Looking back on what I posted, I think some of your confusion comes from the first post:
quote:Dave Chapelle said all that I think needs to be said about this. We both agree with you that a woman obviously has the right to her own body. But it's pretty ridiculous for a guy to dress up as a cop and wander down the street, only to tell people who come up to him requiring police assistance, "Oh, I'm just wearing the uniform."
If you're wearing a hooker's uniform...
You might be interpretting it to mean I think that any woman who wears slutty clothes is a) dressing like a hooker and b) should therefore accept sexual solicitations, which wasn't what I meant, but I can see how that could be confusing.
Here's your post where interpretation goes awry for me:
quote:I can't believe you are even comparing these two things. But even more, I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does. Are you saying that men just can't control themselves when they see certain parts of a woman's anatomy, so it's the woman's responsibility to act a certain way if she doesn't want to be harassed? Or maybe that the men are stupid enough to think that a woman dressed that way is giving them permission to comment on her body? Regardless of how the woman is dressed, the man's actions are not acceptable. But the woman has to just accept that if she's dressed that way that's what's going to happen?
That view is not very flattering to men, you know.
And if rape victims are "almost never at fault for what happened," when exactly are they at fault?
I, too, am reading the first two paragraphs as one idea and the third as the second idea. In the first idea, you're suggesting that I think that what happens to the woman who wears little clothing and the woman who walks down the alley is their fault: "I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does."
This is where I disagree. My posts, as I said before, only state that I do not think a woman should be surprised that behaving a certain way increases your risks for victimization. I'm fairly certain we agree on this. I am not suggesting that a woman who does these things deserves what happens to her, or that it's her fault. I am saying that these things DO happen, and if she would like to avoid them as much as possible, she shouldn't wear skimpy clothing, or walk down dark alleys by herself.
quote:I responded first to you making that link. I don't think that's a fair link to make. The rest of my first paragraph talks about what I think about your statements about the way women dress -- that they shift responsibility for a man's actions onto the woman. I do not talk about rape there, I do not say that you were saying women ask to be raped. I specifically talk about harrassment and unwelcome comments, both of which you brought up. (Harrassment in clubs, catcalls on the street.) I do not talk about fault there at all.
You imply in the first idea that I'm attributing blame: "I can't believe you are even comparing these two things. But even more, I can't believe you are placing the woman in both situations at fault for what the man does." Bolding mine. And again, I have to point out that I attributed no blame in either situation. The only time I even remotely mention blame is in the sentence you quote: "I firmly believe that rape victims are almost never at fault for what happened," which has nothing to do with either situation in discussion.
Hopefully this clarifies. And in case it doesn't, I'll paraphrase everything:
1) I do not think women who dress scantily should be surprised when they attract unwanted male attention. While I do not think that skimpy clothing justifies catcalls or harassment, I find it ridiculous that any women are surprised that it happens with more frequency because of it.
2) I do not think women who walk by themselves down dark alleys at night in bad neighborhoods should be surprised when they attract unwanted male attention (in the form of rape). While I do not think that walking alone down dark alleys at night in bad neighborhoods is a license for men to rape women, I find it ridiculous that any women are surprised that rape occurs with more frequency because of it.
That is how I connect the clothing issue and rape. The reasoning presented in this thread struck me as very similar to the reasoning presented by a woman who was raped going down a dark alley, or a guy whose wallet was stolen because he left it on a park bench overnight, and was surprised it happened. In all three cases, it's unfortunate that these things occur and none of the actions of the perpetrators are justified, but each victim did something that increased their chances of being victims.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the fact that women can do work now, dressed appropriately for that work, without it being interpreted as a come-on. That's surely a huge benefit to society.
I too find all such standards totally arbitrary. They change from culture to culture, and from one time to another. In some tropical cultures it's considered shocking for a girl to show her legs, but bare breasts are normal and fine. In nudist cultures, I imagine one can feel fully "dressed" with no clothes at all. Those societies also wouldn't have the problem of social and income differences being demarked by "fine-twined linens". Without clothes as a marker, would we enjoy a much freer mixing of people from all walks of life, and many fewer petty differences highlighted and exacerbated by what people wear? Who knows! We might just make up other markers.
What's bad is if your culture's styles negatively impact your ability to function and interact with others. Fashions are good if they enrich our lives, and bad if they restrict what we can do and whom we can be. That's why I applaud the direction the changes have gone recently. It only gives us all more freedom to choose.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
erosomniac, I appreciate the clarification. I still don't think your statement that you had never said the woman was at fault in either situation was a fair one, but at this point that is moot.
