A girl wants to wear clothing that reveals her naval (gasp!) and tight jeans -- or a mini-skirt. How on earth is that indicating a lack of self-confidence?
Tell me. I'm sure the answer will be interesting.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I don't know about self-confidence. I think that it lacks modesty and taste.
If it's ever a self-confidence thing, it's these people who blindly follow fashions to fit in. In that case, it's not the revealing clothing itself that reveals lack of self-confidence, but just the fact that they buy into every fashion trend.
That's my take on it, but I didn't want to plow through that other thread, so I may be restating some old stuff...
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
On second thought, it may be interesting to ask these people WHY they're wearing this revealing clothing. If it's because they feel a desperate need to have lots of people attracted to them, because of low self-esteem or something, then yes, that betrays a lack of self-confidence.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Lacks modesty? Of course! The definition of modesty is designed against that exact type of behavior.
However, while if a woman does it only to follow fashion it is pathetic, if a woman does it 'cause she wants to, I really don't care.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
::bashes::
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I guess, for me, when a girl wears clothes that make it difficult to distinguish her from a prostitute, I'm justified in saying she dresses like one.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In all honesty, though, the trends in women's clothing of the last couple of years or so, while undeniably "slutty," do not, in fact look like what prostitutes wear.
Honestly, have none of you driven whatever passes for "the strip" in your town?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'll take a stab at this:
She dresses so because she needs the attention to reinforce how she feels about herself. A lack of security and personal confidence is replaced with what she perceives as positive reinforcement from others.
When society glorifies people dressing and acting in a given fashion, it reinforces the message to people seeking positive reinforcement.
And I think we're talking more than showing "a little skin."
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Must be your town, Icky. Here in Tucson the major difference between the slutty clothes and the prostitutes clothes are nothing more than cleanliness.
I realize that sounds bad, but.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Actually, the clothes that prostitutes wear on St. Catherine's Street in Montreal is very similar to what girls are wearing nowadays.
Then again, last time I drove through there, it was winter, so maybe they were dressing warmer...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree with your point regarding prostitutes, Icarus, but what fashions to you are 'slutty'? Slutty to me means that the woman sleeps with a lot of men. What fashions suggest this idea to you? Does wanting to look sexy imply that the woman is a slut to you? Please elaborate.
My experience with sluts is that they dress no more or less demurely than any other woman.
I find the idea that a woman is slutty just because she chooses to dress provocatively to be offensive and a form of negative objectification.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:My experience with sluts is that they dress no more or less demurely than any other woman.
In my vast research, I've found clothing style to be a good indication of sexual activity. Had I known I was doing research at the time, I'd have documented more.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Amen, Storm.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
"Sometimes you have to show a little skin. This reminds boys of being naked, and then they think of sex."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Frisco, if you were responding to me, I wasn't reacting to you.
(If you weren't responding to me, I still wasn't reacting to you. )
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have no idea what you're quoting, Porter, but it doesn't imply that the (I'm assuming) woman actually has a lot of sex with men.
And the question should be asked, so what if she does?
Do you honestly not understand that there is a vast gulf between liking to look desirable and sexy and screwing a lot of men? Chicken feather/chicken, no?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
It's from Clueless.
Which I'm very surprised Porter watches...
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
No, I just have a weird version of Tourette's that causes random French outbursts.
Quatre poulets vivants!
[edit: weird. wonder what made Storm and I simultaneously think of chickens?]
[ September 21, 2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I like to wear low-rise jeans and (gasp!) occasionally show a little skin. Right now I'm wearing jeans with a low-cut tank top that I'm sure some people would frown upon. I'll be 18 on Friday, I don't sleep around, and I certainly don't consider myself a slut. I've got pretty high self-confidence, and I don't feel the need to wear skimpy clothes to attract guys. I wear this clothing because I like how I look in it. Sure, it's nice to be considered attractive, but most of the guys I know (and any guy I would consider dating anyway) would find me just as nice-looking in a t-shirt and jeans as in a tube top and a miniskirt. I think it's ridiculous to call a girl a slut just because of the clothing she wears. The term describes behavior, not appearance...right?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:I like to wear low-rise jeans and (gasp!) occasionally show a little skin.
And is-a your unda-wears showing?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But I have to wonder if you'd like how you looked in them if they weren't considered attractive by other people. The best example of this that I can think of is the time that my mother got braces when she was forty to correct a gap between her front teeth. She claimed that she didn't care what anyone else thought, only about what she saw in the mirror. But would she have felt the gap was worth correcting if it had been considered by society to be a very sexy trait?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I think flashing underwear to the world is trashy, and I try to avoid doing it. Low-rise jeans do occasionally present a problem, but unless you're deliberately trying to do it, I'm pretty sure it is entirely possible to prevent your underwear from showing.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
But, see, the style is to show them off. Girls are actually spending money on thongs that rise higher on their backs and have various bells and whistles to show off.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote:But I have to wonder if you'd like how you looked in them if they weren't considered attractive by other people.
I trust my best friend's advice about what is considered attractive. If he tells me something looks good on me, I believe him, and if he advises me not to wear something, I usually won't.
My favorite jeans are extremely old, with giant holes in the knees, patched holes in the butt, and ragged edges. He HATES them. He says they are dirty-looking and ugly...but I still wear them, 'cause I like how they look. Same thing applies with other clothes. I'm sure my opinion of how my clothes look on me is influenced somewhat by what is considered fashionable or trendy, but I don't wear something just because it's "in style".
I don't think all the clothing I wear is considered attractive by most people's standards, but I like it, so I wear it anyway.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Let me go on the record of saying that there's a vast difference between an inch of skin and butt- and boob-cleavage. The latter is what disgusts me more when I go outside. Bikini tops and skirts that show the bottom of the derriere when the wearer kicks back too far were not meant to be worn in polite society.
And yes, I believe that most women who wear this are either skanks, extremely self-conscious, or teenagers who don't fully realize that what they're wearing is appalling. Being comfortable and proud of your body should lead to dressing in a way that's most flattering to your body, and seeing every inch of your dimpled, cellulite-riffic butt is not flattering. If you believe that the body is most attractive the way God made it, good for you. You are welcome to display that at home where people will think you're attractive anyway.
Is it a matter of personal taste? I'd say yes, in the same way that believing indecent exposure is disgusting is a matter of personal taste.
And for the record, I feel the same way about butts with no cellulite.
[ September 21, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I go to a club on some Wednesday nights in which the accepted attire is slutwear. It's called Fetish Night, and it's 18+. You can go in anything resembling slutty except for nudity.
So how do I dress? My clothes would likely fall into "slutwear" category by many of you. This is a self-contained situation, to be sure, but I still choose to wear the clothes and go. Why? In agreement with Avadaru, I like how I look in these clothes.
A subtle tease. Aggressive tramp. Elegant and see-through. They're personas, and they're fun. Of course there's an understood power struggle. Do the men who gape at the women hold power over these women? Or do the women control by their carefully chosen appearances?
The problem for me with people who look down their noses at these clothes is the condescension, the judging. You don't like it when someone wrongfully judges you based on a superficial layer: what food you eat, how large your family is, what you do on Sundays. Why produce even more ill-will by creating such negative emotions against someone because of their clothes?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But I have to wonder if you'd like how you looked in them if they weren't considered attractive by other people.
You know, there are about ten women in the world who don't wear they wear with an eye to how other people see them, ie that they'll be judged attractive by whatever culture, sub-culture, or click they inhabit. The idea that 'modest' women don't care is totally silly and totally refuted by this and the other thread. After all, you guys wouldn't want to wear 'slutty' clothing, would you?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well said, dabbler.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Storm, I was not implying that I was above such concerns. I was implying that for Avadaru to say that she was is a bit hard for me to believe.
quote: Sure, it's nice to be considered attractive, but most of the guys I know (and any guy I would consider dating anyway) would find me just as nice-looking in a t-shirt and jeans as in a tube top and a miniskirt.
