posted
Well, it's actually the SAME argument: that not wearing a burka forces the men who see you to think about sex, and that this is rather unfair, forward, and immodest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is definitely the guys' responsibility to keep their minds off things it shouldn't be on. I actually think I agree with ElJay - wear appropriate clothing. Work, school, Hatrack gatherings - places where people are not really given the option of not interacting with you, it is only respectful and polite to wear clothes that don't announce your chest five minutes before the rest of you. In other places, where interaction is a choice, it is NOT an onus on anyone to dress to someone else's standards.
I haven't worn anything actually revealing in so long now my white, white skin now glows in the dark, so this may be off, but...
I've never worn something or been with friends who were wearing something revealing where the goal wasn't to get male romantic attention. Sometimes women for women dress for women, but not in that - other women hate you for it. It's for attention. And it usually works. Like Bob said, it only works temporarily and it's not usually the respectful attitude properly due to a lady, but it does work.
Even discounting the moral considerations, due to human nature, I'm in favor of the women covering up a bit more because its usually in their long-term interest to do so.
posted
Trevor: I guess it depends on whether or not the face makes a man think of sex. Does it matter if the woman is wearing a come-hither stare under there? Or has a beauty mark and pouty lips? [I hope everyone knows I'm kidding here. I get frustrated because I know that I'm nearly always joking to some degree but there will always be someone who doesn't know me and thinks I'm being serious. Tip for these people: If I'm serious I will place "Seriously," at the beginning of the sentence, or something like that. Notice that there was no "seriously" at the beginning of this edit.]
While I'm in favor of covering up some of the nasty I see on the street, or more specifically, at the mall, I probably wouldn't try to legally *force* the women to cover it up except in cases of indecent exposure.
posted
Heh...indecent exposure. When I was waiting in line the other night at the grocery I picked up a trashy magazine. Inside was a spread on the apparant trend of "under cleavage." Meaning wearing shirts that actually show the bottoms of your breasts. Mariah Carey was featured - no shocker there.
I like form-fitting clothes, and I don't label women as slutty due to what they're wearing. I might think they look skanky, but that's neither here nor there. When I see something like under cleavage I just think it's sad. That's not about feeling good about yourself; it's designed to make people gawk.
posted
So what does skanky mean then? I always thought skank was a less inflammatory way of saying slut. Am I wrong?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skanky, to me, is worse than slutty. I think someone can "look" slutty but still be sexually attractive. If you look skanky, then you're not even sexually attractive. I don't think that's gonna make sense to anyone but myself, but there it is.
posted
Trevor, the burkha question is a valid one. Those men are in a similar position as the men of our past who were used to not seeing ankles or collarbones. I understand that they may think of me the same way that I think of someone who shows cleavage. I do not fault them for that. But I am also not a part of their culture and society. These women *are* a part of my society. And our society in general does not dress that way.
But I also do not try to force women not to wear what they wear. I recognize their freedom, and I am actually very civil about it. While I strongly disagree with the way they dress and complain about it when not in the direct situation, it is highly unlikely that I would actually say that or even treat them with any sort of contempt. I generally approach individuals with compassion and benefit of the doubt. That doesn't change the fact, though, that what she is doing is effecting me negatively.
If it became a problem, I might talk to the girl, but that would take some doing.
posted
Space Opera brings up an interesting point. She is using the word "slutty" not to refer to a slut, but a certain way of dressing. What is the general opinion here? Is there a difference between saying someone is dressing slutty and saying she is a slut? I would assume so. Perhaps that is a justification for the word "slutwear"? Just a thought.
posted
I don't like the word slut, but that's because...the girls I knew that did sleep around - that fit the actual definition of a slut - were so down on themselves. I don't know if that's because I move in a Mormon world so there's a fall from grace associated with it as well, but I didn't know any girls that actually slept around because they were on a power kick or because they just liked the physicality of that. The girls who talked about it that way usually didn't have a whole lot of experience with it. The ones who actually did sleep around a lot were looking to be loved.
I don't like calling anyone that because it means you're kicking someone when they are down.
posted
Actually, there are a couple of girls that have been coming to church dressed extremely provocatively. I don't say anything to them or anyone else about it though (until now, to y'all) because I place them firmly in the "teenagers who don't know what they're doing" category. Not to say that they don't know it's sexy, but I truly don't think they understand the stigma attached to dressing that way at church, especially because our church is pretty liberal in the dressing department. (We have people in suits and people in t-shirts and shorts.)
