Thread: Modesty is in the eye of the beholder Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028882
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Should women have to dress so as to avoid the opprobrium of males? Should men not have to control their own lusts? Two sides of the same coin.
Men (at least those who write history) appear to have always had a problem with controlling their sexual needs. Women appear to have always had the problem of unwanted sexual attraction.
Oh, yeah, every person goes through a stage of thinking "I like how my body is developing. I think I'll try out some clothing/lack of clothing that makes me feel good". That is now known as teen-age.
BUT should religious folk get to determine how everyone else dresses, especially in the present communication era? And especially when "The Rules" about dressing make less and less sense.
Apparently, shoulders are focus for lust in this community. Is this the problem of the wearer or of the officious busybody?
Just a little rant to get you going. Now: Modesty Culture. Why are so many churches (mosques, etc.) involved in confusing rules about what women should wear, given that men are not given the same strictures? Why are men assumed to have the choice of droit de seigneur* at all times.
Basically, why can't men be expected to keep it in their pants?
We could go on to discuss ultra Jews and the harassment of women, but keep it simple: what is there about Christian churches that makes them so offended by things that any sensible male can deal with?
Here is the blogpost which got me going. It includes lots of links if you want to go that way.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Good question Horseman Bree.
I will be interested to hear the answers. I can't imagine what it must be like to be aroused by the visual (I am not and never have been). So it's easy for me to say that women should be able to wear whatever they like - including nothing at all.
But it must be annoying to have a penis with a mind of its own. Winter months must be easier ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
For some reason, I associate this with fundamentalist movements in various religions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I am "reliably informed" that men wearing suits give some women the horn. Where does that leave us?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Taking the High School reasoning as a given, the standard does not matter. It is the deviation from that standard which will draw attention.
For most of modern, Western society that dress is quite modest. Merely having a no bare-shoulder policy makes the shoulder a sexual fixation. Well, would if one lived in an isolated society. But in modern America, even Mormon Utah, that is a ridiculous concept anyway. "I've just watched Kate Upton eat a burger in a pornographic fashion, downloaded nude pics of Kim Kardashian and watched an online porno. But that girl's bare shoulder is giving me the horn!" So, stupid.
But, to answer the OP, yes men should keep it in their pants. The very concept of female modesty is intended to obviate male responsibility and further control women.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Briefing to teenage girls going to the school dance or whatever needs to contain: "The boys will get boners when they look at you, and you may notice it during the slow dances. Make sure to pity them and laugh at them for their lack of self control. Start with words, and remember to use your knee and your left fist if necessary. Some of them will learn self control over time, others won't. Their horniness is their problem."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Odd, because you make it sound like girls never get the horn, and are perfectly chaste in thought, if not deed. Again, I have it on good authority that this is not the case.
Should we then issue warnings to the boys, or should we rather accept that teenagers of either sex will get the horn in close proximity with those they find sexually attractive, and openly discuss how to deal with that?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Doc Tor, the difference is that female teenagers already are usually taught that they must deal with it, and deal with it by restraining themselves. The same is not true re male teenagers.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
We get it both ways. If we dress for comfort (sweatpants) we are accused of frumpiness. A businesslike facial expression elicits comments in the street: "Smile, honey!" Why are we not fulfilling our function of being attractive to men?
So off into the other direction, the heels, the short skirt, the tight dress, the plunging neckline. Suddenly the comments are different -- I leave it to your imagination. Then the expectation is, why are we not fulfilling our female function of having sex with the accoster, here and now?
And so my feeling is: you are on your own, men. I am my own person: my face, my body, my butt, my clothes. I do not exist for you in any way. Your titillation, your erection, your ego, your satisfaction -- all your own, to endure or enjoy. They are as distant to me as Mars, totally not my responsibility or problem.
Unless you make them my problem. Obtrude them upon me in any way, without my explicit invitation (and when I invite you may rely upon it to be unmistakeable) and you will feel my pain. Do you doubt my communication skills?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
There is of course the issue of the come-on. Both sexes must be allowed to invite the other one, for any set of rules to be practical. But a single invitation, honestly intended--not one meant as harassment--given once is probably the least of a woman's problems if she says she is being objectified or harassed.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Briefing to teenage girls going to the school dance or whatever needs to contain: "The boys will get boners when they look at you, and you may notice it during the slow dances. Make sure to pity them and laugh at them for their lack of self control. Start with words, and remember to use your knee and your left fist if necessary. Some of them will learn self control over time, others won't. Their horniness is their problem."
I don't think humiliating people, including teenage boys, is helpful. Buy them a dance belt.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Boogie said:
quote:
Winter months must be easier [Smile]
Sure are.
Having a (as far as I can tell) normal male libido is a f*cking nightmare. It gets a bit better as you get older, but I've heard conflicting reports as to whether it dies away to a blissful nothing, or stays with you as an unrequiteable hassle, into extreme old age. Can't wait to be rid of the f*cking thing.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
What makes people think it is different from female libido ?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Doc Tor, the difference is that female teenagers already are usually taught that they must deal with it, and deal with it by restraining themselves. The same is not true re male teenagers.
I can't speak for all male teenagers, but the Boy has his instructions, and they're no different from the Girl's.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Data on desire, NY Times, respectable but may not be worksafe. (Depending on your workplace.)
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
What makes people think it is different from female libido ?
OK, it's anecdote, but everyone I know well enough to discuss this kind of thing (say about 6 or 7 fellas - and I'm talking thoughtful one-on-one conversation, not pissed-up rhetoric in the pub) says the same thing. No-one wants the male libido. Not the men, because it's a nightmare, and not their wives, which makes it a largely unrelieved nightmare.
Perhaps there is hope.
[ 03. February 2015, 18:56: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Data on desire, NY Times, respectable but may not be worksafe. (Depending on your workplace.)
Are you sure that link wasn't intended for another thread?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Doublethink, I think your link may go to the wrong place...
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Well I've never been in a denomination that only applied modesty rules to women. To me the NT spirit is opposite to "if you've got it - flaunt it".
Of course it is more applied to wealth that sex. But I suppose those who think boys should "deal with" any degree of provocative dress would also believe that, if you feel any feeling of resentment if you are poor and people flaunt their expensive clothes etc, you should just deal with it.
Of course - you should. But in a vibrant christian community i would argue you shouldn't have to.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Data on desire, NY Times, respectable but may not be worksafe. (Depending on your workplace.)
Bugger IOS copy/paste fail again - retry.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
What you feel and think, in your own body and head, is fine. Whatever! But do not obtrude it upon us, the rest of the world. If you do, expect some reaction. Possibly negative.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Doc Tor, the difference is that female teenagers already are usually taught that they must deal with it, and deal with it by restraining themselves. The same is not true re male teenagers.
Not being female, but the father of daughters, and more informed than I'd like to be about the harassment end of things, it also appears to me that women and girls deal with an element of risk that boys and men do not.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Doc Tor, the difference is that female teenagers already are usually taught that they must deal with it, and deal with it by restraining themselves. The same is not true re male teenagers.
Not being female, but the father of daughters, and more informed than I'd like to be about the harassment end of things, it also appears to me that women and girls deal with an element of risk that boys and men do not.
Well, yes. But we were, at that point, discussing whether or not girls get turned on, and you, IIRC, suggested that involuntary hard-ons should be dealt with by physical violence to the male sex organs.
You may wish to reconsider your approach.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, yes. But we were, at that point, discussing whether or not girls get turned on, and you, IIRC, suggested that involuntary hard-ons should be dealt with by physical violence to the male sex organs.
You may wish to reconsider your approach.
Like the devil, proud uncontrolled adolescent hard-ons cannot endure to be mocked (with apologies to Thomas More). Thus, a verbal approach first, followed by further defence as required if the young man wishes to make use of said boner.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Slightly more nuanced, but why would a girl want to humiliate her dance partner/date? I'm not bringing up my daughter like that, any more than I'm bringing my son up like that.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Modesty is a case of to each his own. Unless you
are part of an organization/society that dictates
how one dresses , feels etc. I believe that most people have an sense of decency and won't go out their way to upset other people . OK there are some silly folk out there but I think they are the exception .
As for teenagers they will learn how to get on with each other without silliness. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I deliberately tried to set aside the teen-age problem (for both genders) of the huge chemical/hormonal rush that happens, and the unremitting thinking about things sexual.
My point was about supposed adults who have to harass females about "being available" or "being undesirable", who then move on to threats of physical violence if the female in question doesn't rise (sorry!) to the suggestion; or to the officious male or female who has to police what women look like, even if those officious persons are not (supposedly) involved in the sexual side of things.
Look, I can understand a priest or monk being uncomfortable with a woman who is consciously displaying her attractions. But said priest or monk should not be loudly proclaiming about what said woman might wear on the golf course (which has its own etiquette) or in the shopping mall.
Same way, why do Officious BusyBodies have the right to declare that a small area of bare shoulder is such fetish item that the girl carrying said shoulder must go and hide in shame? Is that not the problem of the OBB rather than the 16-y.o. who is trying to look mildly sophisticated? Yes, there was a hint that the girl had breasts, but so do the most modest daughters of fundamentalists.
Leave the kids alone, and tell me why adults can't be adult.
One could add that there are more serious problems about self-esteem and the public gaze than what mid-teenage kids do: try The People of WalMart
[ 03. February 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
My point was about supposed adults who have to harass females about "being available" or "being undesirable", who then move on to threats of physical violence if the female in question doesn't rise (sorry!) to the suggestion; or to the officious male or female who has to police what women look like, even if those officious persons are not (supposedly) involved in the sexual side of things.
In what country is this happening?
quote:
Same way, why do Officious BusyBodies have the right to declare that a small area of bare shoulder is such fetish item that the girl carrying said shoulder must go and hide in shame? Is that not the problem of the OBB rather than the 16-y.o. who is trying to look mildly sophisticated? Yes, there was a hint that the girl had breasts, but so do the most modest daughters of fundamentalists.
It was a school dance. The school has a dress code worked out by the community. If Officious Busybodies don't enforce the dress code, the students will push the boundaries further and further. Because that's what teens do. If you don't like the dress code, show up at the next school board meeting and have a review of it put on the agenda.
Personally I could do with seeing less plumber's crack and fewer men who deliberately wear their jeans under their butt (makes me want to go over and pull up their pants for them). Alas, apart from indecency laws, there's no dress code for life.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Seems that the girl was not aware that shoulders were sexual come-ons. No-one else anywhere I go would have thought so either. She was dressed in a way that would have been completely acceptable in 1955.
My concern is that SHE felt shamed, while the busybody got away with another reason to make people leave town as soon as they can.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
As a male, I find that male reactions to females are more strongly influenced by cultural factors rather than biological ones. It's what the male thinks when they look at women that controls the body's response, and that is what needs to change.
I have no patience with arguments that male urges can't be controlled. Over the years, from hanging out with old hippies, hot tub parties, clothing-optional beaches, or cooling off in a mountain stream, nudity has never been a big thing. At university my window overlooked the lawn where students studied and sunbathed in various states of undress, including full nudity. No big deal - I just thought of them as people who are making themselves comfortable, and their choice of clothing or lack thereof had nothing to do with me.
One family I knew always took their kids with them to the clothing-optional beach. About the time they were in their mid-teens they (boy and girl) asked if they could go to the regular beach instead - because that was where their friends were, regardless of clothing.
When men talk about women with no outside input or correction to reality, they often develop very distorted perspectives. This can be a group of teenagers who hang out after school, a religious group, or a country. It becomes acceptable, and in fact expected, to express specific views. When women are kept from participating in the national discussion, that drives it further, because it eliminates the most common source of correction back to reality.
So the problem isn't what women wear, it's what men think about women and how to relate to them, particularly when most of their "knowledge" about such things comes from discussions with other clueless men.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I've never been in a denomination that only applied modesty rules to women. To me the NT spirit is opposite to "if you've got it - flaunt it".
Of course it is more applied to wealth that sex. But I suppose those who think boys should "deal with" any degree of provocative dress would also believe that, if you feel any feeling of resentment if you are poor and people flaunt their expensive clothes etc, you should just deal with it.
Of course - you should. But in a vibrant christian community i would argue you shouldn't have to.
But what does that even mean? There exist no dress code which can effect such a statement. Not even a burqa with niqab.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Seems that the girl was not aware that shoulders were sexual come-ons. No-one else anywhere I go would have thought so either.
No one except you has said that shoulders are sexual come-ons.
quote:
She was dressed in a way that would have been completely acceptable in 1955.
And yet was in violation of her school's dress code.
quote:
My concern is that SHE felt shamed, while the busybody got away with another reason to make people leave town as soon as they can.
My concern is that apparently she can't read.
That or she believes the rules apply to everyone except for her and her feelings are the most important thing.
And the busybody didn't get away with anything. The busybody was doing their job.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
There certainly needs to be some standards of modesty. But I think the church should be restrained in hassling teenagers about it.
If you hassle teenagers about dressing like, well, teenagers you will just discredit yourself in their eyes . . . and with some justification.
I remember as a teen in the 70's (an immodest time if there ever was one) thinking that dressing the way us teens did was just normal. Anyone hassling us about it was out of it in my eyes.
Churches and their youth ministries should pick their battles. Trying to get teens to be prim and proper in their dress is usually a losing one.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And we have a fine example in the world today of a religious group heavily policing the clothing of women. (Hi, Saudi Arabia!) Does it work well? Inspire emulation? In fact they are the bad example, worldwide, and any discussion of modesty in dress inevitably gets the word 'hijab' dropped in.
No, whatever we do, we don't want to do that.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It was more fun in the sixties and seventies. There were these fundamentalist preachers announcing that long hair on boys and men was the sign of Satan and that it would cause the human race to die out in an orgy of accidental homosexuality.
Apparently hair length was the only gender cue the ministers had figured out.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet was in violation of her school's dress code.
