My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question

[Cindy in FL.]

I certainly haven’t taught my 5 sons anything like that. A woman could be buck naked and it doesn’t mean she’s sexually available.

 

This thread is flabbergasting and distressing. 2017. I never realized how many moms are teaching their sons this kind of thing. That girls dressing provocatively are sexually available. Which means they're easy pickings for both nice young boys and rapists. Or perhaps they're looking to trap an innocent young man with false accusations.

 

Women in short dresses, in other words are dangerous. No wonder so much effort is put towards shaming them!

 

We have a long way to go.

[poppy]

I find it interesting you used the word provocatively. The OP was talking about high schoolers. Provacative means: arousing sexual desire or interest, especially deliberately.

 

The point of the OP was that provacative is not a good look for underage high school girls for a variety of reasons. The point is not that this is an excuse for rape or assault. The point is that being sexy as a minor is inappropriate.

 

Shame her!   Am I right?

 

You are putting a lot of power into the choice of clothes a kid wears here, while being  oddly tightlipped about "variety of reasons".    Honestly.  Covers more than a bathing suit, she likes it, we should be good, without having middle aged ladies pass judgement.  Not your kid, not hurting anyone, move along. 

 

There's a lot of fashion I don't like, but none I personally think makes it ok to assault that person.  I hear people say of course rape is not ok, but I also here there are a "variety of reasons" why short dresses are a bad idea and that's pretty clearly one of them.

[Cindy in FL.]

The tolerable number of women/girls being raped or assaulted = 0. The tolerable number of boys/men being falsely accused of the same = 0. The tolerable number of boys/men getting away with it = 0.

[Guest]

You have been very clear from the beginning that you intend to be judgmental about this topic. It is possible to not want my kids to "hook up" at 15 (depending on how you are defining it) without being judgmental about what girls are wearing.

 

In general, I'm not at all concerned about teenagers hooking-up - which I define as normal, age-appropriate sexual behavior. I don't think it makes them bad or immoral. I don't think it makes them more likely to be assaulted. I think that people who are going to call someone "trashy" or "easy" based on normal developmental behavior is in the wrong.

 

Seems like this thread is more about teenage sexual behavior rather than what teenage girls are wearing to HOCO.

I am not a chastity promoter, as I have said on these boards many times if you have seen any of those other conversations. But I don't believe in condoning or encouraging teens (anyone really) to have sex casually or recreationally. I'm not a fan of that. I don't think it is good for boys or girls or society as a whole.

 

I wouldn't be flattered or think it was great if my daughter was regularly hooking up (being sexual) with different peope she barely or not at all knew. I wouldn't think my sons were studs or cool if they found or targeted girls who will have sex with them casually or incidentally and without knowing who they are or really anything about them.

 

So, maybe you are fine with those things. Obviously I can do nothing about what someone on the internet thinks is fine. But there is nothing wrong with me giving my opinion that these are things I don't think are good for society or indivuals.

[LMD]

The tolerable number of women/girls being raped or assaulted = 0. The tolerable number of boys/men being falsely accused of the same = 0. The tolerable number of boys/men getting away with it = 0.

As a culture, it is demonstrably clear that we don't actually believe this.

[Cindy in FL.]

I think it’s interesting that the only criteria for clothing worn in public is that it “covers more than a bathing suitâ€. People have opinions and use judgement all the time about things that you wouldn’t consider their business. I’d be willing to bet you have done/do the same thing. You don’t have to agree with other people’s opinions or judgement, but that doesn’t negate their right to them.

 

Shame her! Am I right?

 

You are putting a lot of power into the choice of clothes a kid wears here, while being oddly tightlipped about "variety of reasons". Honestly. Covers more than a bathing suit, she likes it, we should be good, without having middle aged ladies pass judgement. Not your kid, not hurting anyone, move along.

 

There's a lot of fashion I don't like, but none I personally think makes it ok to assault that person. I hear people say of course rape is not ok, but I also here there are a "variety of reasons" why short dresses are a bad idea and that's pretty clearly one of them.

[8circles]

I am not a chastity promoter, as I have said on these boards many times if you have seen any of those other conversations. But I don't believe in condoning or encouraging teens (anyone really) to have sex casually or recreationally. I'm not a fan of that. I don't think it is good for boys or girls or society as a whole.

 

I wouldn't be flattered or think it was great if my daughter was regularly hooking up (being sexual) with different peope she barely or not at all knew. I wouldn't think my sons were studs or cool if they found or targeted girls who will have sex with them casually or incidentally and without knowing who they are or really anything about them.

 

So, maybe you are fine with those things. Obviously I can do nothing about what someone on the internet thinks is fine. But there is nothing wrong with me giving my opinion that these are things I don't think are good for society or indivuals.

 

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.

[Caroline]

If the dress has no power, then why wear one of that nature? I mean, if a hook up is one's goal and it doesn't matter if things are covered or displayed, then why display them and be chilly or uncomfortable or restricted in movement?

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.

[Cindy in FL.]

No kidding! The belief of our culture doesn’t, thankfully, determine the truthfulness of my statements.

 

As a culture, it is demonstrably clear that we don't actually believe this.

[Murphy101]

If the dress has no power, then why wear one of that nature? I mean, if a hook up is one's goal and it doesn't matter if things are covered or displayed, then why display them and be chilly or uncomfortable or restricted in movement?