This too.
[ September 21, 2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
PSI, you think it's hard to believe that Avadaru's guy friends can appreciate her beauty no matter what she's wearing? It seems that it's THAT kind of attitude that brings upon the "slutfest" of attire you so hate.
Here we are told "love someone for their personality!" "looks don't matter!" but then you don't believe her when she says those are the kinds of people she knows?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
PSI, I don't want you to get the impression that I am saying that I am 100% lacking in concern about how people see me. I'm in many ways a typical teenage girl; I like to look good when I go out. I just see a difference between myself and a good number of girls my age. If I spend a lot of time on my hair and makeup before going out in the evening, and then it rains and it all gets ruined, I'm not going to freak out about it. I might have mascara under my eyes and dripping wet hair, but if I'm enjoying myself, I think that (the right kind of) guys will find that a lot more attractive than a girl who immediately starts whining and complaining about the situation. Appearance is only important to me to a certain degree.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, I was not implying that I was above such concerns. I was implying that for Avadaru to say that she was is a bit hard for me to believe.
You (I think it was you) and others have made comments in either this or the other thread that women who wear revealing clothes have low self esteem because they liked how they looked to other people (men). So, please pardon my assumption that you were continuing in this vein.
quote: quote: Sure, it's nice to be considered attractive, but most of the guys I know (and any guy I would consider dating anyway) would find me just as nice-looking in a t-shirt and jeans as in a tube top and a miniskirt.
This too.
Gotcha.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Some folks on hatrack get angry when a blanket statement gets made about stay-at-home-moms. You know, the stuff like "their lives are so empty" or "how unfulfilling to care to the needs of others." Really stereotyping a SAHM, and incorrectly. As we've been shown, SAHM as just as interesting and diverse as the rest of the population.
It's the same thing here. Even though slut-wear doesn't fit into your version of reality, it doesn't give you the right-of-way to denigrate those who wear it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know what I really like? Extremely tight, low-rise jeans -- I don't really care about underwear showing one way or the other -- just low enough to reveal one of those tribal tattoo thingies just above the small of the back. Always nice. But slutty. *shrug*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
But everything signifies something--and "slutwear" signifies, among other things, being a slut. That does NOT mean that every person who wears such clothing is a slut, but the clothing does signify the idea (at this point and time in our culture). That type of clothing ALSO signifies a lot of other things in our culture--I'm not saying it only signifies "Slut!"
I guess my point is that recognizing the signal and what it signifies in a culture doesn't make you judgemental--just observant.
-Katarain
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree with Phanto's opening statement.
The one thing that I do think is bad is the girls who wear low rise jeans and skimpy tops that have a fat roll showing. That's just not good.
AJ
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
Still, when they start selling them in sizes made for twelve-year-old girls . . .
Anyways, I feel it stunts the imagination. They leave nothing for guys to imagine.
I see you're looking at our underage hooker line of clothing . . .
[ September 21, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Anthro ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I posted this on the "other thread". But much of the discussion appears to be here.
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 beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The problem for me with people who look down their noses at these clothes is the condescension, the judging. You don't like it when someone wrongfully judges you based on a superficial layer: what food you eat, how large your family is, what you do on Sundays. Why produce even more ill-will by creating such negative emotions against someone because of their clothes?
Two reasons: Some men don't like women tempting them. Some women don't like other women making their significant other think about them that way.
You dress like that around my husband, and you are offending both of us.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: quote: Sure, it's nice to be considered attractive, but most of the guys I know (and any guy I would consider dating anyway) would find me just as nice-looking in a t-shirt and jeans as in a tube top and a miniskirt.
Um, this isn't about "nice looking", it's about making guys think of sex. If I want to dress to make my husband think about sex, I usually don't wear jeans and a t-shirt.
Sure you are every bit as nice looking. This is why those who *are* low-self-esteem shouldn't feel the need to dress skankily in order to get attention. They are lovely dressed modestly.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
At which point we do approach the fine line of personal expression versus being offended and good taste.
And I'm not commenting as to where the line should be drawn, could be drawn or happens to be drawn, simply observing the line exists.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
True Bev, but if they are feeding on the "wow, you look hot!" reaction of other men, dressing modestly won't engender that reaction - certainly not to the extent they may be looking for.
And this is really an extension of the "why do we do this?" thread - just wandering in a specific direction.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think the line is very subjective. But let it be known that if a really attractive girl is dressed in very provocative clothing around my husband, I don't appreciate it.
Color me weird, but I don't enjoy my husband having to fend off sexual thoughts about another woman. They have the right to dress that way, but I don't have to like it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Two reasons: Some men don't like women tempting them. Some women don't like other women making their significant other think about them that way.
You dress like that around my husband, and you are offending both of us.
Beverly, do you really think that Porter is so weak that any one woman dresses scantily will tempt him?
I think this kind of statement denigrates the ability of men, both in terms of self-control, and in their ability to see beauty in more than just a low cut top.
(Edit - ok, that thread moved quickly! But I guess the question still stands)
[ September 21, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't think it's a matter of being weak, but tempting an instinctive reaction.
I don't know Mr. Head personally, but I think it would take more than a pretty face and attractive clothing to make him cast aside his family and his vows.
But I do think Mr. Head is a human with all the frailties, failings and instincts that accompany being a human.
-Trevor
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'm not trying to suggest that he *would* be tempted.
(The only reason I'm using mph is because Beverly mentioned her own views in the context of her husband. I realise this is personal, and I certainly don't intend any offence).
Maybe to make it more generic - I think men, in general, have more self-restraint and a better of conception of true beauty than the reasoning 'skimpy clothes will tempt them' gives them credit for.
And if that's not true, I think it should be.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't think Mr. Head's ability to restrain his physical impulses is in dispute.
I think the issue at hand is the temptation of "impure thoughts" which is important to some people.
-Trevor
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Puhlease! It doesn't say anything negative about men that they might have difficulty NOT thinking about sex when some woman is parading around half-naked in front of him.
I lean towards the idea that most women who dress like sluts actually are sluts. Yeah, so a lot of the world, or at least America, dresses that way... well, I think most of America is full of sluts, too. The definition of slut has changed with people saying, "Oh, I've only had sex with 4 guys this year--that's only 1 every 3 months! I'm not a slut!" Since the behavior (of sleeping around) is acceptable and the term slut still is NOT, then we must change the definition of the word.
The tone of this post is related largely to thinking about what Beverly was saying--it would piss me off to have some chick in slutwear parading around MY husband...
-Katarain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I LIKE being tempted. I'm not nearly enough of a wimp to actually give in, but the tempting itself makes for an enjoyable few minutes.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Being single means I can enjoy the scenery with relative impunity.
Otherwise I'd be fighting whiplash, struggling not to look.
-Trevor
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Trevor, you're right. I think I am kind of at cross-purposes to Beverly's point, partly because I think I am not so upset about impure thoughts.
I wonder - does it work both ways? Would we expect our husbands/boyfriends to get upset if there were handsome men parading around in singlets and shorts in front of us?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. It probably depends on the husband for your hypothetical just as much as it depends on the wife for the other.
I don't know of many significant others who would be happy with their mate being exposed to attractive eye-candy.
-Trevor
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I would never expect a man I'm with not to look at a pretty woman walking by. I would expect that he not stare, that he not drool, and that he, on the balance, pay more attention to me than to the scenery. But noticing and appreciating his surroundings? I have no problem with that.
