quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:

I'm wondering if I should walk up to these young ladies and tell them to pull up their pants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valentine014:
If it makes you that uncomfortable, I think you should take it to a manager (obviously not the one you are complaining about). Tell them how your coworker's dress makes you feel. If you're lucky, she's violating your company's dress code and will be told to cover up.

---

And I disagree. If it makes you uncomfortable, avert your eyes, and mind your business. You will not be appreciated at work by ANYONE if you start making trouble about this.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I thought they just wore things like that here in the PacNW to show off their expensive tats radiating (apparently) from their nether regions up through their entire low back.

It's to show undies?

My, the variety in fashion throughout the world.

Regardless, I can't stand the low rider thing with crack, side fat, and belly rolls hanging out. It's disgusting. Man OR Woman. Boy OR Girl.

And I'm really tired of haunting second hand stores looking for a pair of pants that fastens at the waist, not at the pubic hair line.

I hope they DO change the fashion - and soon.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
They take the dress code pretty seriously here - if you were anything remotely revealing or suggesting, you get a nice talking to. I'd say that would warrant sending them home to change.
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
Well these girls don't seem to have that cute underwear. It just strikes me as more careless than anything else. Anyway, no, I wouldn't really have the guts to randomly walk up to them and say something, unless I know the girl and she didn't happen to be my boss, in which I case I'd probably tease her about it w/o being insulting.
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shan:


And I'm really tired of haunting second hand stores looking for a pair of pants that fastens at the waist, not at the pubic hair line.

I hope they DO change the fashion - and soon.

---

Word.
 

---

Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
 
One of my friends wears that sort of ensemble.

I got her a belt for Christmas.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
Meh. It's no worse than breast cleavage, which nobody complains about. And if the person in question is attractive enough that you wouldn't object to seeing them naked, then I don't see what there is to object to in a small peek of what, if I were a more chauvinistic kind of guy, I might refer to as "the goods".

And if you don't find the person attractive enough for that, well, that's purely a matter of your own personal taste, and it's not your business to tell them they can't pull off the look anyway.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
This is why if you're going to wear dangerously low-rise jeans, you buy the kind that are cut higher in the back.

But I agree about it being the same as breast cleavage.

-pH
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
Meh. It's no worse than breast cleavage, which nobody complains about. And if the person in question is attractive enough that you wouldn't object to seeing them naked, then I don't see what there is to object to in a small peek of what, if I were a more chauvinistic kind of guy, I might refer to as "the goods".

And if you don't find the person attractive enough for that, well, that's purely a matter of your own personal taste, and it's not your business to tell them they can't pull off the look anyway.

---

So you'd let you daughter go out with half her ass bared to the world, because people should do what they feel like and stuff?
 

---

Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
 
Personally, I feel this is what's destroying people's creative skills. If you don't leave something to the imagination, our brains will surely atrophy.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
But the blood flow will be shunted elsewhere. You might find that when the brain atrophies, there is an accompanying collateral growth.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Eh. I don't think the fasion trend in and of itself is a problem. I don't have a problem with fasion trends that bare more, becuase I kinda think its silly that we have a huge societal need to cover up. The problem I have with the fasion trend is the people who tend to follow it. No offense to anyone here who follows it, but in my experience girls and guys who follow fasion trends like this tend to be airhead socialites who either don't have brains or choose not to use them for anything worthwhile. I'd be all for abolishing clothing entirely if it would make all the people who focus so much on their appearance apply that effort to things that were actually worthwhile.

...oh and assuming we all lived somewhere where it was 75 degrees and sunny every day
 

---

Posted by Xan (Member # 9015) on :
 
""So you'd let you daughter go out with half her ass bared to the world, because people should do what they feel like and stuff?""

As long as she was old enough to Understand how she was dressing, yes, rather than doing it to tease or because her friends were.

The body isnt something to be ashamed of; i'll never understand when the human body become something to be looked down on, clothing was originally to keep us warm, though admittedly these revealing clothes dont work for that.

And i also think people should stay out of other peoples buissness; as others have said but seems to be going completlty ignored.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I've always thought it was a bad idea to mention anything at all about someone's clothes or appearance, unless it's to compliment them. I think the best thing is to learn as quickly as possible how to ignore things that bother you about other people's appearance.

Even if someone has spinach in their teeth or something that many people might consider kind to tell them about, I have a huge preference toward just not ever noticing those things. They aren't important. Why even see them? Then later on, even if the person finds it and cringes, they can tell themselves nobody else noticed.

If a friend showed up at my formal dinner in a frogman suit, I would hope I as the polite host would say without missing a beat, "Welcome! So good to see you! Can I hang up your mask?" Though I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be able to resist saying things like "Everyone's in the living room, just go ahead and dive on in."
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shan:
Regardless, I can't stand the low rider thing with crack, side fat, and belly rolls hanging out. It's disgusting. Man OR Woman. Boy OR Girl.

And I'm really tired of haunting second hand stores looking for a pair of pants that fastens at the waist, not at the pubic hair line.

---

I totally agree with all of the above.
 

---

Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
 
I think pretty soon the girls wearing thongs and very low cut pants will regret it: the first ones can supposedly cause cancer of the nether regions , the second ones can surely cause bladder and kidneys problems

But apart from that, I think a lot of girls are actually unaware of how much they show. I mean, hipsters are ok when you stand, and when you sit with your back really straight, but if you bend forward then... "who wants to see my panties?!" Or maybe I'm mistaken and I haven't seen trousers that are that much 'showy' of which you speak

I don't like showing off too much, but I'm willing to accept the pretty butts. the owners of the not-pretty ones should think twice: it's one thing to feel good with your body, but aestheticks is quite a different matter (and knowing what suits you)
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Who decided butts were sexy anyway? Of all the parts of a woman's body (or a man's body for that matter) who decided that that particularly part was swoonworthy?

That being said, They should be able to show off more or less whatever they want...


Pix
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shan:
And I'm really tired of haunting second hand stores looking for a pair of pants that fastens at the waist, not at the pubic hair line.

I hope they DO change the fashion - and soon.

---

I hear you. So does my 13 year old daughter - who begs me to take her shopping at second-hand stores for that very reason. I don't think I've ever seen her more frustrated than when she came home yesterday from shopping with my mom. "Mom, we spent an hour in Old Navy trying to find jeans. The ones that weren't low-rider were ripped or stained. It's ridiculous. And they were expensive!"

Man, I love her.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Who decided butts were sexy anyway? Of all the parts of a woman's body (or a man's body for that matter) who decided that that particularly part was swoonworthy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Who decided butts were sexy anyway? Of all the parts of a woman's body (or a man's body for that matter) who decided that that particularly part was swoonworthy?

Pix

---

Hmmm... hormones? Evolution? Aestethic notions? Pick the one you like most.
There were days when a woman's ankle was a sexual attraction

And I'm sooo happy they finally started making NICE shoes WITHOUT very high heels!
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I don't have any problem with butts in general. But when you can see just the top of someone's crack, that's just gross. To me, the closed comparison I can think of isn't someone wearing a low cut shirt, it's someone bleching aloud in a public place; it's rude and dirty.

I wear low cut jeans because I find them more comfortable than any other kind. I don't find it especially difficult to make sure that all my parts are covered.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Personally, I will be very sad when this trend goes away. Ultra low rise are much more flattering on me than the kind that fall at the waist.

I am psycho picky about my jeans because I'm very self-conscious of my legs, hips, butt, thighs, stomach...that whole area. So far, I've only found one brand I can wear and like. I'm trying to figure out what's different about their cut vs. others.

Edit: And I get the kind that are cut dangerously low in the front and somewhat higher in the back, to reduce crack-age.

-pH
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I will dance in the streets in joy if this trend ever goes away.
 

---

Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
 
I find the tattoos just above the butt crack a more disturbing trend than the showing of butt cracks trend.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
I don't have any tattoos. But if I did get one, it would definitely be Herve Villacheze.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
There's one thing I find very good about our society as it is, the way that limits on modesty of dress are constantly being pushed back. Let me explain it by contrasting other times and cultures.

Someone mentioned that women's ankles used to be considered very sexy. That's true. It was exceedingly racy, not that long ago in our culture, for a girl to flash a bit of ankle from time to time, under her long skirts and above her slipper, as she moved about. Katherine Hepburn, several decades back, shocked the world by wearing trousers. When I was a young girl, girls were not allowed to wear pants to school, or on the school playground. When my mother was in college, they were required to wear their raincoats over their gym shorts while walking across campus between the dorm and PE classes. Of course in many cultures worldwide women are considered shocking if they show any of a number of parts of themselves from hair to forearms to a burkha opening wider than a small strip at the eyes. This varies from culture to culture.

I personally like to dress somewhat more modestly than is common in our culture now, but I don't at all mind those who push the boundaries further back. The important reason, for me, is this.

In my work, I need to wear clothes that make it possible for me to work. I need to have my forearms showing (in order not to faint in the heat) when it's very hot at the jobsite. I need to wear pants so I can crawl around under machinery, when that's necessary, or climb scaffolding, ride in lift carts, walk across mesh metal floors with people beneath me, and so on. It's also highly inappropriate for my appearance in any of these circumstances on the jobsite to be seen as the least bit sexually interesting.

Which it isn't. Mainly because our culture is saturated with images of scantily clad buxom young women, and our culture's standards of modesty are so far eroded now that the dress required for me to do my job is not (to a man of our culture) the least bit more interesting than the utter ordinary.

So I'm grateful for the young girls with their rear cleavages showing, and the words written across their nether ends, for thongs and brazilian cut bikinis, for off the shoulder shirts and bare midriffs. Because of those girls, I can wear what I like and what is most comfortable and convenient for me without seeming the least bit racy.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

I think if you show the goods you are telling the world that those goods are available.

---

quote:

---

I very much disagree with this quote. I'm not a big fan of low-rise jeans either, but how a woman (or man) chooses to dress does not give away her right to make decisions about her body. She is not "available" unless she chooses to be, even if she walks down the street naked.

---

quote:

---

I'm an observant Jew, so I dress modestly, by the standards of that culture: skirts (never pants) well below the knee, sleeves below the elbow, collars above the collar bone, closed shoes, nothing too tight-fitting, hair covered (because I'm married). This has advantages. If I want to be trampy and show forbidden "goods", all I need to do is roll up my sleeves. Maybe unbutton the top button of my blouse. And my husband is definitely interested when I uncover my hair for him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maui babe:
Out of curiosity, why closed shoes?

---

quote:

---

If I go out in a suit am I pretending to be a lawyer? Or a plainclothes detective? Or a Mormon missionary?

---

quote:

---

you are telling the world that those goods are available

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:
So how do you keep him from passing out when you show him your chicken breasts?

---

quote:

---

Surprised? Maybe not. Outraged? Yes, I would expect people to be outraged.

And I would disagree with anyone who said that by walking in a certain place or at a certain time any woman was "asking for it." There are women living in most "bad neighborhoods," you know. And sometimes they choose to be out of their houses after dark.

---

quote:

---

I can't believe you are even comparing these two things. But even more, I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does. Are you saying that men just can't control themselves when they see certain parts of a woman's anatomy, so it's the woman's responsibility to act a certain way if she doesn't want to be harassed? Or maybe that the men are stupid enough to think that a woman dressed that way is giving them permission to comment on her body? Regardless of how the woman is dressed, the man's actions are not acceptable. But the woman has to just accept that if she's dressed that way that's what's going to happen?

