My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

But I also have no qualms about telling my daughter that clothing choices make a difference in how "available" a guy is likely to think she is.

 

And if she is, heaven forbid, someday assaulted while wearing a more revealing outfit, the voice in her head will be telling her...what? You say that you're not engaging in victim blaming etc., but you are simply not seeing that that's exactly what your mindset is.

 

Continuing to insist that girls who do not dress "modestly" enough are inviting sexual harassment and assault only empowers men to use what a woman is wearing as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It's totally untrue, it's damaging to women, and it needs to stop.

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[SKL]

As far as "sending a message" and all that, based on my personal experience with girl friends as a teen, there is no question that SOME girls (not all) intentionally dress to attract a certain kind of attention.  However, at the age that girls are at homecoming dances, there are also many who are honestly clueless about these actual or perceived "cues."  Teen boys can't tell just by looking who is sending a message and who is just naive.  Hence we as parents have to be our girls' sanity checks about dress, and our boys' advisors about boundaries regardless of dress.

 

For decades, I've been dismayed at the styles promoted for young teen and tween girls.  It always amazes me that parents are willing to buy these styles.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I want a culture where women dress primarily for comfort and practicality.

 

I want a culture where no one pays attention to any of this BS or assumes anything about anyone's internal motivations based on what they hang on their body.

[Guest]

And if she is, heaven forbid, someday assaulted while wearing a more revealing outfit, the voice in her head will be telling her...what? You say that you're not engaging in victim blaming etc., but you are simply not seeing that that's exactly what your mindset is.

So you think it would be better to act as if it makes no difference at all? That's why the other part of this is in what I am also teaching my sons.

 

I agree with what SKL just posted; some young women know they are showing off the sexy bits and it is sending a message, some are a bit oblivious and think it's just the thing that is in style right now. When I was young, I didn't really get it, but it would have been nice if someone would have better explained the cues certain clothing can give.

[marbel]

Did you see the link Mercy A posted? I did not read it fully yet, but it's talking about this. We give cues to people in society through our clothing all the time. We use clothing cues to say all sorts of things about ourselves: our profession, our religion, our economic status, our age, how we want people to view us; i.e., I'm yuppie, I'm funky, I'm traditional, I'm a rebel, I'm a party girl, I want to blend in, I want to stand out, I'm athletic, I'm artsy. Clothing choices do communicate things, so why pretend there's no such thing as clothing that does invite "looking"?

 

I'm 100% in favor of raising my sons to not see any woman as an object for his enjoyment and to always stay far from any lines of questionable consent no matter what she might be wearing and no matter whether she's stone-cold-sober or three sheets to the wind. But I also have no qualms about telling my daughter that clothing choices make a difference in how "available" a guy is likely to think she is.

 

I don't understand why this would be controversial.  I can't be the only one who's been in a restroom in a nightclub/bar with a bunch of women adjusting their clothing to maximize their cleavage and hiking up their skirts to show off their legs, or to hear a woman coyly reprimand a man for looking at her chest when one of her main objects in dressing for the evening was to get men to look at her chest.  Quill, earlier you said "I see something ironic in putting body parts on such a platter..." and that is a term I've heard (probably said) about someone dressing/standing/walking in a way to attract attention to certain attributes.

 

It doesn't excuse rape, it doesn't mean women are asking for it, etc.  But, of course people send messages via their clothing.  

[SKL]

Another thing.  There is a lot of unwanted sexual attention that stops short of assault/rape.  That is the kind I'd be trying to avoid at a teen dance.  And yes, I do believe that kind (the kind that stops short of assault) is more likely to happen if a girl is dressed in suggestive clothes.

 

I wonder if anyone would find it interesting to survey a cross section of teen boys about girls dressed in various styles, with the questions being, e.g., "which of these girls seems most likely to welcome a dirty joke, an invitation to slip out behind the barn, an offer of an alcoholic drink or mind-altering drug?"  Because the girls I knew who would dress to attract sexual attention would have welcomed some or all of those things.

[Guest]

What I'm curious about is what exactly is the intent of women or girls who dress that way. When I look back to when I wore more revealing clothes in my youth, I think I was hoping to get attention from men for my looks. But when I look back now I realize that the men who I got that attention from are the ones who I later learned weren't who I actually wanted as life partners etc, and that the men who were a better match for me were the ones who were attracted to me no matter what I wore. Personally, I wish I had received better education from strong female role models about this when I was young, because I think I would have dressed differently for certain periods of my life if I had. I'm not implying that girls who dress this way are making a mistake or don't have strong female role models in their life at all, I'm just saying that I think in my own life some of my wardrobe choices were made for the purpose of hoping to be viewed in a certain way by men and I wish I had had some role models in my life who would have helped me to better understand how to develop my own fashion sense instead of dressing in a way I felt other people wanted or men would find physically attractive. So I'm curious if I'm in the minority that I regret dressing in skimpy clothes at certain times in my life and feel like I did it for the attention, or if most women who wear highly revealing clothes are actually just doing it because it reflects their personal style and nothing more. I don't think when I did it, and I'm not even talking about as revealing as the dresses we are talking about today, it was a reflection of my style, I think at that time I was hoping to be objectified and looking back I really regret ever portraying myself that way, but this may not be at all what other women feel, it's just my personal experience regarding skimpy clothes and how far they differ from my personal fashion taste, even back when I did wear them.