And when I'm with someone, I have been known to notice other men. Discretely and briefly. It doesn't mean I appreciate the one I'm with any less, or that I'm planning on ditching him to go hit on the other guy, and I would hope he'd be self-assured enough to know that.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I wouldn't be actively happy. But I don't think I'd be offended.
Of course, if the woman in question is really cute (like Angelina Jolie cute - and preferbly equally unattainable) then I'm liable to admire them as well. So that may cloud the issue.
**
If someone on the other hand, made an active play for Tony I would be offended. In my mind the action of trying to pick him up shows no respect for our relationship. Simply dressing a certain way isn't disrespectful, in my view.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am not surprised if the guy I am with looks. But the woman is just passing by. If it is a woman he interacts with on a regular basis, that is a little more threatening.
I have complete trust and faith in my husband's ability to keep his marriage vows. But he is human, and an attractive, skantily clad woman makes any man think about sex. He may be struggling not to think about it, but the temptation is there and neither of us appreciate it.
It is my personal opinion that a woman dressing modestly (though flattering and lovely are fine) is showing respect to the men and women around her. I feel it is her responsibility to uplift others around her, not distracting them with sex. I understand that many others don't feel that way--both men and women. Women like to make men think of sex. Or they don't realize how men's minds work. Men enjoy being made to think of sex.
But that sort of behavior encroaches upon me and others who are of like-mind. I think it is disrespectful. The two mindsets are at an irresolvable impass. So if I have to put up with the thoughts you make my husband struggle not to think, you have to deal with me not liking the way you dress.
[ September 21, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
psssst, bev! Any straight man!
[ September 21, 2004, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
A little straighter than before, perhaps.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yes, then we have Telperion who is lusting after my husband. Of course, that is less threatening to either of us. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But he is human, and an attractive, skantily clad woman makes any man think about sex. He may be struggling not to think about it, but the temptation is there and neither of us appreciate it.
I have difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that it's someone else's job to help me be pious. It's...hubris to me. I don't know how else to say it. It's an egotistical assumption that people should live as I think they should. It's childish.
I can understand finding things other people wear to be 'ugly' or 'bad'. This is a natural outgrowth of everyone being different. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my tastes.
If people are unique, and different, it seems to me that it is, therefore, illogical to actually get upset when people don't conform to my sense of fashion.
But the idea that I should get upset because someone isn't conforming to rules that *I* chose to put on *myself* and that *I* choose to live by is really beyond belief.
Good grief.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
See, I don't think the two mindsets are necessarily at an irresolvable impass. I think with a little common sense they can get along just fine.
Like I said before, there are clothes that I would consider fine for going out with my friends but not work or school appropriate. Many, if not most, workplaces and schools have dresscodes to deal with that issue, although as someone said they don't always enforce them. Still, let's leave those places out of the discussion.
I, like dabbler, have clothes that I only wear to certain clubs. those clubs are over-18, and I doubt anyone who believes people should dress modestly would frequent them. Even if you lived in my state, beverly, I would not expect to see you or mph there. So again we don't have a problem.
There are clothes that I find acceptable to wear in public just hanging out that you probably wouldn't like. You might pass me on the street dressed that way. Here is our biggest potential problem.
If I am going into a situation where I'm meeting a group of people where I know some of them have different value systems than me, I would not wear anything I thought they might find offensive. Take KamaCon as an example. I, like most people, wore shorts or jeans and t-shirts. A skirt when we went out dancing, but it was almost knee-length, which I think most people would find reasonable.
My point is, no matter where you stand on this issue, you have to dress appropriately for the occasion. If I'm coming to dinner at your house, I should not wear something I know you would find offensive. But if you pass me on the street, I would appreciate you not brand me based on how I'm dressed.
(That doesn't mean you have to like it. I'd just rather no one call me a slut for it.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Storm, it bothers *me* because I'm "jealous". It bother's *Porter* because he is trying to be pious. There is a difference.
Sometimes I think I am the one of the only people in the world who doesn't like my significant other thinking about sex when looking at other women.
Also, if a guy walks by scantily clad, I may admire him, but I don't instinctively think of sex. I realize that other women might, but I don't.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
ElJay, you are correct that you and I are not at an impasse. If you are not dressing like that around my husband, there is no problem. You dress in a certain way for clubs, and I dress in a certain way when I am trying to be sexy for him. If someone had a problem with me dressing sexy for my husband, I would be annoyed too.
If you passed us on the street, I am not one who would think of you as a slut for dressing that way--as I explained above. I would simply think that you were dressed in a way to make men think of sex.
[ September 21, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I wear my low-rise jeans and thong panties, I'm dressing to look slutty.
Heh, that said, looking good (I point to Jane) doesn't mean you're a slut. I have a beautiful friend who went to a strict Indian-Christian church, and was told off as a slut for wearing a sweater. Because it was tight enough to show off her figure, she was ostracized from the church and condemned as a slut for "tempting" the other women's husbands.
Somehow I don't hold her as the villain here. Nor would I hold an attractive teenager in a tube top responsible for MPH's thoughts. Blaming the woman for being too sexy for a man to control himself leads directly to a) excusing the man for raping her, and b) widespread distribution of burqas.
If a girl looks good in low-rise jeans, good for her -- her sexuality's nothing to be ashamed of, and if she wants to look gorgeous walking down the street, more power to her. It doesn't mean her curves are all she has to offer, nor that she's a slut for having them.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
To be honest, if a woman decided to dress in "slutwear" and a husband saw her and started drooling and going into "zombie - lust" mode...the onus doesn't lie heavily on the woman, imo. It's the man getting sexually aroused.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Heck, I wear things tight enough to "show off" my figure by some people's standards. There is no strict line we can draw, especially when some women are far sexier than others, but there is a difference between wearing a sweater and wearing a tube top.
I think a scantily clad woman is responsible for making it harder for men not to think about sex. Men are still responsible for how they act on their thoughts. Not only do they have control over whether or not they touch or rape her, but they also have the control over whether they make comments or oogle her. They don't have the control not to have sex come to the brain (either brain) or to not look once. This is an instinctive response for a heterosexual man. Dressing skankily increases that response just as being born attractive does. One the woman has control over the other she doesn't.
I am not going to get mad at a woman for being born drop-dead-gorgeous, but I will be annoyed when she flaunts her body to the extent that the straight men around her can't keep sex of the mind. She doesn't have to do that--it is her choice. And the choice effects me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: To be honest, if a woman decided to dress in "slutwear" and a husband saw her and started drooling and going into "zombie - lust" mode...the onus doesn't lie heavily on the woman, imo. It's the man getting sexually aroused.
My question is, can a heterosexual man *not* be aroused by that? Can a woman choose not to dress that way? Which one has more choice over what is happening? They have the responsibility.
Again, this isn't an issue for women who don't mind their husband feeling that way or men who don't mind being aroused by scantily clad women. But there are those who feel differently. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: And the choice effects me
How? How does it effect you? By your own admission, Porter isn't going to act on his desires, so how does it effect you?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: I think a scantily clad woman is responsible for making it harder for men not to think about sex.
Ok, but is it really her responsibility in the first place? She's free to act however she wants, and however men respond is their choice as well. I do agree, though, that it shows no respect to you and your husband's relationship for a woman to flaunt herself in front of him. In my opinion that is in poor taste. I'm sure you and your husband would have better taste and respond to such actions gracefully. I guess all men can't be expected to act so politely, but if they are rude or vulgar towards that woman, I'd say she had it coming to her. While she may NOT in fact be a "slut", her clothing might suggest to men otherwise. That said, I've had to deal with guys hitting on me because of an outfit I wore, but because I chose to dress in a certain manner, I can't really blame them. I think a lot of women (and I've fallen into this category) send mixed (and often unintentional) signals with the clothing they wear. I still don't think it's fair to classify them as "slutty", though...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I believe bev pointed out that she's never actually said people who dress this way are sluts. She doesn't like it, but isn't labeling. I'm fine with that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: My question is, can a heterosexual man *not* be aroused by that? Can a woman choose not to dress that way? Which one has more choice over what is happening? They have the responsibility.