She was? How? The code calls for straps not less than 2 inches wide over the shoulders. There's considerably more than 2 inches of fabric covering the area between that young woman's neck and her upper arms. No cleavage shows, no knees show; how is she in violation of the dress code?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
The first link in the OP says "The Lone Peak High School dress code states...that “girls’ dresses and tops must have a 2” minimum strap on each shoulder."
Question - are people here objecting to the existence of *any* high school dress code? Should girls be allowed to arrive topless and boys nude? Aren't the Mom's claims that people should be allowed to wear anything that makes them feel good, extreme? Is there no such thing as valid cultural standards for dress in public places?
But - the article says the dress did meet the two-inch strap rule. So how come the Mom's argument is about the existence of a dress code instead of about the doorkeeper's violating the dress code? Why isn't the Mom demanding the doorkeeper be fired and/or apologize effectively such as by a gift of tickets to a rock concert!
That the Mom is attacking a dress code she says the dress complied with instead of attacking those who invented their own code on the spot, makes me wonder if some personal battle underlies the publicity for the incident.
The article claims only girls, not boys, are told what to wear. That's not true in any family I know.
But also, I think there are two separate issues here getting jumbled together.
Modesty has social value apart from the question of sexual arousal or behavior. Different cultures have different standards, often changing by location, what is fine on a beach is not fine at the office. I agree some unfairly target women, but jumping to "there should be zero cultural dress expectations of modesty" (what some in this thread seem to be arguing) seems to me excessive.
I agree men need to keep their body parts to themselves, but also surely women can be aware of the male brain wiring to respond to visuals, and dress with courtesy. Life is not solely about "what makes me feel good."
(Personally I think the girl's dress lovely and very modest.)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Slightly more nuanced, but why would a girl want to humiliate her dance partner/date? I'm not bringing up my daughter like that, any more than I'm bringing my son up like that.
It's more general than that context and boils down to one word. Rape. It changes everything.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
This all takes me back to schooldays when the elderly unmarried senior teacher called a girls' assembly and announced in hushed tones that the girls should take special care to wear the appropriate shoes to the school social. She wasn't talking about the height of the heels. Instead she warned against wearing shiny shoes with the dress as it was known that the boys would take the opportunity to look up the girls' dresses by gazing down at the shiny shoes. I'm afraid we all burst into shrieks of laughter and thus all received a detention and were banned from the social!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Slightly more nuanced, but why would a girl want to humiliate her dance partner/date? I'm not bringing up my daughter like that, any more than I'm bringing my son up like that.
It's more general than that context and boils down to one word. Rape. It changes everything.
There's one hell of a jump between an INVOLUNTARY boner and an intention to rape, FFS.
Can I just reiterate that word INVOLUNTARY again because the subtext here appears to be that it's not. It's not like we're fitted with a hard-on muscle that we can flex or not according to our choice.
[ 04. February 2015, 07:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The decision to rape, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary. The idea that an unwanted erection in a dance is the first step towards rape, or even connected with any likelihood of rape, is a very disturbing vision of sexuality.
[ 04. February 2015, 07:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Having a (as far as I can tell) normal male libido is a f*cking nightmare. It gets a bit better as you get older, but I've heard conflicting reports as to whether it dies away to a blissful nothing, or stays with you as an unrequiteable hassle, into extreme old age. Can't wait to be rid of the f*cking thing.
Even at almost forty, unexpected boners are still a problem but rather that than impotence.
I think these things work both ways. People get turned on but that's no reason to be a pig. Likewise how we dress should fit the occasion, not sending signals we don't intend.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Slightly more nuanced, but why would a girl want to humiliate her dance partner/date? I'm not bringing up my daughter like that, any more than I'm bringing my son up like that.
It's more general than that context and boils down to one word. Rape. It changes everything.
So hang on. Since most teenage boys have involuntary erections (and can even ejaculate while they sleep), they must all be seen as potential rapists?
That's some fucked-up thinking.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
This reminds me of an incident when I was with my first wife (RIP) in a Baptist church one summer's day. One of the deacons commented on her skirt, suggesting that women's knees should be covered because they are distracting to some men.
My wife, as gracious as she always was, said she understood the problem, but didn't consider her skirt was too short. She then asked the deacon if he would wear gloves when serving the communion, because she found men's hands "very attractive"! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
On the old open-top trams, the upper deck originally had a simple railing around it. This disturbed Edwardian sensibilities (as ladies' ankles could be seen) so "modesty panels" were added.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Even at almost forty, unexpected boners are still a problem but rather that than impotence.
I'd be very happy with impotence and a truly dead libido, but I fear the bloody thing lives on in one's head long after the hydraulics cease to operate.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I've always thought guys should go back to wearing robes. It must be horrible having to deal with the embarrassing boner problem.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've always thought guys should go back to wearing robes. It must be horrible having to deal with the embarrassing boner problem.
I would have thought robes are worse. At least if you've got heans and tightish pants you can position it so that it hardly notices.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The Tudor fashion of codpieces is the way to go. Hides everything behind padding.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
While advertising there is something to hide though.
Dress codes are doomed ISTM since the more narrowly you define the line between decent/indecent, the more you eroticise the difference.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
While advertising there is something to hide though.
Dress codes are doomed ISTM since the more narrowly you define the line between decent/indecent, the more you eroticise the difference.
And, even should the proponents of "modest" dress be correct, it is doomed in a pluralist society anyway.
But they are not, as demonstrated in both naked and burqa societies. Sexual attraction is a massive drive and is best discussed rather than attempting to constrain it. Especially by arbitrary, artificial and ineffective means.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
While advertising there is something to hide though.
Dress codes are doomed ISTM since the more narrowly you define the line between decent/indecent, the more you eroticise the difference.
Dress codes are doomed as a means of eliminating sexual desire, sure. But they can be useful as a means of cutting down distracts (note I did NOT say "eliminating"). Which is doubtless why schools have dress codes in the first place.
I figure if I ever had to come up with a dress code, I'd try to set it to limit X where X is conservative enough that when the kids try to dance on the bright line, or even go a wee bit over it, I can ignore it without the world falling apart. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Build in some waffle room, you know.
A pity the people enforcing this one didn't do just that (waffle, I mean. If it truly WAS contrary to the code, which it might not have been).
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet was in violation of her school's dress code.
She was? How? The code calls for straps not less than 2 inches wide over the shoulders. There's considerably more than 2 inches of fabric covering the area between that young woman's neck and her upper arms. No cleavage shows, no knees show; how is she in violation of the dress code?
It's hard to tell from the picture, but the dress code calls for straps to be at least two inches wide, and those look more like an inch or an inch and a half. Personally since the the dress didn't push any of the other dress code limits I'd been inclined to let it slide, but I don't know if this is the type of school where if you let one person slide all the other students start yelling about favoritism or something.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But - the article says the dress did meet the two-inch strap rule. So how come the Mom's argument is about the existence of a dress code instead of about the doorkeeper's violating the dress code? Why isn't the Mom demanding the doorkeeper be fired and/or apologize effectively such as by a gift of tickets to a rock concert!
That the Mom is attacking a dress code she says the dress complied with instead of attacking those who invented their own code on the spot, makes me wonder if some personal battle underlies the publicity for the incident.
This made me suspicious too. The mom says the dress meets the standards, which shouldn't be too hard to prove (it's called a measuring tape).
Instead of a complaining about a staff member making the wrong call, she goes on a crusade against dress codes. And proceeds to make a bunch of statements that are completely false.
Seems the 'my daughter is a pretty princess precious snowflake who shouldn't ever have to change anything about her dress or behavior or anything in order to fit into the community' type of mother.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
OTOH, most of us can do a skate from 'this is a stupid implementation of a rule' to 'actually, this whole set of rules is stupid' quite readily.
A dress code is hardly law of the land: it's a negotiation. As such, it depends on consensus. The alternative is legalism - in this instance perhaps, what constitutes a 'strap' as opposed to other fabric covering the shoulder, how does the opacity or transparency of its constituent material bear upon the matter, what if - well, you can see where that goes. Before long you have a Midrash-dwarfing elaboration of the original rule, and all of this in regulation of the most fickle, ephemeral and changeable phenomenon known to science - female fashion.
What would be nice - if unlikely - would be if all parties stepped back and thought about the underlying objective (which I presume is some level of public order in mixed assemblies). In that context, the dress is as unlikely to cause a riot as anything worn by a young, nubile female can be. (And here, you see, we are back to that wicked old bawd, Nature, the cause of all the problems).
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OTOH, most of us can do a skate from 'this is a stupid implementation of a rule' to 'actually, this whole set of rules is stupid' quite readily.
A dress code is hardly law of the land: it's a negotiation. As such, it depends on consensus. The alternative is legalism - in this instance perhaps, what constitutes a 'strap' as opposed to other fabric covering the shoulder, how does the opacity or transparency of its constituent material bear upon the matter, what if - well, you can see where that goes. Before long you have a Midrash-dwarfing elaboration of the original rule, and all of this in regulation of the most fickle, ephemeral and changeable phenomenon known to science - female fashion.
What would be nice - if unlikely - would be if all parties stepped back and thought about the underlying objective (which I presume is some level of public order in mixed assemblies). In that context, the dress is as unlikely to cause a riot as anything worn by a young, nubile female can be. (And here, you see, we are back to that wicked old bawd, Nature, the cause of all the problems).
Indeed. Sometimes rules get interpreted according to the letter - straps aren't right, cover up! Other times, according to the spirit - the tops of the shoulders aren't covered, but the dress is modest.
What annoys me about each and every story like this is that it places the responsibility firmly on the female. The woman must dress modestly so the man won't have lustful thoughts. How about telling the man that managing his lustful thoughts and behaving like a gentlemen is his responsibility!
I can't believe that in the 21st Century, we're still having to challenge the whole "Eve as the agent of Adams sin" belief. He didn't have to eat the fecking apple!
Tubbs
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OTOH, most of us can do a skate from 'this is a stupid implementation of a rule' to 'actually, this whole set of rules is stupid' quite readily.
A dress code is hardly law of the land: it's a negotiation. As such, it depends on consensus. The alternative is legalism - in this instance perhaps, what constitutes a 'strap' as opposed to other fabric covering the shoulder, how does the opacity or transparency of its constituent material bear upon the matter, what if - well, you can see where that goes. Before long you have a Midrash-dwarfing elaboration of the original rule, and all of this in regulation of the most fickle, ephemeral and changeable phenomenon known to science - female fashion.
What would be nice - if unlikely - would be if all parties stepped back and thought about the underlying objective (which I presume is some level of public order in mixed assemblies). In that context, the dress is as unlikely to cause a riot as anything worn by a young, nubile female can be. (And here, you see, we are back to that wicked old bawd, Nature, the cause of all the problems).
Indeed. Sometimes rules get interpreted according to the letter - straps aren't right, cover up! Other times, according to the spirit - the tops of the shoulders aren't covered, but the dress is modest.
What annoys me about each and every story like this is that it places the responsibility firmly on the female. The woman must dress modestly so the man won't have lustful thoughts. How about telling the man that managing his lustful thoughts and behaving like a gentlemen is his responsibility!
I can't believe that in the 21st Century, we're still having to challenge the whole "Eve as the agent of Adams sin" belief. He didn't have to eat the fecking apple!
Tubbs
It works both ways. Of course men should be able to control themselves. That vast majority of men, that is those who aren't pigs, would agree with that. Likewise, if a woman wants to dress sexily, fine. Most men wouldn't have a problem with that either. However, when dressed in such a way a woman must at least accept that it might cause a reaction among men who find her attractive, sexy, and as long as that reaction remains within socially acceptable boundries then that's ok too.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Likewise, if a woman wants to dress sexily, fine.
If you can define this, you win all the internets.
However, I'm reasonably confident that the human experience is such that everyone will find at least something 'sexy' which is outside of your definition.
School uniform. How is that 'sexy'? Girls who wear it are advertising that they're still at school for fuck's sake. Feel free to ask my daughter how many times she's been wolf-whistled at and commented on on her way to school.
(and yes, it makes me very angry)
To conclude. Women should be free to wear whatever the hell they want. Pretty much in the same way men do. And everyone should shut the fuck up about it, and deal.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[tangent]
I suspect for a lot of blokes it's when their first sexual awakenings happened, it was schoolgirls they were attracted to. Because they were schoolboys at the time.
That and the whole BDSM scene and the obvious connections, of course.
[/tangent]
[ 05. February 2015, 13:20: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
School uniform. How is that 'sexy'? Girls who wear it are advertising that they're still at school for fuck's sake. Feel free to ask my daughter how many times she's been wolf-whistled at and commented on on her way to school.
That's interesting. Your daughter should speak to mine - who was only telling me this morning that people complaining about wolf whistles and comments need to get a thicker skin and wear different clothing.
Bless, it has never happened to her, so she can't really imagine it as a problem.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of fetishes, Doc. But fetishes aside, I think one could come to some kind of definition as to what it means to dress sexily in western society.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I'm with the doc. Everybody, male and female, gets to wear what they want. Everybody, male and female, does not hassle anybody about what they wear. Everybody, male and female, who has difficulty with what others are wearing keeps it to themselves.
The only exception is parents, with their children (no, honey, you cannot wear your snow boots to bed) and the very elderly, who get to make curmugeonly comments as a side benefit (why in my day, a well-turned ankle was enough for a boner, and now they need porn, those undersexed wankers)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
no, sorry, this was inappropriate.
And no, I'm not going to start that argument again on here. It was just inappropriate, live with it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of fetishes, Doc. But fetishes aside, I think one could come to some kind of definition as to what it means to dress sexily in western society.
Go on, then. Let's see what you come up with.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's interesting. Your daughter should speak to mine - who was only telling me this morning that people complaining about wolf whistles and comments need to get a thicker skin and wear different clothing.
The Girl get (quite reasonably) upset. Because, you know, it's school uniform. How can she wear different clothing?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Girl get (quite reasonably) upset. Because, you know, it's school uniform. How can she wear different clothing?