That said, I am not sure if someone should gently mention to them that they might be viewed badly by dressing that way in church. Their mothers don't come and I'm personally just so darn glad they're there that I am willing to let them dress however they want. I think they'll probably get the hint eventually, and I don't think they are turning anyone on. It's more like it's just freaky. I don't know them well enough to say anything, but I don't know if anyone should at all. Not in a chastizing way, but in a kind, "You may not know you're giving this impression", way. I really don't want to scare them off though.
---
Bev: Yes, I have said in both threads that I consider slutwear to be a "look" that doesn't necessarily reflect how promiscuous the person is.
posted
Which kinda circumvents the two pages of posts complaining the term is unfair because it implies an assumed behavior on behalf of the person wearing the fashion.
But similarly, if I walk down the street wearing neo-nazi slogans, people might have reason to believe I am or at least a supporter of, Neo-nazis and their philosophy.
This is a more literal interpretation, but we're discussing the subtle or soft interpretations that we associate with types of clothing.
I know this makes sense at some point - I just can't think where I lost that point.
posted
This whole thread is a waste of time. Not one person on the either side has listened to the other.
Whether or not you agree, you people calling other people sluts are spending this whole thread justifying a term that puts people down and hurts feelings for no good reasons. Yeah, we know how you feel. We feel like you people are moral elitests/prudes/whatever, but it's not polite to say and not really accurate.
posted
Hey, I dress kinda alternative. Do I think I'm different from everyone else out there? Do I listen to alternative music? No. I dress kinda hip-hop sometimes. Does that mean I like rap? No. Am I insulted when people assume I like these things? No. Why? Because I'm dressing like someone who does, and I'm aware of the stereotypes going in.
However, I do everything I can to stimulate my mind and dress and break out of the "boring old housewife" mold except where something affects the way I raise my children. At those times I'm offended by the stereotypes *because* I do my best to not "look like the stereotype" but people persist with it because they refuse to let it go.
If a woman came out of a prostitution lifestyle and did her best to not give that impression anymore I'd back her up to the hilt if people insisted on stereotyping her. But if a woman dresses like she's selling, I'm not feeling sorry for her.
I really see an obvious difference but it might just be my POV.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one who thinks people hide things they don't want to share so they won't be asked?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I keep thinking about the kids in school that broke out their candy and smugly ate it in front of everyone without sharing, while people looked on covetously. I really wish they'd just kept it put away if they weren't going to share.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol, I have an example of this in my own life, that I'll let you guys dissect. I agree with ElJay that a lot of things depend on appropriateness and context.
So I wear generally baggy clothes to work. My pants are probably tighter fitting, generally jeans or khakis but nothing extreme. On top, I wear a baggy polo shirt or sometimes a button up shirt. Mrs. M will shoot me but I still generally wear them in guys sizes, because they are baggier and it's extremely hard to find the styles in girls clothing and I don't want them fitted.
However, at lunch time, I sit outside with the guys in a picnic area. At lunch I strip if it is warm enough. I generally wear a camisole (with a bralet) underneath the baggy shirt, because it's so darn cold in the lab (I also layer with a sweatshirt as well) and I'll take off my shirt and only wear the camisole if it is warm enough. But I am on work property.
posted
You don't see a difference between a camisole and cleavage-baring, mid-drift triangle shirts with no cloth in the back except a tie?
And if you said you wore the triangle top to work I wouldn't say you were being slutty. I would, however, probably consider the shirt to be slutwear.
In interest of some common ground here that I understand needs to be met, I think it's rude to tell someone their clothes are slutwear. I would likely keep that opinion to myself. But I'd still be thinking it.
posted
No, because honestly I look better (sexier, if you wish) in a camisole than I would in the latter (because I have small breasts). Also it's a skin tight camisole, you can pretty much figure out what I look like underneath anyway, if it was cold I'm sure you could see my nipples. So theoretically since I'm wearing what is the more attractive option on me, it is therefore the most *tempting*.
posted
How is someone thinking clothing is inappropriate the same as thinking they are worthless?
I don't think the term "slutwear" has nearly the negative connotation for some that it does for others. Kat has a powerful negative association with it. For me any negative stigma is far more mild. I understand the term is hurtful and can lead to judgement of the girl's standards for having sex, and therefore I won't use it. But I don't see how PSI is thinking the person is worthless. If she had used a different term than "slutwear", would her statement bother you?
Like if she said, "I wouldn't tell the girl that I thought her clothes were too skimpy, but I'd still be thinking it."