That view is not very flattering to men, you know.

---

quote:

---

And if rape victims are "almost never at fault for what happened," when exactly are they at fault?

---

quote:

---

I firmly believe that rape victims are almost never at fault for what happened.

---

quote:

---

I never once said the woman is at fault, for EITHER situation.

I'm going to repeat that.

I never once said the woman is at fault, for EITHER situation.

---

Please tell me how I read misinformation into what you said. How can you say a woman is almost never at fault without saying she is sometimes at fault? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to understand why you think my post deserves the response you gave me. If you misphrased the first quote, fine, but that doesn't explain the denial of it.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
You're quoting from two different posts, and the post in which you said "I can't believe..." etc. etc. had nothing to do with rape - it talked about nothing but my earlier post, in which I said that I am not surprised that women receive unwanted attention for dressing the way they do, and AM surprised that women ARE surprised.

In that post, I never once said, nor implied, that it was the woman's fault.

In the rape post, I said that the woman was not at fault, but that situations do exist where I think differently. You put the two together. You should not have.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I'm referring to more than two posts, actually. First you said that you looked at it the same way as Dave Chappelle, that is woman dress provocatively they should expect to be treated like hookers. Then you said you think of it the same way you think of rape. You made the link there.

I responded first to you making that link. I don't think that's a fair link to make. The rest of my first paragraph talks about what I think about your statements about the way women dress -- that they shift responsibility for a man's actions onto the woman. I do not talk about rape there, I do not say that you were saying women ask to be raped. I specifically talk about harrassment and unwelcome comments, both of which you brought up. (Harrassment in clubs, catcalls on the street.) I do not talk about fault there at all.

My next, single sentence paragraph finishes that topic.

In my next paragraph, I quoted your statement from when you talked about rape. I did not relate it to the discussion about clothing. I was asking for for clarification on your statement.

When you responded, you said that you never once said the woman is at fault for either situation. Quite clearly. I had no intention of combining the two issues, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Would you rather I had responded to the two issues you brought up that I wished to comment on in two seperate posts?

But that aside, even if I had put the two together, your response said that you hadn't said that for either situation, when clearly you did, and said in your last post that you do believe there are situations where you think differently. Then why would you say you had never said it?
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

But that aside, even if I had put the two together, your response said that you hadn't said that for either situation, when clearly you did

---

No, I didn't. You're still misreading.

I'm just getting irritated. To dodge a Brokeback Mountain situation, I'm going to surrender.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
The way I dress, I would not be surprised if I got raped while out at night. I take tons of precautions to make sure things like this don't happen, and that includes selecting outfits appropriate for certain areas/activities/groups of people. Women have the right to dress provocatively if they please, but to expect men to ignore it is stupid. If I want to be noticed by men, I dress up, show a little cleavage, whatever. It works. If I catch the attention of a rapist, who is probably ON THE PROWL, I wouldn't be surprised. And I'd have to feel just a little bit of regret for wearing those sexy heels and that skirt.

Even if erosomniac made a misstep in how he said it, I agree with what he's saying.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Just for the record, I disagree with Tante on the need for the shoes to be close-toed.

*flaunts sandaled feet*
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Eh, I asked my rabbi, and he said "cover your feet". So, no sandals for the Shvester. Your rabbi is probably less uptight, rivka.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I wear socks. Don't you?
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
Just for the record, I agree with rivka. And I like low-rise jeans! MUCH more flattering... when you are standing up.

Luckily, the fashions have turned towards longer shirts. If they are showing midriff and/or buttcrack they are so five minutes ago and you should be getting on their case for that as well ... Kindly inform them that crack kills, and it is also quite passe.

Edit: Oh, I take that back. Socks with sandals is also a no-no!
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Nylons. 'Cause I'm a grown-up.

But no seams. Not yet, anyway.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Socks with sandals is also a no-no!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
Nylons. 'Cause I'm a grown-up.

---

Ok, nylons. I actually wear knee-highs made of nylon, not cotton. Call them whatever you like.

With sandals, sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I interpreted MandyM's available goods comment in an entirely different way: not that women who dress in revealing clothing give up the right to control who, if anyone, touches them, but rather that such clothing is making a statement about the type of person wearing the clothing.

Not so much "I will have sex with you" as "I will have sex with somebody of my choosing."

I think it's especially appropriate to teach 7th graders that clothes send messages, and that sometimes those messages say something uhnintended. There's a fine line between that and blaming clothing choices for sexual assault, but it's possible to teach the lesson without crossing that line.

That said, the message as interpreted by dkw is one I also find barbaric.
 

---

Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
 
Well, I seldom wear shoes at all (in fact, I'm sitting at my desk in my office with my shoes slipped off as is my wont), never socks, and all of my shoes are really what most people would call sandals...

But I never go sleeveless, show any midriff or cleavage or wear a skirt above the knee.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:

quote:

---

But that aside, even if I had put the two together, your response said that you hadn't said that for either situation, when clearly you did

---

No, I didn't. You're still misreading.

---

I wish that instead of telling me that I am misreading, you would tell me how I am misreading. What did that repeated, bolded sentence mean, if it wasn't how I am interpreting it?

I am also trying rather hard to avoid a Brokeback Mountian situation. I am trying to do it by asking for clarification and explaining what I meant when I think I'm being misinterpreted. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, and will try to understand where you're coming from, because right now I honestly don't. If you are too irritated to continue civilly or don't think it's worth the effort, that is certainly your call. I just want you to know that I am not mad, and am willing to continue to try to understand each other if you do decide you wish to continue the conversation.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
Mr. Porteiro Head can wear whatever he wants, really. I don't think the normal rules apply there because his feet are all plastic and the socks and sandals are probably stuck together and fit neatly into a small hole on his underside.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
I am uncomfortable unless securely shod. A strange proclivity, I'll admit. But get me without shoes and socks, and I feel exposed.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Woah, posts disappearo!
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
Ahahah sorry I deleted it, because I misread the post! But... I would like one of those. Do you know where I can find one...
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Clothing XP Server editon has Access Control Lists, as well as a soft and friendly UI.

Unfortunately for some users, it cannot be installed without completely covering the place where it is installed.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
*waves wand*

"provocitus postius reapparo!"
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
And removing it is a pain.

Gosh, I'm so bad.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
EAK, perhaps I don't want one after all. Perhaps all I need is a personal bodyguard.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
ElJay: Probably later tonight, when I'm not dealing with customers at the same time, which puts me in the best mood ever.

For the record, I'm not mad either - but if I keep talking right now, something's going to come out that sounds like it.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I'm glad for the longer shirt trend. I'm very tall. Normal people shirts just look...rather ridiculous on me. They cut off at around the navel, and it's not very flattering. At least the longer shirts show like, a lower, much flatter part of my abdomen.

Tall girls need shirts, too.

-pH
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
I don't mind showing stomach, but I have a rather high belly button. What is the point of showing your stomach if you can't see the cute little belly button?! Is this something I want on the internet for all the world to see? Answer me, anyone.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
I'm voting yes.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
Shh, not you! (Where is that Clothing XP Server when you need it...)
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Goodness, I can't imagine why helping customers and arguing with me wouldn't just put you in the best mood ever!

Have fun.
 

---

Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
 
Dagonee, that is exactly what I meant and what I try to teach to my students. I never said anything about anyone asking for it. I just said if one doesn't want to be seen as a hoochie, one should not flaunt too much. If women choose to wear revealing clothes, they are not asking for people to touch them but they ARE allowing people to judge them by standards, which are lower than what they may want. I am not saying that if someone is dressed like a hooker, she SHOULD be treated like one. No one SHOULD be judged on the way they look, but it does happen everyday.

If you are wearing dirty clothes and seem unwashed and slovenly, I might think you are a homeless person. That may not be the case, but that is what people will see when they look at you. I am not being mean or judgmental, just observant.

If you show cleavage, you are saying something about the kind of person you are. The fact that more revealing clothes are in style does not say much about our society as a whole. I think in general, morals and values have gone down and have been doing so for a long time. I challenge anyone over 25 to disagree with that.
[edit: silly typos]
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by maui babe:
Well, I seldom wear shoes at all (in fact, I'm sitting at my desk in my office with my shoes slipped off as is my wont), never socks, and all of my shoes are really what most people would call sandals...

But I never go sleeveless, show any midriff or cleavage or wear a skirt above the knee.

---

Toe cleavage!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It's not toe cleavage that makes me . It's what's in between the toes . . .
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
I'm 32, and I disagree. I think that morals and values are a lot more open today than in the past. However, I don't think they're that much different. I think there was just as much cheating going on before as there is now, the difference is that now people are more likely to divorce over it instead of to sweep it under the rug. Gay people are less likely to marry a "beard" to protect themselves. As that lowers the general amount of lying going on, I would consider it a plus on the morals and values side. I have relatives in their 70s who had very premature children shortly after their weddings, so I don't think premarital sex is unique to our times. Again, people are just more likely to accept it and talk about it.

I know you were talking primarily about sexual morals, but I would also like to mention that the decrease in racial violence and discrimination is a definite increase in morals and values instead of the opposite.
 

---

Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
 
There is a teacher at my school who is very well endowed. She wears tight fitting t-shirts that are sometimes low cut. She is curvy everywhere else too but not necessarily what you would call a hottie. She is a little too old to be wearing this style and the clothes are not flattering to her. She is a nice person and from what I can see, not a bad teacher. But because she shows off "the goods", she is not taken as seriously as others. There are teachers who have taken offense to her clothing (not me but friends of mine) and they have spoken to the principal about it. (An aside: he is a bonehead and has done nothing about it, which is pretty much how he handles every problem, big or small. He wears plaid buttondowns and khakis but that is not what makes me think he is a bonehead.)
 

---

Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
 
ElJay, I was talking about sexual morals. And while I agree that in some ways morals are better (in the case of race and women's rights) I disagree that sex has always been like this. Look at the media. Kids are exposed to so much more than they used to be, even from when I was a kid to now (I am 32). I mean MTV did NOT used to be as bad as it is these days. There were not a bunch of teenage dramas with nude scenes. I know I am older but it is not just that. It is also that society has lowered its standards on what is acceptable.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MandyM:

If you show cleavage, you are saying something about the kind of person you are.

---

quote:

---

It is also that society has lowered its standards on what is acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

It is also that society has lowered its standards on what is acceptable.

---

Let me interject: society has revised its standards on what is acceptable. Whether those standards are lower or not is entirely opinion.

---

quote:

---

It's just that younger generations are so inexperienced in human relations, and yet they endeavor to master the most complicated of them (relationships with the opposite sex) before they are ready! This is because of the revised standards...

---

Juliet was 14. Those particular standards have been all over the map.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
Well, look what happened to Juliet.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Juliet was 14.

---

And look where she ended up.

(Darnit, jennabean! )
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

But the blood flow will be shunted elsewhere. You might find that when the brain atrophies, there is an accompanying collateral growth.

---

quote:

---

Dave Chapelle said all that I think needs to be said about this. We both agree with you that a woman obviously has the right to her own body. But it's pretty ridiculous for a guy to dress up as a cop and wander down the street, only to tell people who come up to him requiring police assistance, "Oh, I'm just wearing the uniform."

If you're wearing a hooker's uniform...

