posted
Have you ever seen a prostitute? Most of the ones around here at least don't dress like they do in the movies. And they certainly don't dress like the teenage girls I think we're talking about.
And I certainly agree it's fair to judge based on people's choices. I just don't think it's fair that the choice to dress how you think is cool, however misguided you may be, necessarily should equal people making the judgement that you're a slut. In my opinion most of these girls are just trying to look like their friends. It might not be the best choice, but it does not mean they are having sex.
Edit: Okay, just read the other thread. I'll buy that in Tuscon prostitutes dress differently then they do in Minneapolis, especially in the winter.
posted
To be perfectly honest, the best way of knowing a prostitute in Tucson is by where they are, how much make-up they're wearing, and how downtrodden they look. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The prostitutes in Waikiki look just like the ones in movies and on TV... there's no question what they're doing.
My big beef with the revealing clothes is schools that make a big deal out of their dress codes at the beginning of the school year and then don't enforce them after the first week of school.
If the clothes are a distraction (and I believe they are, just like t-shirts with inappropriate graphics or lewd language) then do something about it. If they're not a distraction, don't have the dress code in the first place.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, same here. Which is one of the reasons I don't like the term... these girls don't look like hookers, they're no where near beaten-down enough.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "slutwear" is a misnomer (and offensive) for the reasons stated. Women-wearing-revealing-clothes does not equal women-who-are-easy (though there may be some correlation). I do, however, think that women-wearing-revealing-clothes often equals women-who-make-men-lust-after-them (depending on how good she looks in the clothes). But I am not a guy, so I don't know.
As much as men may like women to dress provocatively, *I* don't like it. And I am pretty sure that men who believe in "not lusting" and keeping their thoughts pure don't appreciate the added temptation/distraction.
Storm noticed that the people who object to women dressing provocatively are the same people who believe in "not lusting". That is not surprising. Though I imagine a lot of men who may appreciate their peers dressing like that also don't want their daughters to dress like that. Why is that do you think?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean let's face it, you don't put the goods on display, if you will, if you're not in the market, it mixes in with the whole attitute of the look.
I don't agree with this Hobbes. I have become more modest in my old age (all of 22 ) but I do sometimes enjoy wearing low-cut tops, or short skirts. I do this because it makes me feel good, and attractive, and confident, and young. But that does not mean I'm 'in the market' in any sense of the word unless in the market somehow means engaged, just bought a house and happily committed.
***
I should say that I find revealing clothing very disturbing when it is on young (say pre-16?) girls. Even more so when it's on pre-pubescent girls. I think the marketing of sexuality to children is irresponsible and I think high heeled boots on 6 year olds is never appropriate. But that's different to young women choosing to dress in a way that they like.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And anyway, what is wrong with a grown woman choosing to show her body? The body is a beautiful thing, and I don't think anyone should make people ashamed of their body, or equate showing flesh with a lack of morality.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
American sensibilities in the mainstream tend to be more reserved than a number of other countries, although never having had the chance to visit Australia, I couldn't compare the particulars.
We have our own conservative streak in the media here, but I think you are right in that mainstream America is much more conservative wth regards to nudity and sex. Not, however with regards to violence - but that's another topic.
***
All that said above, I do agree that if you dress in a way that shows off your body, then you should expect people to look.
But equating what someone wears with their sexual behaviour seems to me getting uncomfortably close to the "but she asked for it, she was wearing a miniskirt" defence.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I mentioned that earlier - inviting looking is not the same as an offer to touch.
Although I dare say men who would use the excuse "she was asking for it because she was dressed so" would probably find any reason to justify their actions.
posted
from the perspective of a 43-year-old LDS woman with 2 daughters ages 8 and 11 ...
I never want to see my daughters wearing "low-rider" jeans, but I saw them on sale at Wal-Mart in the girls' clothing section.
I never want to see the crack of anybody's butt, whether it's the plumber or the young lady who happens to be walking ahead of me (or Britney Spears).
Your underwear is your business. I will take it on faith that you have some - I don't need to see that either.
Even though some clothes I consider immodest are "cute," the people wearing them are not always in the best physical condition. So, if your tummy resembles the Pillsbury dough boy, maybe a combination of babydoll T and low-rider jeans might not be for you.
I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion - this represents mine. I'm just as critical of a 300-pound person in shorts as I am of someone closer to their ideal weight wearing something that I consider cut too low or high. I call myself "well-rounded in many respects" and I don't wear shorts in public. I don't weight 300 pounds, but I am way overweight. I don't wear things to attract people, but to be clothed. I understand the concept of wanting to attract people, and I don't think that's bad. I question the judgement of people who wear clothes that make other people (meaning me) think, "Ewww, she doesn't have the body for that," or "do her parents know she's wearing that?"
Before I get in trouble for picking on just girls, I don't need to see the waistband of your boxers sticking up 2 inches past the waistband of your jeans - that's just stupid-looking. As is jeans with so many holes that I can see your leg or underwear through them. I still am amazed at seeing that in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
Disclaimer: all uses of the words "you" and "your" are purely in the generic sense and do not refer to anyone at Hatrack.
[/rant] (sorry, didn't mean to go on so long.)
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) but I do sometimes enjoy wearing low-cut tops, or short skirts. I do this because it makes me feel good, and attractive, and confident, and young. But that does not mean I'm 'in the market' in any sense of the word unless in the market somehow means engaged, just bought a house and happily committed.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