Yes. This resonates with me. In my late teens/early 20s, I worked at a law firm where all the secretaries were very sexy. There was even a standing joke among lawyers, including visiting lawyers from other firms, about how we should publish a calendar, "The Girls of ___________." I did not get how inappropriate this was. I didn't feel threatened and I liked the attention at that time; I was one of the Girls of {Law Firm}.

 

I cringe now. The outfits we wore and the horrible high heels were part of the image that firm happily projected. It is true nobody told me I *must* wear those clothes and shoes, but none of those lawyers minded our clothes or how we looked in them.

[Corraleno]

Did you see the link Mercy A posted? I did not read it fully yet, but it's talking about this. We give cues to people in society through our clothing all the time. We use clothing cues to say all sorts of things about ourselves: our profession, our religion, our economic status, our age, how we want people to view us; i.e., I'm yuppie, I'm funky, I'm traditional, I'm a rebel, I'm a party girl, I want to blend in, I want to stand out, I'm athletic, I'm artsy. Clothing choices do communicate things, so why pretend there's no such thing as clothing that does invite "looking"?

No one's "clothing choice" communicates "please assault me," no matter how short her skirt is or how low-cut her top is. There is a difference between looking at someone and touching, harassing, catcalling, or assaulting them. Even if a woman is purposely dressing to look sexy and attractive, even if she is in fact looking for a guy to have sex with, that still does not give any of the guys she doesn't want to have sex with the right to touch or harass her.

 

I'm 100% in favor of raising my sons to not see any woman as an object for his enjoyment and to always stay far from any lines of questionable consent no matter what she might be wearing and no matter whether she's stone-cold-sober or three sheets to the wind. But I also have no qualms about telling my daughter that clothing choices make a difference in how "available" a guy is likely to think she is.

Do you tell your son not to wear tight jeans because women might think he's inviting them to grab his ass? Do you tell him to wear baggy crew neck tee shirts because women might think his muscular chest is an invitation to run their hands over it? No? Then don't tell your daughter that what she wears is somehow advertising her "availability" to be sexually harassed and touched without her consent. Because if (or more likely when) she is sexually harassed or assaulted, she will do what most women in this culture have been conditioned to do —wonder what she did to "invite" it and be too ashamed to tell anyone.

[OrganicJen]

Yes. This resonates with me. In my late teens/early 20s, I worked at a law firm where all the secretaries were very sexy. There was even a standing joke among lawyers, including visiting lawyers from other firms, about how we should publish a calendar, "The Girls of ___________." I did not get how inappropriate this was. I didn't feel threatened and I liked the attention at that time; I was one of the Girls of {Law Firm}.

 

I cringe now. The outfits we wore and the horrible high heels were part of the image that firm happily projected. It is true nobody told me I *must* wear those clothes and shoes, but none of those lawyers minded our clothes or how we looked in them.

Yep, I really wish I just had the self confidence in my past that I have now, so that I could have just said, f* it...I'm dressing the way I see myself in my own mind. I don't blame anyone, but I think it would have helped my self confidence to have had better education on the issue at a younger age...like a women's studies course in junior high lol.

[ktgrok]

The thing is, even if the clothes send a message of "I want sexual attention", if a guy gets that message and then is told verbally a different message "I don't want you to touch me", do we think the problem is he just is too clueless to understand that the verbal message overrides the one sent by the clothes? 

 

No.

 

Guys are not that dumb. They aren't doing these things because of a misunderstanding based on the message the clothes send. 

[EmseB]

So you think it would be better to act as if it makes no difference at all? That's why the other part of this is in what I am also teaching my sons.

 

I agree with what SKL just posted; some young women know they are showing off the sexy bits and it is sending a message, some are a bit oblivious and think it's just the thing that is in style right now. When I was young, I didn't really get it, but it would have been nice if someone would have better explained the cues certain clothing can give.

To add, women are intelligent enough to hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time:

 

1) This dress is too short and draws the kind of attention I don't want from people I don't like.

 

2) I didn't get assaulted because of what I was wearing.

 

They are separate issues.

 

FWIW, I saw the exact type of dress that Quill was talking about on a young lady going to a high school dance recently at a gas station with her date. The dress was shorter and tighter, though. She couldn't move without having to adjust, lest she show parts that would otherwise be covered by a bathing suit. It looked so awkward and uncomfortable, gorgeous though she was. She may have just been dressing to look nice and have fun. But her date was taking full advantage of the view and the whole scene just really skeeved me out given that they were both so young.

[Sahamamama2]

Interesting. Nobody wears a long gown for homecoming in this area.

 

These are some examples of what I see:

 

https://www.charlotterusse.com/sequin-v-neck-bodycon-dress/302424514.html?dwvar_302424514_color=187&cgid=homecoming-dresses#sz=30&start=109

 

https://www.charlotterusse.com/shimmer-cold-shoulder-bodycon-dress/302435506.html?dwvar_302435506_color=008&cgid=homecoming-dresses#sz=30&start=111

 

https://www.charlotterusse.com/flocked-velvet-halter-bodycon-dress/302430244.html?dwvar_302430244_color=410&cgid=homecoming-dresses#sz=30&start=113

 

https://www.charlotterusse.com/floral-strappy-back-skater-dress/302423055.html?dwvar_302423055_color=461&cgid=homecoming-dresses#sz=30&start=70

 

Many seem shorter even than these; this might be what they look like when they are just pulled down or haven't inched up at all from movement.