---

quote:

---

I can't believe you are even comparing these two things. But even more, I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does. Are you saying that men just can't control themselves when they see certain parts of a woman's anatomy, so it's the woman's responsibility to act a certain way if she doesn't want to be harassed? Or maybe that the men are stupid enough to think that a woman dressed that way is giving them permission to comment on her body? Regardless of how the woman is dressed, the man's actions are not acceptable. But the woman has to just accept that if she's dressed that way that's what's going to happen?

That view is not very flattering to men, you know.

And if rape victims are "almost never at fault for what happened," when exactly are they at fault?

---

quote:

---

I responded first to you making that link. I don't think that's a fair link to make. The rest of my first paragraph talks about what I think about your statements about the way women dress -- that they shift responsibility for a man's actions onto the woman. I do not talk about rape there, I do not say that you were saying women ask to be raped. I specifically talk about harrassment and unwelcome comments, both of which you brought up. (Harrassment in clubs, catcalls on the street.) I do not talk about fault there at all.

---

You imply in the first idea that I'm attributing blame: "I can't believe you are even comparing these two things. But even more, I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does." Bolding mine. And again, I have to point out that I attributed no blame in either situation. The only time I even remotely mention blame is in the sentence you quote: "I firmly believe that rape victims are almost never at fault for what happened," which has nothing to do with either situation in discussion.

Hopefully this clarifies. And in case it doesn't, I'll paraphrase everything:

1) I do not think women who dress scantily should be surprised when they attract unwanted male attention. While I do not think that skimpy clothing justifies catcalls or harassment, I find it ridiculous that any women are surprised that it happens with more frequency because of it.

2) I do not think women who walk by themselves down dark alleys at night in bad neighborhoods should be surprised when they attract unwanted male attention (in the form of rape). While I do not think that walking alone down dark alleys at night in bad neighborhoods is a license for men to rape women, I find it ridiculous that any women are surprised that rape occurs with more frequency because of it.

That is how I connect the clothing issue and rape. The reasoning presented in this thread struck me as very similar to the reasoning presented by a woman who was raped going down a dark alley, or a guy whose wallet was stolen because he left it on a park bench overnight, and was surprised it happened. In all three cases, it's unfortunate that these things occur and none of the actions of the perpetrators are justified, but each victim did something that increased their chances of being victims.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
What about the fact that women can do work now, dressed appropriately for that work, without it being interpreted as a come-on. That's surely a huge benefit to society.

I too find all such standards totally arbitrary. They change from culture to culture, and from one time to another. In some tropical cultures it's considered shocking for a girl to show her legs, but bare breasts are normal and fine. In nudist cultures, I imagine one can feel fully "dressed" with no clothes at all. Those societies also wouldn't have the problem of social and income differences being demarked by "fine-twined linens". Without clothes as a marker, would we enjoy a much freer mixing of people from all walks of life, and many fewer petty differences highlighted and exacerbated by what people wear? Who knows! We might just make up other markers.

What's bad is if your culture's styles negatively impact your ability to function and interact with others. Fashions are good if they enrich our lives, and bad if they restrict what we can do and whom we can be. That's why I applaud the direction the changes have gone recently. It only gives us all more freedom to choose.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
erosomniac, I appreciate the clarification. I still don't think your statement that you had never said the woman was at fault in either situation was a fair one, but at this point that is moot.

I believe that your way of looking at this issue, and for the sake of simplicity I am sticking only with the clothing issue here, shifts responsibility for the men's behavior to the woman. If a woman wants to avoid men harrassing her, she shouldn't dress in a certain way. I think we, as a society, need a paradigm shift on this issue. The action is a function of the man, and should not be seen as dependant on the woman, be it her style of dress, attractiveness, or anything else.

I think one of the reasons I have a problem with your statements is that they don't match up with my personal experience. I have experienced the most humiliating street harassment I can remember when I was wearing jeans, (not tight or low,) running shoes, and an oversized sweatshirt, with my hair in a ponytail. In general, I have found that when I am wearing above the knee skirts, heels, and close-fitting tops I get more "polite" attention from men. . . smiles, eye contact, men holding doors. Maybe a whistle. Everytime I have gotten attention that has made me uncomfortable, I have been much more modestly dressed. Attention that makes me uncomfortable ranges from catcalls and whistles from a car that then circles the block to get a second look to a guy walking up to me outside the art museum and saying "Hey baby why don't you come suck my ****." Obviously my experiences are not exhaustive, I am sure some women get harassed while they are dressed more provocatively. But not dressing provocatively is not a way to avoid harassment. The men who are going to harass do it regardless.

As long as we say women should not be surprised if they are harassed when they dress a certain way, we get to stop thinking about the problem. Oh, problem solved, just don't dress like that and it won't happen. We need to stop saying "Well what did you expect, dressed like that?" and start saying "That is not acceptable." Things will only change when we as a society expect them to. Telling women they should expect to be harassed when they are dressed a certain way is, in my opinion, the same as telling men it's okay to harass women.

------

MandyM, I want to address your points too, but for now I have to get ready for work. Hopefully later.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I agree with ElJay. "What did you expect?" is entirely the wrong approach to the problem, looking from the standpoint of society as a whole

I do think it's helpful to girls to understand that *within* a given time and place and society, there are modest and immodest ways to dress, and there are many advantages to choosing modesty for our own personal choices.

I'm still really glad for the immodest girls in all times and places, though, because it's mainly the women who were willing to wear things that were shocking in their given millieu who are responsible for the fact that I don't have to wear a thick black tent with a small slit to be considered modest now in my society. Does that make sense?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Yes. Yesyesyesyesyes. Yes.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Incidently, I think teachers and parents are fooling themselves to a certain degree if they are trying to teach teenagers what messages their clothes are sending. My impression is that teenagers pay far closer attention to the message their clothes send than any other group - I think they usually know EXACTLY what they are saying to their peer group when they wear what they do.

That is limited to what message they are sending to their peers, though. I think what they don't understand is what message adults and other people take from their clothing. A 7th grader may view someone wearing certain revealing clothes as showing they are mature, cool, and to be taken seriously. An adult may view the same outfit in an entirely different way. It is probably important to teach kids how different groups view their choices of style, but at the same time, I'm not sure if they will always care.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Tatiana, that certainly makes sense to me.

-----

MandyM, I don't think you can use what you see on TV these days as evidence for morals in general being worse than they were before. Just, again, that we are more open about sex and sexuality. You can find stories of affairs and adultery in literature as far back as we have records. People have always behaved this way. The only difference I see is that we're now much more open and accepting of it.

Is that a good thing? To me, that depends on what part we're talking about. I think being open about sex is a positive. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be having sex, but that we should be able to talk about it clearly and calmly and everyone should be able to make their own decisions about it and not be judged on the basis of those decisions.

I think that the fact that a woman will now leave a spouse that is having an affair is a positive improvement in morals that has been brought about by the same changes in our culture that make it okay to show more skin on TV. I think the fact that I will not be fired from my job and shunned by my family and friends if it is found out I spent the night with my boyfriend is a positive improvement in morals that has been brought about by those same factors. I would much, much rather live in our world with our morals than the one that was here 30 or 50 years ago, to say nothing of the times before that. These morals are not just more conveinent for me, I have no problems stating that I think they are better.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Just to toss in my two cents, there are some people I know who feel that women who dress provocativly are tempting men. And, precisely because many men are weak willed in that particular area, they are "evil". They're causing men to have impure thoughts. Doing the Devil's work. Etc. Haven't put enough thought to actually analyze their theory, other than to check "are there impure thoughts? Well, yup" and continue on my merry way....
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
That's exactly the reasoning I've heard my whole life, smitty.

My response is that everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you're having impure thoughts, and you consider that a sin then you're the one sinning, you can't shift that sin onto the woman just so that you don't have to deal with it. If your kids come running to you and one has a bloody nose, it's not likely that you're going to let the other one off just because "He made me do it!"

I understand that you don't agree with that, but that argument makes me very very angry. To me it's men trying to avoid taking responsibility for their own sin who make it. Because afterall, if the woman's tempting them, then the woman is the one who needs to change, and they certainly don't need to stop being tempted, since they're just victims.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
The main guy who I discuss such things with, his arguement is that if you do something to negatively influence another member of the faith, it's your sin as well as his. Incidentally, the thought on drinking is the same - it's ok to do, as long as your doing it doesn't negatively influence someone else of the faith.

I don't know if it's another symptom of the culture of victimhood I see everywhere, but I do a fair to middlin' job of keeping such thoughts out, and when I do let them in, it's me being weak, and hence my problem and my sin. I don't like laying my faults on other people, personally.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
You know the old trope about construction workers hooting at women? Making rude gestures, noises or outright propositions?

The last time that happened to me, I was driving past. In a Maxima (so I don't think it was the car, either). I was wearing a black suit. Basically, all the could see was my face (which I admit is probably the one part of me that is most attractive to the opposite sex, but I can't very well hide it).

I refuse to believe that I am at fault for the guy waving, hollering, grabbing his crotch and thrusting like a monkey at a passing car. That IS a lot of activity to cram into the few seconds it took for me to drive past, but he managed it.

O_O Whatever was going on there was sooo very not my fault.

Now, I have gone out with my husband looking a bit tarty, but at his specific request. I wouldn't go out that way unaccompanied, though.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
I agree it's not the woman's fault. If the women are trouncing past nekkid, they should have the self control to behave like gentlemen and (if applicable) Christians. But I'm gonna make up a statistic out of thin air, and say 90% of men can't do that.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
You think 90% of men would be unable to act like a gentleman if a woman walked by naked?!?

I have too much respect for the men I know to believe that number.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
That's colored by the place I work, people I work around. They can't act like gentleman around fully clothed women. It must be something about the construction industry....
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I know a lot of men who do construction - one of them is my brother. They are easily among the most gentlemanly and chivalrous men I know.
 

---

Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
 
Oh they can very well act like gentlemen. They choose not to. Just because they continually make that choice doesn't change the fact that it is a choice and a situation they have the complete ability to change if they so chose. Which I suggest they do because the consequences for sexual harassment today can be steep.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
I was kidding, Kate. Some of these guys are great, some... not so much. About like any other profession, I imagine.

My profession is haunted by a buddy's constant "She's wearing too many clothes" comments anytime he sees a woman on tv.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
This one guy Ron used to work with came out of the office to go to lunch just after I dropped Ron off after having lunch together. Ron was walking past the co-worker just as I drove past on my way out of the parking lot (The lot served a little office park, their office wasn't the only one there, so the guy didn't know I was Ron's wife). He said something (I didn't hear and Ron wouldn't say) and kind of hooted and shook. This time I was in the truck, wearing jeans and a big, loose, high-neckline shirt. I doubt he even saw me throughthe glare on the windshield.

The guy was a mortgage broker, like Ron. Ron later told me the guy was into the whole wife-swapping thing. *shudder* He quit not too long after (the owner of the brokerage was a woman; I think he had issues working for a woman, possibly because of his inability to see a female in terms other than sexual ones).

I have been fortunate in my life to have been around very few men so emotionally crippled. And I was an Army brat.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
I can only speak for myself, but I do know it is more difficult for me to interact with women who are 'showing off' anything. My insticnt is to look - stare, even. That doesn't mean that I do.