I believe that your way of looking at this issue, and for the sake of simplicity I am sticking only with the clothing issue here, shifts responsibility for the men's behavior to the woman. If a woman wants to avoid men harrassing her, she shouldn't dress in a certain way. I think we, as a society, need a paradigm shift on this issue. The action is a function of the man, and should not be seen as dependant on the woman, be it her style of dress, attractiveness, or anything else.
I think one of the reasons I have a problem with your statements is that they don't match up with my personal experience. I have experienced the most humiliating street harassment I can remember when I was wearing jeans, (not tight or low,) running shoes, and an oversized sweatshirt, with my hair in a ponytail. In general, I have found that when I am wearing above the knee skirts, heels, and close-fitting tops I get more "polite" attention from men. . . smiles, eye contact, men holding doors. Maybe a whistle. Everytime I have gotten attention that has made me uncomfortable, I have been much more modestly dressed. Attention that makes me uncomfortable ranges from catcalls and whistles from a car that then circles the block to get a second look to a guy walking up to me outside the art museum and saying "Hey baby why don't you come suck my ****." Obviously my experiences are not exhaustive, I am sure some women get harassed while they are dressed more provocatively. But not dressing provocatively is not a way to avoid harassment. The men who are going to harass do it regardless.
As long as we say women should not be surprised if they are harassed when they dress a certain way, we get to stop thinking about the problem. Oh, problem solved, just don't dress like that and it won't happen. We need to stop saying "Well what did you expect, dressed like that?" and start saying "That is not acceptable." Things will only change when we as a society expect them to. Telling women they should expect to be harassed when they are dressed a certain way is, in my opinion, the same as telling men it's okay to harass women.
------
MandyM, I want to address your points too, but for now I have to get ready for work. Hopefully later. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with ElJay. "What did you expect?" is entirely the wrong approach to the problem, looking from the standpoint of society as a whole
I do think it's helpful to girls to understand that *within* a given time and place and society, there are modest and immodest ways to dress, and there are many advantages to choosing modesty for our own personal choices.
I'm still really glad for the immodest girls in all times and places, though, because it's mainly the women who were willing to wear things that were shocking in their given millieu who are responsible for the fact that I don't have to wear a thick black tent with a small slit to be considered modest now in my society. Does that make sense?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidently, I think teachers and parents are fooling themselves to a certain degree if they are trying to teach teenagers what messages their clothes are sending. My impression is that teenagers pay far closer attention to the message their clothes send than any other group - I think they usually know EXACTLY what they are saying to their peer group when they wear what they do.
That is limited to what message they are sending to their peers, though. I think what they don't understand is what message adults and other people take from their clothing. A 7th grader may view someone wearing certain revealing clothes as showing they are mature, cool, and to be taken seriously. An adult may view the same outfit in an entirely different way. It is probably important to teach kids how different groups view their choices of style, but at the same time, I'm not sure if they will always care.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
MandyM, I don't think you can use what you see on TV these days as evidence for morals in general being worse than they were before. Just, again, that we are more open about sex and sexuality. You can find stories of affairs and adultery in literature as far back as we have records. People have always behaved this way. The only difference I see is that we're now much more open and accepting of it.
Is that a good thing? To me, that depends on what part we're talking about. I think being open about sex is a positive. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be having sex, but that we should be able to talk about it clearly and calmly and everyone should be able to make their own decisions about it and not be judged on the basis of those decisions.
I think that the fact that a woman will now leave a spouse that is having an affair is a positive improvement in morals that has been brought about by the same changes in our culture that make it okay to show more skin on TV. I think the fact that I will not be fired from my job and shunned by my family and friends if it is found out I spent the night with my boyfriend is a positive improvement in morals that has been brought about by those same factors. I would much, much rather live in our world with our morals than the one that was here 30 or 50 years ago, to say nothing of the times before that. These morals are not just more conveinent for me, I have no problems stating that I think they are better. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to toss in my two cents, there are some people I know who feel that women who dress provocativly are tempting men. And, precisely because many men are weak willed in that particular area, they are "evil". They're causing men to have impure thoughts. Doing the Devil's work. Etc. Haven't put enough thought to actually analyze their theory, other than to check "are there impure thoughts? Well, yup" and continue on my merry way....
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's exactly the reasoning I've heard my whole life, smitty.