 

I agree, these dresses are "too short." They seem to me to be more of a cover-up for a swim suit, rather than a dress, but even then they're kind of on the short side. IMO, it's more than how short they are -- they are too skimpy all the way around. HTH. 

 

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

These do remind me of the 70's.  I guess it makes sense - rear is in, and the shots that are in style at the moment are very short, so the silhouette is kind of the same.

 

I do remember wearing stuff this short back when, and it is difficult to move in.  Whenever you sit, you have very few options, and it's very awkward to bend, even if you do it properly.  Some people are defiantly more graceful at it than others.

 

As far as it being ironic to have this at the same time there is public discussion about sexual harassment.  Yeah, it is.  Not because wearing a short dress gets you raped, but because both are directly related to sexualization.  Larger social attitudes about sex don't stand alone in little boxes - here some people think it is ok to objectify women sexually, and then over here women's clothing is sexualized, and one has nothing to do with the other.  The two absolutely feed off each other, how women feel about themselves, how men see women, and how both see sex.

[Corraleno]

As far as "sending a message" and all that, based on my personal experience with girl friends as a teen, there is no question that SOME girls (not all) intentionally dress to attract a certain kind of attention.  However, at the age that girls are at homecoming dances, there are also many who are honestly clueless about these actual or perceived "cues."  Teen boys can't tell just by looking who is sending a message and who is just naive.  Hence we as parents have to be our girls' sanity checks about dress, and our boys' advisors about boundaries regardless of dress. 

 

So you think it would be better to act as if it makes no difference at all? That's why the other part of this is in what I am also teaching my sons.

 

I agree with what SKL just posted; some young women know they are showing off the sexy bits and it is sending a message, some are a bit oblivious and think it's just the thing that is in style right now. When I was young, I didn't really get it, but it would have been nice if someone would have better explained the cues certain clothing can give.

There is a HUGE and very important difference between "I want to be perceived as attractive and sexy" and "I'm fine with any and all men harassing me and touching me without my consent."

 

No woman, no matter what she is wearing, is ever sending the second message. NO. ONE. 

[Guest]

No one's "clothing choice" communicates "please assault me," no matter how short her skirt is or how low-cut her top is. There is a difference between looking at someone and touching, harassing, catcalling, or assaulting them. Even if a woman is purposely dressing to look sexy and attractive, even if she is in fact looking for a guy to have sex with, that still does not give any of the guys she doesn't want to have sex with the right to touch or harass her.

 

 

Do you tell your son not to wear tight jeans because women might think he's inviting them to grab his ass? Do you tell him to wear baggy crew neck tee shirts because women might think his muscular chest is an invitation to run their hands over it? No? Then don't tell your daughter that what she wears is somehow advertising her "availability" to be sexually harassed and touched without her consent. Because if (or more likely when) she is sexually harassed or assaulted, she will do what most women in this culture have been conditioned to do —wonder what she did to "invite" it and be too ashamed to tell anyone.

My son doesn't wear tight jeans, he wears normal jeans. My son doesn't wear muscle shirts/tanks, he wears normal shirts. When my son makes selections for a dance, there is literally not the slightest chance that his attire offerings or selections will show off any attribute of his body. A nicely-dressed man is covered from his neck down except his hands. And his clothing choices will not be designed to cling anywhere because no such clothes for men exist that would be worn to a dance.

 

Women's clothing is about 100x more likely to be cut in a manner to show off body parts than men's clothing is. I think we should ponder that as a society. Recently (I forgot who) a professional woman has been trying to buzz the idea of #outfitrepeater for women - wear suits again, dresses again, the way men do. A man can be well-dressed wearing the same suit a bazillion times, but we act sometimes as though women should have a never-ending selection of different outfits.

 

I have no disagreement with you regarding no women deserves to be harassed or touched without her consent.

[Carrie12345]

To add, women are intelligent enough to hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time:

 

1) This dress is too short and draws the kind of attention I don't want from people I don't like.

 

2) I didn't get assaulted because of what I was wearing.

 

They are separate issues.

 

 

As far as it being ironic to have this at the same time there is public discussion about sexual harassment.  Yeah, it is.  Not because wearing a short dress gets you raped, but because both are directly related to sexualization.  Larger social attitudes about sex don't stand alone in little boxes - here some people think it is ok to objectify women sexually, and then over here women's clothing is sexualized, and one has nothing to do with the other.  The two absolutely feed off each other, how women feel about themselves, how men see women, and how both see sex.

 

 

 

There is a HUGE and very important difference between "I want to be perceived as attractive and sexy" and "I'm fine with any and all men harassing me and touching me without my consent."

 

No woman, no matter what she is wearing, is ever sending the second message. NO. ONE. 

 

 

And that's what it boils down to.

 

Don't tell me what women are intelligent enough for, and then act as if men are incapable of finding someone attractive without touching them or verbally degrading them.  What, exactly, are we saying about men here?  

[Guest]

 

How can someone honestly say it makes not one shred of difference whether a beautiful young woman is wearing a tiny, sexy dress vs. a brown corderoy skirt to her ankles? Even in those sponsored PSA reports about how to prevent being attacked, one recommendation is that clothing is more difficult to remove, along with things like having an umbrella because it can be used as a make-shift weapon.

 

As my sister so eloquently said when someone we knew was convicted of sexual abuse, "I don't care if she danced naked on his desk, he still cannot do that." Quite true. But also, dancing naked on a man's desk is not a good way to be assured of your safety.