The more that is showing, the more difficult it is. Completely naked would be a "run away" situation unless it was completely unavoidable (or appropriate ). It's very possible to be gentlemanly. It takes a conscious choice though, since my inner animal is howling at the moon. To me, it's worth that choice - for religious purposes and for respect. It is far easier to unleash the animal, though. Far easier.

Then again, I'm 23 and... totally unexperienced.

It's not your fault that my body reacts to yours in that way. It's not my fault either. What is my fault is if I do not ignore that reaction, and instead act on it. Conversely, any woman who 'shows off' and then is surprised when low class men (big value judgement there ) act like animals is short on intelligence, frankly. Revolted? Yes. Surprised, no.

Civilization is just a fine veneer. Some people have a thinner barrier than others. In the end, you have a choice how to dress. You do not have the right not to have people respond contrary to your wishes.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Unfortunately, the nekkid thing isn't theory with me. We have a nudist colony on our project But, I'm good at maintaining eye contact.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
I guess it takes practice... so that would eliminate me.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
You certainly don't have the right not to have people respond contrary to your wishes. But as long as people say it's what's going to happen so it's what you should expect, that sort of action will be seen by some as tacitly approved of by society. Some people do what they can get away with. I believe that it is everyone's responsibility, to the extent that they are able to feel safe in doing so, to call others on socially unacceptable behavior.

This means I talk back to street harassers, in most situations. I've gotten a lot of flack for it from friends, because they think it's dangerous. It probably is more dangerous than not saying anything. But when I don't say anything, I feel that I'm giving these men permission to think of me as nothing more than my body, not to realize how their words are affecting a person.

They are always surprised. They do not expect to be responded to. I've gotten a couple of apologies, more people slink away abashed, and some get mad. Some have seemed offended that I called them on their behavior, as if I was the one who was out of line. And I'm sure they thought I was. But I believe it is important to do.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Good for you! Call the pigs on it.

As for me, I do not tacitly approve of it. Exactly the opposite. I will treat anyone with respect, even if I do not think that his or her dress is appropriate.

Unless of course they're wearing an Apple Computer shirt. Then they're fair game.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Amen Jedi!
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
<nods sagely>

<mind trick>These aren't the computers that you're looking for...</mind trick>

Gee, I bet female Jedi never had to deal with the leers.

Well, the dark side ones at least.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
What do you say to them, ElJay?

On the subject of to what degree people are more sexually active now than they were in the past, my grandmother once told me a story about someone she'd gone to school with complaining, when the unmarried granddaughter of a mutual acquaintence got pregnant, about how kids today had no morals. My grandmother suggested that her friend sit in the back of Joe Genty's model T and talk about what high morals the two of them had enjoyed in that car back in the 20s. Shut the other woman right up, I'm told.

quote:

---

I don't mind showing stomach, but I have a rather high belly button. What is the point of showing your stomach if you can't see the cute little belly button?!

---

Obviously, jennabean, what you need is a prosthetic belly button.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Talk about getting funny looks...
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
You could just glue a jelly belly jelly bean there, and say it's an out-ie.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Why haven't there been scores of threads about the fashion of "sagging"? Or how men can walk around literally half naked in public and it's okay? Or the more recent tight pants phenomenon?

Here's what I think: Women are trained and taught to ignore or supress sex drive. Me, I embrace my lust and enjoy my male eye candy. From a distance. Privately, or among similarly oriented friends. I see no problem with passive admiration. Just keep a lid on it. It's *not that hard*, okay? I've never had a significant other of any sort, hence there has been build up of...tension. And yet I somehow manage to walk past hot swimmers in speedos without doing more than give lingering sidelong glances.

It's not a problem with the women.

Yes, knowing how society sucks, there are precautions one can take, and sometimes should. Not always. Not even mostly. Don't (you will hate me for this) get all anal about a little crack showing. I would claim that there is no one who is fit to live outside jail who cannot, with a little effort, ignore tempting views enough to do just fine. So TRY. Pretend a sign of attraction could get you beaten to death. Not that there are EVER any situations like that...

As for aesthetics: If I think I look good, and if I feel good in what I'm wearing, anyone who doesn't like it can unscramble the following: KUUOCFY.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Princess Leah:
unscramble the following: KUUOCFY.

---

Ooh! Word Scrambles! What fun! Uh...!
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Princess, it's not a matter of "can", it's a matter of "will". Some guys don't WANT to keep a lid on it.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
I realize that. But the problem is STILL not with whoever is "showing". Is visible cleavage (of whatever kind) crude and offensive? Whatever. You're entitled to your own opinion. So, is anyone going to come out in favor of crude comments and aggressive objectifying? Or sexual harrassment? Or rape? The jeans are not the problem. Covering up is not a responsibility, but a concession (or a choice because you feel more comfortable that way. Don't bite my head off ).
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Covering up is not a responsibility

---

I disagree.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
Well *sometimes* it is.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Jake, it depends on what they say to me. The aforementioned gentleman in front of the art musuem I suggested that perhaps he should go stick it in a lightsocket instead. I may have also mentioned cutting it off for him first, to make it easier. There have been times when I demanded apologies. My default, when I'm not thinking fast, is "Drop dead." But I prefer to personalize.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
I wasn't biting! I was feeling Han-Solo-esque as I started a sentence with "Princess" I can control myself just fine!

I just remembered my assistant's little mantra - he says if they're showing it, they WANT you to look. Again, I tend not to think about these philosophies - it doesn't matter to me if they want me to look or not, I'm going to do my best to "not" - it has nothing to do with them, it has to do with the type of person I want to be.
 

---

Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
 
I don't think anyone but the Somalian has addressed the point that interests me here. There's been much talk of provocative clothing on women in general, but on the specific issue of crack-showing my question is this: Are there in fact any men who find this attractive? The only men I've heard to express an opinion have been fairly strongly anti-crack.

I don't want to suggest, of course, that a woman's dress must be justified by being alluring to the opposite sex; I would wish the opposite to be true. But I know that many young girls do not dress for themselves, but for others (to attract positive attention from guys, for example), so it would be sad, in a way, to think that all those type girls with their rears hanging out were essentially fooling themselves.

So, if someone could tell me that there are men who find female plumber's crack attractive, I won't have to feel bad for those girls. That will save me energy that I can then spend wondering what on earth some guys are thinking.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

I believe that your way of looking at this issue, and for the sake of simplicity I am sticking only with the clothing issue here, shifts responsibility for the men's behavior to the woman. If a woman wants to avoid men harrassing her, she shouldn't dress in a certain way. I think we, as a society, need a paradigm shift on this issue. The action is a function of the man, and should not be seen as dependant on the woman, be it her style of dress, attractiveness, or anything else.

---

quote:

---

I agree with ElJay. "What did you expect?" is entirely the wrong approach to the problem, looking from the standpoint of society as a whole

---

quote:

---

I would claim that there is no one who is fit to live outside jail who cannot, with a little effort, ignore tempting views enough to do just fine.

---

quote:

---

I'm married. I don't think any women are attractive, other than my wife.

---

I think we either define attractive differently, or you're in deep, deep denial.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
That is the PC answer. I'm sticking to it. Yes. I'm dead. Leave me alone.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
I don't care about looking. If light bounces off it, eventually the image is going to hit someone in the retina. You've just got to be polite about it. Like at an all-you-can eat dessert buffet. My first instinct would be to rush at anything chocolate, knocking helpless old ladies headfirst into waiters, treading on small children...but I generally manage to restrain myself about it. Just, you know, subtley heap my plate with deliciousness, maybe tuck something dry into my purse if there's enough for everybody else.

I'd elaborate on that metaphor but now I'm all crave-y. Time to go nuke some hot water and make hot chocolate.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Replace "chocolate" with "curvy" and you might have the idea, for some men at least. For me, subtle is better.

I wonder if men tend to be more visually stimulated sexually than women are. I of course have no data for this claim, and there are plenty of alternate explanations for this. And perhaps, if this is true, it's a cultural artifact.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

I wonder if men tend to be more visually stimulated sexually than women are. I of course have no data for this claim, and there are plenty of alternate explanations for this. And perhaps, if this is true, it's a cultural artifact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:
While I understand and completely agree, we're talking about two different things again. You're talking about affecting a change. I'm talking about getting by.

---

Actually, I was agreeing with your clarification completely, and then moving on. The rest of my post wasn't talking about affecting a change, it was working on affecting a change.

I believe that the first three or four posts you made in this thread -- the Dave Chapelle post, your two responses to dkw, and your "shouldn't be surprised" post, are a part of the problem. You think it's talking about just getting by, I think it's fostering an environment where men think it's okay to harass women. The rest of my post was an attempt to explain that in hopes that you, personally, will change the way you talk about this subject.

So I'm not trying to change society by going out scantily clad and then being indignant if I'm harassed. I'm trying to change it by explaining my views to individuals who I think tacity support the status quo by their words and actions. You say you agree with me that there needs to be a change. You perhaps don't agree with me that you're part of the problem, but I ask that you re-read your posts on page one and consider it.

Am I tilting at windmills here? Sure. But that's how you affect change, you know? By dreaming, and acting on those dreams.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

I believe that the first three or four posts you made in this thread -- the Dave Chapelle post, your two responses to dkw, and your "shouldn't be surprised" post, are a part of the problem. You think it's talking about just getting by, I think it's fostering an environment where men think it's okay to harass women. The rest of my post was an attempt to explain that in hopes that you, personally, will change the way you talk about this subject.

---

I see. I don't view it that way, and I still don't see how what I said (in any of the posts) even comes close to attributing blame for harassment to women. But for the sake of affecting a change, I'll think about approaching it differently.

Insert smiley:
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Thank you.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Are there in fact any men who find this attractive? The only men I've heard to express an opinion have been fairly strongly anti-crack.

---

A) I am strongly anti-crack.

B) I find it alluring in an extremely trashy sort of way.

C) A and B are in no way contradictory

D) There is no point D
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I want to point out that this is the exact, I mean mathematically precise, same issue as women in burkhas in Afghanistan. The men there are simply responding to their physiological reactions, which are conditioned by their societal standards, the same way ours are.

Try to realize that to them, women's wrists are quite titillating. They feel the exact same surprise and scorn and cheap thrill when seeing an inch too much wrist as you do seeing an inch too much cleavage.

Think about that and what it means for the human being and child of God who lives inside that tent or lowrise pant, and earthly tabernacle.

There's no other way to change a societal standard except when enough people ignore it that it moves to a new setting.

Every generation is shocked at what the next generation does, just as they in their turn shocked the older generation. This has been true since the dawn of recorded history. Plato shook his head about "these kids today", you know? It's a common theme across centuries of literature. It was true for all 4 generations that I've personally known so far.

[ January 11, 2006, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
See, I find sporting a plumber's crack to be absolutely disgusting. I don't really see how anyone can find it attractive. It's not an issue of too much skin, or really sex at all. I just think it looks disgusting and crude. To me it's the equivalent of someone walking around who smells really rank because they don't care enough about the people around them to take a shower. I'm actually incredibly surprised that anyone is relating it to dressing sexy, I can't think of a bigger turn off in personal appearence.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I can't think of a bigger turn off in personal appearence.

---

See, I can. Because if the woman in question has NICE hips, I don't particularly mind seeing more of them.
 

---

Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Aren't you, like...married?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Absolutely. You'll notice I married a woman with nice hips, thus ensuring that I frequently get to see her naked.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If she had bad hips you wouldn't get to see her naked?
 