My response is that everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you're having impure thoughts, and you consider that a sin then you're the one sinning, you can't shift that sin onto the woman just so that you don't have to deal with it. If your kids come running to you and one has a bloody nose, it's not likely that you're going to let the other one off just because "He made me do it!"
I understand that you don't agree with that, but that argument makes me very very angry. To me it's men trying to avoid taking responsibility for their own sin who make it. Because afterall, if the woman's tempting them, then the woman is the one who needs to change, and they certainly don't need to stop being tempted, since they're just victims.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main guy who I discuss such things with, his arguement is that if you do something to negatively influence another member of the faith, it's your sin as well as his. Incidentally, the thought on drinking is the same - it's ok to do, as long as your doing it doesn't negatively influence someone else of the faith.
I don't know if it's another symptom of the culture of victimhood I see everywhere, but I do a fair to middlin' job of keeping such thoughts out, and when I do let them in, it's me being weak, and hence my problem and my sin. I don't like laying my faults on other people, personally.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know the old trope about construction workers hooting at women? Making rude gestures, noises or outright propositions?
The last time that happened to me, I was driving past. In a Maxima (so I don't think it was the car, either). I was wearing a black suit. Basically, all the could see was my face (which I admit is probably the one part of me that is most attractive to the opposite sex, but I can't very well hide it).
I refuse to believe that I am at fault for the guy waving, hollering, grabbing his crotch and thrusting like a monkey at a passing car. That IS a lot of activity to cram into the few seconds it took for me to drive past, but he managed it.
O_O Whatever was going on there was sooo very not my fault.
Now, I have gone out with my husband looking a bit tarty, but at his specific request. I wouldn't go out that way unaccompanied, though.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree it's not the woman's fault. If the women are trouncing past nekkid, they should have the self control to behave like gentlemen and (if applicable) Christians. But I'm gonna make up a statistic out of thin air, and say 90% of men can't do that.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's colored by the place I work, people I work around. They can't act like gentleman around fully clothed women. It must be something about the construction industry....
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of men who do construction - one of them is my brother. They are easily among the most gentlemanly and chivalrous men I know.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh they can very well act like gentlemen. They choose not to. Just because they continually make that choice doesn't change the fact that it is a choice and a situation they have the complete ability to change if they so chose. Which I suggest they do because the consequences for sexual harassment today can be steep.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was kidding, Kate. Some of these guys are great, some... not so much. About like any other profession, I imagine.
My profession is haunted by a buddy's constant "She's wearing too many clothes" comments anytime he sees a woman on tv.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one guy Ron used to work with came out of the office to go to lunch just after I dropped Ron off after having lunch together. Ron was walking past the co-worker just as I drove past on my way out of the parking lot (The lot served a little office park, their office wasn't the only one there, so the guy didn't know I was Ron's wife). He said something (I didn't hear and Ron wouldn't say) and kind of hooted and shook. This time I was in the truck, wearing jeans and a big, loose, high-neckline shirt. I doubt he even saw me throughthe glare on the windshield.
The guy was a mortgage broker, like Ron. Ron later told me the guy was into the whole wife-swapping thing. *shudder* He quit not too long after (the owner of the brokerage was a woman; I think he had issues working for a woman, possibly because of his inability to see a female in terms other than sexual ones).
I have been fortunate in my life to have been around very few men so emotionally crippled. And I was an Army brat.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can only speak for myself, but I do know it is more difficult for me to interact with women who are 'showing off' anything. My insticnt is to look - stare, even. That doesn't mean that I do.
The more that is showing, the more difficult it is. Completely naked would be a "run away" situation unless it was completely unavoidable (or appropriate ). It's very possible to be gentlemanly. It takes a conscious choice though, since my inner animal is howling at the moon. To me, it's worth that choice - for religious purposes and for respect. It is far easier to unleash the animal, though. Far easier.
Then again, I'm 23 and... totally unexperienced.
It's not your fault that my body reacts to yours in that way. It's not my fault either. What is my fault is if I do not ignore that reaction, and instead act on it. Conversely, any woman who 'shows off' and then is surprised when low class men (big value judgement there ) act like animals is short on intelligence, frankly. Revolted? Yes. Surprised, no.