 

It makes no difference what a woman is, or isn't wearing.  It makes no difference whether she is beautiful or not.  It makes no difference whether her BMI is normal or not. 

 

Yes, wearing something it is harder to get off might slow someone down - but that doesn't mean the attire caused (or prevented) an assault.  It just adds (or subtracts) a few seconds in the timeline of the assault.

 

I'm an Orthodox Jew and I, personally, cover far more of my body than you would consider normal.   ....but I don't think that makes me less vulnerable (or you more vulnerable to assault.  (And I wear less than a woman wearing a burka...)

 

When you show your lovely legs and shoulders, you aren't putting anything on a platter.  When a young woman wears a plunging neckline she isn't putting anything on a platter - you're each dressing in a way that suits you.  It doesn't convey anything about your interest in sexual contact with others.

 

Sexual contact isn't a pricey item that needs a burglar alarm to protect it  - and, if it were, a greater quantity of fabric doesn't have any talismanic protective qualities.  By your reasoning, eating garlic and skipping deodorant should be protective tools as well - and it is exactly the logic that leads to requiring burkas.

[SKL]

 

There is a HUGE and very important difference between "I want to be perceived as attractive and sexy" and "I'm fine with any and all men harassing me and touching me without my consent."

 

No woman, no matter what she is wearing, is ever sending the second message. NO. ONE. 

 

 

I agree, but having said that, it is still true that I don't want my kids sending the "look how sexy / risque / sophisticated I am" message at a teen dance.  I think that is what most people are talking about.

[AK_Mom4]

As a teen in the 80’s, I wore dresses like this. Fingertip length would have been a “long skirtâ€, lol.

 

As a high schooler, I wore these with nylons because - heck it was alaska and car seats were all vinyl then. But as an older teen in college in Texas, we went bare legged. I don’t remember spandex shorts being even invented back then - I wore cut thong underwear under my short skirts so I didn’t have lines.

 

Shocking, right?

[Carrie12345]

I agree, but having said that, it is still true that I don't want my kids sending the "look how sexy / risque / sophisticated I am" message at a teen dance.  I think that is what most people are talking about.

 

I don't particularly want that either, but the conversation has expanded and includes attitudes that start that early and younger.

[hornblower]

I think there's an entire women's studies year long course already in this thread.. 

One thing I'm thinking about is the phrase "everything is political". Clothing (and appearance) is definitely political. 

Clothing signals your adherence or rejection of the society and its norms.  What will happen if a woman wears a pantsuit to a formal dance? What happens if she wears a defiantly punk rebel etc outfit? 

The other thing that I'm thinking about is power. If you consider clothing as a signaller of power, real or aspirational, what options for power do women in this culture have? Men's power dressing is a suit. It's interesting that the man can wear pretty much the same thing to a fancy dinner and the boardroom (barring the fancy shindigs requiring a tux or tails) but a woman's outfits would normally vary for these occasions. Why? 

Where is the source of women's power in this society?  From examining clothing, one could reasonably conclude it's in portraying or suggesting sexual availability. 

 

I read somewhere recently some women in high powered professions saying they couldn't stop wearing make up without hurting their careers.   There's a lot to unpack in that...I admit I do a lot of double takes the times I have to go into big expensive downtown offices now. The lawyers, accountants, hospital administrators.... It's gotten way worse.  When I briefly hung around perimeters of that environment in the early 90s,  we still had a woman's power suit. The big shoulder pads, the high necked blouse with a tie.  We all had some version of these outfits  The things I see now are all way tighter, way shorter, with higher heels, more cleavage.   Ask women (cause I have LOL) and they'll tell you they're just confident about their sexuality. 

I say, girl, if you were confident you'd stop shaving your legs and wear flats and see what happens. Then they admit they can't even stop or pare down makeup....

[Guest]

 

 

There is a HUGE and very important difference between "I want to be perceived as attractive and sexy" and "I'm fine with any and all men harassing me and touching me without my consent."

 

No woman, no matter what she is wearing, is ever sending the second message. NO. ONE.

How can you know what ALL women who have EVER donned a sexy outfit do it for? One of my co-secretaries once said she wished she could be in a Playboy spread. (And it wasn't outside of the realm of possibility; she was very sexy.) I asked her why she would want that and she said, "It would be great to think of all those men wanting me." This woman had had mulitple alterations to her natural body because she wanted it to look sexy[/]; there is no other reason for altering functional and normal mamary glands.

 

Now - I'm sure she wasn't saying or intending that men would forcibly take from her, but she also did not mind if a guy thought it was more likely she would give him what he was after. Not every man who wants to "pick up" a girl would or wants to take things by force, but that doesn't mean those same men aren't going to aim for the low-hanging fruit. If she's advertising it, perhaps it will not be difficult to get participation.

[Bluegoat]

A culture in which women are expected/encouraged to dress in uncomfortable and impractical ways in order to show off the sex appeal of their bodies objectifies women.

 

A culture in which women are encouraged/expected to dress in uncomfortable and impractical ways in order to hide any possible sex appeal of their bodies likewise objectifies women. In my opinion, both extremes contribute to abuse of women.

 

I want a culture where women dress primarily for comfort and practicality. If you will be swimming, wear something that works well to swim in. If you will be dancing, wear something that works well to dance in. If you will be walking, wear something that works well to walk in.

 

If women are generally expected to wear either significantly less than or significantly more than men engaging in similar activities I take that as a sign that women are being objectified.

