There is a woman who sits directly across from me at work. As is common when one sits at a desk all day the desire to stretch becomes strong. Unfortunately when this woman stretches her shirt at the bottom rises from her waist up to her upper stomach exposing her entire abdominal area.
While the fact that she is of a corpulant nature makes the sight that much more unpleasant, even if she was a model I'd be bothered by it alot. But I am not sure how I should approach the issue. Should I say something to her? Is it wrong of me to say anything? How would I go about saying anything, I do not wish to embarass her. Is there something I could do so that she does not have to do anything?
The only thing I won't do is nothing, I really do not enjoy seeing a stomach 2-3 times a day.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I say just work and don't look at her... It's not exactly polite to point that out... But maybe she might not want to expose herself to the whole world... Perhaps she'd apprieciate being told.... It's near impossible to fgiure out what to do, especially if you are a dude, it could be inappropiate so I have nothing useful to say...
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I would reccomend doing nothing. Suck it up and deal with the fact that you can't control 100% of what you're going to see during your day. She's doing nothing wrong, and shouldn't be made to feel bad for the simple act of stretching.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"corpulant nature"
Was that supposed to be a more or less diplomatic way of saying "fat"? In any case, the phrase amuses me Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I have found that if you can get another female to discretely let her know, no one will get embarrased.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya, I gotta say, just look away. Most people are pretty durn unattractive and occasionally you're going to see more of them than you want. Don't take the simple joy of stretching away from this woman.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
She very well may know and not care. I certainly don't care if my stomach is occasionally exposed due to stretching at work, even though I would not wear something that exposes it all the time. This is your problem, not hers, and I second the advice to say nothing and don't look if you don't like seeing it. Focus on your monitor when you see she's starting to stretch, or put a plant on your desk that blocks your view.
If you have another woman talk to her, she is going to think you're complaining because she's fat, and is going to be embarrassed and probably mad, because she'll think you wouldn't have said anything if she was thin. Just so you know. There's no way to get across that your objections are due to the modesty standards of your religion if you do it through a third party. But I really think your best solution is to find some way to modify your view, there is no way you can ask her not to stretch or to go out and buy all new work clothes to make you more comfortable that is going to turn out well.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Throw things.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If it makes you uncomfortable, don't look.
It isn't as though she's standing in your face, flashing her belly to you. Really, isn't it on you if you're looking?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If it makes you uncomfortable, don't look.
If I were to try to follow your advice and never look at the person sitting across from me, it would make my work environment intolerable. My stress levels would go through the roof, and I would have a hard time accomplishing anything, because I'd have to spend much of my effort making sure that my eyes didn't do what's natural and look all around.
Saying "don't look" is about as useful as saying "don't smell" to somebody who is bothered by other people's perfume/cologne/BO.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well see the problem with simply not looking is if I am looking straight at my computer monitor she is still well within my field of vision, she is in NW if my vision is a compass rose. If she was in the west it would be easy, heck directly north would be easy because then my monitor covers my view.
That coupled with the fact that she seems to stare right at me when she stretches makes looking to my right everytime seem rude to me.
But I suppose I don't really have any other recourse, I just see no good way to deal with this.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Saying "don't look" is about as useful as saying "don't smell" to somebody who is bothered by other people's perfume/cologne/BO.
That's not really an accurate comparison though, is it? It doesn't sound like this woman is being constantly disruptive, but that once or twice a day, for a moment, she's showing a few inches of skin on her stomach.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Ok, so I almost got in big trouble. I Googled "human blinders" and found something that would have been funny so I posted it. After going back to the link, I saw this was a dominatrix paraphernalia website.
Needless to say I quickly deleted the post. YOU can Google "human blinders" if you like. I thought they were pretty funny.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Saying "don't look" is about as useful as saying "don't smell" to somebody who is bothered by other people's perfume/cologne/BO.
That's not really an accurate comparison though, is it? It doesn't sound like this woman is being constantly disruptive, but that once or twice a day, for a moment, she's showing a few inches of skin on her stomach.
If by a few you mean 10 or 11.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If I were to try to follow your advice and never look at the person sitting across from me, it would make my work environment intolerable.
Never looking would indeed be difficult, so if the person was wearing clothes that were "revealing" while she is going about her normal tasks that would be an issue. Glancing away 2-3 times a day, which is how often BB has said the stretching occurs doesn't seem that much to ask.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That coupled with the fact that she seems to stare right at me when she stretches makes looking to my right everytime seem rude to me.
I can see absolutely nothing rude in turning your head away.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Paint a happy face on your belly and do the same thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If this were a sitcom, you could loosen your shirt and attempt to gross her out in a contest...either that or buy her a dress and then be horribly misinterpreted. Since it is not a sitcom, my training in this area is wasted
But seriously, there is a continuum here. On one hand, the modesty dictates of say radical Islam with a burkha and all are absurd. On the other hand, there's no need to allow everything that can be accepted in everyday life into the workplace.
It is highly possible that if you've noticed, others have too. Furthermore, it would hardly be professional to expose your self in such a way in a workplace, even with the trend of casual workplaces.
So try to be friendly, try to point it out either through a friend or through careful diplomacy, but do not feel guilty about being bothered or think that it is only your problem (to deal with).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well see the problem with simply not looking is if I am looking straight at my computer monitor she is still well within my field of vision, she is in NW if my vision is a compass rose. ...
That coupled with the fact that she seems to stare right at me when she stretches makes looking to my right everytime seem rude to me.
Well, if you can't possibly avoid seeing her tawdry flesh and she's gazing longingly at you, each time she tempts you with her wanton ways, either someone is filming a romantic comedy in your building or you're fixating a little much on this lady.
Really, you can't possibly look away? Are your eyes uncontrollably drawn to the sweet, tender flesh? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow, lets pretend that I posted this thread with the intent to get others opinions not to persuade everyone that I have the best solution.
I never said she gazed longingly at me, or that she is tempting me.
I have stated that if I stare straight at my work station I can still see her quite easily. Try it, make two fists, hold them at about eye level and a foot in front of your face, stare straight ahead and tell me if you can see your fists.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Meanwhile, somewhere else on the internet...
WhiteHilt Member Member# 8377
As you all know, I work in an office building, and because of my back problems, I have to stretch a couple of times a day. I've noticed that a guy who works across from me is always looking at me when I do. I could pretend not to notice, or look away, but I've been watching, and he's always sneaking peeks. What do you think I should do? Should I say something to him?
Actually... he's kind of cute. I think he might like me. I'm going to ask my best friend - a blind lesbian who speaks only broken English - to ask him on a date so we can find out if he really likes me. I think this is going to turn into something beautiful. Or I'll just report him to human resources. Stay tuned!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Glancing away 2-3 times a day, which is how often BB has said the stretching occurs doesn't seem that much to ask.
If it were me, and I were trying to avoid seeing more of her body than I wanted to, looking away when she stretched wouldn't help, because I wouldn't realize it was time to look away until I had already seen more than I wanted to.
Also, he said it was more like 10-11 times a day, not 2-3.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:... she's showing a few inches of skin on her stomach.
If by a few you mean 10 or 11.
You mean this exchange? I think he means 10 or 11 inches, not 10 or 11 incidents. Although, on second though 10 or 11 inches is a heck of a lot of stomach. Given that a sheet of paper is 11 inches tall (and assuming he's measuring vertically), we're not merely talking fat, corpulent IS the right word.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Still, come on. Ten to eleven times in an eight hour workday that she stretches for a few seconds? That adds up to what, less than three minutes a day, total, most likely.
You can deal with something that makes you slightly uncomfortable for three minutes a day. This woman is doing nothing wrong. Her back probably does bother her. She stretches it out for a few seconds. I doubt very seriously she is doing it to annoy you.
So look intently at your computer screen and tell your eyes to ignore what's in your peripheral vision for three minutes a day. It's not anything to get worked up over.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Just to clarify, the 10 or 11 was in reference to inches and how much stomach is visible.
2-3 times is how often she stretches. It should be noted that twice a day we have 5 minutes where we are required to stop everything and stretch.