---

Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
"You'll notice I married a woman with nice hips"

Are you sure you want me to notice that?

And you seem different Tom. I've never heard you joke around so much. You've made me laugh on a few different threads, IIRC. I never got the impression from you that you like to joke around alot.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Sorry for the long post, I've been thinking about this for 2 days. I appreciate Tatiana's posts, they've given me a new way of thinking about things. I'm certainly glad that someone somewhere shocked everyone by showing her ankles, because now I can wear knee-length skirts and be totally modest.

On the other hand ... I keep thinking of jennabean's and Swampjedi's comments, and coming up with this:

quote:

---

Women have the right to dress provocatively if they please, but to expect men to ignore it is stupid.

---

quote:

---

Orinigally posted by Swampjedi:
I can only speak for myself, but I do know it is more difficult for me to interact with women who are 'showing off' anything. My insticnt is to look - stare, even. That doesn't mean that I do. ...

It's very possible to be gentlemanly. It takes a conscious choice though, since my inner animal is howling at the moon. ...It's not your fault that my body reacts to yours in that way. It's not my fault either. What is my fault is if I do not ignore that reaction, and instead act on it. Conversely, any woman who 'shows off' and then is surprised when low class men (big value judgement there ) act like animals is short on intelligence, frankly.

---

These women are trying to attract attention from handsome young men - maybe even only one man in particular, for example, they "like to look sexy for [their] husband". Words like "provocative" and "sexy" are very fitting: they imply that the person is trying to provoke a sensual reaction in a man. But wearing those clothes where other men can see them also provokes the same reaction in those men - even if they try really hard not to see it! Sometimes they have to go around with their eyes half-shut in order to NOT notice all the girls who are trying to "provoke" a reaction. I'm not talking about pedophiles or rapists, I'm talking about the ones who never even say anything - just regular guys who want to treat women with respect, but get "crackage" shoved in their faces. They're still human. How are they supposed to not notice? And even if they control their behavior and are totally respectful, just seeing women dressed like that can make life difficult for men who naturally react to the provocation.

Obviously men need to have respect for women and not act like animals; perhaps women should have more respect for men and not try to appeal to their animal instincts while simultaneously expecting them not to notice or care.
 

---

Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Nicely said, JD.
 

---

Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
 
>>>perhaps women should have more respect for men and not try to appeal to their animal instincts while simultaneously expecting them not to notice or care.

Or men could notice, and care, but not be @$$holes about it.

What about when MEN dress provocatively? And believe me, they often do. Do women all of a sudden turn to beasts? No. Men are not the only ones who "naturally react to the provocation", either. Am I the only one seeing really unfair double standards here? Is no one going to mention shirts open past the second button with oh-so-sexy chest hair showing? Short sleeve dress shirts? I swoon at muscles as much as anyone. Just don't be a jerk and everyone will be better off, and a girl will be able to go out dressed so that *she* thinks she looks good without everyone going into shock.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Or men could notice, and care, but not be @$$holes about it.

I was actually talking about the ones who aren't @$$holes about it - the ones who notice but are really trying not to, and don't say anything. I wish we could stop making life difficult for the good guys who are married and TRY to see only their wives. I bet the 16-year-old girls dressing provocatively would be horrified to know they're being noticed (and "inner howled at") by the 30- and 40-year-old married men who see them!

There is definitely a double standard, though. Men who show their cracks are just gross and should STOP! But I really do think there's something to the idea mentioned earlier that men are (in general) more visual in nature and react more strongly to what they see, while women are more likely to react to what they read and imagine.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Do women turn into beasts? Well, there was this one time, Jenny Gardener and I were walking down the hall behind Frisco, who was wrapped in a towel...

It was a near thing, I tell you. I could hear the *yoink!* sound effect in my head and everything.

He'd mentioned his third tatoo we'd "probably never see" and I'd had a single 4 oz margarita with dinner. But, no. I behaved myself. *halo*
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
JennaDean, you are my favorite!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*applauds JennaDean's posts*
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
Slightly off topic, but can I put in a request to all the Hatrack parents that if you send your kid to the pool or to camp, make sure he (or she, on occasion) has a properly fitting set of trunks (or suit)? Because if he has to pause every five seconds while sandcastle building to pull them up, they're too loose. Lifeguards don't like having crack on the beach. Especially not kid-crack.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 

 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

Exactly, jennabean. That's why it is called "provocatively" - it's intended to provoke a reaction. But when they get that reaction, so many girls/women react with hostility: "It's none of your business how I dress! You shouldn't judge people by their clothes!" Perhaps they only want the right reaction from the right kind of guy - and all the rest aren't supposed to notice.

---

quote:

---

I was actually talking about the ones who aren't @$$holes about it - the ones who notice but are really trying not to, and don't say anything. I wish we could stop making life difficult for the good guys who are married and TRY to see only their wives. [Smile]

---

If this thread and others are any indication, it seems like it's hardly men (married or otherwise) in general that need protecting from provocative dress. I think the bitching, if you notice, comes from the social conservatives of both sexes who are projecting their own discomfort about the clothes onto others and making excuses for their own feelings.

As a male, I would like to chime in with those who have said that it doesn't bother me in the slightest to see a good-looking woman dress provocatively. Quite the opposite.

I would also like to point out that, to me, a good-looking woman dressed demurely is a million times more provocative than an ugly woman dressed 'provocatively'.

As has been pointed out in this thread by Olivet and others, women don't have to dress provocatively to get a reaction from some men. The men who are going to be dicks are going to do that anyway.

So. If jerks are going to be jerks regardless, and good-looking women are provocative no matter what, then what does it matter what women wear?

quote:

---

But I really do think there's something to the idea mentioned earlier that men are (in general) more visual in nature and react more strongly to what they see, while women are more likely to react to what they read and imagine.

---

I think most women pay a lot more attention to clothes than men do.

I think most women pay more attention to, say, decor and cleanliness than men do.

[ January 12, 2006, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
My position is not that nothing need be considered provocative. My position is that nothing a woman wears gives a man an excuse to harass a woman, because after all what did she expect, dressed like that? I don't believe you can say the second half without implying the first.

For the record, I don't dress particularly provocativly. I think it's tasteless, it doesn't really fit my body type, and it would not be appropriate at my workplace. But if I find the idea that if I should choose to do so I would be making life difficult for the nice men out there who just want to treat me with respect absolutely ludicrous. See Stormy's post for why, he said it pretty well.

I have no problem with men noticing how I look, or appreciating the view. I have a problem when they express that appreciation in ways that go outside the bounds of socially acceptable behavior. I certainly enjoy looking at certain men, and I have no intention of stopping. But I also have no intention of foisting that appreciation on the in ways that would make them uncomfortable.

What I'm really asking for, I guess, is for everyone to act like adults and treat each other like human beings. Shocking, I know.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by blacwolve:
See, I find sporting a plumber's crack to be absolutely disgusting. I don't really see how anyone can find it attractive. It's not an issue of too much skin, or really sex at all. I just think it looks disgusting and crude. To me it's the equivalent of someone walking around who smells really rank because they don't care enough about the people around them to take a shower. I'm actually incredibly surprised that anyone is relating it to dressing sexy, I can't think of a bigger turn off in personal appearence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:
Sorry for the long post, I've been thinking about this for 2 days. I appreciate Tatiana's posts, they've given me a new way of thinking about things. I'm certainly glad that someone somewhere shocked everyone by showing her ankles, because now I can wear knee-length skirts and be totally modest.

---

quote:

---

Immodesty in dress should be frowned down by parents and all decent people. The shameless exhibitions of the human form purposely presented in modern styles of dress, or rather undress, are indications of that sensuous and debasing tendency toward moral laxity and social corruption which have hurried nations into irretrievable ruin. Let not the brilliant prospects of a glorious millennium be clouded with such shadows as are threatened by customs and costumes and diversions of these licentious days.

In my sight, the present-day fashions are abominable, suggestive of evil, calculated to arouse base passion and lust, and to engender lasciviousness, in the hearts of those who follow the fashions, and of those who tolerate them.... It is infamous, and I hope the daughters of Zion will not descend to these pernicious ways, customs and fashions, for they are demoralizing and damnable in their effect.

We hear it reported, from time to time, that some ... mutilate their garments, rather than to keep them holy and undefiled.... We see some of our good sisters coming here to the temple occasionally decorated in the latest and most ridiculous fashions that ever disgraced the human form divine. They do not see to realize that they are coming to the house of God.

---

He was talking about women who show their wrists and ankles. There was a great controversy in the church at that time. You may be familiar with the design of the garments worn by our grandmothers.

My point is not to controvert my beloved Joseph F. Smith whose shoe latch I am not worthy to do up. I certainly respect and cherish his teaching that modesty is the right choice. What I want us to think about is if we daughters of Zion really ought to be covering our wrists and ankles today, and if not, what changed? How did that change come about? Tell me what you think.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Tatiana- I'm being kicked out of my lab, so just let me say this.

My disgust has nothing to do with modesty. I don't find it particularly immodest, and the same person could wear a string bikini and I wouldn't have any problem with it. I just think that it looks gross. So sure, that's my opinion, but please stop attributing reasons for it when I have repeatedly stated that those aren't my reasons.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
*applauds ElJay, Storm Saxon, Tatiana and just about everyone else in the thread. *

I don't dress provocatively, as a general rule. My husband likes it when I tart up a bit to go out with him sometimes. At these times, no one ever says anything, presumably because I am with my mate. (Though, HE did get verbally harrassed by guys in passing cars when we were in college and out together. It was usually something like, "WooEEE! Getcha some!" I found it a bit insulting to be referred to as "some", especially since I was always modestly dressed back then. But it wasn't that big a deal. *shrug*)

But there are men who will just holler at a woman alone if she is neatly groomed and within a broad range of attractiveness.

As one of my favorite stand-up comics said (in his Unrepeatable concert, which Ron and I watched las night) "It's a code. What they are actually saying is 'Hello! I'm a wanker.'"
 

---

Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
 
This is slightly off-topic, but I'm gonna write it anyway.

Isn't it interesting how it's all really in our minds? I mean, nobody criticizes us for showing almost all of our bodies on the beach, wearing swim-suits, but if we came to the beach wearing a bra and knickers, it would be slightly disturbing, wouldn't it? But what's the real difference between a bra and a bikini top? It's only the way we differantiate them because of their usage.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
I think the difference is usage and location. A woman walking down the street or in your office in a bikini would garner quite a few stares, whereas on the beach, it would be considered normal.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
See Asimov's "Hand on Thigh" story, from Prelude to Foundation.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

A woman walking down the street... in a bikini would garner quite a few stares,

---

Depends where you live. Some places, women jog and rollerblade and walk their dogs in sports bras and short shorts and/or a bikini and a very brief coverup, and it's considered very impolite to stare at them, mention it in their hearing, or really notice it at all.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Good point. I was referring to the real world, not California
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
I'll jump into the fire once more:

Why do ladies sometimes wear their "boob shirts" (I just watched Must Love Dogs), but still complain that men's eyes always focus on their chests?

If I see a woman in a boob shirt at the store or somewhere, I try to avert my eyes. Sometimes I take a peek at her eyes at the last moment before she passes. And do you know what? She's been watching my eyes the whole time, perhaps to see where my eyes would go.

I remember back in my dating years, if I made eye contact early before she passed sometimes she'd flash me a big grin. But if she caught you focusing on something else, she'd give you a look of scorn, you filthy little wanker.