Civilization is just a fine veneer. Some people have a thinner barrier than others. In the end, you have a choice how to dress. You do not have the right not to have people respond contrary to your wishes.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, the nekkid thing isn't theory with me. We have a nudist colony on our project But, I'm good at maintaining eye contact. Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You certainly don't have the right not to have people respond contrary to your wishes. But as long as people say it's what's going to happen so it's what you should expect, that sort of action will be seen by some as tacitly approved of by society. Some people do what they can get away with. I believe that it is everyone's responsibility, to the extent that they are able to feel safe in doing so, to call others on socially unacceptable behavior.
This means I talk back to street harassers, in most situations. I've gotten a lot of flack for it from friends, because they think it's dangerous. It probably is more dangerous than not saying anything. But when I don't say anything, I feel that I'm giving these men permission to think of me as nothing more than my body, not to realize how their words are affecting a person.
They are always surprised. They do not expect to be responded to. I've gotten a couple of apologies, more people slink away abashed, and some get mad. Some have seemed offended that I called them on their behavior, as if I was the one who was out of line. And I'm sure they thought I was. But I believe it is important to do.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
As for me, I do not tacitly approve of it. Exactly the opposite. I will treat anyone with respect, even if I do not think that his or her dress is appropriate.
Unless of course they're wearing an Apple Computer shirt. Then they're fair game. Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
On the subject of to what degree people are more sexually active now than they were in the past, my grandmother once told me a story about someone she'd gone to school with complaining, when the unmarried granddaughter of a mutual acquaintence got pregnant, about how kids today had no morals. My grandmother suggested that her friend sit in the back of Joe Genty's model T and talk about what high morals the two of them had enjoyed in that car back in the 20s. Shut the other woman right up, I'm told.
quote:I don't mind showing stomach, but I have a rather high belly button. What is the point of showing your stomach if you can't see the cute little belly button?!
Obviously, jennabean, what you need is a prosthetic belly button.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why haven't there been scores of threads about the fashion of "sagging"? Or how men can walk around literally half naked in public and it's okay? Or the more recent tight pants phenomenon?
Here's what I think: Women are trained and taught to ignore or supress sex drive. Me, I embrace my lust and enjoy my male eye candy. From a distance. Privately, or among similarly oriented friends. I see no problem with passive admiration. Just keep a lid on it. It's *not that hard*, okay? I've never had a significant other of any sort, hence there has been build up of...tension. And yet I somehow manage to walk past hot swimmers in speedos without doing more than give lingering sidelong glances.
It's not a problem with the women.
Yes, knowing how society sucks, there are precautions one can take, and sometimes should. Not always. Not even mostly. Don't (you will hate me for this) get all anal about a little crack showing. I would claim that there is no one who is fit to live outside jail who cannot, with a little effort, ignore tempting views enough to do just fine. So TRY. Pretend a sign of attraction could get you beaten to death. Not that there are EVER any situations like that...
As for aesthetics: If I think I look good, and if I feel good in what I'm wearing, anyone who doesn't like it can unscramble the following: KUUOCFY.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Princess, it's not a matter of "can", it's a matter of "will". Some guys don't WANT to keep a lid on it.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that. But the problem is STILL not with whoever is "showing". Is visible cleavage (of whatever kind) crude and offensive? Whatever. You're entitled to your own opinion. So, is anyone going to come out in favor of crude comments and aggressive objectifying? Or sexual harrassment? Or rape? The jeans are not the problem. Covering up is not a responsibility, but a concession (or a choice because you feel more comfortable that way. Don't bite my head off ).
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jake, it depends on what they say to me. The aforementioned gentleman in front of the art musuem I suggested that perhaps he should go stick it in a lightsocket instead. I may have also mentioned cutting it off for him first, to make it easier. There have been times when I demanded apologies. My default, when I'm not thinking fast, is "Drop dead." But I prefer to personalize. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't biting! I was feeling Han-Solo-esque as I started a sentence with "Princess" I can control myself just fine!
I just remembered my assistant's little mantra - he says if they're showing it, they WANT you to look. Again, I tend not to think about these philosophies - it doesn't matter to me if they want me to look or not, I'm going to do my best to "not" - it has nothing to do with them, it has to do with the type of person I want to be.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone but the Somalian has addressed the point that interests me here. There's been much talk of provocative clothing on women in general, but on the specific issue of crack-showing my question is this: Are there in fact any men who find this attractive? The only men I've heard to express an opinion have been fairly strongly anti-crack.
