s/o clothing and culture

[fdrinca]

I'm struggling to articulate my opinion regarding the Great Short Length Discussion. 

On one had, I detest the argument and all the implications of "boys will be distracted" by revealing clothing.

On the other hand, I personally find it very problematic to allow? accept? condone? intentionally sexy dressing in young girls. 

So: girls should feel free to wear whatever they like, right? They should dress with freedom from leering eyes and accusations of distraction (and, sadly, much worse).

 

But, aren't girls experiencing another social pressure pushing them toward sexy dressing? Which is to say, given our current culture, are girls freely choosing short-shorts and tank tops? What's driving the desire to wear these clothes?

 

I just think the "let them wear whatever they want! blame the perverts who complain!" argument omits an important variable, which is the mediating role of culture. So, sure, let them wear whatever THEY want, without the dominant media images of what they OUGHT to want.

 

(Full disclosure: I say this as a person who has, for her entire life, aspired to a career in which I could wear yoga pants and a t-shirt to work every day.)

[fdrinca]

LOL, I don't think I'd describe 'those' shorts as 'sexy'.

 

Of course girls are under pressure to dress or not dress in certain ways. Two sides of the same coin.

 

I have one daughter who dresses very modestly. Nobody should shame her for not being sexy enough.

I have one daughter who is VERY comfortable in her own body and dresses less modestly. Nobody should shame her for being too sexy.

 

Both present themselves in a way that is an expression of themselves, and within generally acceptable boundaries.

 

Why do people CARE so much about what young girls and young women wear beyond those two things ?

 

Because:

1. I really don't believe that YOUNG GIRLS (cutoff...13? menses? obvious sexual development?) have any reason to dress in a revealing or provocative manner. What's the point? What is the point of "showing off" an undeveloped body? 

2. I still have to question the extent to which most young girls and women are able to dress as an "expression of themselves" rather than in a socially acceptable or conditioned manner. 

 

Help me understand the 8-year-old in the "too sexy for you" t-shirt. Please. 

Help me understand the 10-year-old in jeans so tight she can't play at the playground during recess. Please. 

Help me understand the 7-year-old who tells my daughter that her rashguard is for babies and that she "really needs to get a bikini." To hold up what breasts?

[candicane]

They should be allowed to up until a certain extent. If your work/school dicates you dress a certain way, I feel you should listen. Is it that hard? Chances are it's only for a few hours each day, is it really going to ruin your life that much?

 

It does make me think of Shira Law with the way that they dictate how a girl dresses, but I don't think we're that far gone, in my opinion.

 

 

[fdrinca]

I think I just realized that I'm not at all cut out for message boards like this. 

[Dory]

I was taught that when I get dressed in the morning, I need to ask myself, "Who am I trying to impress or get noticed by?" The only reason for me to wear revealing clothes is to get noticed. There really isn't any other reason. They aren't more comfortable. They don't make me look at prettier. They make me look more sexy. They make guys notice me. Revealing clothing has a purpose.

 

Now there was a time in my life I wanted to get noticed, and sexy clothes did their job. I'm not saying guys all act like animals, or that they can't control themselves, but they will notice a girl who dresses provocatively. Whether they act on that, or become distracted by that, depends on their maturity and my behaviour.

 

I have these discussions with my 9yo already. She gets asked why she wants to wear certain clothes and we talk about reasons behind dressing in certain ways. If she honestly wants something because she personally loves the look, I have never come across something I wouldn't allow on her. If she wants it because she thinks other people will see her as older, more mature, or sexy, well then we have a talk about why that's important. I have allowed her to get clothes for those reasons a couple times anyway because I want her to have a choice in how she presents herself, I just want her to be very aware of her motives behind it.

[Arcadia]

A lot of traditional asian dresses/suits are sexy yet conservative like the Punjabi suits, the Vietnamese Ao Dai, Shanghainese Cheongsam, Japanese Kimono.

 

The mid-thigh shorts in the other thread just look like beach attire instead of school attire. However I grew up with school uniforms all the way from preschool to 12th grade.