Mighty Cow: Ok you get a snicker out of me but no more.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't think of a single thing you could say to her. I think it is unprofessional to wear clothes that don't cover everything for a noticeable portion of the day - it's like wearing an outfit that shows a lot of cleavage. However, it isn't your call and you can't say anything. I'm sorry.
I suggest getting a plant to put on your desk in the exact line of vision. Figure out how tall it needs to be, and you can get one that stops right before her face so you are not walling off your coworker but you don't have to see more of her than you want.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe you should suggest she wear a burka, since you are unable to avoid looking at her.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's uncalled for. 10-11 inches is not a strip of skin - that's a great deal of someone's torso. It really isn't professional to expose that much skin in a professional setting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Maybe you should suggest she wear a burka, since you are unable to avoid looking at her.
Um...ok...
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If it is distracting from work and unprofessional, or against company policy to show the navel area (I know it has been for a couple of places I've worked), the best bet might be a mention to human resources. It will still likely be very embarrassing for her, but could keep you confidential so there is no office friction and solve the problem.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I have to be honest, I'm guessing that the 10-11 inches is an exaggeration, considering how upset BlackBlade seems to be over a relatively minor transgression.
Put yourself in her shoes for a second. Is she supposed to wear knee-length shirts, so when she stretches there's no chance someone might see a little skin? Should she only be allowed to stretch in a closet or facing the wall?
If she's breaking the company dress code, talk to your manager. If a few times a day the poor woman wants to stretch, give her a break.
How about this. Befriend her, and suggest a couple times a day that the two of you take a walk to the water cooler and have a stretch. Then you offer a mutually beneficial solution.
I wonder how BlackBlade manages to ever talk with women face to face. Their breasts are always just sitting there, right in the peripheral vision!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Wow...some people are being pretty hard on BlakeBlade. He just mentioned a problem he had at work, attempted to be polite about the whole thing, and ask for advice. There's no reason to keep trying to ridicule him.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You can put an opaque screen of something behind your computer to obscure your view of the rest of the room. Something simple as a piece of cleanly cut cardboard, or a cork messageboard, or what have you. Use it for post-its, pictures, and such. Be creative.
I'd also talk to HR. I don't expect they will do anything, but that's useful feedback, and someone official will know why you stuck up a small backdrop.
It doesn't need to be big. 2 feet by 2 feet should be more than enough.
---
Edited to add: I do this all the time for a shared space desk. Too many distractions altogether.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I have to be honest, I'm guessing that the 10-11 inches is an exaggeration, considering how upset BlackBlade seems to be over a relatively minor transgression.
Keep guessing, I am pretty particular about accuracy when it comes to estimating, I do not use hyperbole in these instances. I really mean about 10-11 inches, my indication of corpulance should have made that claim more believable. But like I said she could be a model and it would still bother me, I don't have an arbitrary number of inches that are ok.
quote: Put yourself in her shoes for a second. Is she supposed to wear knee-length shirts, so when she stretches there's no chance someone might see a little skin? Should she only be allowed to stretch in a closet or facing the wall?
I am quite understanding when it comes to the dynamic of stretching and how clothes fall on the body. I try to make sure my shirt is tucked in properly so that if I crouch I am saying no to crack. If somebody fails to take the same precautions, I don't call attention to it, but this is a relatively frequent event.
quote: If she's breaking the company dress code, talk to your manager. If a few times a day the poor woman wants to stretch, give her a break.
I think asking in my very first post if I should say nothing, or if there was anything I could so she does not have to would indicate that I am not all over her case.
quote: How about this. Befriend her, and suggest a couple times a day that the two of you take a walk to the water cooler and have a stretch. Then you offer a mutually beneficial solution.
I am not sure how I feel about befriending a women with the intent of bringing this up. I am not opposed to befriending her of course but I can't really speak with her at work, we are discouraged from discussing non work related stuff with coworkers during work hours. I can't eat lunch with her, and besides all that I am hesitant to make it a point to make friends with her as I am married and she is not.
quote: I wonder how BlackBlade manages to ever talk with women face to face. Their breasts are always just sitting there, right in the peripheral vision!
You are really reaching with this comment MC.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Come to think of it, I've also used foamboard from Michaels (craft store) or any art supply store. Very cheap -- only a few dollars -- and lightweight enough that it's easy to affix with a few brads or with tape.
--
Edited to add:
If and when you talk to HR, you can ask them if she is violating company dress policy. If she is, they can follow up. If not, then there is probably not much to be done, other than to make the environment work better for you in advoiding it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
BTW so it does not seem that I am ignoring all the thoughtful and useful posts,
Thanks so much thus far guys, I think I will opt for the barrier method, something like a plant sounds just fine, and alittle color would certainly make the day nicer overall.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: If it is distracting from work and unprofessional, or against company policy to show the navel area (I know it has been for a couple of places I've worked), the best bet might be a mention to human resources. It will still likely be very embarrassing for her, but could keep you confidential so there is no office friction and solve the problem.
vonk, Be honest. Were YOU the reason this company had to set policy on the acceptable amount of belly someone can show? Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
if your married you could put a picture of your wife to block the veiw.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Okay, I haven't read most of the thread...
I am female, I am somewhat corpulant (I think that's my new word of the day), I work a desk job, and I have a tendency to stretch at times. I don't work in the middle of a cubefarm to have someone directly looking at me, though.
My first recommendation to BlackBlade is, if at all possible, rearrange your desk so that your cube-neighbor is not in direct line of sight all the time. If questioned about it, you can merely say that you wanted a change (which would be the truth) and not comment on the particular view you're avoiding. Or bring in some decorative pieces to distract you - I have Happy Meal toys all over my desk and a couple plants along the edge of the half-height enclosure.
If you absolutely cannot rearrange your desk, and you can't talk to her directly for some reason, enlist the assistance of a mutual friend or perhaps a supervisor. I'd personally avoid making religion part of your conversation if possible. This is going to be a sensitive discussion when just talking about her clothing, you really don't want to add even more touchy subjects if you can manage it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks for the advice Goody. I should state that this dilemma is not one of religion for me.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: I wonder how BlackBlade manages to ever talk with women face to face. Their breasts are always just sitting there, right in the peripheral vision!
quote: You are really reaching with this comment MC.
Agree.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
OK, I'll admit I'm being overly hard on BlackBlade. I apologize if I've been rude, but honestly, I'm at a loss about why this is an issue. Both because it's easy to ignore, and because it strikes me as odd that someone would have such a problem with seeing a tummy a couple of times a day.
I'll bow out, so I'm not tempted to make up any more alternate websites where the opposite conversation is going on Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: OK, I'll admit I'm being overly hard on BlackBlade. I apologize if I've been rude, but honestly, I'm at a loss about why this is an issue.
Apology accepted. Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I had someone tell me once, "The fashion police are going to arrest you for that shirt." I looked it over and never wore it again.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I thought MC's post was funny.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If there were fashion police, I would have been arreseted long ago. All I want to wear are my spiderman PJ pants and Dir en grey or Spiderman shirts.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
BB, I'd think that etiquette would dictate that you avert your eyes. Averting your eyes isn't a big deal. In fact, I think it is a skill that more of us should cultivate.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I can't think of a single thing you could say to her. I think it is unprofessional to wear clothes that don't cover everything for a noticeable portion of the day - it's like wearing an outfit that shows a lot of cleavage.
In this case, it's really not. Clothes aren't exactly tailored to the way your body is positioned while stretching.
I really don't think there's anything to be said. Honestly, it's not like she's running around showing midriff all the time, and depending on her actual dimensions, it might be well nigh impossible to find nice clothes that would cover her stomach completely while she stretches.
-pH
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Other than the idea of a plant or something to block the view, my only suggestion is (you mentioned specific times everyone stretches) that you turn away from her when you do the stretching.
In the event she asks you why you turn away,then you can just say that you didn't want to embarrass her by looking.
