My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question

[Bluegoat]

No, I'm not "fine with those things". But if you really want to help our society move past sexualizing teenagers you should probably stop sexualizing teenagers by being McJudgy about the length of their dresses.

 

 

Because she likes how she looks in it. Why do you like sleeveless tops? Why do you like dresses that show off your waistline? Because you like how you look in them.

 

Some of the things you are saying about girls who wear these dresses is downright mean.

 

 

 

These two statements to me are just a kind of libertarian view of cause and effect.

 

Which is made especially odd because they seem to reflect a social argument being made about assault.

 

Why people like things is not random chance.  It's shaped by culture.  If the culture is sexualized around women's fashion - is this even a question? - then individuals can be affected by that even if that is not their intent.  This is a super-common argument in feminism so I am not sure why it would be obscure in this context.

 

Quill was concerned about the dresses not because she was sexualizing young girls - but because she thought that the fashion culture was sexualizing them.

 

Turning a blind eye to that will in no way stop them from being sexualized.

 

There is room to have differing opinions on this, on how to manage it, but to turn that concern into some kind of claim that people are actually ok with reducing women to sexual objects is a little over the top.  

[SKL]

Right - why should my mentioning X prevent another person from continuing the discussion about Y?  If it is a distraction to those discussing Y, that seems to be an issue with the Y people's debate skills.  If X is not relevant to Y then either ignore or briefly acknowledge X and finish what you were saying about Y.

 

Where I see it as appropriate to bring up X is where a person is going overboard on Y and crossing boundaries.  The person brings up X to say, "don't go there, this is a boundary you Y people need to respect."  There is no need to respond other than to be respectful of that boundary.  Yet someone will feel the need to respond in a defensive or combative way.

 

To imply that bringing up X is wrong because some people may get distracted from Y is not fair to the importance of X (boundary, factual integrity, whatever) an also is illogical.

 

Furthermore, I'm not sure how long everyone needs to be quiet and let Y play out.  I mean we all agree that rape is a horrible crime, it happens way too much, justice is extremely imperfect, victims suffer at all stages of it, and we should do what we can to reduce or prevent it.  It is pretty much impossible to believe that anyone on this board needs to be convinced of that, or that the mention of false accusations is going to make any of us forget the magnitude of the rape problem.  There is no expectation AFAIK that a discussion on the chat board must remain on "rape is bad" once the rape topic is brought into a thread.

[Guest]

OP -- as a mom of 2 dds in high school, I do find shopping for semi-formal dresses to be frustrating at times in terms of the short length of the dresses these days.  It does seem like the dresses keep getting shorter and shorter -- some literally appear as if they would barely cover the booty.  It would seem these shorter lengths would not only be uncomfortable and self-distracting (in terms of trying to keep the skirts down all the time) but also, just plain cold!  Not only that, but I've seen some at Forever 21 that look like just bikinis with a mesh overlay.  Oy.  Oh well -- to each her own.  I just ordered dresses for my dds for winter formal, so I've been looking around a lot recently.

 

eta:  Here's an example of a dress I personally think is adorable but way too short for comfort.  It's 29 inches long, which is pretty darn short, especially if one is not short waisted -- my girls are not.  They tend to be longer waisted, which makes short dresses appear even shorter on them than shorter waisted girls.  But anyway, if a girl could feel comfortable in this without feeling paranoid about accidentally flashing anyone on the dance floor or otherwise, right on!  This dress is super cute.  I wouldn't choose it for my daughters, though, mostly because I don't want them to be preoccupied with keeping their skirt down at all times.

Edited October 25, 2017 by amsunshine

[LMD]

SKL - if we're going to address the problem we need to be able to name the problem. If one class with more power is constantly assaulting the subordinate class (and weaker members of their own class), then it is harmful to continually bring up the miniscule deviation from this hierarchy.

 

As a general rule, men are the ones doing the raping. As a general rule, women are not lying about it. Statistics overwhelmingly support this.

 

Do exceptions occur, yes, and individually I have sympathy for the falsely accused and hope they are exonerated. Exceptions don't change the rule though and to focus on the exceptions - bringing it up every single discussion is focusing on it - gives it a higher level of importance on par with the rule. Humans have 2 legs, but some people are born with only one or have an accident so you can't say that humans, as a rule, have two legs! It's maddening!