[nansk]

I think every society is constantly figuring out what is acceptable social behaviour for their time and culture. What is acceptable in one time and place may be too revealing in another. According to the internet (so I am not sure if this is true) in 1907, Annette Kellerman was arrested for indecency for wearing a fitted one-piece bathing suit. And I am sure no one today would call her full-body covering outfit indecent.

 

 

 

A lot of traditional asian dresses/suits are sexy yet conservative

Exactly! A cheongsam reveals the legs and arms, a saree reveals the mid-riff. Yet, in two of the world's relatively conservative countries, these garments are considered not only decent, but very elegant.

[Ravin]

Because:

1. I really don't believe that YOUNG GIRLS (cutoff...13? menses? obvious sexual development?) have any reason to dress in a revealing or provocative manner. What's the point? What is the point of "showing off" an undeveloped body? 

2. I still have to question the extent to which most young girls and women are able to dress as an "expression of themselves" rather than in a socially acceptable or conditioned manner. 

 

Help me understand the 8-year-old in the "too sexy for you" t-shirt. Please. 

Help me understand the 10-year-old in jeans so tight she can't play at the playground during recess. Please. 

Help me understand the 7-year-old who tells my daughter that her rashguard is for babies and that she "really needs to get a bikini." To hold up what breasts?

 

1. neither of the girls in the other posts were dressed in an age-inappropriately provocative way. The prom girl was 17! Shorts girl--yes, they were a teence shorter than many school dress codes would allow, but they were not very tight

 

2. I've never seen this. The very form fitting jeans tend to be skinny jeans/jeggings that are a more flexible/stretchy material that allows freedom of movement. Plus, it could have been my 10 yo. right before she came to me complaining that none of her pants fit--because she had a growth spurt. Nothing was too tight at purchase!

3. We've always used two piece swimsuits for DD--bikinis (more the sports-bra type style than the "skinny" bikini style), or, when she was little bikini bottom/rash guard, because two piece suits are easier to deal with in the restroom! However, not everyone wears a rash guard for modesty. Someone should probably teach that 7yo that she might not want to look like a wrinkled prune at 25 and find herself with skin cancer at 40--that's a good reason to wear a rash guard. Or, put more simply, "so she doesn't fry in the sun."

 

A lot of traditional asian dresses/suits are sexy yet conservative like the Punjabi suits, the Vietnamese Ao Dai, Shanghainese Cheongsam, Japanese Kimono.

 

The mid-thigh shorts in the other thread just look like beach attire instead of school attire. However I grew up with school uniforms all the way from preschool to 12th grade.

 

Kimono, when worn properly, give a silohuette that's basically a straight cylinder, not so much woman-shaped. I'd dispute how sexy that is. What they do look like is graceful and beautiful. You don't need sexy for that.

 

To the degree that young (have hit puberty) girls look "sexy" in ANYTHING is a result of the failure of our attempts to extend childhood until brain development is complete to convince our brains (especially male brains) that "young, healthy, with the right hip-to-waist ratio and booKs" is not sexually attractive. Because it's hard-wired into our brains to see it that way.

 

This does NOT mean that it is appropriate to act on that perception. And frankly, condemning girls for how their bodies look in whatever clothes is acting on that perception just as leering at, sexually harassing, or taking advantage of adolescent girls is acting on it. Ideally, women just roll their eyes because they know there's so much more to human sexuality than that base attractiveness, and men do no more but look and appreciate from a safe distance. 

[bolt.]

I think that young girls and girls/teens who are becoming visually sexual are easy to tell apart.

 

1.A. I think they both should wear what they like, but for a young girl a parent may wish to require clothes that fit well, cover what they are presumed to be trying to cover, and are practical for the playfulness of young girls.

 

Prepubescent girls should be free to play in a creek in a wet t shirt and underwear: because they are *not* sexy, and when they might unselfconsciously end up doing something 'revealing' it is not a sensual thing at all.

 

2. I think that teens who are beginning to have alluring bodies (or have them in spades) are *bodily* provocative, and would have to actively *obscure* that feature of themselves through clothing -- if they desire not to put their sensual selves 'out there'.

 

The desire to obscure the bodily sensuality is fine: so long as it is not activity-limiting.