I could also be described as "of a corpulant nature" - although I say "well-rounded" - and I make sure I buy long shirts. I'm never at risk for showing any of my tummy in public, and I prefer to cover my behind as well. I would probably be embarrassed by someone telling me about something like this - at first - but then I would (eventually) get over it and try to do better.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I'm not at the weight I was in high school, which was my ideal. I am a little heavier. My modesty prevents/prevented me from showing tummy. I don't usually care to see someone else's either, thin or fat. I think what she is doing is inappropriate and should be addressed with human resources. You can choose at that time to simply ask what the policy would be in this situation.
Talking to her about would probably mortify her. I strongly advise against doing that. There is no way to bring this subject up gently.
The plant sounds like a great idea too. Personally, I would probably use this one. If that doesn't work, go to HR. I can't imagine she doesn't know what she is doing. It seems very attention seeking. Perhaps if you do the plant thing, she'll catch on that she won't get a reaction from you.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I can't imagine she doesn't know what she is doing. It seems very attention seeking.
While it may be attention seeking, I can certainly imagine it not being so. I'm sure I've had my tummy accidentally exposed at work before and before this thread, I never would have thought anything about it.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm the guy with the plumber's crack and the belly hanging out. I'm sure I've grossed out a few people, but most people think it's pretty funny. Especially when I'm running.
I'm also in the camp of people that would run over and tickle her belly while she stretches. That way everyone gets a laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote:I'm sure I've had my tummy accidentally exposed at work before and before this thread, I never would have thought anything about it.
Sure, accidents. BB said this happens every single day, two to three times a day.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm also in the camp of people that would run over and tickle her belly while she stretches. That way everyone gets a laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt.
Except for the woman who now thinks that everyone is laughing *at* her...
Seriously, most women I know are at least a little selfconscious about their personal appearance, whether other people think there's a reason for them to be or not. Anything - anything - that draws attention in what they perceive as a negative way is probably going to feed that negative self-image. And one defensive mechanism is to turn that self-loathing toward the person that brought it out... in this case, the tickler. Or the person that tells her that her blouse doesn't seem to fit quite right.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally think you'd be way out of line to say anything to her. I think blocking is the best solution. To me, people don't really have a natural stewardship over the clothing choices of other people. I think it's best to handle it as though it's your problem, and fix it by rearranging so that you no longer have that problem. To me, suggesting that it's her problem is making a mistake.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I had this problem with a male co-worker. It started when he noticed me averting my eyes when he started stretching (we work at computers all day). He thought it was hilarious that I was bothered by his tummy. But it's become almost an instinct in me to avert my eyes when I see someone acting immodest. And so now he just says, "Chanie..." and I turn my chair around for a few seconds.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm also in the camp of people that would run over and tickle her belly while she stretches. That way everyone gets a laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt.
Except for the woman who now thinks that everyone is laughing *at* her...
And the person who did the tickling when the woman makes a (extremely justified) complaint to HR.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can we please stop using the word "immodest" to mean "revealing patches of flesh?" It's one of my pet peeves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tickling her would be VERY out of character for me. I'd see it in very poor taste to try to resolve things that way.
Question about plants, wouldn't it be eventually a problem if the plant grows larger then the dimensions of my desk? Would a fake one look tacky? Are there plants that grow extremely slow like Bamboo?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. A fake one would be fine - you can get fake ones that look very real. In fact, it might even be better that way - real plants are a lot of work (says the girl with a black, lifeless thumb).
2. If you do get a real one, ask at the nursery for one with the property of growing slowly.
3. I don't think a bamboo would block much of your view - you probably wants something with leaves all over.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Go to your local greenhouse and ask to see some easy to care for indoor potted plants. They won't give you a tree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You could set up a mirror and face it towards her.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can we please stop using the word "immodest" to mean "revealing patches of flesh?" It's one of my pet peeves.
Why? In my world, that's just what immodest means.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I see that as the core of the problem.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I think it's that we define it differently. I'm not sure why that's a problem, though.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I'm sorry I upset you, Tom. I guess I could have said, "When I see someone uncovering themselves inappropriately." I was trying to convey a Jewish idea, tznius.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
That was my understanding of Chanie's "modesty". Tsnius is a part of how I live, and I always translate it as "modesty". I guess modesty can mean other things in English, but I'm not sure of a better way to translate "tsnius".
I'm not sure I quite get the peeve, though.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think modesty is like most choices of personal appearance. Everyone has stewardship over their own, and shouldn't comment or even really have an opinion about others' unless asked. Even when asked, I think it's going out on a very long limb to hazard much of an opinion. I seriously think it's nicer not to even notice personal details about someone else, unless it's to compliment your spouse or significant other on how beautiful they are.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Tatiana, was that directed towards me? What I meant was, "Seeing a male's stomach violates my standards of modesty. Therefore, I avert my eyes." I'm not saying that his behavior was inherently immodest.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think modesty is like most choices of personal appearance. Everyone has stewardship over their own, and shouldn't comment or even really have an opinion about others' unless asked.
To what extent do you believe this? For you, is this true for any and all extremes of dress or undress?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure I quite get the peeve, though.
I've discussed this on a LDS thread on the same topic, actually. But broadly, the issue is this:
The idea that modesty is virtuous is one that I think is highly corrosive, especially when "modesty" is extended to include concepts like "appropriately dressed" and "inconspicuous." I don't think it's healthy to conflate the very real value of perspective -- something that is a virtue -- with an ideal that includes a default assumption of submissiveness, especially given the uneven way it's generally applied to the sexes.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I guess my point is that if a coworker had a problem with my behavior, I would hope they would come talk to me. Such as, "Hey, Chanie. I am a strict vegetarian, and it upsets me to see you eat fish for lunch at your desk." And then I could stop and think about whether their complaint was reasonable and whether we could reach a compromise.
Rather than just setting up a barrier so they don't have to look at me.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Chanie, not directed at you. I have been thinking a lot about the modesty rhetoric in my own church (LDS) and why is it that something strikes me as deeply wrong about it. My post is the result of all that pondering and not in direct response to what anyone has said here.
mph, ideally, yes. I hope if someone showed up at my formal dinner party in a frogman suit, I would welcome him, offer to hang up his mask, and tell him everyone's in the living room and he should dive right in.
I loved the scenes with the prostitutes in Richard Dutcher's movie "God's Army". Should the missionaries have noticed the prostitutes' attire or the fact that they're human people and children of God? When visitors come to sacrament meeting, what do you think people's response to them should be if they wear clothes that don't match our standards? Should we shun them and give them scandalized looks? Or should we welcome them lovingly and be delighted they came?
I think if someone dresses deliberately provocatively, what better message can I send than that I don't even notice their attire because I'm focused on the person within? And if their lapse is inadvertant, how hurtful is it for me to take offense at someone's person, their body, their self, when no offense was meant?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that a modesty, including "appropriately dressed", is a dying virtue, and that saddens me.
Inconspicuousness and submissiveness are not part of this virtue, as I see it, although there are definitions of the word modesty which mean that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, ideally, yes. I hope if someone showed up at my formal dinner party in a frogman suit, I would welcome him, offer to hang up his mask, and tell him everyone's in the living room and he should dive right in. [Wink]
And if they were naked?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:mph, ideally, yes. I hope if someone showed up at my formal dinner party in a frogman suit, I would welcome him, offer to hang up his mask, and tell him everyone's in the living room and he should dive right in. [Wink]
And if they were naked?
Are they hot? *hentai*
Why do workmen insist on wearing pants that show off their butt cracks when they bend over? I saw a guy like that this morning. Maybe they do it on purpose or something.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
mph, yes, naked as well, (if something like that really happened, though I can't picture it for anyone over age 5). Whether to a child or adult, I think the best response would be to say "I've got the air conditioning set so it's kind of chilly in here. Would you be more comfortable covered up? I can loan you a sleep tee-shirt if you like?" or possibly "The soup is really hot and I don't want you to burn yourself. Can I get you a towel to wrap around your waist?"