What in the world. The dresses you linked to don’t look restrictive to me. With the exception of the cleavage being about an inch or 2 too low for my tastes on the white one, I didn’t think any of them were provocative at all. The blue one had a low back. *shrug* The grey one was just ugly and unflattering in shape imnsho. And why would they be cold? It’s 80’ outside here right now and many places indoors get hot quickly when filled with people.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Murphy101

[Wheres Toto]

I am not a chastity promoter, as I have said on these boards many times if you have seen any of those other conversations. But I don't believe in condoning or encouraging teens (anyone really) to have sex casually or recreationally. I'm not a fan of that. I don't think it is good for boys or girls or society as a whole.

 

I wouldn't be flattered or think it was great if my daughter was regularly hooking up (being sexual) with different peope she barely or not at all knew. I wouldn't think my sons were studs or cool if they found or targeted girls who will have sex with them casually or incidentally and without knowing who they are or really anything about them.

 

So, maybe you are fine with those things. Obviously I can do nothing about what someone on the internet thinks is fine. But there is nothing wrong with me giving my opinion that these are things I don't think are good for society or indivuals.

 

Just because I "allowed" my daughter to wear short dresses in high school, to a dance where the vast majority of girls were wearing similar attire, does not mean I encouraged her to sleep around with a bunch of strangers.    I think correlating the two is a real stretch.

[rutamattatt]

If the dress has no power, then why wear one of that nature? I mean, if a hook up is one's goal and it doesn't matter if things are covered or displayed, then why display them and be chilly or uncomfortable or restricted in movement?

 

The above is a preference.  It isn't true across the board.

 

I think that being chilly, uncomfortable, restricted in movement, and certainly being on display is how one person might feel in a short dress.  I have a drop dead gorgeous petite 19 year old daughter who bought a short dress for a wedding recently, and she felt plenty warm, comfortable, able to dance (after eating a big wedding meal and cake), and nothing was displayed that was inappropriate.  It WAS short, but it was not immodest.  The girls I know who are wearing shorter dresses are comfortable in them because that has been the fashion for awhile and at their special events this is what they have worn and what others are wearing.  

 

ETA:  My DD was not advertising anything.  She was not inviting anything.  She was not trying to send subtle or not subtle messages to any males who were in attendance.  She was at a wedding looking pretty in a dress that may be shorter than one other people might not be comfortable in.  

 

ETA2:  Because I cannot type!

Edited October 23, 2017 by rutamattatt

[Guest]

Just because I "allowed" my daughter to wear short dresses in high school, to a dance where the vast majority of girls were wearing similar attire, does not mean I encouraged her to sleep around with a bunch of strangers. I think correlating the two is a real stretch.

I'm not correlating the two! I was responding to a poster who said something like, "So? Teenagers have sex. They seek it out and hook up."

 

Some people have asked, "who cares if her dress says she wants to have consensual sex?" I am replying to that question. I care.

[Murphy101]

I'm not correlating the two! I was responding to a poster who said something like, "So? Teenagers have sex. They seek it out and hook up."

 

Some people have asked, "who cares if her dress says she wants to have consensual sex?" I am replying to that question. I care.

Some might be saying that. Most are saying that the dresses you posted do not say any such thing.

[Caroline]

Some might be saying that. Most are saying that the dresses you posted do not say any such thing.

Exactly!!

[Guest]

What in the world. The dresses you linked to don’t look restrictive to me. With the exception of the cleavage being about an inch or 2 too low for my tastes on the white one, I didn’t think any of them were provocative at all. The blue one had a low back. *shrug* The grey one was just ugly and unflattering in shape imnsho. And why would they be cold? It’s 80’ outside here right now and many places indoors get hot quickly when filled with people.

Well, the dresses I am seeing on the young ladies which prompted this post are restrictive, unless the girl does not care if her crotch is exposed when she sits, or if her butt comes out the bottom when she lifts her arms over her head. Or in some cases, if she bends forward, her breasts might be visible right to the nipple. Or again, her butt will show at the hemm. Or if she doesn't bend at the waist but instead squats, then we're back to her crotch is exposed.

 

I know it is not cold everywhere in the country, but I was talking about girls right here, right now and some evenings are cold. When my kids have homecoming dance, it is January and it's usually freezing cold. (They don't have a football team so they do homecoming with basketball.)

 

It was a post on these boards not more than a year ago that really made me think about why are women's clothing, when they are designed to be sexy, designed to make it hard to get away or to maneuver like a normal person? Why are sexy shoes designed to be difficult or impossible to flee in, or maybe even walk in at all? If the climate is cold, why are women's sexy clothes worthless as protection from the cold? Hmm could it be that designers like the idea of a vulnerable woman? One who cannot protect herself adequately? I have really begun to ponder that.

 

That thread made me decide against ever wearing high stiletto heels ever again. I will still wear heels for some occassions. But I threw out three pairs of shoes I had and one pair of boots because they make no sense to me now.

[EmseB]

Shame her!   Am I right?

 

You are putting a lot of power into the choice of clothes a kid wears here, while being  oddly tightlipped about "variety of reasons".    Honestly.  Covers more than a bathing suit, she likes it, we should be good, without having middle aged ladies pass judgement.  Not your kid, not hurting anyone, move along. 

 

There's a lot of fashion I don't like, but none I personally think makes it ok to assault that person.  I hear people say of course rape is not ok, but I also here there are a "variety of reasons" why short dresses are a bad idea and that's pretty clearly one of them.