 

The desire to display their bodily sensuality is fine too: as long as codes of dress for places/groups/events and general social conventions are observed.

 

1.B. When prepubescent girls "dress sexy" it should be interpreted as a form of imitation: wanting to play dress up like a teenager or a rock star. They don't know those fashions are supposed to be 'attractive' or 'impress' anyone. They just know that "cool older girls" wear such things: and quite naturally they want to be included in the cool-ness. (It's essentially the same reason little boys may like the idea of military clothing, or business-looking clothes, or sports-pride clothes: in imitation of the general visual concept of 'this is what actual men actually wear in the world'')

 

I'm on the fence as to whether young girls should be prevented / discouraged from innocently emulating the sexy styles they might see or imagine older teens/women wearing. I don't have any liking for it, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile "battle".

[FaithManor]

Here is a reverse question, food for thought.

A high percentage of females find men in uniform, in particular military dress uniform, but most definitely tuxedos also fit this description, and for some women suits and ties are " ding, ding we have a winner". I have heard many a woman who finds men "sexy" when they are dressed this way. For the sake of not sexualizing men and boys, should tuxes, suits, and military dress uniforms be a cutural taboo? If not, then on the converse, why should it matter if the females are sexually attractive in whatever they are wearing?

The bottom line is that this culture objectifies women in a very demeaning way and often woman on woman scorn plays a huge role in perpetuating the subjugation.

The other issue is that either by evolution, intelligent design, creation whatever you believe, we are naturally sexual beings and some how it has become pervasive to believe that it is a sin to even think about sex much less want to be attractive when we look in the mirror.

I am no fan of sexualizing little boys and girls. Let them play, let them be innocent as long as we can. But, the demeaning of women and their clothing choices, the judgmentalism, needs to stop. It does waaaaaaay more harm than it has ever done "good". Objectively, I can't think of a single good that it has produced, but it most certainly has contributed to hate, discrimination, gender slamming, and the rape culture that is prevalent in this nation.

People simply need to worry more about themselves than what everyone else is wearing. I find it really disturbing that others spend so much time staring at and analyzing other people's bodies and clothing choices.

[SKL]

Yes, that is the thing I didn't articulate on the other thread.  The girls who would rather cover up more than a couple inches below their crotch are under pressure.  Girl peer pressure at that age is horrible.  I remember being shunned because I didn't choose big enough glasses frames to please my classmates.  (Back in the day when the "style" was to wear huge frames.)  At least in my day, the styles weren't really sexy - the waistlines and neck lines were high, etc.  They did have "transparent shirts," but you could wear something underneath if you weren't into showing the boys your bra.

 

I hate the styles I've seen for girls in recent years.  Why not all just go to school naked and be done with it?  Too bad if a girl actually wants to cover up.  She looks like a dweeb.

 

At least if it's a dress code rule, girls who want to be modest can.  It's not like we're asking them to cover their heads and faces.

[Crimson Wife]

There's a whole happy medium between "frumpy & shapeless" and "suitable for a nightclub or the beach". That's what seems to be missing in these discussions. A girl or young woman can dress in a stylish and flattering manner without wearing super-revealing clothes.

 

I used to wear the provocative clothing and for me, it was totally reflective of insecurity. I had gone from being a big fish in a small pond academically in high school to a small fish in a big pond at university. Once I was no longer able to have an identity of "the smart girl", I had to find some other way to define myself. So I became "the hot sorority chick". "Hot" being a relative term, LOL! I liked the attention it brought me, despite the fact that I didn't actually *ACT* on that attention since I had a serious boyfriend (now husband of 15 years).

[Rebel Yell]

Just because someone finds a girls to be "sexy" in her outfit doesn't mean that is her intention. She may have just thrown on jeans and a Tshirt, but happens to fit some guy;s definition of "sexy" and how is that her fault? It would truly be impossible for women to dress in a way that absolutely no man would find alluring.  There are guys who dig morbidly obese chicks in muumuus, guys who get all hot and bothered by a middle-aged lady in a business suit, and creeps who like little girls in party dresses.

