: men leering is bad and I want to avoid that; women's clothing somehow makes men leer; for their good and for that of my children, they should not wear improper clothing. It's very (that is to say exactly) similar to current arguments against adoption by homosexual couples or interracial marriage and procreation: 'what about how those children will be treated later in life? They'll face teasing and discrimination for having two moms or dads/having multiracial parents!'
It seems to skip over entirely the problem that this argument openly uses the discriminatory behavior itself as a justification for continuing the discrimination! Though few would mean it this way, it's like a protection racket.
As for how easy it is to not look, it's actually very, very easy not to look. You've got conscious control of both where your head points and where your eyes look. What is considerably more difficult is deciding whether or not you want not to look, or if it's unreasonable to ask it of you and so it can be safely ignored.
It shouldn't matter if you can read the year the coin was minted because her jeans are just *that* tight on her ass-we'll gloss over the question of just how much looking and thinking that actually implies-and it shouldn't even matter if she's an adult, actually. You're not an ape, Stone_Wolf. It is in fact up to you what you look at, and the fact is that it says much, much more about the person looking when they form opinions like this than it does about the complete stranger who doesn't know you, and wasn't thinking of you when she bought it or wore it.
'Her clothes make me uncomfortable, therefore she shouldn't wear them' is the heart of your argument. It's bad, sexist thinking and it's frankly lazy and asserting victimhood.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just wish sometimes they would wear clothing that was appropriate to their status, i.e. unavailable.
They do not have such a "status" for you to assign to them any more than you should presume the purpose of their dress for them?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Risuena: ]A female what? A female bird? A female snake? If you meant a female human, the word is "woman" or perhaps in this context, "girl".
I'm not sure how to respond to this, it seems a nitpick of nanite proportions. Is "female" really offensive? Or is this a grammatical concern? I am sincerely confused.
Most of the time when I encounter someone who uses "female" instead of "woman", they're about to say something sexist - or they're using "female" as a euphemism for "bitch". Neither of which endear me to the term or people who use it. Plus, it is grammatically weird.
I find this confusing because I was specifically speaking of a person of the female gender in a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, therefore both the terms "girl" and "woman" do not apply. But to the larger point...Sure, I'll keep in mind that women don't like to be referred to as females from now on...thanks for the update. If ya don't update your files then you end up like grandpa who thinks "coloreds" is the PC version.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's another problem there, aside from the problem of middle-aged ( not sure your age, SW) unrelated adult men who are *themselves* unavailable, or should be, deciding on the 'status' and appropriate clothing for women.
That problem is this: what if there is a status and clothing that should apply? Alright, she's unavailable to you and so she somehow magically discovers the clothing that is completely nonsexual to all unknown adult men she encounters in a day (this is impossible). Well, she has a different status to her parents-she is their child. NOW she somehow has to reconcile these these different statuses and dress accordingly.
Somehow she manages this feat of sartorial mastery. She has a different status to her close friends-she wants to be comfortable and, perhaps, look good as well-not to say sexual, but well put together in a clothing sense. Alright, now her status is that of the unavailable young woman, daughter, and cheerful fun-loving buddy to her friends. But then what about the parents of those friends? Crap! Now she needs to look like someone of good morality and prospects who will enrich the lives of their children by being friends with her! And then maybe she has a boyfriend, or is flirting with a boy or three at school or after school or on the way to school. To them her status is quite different!
You're absolutely correct, Stone_Wolf. Your perspective on her, the least important and the least welcome to her among a dozen or more other people for whom she might vet her fashion choices (not excluding herself!) is the one that needs to be considered first.
Alright, I lied. There's like thirty problems. Strangely they all bear a lot of similarity to the problem of censorship in general.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I find this confusing because I was specifically speaking of a person of the female gender in a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, therefore both the terms "girl" and "woman" do not apply.
posted
Your preschool kids probably are spending zero brainpower thinking about this young lady's outfit and 100% of it on whether she has good cookies at snacktime.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, you are just wrong here. People should be able to dress in whatever they feel is comfortable and becoming barring dress codes and safety issues.
Okay. I'm starting to get that.
quote:They may or may not be "seeking male attention" but as the male whose attention they may or may not be seeking is not you, mind your business.
Also, and more informative, they might be dressing for a school crush on a boy their age...that makes sense to me.
quote:Whatever the age, women who are strangers are not dressing for you so use some self-control. Whatever the age and however they dress they are still not available to you.