 

 

No, you are not right. Unless you consider shaming to mean a reasonable discussion about why certain clothing choices by underage girls, which you described at deliberately seeking sexual arousal from others are not a good idea. I was responding to your use of the word provocative. The fact is that the variety of reasons have been discussed on this thread and other places, and then there is a brigade of people who come in and claim that those reasons boil down to saying it's okay to assault a girl in a short skirt (as you have done here).  It's a rhetorical cluster because there can't be a reasoned discussion without women accusing other women of being okay with rape of all things. Do you really think I am okay with sexual assault? That the OP is okay with women being raped based on what they are wearing?  Do you and others really think that's what is being said because someone disagrees with your idea of what clothing is appropriate or not for a teenage girl?

 

The fact is that there is a debate about which clothing is provocative and which isn't. Quill was making the judgement in her OP that ultra short and tight dresses on teenage, minor girls are provocative and that isn't appropriate attention for a minor to be seeking, intentionally or unintentionally because she's underage and can't consent to most anything, legally speaking.

 

And none of that debate has anything to do with whether or not it is okay to assault someone.  None. Because it is never okay, no matter what they are wearing.

 

No one is saying the bolded. Literally no one.  In the post to which you responded, I actually said the exact opposite.  It is a complete non sequitur.

 

ETA: Your response to me here basically comes down to this: "I hear you saying that rape isn't okay. I think you are lying and not about anything benign. I think you are lying about the fact that you think it's okay for girls to be raped for what they are wearing." There's no discussion to be had then. If you think I and others would lie about something so utterly horrid and want to impute those types of things into my words, then there's no way to have a rational discussion.

Edited October 24, 2017 by EmseB

[EmseB]

Some might be saying that. Most are saying that the dresses you posted do not say any such thing.

 

But she was responding directly to someone who did say that. Is that not allowed because some people are saying something else?

 

This thread is so confusing.

[poppy]

No, you are not right. Unless you consider shaming to mean a reasonable discussion about why certain clothing choices by underage girls, which you described at deliberately seeking sexual arousal from others are not a good idea. I was responding to your use of the word provocative. The fact is that the variety of reasons have been discussed on this thread and other places, and then there is a brigade of people who come in and claim that those reasons boil down to saying it's okay to assault a girl in a short skirt (as you have done here).  It's a rhetorical cluster because there can't be a reasoned discussion without women accusing other women of being okay with rape of all things. Do you really think I am okay with sexual assault? That the OP is okay with women being raped based on what they are wearing?  Do you and others really think that's what is being said because someone disagrees with your idea of what clothing is appropriate or not for a teenage girl?

 

The fact is that there is a debate about which clothing is provocative and which isn't. Quill was making the judgement in her OP that ultra short and tight dresses on teenage, minor girls are provocative and that isn't appropriate attention for a minor to be seeking, intentionally or unintentionally because she's underage and can't consent to most anything, legally speaking.

 

And none of that debate has anything to do with whether or not it is okay to assault someone.  None. Because it is never okay, no matter what they are wearing.

 

No one is saying the bolded. Literally no one.  In the post to which you responded, I actually said the exact opposite.  It is a complete non sequitur.

 

ETA: Your response to me here basically comes down to this: "I hear you saying that rape isn't okay. I think you are lying and not about anything benign. I think you are lying about the fact that you think it's okay for girls to be raped for what they are wearing." There's no discussion to be had then. If you think I and others would lie about something so utterly horrid and want to impute those types of things into my words, then there's no way to have a rational discussion.

 

What makes you think provocative means 'deliberately seeking sexual arousal from others'?  Cause I sure didn't say that.  That's not what it means.

Here, I'll google it for you: "causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately."

Provocative means provokes a reaction.   Like it did with the OP.

 

And saying "Assault is not ok" and also saying "choosing to wear these clothes makes it much more likely you will be raped"... yeah, ok, you're right, it doesn't mean assualt is OK.  It just means it's her fault.  The teenaged girl's fault.  Which is what i find gross.

 

[Pen]

If the dress has no power, then why wear one of that nature? I mean, if a hook up is one's goal and it doesn't matter if things are covered or displayed, then why display them and be chilly or uncomfortable or restricted in movement?

 

 

They look chilly during the part that is outdoors watching football game. Though that can be solved by a stadium blanket or a coat. Once inside to dance, they are probably very comfortable (more like a tennis dress to allow agile movement, and look to be far easier to move in than  longer and more formal dresses .

 

...

 

Current "business" attire for women is much more revealing than it was "in my day."  But at a recent job fair, my ds and one other boy who both wore suits, and one girl who wore the sort of dress you  find way too short (though not dressed up with sequins or cut outs as for a HoCo dance), got to have special practice interviews. My ds described the girl dressed thus as looking the most "business-like" of the girls.  To his eyes, the short dress length does not indicate availability for a hook up, but rather part of the power outfit of the class's prez and most popular girl, and seemed dressed up in a girl equivalent of the suits for the boys.  

[EmseB]

What makes you think provocative means 'deliberately seeking sexual arousal from others'?  Cause I sure didn't say that.  That's not what it means.

Here, I'll google it for you: "causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately."

Provocative means provokes a reaction.   Like it did with the OP.