Men are aroused by good looking women no matter what they wear.
If a man can't work around being aroused by a woman, then he is immature.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I say again, female sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. If a man's too weak to keep his mind off sex while talking to an a woman in a tight shirt, that's his problem, not hers.
I know very few men this weak, and I'd personally rather have them steadily adjusted to female sexuality with public views of an abdomen than suppressing his desires by covering up women, then losing control when he sees bare shoulders.
Also, I'm not sure if you realize how heavily you're relying on a tired stereotype. You aren't giving us heterosexual men nearly enough credit -- if I see an attractive woman in a miniskirt, I may give her a once-over to appreciate her beauty, but I'm certainly capable of keeping her off my mind if I have more important things to think about. It is not the woman's responsibility to keep me from thinking about sex. Such thinking leads directly to such creatures as the burqa, existing precisely because many Arab cultures are too ignorant or primitive to recognize that if the man thinks unclean sexual thoughts because he's seen her ankle, it's his responsibility to control himself, not hers.
As a final note, what is "dressing skankily"? If a woman wears tight clothing, is she a skank (or dressing like one)? If I wear a tight shirt or wifebeater, are you going to call me a skank? If my friend wears a tight sweater to church, is she a skank? (Obviously, she is to some people.) I'd be interested in knowing how you define the term -- and in knowing if you're willing to recognize that the term varies wildly from culture to culture, and in none of them does the responsibility to control the male libido rest upon the women's clothing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Lalo, I really appreciate what you're saying in this thread.
Storm, I like what you're saying, too, but that isn't nearly as surprising...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I say again, female sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. If a man's too weak to keep his mind off sex while talking to an a woman in a tight shirt, that's his problem, not hers.
I totally agree. We men do have control over how much attention we give our desire.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
What Eddie said.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks, Eljay. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah. Great post, Ed.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
ooh, and a belated thanks from me to stormie. Yey, post-appreciation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Agreement with Lalo and Storm.
The idea that men can't help but think about sex is... rather sexist. I know its popular to think that, but we can control ourselves, and usually do. I had a five hour lab today. My lab partner is an attractive russian girl (which for me is a turn on). I only thought of her sexually maybe once in that five hour period, and it was just a brief flash when we were crowded into a small space for part of the lab, and her ass brushed against me. I think that is a justifiable reason to think about sex, thanks
The idea that men are "tempted" by women is one that was used a lot in the middle ages to repress women, keep them closed off from the rest of society. I think its a GOOD thing that this idea is no longer prevalent, and that its being beaten down enough so that women can wear sexy clothing in public is a sign of growing women's equality.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh, aw, I'd take the compliments more to heart if I didn't know you were giving them to me just to get in these thong panties of mine.
Lookin' good.
It goes without saying that Stormie and Eljay speak my sentiments exactly. Jane has, too, except for one sentence I'll take exception to:
quote:I'm sure you and your husband would have better taste and respond to such actions gracefully. I guess all men can't be expected to act so politely, but if they are rude or vulgar towards that woman, I'd say she had it coming to her.
If a woman dresses provocatively, she can expect to get hit on. But being rude or vulgar (or insulting or harassing or forceful) isn't excused in any way by the woman's appearance.
Or maybe I just have different courtship rituals than those of Lousiana men.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: But being rude or vulgar (or insulting or harassing or forceful) isn't excused in any way by the woman's appearance.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Eddie, I'm not by any means excusing it. I don't think such behavior is excusable in any case...I'm just saying that she shouldn't be surprised when it happens.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Damn. And here I was going to learn how to whistle just in hopes of an eventual trip to New Orleans...
So we're in full agreement? You're hot and have no responsibility to hide yourself for my sake? To the nudist colony! You bring ElJay, I'll bring the henna paint.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI, you think it's hard to believe that Avadaru's guy friends can appreciate her beauty no matter what she's wearing?
I'll admit that I was thinking of this more along the lines of her guy friends being *attracted* to her no matter what she was wearing, not just thinking that she looks nice. I think most guys would say they are probably more attracted to their ladies (at least on a superficial level) when they are dressed more provocatively. That said, I was pretty much joking. Hence the winky smily.
And I'm not sure you could quote me as saying that men should only care about personality or whatever you said. It's more likely I said something like women should care more about feeling confident and comfortable then about what society says she should wear.
edit: Sorry, I had to rephrase. It wasn't making sense to me.
[ September 22, 2004, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I also enjoy women in scantily clad clothing. The words "yummy" have entered my mind when a particularly attractive woman passes by on more than one occasion. Ask me what that woman looked like 5 seconds later and I won't be able to tell you. It's not like "thinking about sex" means you launch into some long, convoluted sexual fantasy that forces you to make your way to the nearest public restroom and the cleaning staff be damned. It's pretty much an almost unregistered blip.
[ September 22, 2004, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Ok, but is it really her responsibility in the first place?
Just wanted to say that where someone has power they have responsibility. That does not mean that a woman always has to be worried about some guy thinking dirty thoughts about her. If a guy is losing control of himself over a woman who's not really doing anything to deserve it that's not a function of the woman's power, but rather of function of the man's lack of willpower. However, if a woman has an area that she controls specifically to exert power, then she is partially responsible for the outcome.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow. Lots to think about next time I get dressed. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*blink*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I hate to say it El, but...well...yeah.
-Trevor
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I was kidding. To an extent. I've already stated that I make sure I wear clothing appropriate to the situations I expect to find myself in, if I hadn't figured out by now how to do that with relatively little thought involved I'd probably never leave the house.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The idea that men can't help but think about sex is... rather sexist. I know its popular to think that, but we can control ourselves, and usually do. I had a five hour lab today. My lab partner is an attractive russian girl (which for me is a turn on). I only thought of her sexually maybe once in that five hour period, and it was just a brief flash when we were crowded into a small space for part of the lab, and her ass brushed against me. I think that is a justifiable reason to think about sex, thanks
I appreciate the insight. I am (admittedly) not a man and therefore do not understand men all that well. I realize I may not have an accurate picture of what goes on in men's minds. I actually believe my husband *can* help thinking about sex, but I don't like the idea of women doing something that they are fully in control of that makes it harder for him. That isn't fair to him.
quote: The idea that men are "tempted" by women is one that was used a lot in the middle ages to repress women, keep them closed off from the rest of society. I think its a GOOD thing that this idea is no longer prevalent, and that its being beaten down enough so that women can wear sexy clothing in public is a sign of growing women's equality.
Actually, my impression was that the excuse most commonly used was that because of Eve and her "trechery", all women are evil and sensuous and deep down they are all temptresses. This is laughable. It seems to be similar to the reasoning behind blaming a woman when a man rapes her. It is an ugly thing and I do not approve of it.
That being said, I think it very telling that men do not attempt to dress the way women do. If they thought it would get them more sex, they would do it in a heartbeat--so I guess it doesn't work. But women do it because it *does* work. This is not sexism, this is reality.
Women are more free to wear whatever they want and that is a sign of freedom. I am saying they should use their choice and choose to dress modestly in public. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Men are aroused by good looking women no matter what they wear.
Yup. But a good looking woman can't help being good looking. You can't blame someone for something that isn't their fault. How the dress is a different matter.
quote: If a man can't work around being aroused by a woman, then he is immature.