I have stated very clearly and multiple times that I am not seeking...so I find this rather offensive. Please stop with this line of discussion.
quote: ...Likewise, you don't get to bar people from conversation because they have pointed out that you react badly to them.
Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, do not discuss her appearance in front of your children AT ALL. They will repeat whatever you say to this young woman (a term that works just fine) to her face.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take you at your word when you say you're not 'seeking', so to speak. But something to consider before you pull out the 'I'm offended!' card: you're using almost verbatim, and particularly in your first post, the precise kinds of language and ideas expressed by men who are most definitely, obviously 'seeking' so to speak, and who wish to exert a very clear and thorough control on women in all sorts of aspects of their lives.
Of itself that's not, perhaps, enough reason for you to slow your roll on being offended, but consider this as well: you're probably going to be hard-pressed to encounter a woman who has not heard, from a variety of sources, exactly that sort of thing a lot of times in their lives with the obvious intent to control. And they're probably really, really sick of hearing it.
Props to you for calmly accepting that she and other young women simply aren't dressing for you, and factor that in, and are also very possibly dressing for other people in an entirely appropriate way, etc., but people are allowed to be irked at toxic reasoning, no matter how well-meaning.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, you are just wrong here. People should be able to dress in whatever they feel is comfortable and becoming barring dress codes and safety issues.
Okay. I'm starting to get that.
quote:They may or may not be "seeking male attention" but as the male whose attention they may or may not be seeking is not you, mind your business.
Also, and more informative, they might be dressing for a school crush on a boy their age...that makes sense to me.
Or it might just make them feel pretty. Might have been what was clean. Not your business and her choices don't need to make sense to you.
quote:
quote:Whatever the age, women who are strangers are not dressing for you so use some self-control. Whatever the age and however they dress they are still not available to you.
I have stated very clearly and multiple times that I am not seeking...so I find this rather offensive. Please stop with this line of discussion.
I get that you aren't seeking. So why are you looking?
quote:
quote: ...Likewise, you don't get to bar people from conversation because they have pointed out that you react badly to them.
Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
What jail? You can criticize all you like (though, honestly, it is tiresome) but you can't order him not to respond to you. You (and here is the point so pay attention) can only control your reaction. And you can control that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's another problem there, aside from the problem of middle-aged ( not sure your age, SW) unrelated adult men who are *themselves* unavailable, or should be, deciding on the 'status' and appropriate clothing for women.
That problem is this: what if there is a status and clothing that should apply? Alright, she's unavailable to you and so she somehow magically discovers the clothing that is completely nonsexual to all unknown adult men she encounters in a day (this is impossible). Well, she has a different status to her parents-she is their child. NOW she somehow has to reconcile these these different statuses and dress accordingly.
Somehow she manages this feat of sartorial mastery. She has a different status to her close friends-she wants to be comfortable and, perhaps, look good as well-not to say sexual, but well put together in a clothing sense. Alright, now her status is that of the unavailable young woman, daughter, and cheerful fun-loving buddy to her friends. But then what about the parents of those friends? Crap! Now she needs to look like someone of good morality and prospects who will enrich the lives of their children by being friends with her! And then maybe she has a boyfriend, or is flirting with a boy or three at school or after school or on the way to school. To them her status is quite different!
You're absolutely correct, Stone_Wolf. Your perspective on her, the least important and the least welcome to her among a dozen or more other people for whom she might vet her fashion choices (not excluding herself!) is the one that needs to be considered first.
Alright, I lied. There's like thirty problems. Strangely they all bear a lot of similarity to the problem of censorship in general.
While all this was very amusing to read, it is all predicated on the central assumption that it was my relationship (almost zero) to her that I was referring.
While her attire was barely appropriate for a high school student, it was...appropriate.
Where it caused me pause is that she isn't just some random high school student, she is one (and the only one of many I might add) who dresses more on the provocative side as a student assistant of small children.
As a student aid for small children, she is inappropriately dressed. Not by much. But in my foolish, hot headed, egocentric, self congratulatory opinion (take that me!) a student aid should dress a little more conservatively than the average high school student given that they will be in close contact with small children.
Thanks for your help in discovering that my line in the sand was off by a large margin and needed to be moved and rethought out.
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Also, do not discuss her appearance in front of your children AT ALL. They will repeat whatever you say to this young woman (a term that works just fine) to her face.