 

This is a systemic, cultural problem. Individual anecdotes need to be viewed in context.

 

I don't love everything about this article but it is pretty good in talking about the actual incidents of false accusations.

 

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

[Pam in CT]

I do think that objectification is a problem and should be part of the conversation when we step back to look at society as a whole. I think that it is one ingredient of a very complex souffle. 

 

The purity thing is a very interesting question, and I do believe that there has been an unintended consequence from the Christian movement and attempts in purity related matters that has moved us in the wrong direction. I was guilty of being sucked up into that years ago.

 

I can very much credit the conversations on these boards as being part of what started opening my eyes as to how some of the beliefs that i was perpetuating were indeed harmful. These were very shallow ideas that had been thrust upon me as part of the conservative culture I have existed in just by virtue of the friends I chose in my early twenties. I never thought them through. It was sort of like having an identity handed to you. "These are all of the values, beliefs, and opinions that come with your identity as a _________ "(fill in the blank with conservative, christian, homeschooler....whatever).

 

Now, I don't know what the heck I am  :confused1: .  In the last 5 years, I have done a complete 180 on my understanding of these matters. I ended up in a position of needing to testify against the husband half of the couple that was our best friend/s of 13ish years. He was also a spiritual leader in our church and worked in my ministry.This couple was a large part of the molding in the above-mentioned identity. The charges were of a sexual nature involving a tween girl in our church and in my ministry! It rocked my world to find out what was going on and all that I had actively ignored and explained away. He was convicted, will be on the registry, but will be out of jail with one year served (on probation). 

 

I bring this up to say that I have seen the system at work. I know what she had to go through just to get her story out. I know how it changed things (even for me as a bystander because our homeschooling community is a small world and I "took sides"). 

 

We have to keep talking so that more women, more moms will be challenged to evaluate their opinions in light of the statistics and will change the narrative for the next generation. I did and I am grateful to have had that opportunity. My husband's understanding has shifted as well, and we actually parent our dd different as a result. 

 

Thank you, forum friends.

 

 

Thank you, Tammy, first and foremost for standing with this young person, and also for sharing this with us.

[SKL]

SKL - if we're going to address the problem we need to be able to name the problem. If one class with more power is constantly assaulting the subordinate class (and weaker members of their own class), then it is harmful to continually bring up the miniscule deviation from this hierarchy.

 

As a general rule, men are the ones doing the raping. As a general rule, women are not lying about it. Statistics overwhelmingly support this.

 

Do exceptions occur, yes, and individually I have sympathy for the falsely accused and hope they are exonerated. Exceptions don't change the rule though and to focus on the exceptions - bringing it up every single discussion is focusing on it - gives it a higher level of importance on par with the rule. Humans have 2 legs, but some people are born with only one or have an accident so you can't say that humans, as a rule, have two legs! It's maddening!

 

This is a systemic, cultural problem. Individual anecdotes need to be viewed in context.

 

I don't love everything about this article but it is pretty good in talking about the actual incidents of false accusations.

 

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

 

Not only name the problem, but also have an understanding as to a common definition.  And when someone tries to define it to include every time a male has sex with a female who has been drinking (or similar overreach), the sanity checkers are going to come out.  And that should neither surprise nor dismay anyone.

 

And then someone gets angry about the reminder that women can and do consent to unadvisable sex, and posts comments that exceed the bounds of rationality, with predictable results.

 

I understand that rape is an emotional subject and maybe it defies calm discussion.  But on a rational level, it does not deserve special deference on a general chat board such as this.

[LMD]

Not only name the problem, but also have an understanding as to a common definition. And when someone tries to define it to include every time a male has sex with a female who has been drinking (or similar overreach), the sanity checkers are going to come out. And that should neither surprise nor dismay anyone.

 

And then someone gets angry about the reminder that women can and do consent to unadvisable sex, and posts comments that exceed the bounds of rationality, with predictable results.

 

I understand that rape is an emotional subject and maybe it defies calm discussion. But on a rational level, it does not deserve special deference on a general chat board such as this.

The bolded tells me you didn't bother reading the article.

 

Btw- please stop calling women hysterical and irrational for asking you to view the facts as they are actually born out statistically.

[Ravin]

Anyone in need of a counterpoint to the sexualization of women's clothing in our society, I suggest googling "kilted yoga." Warning. Results may be NSFW.