I'm not sure what you mean by "work around". If you mean avoiding raping, touching, making inappropriate comments or oogling, I agree. But I think a woman who dresses so that it is very difficult for men not to think about sex is... well I repeat myself.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: How? How does it effect you? By your own admission, Porter isn't going to act on his desires, so how does it effect you?
Maybe if I weren't insecure at all in myself, it wouldn't bother me at all. I don't know, I have never been completely without insecurity. I guess this sort of thing doesn't bother some women at all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Your argument rests on the idea that women dressing provactively arouses men. If this is, in fact, not true--if, in fact, men are aroused regardless of what women wear, then this undermines your argument, I think.
When I say workaround, I mean to either make those thoughts stop completely or to push them to the back of his mind such that they are inconsequential. It's very difficult to do things if you can't stop thinking about sex, Bev.
Let me also add that there is definitely a factor of newness to arousal. Once you get to know someone, or are used to seeing something, then the level of arousal goes down. I think this is the same principle a nudist colony works on.
Bev, I understand what you're saying. Of course everyone wants their true love to only think of them and not be aroused by anyone else. I think,though, that the best we can hope for (and given the number of classless people out there, it is often just that, a hope) is that they not let us know when they are aroused by someone else and that their desire for us because of who we are as individuals far, far, far outstrips whatever aimless, fleeting ghosts of thought drift through their mind in the presence of other people.
[ September 22, 2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Well said, Storm. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I also enjoy women in scantily clad clothing. The words "yummy" have entered my mind when a particularly attractive woman passes by on more than one occasion. Ask me what that woman looked like 5 seconds later and I won't be able to tell you. It's not like "thinking about sex" means you launch into some long, convoluted sexual fantasy that forces you to make your way to the nearest public restroom and the cleaning staff be damned. It's pretty much an almost unregistered blip.
BTL, this isn't surprising since it is something men have to deal with on a fairly regular basis. Maybe something like that happens when a boy is first going through puberty, but repitition makes the impact less over time. The above scenario would be silly for a grown man accustomed to these things. It becomes more of a problem, though when this is someone you are in frequent contact with.
I still find women dressing scantily rude public behavior. Here is an extreme example: My husband and I are out walking someplace, and a woman walks by and exposes herself in front of both of us. Would anyone here consider that rude? It is an exaggeration, but that is a little how I feel when women dress scantily in public.
This begs the question of nudist colonies or tribal cultures where women going topless is the norm. Once upon a time the sight of a woman's ankle was scandelous. It all has to do with the culture and society you live in. It may be that if everyone dressed scantily (or were nude) all the time the visual effects on men would be diminished because of how common it is.
But that is not the society that we live in, so it has a very real effect--particularly for those who are not accustomed to seeking such things out. You may think such people are wrong, backwards, or even a menace to society. Those people, on the other hand, are displeased by the immodesty of women. There is the impasse I speak of.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
First of all, I agree with beverly and PSI on this (which shocks no one, I am sure).
Secondly,
quote: Let me also add that there is definitely a factor of newness to arousal. Once you get to know someone, or are used to seeing something, then the level of arousal goes down. I think this is the same principle a nudist colony works on.
Some of us -- me, f'rinstance -- believe that's a crying shame. My (theoretical) husband getting used to scantily-clad women means that me being scantily-clad means that much less.
The fact that I do not casually touch men makes each touch mean that much more. And while clearly many disagree, I happen to think that's a good thing.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I think most guys would say they are probably more attracted to their ladies (at least on a superficial level) when they are dressed more provocatively.
This isn't necessarily true. I know that Tony finds me most attractive when I am dressed elegantly - think more Audrey Hepburn then Pamela Anderson.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I didn't include evening wear because that wasn't mentioned in the original paragraph. It was a comparison between jeans/t-shirts and miniskirts/tubetops. (BTW, tube tops are way ugly.)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
PSI beat me too it. Tube tops are just plain ugly! I mean, the whole thing is designed to pressure you into the shape of a cylinder! Cylinders aren't sexy.
Hobbes Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
To put a spin on this argument, what about the Islamic traditions of making women wear burkhas and only leave the house in the company of men from that house?
How does that impact or otherwise affect the discussions in this thread?
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It doesn't. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it's actually the SAME argument: that not wearing a burka forces the men who see you to think about sex, and that this is rather unfair, forward, and immodest.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Familiarity only breeds contempt if you take the BANG out of the relationship.
Courtship lasts forever.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is definitely the guys' responsibility to keep their minds off things it shouldn't be on. I actually think I agree with ElJay - wear appropriate clothing. Work, school, Hatrack gatherings - places where people are not really given the option of not interacting with you, it is only respectful and polite to wear clothes that don't announce your chest five minutes before the rest of you. In other places, where interaction is a choice, it is NOT an onus on anyone to dress to someone else's standards.
I haven't worn anything actually revealing in so long now my white, white skin now glows in the dark, so this may be off, but...
I've never worn something or been with friends who were wearing something revealing where the goal wasn't to get male romantic attention. Sometimes women for women dress for women, but not in that - other women hate you for it. It's for attention. And it usually works. Like Bob said, it only works temporarily and it's not usually the respectful attitude properly due to a lady, but it does work.
Even discounting the moral considerations, due to human nature, I'm in favor of the women covering up a bit more because its usually in their long-term interest to do so.
[ September 22, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Trevor: I guess it depends on whether or not the face makes a man think of sex. Does it matter if the woman is wearing a come-hither stare under there? Or has a beauty mark and pouty lips? [I hope everyone knows I'm kidding here. I get frustrated because I know that I'm nearly always joking to some degree but there will always be someone who doesn't know me and thinks I'm being serious. Tip for these people: If I'm serious I will place "Seriously," at the beginning of the sentence, or something like that. Notice that there was no "seriously" at the beginning of this edit.]
While I'm in favor of covering up some of the nasty I see on the street, or more specifically, at the mall, I probably wouldn't try to legally *force* the women to cover it up except in cases of indecent exposure.
[ September 22, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Heh...indecent exposure. When I was waiting in line the other night at the grocery I picked up a trashy magazine. Inside was a spread on the apparant trend of "under cleavage." Meaning wearing shirts that actually show the bottoms of your breasts. Mariah Carey was featured - no shocker there.
I like form-fitting clothes, and I don't label women as slutty due to what they're wearing. I might think they look skanky, but that's neither here nor there. When I see something like under cleavage I just think it's sad. That's not about feeling good about yourself; it's designed to make people gawk.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So what does skanky mean then? I always thought skank was a less inflammatory way of saying slut. Am I wrong?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Skanky, to me, is worse than slutty. I think someone can "look" slutty but still be sexually attractive. If you look skanky, then you're not even sexually attractive. I don't think that's gonna make sense to anyone but myself, but there it is.
space opera
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I never really thought about it but I think I agree with you.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trevor, the burkha question is a valid one. Those men are in a similar position as the men of our past who were used to not seeing ankles or collarbones. I understand that they may think of me the same way that I think of someone who shows cleavage. I do not fault them for that. But I am also not a part of their culture and society. These women *are* a part of my society. And our society in general does not dress that way.
But I also do not try to force women not to wear what they wear. I recognize their freedom, and I am actually very civil about it. While I strongly disagree with the way they dress and complain about it when not in the direct situation, it is highly unlikely that I would actually say that or even treat them with any sort of contempt. I generally approach individuals with compassion and benefit of the doubt. That doesn't change the fact, though, that what she is doing is effecting me negatively.
If it became a problem, I might talk to the girl, but that would take some doing.