 

Besides, if womens clothing were truly capable of supressing men's urges, there would be absolutely no crimes against women in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe by law. And nudist colonies would be one giant continuous *rgy but no- you usually see pictures of them playing tennis. :confused1:

[bolt.]

There's a whole happy medium between "frumpy & shapeless" and "suitable for a nightclub or the beach". That's what seems to be missing in these discussions. A girl or young woman can dress in a stylish and flattering manner without wearing super-revealing clothes.

 

I used to wear the provocative clothing and for me, it was totally reflective of insecurity. I had gone from being a big fish in a small pond academically in high school to a small fish in a big pond at university. Once I was no longer able to have an identity of "the smart girl", I had to find some other way to define myself. So I became "the hot sorority chick". "Hot" being a relative term, LOL! I liked the attention it brought me, despite the fact that I didn't actually *ACT* on that attention since I had a serious boyfriend (now husband of 15 years).

It generally takes maturity and good taste to hit the happy medium: which is not something that is much in evidence for most teens in most areas of life. Generally teens and very young women will do exactly as you did:

 

Moms tend to be involved in dressing/shopping for young girls, so what they wear often reflect mom's level 'good taste' to some degree. Do you think someone should function as a teen/college age woman's clothing moderator until they develop good taste? I rather think I'd just let them experiment... But that doesn't usually produce the 'happy medium' of attractive, neither frumpy not sexy.

[Crimson Wife]

I think sensible dress codes help with finding that happy medium. My high school had a dress code, while my university didn't. I'm sure I would've grumbled about a dress code had my university chosen to implement one, but I wouldn't have been going to class in inapporpriate outfits. When I got out into the working world, I dressed conservatively for the office because I wanted to keep my job.

[SKL]

It generally takes maturity and good taste to hit the happy medium: which is not something that is much in evidence for most teens in most areas of life. Generally teens and very young women will do exactly as you did:

 

Moms tend to be involved in dressing/shopping for young girls, so what they wear often reflect mom's level 'good taste' to some degree. Do you think someone should function as a teen/college age woman's clothing moderator until they develop good taste? I rather think I'd just let them experiment... But that doesn't usually produce the 'happy medium' of attractive, neither frumpy not sexy.

 

Yeah, I think that is the main reason they have dress codes.  Lets the kids experiment but sets limits beyond which it's just too foolish to go.

 

Moms' fashion sense isn't always right for school.  Also, by that age girls dress themselves and get themselves to school (able to change their clothes after their mom last sees them).  They take themselves to garage sales, trade clothes with friends, and cut off jeans all on their own.

 

As mentioned in the bully threads, some of the kids are even advised by teachers that they should dress more fashionably if they want to stop being bullied.

 

I view dress codes as one of those boundaries that protect.

 

Also, school is a place for learning academics and maybe doing sports.  It is not the place for fashion experimentation.  Kids who need to experiment can find time for that outside of school.

[bolt.]

Dress codes are fine, but wearing what you imagine looks good (even though it might not be very tasteful) within those codes is something that it is (IMO) something that is better ignored and allowed for -- rather than something that should be moderated (ie beyond simple rules) based on subjective ideas like 'good taste'.

 

Experimentation within dress code is much more stressful to prevent than allow. I can't imagine clothing choices interfering with learning very much or very often.

[Danestress]

I think some basic dress code rules are necessary. Rules are never perfect, and of course they change according to culture, but schools do their best, and then humans enforce with some success and some mistakes.  I think the prom thing was a mistake that started with a dumb rule.  Fingertips vary, you know?  This rule would allow me to display my butt cheeks.  I must have really short arms.

 

I think in schools and work places all over the world, people are, as I type, dealing with s@xual arousal.  It's just a fact of life for many people.  Sometimes people find themselves very attracted to someone who isn't being immodest in anyway.  People are very complicated and what arouses them s@xually can be unpredictable.  It's just a fact of life that we don't discuss a lot, but for many people, it's there and they deal with it.    Even when everyone is super modest and very appropriate and professional, there are going to be men getting erection in the elevator because some woman's hair smells like shampoo and ..... that's just stimulating to him.  And women have the same kinds of feelings.