I just think that would be great a response to someone who was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and if they aren't, if they're off in the head or if it's a child doing a streaking act, it's entirely appropriate as well. After all, they're my guest. Why should I be anything but welcoming and good to them?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Everyone has stewardship over their own, and shouldn't comment or even really have an opinion about others' unless asked.
I think everyone has an extreme situation where they would agree that someone is being highly inappropriate, and our opinion about the situation trumps their right to be blatantly offensive. This doesn't sound like one of those situations.
On a side note, I once had a colleague that would always lean across my desk to talk to me. I was faced with a dillema, look at her while she talked to me (and more often than not get a...full...view down her blouse) or avert my eyes for the majority of the conversation. Thankfully (mostly...I mean, I'm not a saint), one of her female friends at the office had the same experience and said something to her.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: mph, yes, naked as well, (if something like that really happened, though I can't picture it for anyone over age 5). Whether to a child or adult, I think the best response would be to say "I've got the air conditioning set so it's kind of chilly in here. Would you be more comfortable covered up? I can loan you a sleep tee-shirt if you like?" or possibly "The soup is really hot and I don't want you to burn yourself. Can I get you a towel to wrap around your waist?"
I just think that would be great a response to someone who was deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and if they aren't, if they're off in the head or if it's a child doing a streaking act, it's entirely appropriate as well. After all, they're my guest. Why should I be anything but welcoming and good to them?
No offense, but I don't believe you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, yes, naked as well
Well, there I disagree. I doubt I would be willing to sit through a party where either I'm looking at naked people or trying to avoiding looking at naked people.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
I don't expect someone in my house to necessarily conform to my standards of modesty, but I would certainly hope they would at least conform to general societal standards. Pants, shirts, etc.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think that a modesty, including "appropriately dressed", is a dying virtue, and that saddens me.
I think where you and Tom disagree is to whether this is, in fact, a virtue at all.
I admit that I don't immediately see why we should consider being fully covered with clothes a virtue.
Perhaps the virtue would really be expressed as "willing to adhere to society's standards". I can see where valuing this virtue would be good for a society, of course, but that's not really the same thing.
But if I were to move to central Africa, and could get away with doing so, I'd love to work around buck ass naked. I don't think I'd be any more virtuous in that situation if I kept wearing pants and a shirt.
I'd suspect the answer to many for this is "because God wants us to dress that way".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think where you and Tom disagree is to whether this is, in fact, a virtue at all.
Oh, I agree. Tom said that he thinks considering it a virtue is bad, and I wanted to chime in and say that I think it is a virtue.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Xavier, I think, made a good point that has led me off onto a tanget. Specifically the idea of modest dress as a virtue.
We (and by we, I mean puritanical America as a whole) have objectified the human body to the degree where any observance of it (outside marriage) supposedly impinges upon both the viewer and viewees virtue.
We have a whole segment of our society ardently advocating against nudity and sexuality and, to me, it seems that by creating and perpetuating unhealthy taboos about the human body and sexuality, that they give ammuntion to help fuel the industries that exist to titillate and sell nudity and sexuality.
I have more, but I want to get this posted before my meeting...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To me there is a marked degree of difference between the following.
1: Dressing in such a manner so that others are enticed by the promise of carnal pleasure as indicated by your behavior and clothing.
2: Walking around completely naked because of climate considerations or because you just don't see the need for clothing.
There are cultural considerations that SHOULD certainly be taken into account.
Modesty is a value because it demonstrates that a person is not the equivalent of an animal. We actually participate in activities that do not involve basic bodily needs. Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter. Modesty shows that a person is restrained and does not just do what feels good in the short term.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*waits for the flames*
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:*waits for the flames*
Can we do this without flames?
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
I'd just like to say that, BB, I know exactly what you mean, and I don't think you're overreacting at all. I've got a close friend who does just that, astounding the world with the almost blue whiteness of her flaccid, hairy skin. I've never had the guts to say anything, so I just take my glasses off, wipe them, etc. and time it so I'm done when she is. It's not so easy to tune out the lip chewing or her caressing herself or miss the BO and sewer breath, but I've got the stomach-stretch down! She's got no sense of smell, so I really should tell her about the BO, but... I'm a coward and I think I'd be more embarrassed that she'd be. Knowing her, she'd say it didn't effect her, the rest of the world could get over it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The problem, BB, comes when you try to decide who's standard of modesty to use. You must admit that the standard you embrace is much more conservative than the "norm" in this country. And the vast majority of men and women are able to converse intellegently and strictly platonically even if the woman's shoulders are showing, and perhaps a strip of her stomach.
I think you and I would probably agree on some standards -- for instance, I think a lot of clothing for female children is overly sexualized and inappropriate. But obviously not everyone agrees on that, or there wouldn't be a market for it.
However I wear tank tops regularly in the summer, and there is often a small gap between my top and my pants. That's acceptable in my office, in fact I'm probably one of the more conservatively dressed. Enticing others to carnal pleasures couldn't be further from my mind, and no one I converse with seems to wonder if I am trying to set up a sexual encounter. I think you underestimate people, if you think we need to cover up in order to be able to control ourselves.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'd suspect the answer to many for this is "because God wants us to dress that way".
I would be an exception to this. I'm agreeing with most of what BB and MPH are saying, if not necessarily their reasoning. However, I am an atheist.
My personal reasoning is more along the lines of MAD (mutual assured destruction). I am aware that there are a great deal of ugly people and a few number of attractive people. I am also aware that naked attractive people would distract me from my work. However, this pales as a factor compared to the fact that the naked ugly people would not only distract me but make it impossible for me to work.
I am also aware that standards of beauty may differ from people to people. I may consider corpulent individuals to be the epitome of ugly, whereas some of them may believe that the majority of Asian people are ugly, and so forth.
Thus, the ideal solution seems to be to compromise and adhere to a solution where people are mostly clothed to avoid causing any problems for most people, within reasonable parameters for comfort. No appeal to God is required.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'd suggest saying "Excuse me? Your stomach is showing."
If nothing else, it will probably get across the notion that this makes you uncomfortable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Modesty is a value because it demonstrates that a person is not the equivalent of an animal. We actually participate in activities that do not involve basic bodily needs. Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter. Modesty shows that a person is restrained and does not just do what feels good in the short term.
To me, this is similar to the argument that without God keeping them in check, people would run aruond killing, raping, and stealing.
This may be true for you, but you have no call to say it is true for me or for other people. I don't need to rely on modesty (especially your definition of it) to do these things.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Eljay: To me modesty is much more about intent. A toples woman in Africa is probably not trying to find the next liason she can. A girl who ultimately puts on spaghetti straps because she has found she gets more attention from boys when she does clearly has a different motive. Sure comfort, the newness of the clothing, and how everyone else dresses all come into play, but there is stil that factor of, "I want to maximize the attention boys pay me, and I am willing to use my body to obtain that optimization."
I have had girls who say, "I go commando to school because it just feels better for me" I personally do not have a problem with it, and thus everything is fine. But if say knowing they were not wearing underwear was stimulating to me, and my increased attention turned them on, then that is where modesty would be called for.
Mr S: I don't much care if it sounds similar. I am not making either of those arguements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Could you explain this part to me?
quote:Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter.
To me, this is saying that, let's say I'm having a conversation with a friend of mine in a bikini when we're down on the beach. Under my udnerstanding, because she is wearing "immodest" clothing, I must be unable to converse with her without wondering if we're just setting up a sexual encounter.
---
edit: In addition, I don't agree with this.
quote:Modesty shows that a person is restrained and does not just do what feels good in the short term.
I very much doubt you can draw a strong correlation between long term self interest and your standards of modesty. For example, Jerry Falwell's followers are more than likely to be modestly dressed, but I'd be willing to bet that in many things (e.g. hating people) they very much go for the short term feeling good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry to double post but, I don't believe in impossing my specific standards of modesty on anyone in particular.
I am a member of society, and express my ideas, they may or may not resonate with others. If they resonate to a degree then I have partially shaped the culture of my local neighborhood, or perhaps the country, maybe the world, who knows?