 

And saying "Assault is not ok" and also saying "choosing to wear these clothes makes it much more likely you will be raped"... yeah, ok, you're right, it doesn't mean assualt is OK.  It just means it's her fault.  The teenaged girl's fault.  Which is what i find gross.

 

 

Thanks for the google. I know what provocative means when talking about clothing. I got the definition I cited from that exact same google link. The synonyms for the definition you cite say this: annoying, irritating, exasperating, infuriating, maddening, vexing, galling.  I'm sure you were talking about annoying and exasperating clothing. Vexing clothing.  Which does not even make sense in any context of the discussion. What you're doing is pure back peddling. Society uses the word proactive to describe clothing in terms of the second definition listed, and I'm sure you know that, but yes, let's argue semantics. In which case, I totally give, because that is just tiring and not even genuine discussion.

 

Neither is, by the way, thinking that anyone here is saying a teenage girl is to blame for her own rape because of what she's wearing. If that's the case you're making then you are beyond any kind of reasonable discussion. You really think people here discussing an opposing view think it is a teenage girl's fault for being raped based on what she's wearing? That's what you really think of the women posting to this thread who disagree with you about clothing standards?  It's so mind boggling it doesn't even make sense that you would see posters in here day in and day out and then assume the absolute awful, evil, worst about them. It is gross that you could attribute those views to fellow women.

Edited October 24, 2017 by EmseB

[Guest]

So, I'm going to have to bow out now. It's family time and I can't even keep up with the quotes and notifications. We're talking at cross purposes. More talking isn't fixing anything.

 

Good night.

[Corraleno]

Well, the dresses I am seeing on the young ladies which prompted this post are restrictive, unless the girl does not care if her crotch is exposed when she sits, or if her butt comes out the bottom when she lifts her arms over her head. Or in some cases, if she bends forward, her breasts might be visible right to the nipple. Or again, her butt will show at the hemm. Or if she doesn't bend at the waist but instead squats, then we're back to her crotch is exposed.

 

 

You have apparently spent a whole lot of time thinking about exactly which square inches of skin might possibly be visible when teenage girls you are unrelated to wear dresses you don't approve of, even though their own parents obviously have no problem with them. And on top of that you are imputing motives to the girls who wear the dresses (they're sending "messages" about being easy lays) and the boys who dance with them (they're looking for "low hanging fruit" to screw), even though that makes no sense when nearly everyone is wearing the same thing. 

 

Why? Why do you feel such a need to scrutinize the bodies and clothing of teenage girls and pass judgement on them?  :confused1:

[EmseB]

You have apparently spent a whole lot of time thinking about exactly which square inches of skin might possibly be visible when teenage girls you are unrelated to wear dresses you don't approve of, even though their own parents obviously have no problem with them. And on top of that you are imputing motives to the girls who wear the dresses (they're sending "messages" about being easy lays) and the boys who dance with them (they're looking for "low hanging fruit" to screw), even though that makes no sense when nearly everyone is wearing the same thing. 

 

Why? Why do you feel such a need to scrutinize the bodies and clothing of teenage girls and pass judgement on them?  :confused1:

 

Not Quill, but for my part, I think the objectification and sexualization of girls who cannot give consent because they are not old enough to do so is a real problem in society. They are 14/15/16 years old, and even younger probably. I probably have not spent a huge amount of time devoted to thinking about it in the detail you've outlined here though.

[Corraleno]

Neither is, by the way, thinking that anyone here is saying a teenage girl is to blame for her own rape because of what she's wearing. If that's the case you're making then you are beyond any kind of reasonable discussion. You really think people here discussing an opposing view think it is a teenage girl's fault for being raped based on what she's wearing? That's what you really think of the women posting to this thread who disagree with you about clothing standards?  It's so mind boggling it doesn't even make sense that you would see posters in here day in and day out and then assume the absolute awful, evil, worst about them. It is gross that you could attribute those views to fellow women.

 

No one here has come out and said a girl in a skimpy dress is to blame if she's raped, but several people have insisted that wearing dresses like the ones linked in the OP increase the likelihood of being assaulted — even though this is factually untrue. The myth that dressing "modestly" reduces the likelihood of assault is incredibly damaging to women: it conditions us to believe that we are somehow complicit in our assault if we did not dress "modestly" enough, making it less likely that victims will report assault, and it makes other people (including police, judges, and jury members) question if perhaps we "led the guy on" because of the way we were dressed, making it less likely that we will be believed if we do report it.

 

Saying "of course no woman deserves to be assaulted, but [insert comment about how she's dressed]" is still victim-blaming. It's still slut-shaming. And it's totally unacceptable. It's a dangerous, damaging, and totally untrue MYTH that needs to be eradicated. 

[Pen]

Not Quill, but for my part, I think the objectification and sexualization of girls who cannot give consent because they are not old enough to do so is a real problem in society. They are 14/15/16 years old, and even younger probably. I probably have not spent a huge amount of time devoted to thinking about it in the detail you've outlined here though.

 

 

But then maybe it needs a societal level solution. Designers to make different styles of clothing, for example.  

 

If the "in" thing in a particular year is a certain thing, it can even be hard for a parent who does not have hand-me downs available, and maybe has to do other things and cannot sew or spend a lot of time looking in second hand stores to even find anything in a style that is not the current style.

 

Wearing the "in" style at a particular time might mean that the mom is a busy  single mom who cannot find something else for her daughter to wear and might have nothing to do with any goals beyond an outfit for the dance that is readily available to buy.