I will put this point to The Daughter when she arrives here later.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of fetishes, Doc. But fetishes aside, I think one could come to some kind of definition as to what it means to dress sexily in western society.
Go on, then. Let's see what you come up with.
In western culture it usually starts with keeping cloths to a minimum, revealing body parts. I think most normal people would agree with that. Don't get me wrong, just in case I haven't made it completely clear, I don't think that men should act like pigs but at the same time if a woman dresses sexily then men should be allowed to find them sexy without being chided for it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of fetishes, Doc. But fetishes aside, I think one could come to some kind of definition as to what it means to dress sexily in western society.
Go on, then. Let's see what you come up with.
In western culture it usually starts with keeping cloths to a minimum, revealing body parts. I think most normal people would agree with that. Don't get me wrong, just in case I haven't made it completely clear, I don't think that men should act like pigs but at the same time if a woman dresses sexily then men should be allowed to find them sexy without being chided for it.
It isn't what they find sexy, but what they think it allows them to do.
Notice. Yes.
Look. Yes.
Leer. Now you're pushing it.
Whistle. No.
Catcall. Shut it.
Proposition. No thank you.
Follow. I'm calling the police.
OK, starting to get the picture?
Not to mention judging, affixing blame, etc.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In western culture it usually starts with keeping cloths to a minimum, revealing body parts. I think most normal people would agree with that.
So you think it equates to just not wearing very much? I used to have a flat overlooking a seaside promenade. Frankly, a spell of warm weather made you want to rush out with sunblock and blankets. Unless your standard is 'it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be there', near nudity is not inherently aphrodisiac.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm sure you'll find all sorts of fetishes, Doc. But fetishes aside, I think one could come to some kind of definition as to what it means to dress sexily in western society.
Go on, then. Let's see what you come up with.
In western culture it usually starts with keeping cloths to a minimum, revealing body parts. I think most normal people would agree with that. Don't get me wrong, just in case I haven't made it completely clear, I don't think that men should act like pigs but at the same time if a woman dresses sexily then men should be allowed to find them sexy without being chided for it.
It isn't what they find sexy, but what they think it allows them to do.
Notice. Yes.
Look. Yes.
Leer. Now you're pushing it.
Whistle. No.
Catcall. Shut it.
Proposition. No thank you.
Follow. I'm calling the police.
OK, starting to get the picture?
Not to mention judging, affixing blame, etc.
And I would agree with that. Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other, I don't know, but I do think that sometimes an impression is given that you're not even allowed to find women sexy. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I get sometimes.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Girl get (quite reasonably) upset. Because, you know, it's school uniform. How can she wear different clothing?
I will put this point to The Daughter when she arrives here later.
The Daughter said the following (not quite what she said before, but maybe it shows she has been thinking about it):
In an ideal world nobody would be prevented from wearing whatever they wanted. But we don't live in an ideal world, and some people like to take advantage of other people's appearance.
She then said it was about risk, and to reduce the risk of wolf-whistles, women should consider how others view the clothing they are wearing. In the case of the schoolgirl, she said that was totally unacceptable because of the likely age difference - and possibly criminal.
In other situations she said it was highly undesirable but what could you do?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Ad Orientem, I think the point is that you don't get additional rights (besides more to see) over a woman just because she's dressed to show something. One can pay a compliment, flirt, or ask her for a date (once) but one could do those if she were in a sweatsuit too. etc.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Ad Orientem, I think the point is that you don't get additional rights (besides more to see) over a woman just because she's dressed to show something. One can pay a compliment, flirt, or ask her for a date (once) but one could do those if she were in a sweatsuit too. etc.
Agreed.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Unless your standard is 'it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be there', near nudity is not inherently aphrodisiac.
The converse is also true. There are some women ( ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
) who'd look sexy to me if they were dressed in old potato sacks. I'm reasonably certain I'm not alone in this, which goes to show that modesty dress codes are, frankly, a waste of time before we even consider their inherent control over what women wear.
Because we're basically talking about that, right? Not what men wear, but women. Sure I can wear long sleeves and cover my head before I go into a synagogue, or take my shoes off to enter a mosque, but outside of religious spaces, no one is really proscribing my choice of clothes.
It's stupid and wrong, and it's a male problem.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sure I can wear long sleeves and cover my head before I go into a synagogue, or take my shoes off to enter a mosque, but outside of religious spaces, no one is really proscribing my choice of clothes.
and golf clubs - my husband's golf club dress code is ludicrous!
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
A. O.:
quote:
And I would agree with that. Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other, I don't know, but I do think that sometimes an impression is given that you're not even allowed to find women sexy. I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I get sometimes.
No-one can prevent you from finding any person attractive (or not so). That is fine if the discussion is internal. You might even say to someone else that the coat/dress/bib overall looks attractive as worn by that person.
The problem becomes noticeable if you try to speak to that other person (being sure that your comment is not threatening, for instance)
And the problem becomes definite if you are trying to impose your views on the person or on the parents or other people about how that person should look. Is there a socially-valid reason for your imposition of your views, or is it just "I don't like it"? Does the imposition make an unreasonable demand? - by which I mean unreasonable to the person and the wider community. How nasty are you going to be about it, esp. given that your are called to love your neighbour, and that neighbour may not be of your religious persuasion (or whatever other groupthink you may be following)
Does a girl who thought she had a nice dress, one that arguably followed what we have seen of the dress code, have to be made into a shamed slut, just because the monitoring person was having a problem with judgment? Could the problem have been dealt with more helpfully?
Do girls who grow up in religious circles have to suffer for a large part of their lives with confused thinking about how to dress and what sex might be, to the point that they can never undress in front of their husbands, or ever actually enjoy sex?
The extreme in this situation is the "ultra" Jewish group that refuses to sit on a bus with a woman on board, and/or spits on people who we would think are dressed "ordinarily"?
Basically, how much are you allowed to intrude your opinions on someone else's life?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I'm not suggesting anything like that. I think most adults are able to dress appropriately, depending upon circumstances and means, by themselves. I just wish these things were a little clearer, that's all. How men and women relate to each other is hard enough as it is without all these little sutbleties making it even more difficult.
[ 05. February 2015, 17:16: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
A friend of mine who is a TV reporter in Utah often ends up reporting on the latest "revealing" dress brouhaha. My favorite comment of his, in discussing how a dress cut low in the back could be immodest was, "Well, apparently the lower back is the devil's crazy-slide."
[edited-so that's how you spell brouhaha!]
[ 05. February 2015, 17:37: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But -- why is his opinion important? Why is anyone's opinion important, except the wearer's?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The thing that always puzzles me about the arguments on this subject is why anyone should claim that anyone, of either sex, has an inalienable right to wear anything or take any risk, without having to consider the consequences? Or, for that matter, why anyone thinks it's a right worth fighting for or getting steamed up about, to wear a skirt so short that it almost reveals what's supposed to be hidden?
Yes, it might be nice if girls didn't have to worry about the hazards of arousing boys' lusts, though if that was the case, would they bother to wear dresses that drew attention to themselves? But there's an element of prudence involved. It would be better if she didn't have to think of these things. But we don't live in a perfect world. Whatever the high principles involved, I'd rather my daughter didn't wear garments that might be misinterpreted, didn't get drunk and didn't walk home along poorly lit streets.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The thing that always puzzles me about the arguments on this subject is why anyone should claim that anyone, of either sex, has an inalienable right to wear anything or take any risk, without having to consider the consequences? Or, for that matter, why anyone thinks it's a right worth fighting for or getting steamed up about, to wear a skirt so short that it almost reveals what's supposed to be hidden?
But that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about whether shoulder straps should be 1.5 or 2 inches wide. If you have an answer to why one should inflame a teenage boy's lust so much as to render him uncontrollable, and the other to be universally recognised as safe, modest and chaste, please let us know.
And also bear in mind that "garments that might be misinterpreted" also includes school uniform.
No, we don't live in a perfect world. One of the things that is imperfect is that women get attacked and it doesn't matter what they're wearing. To say that there's any correlation is a horrible fallacy.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Where does this leave the Stephen Gough situation ? What exactly are we trying to protect ourselves from ?
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about whether shoulder straps should be 1.5 or 2 inches wide. If you have an answer to why one should inflame a teenage boy's lust so much as to render him uncontrollable, and the other to be universally recognised as safe, modest and chaste, please let us know.
This line of reasoning bothers me. I know the assumption in a lot of liberal circles is that dress codes are about inflaming or not inflaming boys' lust, but I think that's incorrect. I think it's about enforcing certain standards for students and making it clear that there is behavior which won't be tolerated.*
I was much happier in a school that had and enforced a dress code (and yes, there is going to be a certain arbitrariness to determining that dress straps should be 2" wide and skirts cannot be more than 2" above the knee and pants cannot be warn more than 2" below the belly button etc., etc.) than in one that didn't. Because there was a dress code in the school that didn't enforce one, but it was enforced by gossip and rumors and nastiness among the students and I wound up feeling that I had to dress the way the other girls did even though I wasn't comfortable with that.
*to include crude remarks made about girls' appearance.
Out of pity for the hosts I won't link to it, but the Daily Show on street harassment was the best take thus far.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This line of reasoning bothers me. I know the assumption in a lot of liberal circles is that dress codes are about inflaming or not inflaming boys' lust, but I think that's incorrect. I think it's about enforcing certain standards for students and making it clear that there is behavior which won't be tolerated.*
Well, that line of reasoning bothers me. This is the dress. The girl's mother reckons it conforms to the standards set by the school. May be it does, may be it doesn't. Looks absolutely fine to me (and it looks absolutely smashing on her).
But look. She's 16. She's well on her way to being an adult. If I got an invitation to a dance which stipulated "black tie", I'd be struggling to interpret that correctly (because I don't get out much, and no one expects too much of authors or scientists), but I'm reasonably certain that I could make a stab at something reasonably close. Only Jerky McJerkface would stop me at the door and say "oh, no sir. That's not suitable at all."
Because this isn't about enforcing certain standards for students. They're not going to school. They're going to a formal dance. And I'm glad to say we had none of this nonsense to put up with when the Girl had her leavers' prom last year. She found a dress she liked within the budget we'd set. We bought it. She wore it. It looked gorgeous. And so did all her friends.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
This line of reasoning bothers me. I know the assumption in a lot of liberal circles is that dress codes are about inflaming or not inflaming boys' lust, but I think that's incorrect. I think it's about enforcing certain standards for students and making it clear that there is behavior which won't be tolerated.*
Well, that line of reasoning bothers me. This is the dress. The girl's mother reckons it conforms to the standards set by the school. May be it does, may be it doesn't. Looks absolutely fine to me (and it looks absolutely smashing on her).
It wouldn't be that difficult for the mother to prove the dress met the standards set by the school. As I said, even if the straps are slightly less than 2" I would have been inclined to let it slide as the dress isn't pushing any other lines.
quote:
But look. She's 16. She's well on her way to being an adult. If I got an invitation to a dance which stipulated "black tie", I'd be struggling to interpret that correctly (because I don't get out much, and no one expects too much of authors or scientists), but I'm reasonably certain that I could make a stab at something reasonably close. Only Jerky McJerkface would stop me at the door and say "oh, no sir. That's not suitable at all."
This may be a cultural difference. There are all kinds of places in America where there's a doorman or bouncer or some other person at the door informing people that they can't come in dressed the way they're dressed (see Horseman Bree's link to the People of Wal-Mart if you'd like to know why that is the case). We're used to it. It doesn't mean you're Jerky McJerkface; it means you've been given a job to do and you're doing it. (Even places without a bouncer frequently have a 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' sign).
quote:
Because this isn't about enforcing certain standards for students. They're not going to school. They're going to a formal dance. And I'm glad to say we had none of this nonsense to put up with when the Girl had her leavers' prom last year. She found a dress she liked within the budget we'd set. We bought it. She wore it. It looked gorgeous. And so did all her friends.
Do you have any idea what happens at a dance for teens in the US when you don't continue to enforce the school's rules? Hell, we can't get most of our students to obey laws (mostly with regard to alcohol and drug use but sometimes involving, you know, not giving birth in a bathroom stall and then throwing the baby in the trash).
I'm glad your daughter and her friends made sartorial choices that you approved of. That doesn't mean that everyone will. Would you approve if someone decided that the lack of a dress code meant the boys could wear shirts but not pants?
(I always find it a little creepy when men argue in favor of teen-age girls' right to wear whatever they want including really skimpy clothing, but that's just because my dad happens to be a leering creepy jerk).
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
This is Utah. Mormons are known for strict dress codes. Here in Arizona (especially places like Mesa, in the Phoenix metro area, and a lot of northern Arizona communities) this is a big issue. There are seamstresses who specialize in altering dresses so that they're suitable for nice Mormon girls to wear to proms. It's not just that boys won't be able to control themselves, it's their whole way of thinking. Mormon Modesty Makes It Challenging To Find A Prom Dress
I think it's wrong for one religion to control the rules at a public school, but -- as I said -- it's Utah.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... In other situations she said it was highly undesirable but what could you do?
Rookie: How to Tell Creepy Dudes to Leave You Alone
(Yes, I read Rookie. Almost every day. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm glad your daughter and her friends made sartorial choices that you approved of.
Bzzt. This is not about 'my approval', and never has been. The point is - given that the school were throwing a party at a local hotel for the graduating Y11s, the girls hit the frock shops (the boys less enthusiastically, but they scrubbed up fine) and we got precisely zero dress code from the authorities. Yes, I'm sure there were some sartorial disasters along the way (I wasn't there, and wild horses couldn't have dragged me there either. But inevitably, there were a bazillion photos), but no fucks were given that day. And rightly so.
Also, you're not exactly selling the US to me as the land of the free.
quote:
(I always find it a little creepy when men argue in favor of teen-age girls' right to wear whatever they want including really skimpy clothing, but that's just because my dad happens to be a leering creepy jerk).