That is how I believe cultures are rightfully formed, it is a whole nother matter how one ought to interact with cultural norms at the local--->universal level.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that a modesty, including "appropriately dressed", is a dying virtue, and that saddens me. Inconspicuousness and submissiveness are not part of this virtue, as I see it...
The only difference between "modesty" and "perspective," leaving aside the "dressing conservatively" bit, is one of submissiveness.
quote:Modesty is a value because it demonstrates that a person is not the equivalent of an animal. We actually participate in activities that do not involve basic bodily needs.
Here, BB, you are using "modesty" when I think what you mean is "self-control." They're different attributes.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I just think it's pretty hard to judge people's intent. When you list all those possible motives but still say that the girl in spaghetti straps "clearly" has a different motive, I think you're making a judgment that you're not really qualified to make.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Could you explain this part to me?
quote:Modesty is what lets say a man and a woman converse without wondering if they are just trying to setup a sexual encounter.
To me, this is saying that, let's say I'm having a conversation with a friend of mine in a bikini when we're down on the beach. Under my udnerstanding, because she is wearing "immodest" clothing, I must be unable to converse with her without wondering if we're just setting up a sexual encounter.
OK, what I am saying is that if there is a complete lack of modesty, then neither of you would act in a decent or human manner. If you both at the moment felt horny you would jump each other, if you both got hungry, you would not offer to take her out, nor would she offer to help you cook something. You would both just eat whatever was at hand, possibly each other.
This is obviously an extreme example, but to me that is what the world would be like with a complete absence of modesty.
We would be concerned purely with base desires, such an existance reduces us to mere animals, concerend only with survival and reproduction.
Modesty to me is not just about clothing, though I admit then when people talk about it clothing usually dominates the topic. I think modesty extends to a persons manner and conduct. There is a very good description of modesty in Mr. Cards book "Heart Fire" (Part of the Alvin Maker series) I believe where Peggy is instructed as to what a modest girl does and how she behaves. Its very particular to a certain era and country, but I believe that those who live in any time or place need to carefully decide what to them constitutes reasonable and amiable behavior. If it makes the envrionment more beautiful then is good. If overall it debases humanbeings, I don't think it is modest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I just think it's pretty hard to judge people's intent. When you list all those possible motives but still say that the girl in spaghetti straps "clearly" has a different motive, I think you're making a judgment that you're not really qualified to make.
We are assuming that how I have described her reasoning is in fact how it is. I am not saying all girls in speghetti straps are thinking this way.
Tom: I think my last post indicates that I consider self control part of modesty. I understand that modesty is typically used in America in relation to clothing. Its part of that whole, "They say clothes make the man." I do not use it exclusively that way. But I do believe clothing to an extent can indicate how one feels about modesty, but the two are not inseperable. I believe you could have a modest society of nudists.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I agree with Tom then. I think you are defining modesty as what is more commonly known as self-control. I don't believe that linking the common definitions of modesty (i.e. in dress and as a srt of opposite of arrogance) with controlling oneself is useful or warranted.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
There are topless beaches the world over, where people aren't constantly rutting in the sand. When the norms of modesty went from almost no exposed skin to bare arms and legs in polite society, I don't think it prevented people from behaving themselves. I can go into a bank in shorts and t-shirt and conduct my business without fear that I'll be given incorrect change as the teller, unable to control her carnal lust for me, is stricken dumb and unable to count.
I simply don't think that arbitrary standards of clothing are the only thing preventing people from acting like animals. You give your fellow humans hardly any credit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
MC, BB isn't using arbitrary standards of clothing, I don't think. It just sounds like that to us because he is using modesty in a way that I don't think any of us understood.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, I agree with Tom then. I think you are defining modesty as what is more commonly known as self-control. I don't believe that linking the common definitions of modesty (i.e. in dress and as a srt of opposite of arrogance) with controlling oneself is useful or warranted.
Well restricting modesty to mere fashion tastes is not very useful either. If modesty is only related to clothing then its certainly not a virtue, as nobody can say what clothin is universally correct or incorrect.
I think you will find the dictionary finds much that connects modesty with how we behave.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Humans are really interesting in that their sexual interest level is maybe as much affected by psychology as by physiology. So while there is certainly a base level of interest (hetero men will lust for boobs), the actual application of that lust is variable.
For instance, back in the day, seeing a woman's ankle was absurdly sensuous. Nowadays, of course, no one cares. Can't the same thing happen with a greater degree of flesh? People accomodate themselves to new situations quite quickly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: MC, BB isn't using arbitrary standards of clothing, I don't think. It just sounds like that to us because he is using modesty in a way that I don't think any of us understood.
You are correct sir.
But it also sounds like you and I disagree that modesty can be used to describe the decency of somebody's behavior.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:We have a whole segment of our society ardently advocating against nudity
I'm a nevernude.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course it does. There are two main usages of modesty, as I noted in what you quoted.
First, there is the idea of conservative dress.
The second connects it with how you behave (i.e. in a way mostly opposite to arrogance).
---
There are two issues with this. First, there isn't a good correspondence between the two definitions. A person who dresses conservatively is not necessarily modest in behavior and vice versa.
Second, neither one of these things is, by itself, a virtue (as self-control or Tom's suggestion of persepective are).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I disagree that modesty can be used to describe the decency of somebody's behavior.
It depends entirely on what you mean by decency. What you were describing, to me, is neither modesty nor decency but rather self-control.
Self-control exists largely independent of how one dresses and whether they are willing to regard themselves as the best or better than others at something.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
but see I don't see immodest behavior as mostly the opposite of arrogance. Somebody who is vane to me is not modest.
I wouldn't say a man or woman who sleeps around is modest regardless of how they dress.
Would you say there is such a thing as a modest nymphomaniac? Or a modest hedonist?
edit: careful with your quote above this post Mr S, I am saying something I never intended. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Thinking about it, I do think people use immodest behavior as meaning sexually loose. So, I think you are right about that.
Basic hedonism though, no, I don't think modesty has anything to do with that based on accepted definitions of the term.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
BB, your idea of modesty crosses into so many different ideas, that it's very difficult for me to get a hold of. It seems to me that you're using the word "modesty" to encompass all good and right behavior.
I tend to use different words for various aspects, so I see where some of the confusion lies. From my perspective, based on the few posts, it seems like being "modest" to you is acting how you believe people should, and when someone does something which you do not believe is correct, they are being "immodest". Am I understanding correctly?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: I think I can agree with you on hedonism.
I think the problem is that modesty also indicates "a small but significant sum," as in "He made a modest bid at the auction," or, "He had saved a modest amount." Therefore anything that is in excess falls into the, "immodest" category. So all excessive social behaviors "feel" imodest to me. The dicationary saying that modesty is the absence of vanity further inclines me to use it that way.
Mighty Cow: I understand your confusion, I must confess that I am trying to reevaluate how I use the word in light of what others in this thread are saying.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, To you, is eating an excessive amount of food immodest?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, To you, is eating an excessive amount of food immodest?
If somebody ate excessively in a social setting I think I would be OK with somebody stating that that person was not acting modestly.
You could also call them a glutton, but hey to each his own.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:modesty also indicates "a small but significant sum," as in "He made a modest bid at the auction," or, "He had saved a modest amount." Therefore anything that is in excess falls into the, "immodest" category.
For me, this shows that words can have multiple meanings, but all of those meanings don't have to be part of the same thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:modesty also indicates "a small but significant sum," as in "He made a modest bid at the auction," or, "He had saved a modest amount." Therefore anything that is in excess falls into the, "immodest" category.
For me, this shows that words can have multiple meanings, but all of those meanings don't have to be part of the same thing.
mmmm perhaps.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The idea that modesty is virtuous is one that I think is highly corrosive, especially when "modesty" is extended to include concepts like "appropriately dressed" and "inconspicuous." I don't think it's healthy to conflate the very real value of perspective -- something that is a virtue -- with an ideal that includes a default assumption of submissiveness, especially given the uneven way it's generally applied to the sexes.