 

i know Quill has bowed out, but I wonder what the girls at her ds17's school will wear for Homecoming, if they have one. And what message her ds will take from that.

[Murphy101]

Not Quill, but for my part, I think the objectification and sexualization of girls who cannot give consent because they are not old enough to do so is a real problem in society. They are 14/15/16 years old, and even younger probably. I probably have not spent a huge amount of time devoted to thinking about it in the detail you've outlined here though.

Why would any of them be younger than that at a high school function? Many high schools have policies against bringing younger or over 18 guests to such events. At the prom my kids went to last year, even tho they were within the age range, they couldn’t go until they got multiple signatures from the school giving permission and were assigned a dress code to follow as well.

 

16 year olds can give legal sexual consent to a fellow teen in most states iirc.

 

I’m not for them doing so, but the legally they can give consent.

 

That’s got nothing to do with her clothing anyways though.

[goldberry]

There's a lot of fashion I don't like, but none I personally think makes it ok to assault that person.  I hear people say of course rape is not ok, but I also here there are a "variety of reasons" why short dresses are a bad idea and that's pretty clearly one of them.

 

There are a variety of reasons that don't include it's okay to assault the person.   The reasons have been discussed but some posters just keep insisting that no, you really mean it's okay to assault them!  

 

How about:

If you are teaching your teen that casual or teenage sex is not beneficial, why would they want to send that message to fellow teenage boys that they are sexually available, only to have to repeatedly correct them?  Why would it be good to repeatedly put themselves in that situation?

 

If young girls start to rely on revealing clothes to get attention or validation or whatever, I think it is easier to define themselves by their body than by their other personality traits.  In effect, not respecting themselves as a whole person.

 

If women wear revealing clothes that imply that they are sexually available or looking for casual hookups, then it contributes to a generalized societal view of women as sexual objects.

 

See there?  Variety of reasons.  It is pretty clearly NOT one of my reasons.

[EmseB]

Why would any of them be younger than that at a high school function?

 

I was speaking more generally. I said:

 

I think the objectification and sexualization of girls who cannot give consent because they are not old enough to do so is a real problem in society.

 

 

16 year olds can give legal sexual consent to a fellow teen in most states iirc.

 

I’m not for them doing so, but the legally they can give consent.

 

That’s got nothing to do with her clothing anyways though.

 

 

I mean we can quibble about the ages of high school girls, and which states have what consent laws for what ages I guess, but that wasn't really the point.

 

And you're right, it has nothing to do with clothing, aside from the fact that there is a lot of clothing out there designed to objectify and sexualize women, and in this case we're talking about women who are under the age of majority.

 

Clothing has to do with the part where I was talking about the objectification and sexualization of young girls in society. But apparently none of us can disagree or discuss that without others of us being accused of being okay with a girl getting sexually assaulted or raped.

 

I seriously feel like this is some kind of rhetorical merry-go-round.

[umsami]

Somebody posted that women were more objectified in the Middle East and India.  I can't find anything to back that up, and having traveled there, I do not think it is any worse than the US.

 

I did find two interesting articles.  The first is just on the objectification of women and girls mainly in the U.S.  It's a sobering read.  https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/not-object-sexualization-and-exploitation-women-and-girls/30366

 

The second is about the marginalization of women in country music...which is a more recent trend.  https://newrepublic.com/article/121946/marginalization-women-mainstream-country-music

[EmseB]

 

Saying "of course no woman deserves to be assaulted, but [insert comment about how she's dressed]" is still victim-blaming. It's still slut-shaming. And it's totally unacceptable. It's a dangerous, damaging, and totally untrue MYTH that needs to be eradicated. 

 

And as long as that is what you get out of the conversation, then there will be no conversation.  That's all I'm saying.  If you think I am okay with blaming a victim of rape for their own rape because of their clothing, then there's really nothing left to say. I can say the opposite until I'm blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, because my opinions about provocative clothing on teenage girls mean I'm blaming someone for their own rape. Several people have already said this and the message is loud and clear.

[8circles]

And as long as that is what you get out of the conversation, then there will be no conversation.  That's all I'm saying.  If you think I am okay with blaming a victim of rape for their own rape because of their clothing, then there's really nothing left to say. I can say the opposite until I'm blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, because my opinions about provocative clothing on teenage girls mean I'm blaming someone for their own rape. Several people have already said this and the message is loud and clear.

 

I acknowledge that the people that are disagreeing with you are not all making the same points so I can see how you would be confused. 

 

The bottom line is you are refusing to hear from women who are telling you, from personal experience as well as statistically, that the message you are sending is one of blaming the victim. If you actually care about how our culture has sexualized women - of all ages - then you should look at how your attitude participates in that. 

 

SOME people who dress in a particular way are interested in certain behaviors, other people wearing the same clothes might just be wearing what they believe fits in with the current style. Assuming that it is always the former is sexualizing that person. I would suggest NOT assuming that person is "easy", "trashy", or "low hanging fruit" but instead, treat them as an actual human being, an individual, and not some stereotype. 

[ktgrok]

I'm reminded of the section of Mere Christianity on modesty. How what is modest in one culture isn't in another...that being topless in Bora Bora or whatever isn't immodest if that is the standard of dress for everyone. If all the girls at the dance are wearing short skirts than no, I doubt boys are inferring much from it. 