I always find it more than a little creepy when men argue in favour of controlling ever so strictly what teenage girls wear. YMMV.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about whether shoulder straps should be 1.5 or 2 inches wide. If you have an answer to why one should inflame a teenage boy's lust so much as to render him uncontrollable, and the other to be universally recognised as safe, modest and chaste, please let us know.
This line of reasoning bothers me. I know the assumption in a lot of liberal circles is that dress codes are about inflaming or not inflaming boys' lust, but I think that's incorrect. I think it's about enforcing certain standards for students and making it clear that there is behavior which won't be tolerated.
I think these dress codes run the risk of associating style of dress with behaviour, which is absolute bullshit. I once had to give a couple of very smartly dressed lads a Look on a bus because they were harassing a girl because of her heavy rock associated clothing. Good job they didn't push it as they'd have been able to beat me to a pulp, but fortunately I was dressed in studded leather and distressed jeans myself so probably looked harder than I was. Yet who would have passed any dress code in town and who wouldn't?
[ 06. February 2015, 09:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Where does this leave the Stephen Gough situation ? What exactly are we trying to protect ourselves from ?
We are, I suppose, each entitled to decide for ourselves whether this makes the law or the persistent offender look stupid. But why should it be the law's responsibility to proof itself against someone who wants to demonstrate to the world at large that he is a prat?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think he is probably ill myself - but the point remains, exactly what is a modesty code protecting us from ?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Business places often have dress codes. They struggle with how to word them but a woman in a halter top and mini-skirt or a man with shirt open to the belly button and gold chains on his hairy chest don't (n most businesses) convey a message of "we are serious about our work and about meeting high standards for you the client."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You're right of course. But neither does turning up to a business meeting in frock coat, waistcoat, striped trews, cravat and top hat, which is arguably far more formal than a jacket and tie.
But we know not to do that. There doesn't need to be a 'dress code' as such. And if I turn up to my business meetings in a jacket, let alone a shirt under it, people think I've dressed up. Still wearing boots, of course.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The point is - given that the school were throwing a party at a local hotel for the graduating Y11s, the girls hit the frock shops (the boys less enthusiastically, but they scrubbed up fine) and we got precisely zero dress code from the authorities.
Our schools have dress codes. These codes remain in effect during school dances. If people made appropriate choices in the absence of dress codes, we wouldn't need to have a written dress code.
Written dress codes also tend to ensure that people are treated equally and not discriminated against by skin color or body type because all of the teachers are enforcing the same dress code not some vague notion of 'too short.'
quote:
Also, you're not exactly selling the US to me as the land of the free.
Well, good thing I'm not trying to sell the US to you as the land of the free. It isn't. It is the home to the most effective school to prison pipeline in the world, a place where a black man can get sent to prison because a white woman complained that he looked at her in a way that made her uncomfortable or anxious.
quote:
quote:
(I always find it a little creepy when men argue in favor of teen-age girls' right to wear whatever they want including really skimpy clothing, but that's just because my dad happens to be a leering creepy jerk).
I always find it more than a little creepy when men argue in favour of controlling ever so strictly what teenage girls wear. YMMV.
Good thing I'm a woman and all the men I know IRL avoid the dress code discussions for fear of offending someone or getting in trouble.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think these dress codes run the risk of associating style of dress with behaviour, which is absolute bullshit. I once had to give a couple of very smartly dressed lads a Look on a bus because they were harassing a girl because of her heavy rock associated clothing. Good job they didn't push it as they'd have been able to beat me to a pulp, but fortunately I was dressed in studded leather and distressed jeans myself so probably looked harder than I was. Yet who would have passed any dress code in town and who wouldn't?
Why would a written dress code run the risk of causing people to associate style of dress with behavior in a way that simply expecting people to show up dressed 'appropriately' without any guidelines as to what counts as 'appropriate' wouldn't?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're right of course. But neither does turning up to a business meeting in frock coat, waistcoat, striped trews, cravat and top hat, which is arguably far more formal than a jacket and tie.
But we know not to do that. There doesn't need to be a 'dress code' as such. And if I turn up to my business meetings in a jacket, let alone a shirt under it, people think I've dressed up. Still wearing boots, of course.
Well, maybe you've never worked in a business that needed a dress code, most of mine have (and been reluctant but forced to) because a few employees do show up in non-serious clothes and truly do not understand why "beach wear" is inappropriate in an bank job. "It's cute, why shouldn't I wear it?"
A lot of businesses have dress and appearance rules such as no facial piercings other than ear lobes, no tattoos that show, no torso flesh showing between collar bone and knees for either gender, no see through clothes. Many have uniforms, or semi-uniforms like the job I had where we had to wear black.
The question of what impression/communication do we want our clothing conveying is not just a modesty issue. As you suggest, there are times/places when top hat and tails is appropriate and times when it's out of place. Same goes for see-through clothes or beachwear.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Business places often have dress codes. They struggle with how to word them but a woman in a halter top and mini-skirt or a man with shirt open to the belly button and gold chains on his hairy chest don't (n most businesses) convey a message of "we are serious about our work and about meeting high standards for you the client."
But why? Dress standards are arbitrary. Trousers were once for barbarians and then for peasants. Wigs for men were de rigueur.
Do jeans lower productivity?
Dress codes are arbitrary.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
We can clearly distinguish between a dress code for a job (that McDonald's cap, the smock that the nurse wears while she is taking your blood pressure, the tight Hooters tee shirt) and the dress code that enforces 'modesty.' The one supplies a uniformity, authority, and helps the customer identify the wait staff or whatever; the other is purely to keep girls from exciting boys.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do jeans lower productivity?
Dress codes are arbitrary.
But they also contain social signals, because we, as a society, encode all kinds of things into the clothes we wear.
My usual work attire is a t-shirt and a pair of season-appropriate lower body coverings. I could show up to work in a suit and tie, and I'd get asked which job I was interviewing for, or who's funeral I was attending. We have a social norm that people dress casually, and those who flout the conventions tend not to get taken seriously.
I could, of course, cultivate a character as an eccentric, and show up for work in morning dress. If I was good enough at what I do, I could carry it off, but if I was just an average employee, I would be giving the impression that I was taking the piss.
But every now and then, I meet with the kind of people who wear a suit and tie to work every day. To meet with them, I wear a suit. They expect to deal with suit-wearers, and wouldn't take a scruff in jeans and t-shirt as seriously. So, in effect, I would be less productive in my normal attire on that particular day.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We can clearly distinguish between a dress code for a job (that McDonald's cap, the smock that the nurse wears while she is taking your blood pressure, the tight Hooters tee shirt) and the dress code that enforces 'modesty.' The one supplies a uniformity, authority, and helps the customer identify the wait staff or whatever; the other is purely to keep girls from exciting boys.
I'll note that in the case of the nurse and many other jobs (e.g., construction workers), the clothing decreed by the dress code is often to provide protection for the person wearing the clothing and for the person being helped.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do jeans lower productivity?
Dress codes are arbitrary.
But they also contain social signals, because we, as a society, encode all kinds of things into the clothes we wear.
I understand why it is so, I just do not agree that is should be so.
editedfor pr operspa cing
[ 07. February 2015, 03:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do jeans lower productivity?
Dress codes are arbitrary.
But they also contain social signals, because we, as a society, encode all kinds of things into the clothes we wear.
My usual work attire is a t-shirt and a pair of season-appropriate lower body coverings. I could show up to work in a suit and tie, and I'd get asked which job I was interviewing for, or who's funeral I was attending. We have a social norm that people dress casually, and those who flout the conventions tend not to get taken seriously.
I could, of course, cultivate a character as an eccentric, and show up for work in morning dress. If I was good enough at what I do, I could carry it off, but if I was just an average employee, I would be giving the impression that I was taking the piss.
But every now and then, I meet with the kind of people who wear a suit and tie to work every day. To meet with them, I wear a suit. They expect to deal with suit-wearers, and wouldn't take a scruff in jeans and t-shirt as seriously. So, in effect, I would be less productive in my normal attire on that particular day.
I note that the small school where I taught, the kids generally wear clothing that is not "noticeable" - jeans, tees, sweatshirts, hoodies - unless something special is going on. Their friends will question "dressing up", but, as soon as you say "job interview", "team traveling together", "funeral" whatever reason, everyone is OK and supportive. But the school is small enough that everyone at least recognises everyone else. This may be different in big schools with established clothing-cliques.
And most of the kids are actually turned off by displays of too much body.
It is noticeable, however, that a mere generation ago, most sports were played in clothing that was skimpier and more revealing than now: short-leg shorts with that little Vee along each side seam, simple tees rather than those ridiculous basketball tents or layered vests-on-tees, etc. Is it marketing, trying to sell more stuff to be worn, or is it more body-awareness now that everything is sexualized in ads and movies?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
A colleague's husband worked for a German company in electronics which had both German and British offices, and he had to work in both. He needed two sets of office wear. If he did not turn up in the UK in smart suit, shirt and tie, the office thought he did not take his work seriously. If he turned up in that gear in Germany, they thought he took appearance more seriously than work, which required smart casual.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Please don't tell us that he wore lederhosen ... mind you, they are probably more Austrian than German.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Please don't tell us that he wore lederhosen ... mind you, they are probably more Austrian than German.
But are lederhosen considered "smart casual"?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I doubt it ... more like workwear for men in manual occupations, I think. Probably leisurewear today.
I had a little set when I was about 3 (my parents were German).
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Which are, of course, totally modest. (Fairly SFW if your office is OK with buff men wearing lederhosen and nothing else).
But since we've wandered into the semantics of clothing, it seems to be the original dress under discussion ironically enough radiates the message 'I am totally conforming to the ideal of unthreatening femininity: I'm lacy and frilly and pastel and girly'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
But since we've wandered into the semantics of clothing, it seems to be the original dress under discussion ironically enough radiates the message 'I am totally conforming to the ideal of unthreatening femininity: I'm lacy and frilly and pastel and girly'.
I do not think their is an ounce of irony involved. Dress codes, and very likely other parts of that particular one, are often very much about that.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I have a very detailed dress code for work, which lists the decency of tops (not cropped to show midriffs, not low cut, no straps) and skirts no more than 2" above the knee. It lists no trainers and no tracksuits except for teaching sports, no jeans, no shorts ... The proscription on jeans, tracksuits, shorts and trainers is universal for both men and women.
Women are allowed to wear cropped trousers but I was told off for wearing chino shorts that were no shorter than 2" above the knee last summer when it was particularly hot, and were more decent than a skirt would have been at that length.
A previous job had a similar dress code. It does happen in the UK.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
When the subject of modesty comes up I often think of the time I was in Dubai (or was it Doha?) when I saw a local man who was obviously mentally undressing two women wearing full burkas. To me, they looked completely shape-less, but they were an object of lust for him.
The male libido is such, that I don't believe it can be controlled by modest dress on the part of the woman, but it must be controlled by the man.
Now, that said:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But -- why is his opinion important? Why is anyone's opinion important, except the wearer's?
I can tell you why it's important to this male: those freaking yoga pants that all the girls wear these days with no shorts or skirts to cover up their posteriors which might as well be adorned with little more than black paint.
I've spent my whole life trying to control my line of sight, trying to maintain eye contact, trying not to lust, not to objectify, and trying to remain devoted to my wife not just physically but also mentally. And I was getting to the point where I could ignore almost anything except some really intense cleavage... and then they invented those damned yoga pants!
Now, I know it's not the wearer's fault that I find their fully exposed buttocks so visually irresistible, I know that it's part of my spiritual struggle as a man to resist the temptation to look: so I'm not blaming anyone else for my lack of control over my roaming eyeballs, what I'm doing is pleading for mercy. Please, just remove this one stumbling block. Please?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... Now, I know it's not the wearer's fault that I find their fully exposed buttocks so visually irresistible, I know that it's part of my spiritual struggle as a man to resist the temptation to look: so I'm not blaming anyone else for my lack of control over my roaming eyeballs, what I'm doing is pleading for mercy. Please, just remove this one stumbling block. Please?
Nope, sorry, they're ultra comfy. And, as you pointed out, one man's shapeless object is another man's stumbling block. The problem is not what women are wearing, the problem is what men are doing: visually consuming women's bodies. To ask for "mercy" makes it sound like men are the ones being attacked when it's the exact opposite. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... Now, I know it's not the wearer's fault that I find their fully exposed buttocks so visually irresistible, I know that it's part of my spiritual struggle as a man to resist the temptation to look: so I'm not blaming anyone else for my lack of control over my roaming eyeballs, what I'm doing is pleading for mercy. Please, just remove this one stumbling block. Please?
Nope, sorry, they're ultra comfy. And, as you pointed out, one man's shapeless object is another man's stumbling block. The problem is not what women are wearing, the problem is what men are doing: visually consuming women's bodies. To ask for "mercy" makes it sound like men are the ones being attacked when it's the exact opposite.
No, I put myself in the position of the sinner asking for help (mercy, compassion: whatever you want to call it). I'm not attacking anyone, nor did I claim or insinuate that I'm being attacked.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, I can promise to spare you; I wouldn't be caught dead in those (and it's a mercy to everyone, considering my shape). ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
I do think there's some room for human beings to beg other human beings not to cause them extreme temptation and/or misery by their dress. I can't think of any male attire that causes me lust, but if I could banish speedos from the face of the earth, I'd be so grateful. They tend to induce nausea.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Indeed. Never mind about clothing that provokes Lust - what about the apparel that brings you out in Envy, Avarice, Pride and Anger? Or, in the case of my favoured outfits, Sloth?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
but if I could banish speedos from the face of the earth, I'd be so grateful. They tend to induce nausea.
Sorry about that. I wear speedos to swim, which is guaranteed to arouse a storm of titters from the local teenage girls. I don't find the baggy shorts comfortable to swim in. (And no, I'm not in great shape...)