Best advice of this thread...duly noted.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, something else to consider as an addition. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that her clothing was somehow (as impossible as this is) objectively offensive, and that your opinion that it was not sufficiently conservative was unassailably correct-because how could any opinion, not just yours, on such a matter be proven so thoroughly?...
Which would be the more valuable lesson to impart to your children: that her clothing is not modest enough, and that it is worth disapproving; or that even if someone else does or says or wears something offensive, your children have a responsibility to take charge of their own responses to it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ]Or it might just make them feel pretty. Might have been what was clean. Not your business and her choices don't need to make sense to you.
Okay.
quote: So why are you looking?
Better question: why do you think I'm looking despite having said that I do the exact opposite deliberately?
quote:... you can't order him not to respond to you. You (and here is the point so pay attention) can only control your reaction. And you can control that.
Ignoring him unless he retracts an untrue statement is my reaction. I didn't call for others to censure him. You demanding that I not ignore him is just as intrusive as me demanding he retract to false allegations he has made. So stop it already.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
What are you trying to get out of all this, Stone Wolf?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Also, something else to consider as an addition. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that her clothing was somehow (as impossible as this is) objectively offensive, and that your opinion that it was not sufficiently conservative was unassailably correct-because how could any opinion, not just yours, on such a matter be proven so thoroughly?...
Which would be the more valuable lesson to impart to your children: that her clothing is not modest enough, and that it is worth disapproving; or that even if someone else does or says or wears something offensive, your children have a responsibility to take charge of their own responses to it?
I'm not sure if I followed all of this, but let me respond and then we'll see. What I teach my children is that they are not allowed to dress inappropriately for their age, or watch shows that depict such. I am raising them to be responsible and level headed...to mine and my wife's standards, that is. I would not pull my children aside and point to a young lady as an example of what not to wear. Instead I might compliment someone whom I thought was dressed appropriately in front of my children. Did that answer the question?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Watch me. You can couch it in as toothless terms as you like, DB has maintained an air of bullet proof aloofness to criticisms that I have gone out of my way to explain. Doing EXACTLY the same thing he accused me of, popping up and all but randomly defending others/undermine me. I flat out refuse to include people in discussions who have hypocritically held me to a standard which they fail to meet. I want to like DB...I want to talk to him. But you can't do so with him having impunity from any criticism. Me having blown up isn't a permanent get out of jail free card.
What are you trying to get out of all this, Stone Wolf?
Please acknowledge that I am calm, reasonable and worthy to speak to, and retract your statement I quoted from yesterday is all, and respond in the future if I bring a concern to you calmly. Or even simpler...don't ignore me, I won't ignore you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ]Or it might just make them feel pretty. Might have been what was clean. Not your business and her choices don't need to make sense to you.
Okay.
quote: So why are you looking?
Better question: why do you think I'm looking despite having said that I do the exact opposite deliberately?
Because you started with this, " I put forth effort to not let my eye wonder, but it is difficult..." I guess what I am asking is, why is not looking when you are not "seeking" a problem for you?
quote:
quote:... you can't order him not to respond to you. You (and here is the point so pay attention) can only control your reaction. And you can control that.
Ignoring him unless he retracts an untrue statement is my reaction. I didn't call for others to censure him. You demanding that I not ignore him is just as intrusive as me demanding he retract to false allegations he has made. So stop it already.
I am not demanding anything. I am just saying that your response is your responsibility, not his. (ProTip: telling someone that you are ignoring them is not the same as ignoring them.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ]Because you started with this, " I put forth effort to not let my eye wonder, but it is difficult..." I guess what I am asking is, why is not looking when you are not "seeking" a problem for you?
Science...not some failing in morality.
quote:I am not demanding anything. I am just saying that your response is your responsibility, not his.
And the sky is blue and grass is green...so what?
quote:(ProTip: telling someone that you are ignoring them is not the same as ignoring them.)
If my goal was to simply ignore him, I would. But I have other goals in mind....muwwhuhhahahahahah!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If my goal was to simply ignore him, I would. But I have other goals in mind....muwwhuhhahahahahah!
i try concertedly to not use eyeroll smileys because they are tools of the weak, lazy and puffed-up sort of internet demagogue. but today i am a weak, lazy, and puffed-up internet demagogue.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If ya don't update your files then you end up like grandpa who thinks "coloreds" is the PC version.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