 

So I think we need basic rules, we need to accept that teenagers (and adults) are going to walk around thinking about s@x a lot and being s@xually aroused a lot, and we need to expect them to learn to cope with that as they get their work done and behave acceptably.   We keep it below the surface so that we can function.  We can't have enough rules that no one has to deal with this reality.

 

I personally think it is a terrible thing that the man in this "prom" case is being publically accused of being a "pervert."  I don't think it is at all perverted for a man to be sexually aroused in the presence of a 17 year old - I think he's biologically designed for that possibility.  It must happen all the time.  It must happen constantly.  I think he misapplied rules and was selfish.  He felt that his discomfort with arousal was a reason to send her home, and I think that was unfair.  But I don't think it makes him a pervert to be aroused.  Even though I think he (and the women chaperones) overreacted and made a bad decision,  accusing him of being a pervert is malicious.

[mommymilkies]

Here is a reverse question, food for thought.

 

A high percentage of females find men in uniform, in particular military dress uniform, but most definitely tuxedos also fit this description, and for some women suits and ties are " ding, ding we have a winner". I have heard many a woman who finds men "sexy" when they are dressed this way. For the sake of not sexualizing men and boys, should tuxes, suits, and military dress uniforms be a cutural taboo? If not, then on the converse, why should it matter if the females are sexually attractive in whatever they are wearing?

 

The bottom line is that this culture objectifies women in a very demeaning way and often woman on woman scorn plays a huge role in perpetuating the subjugation.

 

The other issue is that either by evolution, intelligent design, creation whatever you believe, we are naturally sexual beings and some how it has become pervasive to believe that it is a sin to even think about sex much less want to be attractive when we look in the mirror.

 

I am no fan of sexualizing little boys and girls. Let them play, let them be innocent as long as we can. But, the demeaning of women and their clothing choices, the judgmentalism, needs to stop. It does waaaaaaay more harm than it has ever done "good". Objectively, I can't think of a single good that it has produced, but it most certainly has contributed to hate, discrimination, gender slamming, and the rape culture that is prevalent in this nation.

 

People simply need to worry more about themselves than what everyone else is wearing. I find it really disturbing that others spend so much time staring at and analyzing other people's bodies and clothing choices.

 

:iagree:

Just because someone finds a girls to be "sexy" in her outfit doesn't mean that is her intention. She may have just thrown on jeans and a Tshirt, but happens to fit some guy;s definition of "sexy" and how is that her fault? It would truly be impossible for women to dress in a way that absolutely no man would find alluring.  There are guys who dig morbidly obese chicks in muumuus, guys who get all hot and bothered by a middle-aged lady in a business suit, and creeps who like little girls in party dresses.

 

Besides, if womens clothing were truly capable of supressing men's urges, there would be absolutely no crimes against women in cultures where women are covered head-to-toe by law. And nudist colonies would be one giant continuous *rgy but no- you usually see pictures of them playing tennis. :confused1:

:iagree:  Exactly!  FWIW, I was not born with any fashion sense.  I pick what is comfortable and on clearance.  Sometimes that means I go out looking what some would call skimpy.  But I don't care.  I don't dress up for anyone else (except dh on occasion), heck I don't even think of other people when I get dressed.  Usually I think "Am I going to freeze today or die from 90% humidity on a 95 degree day?"  And then I dress in what might not kill me. I'm like the mad scientist when it comes to clothing-it just does not compute that I have a bra strap showing, or cleavage, or you can see pink underwear through my dress.  If people decide to take that as me being provocative, they can think whatever they want-it doesn't make it true.  

 

As for kids-you can't win.  I was a little better about fashion as a kid-my mom is quite the fashionista.  But then we moved.  And my "ok for urban schools" clothes were suddenly something BIG.  I got called a lot of names, including slut from 3rd grade on.  Mind you these weren't even provocative for a child of the 80s/90s-leggings with shorts over them, shirt and vest.  Or knee high socks to go with my shorts/skirts (it was cold in one of my classrooms even in summer!).  So I stopped caring after that.  It was only one part of my bullying, but it taught me that no matter how you dress, someone will take issue with it.  