Of course, given that I'm choosing to walk around the swimming baths in speedos, I can't complain if people look. I could complain about catcalls and leers, but if someone found my out-of-shape be-speedoed form worth watching, and their gaze followed me as I walked, I'd have nothing to complain about.
[ 07. February 2015, 21:05: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... guaranteed to arouse a storm of titters from the local teenage girls...
Dude, phrasing...
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, I can promise to spare you; I wouldn't be caught dead in those (and it's a mercy to everyone, considering my shape).
I do think there's some room for human beings to beg other human beings not to cause them extreme temptation and/or misery by their dress. I can't think of any male attire that causes me lust, but if I could banish speedos from the face of the earth, I'd be so grateful. They tend to induce nausea.
Like Leorning Cniht, I find speedos far better for swimming. While his teenage female pool folk might mock him, I have the satisfaction of driving mine away howling in dismay. The swim freaks among them pay no attention to anyone else (and especially me), but blithely assume that we are all paying attention to their steel-like musculature, perhaps pitying us that we are lesser beings.
I am not so concerned about the young women's yoga gear, as they are normally worn with a matter-of-fact air of propriety and contentment as they go about their business. I am puzzled at how they can be comfortable at -25°C.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
No, I put myself in the position of the sinner asking for help (mercy, compassion: whatever you want to call it). I'm not attacking anyone, nor did I claim or insinuate that I'm being attacked.
Personally I think the person who invented lower body coverings with words like 'juicy' written across the butt needs to be taken out back and shot. Not being a lesbian, I have little to no desire to look at other women's asses. But when there's a word written there, my natural inclination is to read it. (And then get yelled at).
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I can't believe that in the 21st Century, we're still having to challenge the whole "Eve as the agent of Adams sin" belief. He didn't have to eat the fecking apple!
Long ago, I saw a footnote in a Scofield Reference Bible, to the effect that "Eve was deceived, but Adam knew what he was doing".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Indeed. Never mind about clothing that provokes Lust - what about the apparel that brings you out in Envy, Avarice, Pride and Anger? Or, in the case of my favoured outfits, Sloth?
Would you also have an issue with shops that display food in ways that are calculated to arouse Gluttony?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Indeed. Never mind about clothing that provokes Lust - what about the apparel that brings you out in Envy, Avarice, Pride and Anger? Or, in the case of my favoured outfits, Sloth?
Would you also have an issue with shops that display food in ways that are calculated to arouse Gluttony?
I'm OK with gluttony. I fact, I'm not that bothered about the others. But if you are going to be moralistic about clothing, it's arguable that the t-shirts made in Bangladeshi sweatshops ought to be more outrageous that some anodyne frock (unless that too was stitched in a jerrybuilt death trap by someone earning 2$ a day which is entirely possible).
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... Now, I know it's not the wearer's fault that I find their fully exposed buttocks so visually irresistible, I know that it's part of my spiritual struggle as a man to resist the temptation to look: so I'm not blaming anyone else for my lack of control over my roaming eyeballs, what I'm doing is pleading for mercy. Please, just remove this one stumbling block. Please?
----------------------------------------------
... No, I put myself in the position of the sinner asking for help (mercy, compassion: whatever you want to call it). I'm not attacking anyone, nor did I claim or insinuate that I'm being attacked.
In which case, it is God that should be asked for mercy. After all, that's who will be punishing the sinner.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... I do think there's some room for human beings to beg other human beings not to cause them extreme temptation and/or misery by their dress. ...
Right. And I said no. So now what? Is the sin now my fault because I wasn't helpful enough?
(And please, please don't think this is personal in any way, because irish_lord99's comments are universal - it's the "You ladies are so hot I just can't help myself" card, and we've all heard it, lots and lots of times.)
If a man really wants mercy from the women he is ogling, well, then, how about apologizing? HONESTLY: don't be flirty, don't refer to body parts, don't pretend it's a compliment, and don't make it her fault. "Miss / Madam, I owe you an apology for staring at you. It's not your fault, and I have no excuse; I was just being very rude. I'm sorry. I hope you have a nice day." A few days of practicing that kind of spiritual discipline will take the all the fun out of gawking. It might even lead to seeing women as human beings rather than buttocks in one's visual field.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Maybe he should be fair an ogle men's buttocks as well.
That being said I think it is time to throw in "A Little Theory of Homophobia" , since it deals with the discussion about how men would feel if subjected to the same sort of ogling. Probably SFW unless you have some people in the office with specific anxieties, as described in the link.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Why? Why should I oblige weak-minded dick-enslaved men in any way? Remember the distance between us, a galactic, a light-years distance. Your lust does not touch me; it has nothing to do with me any more than the lust of planaria, or the sex lives of brine shrimp. It is all, always, forever, only on you. The filth is all yours. I am pure.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
HONESTLY: don't be flirty, don't refer to body parts, don't pretend it's a compliment, and don't make it her fault. "Miss / Madam, I owe you an apology for staring at you. It's not your fault, and I have no excuse; I was just being very rude. I'm sorry. I hope you have a nice day."
This assumes that the level of ogling we're talking about was obvious enough that she noticed it. Yes, I think almost all women have been there where we have to call someone out even though he hasn't said anything. But to me an apology when someone hasn't called you out is horribly awkward and bizarre in its mixed messages.
quote:
A few days of practicing that kind of spiritual discipline will take the all the fun out of gawking. It might even lead to seeing women as human beings rather than buttocks in one's visual field.
Can people stop with the argument that a man who notices and appreciates a woman's body part sees her as only that body part and not as a human being who has an unusually nice body part which she may or may not have deliberately tried to draw attention to in an effort to attract or arouse a mate?
Or am I supposed to assume that the women who tell me that I have the worst case of white girl ass they've ever seen only see me as a buttocks that happens to be in their field of vision?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Would you also have an issue with shops that display food in ways that are calculated to arouse Gluttony?
I have a problem with supermarkets that put a display of chocolates, crisps and sweets alongside the queue for the checkout till.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
HONESTLY: don't be flirty, don't refer to body parts, don't pretend it's a compliment, and don't make it her fault. "Miss / Madam, I owe you an apology for staring at you. It's not your fault, and I have no excuse; I was just being very rude. I'm sorry. I hope you have a nice day."
This assumes that the level of ogling we're talking about was obvious enough that she noticed it. Yes, I think almost all women have been there where we have to call someone out even though he hasn't said anything. But to me an apology when someone hasn't called you out is horribly awkward and bizarre in its mixed messages.
quote:
A few days of practicing that kind of spiritual discipline will take the all the fun out of gawking. It might even lead to seeing women as human beings rather than buttocks in one's visual field.
Can people stop with the argument that a man who notices and appreciates a woman's body part sees her as only that body part and not as a human being who has an unusually nice body part which she may or may not have deliberately tried to draw attention to in an effort to attract or arouse a mate?
Or am I supposed to assume that the women who tell me that I have the worst case of white girl ass they've ever seen only see me as a buttocks that happens to be in their field of vision?
Dunno, but racist comments are generally not a sign of huge amounts of empathy ? Maybe they are just seeing you in terms of your physical appearance and not your personhood ?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why? Why should I oblige weak-minded dick-enslaved men in any way? Remember the distance between us, a galactic, a light-years distance. Your lust does not touch me; it has nothing to do with me any more than the lust of planaria, or the sex lives of brine shrimp. It is all, always, forever, only on you.
Agreed 100%. Women should always be able to wear whatever they like (of course work dress codes, illegal slogans etc don't come into this statement)
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The filth is all yours. I am pure.
No - it isn't filth - mostly it's natural arousal and men simply have to deal with it. I'm sure it just become part of life.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am pure.
really????
I'm not! I'm not aroused by what I see, but that doesn't make my thoughts pure in any shape or form - it simply means they are very much under my control, I'm rarely inadvertently aroused. Lucky me.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Walking through Cardiff a little while ago, I saw, as one does fairly often round here, a Muslim woman in the full Phantom Flan Flinger kit- every part of her body covered except her eyes- which were absolutely beautiful and flashed through the small gap between her scarf and her veil in a way that made me go weak at the knees. So I suppose you can try to dress modestly but you still can't guarantee that some weak sap like me won't have a moment of even mild arousal.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Muslim men have a dress code, too.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
More precisely, Boogie, the lust that the male ogler feels does not imply any reciprocality on my part.
This is the nub of it: that the horn dog actually believes that the girl he is ogling feels the same desire. It is impossible for him to believe that she is thinking about her nuclear physics problem, worrying about her mother with cancer, considering whether to buy a new part for the car or simply to junk the thing. His lust is assumed to override all of her agendas; she exists only for him.
Such is the power of this belief that the ogler acts on it -- a comment, a pinch. And then he is insulted and hurt when the woman (her mind dragged forcibly away from nuclear physics) reacts negatively.
No. You may not lay your mental issues upon me. I am separate from them. Wallow in your sty. You cannot drag me in.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Power. It is about power. That is why the fact that women can be just as lustful as men and men are generally not threatened or concerned about that.
For all the talk of male modesty and dress codes, the fact remains the punishment and censure lies more heavily on women in the vast majority of cultures.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is the nub of it: that the horn dog actually believes that the girl he is ogling feels the same desire.
Weird!
Why on earth would she?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is the nub of it: that the horn dog actually believes that the girl he is ogling feels the same desire.
Weird!
Why on earth would she?
One, I do not think it is that simple.
Two, power. Those with it do not care as much about the thoughts of those subject to it. Generally speaking, of course.
Three, we humans live inside our own heads. It is the only reality we come close to knowing. We tend to project that onto others, some more so, of course. Men do it more because of point two. IME, women with power tend to act the same way. More of the casual physical sexual harrassment I've received has been from women.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
HONESTLY: don't be flirty, don't refer to body parts, don't pretend it's a compliment, and don't make it her fault. "Miss / Madam, I owe you an apology for staring at you. It's not your fault, and I have no excuse; I was just being very rude. I'm sorry. I hope you have a nice day."
This assumes that the level of ogling we're talking about was obvious enough that she noticed it. Yes, I think almost all women have been there where we have to call someone out even though he hasn't said anything. But to me an apology when someone hasn't called you out is horribly awkward and bizarre in its mixed messages. ...
Nope, I was not assuming that at all. Just because she didn't notice or complain doesn't mean he wasn't doing it and it wasn't rude. My apology script was very specific in order to eliminate the creep factor - I specifically said don't be flirty and don't mention her ass. I left out walk away as soon as it's delivered, with no expectation of acknowledgment or reward. As requested, it's a personal spiritual discipline for the sin of ogling. Offering an honest apology when someone hasn't called you out shows that you can figure out that you've done something wrong and accept responsibility all on your own. I believe that's generally considered a good thing.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is the nub of it: that the horn dog actually believes that the girl he is ogling feels the same desire. It is impossible for him to believe that she is thinking about her nuclear physics problem, worrying about her mother with cancer, considering whether to buy a new part for the car or simply to junk the thing. His lust is assumed to override all of her agendas; she exists only for him.
Depends on the horn dog I suppose. I've always felt guilty about looking because it's objectification of whomever I'm looking at; but I've never imagined that she's in any way interested in me. Chalk it up to low self-esteem I guess.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why? Why should I oblige weak-minded dick-enslaved men in any way? Remember the distance between us, a galactic, a light-years distance. Your lust does not touch me; it has nothing to do with me any more than the lust of planaria, or the sex lives of brine shrimp. It is all, always, forever, only on you. The filth is all yours. I am pure.
(Don't know if this was for me specifically, but...) The filth is all mine, I agree and have said so up-thread. I place no blame on any woman for anything she wears, and have said so.
Why should you oblige? Because it would be kind. I'm doing my best to oblige what I assume is the standard desire of women and struggling to not ogle: and I never flirt, hit on, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
(And please, please don't think this is personal in any way, because irish_lord99's comments are universal - it's the "You ladies are so hot I just can't help myself" card, and we've all heard it, lots and lots of times.)
If a man really wants mercy from the women he is ogling, well, then, how about apologizing? HONESTLY: don't be flirty, don't refer to body parts, don't pretend it's a compliment, and don't make it her fault. "Miss / Madam, I owe you an apology for staring at you. It's not your fault, and I have no excuse; I was just being very rude. I'm sorry. I hope you have a nice day." A few days of practicing that kind of spiritual discipline will take the all the fun out of gawking. It might even lead to seeing women as human beings rather than buttocks in one's visual field.
It would also lead to an unwanted confrontation with the local police, but I take your point.
Please forgive me for my weaknesses.
And I can't help but feel that this has gotten personal, which I know I opened myself up for with my original post on this thread. I let myself vent about my personal struggles, which was out of line for Purg, so I don't begrudge anyone their responses.
I guess my original point was that standards for modesty must lie somewhere between "It's your fault woman for making me feel this way." (Islam) and "I'll dress as provocative as I want, and to hell with you if you look."
As lil' Buddha says, it's all about power, but that cuts both ways. Women wield an incredible amount of power with how they dress. To pretend they do not is disingenuous.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Walking through Cardiff a little while ago, I saw, as one does fairly often round here, a Muslim woman in the full Phantom Flan Flinger kit
I've got an admirer?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Thumbs up for that post. I'm with you one that.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Walking through Cardiff a little while ago, I saw, as one does fairly often round here, a Muslim woman in the full Phantom Flan Flinger kit
I've got an admirer?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why? Why should I oblige weak-minded dick-enslaved men in any way? Remember the distance between us, a galactic, a light-years distance. Your lust does not touch me; it has nothing to do with me any more than the lust of planaria, or the sex lives of brine shrimp. It is all, always, forever, only on you. The filth is all yours. I am pure.
You yourself possibly are, at least in theory. But personally, I suspect several of us have crossed the borders of the Realm of Common Sense without our passports.
Has no woman on this thread (or elsewhere) ever donned a particularly "hot" outfit in actual hope of eliciting a *cough* reaction from a man? Granted, it may be one particular guy whose reaction we're hoping for rather than the hoots and leers from hordes of random unsavoury strangers we're going to pass en route to wherever The Guy is.