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that each portion is equivalent to the other, but it's the same structure. I just don't like this sort of condescending negativity.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, I prefer to not wear baggy tops for that very reason. They are not flattering on me. No, they are not just "not flattering" on me, they are *unflattering*!
But I also choose not to wear things that are "skin-tight". I feel personally that to be wearing something like that sends a message that I don't want to be sending. Basically, I want to show guys that I am female and am trying to look female, but I don't want them panting after me because of how much I am showing. I just don't think it is right.
So, if I were in that situation, I would wear something underneath that was not so tight or revealing. I would get all the benefits of the temperature change, and I wouldn't be drawing attention to my chest. But that is me, that is my own way of doing things, and I recognize that plenty of other people feel differently.
Do you feel that the guys treat you differently when you are wearing your camisole? Do you enjoy the difference? Do you wear the camisole to get that kind of attention?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, I can understand you not wanting to be called a slut or even slutty. But is that last statement offensive to you? I ask because I am trying to pinpoint what exactly is causing the offense. Does my not liking girls to wear skimpy clothing *because of the way it effects me* bother you?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, nothing you've said has been particularly offensive. As I've mentioned before, you're very careful to tread in between, and I appreciate that.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an INTP <grin> I wear the camisole for strictly practical reasons. It doubles as an undershirt and a tank top, and it's hot outside at lunchtime and cold in the lab.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the way I look one way or the other and the guys don't treat me any differently either way. I think I would get treated differently if I wore the tank top in the lab, but that would be stupid as I never know whether I'm going to be slinging nitric acid or benzene around from one day to the next. The camisole also is an extra layer of protection should I actually spill anything on myself.
posted
Suneun, that's cool. I appreciate you helping me understand your position better.
AJ, I respect that you do it for practical reasons, and I believe you. So if I happened to see you in passing and judged you as trying to get guy's attention, I would be wrong.
This brings up another thought--I see plenty of women wear excercise clothes similar to what you described. I think some of them do it to attract the looks of men, but I don't think all of them do. So, since they have a reason to be dressed like that, I mentally give them the benefit of the doubt.
And, on a side note, Porter is very much a gentleman. I have never felt the need to "get on his case" for looking at women. I don't blame him for having to deal with an instinctive male response.
For those who have read the book "Rachael and Leah", I feel Porter does a very good job of being like Jacob in how he dealt with Zilpah's efforts.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* I don't understand why you'd be condemning someone for trying to get a guy's attention. It happens - it's part of human nature. It's certainly not polite to do it in situations where it's offensive, and it shouldn't ever be just a game, but it isn't going away anytime soon.
Bev, you talked about that a little bit - the occasional desire to be seen as attractive by the larger world outside your family. You certainly don't intend to act on it, but it is a very human desire. Why condemn someone for...using the tools they've been given to accomplish the task?
posted
Kat, I don't think I said I condemn it. If it is a sin to try and attract guy's attention, then it is a sin I am guilty of myself. I do think there is a line that can be crossed from the appropriate to the inappropriate. The line is highly subjective and is different for different people. There are ways I am willing to dress in public and ways I am not. Other people have different standards.
I wanted to know why AJ wore the style of clothing under her baggy clothes that she did and if it was for the intent of attracting male attention. I was trying to understand her motives. I had more respect for her answer than if it had been different. That is not the same as condemnation.
There are ways of getting guys attention that I personally respect and ways that I don't respect. Trying to make the men around you think about having sex with you by dressing immodestly is not something I respect. Showing them that you are female and have a figure, I don't have a problem with.
If you and they are both single, then it is not such a problem, in my mind. Of course, it may also be a single guy who is trying to keep his thougths off sex. But if the guy is in a commited relationship, (or you are) I think it is bad form. My opinion, not someone else's.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I had more respect for her answer than if it had been different. That is not the same as condemnation.
It is a condemnation, though... I mean, you wouldn't be mentally assigning her to hell, but it is something that makes them less worthy/virtous/upright in your eyes. That's what condemnation is.
---
What if it wasn't phrased "I wear this to get them to think about having sex with me.", but instead, "I wear this because they pay more attention to me when I do." It's still the same reasoning - one is just more explicit.
I just think it's funny - it's like the Victorian fashions that piled yards of material on the back of a woman's skirt to make sure no ever, ever thought about what was underneath.
quote: You certainly don't intend to act on it, but it is a very human desire. Why condemn someone for...using the tools they've been given to accomplish the task?