I don't equate "tsnius" (modesty in dress) with submissiveness. Ask the folk I work with -- they'll tell you that I always show up to work wearing long skirts and long-sleeved blouses, but that I am no one's idea of submissive. No one makes me dress the way I do. It is my choice. And if I chose tomorrow to abandon my habitual dress and go out in shorts, tank top and uncovered hair, I wouldn't be pilloried, tarred, feathered, or stoned to death.
I also understand that my choices are my own, and I certainly don't expect anyone else to live by them. So, how does dressing the way I want to yield the default assumption of submissiveness?
And, I might add, if the way I dress offends you, you are always free to avert YOUR eyes.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
As for the original topic:
If you do put up a barrier, consider something that doesn't block all the light. That could make your workspace a lot less pleasant. When my mom was in a similar situation, she bought a sheet of plexiglas and some translucent paints to transform the window to the hallway into faux stained glass. Also, it is good to have a window or open space behind your computer monitor. This makes it less likely that you will spend all day with your eyes focused at the same distance. If you have enough flexibility, you may want to try rearranging things with that principle in mind. Good luck.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I agree that we should never assume we know someone else's motive in dressing the way they do.
Also, people aren't responsible for what happens in other people's minds. I reject the notion that women are responsible for the things men think about them.
Let me explain why. To men in the Taliban, in Afghanistan, the sight of a female wrist or chin is alluring and distracting and attractive and shocking in exactly, precisely, the same manner as something like rear cleavage might be to someone here. It's physiologically the same thing that is happening. So the real truth is, modesty just means less skin than you're used to seeing in public, and immodesty means more. What constitutes the right amount varies hugely from pacific islanders to Canada to Mexico, southern French beaches, to Afghanistan, where they murder girls for going to school. So I reject the entire premise that women (and of course we always seem to be talking 95% about women and only 5% or less about men) are responsible for what men think about their clothes. That premise is simply false. No amount of modesty is enough. No matter what is typical locally, there will be some people who think more modesty would be better.
I'll give a few examples. Joseph F. Smith, (one of my favorite presidents of the church) gave an impassioned plea to women not to cut their garments to wear the latest fashions. This was in about 1905, I think. The women then were being so immodest as to show their wrists and ankles. That was not modest enough. I say thank goodness for the women back then who were willing to shock everyone by showing their wrists and ankles. Were it not for them I couldn't do my job, for I need to wear pants and short sleeves to be able to function on a jobsite.
Another example, on BYU campus today where it's considered wrong for girls to show knees and shoulders, someone wrote a letter to the paper asking that girls not wear their book bags across one shoulder, because the straps cut across the front of their chests and emphasized the shape of their breasts. It started a controversy and many people weighed in on either side. It's not enough for women to cover knees and shoulders. If we do that, someone will decide that we shouldn't wear our book bags the most comfortable way, because then we are obviously being deliberately tantalizing to men by emphasizing our breasts.
There's no degree of modesty that would be enough to prevent men from finding women attractive, and vice versa. The whole idea is a mistake. I think people should wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing, and nobody should try to impose their standard on someone else.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Interestingly, [url= http://"http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/columnists/advice/chi-0516askamymay16,1,6203241.column?coll=chi-leisureadvice-col"]today's "Ask Amy" column[/url] has a letter asking about a very similar situation. When the writer asked a couple coworkers for their opinions, he was told that *he* was at fault for noticing. Amy simply points the writer to the HR department.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm still convinced that the best course of action is the tummy-tickle. As soon as she moves to stretch those arms, just run over and tickle like she's a 2-year old.
Oooo--even better--you could blow a strawberry on her tummy. That would be HILARIOUS.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm still convinced that the best course of action is the tummy-tickle. As soon as she moves to stretch those arms, just run over and tickle like she's a 2-year old.
Oooo--even better--you could blow a strawberry on her tummy. That would be HILARIOUS.
Ill let you know how that goes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: ... So I reject the entire premise that women (and of course we always seem to be talking 95% about women and only 5% or less about men) are responsible for what men think about their clothes. That premise is simply false. No amount of modesty is enough. No matter what is typical locally, there will be some people who think more modesty would be better. ... There's no degree of modesty that would be enough to prevent men from finding women attractive, and vice versa. The whole idea is a mistake. I think people should wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing, and nobody should try to impose their standard on someone else.
I'm not sure if you're responding in general to BB's dilemma or the side discussion. However, I may quickly point out that the issue at hand is not that BB finds the woman distractingly attractive, but quite the reverse, distractingly corpulent.
Thus, the issue is whether any degree of modesty could prevent another person from noticing another person's corpulence.
I may further note that while your logic should apply to casual everyday living, it should not necessarily apply to a business/corporate environment where everyone is working as a team and should be somewhat considerate of the ability of others to work. I somewhat doubt that the corpulent female would be severely discomforted by wearing a shirt that could be tucked in.
Indeed, if she is in fact showing 10 to 11 inches of stomach, I question if she is wearing much of a shirt at all (11 inches is like 80% of the way from my waist to my armpit?)
In general though, your logic seems to be if you cannot please everyone, only please yourself. That seems to be a tad selfish, especially when you're working with others. Why not simply find a good compromise that pleases the majority of the people you work with?
More generally to the thread, I'm also rather doubtful of the whole barrier idea. Unless she's particularly clueless or insensitive, eventually she will figure it out. If I were her, I'd certainly be hurt that someone thought I was so sensitive that I couldn't be told that my stomach was showing and that someone put up a bush to cover me. (e.g. "You put up plants to cover up buildings...not people")
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Indeed, if she is in fact showing 10 to 11 inches of stomach, I question if she is wearing much of a shirt at all (11 inches is like 80% of the way from my waist to my armpit?)
10 inches on a [generously curved] belly is a much, much smaller % [of the waist-to-neck total distance along the skin] than on a flat belly. It is measuring on a (perhaps quite overhanging) curve.
[Edited to add: For example, in a patternbook I have, there is a 12 inch difference in the front top-to-bottom measurement between a small T-shirt and an XL t-shirt of the same style. This is not because slim people are taller (i.e., total neck-to-waist distance "as the crow flies" ), but because of the extended length to allow for girth outward.]
quote:More generally to the thread, I'm also rather doubtful of the whole barrier idea. Unless she's particularly clueless or insensitive, eventually she will figure it out. If I were her, I'd certainly be hurt that someone thought I was so sensitive that I couldn't be told that my stomach was showing and that someone put up a bush to cover me. (e.g. "You put up plants to cover up buildings...not people")
This might be a particularly gender-informed issue. I can't imagine myself having the reaction you suggest above (i.e., having my feelings hurt because someone didn't approach me directly, rather than use this solution), and I can't imagine really any of the women I know preferring it to be as you suggest.
It might make an interesting poll of Hatrack women. On quick skim, I see 13 women (that I know of as women -- I could be missing a gender neutral name, though), and none suggest that he speak to her directly. Some specifically say this would be a bad idea, even using the words "mortifying to her."
[ May 17, 2007, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: More generally to the thread, I'm also rather doubtful of the whole barrier idea. Unless she's particularly clueless or insensitive, eventually she will figure it out. If I were her, I'd certainly be hurt that someone thought I was so sensitive that I couldn't be told that my stomach was showing and that someone put up a bush to cover me. (e.g. "You put up plants to cover up buildings...not people")
I did say in my first reply that any conversation with the woman in question would be a rather sensitive discussion.
Because of the degree of tact and sensitivity required, I feel that it really needs to come either from a friend of the woman in question (who hopefully knows how to talk to her without coming across as insulting, uncaring, etc.) or from management as a strictly work-policy issue. I am not in any way implying that BlackBlade is incapable of being sufficiently tactful to have the conversation, though I do note that he seems reluctant to do so and that *will* project if he were to try. I merely trust that a human resources manager type person will have developed the ability to handle the situation skillfully and with a minimum of damage.
Personally, if I were the woman in question, I would *not* want the guy across the walkway telling me that he could see my belly when I stretch, no matter how tactful and gentle he is in telling me. I would be upset enough hearing it from HR, but to hear it from the guy who I'm personally grossing out? I'd shut down so hard I wouldn't be able to work at my desk again for fear of what else I did that offended him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't equate "tsnius" (modesty in dress) with submissiveness.