[hornblower]

. If you actually care about how our culture has sexualized women - of all ages - then you should look at how your attitude participates in that. 

 

SOME people who dress in a particular way are interested in certain behaviors, other people wearing the same clothes might just be wearing what they believe fits in with the current style. Assuming that it is always the former is sexualizing that person. I would suggest NOT assuming that person is "easy", "trashy", or "low hanging fruit" but instead, treat them as an actual human being, an individual, and not some stereotype. 

I reject the premise that recognizing that certain clothes send certain messages means that *we're* complicit in sexualizing women and teens. 

 

 

The *culture* and patriarchy sexualizes women and girls. 

 

It does seem to me that there are several - sometimes muddled - conversations here. Clothing, using sexual appeal as a tool, are distinct from participating in sexual activity, which is distinct again from forced sexual activity. These are all distinct concepts. I think sometimes we too quickly jump from one to another and imply causality or even correlation, when nobody is arguing that. 

[fraidycat]

1)

I'm saying why appear to offer that if you are not offering it? It could lead to being a victim of an assault. I'm not saying, "gee, no guy could possibly stop himself." I'm saying don't display things if you don't want to send the message that these things might be offered. The guys you 2) attract *are* those who may think you are "available" and not the decent guy who would never drop his napkin to look up your skirt. If you don't want the guy who is going to use you, don't send out a message that you might be offering these items which are being showcased.

 

3) I *do* think dressing in tiny, revealing clothing makes a woman a more likely target of sexual assault, no matter how many times posters here try to say it makes no difference at all. I am not saying a woman in a burqa could never be assaulted; obviously she can be and it does occur. 4) A woman in a micro-dress is not to blame for having had an assault happen; that was what my Cadillac example was all about. But saying she is not to blame is not the same as saying she isn't a more likely target in a dress such as that one. A creep is going to be creepy on a woman who makes it easier if he can. And a creep who thinks she was sending a signal by wearing that dress is going to be the one to abuse her; that there are decent guys who would never do this is moot because that isn't the guy she attracted by wearing that dress and he's not around now.

 

I haven't seen a decent study on it and honestly, I don't care enough about it to do one now 5) (because to me the solution is simple), but I have 6) seen repeatedly in those articles about how to reduce the likelihood of assault as a woman, one of them is not to wear easily-accessible dresses, especially if you will be walking alone at night. Another is to carry a substantial umbrella, even if there is no chance of rain, because it can be used to fend off an attack. (Others are to walk with a friend whenever possible; walk briskly and with confidence; look around you in an alert manner. Even having keys in your hand is better than walking empty-handed.)

 

Anyway, as fun as this conversation is for me, this will probably have to be my last post on it. I am out of time and school is back in session tomorrow and I cannot afford to waste my whole day explaining what I did or did not mean. So I'm afraid some people will just have to think I'm a prudish old crotchety woman who thinks young ladies should cover their crotches by more than an inch or two of open fabric and that casual hook-ups are not really optimal for anyone.

1) Because one’s appearance is their own choice period. Why do you not wear a burqa? Do you wish to appear to be offering yourself up to men of certain backgrounds? If not, you better go get yourself one ASAP!

 

2) They can ask. And be told NO

 

3) This has been proven false. No matter how many times you say it.

 

4) Then stop blaming her!

 

5) If the solution is so simple, why are women who are not dressed in micro-dresses assaulted every day?

 

6) Anyone can write an article. It doesn’t make them experts. You have basically written the same article here - it still doesn’t make you right.

[Corraleno]

It does seem to me that there are several - sometimes muddled - conversations here. Clothing, using sexual appeal as a tool, are distinct from participating in sexual activity, which is distinct again from forced sexual activity. These are all distinct concepts. I think sometimes we too quickly jump from one to another and imply causality or even correlation, when nobody is arguing that. 

 

I agree with you that those are distinct issues, but it's simply not true that no one here is arguing there is correlation and even causation there. There have been many posts in this thread that draw a direct correlation between short dresses like the ones linked in the OP and promiscuous behavior, and insist that revealing clothing leads to sexual assault:

 

Women in short dresses are "advertising that they are easy pickings" and "low-hanging fruit."

Boys do not hit on "church girls in long skirts," because "nobody" goes looking for casual sex in conservative clothes. 

Wearing conservative clothes is like "locking your car and taking the key" versus leaving the windows down and the key in the ignition when you wear a skimpy dress.

"Dressing in tiny, revealing clothing makes a woman a more likely target of sexual assault." 

 

All of those arguments are demonstrably false and dangerous to women.

[KungFuPanda]

Did anyone mention the shorts in all this? My dd is in college. She can now wear shorter dresses because she is no longer constrained by the "fingertip rule" from her high school. That rule is tough when your arms and legs are long. She's always worn shorts under her dresses just in case there's a breeze, but her normal college walk can be a hit of a wind tunnel so it's a good idea. I'm not sure if all the girls her age wear shorts or not. It wouldn't surprise me since it seems they mostly don't own slips. Maybe shorts fill that role. Dd also wore shorter dresses to formals because she intended to dance.

[Guest]

But then maybe it needs a societal level solution. Designers to make different styles of clothing, for example.

 

If the "in" thing in a particular year is a certain thing, it can even be hard for a parent who does not have hand-me downs available, and maybe has to do other things and cannot sew or spend a lot of time looking in second hand stores to even find anything in a style that is not the current style.