Just let me make a point here -- saying that because something is natural or human nature that it should be accepted.
Part of my personal "human nature" is violence. I have violent tendencies. Saying that it's just the way I am is not acceptable. I am expected to control my natural tendencies. I would be a horrible human being if I did not.
Understanding our motivations, desires, and tendencies is important. One of the reasons it's important is that only by understanding our passions can we ever hope to bridle them.
I'm not saying that this is parallel to the current discussion. I'm not accusing anybody of saying that we should indulge whatever whims we have.
I just want to express myself that just because something is in our nature to do things does not mean that it is acceptable to do those things.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
But I also don't think that needing attention and approval from other human beings is one of regrettable traits of the natural man.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: What if it wasn't phrased "I wear this to get them to think about having sex with me.", but instead, "I wear this because they pay more attention to me when I do." It's still the same reasoning - one is just more explicit.
The second one simply shows a lack of understanding about how men's minds work. Plenty of women are clueless about this.
quote: I just think it's funny - it's like the Victorian fashions that piled yards of material on the back of a woman's skirt to make sure no ever, ever thought about what was underneath.
I feel like you assume I am advicating baggy, unflattering clothes. But then, that is silly, because that would mean you haven't been reading my posts.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you are advocating that - you never said you did, so I didn't think that you did.
As for the innocence point, I agree with PSI that a lot of the more revealing clothes are worn by teenagers who don't have the foggiest idea why it's a big deal. I also like what she said about wanting to mention it to them - if they are ignorant, that's what learning is for.
I don't approve of playing it as a game - wearing revealing outfits deliberately to see how much attention you can get, like collecting numbers at a club that you never intend to call. The problem with that is the game part, though - it means you're using people, and that's not good.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What if it wasn't phrased "I wear this to get them to think about having sex with me.", but instead, "I wear this because they pay more attention to me when I do."
It's still the same reasoning - one is just more explicit. The second one simply shows a lack of understanding about how men's minds work. Plenty of women are clueless about this."
I disagree, again...
Men can, and often do, pay more attention to a woman dressed in a sexy manner, without thinking about having sex with them.
Beverly, I find your entire line of reasoning in this thread to be based on a sexist misunderstanding of how the male brain works. Basically, you're upset at women who try to get men to think about having sex with them.
We can, and do, control those thoughts, and usually only think about having sex with a girl if we want to think about having sex with her.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I also don't think that needing attention and approval from other human beings is one of regrettable traits of the natural man.
I also don't think that a tendency/desire for violence is bad. I can't think of any personality trait that is good or bad. They all can lead a person to do good or evil.
The other day, I helped my friend do some remodelling of his house. I helped him take out some walls. Because of my violent nature, I had a blast tearing out those walls. But there are other things that my violent nature could lead me to do that would be undenyably evil.
The desire for attention and approval can also lead people to good or bad. There are some people that desire that attention and approval so much that they will evil things. But that desire also can lead us to treat others with kindness and respect.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BtL, I know that these girls may not succeed in getting guys to think that way, because I know there are plenty of men out there with as much restraint as my own husband. What I don't like is the effort at trying to get them to think that--the added temptation.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right - so if someone is wearing something figure-hugging, it gets them (from all reports) brief flashes of attention. As long as they aren't playing a game (using people), intending to act on it innapropriately (not respecting societal bonds), or hogging the attention at someone else's parade, I don't know why it's something to think less of them for.
-----
Well, I do, but I think it's a personality trait. I personally think that being dependent on other human beings for your self-image is a mistake and ultimately doomed to failure, but that's me. And even then, I absolutely adore my friends that build me up.
Of course, it becomes a little complicated trying to figure out what their motivation is for wearing the garb so we can then pass judgement in our own minds.
posted
Okay, did y'all read the Anne of Green Gables books? In Anne of Windy Poplars, Anne's about go out canvassing for orphans, and she's trying to decide what to wear. The housekeeper tells her that if she intends to talk to the women, to wear the ugliest thing she has. If she intends to talk to the men, to wear the prettiest.
I don't think that's about sex.
*thinks* Unless everything ultimately is. Which is what I was trying to get at with the Victorian fashions thing.
posted
I have a question for the wonderful men of Hatrack. If a woman is wearing something scanty, is your response that she is more likely to be open to your invitations, your desires to do more than just look? (Whatever that may be )
(BTW, I really liked PSI's comment about the children eating their candy in front of other children they don't intend to share with.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