I've done this. I've heard other women admit to this. Further, a woman who works at making herself sexually alluring, knowing that (generally speaking) men are apt to respond to visual stimuli is just as guilty of objectifying men as men may be of objectifying her. Shouldn't she take at least a little responsibility for deliberate efforts to arouse the, er, object of her desires (and coincidentally, any number of others attracted to such stimuli in the process)?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I like the analogy of food, upthread. I am as I am, perhaps quite a hot tamale. But just because the food is there does not mean you get to eat it, to touch it, to even step into the restaurant where it is served.
You are on your own. Manage your appetite by yourself. Do not involve me. I do not dress for you. If I am dressing for some other person, where do you come into it? It has nothing to do with you, but only with me and that other. The smell of the bakery is attractive, yes. Get your own doughnut.
I cannot express to you how not-personal this is. (If the analogy of planaria and brine shrimp does not do it, what will?) If only we could convince you, all of you men, that it is all, always, not-personal! When it moves to personal, be assured you will know it. In the meantime, the default must and shall be that it is not!
WOMEN DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU. We are our own persons. Everywhere. Always.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
When it moves to personal, be assured you will know it.
If only that were true.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I like the analogy of food, upthread. I am as I am, perhaps quite a hot tamale. But just because the food is there does not mean you get to eat it, to touch it, to even step into the restaurant where it is served.
I'm with you at not getting to eat or touch the food. You lose me at the restaurant door. If you, as an unattached woman, have dressed to catch the eye of Guy A at a party, dance, the pub, a college mixer, and Guy A has as yet evinced no special notice of you, how is Guy B, C, D, . . . Z supposed to divine that you're not trying to catch his eye instead? And why is he not entitled to at least inquire?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are on your own. Manage your appetite by yourself. Do not involve me.
And it's entirely possible that this is exactly why Guy A has yet to notice you.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do not dress for you. If I am dressing for some other person, where do you come into it? It has nothing to do with you, but only with me and that other.
All very well and good, but where I live, people don't come equipped with extrasensory perception. When attractive people have got themselves dressed to the nines in an effort to make themselves appealing to potential partners, how are those potential partners supposed to discern whether or not to approach one another, except by actually doing so?
The scenario you paint reminds me of 7th-grade sock-hops, with all the boys lined up on one side of the gym staring at the girls lined up on the other side, and nobody daring to so much as cross the floor and ask for a dance.
Isn't that a stage we're expected to mature past?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The smell of the bakery is attractive, yes. Get your own doughnut.
It's hard to see how he's going to pull this off when, according to you, he's not even allowed in the bakery.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
. . . WOMEN DO NOT EXIST FOR YOU. We are our own persons. Everywhere. Always.
If this were true, the planet would be considerably less crowded than it is. We are social and biological beings who, in fact DO exist, to a considerable extent, for each other. While I can't condone the notion of entitlement to sex, or ownership of one human by another, your stance strikes me as impractical and unrealistic, to say nothing of not squaring very well with the ordinary realities of the single life.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I tell you, women are able to communicate. We are quite smart. When we are interested, we will tell you. You don't hear an invitation? A clue.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I tell you, women are able to communicate. We are quite smart. When we are interested, we will tell you. You don't hear an invitation? A clue.
It might well be true for you. It's not necessarily true for everyone else.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It might well be true for you. It's not necessarily true for everyone else.
Can you support her communicative abilities with evidence thereof? She didn't answer a single one of the questions I posed. She also apparently thinks I'm a man.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I don't know, but Brenda's attitude was the kind of thing that was getting me vexed earlier in the thread.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Brenda Clough: I tell you, women are able to communicate. We are quite smart. When we are interested, we will tell you. You don't hear an invitation? A clue.
What planet are you on? That's not how it happens.
I've been involved with a number of women, from one-night stands to longer relationships. Never ever has a woman explicitly told me she was interested in me.
In the majority of cases, that's not how it works. It almost never goes through explicit, straitforward communication, but through implicit signals. Both ways.
If I had waited for a woman to explicitly tell me she likes me, I'd still be single.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
This assumes that the level of ogling we're talking about was obvious enough that she noticed it. Yes, I think almost all women have been there where we have to call someone out even though he hasn't said anything. But to me an apology when someone hasn't called you out is horribly awkward and bizarre in its mixed messages. ...
Nope, I was not assuming that at all. Just because she didn't notice or complain doesn't mean he wasn't doing it and it wasn't rude. My apology script was very specific in order to eliminate the creep factor - I specifically said don't be flirty and don't mention her ass. I left out walk away as soon as it's delivered, with no expectation of acknowledgment or reward. As requested, it's a personal spiritual discipline for the sin of ogling. Offering an honest apology when someone hasn't called you out shows that you can figure out that you've done something wrong and accept responsibility all on your own. I believe that's generally considered a good thing.
OK, but I find it creepy when a guy apologizes to me for something I didn't even notice or give The Look to. It seems to be a weird way of making everything all about him and his lust (or, in this case, spiritual development). YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
You yourself possibly are, at least in theory. But personally, I suspect several of us have crossed the borders of the Realm of Common Sense without our passports.
Personally I was surprised that we've apparently gone back to viewing sexual desire or lust (which I think ideally should be reserved for your marriage partner although most of us fall short of that ideal) as filth.
Purity. Weird concept, that.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It shouldn't be. But you can see why -- when it is hitched to harassment, street comments, and all this ugliness and venom -- that it is regarded that way.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It shouldn't be. But you can see why -- when it is hitched to harassment, street comments, and all this ugliness and venom -- that it is regarded that way.
Well, no, I obviously don't (and perhaps can't) see why.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I tell you, women are able to communicate. We are quite smart. When we are interested, we will tell you. You don't hear an invitation? A clue.
Perhaps all of this applies to some women - and some men too - at least some of the time. But I'd be surprised if it applied to all women or men all of the time.
What this thread shows is how easy it is to fall into stereotypes. Teenage girls are said to be demure, quiet and virginal, with no interest at all in sex. That wasn't the position when I was a teenager, 50 years ago. Teenage boys are said to be randy, all of the time thinking of nothing but sex. (I'm reminded of the 60's joke that half all male college students are thinking of sex at any one time - and the other half are doing something about it, but let's pass over that.) Indeed, some of the posts here would have us believe that you have only to mention to a boy the name of a girl living within a 50 km radius for him to get an erection, and instantly go off and rape 22 women. Now that is an exaggeration. In truth, the radius is as low as 5 km and only 7 women will be raped.
Some more nuanced thought is in order.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Just dropping in to support Irish Lord
quote:
In which case, it is God that should be asked for mercy. After all, that's who will be punishing the sinner.
My sig says I don't believe that.
Sounds to me like you plan to eat that food offered to idols, just whenever you f****** well feel like it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
OK, but I find it creepy when a guy apologizes to me for something I didn't even notice or give The Look to. It seems to be a weird way of making everything all about him and his lust (or, in this case, spiritual development). YMMV.
Personally I would also imagine there is a high chance of that apology coming out badly. If one is caught out doing that I think an embarrassed glance away would be communicative enough.
I also think one must be slightly proportionate about this. Sexual harassment is clearly beyond the pale and sexual harassment can take the form of body language including lecherous leers. On the other hand a glance that rests on the buttocks for a little too long than is seemly doesn't really seem like the worst infraction.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Here's the thing:
The vast majority of people pair up on a long-term basis, even for life. Prior to that lifetime pairing up, many of them "try out" various partners in shorter-term arrangements (and not all of these involve actual sex).
But most of the arrangements, however long or short, develop out of some initial mutual attraction, and attraction depends at least in part on appearance. Dress, as one aspect of appearance, is widely understood to be a form of communication. If a male dresses in tweeds he's communicating something about himself that is quite different from what the male wearing black leathers, tats, and chains is communicating. A female wearing a power suit sends a different message than a woman dressed like the girl from the OP.
And that message is a broadcast, not a private phone call. Every sighted individual within line of that person's sight receives (granting room for varying and mis- interpretations) that message. Some will see the OP girl and, if she's not already on a date's arm, will think, "That's the doughnut for me," walk over, and try to chat her up. Is this wrong? If so, why? If she likes what that individua seems to present, a conversation, at least, may ensue. If she doesn't like what she sees/hears in that initial encounter, she can, indeed, communicate her lack of interest by brushing him off with "Sorry -- I'm waiting for someone."
Brenda Clough's scenario seems to suggest that the male in this situation is dead wrong to so much as look at the unattached but attractive-to-him female; that he's to assume from the get-go that she's not for him; that he egregiously crosses some sort of line by even wandering over and offering a "Good evening" to see how the woman reacts. Rather, he's apparently supposed to hold up a wall and hope and wait until some woman wanders up and murmurs "Good evening" to him.
IME, this is, rightly or wrongly, not how most men and women are socialized to operate in the partner-search phase(s) of their lives, and does not square with how most people behave in situations where singles mingle.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I think what I am advocating is simple. We treat each other as human beings. Not a pair of breasts to which an ancillary support system is attached; not entertainment walking down the sidewalk.
I had not thought I would need to offer an example, but if you insist? Like this: street harassment
Don't do that, okay?
So -- you see her across the room, and she's attractive. You like that dress! Don't go up and comment on her rack. Address her, yes! as you would another human being. Talk about sports. Ask her if she comes here often. (Do not ask her her astrological sign.) Critique the sermon. And if she's not interested, give her the agency that you would (!) a man. She's busy, she's married, her sister is starting chemo tomorrow and she's frantic with worry -- for whatever reason, it's not clicking. Move on.
This is not difficult.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
OK, it is simple: don't assume. And be polite.
Do not assume the "message" you think you see is the one being sent or that you are the intended recipient.
Be polite in ascertaining that information.
(X-post with BC)
Second edit to add: a tad less hyperbole earlier would have, perhaps, been a more effective message?
[ 10. February 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Do not ask her her astrological sign.
What? That was my chat-up line throughout the 80's!
Me: "Hay babe, what's your star sign? Let me guess... virgo, the prettiest one!"
Her: "F**k off."
Seriously, do you need to define in detail what happens millions of times in millions of pubs, clubs and school discos around the world every Friday night? It seems like an attack of the bleedin' obvious to me.
I don't think men need to be told "don't be rapey". If you are rapey then no amount of telling will stop you, and if you are - like 99.999% of men on the planet - not remotely rapey then you don't need telling anyway.
And are you serious about expecting a man to walk up to a woman and say "Sorry pet but I was having a good look at your knockers from the other side of the park. Sorry about that"?
Because one of two things are going to happen. Either the bloke will get a smile, an invitation to buy her a drink and the chance of a bit more "looking" later on; or more likely he will end up on the sex offenders register! In fact the odds on either will change depending on whether it happens at 9 o'clock on Monday morning in Tesco, or at 1 am on Saturday morning in The Roxy nightclub.
[ 10. February 2015, 13:55: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think men need to be told "don't be rapey". If you are rapey then no amount of telling will stop you, and if you are - like 99.999% of men on the planet - not remotely rapey then you don't need telling anyway.
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I would agree most men are not looking to grab women off the street and force sex. But the number goes up for pushing the boundaries. Date rape for instance. Lewd comments, grabbing, "accidental" contact, etc. It isn't just rapists and good people out there, a lot of room for in-between.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I too had thought guys understood the "obvious" boundaries until I saw a survey of male college students where about half said that if you buy a woman a dinner she has agreed to have sex with you generally. Now even if she has agreed, she is allowed to withdraw consent obviously, but people have weak self control, and to have almost half those college men think they had gotten consent already....
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I would agree most men are not looking to grab women off the street and force sex. But the number goes up for pushing the boundaries. Date rape for instance.
In particular, surveys of US college men reveal that s significant number of men have used force to obtain sex, or had sex with someone who was drunk to incapacity and not able to consent. A very much smaller number of men claim to have raped.
So we have a significant number of rapists who don't think that what they have done is actually rape. That's a problem that is, at least in principle, fixable with education.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Brenda Clough writes:
quote:
Address her, yes! as you would another human being. Talk about sports. Ask her if she comes here often. (Do not ask her her astrological sign.) Critique the sermon. And if she's not interested, give her the agency that you would (!) a man.
Aside from the obvious answers (1) Deuteronomy 10.12, 2) Augustine on Christian Teaching, 3)the canons of Niceaea, and 4) general lameness), why on earth would one not ask a person their astrological sign?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is not difficult.
Well it isn't in that post, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I tell you, women are able to communicate. We are quite smart. When we are interested, we will tell you. You don't hear an invitation? A clue.
I would have read that as rather more stark advice then you subsequently gave. On the face of it waiting for an invitation is different from making an overture and then being sensible about the response.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
4) general lameness
I think it's no. 4. And the dangers of deliberate sleaziness which could come across as purposely crass and border on harassment in some cases.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
So, gone are the days of 'Is that a gun in your pocket or are you pleased to see me?' it would seem.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Ditto segues from star signs to the big dipper.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Astrology dates you, terribly. But as in all social situations, it's, y'know, situational. It may be perfectly appropriate for the chicks you hit on and you may enjoy a roaring success every time. There is no accounting for taste.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I don't think men need to be told "don't be rapey". If you are rapey then no amount of telling will stop you, and if you are - like 99.999% of men on the planet - not remotely rapey then you don't need telling anyway.
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
I would agree most men are not looking to grab women off the street and force sex. But the number goes up for pushing the boundaries. Date rape for instance. Lewd comments, grabbing, "accidental" contact, etc. It isn't just rapists and good people out there, a lot of room for in-between.
Exactly, like the guy who felt me up during the passing of the peace at church. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
But I'm with deano on the undesireability of trying to police every interaction at watering holes on Friday nights.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I too had thought guys understood the "obvious" boundaries until I saw a survey of male college students where about half said that if you buy a woman a dinner she has agreed to have sex with you generally. Now even if she has agreed, she is allowed to withdraw consent obviously, but people have weak self control, and to have almost half those college men think they had gotten consent already....