I did not say that "modesty" in dress was an indication of submissiveness. Rather, I said I disliked two specific things about the usage of "modesty" that we see here:
1) The association of conservative dress with a form of virtue. 2) That the only distinction between the recognition of "perspective" as an inherent virtue and "modesty" (in its "not-vain" sense) as an inherent virtue is the expectation of submissiveness built into the latter.
I don't think "modesty" needs to be promoted as a virtue, largely thanks to #2. However, since modesty IS promoted as a virtue (albeit in a largely sexually uneven way), I think it is unhealthy to link conservative dress to a form of virtuousness -- especially when another virtue, "self-control," has already been identified and is clearly distinct from either concept.
The use of "modest" as meaning "inexcessive" is, I think, very telling, and goes a long way towards explaining why I think it's such a corrosive concept.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: 10 inches on a [generously curved] belly is a much, much smaller % [of the waist-to-neck total distance along the skin] than on a flat belly.It is measuring on a (perhaps quite overhanging) curve.
[Edited to add: For example, in a patternbook I have, there is a 12 inch difference in the front top-to-bottom measurement between a small T-shirt and an XL t-shirt of the same style. This is not because slim people are taller (i.e., total neck-to-waist distance "as the crow flies" ), but because of the extended length to allow for girth outward.]
I find this interesting from a scientific perspective (measurement on curves and planes) but difficult to visualize clearly myself. To address this, I freehanded a drawing in Paint which compared a slim person's washboard measurement of 10 units to the 10 unit measurement of a very round-bellied stretching person of the same height.
A couple things were immediately apparent: 1) I draw very freakish-looking people in Paint, regardless of whether slim or not.
2) Nobody I know, slim or not, would want to be my friend after seeing these pictures. I think it is the bulbous, mostly bald heads and the elfin-style shoes.
Regardless, if it would be helpful, I would send the pictures to individuals who request, for scientific purposes. But you'd have to sign a waiver. (Seriously.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This, of course, explains why my favorite dress is just fine when I am slim, but a little too short when I'm not. It looks fine both ways, but when I'm not slim the J.Lo rear end does unfortunate things to the length of the dress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ClaudiaTherese: I was most pleased to see you understand how a woman could show 11 inches of belly and still only reveal her belly.
I want to see your pictures just because you piqued my curiosity.
*signs waver*
You can email me through the forums.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Just forward the picture to your co-worker and your problem's solved. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's why I'm not making this readily accessible. Seriously, I will not have something I made being used in a way that would be harmful to others.
I can't draw well enough in Paint to not make people look horrendous.
BlackBlade, I'll email you a link, but I want your promise (here on the forum) that you will not make a copy of this picture, keep a screenshot, or in any way retain the image yourself. I'll send you a link to an online picture outline and you can look at it, but that's it. I'll take it off afterwards, and so there should be no record of that image anywhere thereafter.
And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that. ( )
Agreed?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
CT:
For the former, I can kind of see your point. I still find it hard to understand though. How much belly does someone expose when stretching? 20% 30%
If we have 10.5 inches exposed, thats like a total belly of 52.5 inches to 35 inches. I admit, I'm having a bit of difficulty visualizing that at work. Imagine me putting pieces of 8x11 paper end to end. Three to five pieces of paper even curved?
I think I do have to see those pictures. *signs waiver too*
Perhaps my university and work environment dominated by Asian colleagues has somewhat warped my perception of the human body, but still...
As for the latter point, I freely admit that I've been thinking about this whole thread in a pretty gender neutral fashion. For me a corpulent female is just as bad as a corpulent male as a problem, I kind of equated the both in terms of a solution.
GS: Really? You're implying that hearing from HR would be better than the guy in question?
I'd have assumed the reverse. I'd be more embarrassed that a third-party (and potentially more people) have heard about the problem rather than it just to be dealt with by the person in question (and keeping the problem under the lid, so to speak).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
CT: Sounds fine to me, I was going to delete any email you sent me with the picture anyway. But I retain the right to comment on, in a humerous manner, said drawings, so long as the comments remain vague enough that a complete representation of the drawings based on my remarks would be impossible.
quote:And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that.
I cannot make this promise until I have seen the images Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I think I do have to see those pictures. *signs waiver too*
You have to specifically say that you won't keep a copy of the image in any form, and that you understand this means that when I take it off the web, there will be no record left anywhere.
And the bit about the arms and hands, too.
quote:GS: Really? You're implying that hearing from HR would be better than the guy in question?
*nods vigourously
Oh, yes. Definitely, for me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would say it with flowers:
"Roses are red, Violets are blue -- And when you stretch, There's too much of you."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
1. Agreed. Same thing as BB, I will not comment on the aesthetics of the picture, simply on the mathematics (proportions) involved.
2. Really? (Let that be a lesson in gender differences?) I'm assuming all things being equal, that both the HR person and the co-worker are equally polite and diplomatic, why would this be the case?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because if it is your co-worker, you have to remember that conversation every time you interact again. If it is an HR person, you at least don't have to see them again every day and don't have to be reminded.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't equate "tsnius" (modesty in dress) with submissiveness.
I did not say that "modesty" in dress was an indication of submissiveness. Rather, I said I disliked two specific things about the usage of "modesty" that we see here:
1) The association of conservative dress with a form of virtue. 2) That the only distinction between the recognition of "perspective" as an inherent virtue and "modesty" (in its "not-vain" sense) as an inherent virtue is the expectation of submissiveness built into the latter.
I don't think "modesty" needs to be promoted as a virtue, largely thanks to #2. However, since modesty IS promoted as a virtue (albeit in a largely sexually uneven way), I think it is unhealthy to link conservative dress to a form of virtuousness -- especially when another virtue, "self-control," has already been identified and is clearly distinct from either concept.
The use of "modest" as meaning "inexcessive" is, I think, very telling, and goes a long way towards explaining why I think it's such a corrosive concept.
I see. I am using the word "modest" here in a much more narrow sense than you are, and this is what is causing our difference in opinion. In the sense that I am thinking about it, "modest" means specifically a dress code that includes a certain amount of body coverage. The "not vain" and "not excessive" meanings weren't figuring into my usage. I agree with you that it is suffocating to insist that women be kept quiet and invisible. I certainly wouldn't want that for myself. And you may have noticed, I don't really present myself as quiet and invisible here. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The choice of dress is my own, and I also think that makes all the difference. There are women in my community who wear pants, short sleeves, uncovered hair, and nobody blinks. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of the women who identify as Orthodox Jews in my circle of friends dress that way. I choose different for myself, but don't attach a value judgment to the choices. I certainly don't hold myself to be more virtuous than other women. I just do what feels right for me.
For Orthodox Jews, there are gender differences in the dress code, but I don't equate differences with inequalities in this instance.
Tom, I think we are seeing this issue from different cultural perspectives, and I suspect that if we took these into account, we'd find that our positions aren't that far removed. I'm not as inscrutably foreign and backwards as I may seem at first glance. I grew up in a very secular environment, and just because I've taken on the trappings of Orthodox Judaism doesn't change the stuff that I'm made of.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
katharina : However, even if the HR kept the name of the coworker confidential, would you not be able to deduce it eventually? There can only be so many people with a clear view and the person right across from you would be an obvious candidate.
Even if you didn't figure out, you'd probably get paranoid and suspect many more people.
Or are we talking about a "out of sight, out of mind" thing here?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
It entirely depends on how the HR person words the complaint. If they cite specific instances, then absolutely I'd figure it out. If I was told that "comments have been made" about my clothes being ill-fitting enough that large movements exposed quantities of skin, maybe not.
I don't know how exactly to word this so it makes sense, but I'm much more able to process and accept criticism delivered at a distance from the source than I am from the source itself. The source in this case being BlackBlade (or the analogous coworker if I were the stretcher).
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I grew up in a very secular environment, and just because I've taken on the trappings of Orthodox Judaism doesn't change the stuff that I'm made of.