 

Ys - this is just it.

 

I find it odd that people will talk about the systemic and institutionalized objectification of women in our culture, and how it is different than what men experience, and isn't about individuals thinking a certain way but much more unconscious ways of thinking by everyone.

 

But as soon as we talk about women's clothing - all that is excused somehow - it doesn't seem to function in that real, it's just women's individual choices, which isn't about a culture of sexual objectification of women - after all, why don't we say the same about men?

 

Of course, if we actually live in a culture like that, we all live in it - including women and girls -  and we all absorb it's messages and ideas, and the choices we make can be reflecting and reinforcing that.  Our sense of what it means to be attractive - sexy and on display and always pushing the boundaries of what is just average modesty - is shaped by the culture, our sense of needing to compete that way is pushed by the culture.

 

It's not reasonable, or consistent, to on the one hand object to that culture and it's outcomes, and on the other continue to participate i it as a matter of "personal choice".  It's all these little personal choices that add up to make the cultural message.

[Carrie12345]

How can you know what ALL women who have EVER donned a sexy outfit do it for? One of my co-secretaries once said she wished she could be in a Playboy spread. (And it wasn't outside of the realm of possibility; she was very sexy.) I asked her why she would want that and she said, "It would be great to think of all those men wanting me." This woman had had mulitple alterations to her natural body because she wanted it to look sexy[/]; there is no other reason for altering functional and normal mamary glands.

 

Now - I'm sure she wasn't saying or intending that men would forcibly take from her, but she also did not mind if a guy thought it was more likely she would give him what he was after. Not every man who wants to "pick up" a girl would or wants to take things by force, but that doesn't mean those same men aren't going to aim for the low-hanging fruit. If she's advertising it, perhaps it will not be difficult to get participation.

 

:sad: Sincere question - Who taught you that it was okay to call women "low hanging fruit"?  What made you view them that way?  What caused you to equate wanting to be wanted with "likely to give him what he was after"?

 

Editing to add:  This is personally distressing to me, because I did like to be found attractive.  And there was a short period in my life when I believed that meant I should follow through.  It's a horrible thing to put on someone.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Carrie12345

[Carrie12345]

Oh, screw it. I DO like to be found attractive!  (Even in a hoodie and jeans, lol.)

[SKL]

If we're talking about understanding the culture and deciding how we want to participate (or not participate) in it, that is different IMO from what goes on at a teen dance.  The kids at homecoming are still learning about the culture and generally pretty awkward and unsure what their role is or should be.  I think it would be dishonest to tell them that clothes don't matter.  We could say they "shouldn't" matter, but they do, and adolescents need honest feedback about how clothes are perceived. 

 

It goes without saying that one also makes a statement by choosing to flout what society thinks about clothes, whether that is doing a Cher and showing off our buttocks, or a Boy George or Richard Simmons or whoever, skin or no skin.  But it is the rare young teen who is astute enough to understand the culture AND consciously flout it without damage to her social standing.

[rutamattatt]

We've had a slew of homecoming pictures on social media here as well, and most of the young ladies are wearing short dresses.  They are VERY short dresses, some with lower necklines as well.  I'll be honest, I just thought the girls looked formal and attractive.  Did I notice how short the skirts were?  Yes.  But...I know many of these girls.  I know their conservative mothers very well.  I know several of them well enough to know that they are committed to purity until marriage.  

 

Nothing about how they are dressing makes me question that.  This is the fashion right now.  They are not advertising themselves as "low hanging fruit" intentionally, and honestly I think the idea that they are doing it unintentionally is a bit ridiculous.  

 

I also know several of the young men escorting these ladies, and while I can imagine they are chock full of typical teenage hormones, I also know that they are respectful and honorable and do not in any way take the length of a hemline as some sign or free pass or invitation for anything.  I think a lot of the confusion is that some assumption that a short hemline or a low neckline confounds normal thinking and turns a rational (even hormonal) teenage boy or young man into someone ready to assault or harrass.  As stated above, the issue with someone who harasses/assaults has nothing to do with clothing.  

 

Can't remember where I first saw this - quite possibly on this board! - but I thought it was a good visual challenge to the "she sent me a mixed message with her clothing" line of thinking.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html

 

ETA:  Ah....never mind.  I was being redundant saying the same thing over and over again.   :laugh:

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by rutamattatt

[Word Nerd]

I wore bike/booty-type shorts under my babydoll dress back in the day.

[EmseB]

And that's what it boils down to.

 

Don't tell me what women are intelligent enough for, and then act as if men are incapable of finding someone attractive without touching them or verbally degrading them. What, exactly, are we saying about men here?

Who is acting as if men are incapable?

Edited October 22, 2017 by EmseB

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

So you think it would be better to act as if it makes no difference at all? That's why the other part of this is in what I am also teaching my sons.

 

Yes? And teach your sons the same thing as well, while you're at it. Because that's the goal here, isn't it? To evolve society--ALL of it--toward NOT thinking that women who dress immodestly must want to be taken by force. You tell your daughter to dress however she feels comfortable, other people's thoughts be damned, and if anyone comes along and makes her feel bad or wrong in any way for the clothes she's wearing, that she should give them an earful about minding their own damned business because they get to dress however THEY choose. 

 

 

There is a HUGE and very important difference between "I want to be perceived as attractive and sexy" and "I'm fine with any and all men harassing me and touching me without my consent."

 

No woman, no matter what she is wearing, is ever sending the second message. NO. ONE. 