The dinner survey I saw was done with 11-14 year olds and a large portion of both the male and female kids thought that (thanks porn and hookup culture!).
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In particular, surveys of US college men reveal that s significant number of men have used force to obtain sex, or had sex with someone who was drunk to incapacity and not able to consent. A very much smaller number of men claim to have raped.
So we have a significant number of rapists who don't think that what they have done is actually rape. That's a problem that is, at least in principle, fixable with education.
Being a government guinea pig, I have sat through way way too many surveys where the ideology of the survey designer was apparent in the framing of the questions and the options they gave you for answering (I've also sat through a bunch where I couldn't even understand the survey question and the person administering it said they weren't allowed to rephrase the question into something I might be able to answer). It's made me suspicious of them.
On every college campus I've ever been on, the only thing more education about sexuality and consent would do is lead to the sororities holding a march where they're chanting 'no means yes and yes means anal.' Linguistically speaking, right now the word rape means somewhere between nothing and 'some kind of violation'.
Also, none of the surveys I've seen asking about this kind of stuff have asked whether or not the person thought that was morally acceptable behavior. I suspect people who have gotten yelled at by girls who were too drunk to consent and somehow expected them to know that are skewing the results. This is why they're now joking about having to accept that women have no agency whatsoever and about having to carry around a breathalyzer and a written consent form.
The other reality is that Americans as a whole simply do not agree on what sexual ethics are or should be and I have my doubts that that will ever change. (Subgroups agree - but with Obama's new plan to make everyone in the country a college student I have a hunch the fighting is about to ramp up another notch).
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Well, no worries - the definitive moral guidebook (50 shades of Grey) is now widely available.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think what I am advocating is simple. We treat each other as human beings. Not a pair of breasts to which an ancillary support system is attached; not entertainment walking down the sidewalk.
I had not thought I would need to offer an example, but if you insist? Like this: street harassment
Don't do that, okay?
So -- you see her across the room, and she's attractive. You like that dress! Don't go up and comment on her rack. Address her, yes! as you would another human being. Talk about sports. Ask her if she comes here often. (Do not ask her her astrological sign.) Critique the sermon. And if she's not interested, give her the agency that you would (!) a man. She's busy, she's married, her sister is starting chemo tomorrow and she's frantic with worry -- for whatever reason, it's not clicking. Move on.
This is not difficult.
I would affirm every syllable of that post, but it's miles away from what you posted up until now, in content and in tone.
The personal, internal conflict I described earlier in this thread was worded (I thought) to indicate that I don't view the women in yoga pants as "a pair of breasts to which an ancillary support system is attached; [or] entertainment walking down the sidewalk."
If there were something I was doing or wearing that elicited an undesireable and involuntary response from a majority of women (or men, for that matter), I would feel compelled to stop. That, in my mind, is treating each other like human beings.
I can't imagine that I would cling so tightly to my 'right' to do or dress as I please and so disdain those with the unintended, undesired, hormonal response so as to ask quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Why? Why should I oblige weak-minded [cunt]dick-enslaved [wo]men in any way? [snip] The filth is all yours. I am pure.
We're all just sinners on this planet: me more than anyone else I know, including anyone on these boards, I'm sure. Why is it that we find it so hard to help each other out, just a little bit?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The dinner survey I saw was done with 11-14 year olds and a large portion of both the male and female kids thought that (thanks porn and hookup culture!).
11-14 year olds are buying each other dinner these days? Wow - they are advanced! Thanks, porn and hookup culture!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But do you see what you are saying? It is the job of all women, everywhere, to help you manage your overwhelming lust, by wearing long sleeves/high necklines/burquas/whatever. And the corollary is that when we do not do this, we deserve the bad things that ensue. This is a slippery slope, because men's actions cannot be controlled in this way; the turn-on continually shifts -- from short skirts to ankles to hair to foreheads, which had better be veiled lest we be soliciting rape.
I deny that that is our job at all, in any way. What we wear has nothing to do with it. It is your job to manage what is in between your ears, or between your legs. It is not any woman's responsibility.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
I never said it was your 'job' or 'responsibility'.
I'm simply asking if you can be empathetic, and if so, what do you do with that empathy?
How does 'meat sacrificed to idols' play into this situation?
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the corollary is that when we do not do this, we deserve the bad things that ensue.
Just to add, if you think I'm saying that, then you're reading my posts through some pretty distorted blinders.
[ 11. February 2015, 02:29: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
.. I'm simply asking if you can be empathetic, and if so, what do you do with that empathy? ...
OK, so let's say we all agree to not wear tight yoga pants because we empathize with one guy. Oh, but the next guy is crazy for long hair, so we have to cover that. And then there's the leg guys, so down go the hemlines. And then there's the ones turned on by bare arms and shoulders and necks - here come the long-sleeved turtlenecks cough*fashion*crime*cough*. And so forth and so on. Who gets to say when there's been enough freaking empathy?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
This should take care of it.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Matthew 5:29 should solve your problem in a Christian way. No demands on other people's fashions. If that seems too drastic, opaque sunglasses should solve your problem.
[ 11. February 2015, 06:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Actually, for guys who are *forcible* and *extreme* about keeping women extremely covered up, I've thought blindfolds might be a solution.
I have mixed feelings about...chaste?...dress codes. For an American woman, who doesn't belong to any group with a strict dress code, I dress modestly. I think of the human body as both wonderful and fairly private. Society and the media are sooooo sexualized, even kids. And many clothes for women are designed for sexy dolls, not real women.
OTOH, when I was growing up, showing a particular amount of skin could be allowed or not, depending on the circumstance. E.g., you could wear a modest swimsuit for swimming, but you wouldn't show that much skin elsewhere. You might wear short shorts for PE class; but not to your other classes, and probably not around town.
Maybe a middle ground of dress--*especially in the media*--might ease the atmosphere a bit? NOT that someone's clothes cause someone to harass or rape them. (Genders purposely kept neutral in that sentence, because men get harassed and raped, too.) But if more people treat each other as equal human beings, and the media treats all people as more than sex objects, then maybe everyone can relax a bit, and have more breathing room.
FWIW.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
OK, so let's say we all agree to not wear tight yoga pants because we empathize with one guy. Oh, but the next guy is crazy for long hair, so we have to cover that.
While there might be an ideological aspect to the slippery slope argument here, I don't think it's difficult to argue that tight yoga pants are in a different league from long hair. And we already accept certain standards in society regarding dress.
If I turn up to work naked that is considered unacceptable. It might be true that the people I work with are in charge of their own reactions to my frontal nudity, but that isn't the way our society operates.
I think it would be perfectly possible to have a world in which adopting a certain standard of dress did not inexorably lead to totalitarian requirements regarding dress.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
.. I'm simply asking if you can be empathetic, and if so, what do you do with that empathy? ...
OK, so let's say we all agree to not wear tight yoga pants because we empathize with one guy. Oh, but the next guy is crazy for long hair, so we have to cover that. And then there's the leg guys, so down go the hemlines. And then there's the ones turned on by bare arms and shoulders and necks - here come the long-sleeved turtlenecks cough*fashion*crime*cough*. And so forth and so on. Who gets to say when there's been enough freaking empathy?
There's a major difference between something that 95% of men find provocative, and individual turn-ons.
The slippery slope from yoga pants to burkas is not as steep as the one you've painted.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I had to laugh when someone (Brenda?) said 'this is not difficult'. I think judging signals about sexuality is pretty difficult, because people are shy, confused, unconscious, and so on. I mean, many people are not even sure about the signals that they are putting out - and I don't mean just women here.
I used to get hit on by women, and then realized that I was putting out something, which I wasn't all that aware of. Long pause for reconsideration of that, leading to a kind of retrenchment.
All the men in my family were (somehow or other), trained in being ultra-charming, and I picked that up. And I learned to let go of it. But I think some men can't let go of it, as it is part of their self-image.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
It seems like there's an aspect to modesty which doesn't have anything to do with sexual attractiveness but for want of a better phrase, "public decency". I think we're losing this as we become less formal generally but you do still see it.
I think the desire to set limits to public nudity for example have less to do with fear of unrestrained sexuality than with a desire not to be embarrassed or repulsed. Same reason we make jokes about builders bumcracks or certain establishments refuse service without a shirt.
Or a tie. Think about that for a second. Would you ever feel uncomfortable or unsettled in a restaurant because another patron wasn't wearing a tie? But that's the implication.
Clearly when "modesty" is used as code for "religious dress rules" this is probably not what's going on (although there's probably some interesting non-sexual stuff there too - conformity of expression? making dress a uniform?) but I think it's interesting. Especially if we're saying that "everyone should have the right to wear whatever they like". Well maybe that's true but worth considering that the pushback against that might be wider than "you're turning me on"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
Tie in a restaurant, that is a good point. Dress codes are about control.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
One of the problems (so common in life) is that Bad People Have Spoiled It For All Of Us.
Yes, men appealed to women to help. Cover your hair/boobs/ankles/foreheads, lest we feel lust! OK, so we read St. Paul, and we did. And it turned out that not only did it not help with the lust (now wrists are sexy! No more short sleeves, girls), but then all this bad follow-on happened. Women who were not covering their (long list of body items here) were Not Nice. They were asking for it. Surely the safest thing for us men is that you women do not go out at all? If we don't have to look at you then we will not feel lust! But then women could not work, could not drive, etc. Why do you need to read, anyway? Saudi Arabia, here we come!
And so we realize this is a dead end. It not only does not serve the purpose, it leads to much worse things. (I do not want to load up this board with examples, but here is just one:
Eve Teasing
We need to achieve this in some other way. And so we come to the It's On You, Guys philosophy. It is not the victims who need to be controlled and confined. It is the aggressors.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
Tie in a restaurant, that is a good point. Dress codes are about control.
Dress codes are sometimes very useful for different reasons - nurses, school uniform, hard hats etc.
Modesty dress codes are not useful in any shape or form.
Why not just do away with clothes entirely? I honestly see no need for them except for safety and warmth.
Let's all join the naturists interesting that they don't complain of constant, unremitting lust.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Impractical if you happen to live anywhere other than the equator. Plus I don't fancy having to look at fat hairy naked bodies. Yuck!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Impractical if you happen to live anywhere other than the equator. Plus I don't fancy having to look at fat hairy naked bodies. Yuck!
And here's me thinking you lot up there were never out the sauna except for the rolling naked in the snow. Which would be why you're fat and hairy, on account of needing the insulation.
So there you go - saunas make you fat.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One of the problems (so common in life) is that Bad People Have Spoiled It For All Of Us....
Nice soap box piece. Is it directed at anyone on the thread?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
On every college campus I've ever been on, the only thing more education about sexuality and consent would do is lead to the sororities holding a march where they're chanting 'no means yes and yes means anal.' Linguistically speaking, right now the word rape means somewhere between nothing and 'some kind of violation'.
How very, very odd. In Europe it is quite the reverse - the more sex ed. the more young peope are able to say no until they feel it is right.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Nope. None of this is personal in any way, shape or form. Planaria, remember. Brine shrimp.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
If you're trying to say "inhuman," why not just come out with it?
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
I agree with your first sentence but I'm mystified by your second. I was trying to widen the discussion, perhaps introducing an unwanted tangent, but I wasn't making an argument really. What is it that you think I'm arguing that I've failed to make the case for?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dress codes an standards change, so "pushback" is something we've been dealing with since we first donned coverings. So, not a good argument, IMO.
Tie in a restaurant, that is a good point. Dress codes are about control.
Dress codes are sometimes very useful for different reasons - nurses, school uniform, hard hats etc.
Modesty dress codes are not useful in any shape or form.
Why not just do away with clothes entirely? I honestly see no need for them except for safety and warmth.
Let's all join the naturists interesting that they don't complain of constant, unremitting lust.
It's just semiotics, isn't it? Humans love signs, so they turn themselves into signs. This year, I will be mainly wearing a purple tutu.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This year, I will be mainly wearing a purple tutu.
What will you be doing with it the rest of the time?
But true about the semiotics. When More says his Utopians go around in undyed homespun you think Yeah. Right. I don't believe there's a culture known to either archaeologists or anthropologists that doesn't make significant use of dress as a way of communicating status (rank, wealth, virility, marriageability and all-round coolness).
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[on yoga pants]
Nope, sorry, they're ultra comfy. And, as you pointed out, one man's shapeless object is another man's stumbling block.
This guy thinks that yoga pants and speedos should be illegal, and wanted to make them illegal in Montana. Seems like the Montana House wasn't having any of it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Nope. None of this is personal in any way, shape or form. Planaria, remember. Brine shrimp.
I'm not getting what sort of engagement might be possible. If it's simply to impersonally state a view and then move on to impersonally state another view then I guess we're stuck with the planaria and brine shrimp metaphor.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Let's all join the naturists interesting that they don't complain of constant, unremitting lust.
It's just semiotics, isn't it? Humans love signs, so they turn themselves into signs. This year, I will be mainly wearing a purple tutu.
I've taken to wearing bamboo - chafes a bit mind you
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Pssst...you're supposed to make the bamboo into fabric, first!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
You have no idea what bamboo and purple tutus do for me.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Carnival has started already?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
There's a major difference between something that 95% of men find provocative, and individual turn-ons.
Right. So now we're quantifying the number or proportion of men required to demand women cover up a particular body part. What's the threshold? 95%? 80%? 50% plus 1? And it's not just buttocks; we'll need to quantify the percentage of men turned on by each and every part of the female body to determine if it should be covered.
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The slippery slope from yoga pants to burkas is not as steep as the one you've painted.
Then why have so many cultures in so many times and places slid so far down that slope? In most places, women are trying to climb back up. Fifty years ago, my grandmother was a rebel for not wearing a hat.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And this happens every day:
Ban Yoga Pants!!