[MercyA]

eta:  Here's an example of a dress I personally think is adorable but way too short for comfort.  It's 29 inches long, which is pretty darn short, especially if one is not short waisted -- my girls are not.  They tend to be longer waisted, which makes short dresses appear even shorter on them than shorter waisted girls.  But anyway, if a girl could feel comfortable in this without feeling paranoid about accidentally flashing anyone on the dance floor or otherwise, right on!  This dress is super cute.  I wouldn't choose it for my daughters, though, mostly because I don't want them to be preoccupied with keeping their skirt down at all times.

 

29" is crazy. Just for comparison, I'm 5'8" and tunics have to be 32" long to cover my backside. My daughter is under 10 years old, and she can't wear dresses under 30" without them looking too short on her.

 

It's like someone said, "How short can we make this dress and still have it minimally cover some women's private parts, some of the time?" 

 

I seriously don't understand why women buy this stuff.  :confused1:

[jewellsmommy]

Not only name the problem, but also have an understanding as to a common definition.  And when someone tries to define it to include every time a male has sex with a female who has been drinking (or similar overreach), the sanity checkers are going to come out.  And that should neither surprise nor dismay anyone.

 

And then someone gets angry about the reminder that women can and do consent to unadvisable sex, and posts comments that exceed the bounds of rationality, with predictable results.

 

I understand that rape is an emotional subject and maybe it defies calm discussion.  But on a rational level, it does not deserve special deference on a general chat board such as this.

 

I have never heard of or read of a definition of rape that includes: ... every time a male has sex with a female who has been drinking...    

 

People get angry/flustered/annoyed when you try to define rape as something ridiculous (as above) so that you can argue against it and take it apart. Because no one else is focusing on the fringe elements that you seem to want to consistently deal in.

 

Those of us dealing with the general rule as defined by the stats, as opposed to every minute exception you try to find or fabricate (see definition above as an example), are not the ones who need "sanity checkers." 

 

 

 

ETA: As to the second bolded, no one has gotten angry about or denied that some women have casual sex just like men (drunk or sober). The difference is that women are disrespected for doing the exact same thing as men. That behavior is then used against them if they are ever unfortunate enough to be raped and then used by a defense lawyer as a reason that the woman couldn't have been raped. That double standard is what make women angry.

Edited October 25, 2017 by jewellsmommy

[Ravin]

As far as clothes, I really couldn't care less what teenagers decide to wear. At most they are advertising, "look at me, I look fabulous/sexy/adjective-of-your-choice." Such might be taken as an invitation to look, but an invitation to look is not an invitation to touch. 

 

I am in favor of balancing things out by making very short kilts acceptable attire for men, with shirts optional, in situations where women wear very short/backless/low cut dresses. :biggrinjester:

[Guest]

As far as clothes, I really couldn't care less what teenagers decide to wear. At most they are advertising, "look at me, I look fabulous/sexy/adjective-of-your-choice." Such might be taken as an invitation to look, but an invitation to look is not an invitation to touch. 

 

I am in favor of balancing things out by making very short kilts acceptable attire for men, with shirts optional, in situations where women wear very short/backless/low cut dresses. :biggrinjester:

 

LOL!

[Guest]

29" is crazy. Just for comparison, I'm 5'8" and tunics have to be 32" long to cover my backside. My daughter is under 10 years old, and she can't wear dresses under 30" without them looking too short on her.

 

It's like someone said, "How short can we make this dress and still have it minimally cover some women's private parts, some of the time?"

 

I seriously don't understand why women buy this stuff. :confused1:

This is a much better example of what I have been seeing. And I just measured this on myself; this comes to the bottom edge of my butt cheeks. It’s nice to know it’s not just my imagination.

 

I just asked a friend, who chaperoned at her dd’s homecoming dance, if she was seeing some super short dresses; she confirmed. She said roughly a third of the girls wore super short dresses. She reported, “There was one girl - I could actually see her panties from the front.†There was a “grind circle†for part of the night. She said this school’s dance was “pretty tame†compared to another PS in the same area. The comparable school also featured more grind-dancing and there was at least one guy who took off his shirt and danced topless. One of the music selections was “Show Us Your T!tsâ€, which I did not even know was an actual song.