 

So I let my kids wear pretty much whatever.  I'd draw the line at shirts with obscene sayings on them, and probably discourage g-strings or just walking out in a bra.  But my kids are all tomboys and inherited my lack of fashion sense, so I'm not worried. :)

[Erin]

Undoubtedly, everyone has seen this cartoon before but I find it fascinating to contemplate.  

 

[Rebel Yell]

I'm struggling to articulate my opinion regarding the Great Short Length Discussion. 

 

On one had, I detest the argument and all the implications of "boys will be distracted" by revealing clothing.

 

On the other hand, I personally find it very problematic to allow? accept? condone? intentionally sexy dressing in young girls. 

 

So: girls should feel free to wear whatever they like, right? They should dress with freedom from leering eyes and accusations of distraction (and, sadly, much worse).

 

But, aren't girls experiencing another social pressure pushing them toward sexy dressing? Which is to say, given our current culture, are girls freely choosing short-shorts and tank tops? What's driving the desire to wear these clothes?

 

I just think the "let them wear whatever they want! blame the perverts who complain!" argument omits an important variable, which is the mediating role of culture. So, sure, let them wear whatever THEY want, without the dominant media images of what they OUGHT to want.

 

(Full disclosure: I say this as a person who has, for her entire life, aspired to a career in which I could wear yoga pants and a t-shirt to work every day.)

 

Some more thoughts... keep in mind, I only have girls, and after a few bad years we ran screaming from the "Christian Homeschooling = Modesty" thing... but I wonder: What about the boys being raised to find a pure modest girl to court. SInce this boy knows that a girl like this = marriage, what if he starts getting all hormonally bothered by girls in ankle-length skirts and shapeless oversized t-shirts and sneakers.  If he's fantasizing, what more can the poor girl do?  She is doing everything she was rasied to do to be un-alluring to boys, yet still, the very fact that's she's so pure-looking is what's turning him on!

 

A girl can't win. :glare:

 

[In2why]

I do not want or accept society educating my children, so why would I accept society parenting them.  I decide what is appropriate or is not appropriate for my kids to wear.  I let others decide what is appropriate for their kids.  The only time I have an opinion about what others wear, is if I am deciding to do something that has a dress code.  Other than that why do I even get an opinion? What someone else chooses to wear has no impact on my life or my kids.  Even in a church setting.  Do you guys go to a church that turns people away if they aren't dressed a certain way?   Is that the job of the church?  Is it the job of the co-op or event?   I think dress codes are dangerous because they set up people to be judgmental, superior, gossipy, and to bully or exclude others while wrapping it up in a righteous cloak.  That to me is much more divisive and distracting then the length of someone's shorts.  

[zoobie]

Because:

1. I really don't believe that YOUNG GIRLS (cutoff...13? menses? obvious sexual development?) have any reason to dress in a revealing or provocative manner. What's the point? What is the point of "showing off" an undeveloped body? 

2. I still have to question the extent to which most young girls and women are able to dress as an "expression of themselves" rather than in a socially acceptable or conditioned manner. 

 

Help me understand the 8-year-old in the "too sexy for you" t-shirt. Please. 

Help me understand the 10-year-old in jeans so tight she can't play at the playground during recess. Please. 

Help me understand the 7-year-old who tells my daughter that her rashguard is for babies and that she "really needs to get a bikini." To hold up what breasts?

 

Are these your children or someone else's? What is provocative or revealing to you may not be provocative or revealing to someone else. Are we talking fishnets, garters, and tassels?

 

"Too sexy for you" on an 8 year old? That's gross, and different from an 8 year old wearing short shorts, as it explicitly assigns sexual intent. I have never seen an 8 year old wearing anything like this. A child wearing shorts is simply a child wearing shorts to me. 