I don't want to suggest, of course, that a woman's dress must be justified by being alluring to the opposite sex; I would wish the opposite to be true. But I know that many young girls do not dress for themselves, but for others (to attract positive attention from guys, for example), so it would be sad, in a way, to think that all those type girls with their rears hanging out were essentially fooling themselves.
So, if someone could tell me that there are men who find female plumber's crack attractive, I won't have to feel bad for those girls. That will save me energy that I can then spend wondering what on earth some guys are thinking. Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that your way of looking at this issue, and for the sake of simplicity I am sticking only with the clothing issue here, shifts responsibility for the men's behavior to the woman. If a woman wants to avoid men harrassing her, she shouldn't dress in a certain way. I think we, as a society, need a paradigm shift on this issue. The action is a function of the man, and should not be seen as dependant on the woman, be it her style of dress, attractiveness, or anything else.
quote:I agree with ElJay. "What did you expect?" is entirely the wrong approach to the problem, looking from the standpoint of society as a whole
While I understand and completely agree, we're talking about two different things again. You're talking about affecting a change. I'm talking about getting by.
Regardless of whether you think the standards should change regarding women's dress and its affect on men, you aren't going to change it by going out scantily clad all the time and being indignant when harassment occurs.
Similarly, you aren't going to change the standards of property safety by leaving your belongings out and leaving everything unlocked.
As a society, I think we've been making progress in both regards, through other means. That still doesn't mean it's a good idea to go out dressed however you please at all times. And that still doesn't make it any less ridiculous when a woman is surprised at the reactions.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would claim that there is no one who is fit to live outside jail who cannot, with a little effort, ignore tempting views enough to do just fine.
I totally agree with this. Tragically, that doesn't mean there are a bunch of douche bags outside of jail that just haven't been caught yet. I would really hate for our new system for catching these offenders would be to wait until they've harassed/raped someone.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care about looking. If light bounces off it, eventually the image is going to hit someone in the retina. You've just got to be polite about it. Like at an all-you-can eat dessert buffet. My first instinct would be to rush at anything chocolate, knocking helpless old ladies headfirst into waiters, treading on small children...but I generally manage to restrain myself about it. Just, you know, subtley heap my plate with deliciousness, maybe tuck something dry into my purse if there's enough for everybody else.
I'd elaborate on that metaphor but now I'm all crave-y. Time to go nuke some hot water and make hot chocolate.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Replace "chocolate" with "curvy" and you might have the idea, for some men at least. For me, subtle is better.
I wonder if men tend to be more visually stimulated sexually than women are. I of course have no data for this claim, and there are plenty of alternate explanations for this. And perhaps, if this is true, it's a cultural artifact.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if men tend to be more visually stimulated sexually than women are. I of course have no data for this claim, and there are plenty of alternate explanations for this. And perhaps, if this is true, it's a cultural artifact.
The stereotype certainly includes men being more attracted to visual stimulus than women. Hence why all men look at porn while women prefer to fantasize with romance novels - because men obviously are purely visual and women, well, women just need thinking porn.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: While I understand and completely agree, we're talking about two different things again. You're talking about affecting a change. I'm talking about getting by.
Actually, I was agreeing with your clarification completely, and then moving on. The rest of my post wasn't talking about affecting a change, it was working on affecting a change.
I believe that the first three or four posts you made in this thread -- the Dave Chapelle post, your two responses to dkw, and your "shouldn't be surprised" post, are a part of the problem. You think it's talking about just getting by, I think it's fostering an environment where men think it's okay to harass women. The rest of my post was an attempt to explain that in hopes that you, personally, will change the way you talk about this subject.
So I'm not trying to change society by going out scantily clad and then being indignant if I'm harassed. I'm trying to change it by explaining my views to individuals who I think tacity support the status quo by their words and actions. You say you agree with me that there needs to be a change. You perhaps don't agree with me that you're part of the problem, but I ask that you re-read your posts on page one and consider it.
Am I tilting at windmills here? Sure. But that's how you affect change, you know? By dreaming, and acting on those dreams. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that the first three or four posts you made in this thread -- the Dave Chapelle post, your two responses to dkw, and your "shouldn't be surprised" post, are a part of the problem. You think it's talking about just getting by, I think it's fostering an environment where men think it's okay to harass women. The rest of my post was an attempt to explain that in hopes that you, personally, will change the way you talk about this subject.
I see. I don't view it that way, and I still don't see how what I said (in any of the posts) even comes close to attributing blame for harassment to women. But for the sake of affecting a change, I'll think about approaching it differently.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