 

Wearing the "in" style at a particular time might mean that the mom is a busy single mom who cannot find something else for her daughter to wear and might have nothing to do with any goals beyond an outfit for the dance that is readily available to buy.

 

i know Quill has bowed out, but I wonder what the girls at her ds17's school will wear for Homecoming, if they have one. And what message her ds will take from that.

{I have nothing else to say about the other accusations here. This is a reasonable question I will reply to.}

 

A few things are different with my kids' school because it is a private, Christian school. The school itself has dressing guidelines for dances, though they are not excessively stringent. They also bend them in some cases when the styles make it difficult to find any dress that complies; when dd was a student there, they began to allow srapless dresses "as long as it fits well enough that you don't have to keep pulling on it." Undergarments cannot be visible in any "normal" position.

 

We did always shop for dresses with plenty of time cushion. In one case, my mother and I sewed her dress. In two cases, we bought second-hand dresses; once at a resale dress boutique and another through Ebay. The majority of her dance dresses were ordered from Modcloth; they have a wide variety of different looks, including vintage or unusual styles. Oh, and I altered two different dresses; once, myself, once by a seamstress (for Senior Prom - this was the Ebay dress.)

 

Our homecoming is not until January, so I can't yet say what the young women will wear and I don't know what DS' gf will wear (assuming they are still a couple then). But I like that the school has guidelines like they do.

 

I should also add that, while it is true that a lot of the dresses at public school homecomings are super short, they are not all super short. I did also see photos of pretty dresses that were short, but not super short. IOW, nobody is wearing a long gown, no, but some are a couple inches above the knees while some are at the top of the thigh.

[Guest]

Oh, and I forgot to say, designers will make what we will buy. So if people refuse to buy certain styles, they will correct and stop making that style.

[madteaparty]

Those poor, poor, brainless, stupid men, led around by the "nose" for lack of a single button. Wow, men and boys must be awfully gullible if this is the case.

 

I hope that every parent of boys on this thread takes umbrage at the insinuations made in this post.

 

This thread is making me physically ill.

me too.

[Lady Florida.]

I think it's telling that in a discussion about how clothing relates to sexual assault *of females* we are now concerned about how unfair it is to men.

 

As a mother of four boys, I'm not concerned about them being unfairly accused of raping someone. And I wonder what kind of boys people have that this is such a high priority concern - apparently much more concerning than females being sexually assaulted.

 

:iagree: I've raised two boys (one is still at home but an adult) and that has not been a concern in raising them, EVER. We taught them that no means no. Because of how we raised them and who they are, they're both disgusted at the thought that some men think no has another meaning.

[Janeway]

This has nothing to do with clothes but rather about boys/men being accused of rape..but I have known of several cases. There have been many cases in the news. I have known of three cases in our area I am in now. Look at the Duke rape thing, the one with the woman in the bathroom claiming to be gang raped, the one with Tony Romo's son (or grandson). These are cases I know off the top of my head. I am sure there are many many more that I never read about as I do not read a ton in the news and keep largely to things like WSJ. None of these women were charged with their crimes. Locally, I know of three cases were I know the people involved, or sort of know. One was a home school family where the guy had gone off to college and was dating a woman who had been in public school and went to a different college a few hours away. Apparently, she was very abusive to him but he never spoke up. He thought he had done something wrong. It mounted to where she told him to do things he was not comfortable with and when he refused, she told him she would file charges against him and she would be believed because she was the woman. And then she went and filed charges. He produced her text messages to prove his side, plus, he was at college a few hours away. Last I spoke to his parents, he still blamed himself. I suggested he see if he can get counseling from a place that specializes in abuse, but his parents are quite religious and I do not think they went for that. There was another one at the middle school where a girl claimed to be sexually assaulted by a boy. But there were security cameras in the school and he was not near her. There was one other case between adults where the one who supposedly did the rape could not have done it. Again, something that was proven beyond a doubt. It was a young woman who had been targeting this guy. But she had not seen him in person in a while. She filed assault charges against him only for the police to find out he had broken a bone a couple months earlier and the woman did not know this and he could not have done it with his injuries. No charges against her either, but he could have lost his life over this and so could his children have. His wife was well aware of the young woman's stalking of her husband. Yet, nothing. No punishment. Makes me wonder how many convictions are wrong. After all, these cases all had things that ruled out that it could happen. And we live in a culture where the woman is assumed honest and innocent until the man proves himself innocent beyond a doubt.

 

edited to add: now that I wrote this out..I realize two of these cases had something in common. The man said no, but to the woman, no meant..keep trying and threaten to get what you want and even retaliate. So apparently, girls need to be taught that no means no also. No more double standard.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Janeway

[Cindy in FL.]

Hang on, Janeway! I think you’re in for a bumpy ride!