In justice, would it not be fair if men also were forced to adopt these demeaning, expensive and uncomfortable fashion choices? If random unexpected boners are the issue, there -are- solutions, some of them very invasive indeed. (If you are feeling bold, are not at work, and can keep in mind that some things cannot be unlearned and unseen, put the phrase 'Prince Albert Piercing' into a search window.)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Then why have so many cultures in so many times and places slid so far down that slope? In most places, women are trying to climb back up. Fifty years ago, my grandmother was a rebel for not wearing a hat.
So in my place of work a revealing outfit would be considered inappropriate. For either sex (with admittedly difference definitions of revealing). It has been so for several decades and no-one has suggested burkas as far as I know.
There must be some space between a sensible dress code and misogynistic oppression.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
The thing is, although I agree mainly with what is being said here, we use clothes to state who and what we are, and to set social boundaries. Clothes that do not set up private boundaries are stating that the wearer does't mind if anyone looks. Or putting it the other way round, we wear what we want people to look at. If you want people to look at your shapely legs, then both men and women wear clothes for this purpose. Denying that this is part of normal social behaviour just because you would like to wear anything (because it feels comfortable to you) and to be able to ignore every one else's response - is wishful thinking. It's true that there are groups of people who will be OK with more or less whatever is worn and will not make a big deal of it - if you like that kind of company, then great, but also that's not how the majority of the population see it. There comes a point at which "I am attractive" clothes start to look like "I am attractive and sexy" clothes, start to look like "I am sexy and flirtatious" clothes. Prince Albert piercings worn in loosely fitting yoga trousers - none of these three categories. The way that this boundary has been lost I think was epitomised by the playboy bunny shirts for prepubescent girls that were in fashion a few years ago. Most parents eventually realised this was probably one step too far...
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And this happens every day:
Ban Yoga Pants!!
Every day someone in the media completely misrepresents a politician's proposal in order to stir up outrage in the populace to distract us from the ever-more-evident class war?
Yes, I suppose it does.
At least it's been a while since I last heard of someone getting arrested for being naked inside their own house. That must mean we're making progress, right?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Personally I think the person who invented lower body coverings with words like 'juicy' written across the butt needs to be taken out back and shot. Not being a lesbian, I have little to no desire to look at other women's asses. But when there's a word written there, my natural inclination is to read it. (And then get yelled at).
Well, then, I have great news for you. Yesterday, a middle-aged male professor came into my office wearing sweat pants with the University's initials on the butt (purchased at the University bookstore.) He only started in January but evidently he has settled into our casual Caprica City lifestyle.
His texted butt will never result in comments or debate or pleas for modesty as female butts do. Once he was out of earshot, though, he did arouse laughter.
@mdijon: Aren't we mainly talking about street clothes? Workplaces and jobs with uniforms are a whole 'nuther ball of wax, as an employee has much less individual freedom. And let's not forget that Hooters has a dress code for its servers, and it sure ain't modest.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Personally I think the person who invented lower body coverings with words like 'juicy' written across the butt needs to be taken out back and shot. Not being a lesbian, I have little to no desire to look at other women's asses. But when there's a word written there, my natural inclination is to read it. (And then get yelled at).
Well, then, I have great news for you. Yesterday, a middle-aged male professor came into my office wearing sweat pants with the University's initials on the butt (purchased at the University bookstore.) He only started in January but evidently he has settled into our casual Caprica City lifestyle.
His texted butt will never result in comments or debate or pleas for modesty as female butts do. Once he was out of earshot, though, he did arouse laughter.
If he had walked into my office, it would have resulted in comments, with people telling him he was wearing inappropriate attire. For most of us calls for modesty are not only about how a person is dressed.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
Basically, why can't men be expected to keep it in their pants?
There are biological imperatives that drive men’s behavior. Men watch pornography prodigiously, masturbate regularly, and are constantly scanning the horizon for suitable mates in the form of observing women’s bodies when they are around - sometime overtly, but usually surreptitiously. I’m talking about normal people with impulse control. They are the ones who can keep it in their pants, but this stuff is running around in men’s minds all the times. They just keep it in control, but surprising things will emerge out of your subconscious. It’s just there, it’s not right or wrong. Anyone who says “not me” is probably a member of a statistically insignificant minority.
Then you have men who lack the impulse control. They will act on what they’re thinking. They are the ones who can’t keep it in their pants.
Just a little rant to get you going. Now: Modesty Culture. Why are so many churches (mosques, etc.) involved in confusing rules about what women should wear, given that men are not given the same strictures? Why are men assumed to have the choice of droit de seigneur* at all times.
Because they understand the principles above but attribute them to a malformed human nature that can be suppressed or defeated through some sort of actions of the will. It’s misguided thinking, but it does result in the idea of having women walk around in head to toe gunney sacks so men won’t act on their impulses.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
@mdijon: Aren't we mainly talking about street clothes? Workplaces and jobs with uniforms are a whole 'nuther ball of wax, as an employee has much less individual freedom. And let's not forget that Hooters has a dress code for its servers, and it sure ain't modest.
OK I guess we could be. My point isn't about a workplace with a uniform though, simply about a peer pressure to observe a certain standard of dress. The middle-aged professor in your post would certainly fall foul of that in my neck of the woods as well.
However the "received work-place standard" differs from the street clothes standard, my point was that it hasn't inevitably gone in the direction of burkas.
Someone mentioned the difference between standards of dress for work and considerations of modesty - I think it is helpful to think of those two elements but they are often mixed up. I think the received wisdom regarding standards of dress in many work places is in part influenced by considerations of modesty.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No, your workplace clothes are in a real sense not your fault. Your job requires you to wear the shirt that has your name on the pocket, or the crown and tiara and magic wand, or the pasties with the tassels, or a top hat and white spats. You have no choice in the matter, any more than an actor does -- it is your employer who decrees that you dress like Snow White, and you knew that you would have to when you applied for that job at Disney on Ice.
We really have control only over our other clothes. The argument about employer-mandated clothing is different.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Basically, why can't men be expected to keep it in their pants?
There are biological imperatives that drive men’s behavior. Men watch pornography prodigiously, masturbate regularly, and are constantly scanning the horizon for suitable mates in the form of observing women’s bodies when they are around - sometime overtly, but usually surreptitiously. I’m talking about normal people with impulse control. They are the ones who can keep it in their pants, but this stuff is running around in men’s minds all the times. They just keep it in control, but surprising things will emerge out of your subconscious. It’s just there, it’s not right or wrong. Anyone who says “not me” is probably a member of a statistically insignificant minority.
Then you have men who lack the impulse control. They will act on what they’re thinking. They are the ones who can’t keep it in their pants.
Just a little rant to get you going. Now: Modesty Culture. Why are so many churches (mosques, etc.) involved in confusing rules about what women should wear, given that men are not given the same strictures? Why are men assumed to have the choice of droit de seigneur* at all times.
Because they understand the principles above but attribute them to a malformed human nature that can be suppressed or defeated through some sort of actions of the will. It’s misguided thinking, but it does result in the idea of having women walk around in head to toe gunney sacks so men won’t act on their impulses.
The unstated assumption behind this explanation is that women don't have any "biological imperatives" and are chaste creatures who never ever think about sex. The idea that women might actually like sex a lot reduces this argument to so much special pleading.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
It's all a bit distorted by the voyeuristic culture we're in. When Beyonce dances by rolling her butt up and down, everyone knows the implication is sex. But because she has clothes on, it becomes entertainment instead. Similarly, it's become de rigour for female pop stars to flash increasingly private parts of their anatomy - knickers that suggest the shape of what's underneath are given an airing as part of the dance routine... And when a low cut cleavage is sported, the implicit message is "aren't my boobs nice?". With men, the display options are a bit more limited, and in some ways it's irrelevant because our culture emphasises porn from a male pov, so it's the females who are expected to display. A bit like the opposite of bower birds. So modesty is not in the eye of the beholder - it's as controlled as your work clothes are by current norms. And at the moment the norms are becoming more and more extreme as more body parts are displayed in more risqué ways by celebrities as a means to attract attention and therefore make more money. It's possible to see quite clearly the way that celebrities are role models by the way their twerking and not-quite-nudity are copied. If you buy into that culture, then the culture itself is as full of innuendo as a muddy waters lyric - All that Jazz, rockin and a rollin, all night long, ramrod daddy, etc. It rather makes the mating ritual slightly complicated, because the female bower bird is flashing GO with her feathers whilst saying a NO with the more subtle lack of forward movement.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We really have control only over our other clothes. The argument about employer-mandated clothing is different.
This ignores the situation many people are in where there is no simple employer-mandated rule, but on the other hand there is a shared culture which has a certain standard of dress. This isn't employer-mandated as much as employee-mandated.
I will feel uncomfortable and out of place if I turn up in jeans and a T-shirt (although jeans and a long sleeve shirt might be OK on some days) but no-one will actually tell me off. I might notice them giving me funny looks but that would be it.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The unstated assumption behind this explanation is that women don't have any "biological imperatives" and are chaste creatures who never ever think about sex. The idea that women might actually like sex a lot reduces this argument to so much special pleading.
Well, as that is in no way an assumption I make, we can safely discount that possibility.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
The unstated assumption behind this explanation is that women don't have any "biological imperatives" and are chaste creatures who never ever think about sex. The idea that women might actually like sex a lot reduces this argument to so much special pleading.
And...women just can't win. Speaking as someone who wears clothing and hairstyles for comfort -- we get censure from religious folks (I've read fundamentalist literature advising teenage girls to dress girly lest they be perceived as not accepting their supposed God-given life role willingly -- or worse, be mistaken for lesbians, the most awful thing that apparently could ever happen to them), we get unsolicited comments from men on the street, etc. I personally do not want or need unsolicited male advice on what to wear or how to fix my hair. (And if I do need advice, I ask my fabulous gay son-in-law.) I certainly don't appreciate their judgment either. Just -- stand over there and look at something else.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re unsolicited comments on the street:
Yeah, I hate those, too. I think most American women do.
This was beautifully handled on the broadcast version of "Sex and the City". Miranda, in a very bad mood, was walking down the street. A (construction worker?) guy started cat-calling: "I've got what you want, I've got what you need!" Miranda stormed over to him, and said something to the effect of "you've got what I want? You've got what I need? Ok, right here, and right now!" The guy took a few steps back, saying "hey, take it easy, lady--I'm married!" Miranda said, "You're married? What a gavone!"
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The unstated assumption behind this explanation is that women don't have any "biological imperatives" and are chaste creatures who never ever think about sex. The idea that women might actually like sex a lot reduces this argument to so much special pleading.
Well, as that is in no way an assumption I make, we can safely discount that possibility.
In that case I don't understand what you're arguing. Your answer to the question of why a lot of social and religious groups put tighter strictures on women's dress than on men's was that men suffer from a biological imperative where they enjoy sex. If women have the same or similar drives, that doesn't really answer the question.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
The rules were made by the people who were only aware of their own biological imperatives (and the knowledge at hand of antiquity). I think you actually understand that.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In that case I don't understand what you're arguing. Your answer to the question of why a lot of social and religious groups put tighter strictures on women's dress than on men's was that men suffer from a biological imperative where they enjoy sex. If women have the same or similar drives, that doesn't really answer the question.
Stricter on women, who can wear dresses, skirts, long trousers, shorts. tops can be full sleeve, sort sleeve, no sleve or strappy. For men it is long trousers and long or short sleves.
If you ate a man try turning up at church with bare shoulders and see how they react.
As far as turning up for worship is concerned all the freedom of dress is with the women.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm just catching up with the programme on BBC4 yesterday on monasticism. There was an interview with a modern monk, who spoke of enclosure enabling the battle to suppress the passions in order to concentrate on God. Could there be a relationship between this flight from society and the demands of those in the world that women hide themselves? I seem to recall that St Anthony's troubling demons tended to be female. I recall also Rabbi Jonathan Sacks saying it was necessary to have the women in a screened gallery because men could not concentrate on prayer if they were visible.
Funny how so many men manage to pass through the secular world without succumbing to their passions. And if they are in a state of constant struggle to avoid it, they are deserving of great praise.
[ 20. February 2015, 18:51: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In that case I don't understand what you're arguing. Your answer to the question of why a lot of social and religious groups put tighter strictures on women's dress than on men's was that men suffer from a biological imperative where they enjoy sex. If women have the same or similar drives, that doesn't really answer the question.
I was listening to a radio programme (today?) which contended that in medieval times, it was the women who were believed to be the lusty ones, only able to conceive when they orgasmed (thus putting the onus on men to make sure they did), and requiring regular sex - if the menfolk couldn't/didn't oblige, the midwife was on call.
Make of that what you will.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
William Hay's lectures on the Law of Marriage, delivered at Aberdeen University c1500 survive. They include "The age for contracting marriage is fourteen years in the male and twelve years in the female...The reason why the Church laid down these times in such early youth was in order to avoid fornication, to which the young are very much inclined, and so easily incited to lust, and also because the carnal appetites usually awaken about that age."
This suggests that male and female were seen as equally lusty at the time.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
North East Quine: This suggests that male and female were seen as equally lusty at the time.
Though at different ages.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
If you ate a man try turning up at church with bare shoulders and see how they react.
Well that and still clutching a gnawed femur.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
North East Quine: This suggests that male and female were seen as equally lusty at the time.
Though at different ages.
Women do mature sexually at a younger age than men.
Moo
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Women do mature sexually at a younger age than men.
Moo
Evidence?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The NHS thinks that girls reach puberty a year younger than boys.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
According to the NHS, then, the range of ages at which both boys and girls start and end puberty is at least 5x greater than the difference between the average ages. Ergo, "Women do mature sexually at a younger age than men" is as accurate and meaningful as saying men are taller than women. Or that the average person has one ovary and one testicle. Or that a 13-year-old girl is as randy as a 14-year-old boy.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
If you're speaking in terms of averages, it's a perfectly fine statement. And understandable. We say things like this all the time (e.g. "January is colder than December in these parts").
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0