 

Clothing that impedes movement is silly. Maybe her parents can't afford new jeans and she's stuck wearing old ones? I don't know. My DD's "skinny jeans" have tons of stretch to them and are very comfy. Our house rule is that she wears a top that goes longer than her rear end if they're leggings. She has her own sense of leggings-not-pants that is probably more strict than I would be! She does look older, and I'm conscious about clothing choices because I want her to look 10 and not like a teenager. People interact with you based on assumed age, and it has been an ongoing thing for people to expect more maturity from her than she possesses. At 3, she looked 5. People expected her to act like a 5 year old, even her experienced preschool teacher! I don't want anyone to expect her to act 14-15 when she's actually 10. Much more complex than base sexuality reasons. 

 

Maybe that 7 year old's mother has a rule that you need to wear something under the rash guard. Depending on the fit, they can be loose and float/fly up when you jump in the pool. My DD wears something under hers so she can dive and jump and not worry about her rash guard coming up over her chest. She isn't comfortable in a bikini alone, but doesn't mind one under a rash guard. 

 

What other people's kids wear is largely irrelevant to me. I hope they're all clean and comfortable, but I'm not worried about anyone else's clothing affecting my children. 

[Erin]

 I think dress codes are dangerous because they set up people to be judgmental, superior, gossipy, and to bully or exclude others while wrapping it up in a righteous cloak.

Does this apply in the workplace?   

Should shorty-shorts be allowed for people like bank loan officers, for example?  

Should there be such a thing as "professional?"  

Should an employer be allowed to restrict what is or isn't worn?

[Rebel Yell]

Does this apply in the workplace?   

Should shorty-shorts be allowed for people like bank loan officers, for example?  

Should there be such a thing as "professional?"  

Should an employer be allowed to restrict what is or isn't worn?

 

If someone is paying you, they get to tell you what you have to do to earn the money they are paying you. You get to decide if you want to accept their rules in order to accept their money. If I'm working at Chick-fil-A, they have every right to require me to wear their uniform, put my hair in a ponytail, not have lime-grean hair, wear closed-toe shoes and hose, and minimal makeup.  If I am paying Chick-fil-A to give me a sandwich, it's none of their business what I'm wearing outside of local decency laws.

 

And I happily wear the Cow Print stuff on Cow Apreciation Day so Chick-fil-A can give me a free sandwich. :drool5:

[Erin]

yes, but is that setting "up people to be judgmental, superior, gossipy, and to bully or exclude others while wrapping it up in a righteous cloak?"

 

Is that why some professions require a certain level of dress?

[J-rap]

I don't care what society expects or demands of my children.  That's part of the reason we homeschooled.  I DO care what my children wear -- both my son and my daughters -- only in terms of WHY they are wearing it.  (Are they thinking they HAVE to?  Are they thinking they need to dress sexually?  To get attention?  To keep up or blend in?)  I want my children to be confident in who they are, to not feel like they have to live up to any dumb culture-based or gender-based expectation.  I want them to grow up strong and independent (and I believe they are), with an emphasis on their minds and not their bodies.  These are the reasons why very revealing clothing would be a red flag to me;  I would want to dig further to make sure their reasons weren't unhealthy.

 

Also, I should add that most of my children are all grown up now and decide for themselves!

[Corraleno]

Does this apply in the workplace?   

Should shorty-shorts be allowed for people like bank loan officers, for example?  

Should there be such a thing as "professional?"  

Should an employer be allowed to restrict what is or isn't worn?

 

I think there's a big difference between dress codes that refer to the formality of the clothing required, versus dress codes that focus on how much of a girl's or woman's body she is allowed to show.

 

It's one thing to require a jacket & tie, it's quite another to say "women's shoulders must be covered by straps at least 2 inches wide; women's upper thighs must be covered to X length; women's necklines must be such that no hint of cleavage or breast curvature should show; etc." Those kinds of rules are explicitly focused on women's bodies as sexual objects; claims that these rules are necessary in order to save men from lustful thoughts (as in the prom case) or to prevent boys from being distracted from schoolwork (in the shorts case) are IMHO part of the whole rape culture paradigm — that it's a woman's job to prevent men from thinking about sex.

[FaithManor]

 

 

A girl can't win. :glare:

 

In this movement, a female can't win and that's the point of the whole worldview. Males dominate females. That's the goal every.single.time. Male = good. Female = bad. All males would be good if females would not be bad. Since she is bad simply for being female, having breasts, hips, butt, vagina, she is then bad period. Therefore, a male can be bad all he wants and it's never his fault because he would be good if the female weren't bad.