I've tried never looking, and back in my dating years got some feedback about that tactic: "I thought you didn't like me."

I've observed a couple of single guys who are quite successful with the ladies. They first make eye contact and then move their eyes deliberately to the chest area (but never the crotch). That's pretty risky, but some good-looking guys get away with it.

So maybe there's some unwritten rules. Fellas have gotta realize that they're supposed to look, but only with her approval. If she catches you looking at the chest or backside without first establishing eye contact and getting an approving smile, then you're a wanker. If you establish eye contact, and you don't get that approving look, then you're not her type, go away without looking. If she smiles, then maintain eye contact, and only look when she breaks eye contact. That's the only time you are allowed to look.
 

---

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
 
is the IU campus not the real world?
 

---

Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
 
Oh, and don't pretend to know the rules. You're not allowed to know the rules. If you put forward a theory about the alluring clothes game, she'll hang you out to dry.
 

---

Posted by oolung (Member # 8995) on :
 
i think sometimes the 'looks' are not so unwelcome (presuming they're not blatanly lascivous). Last year I, let's say, changed my image a little bit. Nothing big, just bought a pair of nice shoes and started wearing skirts. But the effect was quite impressive! I immediately felt more 'noticed', and it made me feel good! Of course there are times when i want to disappear and get back to my old loose jeans, or when I'm too lazy to care, but all in all, a well balanced look from a normal looking guy can really give a girl a boost.

Which makes me think of complicated reasons as to why people dress up. You can't simply say: I want to be attractive to the opposite sex. Most people will probably say: I do it for myself, I feel better looking good. But then we often feel good _precisely_ because we feel attractive. Or we dress up because we don't want to stand out (if our friend dress this way). or whatever. Sorry, these are just random thoughts, it's late and I'm sleepy
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by skillery:
If I see a woman in a boob shirt at the store or somewhere, I try to avert my eyes. Sometimes I take a peek at her eyes at the last moment before she passes. And do you know what? She's been watching my eyes the whole time, perhaps to see where my eyes would go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oolung:
I mean, nobody criticizes us for showing almost all of our bodies on the beach, wearing swim-suits

---

By my standards of modesty, a bathing suit at the beach would definitely be a no-no. I rarely go to the beach, but when I do, I wear a long skirt, down to my ankles, long-sleeved, loose-fitting shirt, a scarf or snood over my hair, and a big shady straw hat over that. Oh, and canvas sneakers (wouldn't want anyone peaking at my toes!) Quite a character, I seem, I'm sure.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
I like those thoughts, oolung.

Story: When hubby was younger (read: single) he saw a woman walking down the street (it was near the beach, but not on the beach, a street full of businesses). She was wearing a bikini and sandals. Guys in a truck drove by and made whatever noises guys do. The girl got irate, yelled back at them, gave them "the finger", etc. Then she stopped to look at herself in the mirrored window of a store - looked over her shoulder at how her butt looked in the bikini, and hiked it up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElJay:
For the record, I don't dress particularly provocativly.... But if I find the idea that if I should choose to do so I would be making life difficult for the nice men out there who just want to treat me with respect absolutely ludicrous.

---

Okay. But it's true. I know some of them. They're good guys. They don't want to look at women ... or rather they do want to, but they don't want to want to. No excuses for those guys who act like jerks; but there are guys that are uncomfortable, because they naturally react to seeing women dressed provocatively, and yet they know they aren't supposed to react. (Particularly if they're married.) It's only the good guys that are uncomfortable, probably, because other guys don't worry about whether they're supposed to react or not. And the women will never know which ones they are, because they don't react outwardly, and would never be so rude as to let the women know they're affecting them.

Just had to get my plug in for treating men with as much respect as we demand.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
Yes, thank you!

<loosens collar discreetly>
 

---

Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
 
JennaDean just made me feel really good about myself with her defense of good guys.
 

---

Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
I don't find it offensive at all when a woman sport's crack (or when some men show butt crack, either).

First of all, the issue to female butt crack showing up at all is due to several different things.
1. Fashion - tight, low-rise jeans/pants combined with thongs, and other "sexy" underwear, create the perfect mixture for some crack slippage.
2. Not paying attention. A girl who is aware of her potential crack problem is most likely going to bend over facing away from others, hold their pants up, or buckle their belt tighter.
3. Ignorance...some girls just don't realize what's going on.
4. Not caring at all about the crack.

And...it's all good. Ass crack is going to appear no matter what - and it may not be sexy, or appealing AT ALL - but who says women always have to be put together or concerned about what others think. Or men for that matter. Then again, if they don't, someone is going to blog about it.

So, treat other's as you would like to be treated. If you were showing your ass all the time, would you like it stared at? However, just talk to them about it if it truly makes you (ass crack hater you) feel uncomfortable.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 
Ew! I don't ever sport crack. And I'm a pretty "provocative" dresser.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 
You keep hinting at that, jenna... we need proof. Pictures!
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:
Okay. But it's true. I know some of them. They're good guys. They don't want to look at women ... or rather they do want to, but they don't want to want to. . . . It's only the good guys that are uncomfortable, probably, because other guys don't worry about whether they're supposed to react or not. And the women will never know which ones they are, because they don't react outwardly, and would never be so rude as to let the women know they're affecting them.

Just had to get my plug in for treating men with as much respect as we demand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blacwolve:
Tatiana- I'm being kicked out of my lab, so just let me say this.

My disgust has nothing to do with modesty. I don't find it particularly immodest, and the same person could wear a string bikini and I wouldn't have any problem with it. I just think that it looks gross. So sure, that's my opinion, but please stop attributing reasons for it when I have repeatedly stated that those aren't my reasons.

---

quote:

---

I know I lower my opinion of a woman if she's wearing the hooker uniform.

---

quote:

---

Cleavage of either kind is advertising, whether you like it or not.

---

quote:

---

It's only the good guys that are uncomfortable, probably, because other guys don't worry about whether they're supposed to react or not.

---

quote:

---

Hyperbole anyone?

---

quote:

---

But it goes beyond rape. I know I lower my opinion of a woman if she's wearing the hooker uniform. And BTW, I've mentioned this before: I used to know a teenage hooker, and she was quite clear that she wore a uniform. Cleavage of either kind is advertising, whether you like it or not.

---

quote:

---

I can't remember if PSI is LDS

---

quote:

---

So I hope you'll understand why for practical purposes I consider men who think that way nonexisitant. I honestly believe that in my world, they are.

---

Yup, you were right. That was kinda offensive.

<-- thinks he exists and that he matters
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Not only is PSI not LDS, neither am I.

Neither is my father (who did not grow up religious), my brothers, my cousins, my uncles . . . shall I go on? ElJay, just because you have never had a guy tell you to your face that he is uncomfortable certainly does not mean there have not been any who were.

Of course, it is entirely possible that there have no been. As ak keeps pointing out, cultural norms vary. But absence of proof is hardly proof of absence.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
Great googly-moogly. My Internet has been down for a few days, and this thread has been a lot more active than I expected. Let's see if I can successfully respond to everything I want to respond to.

quote:

---

So you'd let you daughter go out with half her ass bared to the world,

---

quote:

---

because people should do what they feel like and stuff?

---

quote:

---

Who decided butts were sexy anyway?

---

quote:

---

Are there in fact any men who find this attractive? The only men I've heard to express an opinion have been fairly strongly anti-crack.

---

quote:

---

I was actually talking about the ones who aren't @$$holes about it - the ones who notice but are really trying not to, and don't say anything.

---

quote:

---

ElJay, just because you have never had a guy tell you to your face that he is uncomfortable certainly does not mean there have not been any who were.

---

quote:

---

girls of the "can't shake hands with men and must wear skirts that conceal our ankles" variety

---

quote:

---

and normally find that sort of "modesty" extraordinarily self-centered, unsettling and off-putting. It's highly distracting, isolating, and unnatural.

---

quote:

---

These things are cultural differences

---

quote:

---

Bite me.

---

quote:

---

If that was to me

---

quote:

---

your post did feel to me to be seriously trying to call me on facts that I did not say.

---

quote:

---

and normally find that sort of "modesty" extraordinarily self-centered, unsettling and off-putting. It's highly distracting, isolating, and unnatural.

---

quote:

---

I'm made deeply uncomfortable by the presence of extremely prudish people. Seriously. I grew up with a few girls of the "can't shake hands with men and must wear skirts that conceal our ankles" variety, and normally find that sort of "modesty" extraordinarily self-centered, unsettling and off-putting. It's highly distracting, isolating, and unnatural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Actually, there are people on this thread who practice that sort of modesty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Nobody here has been advocating that sort of modesty.

---

quote:

---

no one on this thread is advocating that women go around with their butt crack showing

---

quote:

---

You yourself have expressed your approval of it if you like the woman's hips.

---

quote:

---

I'm not uncomfortable. Does that mean I'm less good? I solemnly assure you that I have no intention whatsoever of cheating on my wife.

---

Tom, it was specifically my intention not to offend. In case I wasn't clear, I meant that the only guys who are uncomfortable are the ones who are trying not to look or react, but having a hard time with it. I am aware that some men just don't have a hard time with it at all. Lucky them. I didn't mean that they were any less good because it didn't bother them; in fact, that's probably what the uncomfortable guys wish they could be like.

And ElJay, since you asked, I am LDS. And I agree about the culture thing - I've known men who were bothered by provocative dress, men who encouraged it, and men who didn't seem to care. Incidentally, my husband was also taken by surprise that we would be having such a long debate about this topic. But in the opposite way.

BTW, you don't think that any man you have talked to has kept silent because he didn't want to tell you your clothing offended him. But if your normal clothing fits the LDS definition of modesty, you never would, would you? And the type of men who are uncomfortable don't usually say anything about it. It's hard to know what they're thinking about it, which is what they want!

I'm really starting to get dizzy going round and round. That's all for me, folks.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I didn't mean that they were any less good because it didn't bother them; in fact, that's probably what the uncomfortable guys wish they could be like.

---

quote:

---

I guess all you people who are 'overly' modest should be concerned about your effect on others, too.

Of course, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I doubt that this line of logic will have any more effect on you than it does on those that you used it on.

---

quote:

---

being uncomfortable is, in the long run, what produces sin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Actually, there are people on this thread who practice that sort of modesty.

---

quote:

---

And neither is it a straw man: no one on this thread is advocating that women go around with their butt crack showing; they're merely saying that it's not responsible to make moral conclusions based on their decision to do so, any more than it would be responsible to conclude that all modest people are self-righteous prudes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

The fewer rules, the better -- and the healthier.

---

Says you. Go ahead and be a noble savage -- I'm sure you and your well-adjusted anachist friends will have a hoot laughing at those neurotic wretches following their religious teachings.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Say, maybe we should all just keep our personal prejudices about clothing to ourselves and just live and let live. Maybe that would be best for all concerned, no?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

My tznius clothing offends you. Tough luck. I don't choose my manner of dress for your benefit.

---

Yes. I am entirely aware of that fact.
You have every right to be offended that I draw a conclusion from your dress which is inaccurate and does not reflect your intention in dressing the way you do; moreover, it would be silly and selfish of me to insist that you keep my comfort in mind when dressing in a manner you find appropriate and comfortable.