[ September 22, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Space Opera brings up an interesting point. She is using the word "slutty" not to refer to a slut, but a certain way of dressing. What is the general opinion here? Is there a difference between saying someone is dressing slutty and saying she is a slut? I would assume so. Perhaps that is a justification for the word "slutwear"? Just a thought.
[ September 22, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You can dress like a gangster without being a gangster.
You can dress like a clueless nerd without being a clueless nerd.
But you'll still look like a ganster or a nerd.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like the word slut, but that's because...the girls I knew that did sleep around - that fit the actual definition of a slut - were so down on themselves. I don't know if that's because I move in a Mormon world so there's a fall from grace associated with it as well, but I didn't know any girls that actually slept around because they were on a power kick or because they just liked the physicality of that. The girls who talked about it that way usually didn't have a whole lot of experience with it. The ones who actually did sleep around a lot were looking to be loved.
I don't like calling anyone that because it means you're kicking someone when they are down.
[ September 22, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Actually, there are a couple of girls that have been coming to church dressed extremely provocatively. I don't say anything to them or anyone else about it though (until now, to y'all) because I place them firmly in the "teenagers who don't know what they're doing" category. Not to say that they don't know it's sexy, but I truly don't think they understand the stigma attached to dressing that way at church, especially because our church is pretty liberal in the dressing department. (We have people in suits and people in t-shirts and shorts.)
That said, I am not sure if someone should gently mention to them that they might be viewed badly by dressing that way in church. Their mothers don't come and I'm personally just so darn glad they're there that I am willing to let them dress however they want. I think they'll probably get the hint eventually, and I don't think they are turning anyone on. It's more like it's just freaky. I don't know them well enough to say anything, but I don't know if anyone should at all. Not in a chastizing way, but in a kind, "You may not know you're giving this impression", way. I really don't want to scare them off though.
---
Bev: Yes, I have said in both threads that I consider slutwear to be a "look" that doesn't necessarily reflect how promiscuous the person is.
[ September 22, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Which kinda circumvents the two pages of posts complaining the term is unfair because it implies an assumed behavior on behalf of the person wearing the fashion.
But similarly, if I walk down the street wearing neo-nazi slogans, people might have reason to believe I am or at least a supporter of, Neo-nazis and their philosophy.
This is a more literal interpretation, but we're discussing the subtle or soft interpretations that we associate with types of clothing.
I know this makes sense at some point - I just can't think where I lost that point.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This whole thread is a waste of time. Not one person on the either side has listened to the other.
Whether or not you agree, you people calling other people sluts are spending this whole thread justifying a term that puts people down and hurts feelings for no good reasons. Yeah, we know how you feel. We feel like you people are moral elitests/prudes/whatever, but it's not polite to say and not really accurate.
Grow up.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hey, I dress kinda alternative. Do I think I'm different from everyone else out there? Do I listen to alternative music? No. I dress kinda hip-hop sometimes. Does that mean I like rap? No. Am I insulted when people assume I like these things? No. Why? Because I'm dressing like someone who does, and I'm aware of the stereotypes going in.
However, I do everything I can to stimulate my mind and dress and break out of the "boring old housewife" mold except where something affects the way I raise my children. At those times I'm offended by the stereotypes *because* I do my best to not "look like the stereotype" but people persist with it because they refuse to let it go.
If a woman came out of a prostitution lifestyle and did her best to not give that impression anymore I'd back her up to the hilt if people insisted on stereotyping her. But if a woman dresses like she's selling, I'm not feeling sorry for her.
I really see an obvious difference but it might just be my POV.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*needs to go find the prostitution debate thread because that is where this is going*
AJ
[ September 22, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Am I the only one who thinks people hide things they don't want to share so they won't be asked?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
True - considering the thieving little illegitimate roommates I currently share accomodations with.
But how many people apply PSI's logic to other aspects of their lives?
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I guess I keep thinking about the kids in school that broke out their candy and smugly ate it in front of everyone without sharing, while people looked on covetously. I really wish they'd just kept it put away if they weren't going to share.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: We feel like you people are moral elitests/prudes/whatever, but it's not polite to say and not really accurate.
Then why bother saying it at all?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why bother talking about those you whose dress you dissaprove of?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lol, I have an example of this in my own life, that I'll let you guys dissect. I agree with ElJay that a lot of things depend on appropriateness and context.
So I wear generally baggy clothes to work. My pants are probably tighter fitting, generally jeans or khakis but nothing extreme. On top, I wear a baggy polo shirt or sometimes a button up shirt. Mrs. M will shoot me but I still generally wear them in guys sizes, because they are baggier and it's extremely hard to find the styles in girls clothing and I don't want them fitted.
However, at lunch time, I sit outside with the guys in a picnic area. At lunch I strip if it is warm enough. I generally wear a camisole (with a bralet) underneath the baggy shirt, because it's so darn cold in the lab (I also layer with a sweatshirt as well) and I'll take off my shirt and only wear the camisole if it is warm enough. But I am on work property.
Am I being slutty?
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You don't see a difference between a camisole and cleavage-baring, mid-drift triangle shirts with no cloth in the back except a tie?
And if you said you wore the triangle top to work I wouldn't say you were being slutty. I would, however, probably consider the shirt to be slutwear.
In interest of some common ground here that I understand needs to be met, I think it's rude to tell someone their clothes are slutwear. I would likely keep that opinion to myself. But I'd still be thinking it.
[ September 22, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I still think it's the same as thinking that a SAHM is worthless.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No, because honestly I look better (sexier, if you wish) in a camisole than I would in the latter (because I have small breasts). Also it's a skin tight camisole, you can pretty much figure out what I look like underneath anyway, if it was cold I'm sure you could see my nipples. So theoretically since I'm wearing what is the more attractive option on me, it is therefore the most *tempting*.
AJ
(Suneun I agree with you 100% btw)
[ September 22, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
How is someone thinking clothing is inappropriate the same as thinking they are worthless?
I don't think the term "slutwear" has nearly the negative connotation for some that it does for others. Kat has a powerful negative association with it. For me any negative stigma is far more mild. I understand the term is hurtful and can lead to judgement of the girl's standards for having sex, and therefore I won't use it. But I don't see how PSI is thinking the person is worthless. If she had used a different term than "slutwear", would her statement bother you?
Like if she said, "I wouldn't tell the girl that I thought her clothes were too skimpy, but I'd still be thinking it."
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's not that each portion is equivalent to the other, but it's the same structure. I just don't like this sort of condescending negativity.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AJ, I prefer to not wear baggy tops for that very reason. They are not flattering on me. No, they are not just "not flattering" on me, they are *unflattering*!
But I also choose not to wear things that are "skin-tight". I feel personally that to be wearing something like that sends a message that I don't want to be sending. Basically, I want to show guys that I am female and am trying to look female, but I don't want them panting after me because of how much I am showing. I just don't think it is right.
So, if I were in that situation, I would wear something underneath that was not so tight or revealing. I would get all the benefits of the temperature change, and I wouldn't be drawing attention to my chest. But that is me, that is my own way of doing things, and I recognize that plenty of other people feel differently.
Do you feel that the guys treat you differently when you are wearing your camisole? Do you enjoy the difference? Do you wear the camisole to get that kind of attention?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Suneun, I can understand you not wanting to be called a slut or even slutty. But is that last statement offensive to you? I ask because I am trying to pinpoint what exactly is causing the offense. Does my not liking girls to wear skimpy clothing *because of the way it effects me* bother you?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Bev, nothing you've said has been particularly offensive. As I've mentioned before, you're very careful to tread in between, and I appreciate that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
As an INTP <grin> I wear the camisole for strictly practical reasons. It doubles as an undershirt and a tank top, and it's hot outside at lunchtime and cold in the lab.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the way I look one way or the other and the guys don't treat me any differently either way. I think I would get treated differently if I wore the tank top in the lab, but that would be stupid as I never know whether I'm going to be slinging nitric acid or benzene around from one day to the next. The camisole also is an extra layer of protection should I actually spill anything on myself.