 

I also think, in order to balance what I’ve said, it is important to note that I have also been looking at dance pictures from other friends whom I know have standards more similar to my own and, sure enough, their dd’s are wearing very nice, perfectly lovely dresses that are of a normal length. So clearly there are such things.

 

I really wish that, as consumers, we would just sort of band together and refuse to buy a 29†dress for a woman.

 

ETA: one of the reviews of this dress says it is NOT a dress; it is a romper. If it is a romper, it makes a tiny bit more sense at that length. Not that I would buy it. But if it has a sewn crotch, that is an improvement over it being a dress.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Quill

[Guest]

ETA: one of the reviews of this dress says it is NOT a dress; it is a romper. If it is a romper, it makes a tiny bit more sense at that length. Not that I would buy it. But if it has a sewn crotch, that is an improvement over it being a dress.

 

Huh -- I didn't notice that review.  I had just been searching for velvet dresses and that one happened to come up.  Nice to know it was mis-titled.

[Guest]

This should maybe be a spin-off, but where do you people shop for your teen girls these days for nice, reasonably priced semi-formal/formalwear?  Places that have a good variety of styles (short, long and in-between)?  I searched Forever 21, Hollister, Macys, JCPenney, H&M, Charlotte Russe, TJ Maxx, Kohls, and Nordstrom Rack.  I found several different styles I liked, but there seemed to be a lot of repetitive styles.  I ended up getting two from Nordstrom Rack that we all liked and hopefully they will fit.  I ordered this one and this one, for the record. 

 

Aside from the list of stores above, are there any other retailers I may have missed?

[SKL]

I have never heard of or read of a definition of rape that includes: ... every time a male has sex with a female who has been drinking...    

 

People get angry/flustered/annoyed when you try to define rape as something ridiculous (as above) so that you can argue against it and take it apart. Because no one else is focusing on the fringe elements that you seem to want to consistently deal in.

 

Those of us dealing with the general rule as defined by the stats, as opposed to every minute exception you try to find or fabricate (see definition above as an example), are not the ones who need "sanity checkers." 

 

 

Re teaching boys how not to rape:

 

That you think this is unreasonable blows me away. Um, yeah, always and forever, you have to be prepared to stop if she says stop. And you shouldn't have sex with someone other than your significant other when either of you is under the influence of alcohol. Duh. This isn't hard. It really, really, really isn't. 

 

Pretty sure I never went near this subject on this thread until I agreed with someone who responded to the bolded - well into page 4 or 5 of the comments.

 

But again, if this is so irrelevant to the topic, let it go.  None of this takes away from how awful rape is.

[Guest]

This should maybe be a spin-off, but where do you people shop for your teen girls these days for nice, reasonably priced semi-formal/formalwear? Places that have a good variety of styles (short, long and in-between)? I searched Forever 21, Hollister, Macys, JCPenney, H&M, Charlotte Russe, TJ Maxx, Kohls, and Nordstrom Rack. I found several different styles I liked, but there seemed to be a lot of repetitive styles. I ended up getting two from Nordstrom Rack that we all liked and hopefully they will fit. I ordered this one and this one, for the record.

 

Aside from the list of stores above, are there any other retailers I may have missed?

The significant majority of the dresses my daugter wore for dances were ordered from Modcloth. She actually still orders a lot of items from Modcloth.

[jewellsmommy]

That you think this is unreasonable blows me away. Um, yeah, always and forever, you have to be prepared to stop if she says stop. And you shouldn't have sex with someone other than your significant other when either of you is under the influence of alcohol. Duh. This isn't hard. It really, really, really isn't. 

 

 

Re teaching boys how not to rape:

 

 

Pretty sure I never went near this subject on this thread until I agreed with someone who responded to the bolded - well into page 4 or 5 of the comments.

 

But again, if this is so irrelevant to the topic, let it go.  None of this takes away from how awful rape is.

 

You took her post out of context. She was responding to another post, adding her opinion about good consenting practices.

 

1. She did not define rape as " every time a male has sex with a female who has been drinking...   " 

 

2. She said "you" and "someone" both are non gender specific. So women should not have sex while with a non-spouse while intoxicated and men should not...it goes both ways...and is a good practice to abide by (in my opinion as well).

 

 

ETA: And it was not "Re teaching boys how not to rape:" It was in response to Quill's (lengthier post) saying that it is a confusing terrain for young men.

Edited October 26, 2017 by jewellsmommy