 

 

This. For pete's sake!!!

 

:sad: Sincere question - Who taught you that it was okay to call women "low hanging fruit"?  What made you view them that way?  What caused you to equate wanting to be wanted with "likely to give him what he was after"?

 

Thank you! 

[Carrie12345]

Who is acting as if men are incapable?

 

Anyone insinuating that clothing can be mistaken for an invitation.

I'd be willing to bet that 99.something% of men know that it's not.  Some just don't care.

[Guest]

Continuing to insist that girls who do not dress "modestly" enough are inviting sexual harassment and assault only empowers men to use what a woman is wearing as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It's totally untrue, it's damaging to women, and it needs to stop.

BTW, I don't say this. I have not said anywhere that women who don't dress modestly enough are inviting sexual assault or harassment. I'm saying emphasizing sexual body parts can cause people to think perhaps those parts are being offered. A couple of posters now have asked the question: why does a woman dress in something so revealing if she doesn't want people to attend to that? I think that is a good question. When I wore sexy clothes, I wanted people (guys, principally) to think I was sexy, attractive, had a great bod. No, I wasn't thinking, "Boy, I hope some random guy grabs my ass!" But I wouldn't have thought it was bad if I could read minds and some guys were thinking, "man, look at that sexy ass!" I was still biying the idea that if I was sexy and desirable, I was a valuable woman. Gag me, now, but that's how I thought, but that's where I could wish for having had some better mentoring. It's one readon why I don't think it's benefiting younger girls to act as though the dress does not inform perceptions one iota.

[Corraleno]

Ys - this is just it.

 

I find it odd that people will talk about the systemic and institutionalized objectification of women in our culture, and how it is different than what men experience, and isn't about individuals thinking a certain way but much more unconscious ways of thinking by everyone.

 

But as soon as we talk about women's clothing - all that is excused somehow - it doesn't seem to function in that real, it's just women's individual choices, which isn't about a culture of sexual objectification of women - after all, why don't we say the same about men?

 

Of course, if we actually live in a culture like that, we all live in it - including women and girls -  and we all absorb it's messages and ideas, and the choices we make can be reflecting and reinforcing that.  Our sense of what it means to be attractive - sexy and on display and always pushing the boundaries of what is just average modesty - is shaped by the culture, our sense of needing to compete that way is pushed by the culture.

 

It's not reasonable, or consistent, to on the one hand object to that culture and it's outcomes, and on the other continue to participate i it as a matter of "personal choice".  It's all these little personal choices that add up to make the cultural message.

 

 

I agree that the way our culture sexualizes and objectifies women's bodies is damaging and dysfunctional, but I think that telling women they cannot express their sexuality, or want to appear attractive and desirable, without inviting men to assault them, feeds into that culture rather than pushing against it. It reinforces the idea that women's sexuality belongs to men, and should not be put on display lest men take what they are "advertising." 

 

IMO the way to stop (or at least reduce, it will never be stopped) sexual assault isn't to tell women to cover their bodies, it's to tell men that skimpy clothing is not an invitation to touch or harass someone. The conversation needs to be about consent, not clothing choices.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Who is acting as if men are incapable?

 

Every single person who implies that how a woman dresses somehow turns off a switch in any male brain that regulates whether or not they can keep their hands off her.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

BTW, I don't say this. I have not said anywhere that women who don't dress modestly enough are inviting sexual assault or harassment. I'm saying emphasizing sexual body parts can cause people to think perhaps those parts are being offered. A couple of posters now have asked the question: why does a woman dress in something so revealing if she doesn't want people to attend to that?

 

Because maybe she does want people to attend to that. Maybe she likes the way she looks and enjoys being admired and wanted. What exactly is wrong with that? And why can't we see that there's huge chasm between being admired and wanted for the way you look and being sexually harassed and assaulted. One should not be an open invitation to the other.

 

This is the point we're all trying to make here. A woman should have the ability to look attractive, sophisticated, even...gasp!...sexy without having to worry that she'll be physically (or even verbally) assaulted. The solution is not to prevent the sexiness. The solution is to teach men AND WOMEN that one's appearance does not imply a desire for anything beyond being looked at and admired. Full stop. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Corraleno]

Now - I'm sure she wasn't saying or intending that men would forcibly take from her, but she also did not mind if a guy thought it was more likely she would give him what he was after. Not every man who wants to "pick up" a girl would or wants to take things by force, but that doesn't mean those same men aren't going to aim for the low-hanging fruit. If she's advertising it, perhaps it will not be difficult to get participation.

 

This is so so so gross. OMG. 

 

Women are not objects to be "picked" by any man who wants a piece, and wearing a short dress in no way suggests they are.

 

Women in short dresses are not "cars with the windows down and the keys in the ignition." Long skirts and baggy sweaters do not "lock up" a woman's body against sexual assault.

 

Ugh. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

This is so so so gross. OMG. 

 

Women are not objects to be "picked" by any man who wants a piece, and wearing a short dress in no way suggests they are.

 

Women in short dresses are not "cars with the windows down and the keys in the ignition." Long skirts and baggy sweaters do not "lock up" a woman's body against sexual assault.

 

Ugh. 

 

Thank you. I was about to go back there, but you saved me the time.

[EmseB]

Every single person who implies that how a woman dresses somehow turns off a switch in any male brain that regulates whether or not they can keep their hands off her.

I don't think that's what anyone is saying.