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Suneun, that's cool. I appreciate you helping me understand your position better.
AJ, I respect that you do it for practical reasons, and I believe you. So if I happened to see you in passing and judged you as trying to get guy's attention, I would be wrong.
This brings up another thought--I see plenty of women wear excercise clothes similar to what you described. I think some of them do it to attract the looks of men, but I don't think all of them do. So, since they have a reason to be dressed like that, I mentally give them the benefit of the doubt.
And, on a side note, Porter is very much a gentleman. I have never felt the need to "get on his case" for looking at women. I don't blame him for having to deal with an instinctive male response.
For those who have read the book "Rachael and Leah", I feel Porter does a very good job of being like Jacob in how he dealt with Zilpah's efforts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*thinks* I don't understand why you'd be condemning someone for trying to get a guy's attention. It happens - it's part of human nature. It's certainly not polite to do it in situations where it's offensive, and it shouldn't ever be just a game, but it isn't going away anytime soon.
Bev, you talked about that a little bit - the occasional desire to be seen as attractive by the larger world outside your family. You certainly don't intend to act on it, but it is a very human desire. Why condemn someone for...using the tools they've been given to accomplish the task?
[ September 22, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think it's a matter of degrees and moderation.
It's the taking this fashion to an extreme which makes some people feel uncomfortable for various reasons.
A little make-up, a flattering outfit, some tasteful jewelry versus walking around in body paint and goosebumps.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Kat, I don't think I said I condemn it. If it is a sin to try and attract guy's attention, then it is a sin I am guilty of myself. I do think there is a line that can be crossed from the appropriate to the inappropriate. The line is highly subjective and is different for different people. There are ways I am willing to dress in public and ways I am not. Other people have different standards.
I wanted to know why AJ wore the style of clothing under her baggy clothes that she did and if it was for the intent of attracting male attention. I was trying to understand her motives. I had more respect for her answer than if it had been different. That is not the same as condemnation.
There are ways of getting guys attention that I personally respect and ways that I don't respect. Trying to make the men around you think about having sex with you by dressing immodestly is not something I respect. Showing them that you are female and have a figure, I don't have a problem with.
If you and they are both single, then it is not such a problem, in my mind. Of course, it may also be a single guy who is trying to keep his thougths off sex. But if the guy is in a commited relationship, (or you are) I think it is bad form. My opinion, not someone else's.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I had more respect for her answer than if it had been different. That is not the same as condemnation.
It is a condemnation, though... I mean, you wouldn't be mentally assigning her to hell, but it is something that makes them less worthy/virtous/upright in your eyes. That's what condemnation is.
---
What if it wasn't phrased "I wear this to get them to think about having sex with me.", but instead, "I wear this because they pay more attention to me when I do." It's still the same reasoning - one is just more explicit.
I just think it's funny - it's like the Victorian fashions that piled yards of material on the back of a woman's skirt to make sure no ever, ever thought about what was underneath.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Um, am I not allowed to respect certain behaviors and attitudes over others? That is a mighty high call, one I don't think any human can meet.
quote: but it is something that makes them less worthy/virtous/upright in your eyes. That's what condemnation is.
I see we have *very* different personal lexicons.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It happens - it's part of human nature.
quote: You certainly don't intend to act on it, but it is a very human desire. Why condemn someone for...using the tools they've been given to accomplish the task?
Just let me make a point here -- saying that because something is natural or human nature that it should be accepted.
Part of my personal "human nature" is violence. I have violent tendencies. Saying that it's just the way I am is not acceptable. I am expected to control my natural tendencies. I would be a horrible human being if I did not.
Understanding our motivations, desires, and tendencies is important. One of the reasons it's important is that only by understanding our passions can we ever hope to bridle them.
I'm not saying that this is parallel to the current discussion. I'm not accusing anybody of saying that we should indulge whatever whims we have.
I just want to express myself that just because something is in our nature to do things does not mean that it is acceptable to do those things.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, of course not.
But I also don't think that needing attention and approval from other human beings is one of regrettable traits of the natural man.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: What if it wasn't phrased "I wear this to get them to think about having sex with me.", but instead, "I wear this because they pay more attention to me when I do." It's still the same reasoning - one is just more explicit.
The second one simply shows a lack of understanding about how men's minds work. Plenty of women are clueless about this.
quote: I just think it's funny - it's like the Victorian fashions that piled yards of material on the back of a woman's skirt to make sure no ever, ever thought about what was underneath.
I feel like you assume I am advicating baggy, unflattering clothes. But then, that is silly, because that would mean you haven't been reading my posts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think you are advocating that - you never said you did, so I didn't think that you did.
As for the innocence point, I agree with PSI that a lot of the more revealing clothes are worn by teenagers who don't have the foggiest idea why it's a big deal. I also like what she said about wanting to mention it to them - if they are ignorant, that's what learning is for.
I don't approve of playing it as a game - wearing revealing outfits deliberately to see how much attention you can get, like collecting numbers at a club that you never intend to call. The problem with that is the game part, though - it means you're using people, and that's not good.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"What if it wasn't phrased "I wear this to get them to think about having sex with me.", but instead, "I wear this because they pay more attention to me when I do."
It's still the same reasoning - one is just more explicit. The second one simply shows a lack of understanding about how men's minds work. Plenty of women are clueless about this."
I disagree, again...
Men can, and often do, pay more attention to a woman dressed in a sexy manner, without thinking about having sex with them.
Beverly, I find your entire line of reasoning in this thread to be based on a sexist misunderstanding of how the male brain works. Basically, you're upset at women who try to get men to think about having sex with them.
We can, and do, control those thoughts, and usually only think about having sex with a girl if we want to think about having sex with her.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But I also don't think that needing attention and approval from other human beings is one of regrettable traits of the natural man.
I also don't think that a tendency/desire for violence is bad. I can't think of any personality trait that is good or bad. They all can lead a person to do good or evil.
The other day, I helped my friend do some remodelling of his house. I helped him take out some walls. Because of my violent nature, I had a blast tearing out those walls. But there are other things that my violent nature could lead me to do that would be undenyably evil.
The desire for attention and approval can also lead people to good or bad. There are some people that desire that attention and approval so much that they will evil things. But that desire also can lead us to treat others with kindness and respect.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BtL, I know that these girls may not succeed in getting guys to think that way, because I know there are plenty of men out there with as much restraint as my own husband. What I don't like is the effort at trying to get them to think that--the added temptation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Right - so if someone is wearing something figure-hugging, it gets them (from all reports) brief flashes of attention. As long as they aren't playing a game (using people), intending to act on it innapropriately (not respecting societal bonds), or hogging the attention at someone else's parade, I don't know why it's something to think less of them for.
-----
Well, I do, but I think it's a personality trait. I personally think that being dependent on other human beings for your self-image is a mistake and ultimately doomed to failure, but that's me. And even then, I absolutely adore my friends that build me up.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker.
Of course, it becomes a little complicated trying to figure out what their motivation is for wearing the garb so we can then pass judgement in our own minds.
-Trevor
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, did y'all read the Anne of Green Gables books? In Anne of Windy Poplars, Anne's about go out canvassing for orphans, and she's trying to decide what to wear. The housekeeper tells her that if she intends to talk to the women, to wear the ugliest thing she has. If she intends to talk to the men, to wear the prettiest.
I don't think that's about sex.