As I respect you enormously, it's good to hear that we're in agreement.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
"Hey, look how modest I am!" is almost certainly NOT the message you mean to be sending; that it's the message I'm probably GETTING from you is MY fault, not yours, and you shouldn't be expected to dress differently to appease my weird hangups.

---

Hey! Tom and I agree. He DOES have weird hang-ups.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
We might agree on even more than you think. I went back and forth on whether or not I should hyphenate "hang-ups."
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Hey Tom! Does this make you feel more comfortable? What? You won't click on my link? What are you? Chicken?
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
We might agree on even more than you think. I went back and forth on whether or not I should hyphenate "hang-ups."

---

And ultimately, you chose wrong.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*laugh* Like I said, it all comes down to cultural differences. I decided not to let the decision cause me any anguish.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Tante, that does not make me feel more comfortable. That woman's make-up is scary.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Yeah. You were SO looking at her face.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Talk about finger-lickin' good.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
How could you miss it? she looks like Skeletor with eyeliner.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
She's wearing makeup? I though she just didn't have anything in her eye sockets.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
That wouldn't explain the brown lips.

Added: Annnnd a great way to start a new page! That's it for me for today, folks. Goodnight.
 

---

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
 

quote:

---

she looks like Skeletor with eyeliner.

---

quote:

---

i think butts are sexy.

---

Me, too. That's why I like female butt cleavage.

Am I advocating it? Well, not as such. I would not recommend making the display to a woman who was not doing so already.

But I enjoy it when I see it, and I'm curious how people are making the conclusion that it is in some way worse than chest cleavage.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
It's not possible for American women to wear shorts on the streets of Kuwait (a very hot country) today without being attacked. Kuwait is one of the more open and liberal Arab societies. I feel this is a deplorable situation, and one that should be taken as seriously as our soldiers being attacked in Iraq.

There are a number of reasons why I feel this is the exact same issue we are discussing.

1. It only applies to women. While there have been some token mentions of men's clothing, this thread has been almost totally focused on girls and women. In Kuwait the same thing is true. Nobody pays any attention to the situation when the genders are reversed.

2. In very recent history in our culture (when I was a girl), girls were considerably hampered in the activities in which they could participate because of restrictive dress codes. Now it's a bit less true here but not exactly a non-issue. All we can say is that the US is the least oppressive country for women.

3. Everyone has different standards, but some people feel their particular standards should apply to everyone, not just themselves. This is true within our society and across society lines (Kuwait -> US). The problems of the women being attacked or hooted at are dismissed as not important, they should have known better than to dress that way, they were asking for it, etc.

Someone please explain to me how this is not the same issue as women struggle with in Afhanistan, Kuwait, or many other cultures today?
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
I'm sorry that I didn't read the previous pages, so if someone else has already said this, feel free to completely ignore me.

Regarding butt-cleavage, there was a 20 year old that my husband hired, who continually wore pants so low and shirts so short that that she was always displaying her crack. I and the other women in the office considered it extraordinarily tacky and just ick! The men, including my estranged husband, ate it up and refused to ask her to wear more appropriate clothing.

Maybe I'm admitting to an old-fashioned prudishness, but I don't want to see a woman's crack anymore than I want to see a plumber's crack.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a nice rearend as much as the next person; it's the exposed crack that just screams TMI to me.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

but I don't want to see a woman's crack anymore than I want to see a plumber's crack.

---

See, and I don't want to see a man's crack. I don't want to see a man's anything. Yet I, a straight man, like seeing a woman's crack. How odd.
 

---

Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
 
though i love butts and civil rights and personal expression, etc etc - i do agree with ladydove that it is in poor taste. not utterly reprehensible, but not classy.

and i do think butt cleavage is different than chest cleavage. the butt crack more directly leads to the place where you MAKE babies while chest cleavage just leads to where you feed them
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Whereas I view buttcracks as the place where toxic waste exits the body, and therefore I want to be as far away from it as possible with as much protecting me from such exposure. And that includes - and no, I can think of no delicate way of expressing this so deal - not being exposed in any way to remnants of any such toxic waste as may have been left behind.

I'm equal opportunity prude - don't wanna see male or female butt cracks, young or old, firm or sagging.


As for Tatiana's post, that somewhat applies in Sri Lanka, but I suspect not to anything close to that extreme. Women are expected to be covered - no cleavage, no shoulders, no knees, midriff only with saris. Shorts are generally unacceptable and pants on women are uncommon at best and when worn, are done so only by those in their twenties or younger. Even modest one-piece swimming suits (for women, because of course, men can get away with anything here) as known in North America is not considered appropriate to wear at public beaches and can only be worn at private beaches or private swimming pools - usually those owned & operated by large international hotel chains.

Men can stand at the side of the road naked. No, this isn't an exaggeration. I've seen them, usually before or after taking a swim in the watering hole. Nice.

Foreign women are automatically assumed to be loose (thanks, Hollywood), and anything other than completely covered up is interpreted as asking for it. I've had some problems with sexual harrassment here, only when I'm by myself, and despite always being covered up to Sri Lankan standards of acceptance.

Foreign women, from what I've been told, will be on the receiving end of much more sexual assault and sexual harrassment than locals if they're not dressed "properly", and the more they show, the worse it gets. However, local women tell me that sexual assault and sexual harrassment are rampant here anyway.

So here, it's not just what you wear, it's also what color your skin is.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by porcelain girl:
i am highly frustrated by people that let their eight year old girls wear shorts that say things like SEXY and FOX on the butt.

---

Aha! You DO have a shift key on your keyboard!
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Breyer -

There is no way I consider the IU campus the "real world"

Edit: Gosh, if I was awake, I would hav erealized there were 2 more pages after this post. Going back to sleep now.

[ January 13, 2006, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: smitty ]
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think it's a reasonable thing to say about your boss.

However, I doubt that you've had a chance to learn that much about every man you know.

---

And I'm telling you I have. Not that I think I have, but that every man I can think of IRL that I know well enough to know their name, I can think of a similar example, although maybe not as easy to describe.

I've worked in the same office for 7 years, lived in the same house for 8, and went to the same church for 8. My freinds and casual aquaintences, for the most part, have been so for a long time. It's given me plenty of time to notice how the men respond to women, you know? I'm not making this claim about the guy who carried out my groceries at the supermarket last weekend, but I am making it about the guy who's sold me coffee at least three times a week for the last two years.

Could I be wrong? Sure. I don't think I'm infallible. But like I've said each time I've made this statement, I don't believe I'm wrong. And I'm not going to temper that statement because you think it's unlikely. I am an unmarried sexually active woman. You bet I pay attention to the way the men I encounter talk about and react to women.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
My problem with the revealing clothes is that the only reason to dress provocatively is to provoke a response from the opposite sex. It's not comfortable, it's not cheap (it costs a lot of money to look this cheap), and it usually involves a lot of hassle from the adults in your life.

Now this in no way implies that I think girls who dress like this are asking to be raped, or that if that happens they deserve it. But if it does happen, I don't think it's unrealistic to put partial blame on the clothing.

And while the way you dress doesn't define who you are as a person, it does certainly at least reflect something about your beliefs in most cases. For example, if I met a girl who dressed in ankle length skirts, wore no makeup, and had really long hair I would be surprised if I found out she was a slut (sorry if that language is appropriate). On the other hand, if I met a girl with 3 different kinds of cleavage showing, makeup that looked like it'd been applied with a trowel, and a belly shirt that said "Porn Star", I would be surprised if I found out that she was a prude.

Just to further illustrate some things that I'm sure have already been said.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
"But if it does happen, I don't think it's unrealistic to put partial blame on the clothing."

See, I do! There is absolutely no blame that resides anywhere outside the rapist himself. There is never any excuse for rape.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
There's not any excuse. But clothing may play a role in whom he chooses.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

For example, if I met a girl who dressed in ankle length skirts, wore no makeup, and had really long hair I would be surprised if I found out she was a slut (sorry if that language is appropriate).

---

*fiddles nervously
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I have a personal preference for making Tom Davidson uncomfortable (*grin), but I certainly understand and support Tatiana and ElJay's arguments.

My own level of discomfort with young women who dress in revealing ways is that I read a neediness into it. This has a lot to do with my own history and relationship to my past, I suspect, and likely quite little to do with the actual thoughts, feelings, and intent of the young women in question.

But that's me and my issue. I'm not generalizing here.

Edited to add: And I certainly agree with Tom about the self-centered focus of attention on modesty and prurience. I have a highly developed sense of prurience, which is why I dress in ankle-length skirts, headscarves, and long hair. The lack of makeup is just to underscore my seedy side.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I don't believe the assertion that there is a causal or even correlative relationship between attire and rapes. It has been implied in this thread a number of times by various people, each time with no evidence to support it. I see no reason to take the truth of the statement as a given just because it sounds reasonable.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
But without any data one way or the other, doesn't it make sense to back the reasonable assertion?

I think it's undeniable that showing flesh and being touchy-feely heightens your chances of being raped.

And CT, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the neediness thing. When I see girls who dress like that to get attention (especially young girls), that to me screams "Low self-esteem!".
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Twink, I disagree. But, I don't know that there's been any research done on the matter, so it remains firmly in the realm of my opinion, I understand that.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 

quote:

---

For example, if I met a girl who dressed in ankle length skirts, wore no makeup, and had really long hair I would be surprised if I found out she was a slut (sorry if that language is appropriate).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
And CT, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the neediness thing. When I see girls who dress like that to get attention (especially young girls), that to me screams "Low self-esteem!".

---

quote:

---

This has a lot to do with my own history and relationship to my past, I suspect, and likely quite little to do with the actual thoughts, feelings, and intent of the young women in question.

---

quote:

---

Availability, not attire, is the obvious selection criterion for a rapist. And in fact all of the anecdotal evidence supplied to us in this thread supports me when I say that if a guy is going to approach or accost a girl, how she is dressed has nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

Rickert VI, Wiemann CM. "Date rape among adolescents and young adults." Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecolgy. 1998 Nov;11(4):167-75.

[Abstract:]
BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults are four times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than women in all other age groups. In the vast majority of these cases, the perpetrator is an acquaintance of the victim. Date rape is a subset of acquaintance rape where nonconsensual sex occurs between two people who are in a romantic relationship. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE and Current Concepts search for articles relating to date rape and then systematically reviewed all relevant articles. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence of date or acquaintance rape ranges from 13% to 27% among college-age women and 20% to a high of 68% among adolescents. Demographic characteristics that increase vulnerability to date rape include younger age at first date, early sexual activity, earlier age of menarche, a past history of sexual abuse or prior sexual victimization, and being more accepting of rape myths and violence toward women. Other risk factors include date-specific behaviors such as who initiated, who paid expenses, who drove, date location and activity, as well as the use of alcohol or illicit drugs such as flunitrazepam (Rohypnol). Alcohol use that occurs within the context of the date can lead to: the misinterpretation of friendly cues as sexual invitations, diminished coping responses, and the female's inability to ward off a potential attack. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal research designs are needed to further our understanding of sexual violence among adolescents and young adults and the most effective ways to eliminate it. Understanding and comparing research findings would be easier if consensus regarding the definitions of date rape, sexual aggression, and sexual assault was obtained. Finally, primary and secondary date and acquaintance rape prevention programs must be developed and systematically evaluated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:

quote:

---

Availability, not attire,

---

I think you're disregarding something that makes up the majority of rape cases -- date rape.