[EmseB]

Because maybe she does want people to attend to that. Maybe she likes the way she looks and enjoys being admired and wanted. What exactly is wrong with that?

Because we're talking about high schoolers. What's wrong with a 14/15/16/17yo girl wanting to attract people to admire her books and rear end? Is that the question?

Edited October 22, 2017 by EmseB

[Guest]

:sad: Sincere question - Who taught you that it was okay to call women "low hanging fruit"? What made you view them that way? What caused you to equate wanting to be wanted with "likely to give him what he was after"?

 

Editing to add: This is personally distressing to me, because I did like to be found attractive. And there was a short period in my life when I believed that meant I should follow through. It's a horrible thing to put on someone.

Oh, come on! Do you disagree that there are some guys who are really just interested in an easy lay? Or, at least, to get around some bases if that is possible? Some women will cooperate with that goal and some want it for themselves. If a guy is principally looking for some "easy good times," he's going to go with one or two bits of data to try to choose well: what others say (her "rep") and how she presents herself. He's not going to "waste his time" on a dead end - the church girl in a long skirt, say, or a young lady whom other guys say, "yeah, she won't do anything, don't bother."

 

I like to be found attractive, too, both in the past and also now, but I also understand now the difference in just looking well dressed and nice-looking vs. showing a lot of bits (although that would also say something I really don't want to project at age 46 and married with three kids!) But see, I get that now. I didn't really get it when I was 20-something; I wish I had been better instructed. I don't think I much thouht I had to follow through, but I know I did miscue some guys who thought I must be offering something and it turned out I was not. I think it was not good behavior on my part, but I didn't realize it and nobody mentored me on that subject, probably because they were afraid of how they would be perceived.

[gardenmom5]

That's funny because I've been starting to see 70s styles coming back again.

 

it was about mid/late 70's.  all of a sudden - it was calf length skirts.  with boots.  you know designers make money this way - having such an abrupt change, those who want to be "stylish" (whatever that means) have to run and buy a new wardrobe.

I cared more about clothes in those days.  that changed after babies barfing all over me, and having to crawl on the floor.

 

dd is between a rock and hard place.  she needs to look professional to meet with ceos - but be able to crawl on the ground and go up and down ladders.

 

Oh, please no! If we want to go back let us go back a decade further. The 70s were not where fashion should revert to IMHO.

the 70's was a VERY ugly decade.   best forgotten.

 

though I did like the long plaid wool skirts.  they were warm in the winter.  but leisure suits.  :ack2:   (and women did have double knit poly suits too.)

 

Hmmm, what do you do if you drop something? Wait for someone else to pick it up I guess. Now I am not just showing my age but also how clumsy I am. :)

 

 

you squat.  very carefully.    sometimes you have to put a knee on the ground - so hope there's no mud.

What I'm curious about is what exactly is the intent of women or girls who dress that way. When I look back to when I wore more revealing clothes in my youth, I think I was hoping to get attention from men for my looks.

 

I know there was a time I was dressing for *male* attention.  such was the (very dysfunctional - but liberal and non-religious, there really was an expectation of teens having s3x. like I said, sick twisted family.) family in which I was raised, that we had no other value.

 

one line I really really liked from Erin Brokovich - she was raised to think the only thing people cared about was how she looked. (apparently - she wore much more revealing clothes than did julia roberts.) As she worked on that lawsuit - people were looking at her because they wanted to hear what she had to say.  It was an empowering moment for her.

 

I raised my girls to develop their intelligence.  They've never felt a need to "dress" for male attention.  I've never had to say much to them about what they were wearing. (1dd did get such comments as - you like that lime green fleece? I was joking!)  But I also tracked what my son's wore.  they loved attitude t's.  "um - do you know what that shirt really means?"  then I explained it.  it's really cute to see a 16 yo boy turn bright red. He promptly put it back.

[Tap]

The linked dresses are common length in our area and aren't any different than I wore in the 80s. Dd and I are about 5'9" and have long legs.

 

There were a few dresses over the years that her friends could wear that were too short on her. I veto'd a few but otherwise I would have her show me that she could do the basics without showing her shorts. Slight bend like when you are signing in at a table, basic dancing with hands over the head, getting in and out of car with heals on, sitting in chair with heals....all in the dress. Honestly, its a bit of a life lesson. Just like dancing in a strapless dress. Most girls try it at least once, but quickly learn that sometimes a certain look isn't worth the extra effort.

 

Just like high heals, if you want to wear a short dress you learn to maneuver you body. Spandex shorts are common under short dresses just in case, but the point is to not show them. We bend at the knees and in a chair you keep your knees together. It isn't hard to be graceful in a short dress.

[Carrie12345]

Oh, come on! Do you disagree that there are some guys who are really just interested in an easy lay? Or, at least, to get around some bases if that is possible? Some women will cooperate with that goal and some want it for themselves. If a guy is principally looking for some "easy good times," he's going to go with one or two bits of data to try to choose well: what others say (her "rep") and how she presents herself. He's not going to "waste his time" on a dead end - the church girl in a long skirt, say, or a young lady whom other guys say, "yeah, she won't do anything, don't bother."

 

I like to be found attractive, too, both in the past and also now, but I also understand now the difference in just looking well dressed and nice-looking vs. showing a lot of bits (although that would also say something I really don't want to project at age 46 and married with three kids!) But see, I get that now. I didn't really get it when I was 20-something; I wish I had been better instructed. I don't think I much thouht I had to follow through, but I know I did miscue some guys who thought I must be offering something and it turned out I was not. I think it was not good behavior on my part, but I didn't realize it and nobody mentored me on that subject, probably because they were afraid of how they would be perceived.