*thinks* Unless everything ultimately is. Which is what I was trying to get at with the Victorian fashions thing.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have a question for the wonderful men of Hatrack. If a woman is wearing something scanty, is your response that she is more likely to be open to your invitations, your desires to do more than just look? (Whatever that may be )
(BTW, I really liked PSI's comment about the children eating their candy in front of other children they don't intend to share with.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What about gorgeously pretty people that can hold the attention of everyone in the room just by walking through the door in jeans and a t-shirt? That's hardly fair - showing to people what they can't have.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I don't think that's about sex.
Yeah it is. Women have the power to trigger men's sex drive. The extent to which they tend to do this is based on something they have no control over: how they were born to look, and something they do have control over: their clothes, words, and actions. Women have used men's sex drive since day one to get what they want. It is nothing new. I think there is an extent to which it is appropriate, and I think there is a point where it crosses the line.
I have seen women here on Hatrack tease men by talking about things they know will make them think of sex. It is pretty similar to dressing scantily, and in my opinion, in poor taste. Again--MY opinion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: That's hardly fair - showing to people what they can't have.
Oh, it's the most unfair thing in the world, IMO. But they can't help it either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then EVERYTHING'S about sex. Anne was trying to decide between the brown modest dress and the pretty blue modest dress. If you can't even choose a flattering color without getting condemned for wantonly trying to activate sex drives, then it's the problem on the part of the men that they haven't figured out how to get their thoughts under control.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Where did that come from?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My last post on the previous page.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I used to be mad at the nature of men's sex drive. I'm not anymore. Especially since I can't deny my own motives to be found sexy. I just expect them to deal with it as best they can.
But for all BtL's protestations that men have control over their sex drive (and they do) I do think that the statement "everything is about sex" is not that far off the mark.
I think women of the planet earth would receive a great education if they could live a week, a day, an hour, inside the brain of a man. Oh, and vica versa too.
I do think you are overreacting about the chosing a color=being wantonly judged though. I don't know where this is coming from. As I said, if a woman looks like DA BOMB in a burlap sack, that is not her fault and no one should be judging her.
That being said, Kat, I am sure you look like DA BOMB in a burlap sack. Unfortunately, I don't.
Kat, seriously, you are a total and complete babe. I wouldn't be surprised if people got upset at you wearing an outfit that they would have been fine with someone else wearing.
On that note, I hated the double standard in our house growing up. I was somewhat tall, and my sister wasn't. My Mom let her wear shorter skirts than me. Not just to adjust to her height, but because I looked sexier in a short skirt while she looked "cute". I didn't think that was fair that she could wear a skirt above her knees and I couldn't.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're very sweet, thank you. And I know that you're lovely.
I don't really know what I look like in a burlap sack, but what I look like is rarely the reason I get attention. I figure I'm pretty enough that if he likes me for the other reasons, what I look like won't be a deal breaker, but if he doesn't, my looks aren't going to persuade him to. I like that.
I have accepted that sexual tension is just part of life - and it isn't all on the part of men. The better looking=better treatment equation happens with both sexes.
I do have to wonder about everything being about sex, though. I have a couple of friends that I am not quite sure if they are aware that I'm a girl. They know OTHER PEOPLE are girls, but as far as I can tell, there is no indication that they know that I am.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The better looking=better treatment equation happens with both sexes.
Yeah, I was just thinking about how it goes both ways. Not just with a guy's cuteness, but with what he wears. It doesn't work quite as well with the "skimpy" or quite in the same way, but if a guy wears a nice button-up in a flattering color that sets off his eyes... wow. More likely to get smiles from the girl he's talking to. Oh, and a good cologne can add just the right touch.... Mmmmmm.
And let's not even talk about a man in uniform....
Kat: I find it hard to believe that those friends you speak of are not very much aware of our femininity or sex appeal. But I do think that some men don't show it.
[ September 22, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
...which connects to all sorts of "cool, he can protect me" buttons I think often float around in our brains.
I have this thing for loafers, jeans, and a gray t-shirt or navy blue polo shirt. I have no idea why, but I just love that. That's probably connected to sex in some way, but I have decided not to think about that.
[ September 22, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
In answer to your question Bev, the more revealing or scandalous the outfit, the less interested I am.
-Trevor
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:I have seen women here on Hatrack tease men by talking about things they know will make them think of sex
What's so wrong about teasing?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh my Bev wasn't here during the heyday of Ralphieism. And she never really knew pat either.
sexy Kama
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Kama: Whether or not I think there is something wrong with teasing is a highly subjective question. Especially since there are so many levels of teasing. For instance, I am not against flirting. And flirting almost always involves teasing. But there is some teasing that (for me) crosses the line. It is not something I would do, and I don't like others doing it. It's about as subjective as the people who dislike me talking about religion so much.
Trevor: OK. Interesting.
AJ: I know I missed the height of the age, but I have seen flashes of the former glory and can get an idea of what it was all about. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I miss Ralphie. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Not that I'm any good at it, cause I'm not, but I don't think flirting necessarily involves teasing at all.
AJ
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: I don't think flirting necessarily involves teasing at all.
I think in my case it does
Heh, in fact, the only person I never teased, and actually never flirted with, was my boyfriend. No wonder it didn't last Posted by Rita Spankmistress (Member # 3484) on :
*strolls in wearing bustier and Sexy Boots*
*spanks Bev*
Honey, you know you wanted it!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: On that note, I hated the double standard in our house growing up. I was somewhat tall, and my sister wasn't. My Mom let her wear shorter skirts than me. Not just to adjust to her height, but because I looked sexier in a short skirt while she looked "cute". I didn't think that was fair that she could wear a skirt above her knees and I couldn't.
Wow, connection. In high school my female youth minister took me aside one day and asked me politely not to wear the "short" skirts to church anymore because it was distracting the boys. I told her I'd be happy to wear something longer but I didn't have anything else, and no one was going to be buying me something. So, she took me to Twice as Nice and bought me some gently used "long" skirts and dresses (FYI, long=knee length. It was summer in Tucson, after all.) I wore the longest one to church the next Sunday, and she was upset. She said, "Why do you think we bought the new clothes for you? What you're wearing is not acceptable and I don't want you to come back in it."
Well, I wasn't nearly so polite back then and I said to her, "Lady, YOU bought this for me, remember? This is the longest thing we got. I cannot help it if I have long legs. Twelve inches between [name of a shorter girl in youth group]'s crotch and the end of her skirt is the same as twelve inches between my crotch and skirt. I can't help it if I have more leg leftover afterwards."
The youth minister must have talked to my aunt later because she ended up buying me a floor-length skirt. I really hated that double standard, as shorter girls were wearing little hoochie shorts and no one cared because their legs were not much to look at, them being barely teenagers and having knobby little knees. I could have worn jeans but I really hate wearing pants to church. But, I realized that the reason I don't like wearing pants is because I want to be dressed respectfully at church, and showing enough leg to make boys drool isn't very respectful, whether it was my intention or not. So I sweated the summer out in a floor-length black skirt that looked terrible on me because "floor-length" on me equates to shin-length and that's never in style.
I contemplated adding a link to me wearing the dress I'm talking about, but I don't think I want my pic available to look at while reading about the body parts I mentioned.
Edit: I think this is part of the reason I'm reluctant to talk to the girls in my church about their dress. Gentle reminders can quickly turn into heart-crushing, as it did for me.
[ September 22, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:AJ: I know I missed the height of the age, but I have seen flashes of the former glory and can get an idea of what it was all about.
Actually, I haven't really been cool since January of 2003. I don't even remember what it was all about.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
But I guess the question still stands)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Tube tops are just plain ugly! I mean, the whole thing is designed to pressure you into the shape of a cylinder! Cylinders aren't sexy. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
sexy Kama![[Frown]](frown.gif)