[wonderchica]

This has nothing to do with clothes but rather about boys/men being accused of rape..but I have known of several cases. There have been many cases in the news. I have known of three cases in our area I am in now. Look at the Duke rape thing, the one with the woman in the bathroom claiming to be gang raped, the one with Tony Romo's son (or grandson). These are cases I know off the top of my head. I am sure there are many many more that I never read about as I do not read a ton in the news and keep largely to things like WSJ. None of these women were charged with their crimes. Locally, I know of three cases were I know the people involved, or sort of know. One was a home school family where the guy had gone off to college and was dating a woman who had been in public school and went to a different college a few hours away. Apparently, she was very abusive to him but he never spoke up. He thought he had done something wrong. It mounted to where she told him to do things he was not comfortable with and when he refused, she told him she would file charges against him and she would be believed because she was the woman. And then she went and filed charges. He produced her text messages to prove his side, plus, he was at college a few hours away. Last I spoke to his parents, he still blamed himself. I suggested he see if he can get counseling from a place that specializes in abuse, but his parents are quite religious and I do not think they went for that. There was another one at the middle school where a girl claimed to be sexually assaulted by a boy. But there were security cameras in the school and he was not near her. There was one other case between adults where the one who supposedly did the rape could not have done it. Again, something that was proven beyond a doubt. It was a young woman who had been targeting this guy. But she had not seen him in person in a while. She filed assault charges against him only for the police to find out he had broken a bone a couple months earlier and the woman did not know this and he could not have done it with his injuries. No charges against her either, but he could have lost his life over this and so could his children have. His wife was well aware of the young woman's stalking of her husband. Yet, nothing. No punishment. Makes me wonder how many convictions are wrong. After all, these cases all had things that ruled out that it could happen. And we live in a culture where the woman is assumed honest and innocent until the man proves himself innocent beyond a doubt.

 

edited to add: now that I wrote this out..I realize two of these cases had something in common. The man said no, but to the woman, no meant..keep trying and threaten to get what you want and even retaliate. So apparently, girls need to be taught that no means no also. No more double standard.

Tony Romo's grandson? Tony Romo's children are elementary aged and younger.

[J-rap]

I have mixed feelings about all of this, and haven't come to any real conclusions yet.

 

My problem isn't as much about a dress that attracts attention.

 

I have concerns about the continued objectification of women.  In other words, are they feeling pressured to look sexy and pretty because that's where they get their worth?  I wouldn't expect teen girls to know that answer, because it's so indwelled in our culture that it feels normal. 

 

I continue to be frustrated with movie after movie of older men actors (50's and 60's) who are paired with young, sexy, pretty 20-something girls.  (But if it were in the reverse, most people would think "ewww!")  What kind of message does that give to our young people?  What does it say about our culture?  What should we do about that?

 

So there's all of that.  But I also know that it's fun and natural to want to dress up and look nice sometimes, and dress with the trend -- especially at that age.

 

I don't know where the line is.

[goldberry]

False accusations happen.  Although they typically don't make it to trial, or if they do, the accused is exonerated.  In addition, they typically follow a certain pattern that make it relatively easy to uncover, if anyone is following decent procedures. 

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

 

I am not opposed to cases where a false accuser can be clearly shown to have malicious intent is prosecuted for false accusation.  I don't think that should apply when the case simply ends up in favor of the defendant.  I am also in favor of rape cases being handled by the judicial system rather than by colleges, due to the crazy varieties of procedures that colleges follow.  I agree that has caused problems.

 

False accusations are real, but they are an incredibly small percentage compared to actual assault.  There are far more rapes and assaults that go unreported, for example, leaving predators in the population, than there are false accusations.  They do affect people, but are in no way a comparable societal problem.  The idea that they are comparable is false and meant distract from a real and very pervasive problem.  This article shows that rape accusations carry the same rate of false accusation as other crimes.  And yet when a women is robbed, for example, no one says, "I bet she's lying!"  

[SKL]

edited to add: now that I wrote this out..I realize two of these cases had something in common. The man said no, but to the woman, no meant..keep trying and threaten to get what you want and even retaliate. So apparently, girls need to be taught that no means no also. No more double standard.

 

Agreed.  That was the case with the person I know.  She propositioned him, he said no, she accused him of rape.  He never touched her.  He had witnesses and she eventually admitted it.

 

But yes, double standard.

 

And the biggest double standard is that there is no punishment for the woman who does this.

 

I have no idea how often this happens, because it is rarely publicized.  Just because it doesn't hit the news often, that doesn't mean it isn't happening often.

 

I do believe that it is also true that many women who are raped do not report.  BUT that does not mean it's OK for women to file false reports against decent men.  I'm not even talking about fools who should have known better than to have sex with a drunk woman.  I'm talking about people who never treated women with anything other than respect.  Unless saying "no" is considered disrespect!

 

[LMD]

Males as a class are by far the ones doing the majority of the raping and assaulting. It's not anywhere near close. That doesn't mean that women are all pure and virtuous, of course they are human, but statistically they are simply not - as a class - violent, especially sexually, like men.

 

Females also aren't lying about rape at anywhere near the rates that males actually rape.

 

So, culturally, the 'double standard' is still vastly in the favour of the male class.

[SKL]

There are two separate things going on.  Why is it that every time someone states the fact that false rape accusations occur, it is always countered with "but rapes occur more!  But men are more vile than women!"  What does that have to do with the false accusations?  A false accusation of sexual misconduct can devastate every aspect of a man's life.  He doesn't deserve this just because he has the same body parts as most rapists have.  It's a separate problem, and there is no logical reason to compare it to a completely different problem.

 

If I said "rapes are OK because false accusations are bad," that would not just be a double standard, it would be an insane comment.

Edited October 24, 2017 by SKL

[LMD]

I will consider the double standard even when we can go one day without a woman being raped by a man, one week without a woman being killed by her partner/former partner, one single case in the media where people DON'T wonder what she was wearing/drinking/doing out that late ad infinitum.