You mean converting to Judaism doesn't change your body composition?!
I've been misinformed.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Truly.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: CT: Sounds fine to me, I was going to delete any email you sent me with the picture anyway. But I retain the right to comment on, in a humerous manner, said drawings, so long as the comments remain vague enough that a complete representation of the drawings based on my remarks would be impossible.
Sure.
quote:
quote:And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that.
I cannot make this promise until I have seen the images
Fair enough. I am, however, a student of human anatomy, despite what you will see on your screen.
---
Urls sent to both email accounts.
---
Updated at 4:46 Pacific Time to add:
And now pulled back off the 'net. (I am assuming you guys had a chance to see them -- if not, just let me know.)
[ May 17, 2007, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Obviously I was talking about the secondary discussion of modesty in my previous post, not the primary question which I covered earlier.
It's not a matter of thinking "I'm selfish so I'm going to wear what I want to wear and I don't care how horrified or offended anyone else is made by it". That is entirely not the question before us. The question is "Shall I give other people the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't dress themselves thinking either to please or annoy me, in fact, I have no stewardship over their clothing in any way, and it's strictly their decision, which I have no polite or reasonable grounds to question?" I think the latter is clearly the most civilized choice.
That is, I'm not suggesting to anyone what they should wear or not wear themselves. I'm suggesting, instead, that the most felicitous manner in which to regard someone else's clothing choices is as something not within our own purview, and not a matter upon which we should feel free to voice our opinions unasked.
[ May 17, 2007, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: CT: Sounds fine to me, I was going to delete any email you sent me with the picture anyway. But I retain the right to comment on, in a humerous manner, said drawings, so long as the comments remain vague enough that a complete representation of the drawings based on my remarks would be impossible.
Sure.
quote:
quote:And also, you have to acknowledge that you know that I know that nobody's arms/fingers look like that.
I cannot make this promise until I have seen the images
Fair enough. I am, however, a student of human anatomy, despite what you will see on your screen.
---
Urls sent to both email accounts.
---
Updated at 4:46 Pacific Time to add:
And now pulled back off the 'net. (I am assuming you guys had a chance to see them -- if not, just let me know.)
afraid not I checked my email all the way until 4:30pm EST, send it again!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also I did not receive the email with the link in the first place, Ill have to check my spam.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Try making sure the account you have registered here is correct, too. Maybe the board system is not working.
Are you here now?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Try making sure the account you have registered here is correct, too. Maybe the board system is not working.
Are you here now?
I am here now, your message showed up in my spam filter. Ill be around for the next oh....5 hours.
"Your message" being the one you sent yesterday.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Okay. I have to go to conference, but I'll check back in in about 2 hrs, then tell you I'm sending it again. (Will take me a bit to put it back up, and the address may be different.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Note, I did manage to take a look at the picture, but got caught up in some IRL stuff. I'm going to have to think about this for a bit. However, I did want to note that here so you did not have to wodner what became of it.
PS: The picture is not nearly as bad as you made it out to be. Certainly better than I could do in Paint Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Thanks, Mucus. No need for any more of a response, unless the spirit moves you.
-------------
I thought about it, and I decided I feel okay about this. I am not going back to pretty it up first, so the same rules apply to anyone who goes to see: no keeping any sort of a copy, no sending it to anyone else, and you are welcome to cast aspersions on my artistic talent, but not mock the real people who may or may not be represented by it.
[jpeg address now snipped out, having lived its bright and oh so brief life to the fullest]
[ May 18, 2007, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its mildly errie that your drawing is the same color shirt she was wearing yesterday.
Also her eyebrows are not quite that long, and her hair is wavy not curly
I wish girls wore shoes that look like the ones you drew.
As an update I turned and looked inadvertantly while she was stretching and calmly looked to my right and counted to 8 in my head. My supervisor noticed and asked me what I was staring at. I lied and said the clock, and she told me to get back to work, as looking at the clock would not help me do my job.
+1 etiquette -1 supervisal reputation
What can you do? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, BlackBlade. The life of a Gentleman is fraught with too many unacknowledged graces.
Good on you for it.
---
Okay, served its purpose. Getting deleted now. (Thanks!)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As an update I turned and looked inadvertantly while she was stretching and calmly looked to my right and counted to 8 in my head. My supervisor noticed and asked me what I was staring at. I lied and said the clock, and she told me to get back to work, as looking at the clock would not help me do my job.
+1 etiquette -1 supervisal reputation
What can you do?
That does give you a reasonably graceful way to privately let your supervisor know the situation. That way, if you approach it carefully, you are explaining your behavior rather than complaining about a coworker.
"I'm sorry for appearing to stare at the clock earlier. I didn't want to say anything in front of Sally, but when she stretches like that I see more of her than I am comfortable seeing. I'm sure, she doesn't want me seeing anything either, so I just look somewhere else. I was thinking of getting a plant..."
This should be said with no hint of reproach in your tone and perhaps a touch of embarrassment in your own ability to solve the situation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm sure, she doesn't want me seeing anything either, so I just look somewhere else. I was thinking of getting a plant..."
This should be said with no hint of reproach in your tone and perhaps a touch of embarrassment in your own ability to solve the situation.
Priceless advice. Just priceless. [especially how to hit the right tone]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As an update I turned and looked inadvertantly while she was stretching and calmly looked to my right and counted to 8 in my head. My supervisor noticed and asked me what I was staring at. I lied and said the clock, and she told me to get back to work, as looking at the clock would not help me do my job.
+1 etiquette -1 supervisal reputation
What can you do?
That does give you a reasonably graceful way to privately let your supervisor know the situation. That way, if you approach it carefully, you are explaining your behavior rather than complaining about a coworker.
"I'm sorry for appearing to stare at the clock earlier. I didn't want to say anything in front of Sally, but when she stretches like that I see more of her than I am comfortable seeing. I'm sure, she doesn't want me seeing anything either, so I just look somewhere else. I was thinking of getting a plant..."
This should be said with no hint of reproach in your tone and perhaps a touch of embarrassment in your own ability to solve the situation.
It's a good idea, I might try it. Ill probably just try developing a fierce interest in my ipod or my desk papers when she stretches. It would be hard for me to come up with a good way to speak to my supervisor without anyone else hearing, its a very open office. Also I am still quite new here and I have no idea how long this woman has been working here, and from what I can tell she is pretty chummy with the supervisor. I could lose additional points of reputation if I am not delicate about this.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Most excellent advice, Kate.
BB: As for how to discuss this with your supervisor, can you send him/her an email or drop a paper note asking for a brief 5-minute conerence away from normal work areas (i.e. "cigarette" break) to discuss a work related matter? I've done this before, and in my own experiences works well to get the boss away from prying ears.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Wow, I totally wouldn't discuss it with your boss. It could come off as petty and whiney to her. Sniping between coworkers (which is how this might seem to her) is something that's eternally painfully tiresome for bosses to have to deal with. I think you should just quietly block the view and don't mention it to anyone. I would try to let go of the idea that you have some sort of legitimate grievance about this. Just let it go. Try to get so involved and engrossed in your work that you don't notice things on this level. I think you'll be a lot happier in this job if you can manage to grow a thicker skin about things like this, and not let them bother you.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Wow. What kind of place is it that you work, where you look away for 8 seconds and your boss reprimands you?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Yeah, really. And the required stretching part, too:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It should be noted that twice a day we have 5 minutes where we are required to stop everything and stretch.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: Wow. What kind of place is it that you work, where you look away for 8 seconds and your boss reprimands you?
It was more bad timing, she saw me as I was staring and she assumed I had been staring for quite some time.
Also the mandatory stretch times are a god send as it lets me stand up stretch and move parts of my body that have been stationary for several hours.
I usually use the time to just post on hatrack, Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Mandatory stretch periods make good sense from an EHS and ergo standpoint. It benefits both the company and employees. Hopefully though, they let them stretch more throughout the day than just the 2 mandatory ones though. I know that wouldn't be enough for me.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I checked my email all the way until 4:30pm EST, send it again!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)