 

I have ZERO problem with men OR women wanting an easy lay.  Casual sex between two consenting adults is none of my business.  Assault is entirely different.  And maybe that's where the disconnect is here.  "Yes, please" is consent.  Skin isn't.

[Guest]

This is so so so gross. OMG.

 

Women are not objects to be "picked" by any man who wants a piece, and wearing a short dress in no way suggests they are.

 

Women in short dresses are not "cars with the windows down and the keys in the ignition." Long skirts and baggy sweaters do not "lock up" a woman's body against sexual assault.

 

Ugh.

I didn't say "women" are low-hanging fruits to be picked by any man who wants a piece. Duh. I was talking about the perceptionsome guys could have. Do you really think there are NO guys who are just looking for an easy good time? Why would someone want to advertise the possibility that maybe they are the easy pickings? Why would a parent not advise her teenaged daughter against creating the impression that she might be? (To say nothing of the logistical issues in tiny short dresses, which was the main point when I first posted, but okay, we've blown on past that, now.)

[Guest]

I have ZERO problem with men OR women wanting an easy lay. Casual sex between two consenting adults is none of my business. Assault is entirely different. And maybe that's where the disconnect is here. "Yes, please" is consent. Skin isn't.

Are you equally casual about high school aged people?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

BTW, I don't say this. I have not said anywhere that women who don't dress modestly enough are inviting sexual assault or harassment. I'm saying emphasizing sexual body parts can cause people to think perhaps those parts are being offered. A couple of posters now have asked the question: why does a woman dress in something so revealing if she doesn't want people to attend to that? I think that is a good question. When I wore sexy clothes, I wanted people (guys, principally) to think I was sexy, attractive, had a great bod. No, I wasn't thinking, "Boy, I hope some random guy grabs my ass!" But I wouldn't have thought it was bad if I could read minds and some guys were thinking, "man, look at that sexy ass!" I was still biying the idea that if I was sexy and desirable, I was a valuable woman. Gag me, now, but that's how I thought, but that's where I could wish for having had some better mentoring. It's one readon why I don't think it's benefiting younger girls to act as though the dress does not inform perceptions one iota.

 

Shenanigans.  It is abundantly clear that is exactly what you are implying.  Just go back and read your own Cadillac analogy.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

It's one readon why I don't think it's benefiting younger girls to act as though the dress does not inform perceptions one iota.

 

Yes, I get you Quill.  This is the kind of thing I talk to my daughter about.

 

I'm kind of surprised that people equate the things you're saying with victim-blaming.  I just don't read your posts that way. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I don't think that's what anyone is saying.

 

Read a little more carefully. 

 

Because we're talking about high schoolers. What's wrong with a 14/15/16/17yo girl wanting to attract people to admire her books and rear end? Is that the question?

 

First, we have a different perspective on what kinds of clothing emphasize and highlight books and rear ends, so bias makes a dramatic difference right there. I have often wondered where the heck people were shopping when they ranted about not being able to find non-short shorts for their daughters, until I finally realized their definition of short shorts was vastly different from mine.

 

Second, teenagers push all kinds of envelopes for all kinds of reasons. This is simply another kind. I don't see it as all that different from dramatic makeup or hairstyles--all things designed to garner attention and look attractive to others. Adult women often focus very heavily on their appearance as well--weight, makeup, clothing. Why, if not because they're concerned about how they appear to others? 

 

Third, I'm not advocating that we don't talk with our kids about what makes us valuable as human beings. Hint: It shouldn't be our appearance! But that's not what this thread is about. The discussion turned into what it did when the first mention of victim blaming and breasts on platters and comparing women in short dresses to Cadillacs with the windows open and the keys in the ignition. So a different conversation is currently being had. I'd love to have the one you're talking about, though, because I'm right there with you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh, come on! Do you disagree that there are some guys who are really just interested in an easy lay? Or, at least, to get around some bases if that is possible? Some women will cooperate with that goal and some want it for themselves. If a guy is principally looking for some "easy good times," he's going to go with one or two bits of data to try to choose well: what others say (her "rep") and how she presents herself. He's not going to "waste his time" on a dead end - the church girl in a long skirt, say, or a young lady whom other guys say, "yeah, she won't do anything, don't bother."

 

I like to be found attractive, too, both in the past and also now, but I also understand now the difference in just looking well dressed and nice-looking vs. showing a lot of bits (although that would also say something I really don't want to project at age 46 and married with three kids!) But see, I get that now. I didn't really get it when I was 20-something; I wish I had been better instructed. I don't think I much thouht I had to follow through, but I know I did miscue some guys who thought I must be offering something and it turned out I was not. I think it was not good behavior on my part, but I didn't realize it and nobody mentored me on that subject, probably because they were afraid of how they would be perceived.

 

Um...some women are as well.  That's their business and not mine.

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Carrie12345]

I have ZERO problem with men OR women wanting an easy lay.  Casual sex between two consenting adults is none of my business.  Assault is entirely different.  And maybe that's where the disconnect is here.  "Yes, please" is consent.  Skin isn't.

 

 

Are you equally casual about high school aged people?

 

This question actually scares me.

Are you trying to ask me if letting my ACTUAL teenage daughters choose their wardrobes equates with supporting them having casual sex????