---

quote:

---

And I'm telling you I have. Not that I think I have, but that every man I can think of IRL that I know well enough to know their name, I can think of a similar example, although maybe not as easy to describe.

---

OK. You obviously know the people in your sphere much better than I know the people in my sphere.

*tries to wrap head around it*

The level of familiarity you have with the people around you is one that I honestly never considered. I didn't think that it happened anymore outside of the small village life.

I myself have dozens of people who I know from work or church, but whom I know very little. I see them infrequently, and even more infrequently in a social setting.

Even for the vast majority of people that I know very well, I cannot think of a single thing that would imply to me their feelings on this subject.

I guess what I'm saying is that you and I apparently have different lives.

Oh, I'm also apologizing if I was too much of a donkey.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Many years ago, a man broke into my apartment and tried to rape me (I fought him off -- he was injured and I was left without a scratch, physically). I was wearing a long skirt, a tee shirt with a blouse over it, and a headscarf. I was questioning myself about what I did, how I was to blame for the attack. Of course, intellectually, I understood that this was not my fault. The one to blame was the evildoer. But some other, less rational part of me wanted to put the blame on me. That particular skirt was never worn again. It languished in the closet, but I could never bear to wear the "rape skirt". It eventually got thrown away. The tee shirt and head scarf and blouse suddenly became so unappealing that they got demoted to dustrag status.

Had I been wearing a halter top and Daisy Duke shorts, it still wouldn't have been my fault -- the blame would remain on the evildoer. But I would have had even more tormenting questions nagging me, and self-reproach, self-recrimination from that irrational part of my mind that breeds anxiety.

Women can wear whatever they please, whatever they deem appropriate. But, I believe, if something bad happens while you are dressed provocatively, besides the repercussions of the bad thing, you may be more prone to self-doubt and self-blame, than if you had been dressed conservatively.

Please don't berate me for this. It is based purely on my own experiences and feelings. Of course, people are different, and their responses to bad things differ. But this is what it was like for me.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Tante, that's awful.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Agree w/ you 100% Tante
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

But, I believe, if something bad happens while you are dressed provocatively, besides the repercussions of the bad thing, you may be more prone to self-doubt and self-blame, than if you had been dressed conservatively.

---

quote:

---

Even for the vast majority of people that I know very well, I cannot think of a single thing that would imply to me their feelings on this subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
Yeah, Tante, I'm glad you were strong enough to fight him off.

---

It was almost 20 years ago. He might STILL not be walking quite right.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
In the various seminars I have heard about rape prevention, one of the biggest things mentioned is always that you should walk and act confidently. That it is the person with their head down, shoulders hunched, acting unsure of themselves, that is more at target for predatory behavior (not just rape but other violent crime as well).

Now since it was said in the context of several campus seminars directed at women that I attended over the years, I believed it at the time. But now I'm questioning. Is there any actual data on that subject?

If so, Tom's friend attempting to be invisible, would put herself at even greater risk for the situation to repeat itself.

On the other hand, someone like Sara, even if she dresses for "full coverage", carries herself with confidence, boldness and grace. In her case, if someone interpreted her manner of dress as a show of timidity that made her vulnerable, they would be dead wrong. In fact they'd probably be dead before they'd have time to be surprised about it.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
 
I live in Los Angeles, CA - actually just a mile or two away from Hollywood. I currently work in a office building on Santa Monica Blvd, and the majority of my coworkers are very, very attractive women under 30. Even in "business casual" attire, they show lot's of clevage, wear 4 inch heels, and dress to show their (admittedly) awesome bodies. And all that says about them is "wow, they are pretty trendy."

I am so sick of some of my friends, and some of society, that think just because a girl dresses in modern (ie-provactive) attire they are begging to be oggled at, commented on or groped. There are clubs all around me, and everyone one in them is dressing to impress. Just because some girl in a club is getting down and dirty with her girlfriends (and showing all her goods) doesn't mean jack crap anymore (at least where I am.)

Sorry to rant, just makes me a little ticked that guys can dress however they want to (for the most part) and no one class them easy. Double standard needs to end.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

No, I think it's more like saying that choosing to drive on bald tires increases your chances of being in an accident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
OK. You obviously know the people in your sphere much better than I know the people in my sphere.

*tries to wrap head around it*

The level of familiarity you have with the people around you is one that I honestly never considered. I didn't think that it happened anymore outside of the small village life.

---

I think part of it may be a difference in what is considered acceptable in casual conversation between my life and yours. But also, while I have very few real, close friends, most people I meet quickly become friendly with me. Something about me makes people comfortable, and usually talkative. *shrug* Sometimes too much so.

quote:

---

Oh, I'm also apologizing if I was too much of a donkey.

---

I think we're even. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't exist, and I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I was either lying or stupid.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Seperate post to avoid confusion.

Tante, I'm sorry you had to deal with that, and glad you were able to fight him off and to at least intellectually know it wasn't your fault. I don't think I would have even waited as you did to get rid of the clothes I was wearing if I had been in a similar situation. . . If the police didn't need them as evidence, I would have burned them.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

Whereas I view buttcracks as the place where toxic waste exits the body, and therefore I want to be as far away from it as possible with as much protecting me from such exposure. And that includes - and no, I can think of no delicate way of expressing this so deal - not being exposed in any way to remnants of any such toxic waste as may have been left behind.

---

quote:

---

No, see, it's exactly NOT like that. I chose my analogy very carefully. Because choosing to drive on bald tires impairs your own ability to drive, whereas wearing revealing clothing does not impair your own moral judgement.

---

quote:

---

For example, if I met a girl who dressed in ankle length skirts, wore no makeup, and had really long hair I would be surprised if I found out she was a slut (sorry if that language is appropriate).

---

quote:

---

I think, for instance, that it's good to advocate for proper English, restrained elegance, and not talking in movie theaters.

---

I've always liked your style, Stormy, and this is an excellent example of why.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Stormy, don't worry about offending them with compliments.

It's just in this particular case the *only* thing that changed is how much of my body you actually see, because I'm wearing a layer less of clothing. I'm wearing the identical kind of jeans, a similar fitting top, the same kind of socks etc. The only thing that is different is that you can see my uninteruppted figure without the baggy fleece. (I'm still wearing long underwear underneath the top but I always do that too in the winter.)

The correllary implied is that I *can't* look "nice" without showing my figure. And that's the part that bothers me for some reason.

Even the orthdox Jewish women, who have the most stringent regulations on dress, can dress attractively, and still follow the letter of their law (at least rivka does).

But short of burkas and occasional denim jumper, "nice" and "attractively" actually equal flattering one's figure, for maximum effect, as the detailed analysis in "What Not to Wear" shows us. So, regardless of the culture at the moment it *all* goes back to biological instinct for what is defined attractive in *either* gender. Symmetry in both genders and waist to hip ratios in women. And we *are* judged on something, that we for the most part can't change due to biology. And I think the inevitablitiy of that part of the whole thing sucks. Cause I *don't* like being judged on how I look. It's only the smallest fraction of who I actually am.

In other words, like Batman I want it to be what I *do* that defines me. But even there Batman *wouldn't* have been Batman without the costume and the look.

AJ
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
And you're a girl, so your supercostume consists of a short skirt or hot pants, bustier, and high-heeled boots, anyway. Silly.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I only own one of the items you mentioned above. Wonder if you can guess which one it is

AJ
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I'm going with bustier.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

Belle wins. Was it that easy?

AJ
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Hot pants!

Edited to add: Dagnabbit.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Strange, my supercostume consists of... oh, wait.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I recall you saying something along the lines of "What's a little bondage among friends?" quite vividly, and so I have a good idea of what that supercostume might just be.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(Oh, AJ, thanks for the compliment! Just found it. )
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
My superhero alter-ego is Slug Girl and my costume is a t-shirt and flannel pants. My super power is napping.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I honestly don't think a lot of guys notice detailed changes in what people wear day after day. It has to be a fairly significant change to make them notice. I rarely notice haircuts unless they are significantly different, and I honestly couldn't tell you in detail what anybody I work with is wearing today because I just don't notice those details.

So if a guy does compliment you on how you look, chances are he's noticed that something's changed and he wants to acknowledge it.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Actually I think the wording although complimentary was along the lines of "you dressed up today". When I really *didn't* when compared to the dress level from the previous day. Only one variable changed, and apparently that's the only variable that actually matters in order for me to look attractive.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
Confession: Banna, whenever I read your name, I read it as "BananaOj," and I am *CONSTANTLY* correcting myself.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Thank you, AJ.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

've always liked your style, Stormy, and this is an excellent example of why.

---

How very kind of you to say.

quote:

---

In other words, like Batman I want it to be what I *do* that defines me. But even there Batman *wouldn't* have been Batman without the costume and the look.

---

*laugh*

You totally need to make that your signature or something.

Have I mentioned how the forum needs a quote of the day at the top?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
ersomniac, that is totally ok, reading it either way is fine. Heck I'd probably answer to either in person! It is a convolution of my real names and nicknames which have included Banana and O.J. at various times.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I agree with Storm Saxon's position exactly. It seems totally clear to me that everyone has different standards, depending partly on age and partly on religious culture or country of origin or other culture. It's no more right for me to make sexual inferences here in the U.S. about someone who dresses differently than I would dress, than it is for someone on the streets of Kuwait or New Delhi to do the same for us (or than it would be for our ancestors to judge us by the standards of their time.)

[ January 14, 2006, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
*sings*

When da moon hits your eye
Like a big pizza pie
That's a-moré

When you swimmin' in a reef
And an eel gives you grief
That's a morey

*sings*

More people should agree with me. It would make my life ever so much simpler.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
I agree.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
With respect to double standards:

If you work in an industry where guys wear silk shirts unbuttoned to below the chest, I guess the equivalent would be for women to show cleavage. If it's appropriate for one, it's appropriate for the other.

But it has been traditional for men to wear ties and jackets. What is the female analog of that? Historically men have worn clothes that hide their bodies, more so than women do. When's the last time you saw a business man dressed in shorts? Yet women have been expected to wear clothing that accents their sexuality. It's not uncommon to see a business woman wearing a skirt above the knee, or showing cleavage. That's a double standard.

Yet on this thread the accusation is that it's a double standard to judge a woman as slutty if she wears revealing clothing. I see it as exactly the opposite. Women have historically been treated as sex objects, so society has demanded that they "dress it up." Whether it's cleavage and butt cracks or corsets and bustles, society has made women feel inferior if they aren't dressed like women. Remember the expression "Who wears the PANTS in the family?"

On the other hand, men working on a road crew can walk around shirtless, but women are expected to keep their breasts covered. What sense does that make? If a woman is spreading hot tar on a road and feels that it's more comfortable to take off her shirt, that has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with practicality, yet society doesn't allow it. That's also a double standard.

If there's a generational change that I don't understand, it's the lack of recognition of the appropriateness of the situation. If I go to a fancy restaurant, I don't want to sit across from someone wearing a sweaty t-shirt and jogging shorts. Sure the jacket and tie requirement is arbitrary, but comfort goes both ways. Nowadays I don't know whether I'm going to feel stupid because I'm overdressed when I wear a jacket and tie. Dress codes, whether written or merely customary, provide comfort in that respect because you know what to wear in a particular situation. But we don't seem to have that anymore.
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
I should make more threads.
 

---

Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I should make more threads.

---

Yeah. You should.
 

---