 

It's not possible for a female to win. It's simply not possible, but the game is set up that way from the beginning which is why so much more sexual perversion is guarded, protected, hidden, and downplayed in patriarchial systems than in more gender equal worldviews. The men protect the men because the word can't get out on the street that a man could be bad by his own choice. This is why the female is always blamed. He would be good if she weren't a Jezebel, a harlot, a temptress, if she weren't pretty, if her ankle was thick, if her chest was flat, if her hair wasn't red, if her eyes weren't green, if......the man simply cannot be at fault ever.

 

Thus, when things like the Gothard, Doug Wilson, and Doug Phillips threads were hot topic issues here on the board, we actually had trolls from their groups come on here and defend them boisterously! He can't be bad, period in their worldview and no matter how atrocious the offense, the woman somehow had it coming or made him do it, the devil being the female at hand and not whatever entity they say their satan is supposed to be.

 

I guarantee you that when (notice I said when not IF - because this guy admitted to 30+ victims and the prosecutor thought it was probably more like 200) Steven Stitler gets caught molesting another child, Doug Wilson, the father of the unholy union between Stitler and Katie Travis, will probably write a blog or preach a sermon that states that Stitler would have remained on the straight and narrow if only Katie had given him more sex, kinky sex, been more attentive to his needs, prevented him from being around children, made herself more available, etc. it would not have happened. Wilson has already preached a sermon in which he stated that on the wedding night the sex should be essentially forced, if not violent - his words, "The man needs to conquer the female." So, in this worldview, the only option is to blame the wife for the husband's perversion. She is something to be used and abused. D.W. also blogged on behalf of D.P and basically said nothing is D.Ps fault, that everything was entirely the young woman's fault despite the fact that the slime bag had been grooming her for sexual abuse since she was 15 years old!

 

The female cannot win. Ever. So what is left to the women of the movement is to demean each other in order to be elevated to some status where they think they get respect. I am better than you. My skirt is longer, my blouse is looser, my hair is long, my bra has no lace, my underwear are matronly, my pjamas have no shape, I have on a turtleneck and you don't, my daughter's dress is more modest than your daughter's dress, my pink blush is lighter than yours, my bun is neater, my suit coat hides my breasts more than yours, my skirt has nine yards of fabric gathered up so you can't tell my butt from my belly, I am wearing black you are wearing pink you harlot you, and on and on and on. It's the only way they can feel better about themselves. That age old, "since I'm insecure I'll just run you down every chance I get to make myself better than you so I can feel good about myself" behavior never goes away in that paradigm.

 

I've seen it over and over and over in religions and cults where the female is subjugated by virtue of gender. It's the only way in their minds they can get ahead, and the system is designed to make sure they never do. Very, very sad. Heartbreaking really.

[Erin]

 

 

I think there's a big difference between dress codes that refer to the formality of the clothing required, versus dress codes that focus on how much of a girl's or woman's body she is allowed to show.

 

What if they're tweed with a cute, tight little jacket and $500 heels?  Are short-shorts now appropriate for a bank?

[Erin]

It's one thing to require a jacket & tie, it's quite another to say "women's shoulders must be covered by straps at least 2 inches wide; women's upper thighs must be covered to X length; women's necklines must be such that no hint of cleavage or breast curvature should show; etc."

 

Boys must wear jacket, tie and no jeans.  Girls must have dresses longer than fingertip and covering front and rear cleavage.

 

 

Truly...what's the "one thing?"  

With boys it's just the dress code of a formal occasion but with girls it's the burden of a patriarchal society?  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What if they're tweed with a cute, tight little jacket and $500 heels?  Are short-shorts now appropriate for a bank?

 

It wouldn't bother me but it is up to employers to determine what image they want their employees to project.

 

This isn't a difficult concept.

[FaithManor]

If the bank says, "no shorts", as our local bank does, then it won't matter if they are tweed because the bank has said "no" to the style period. The no shorts thing by the way is for males and females and there are plenty of men that work at the bank. So, it's not a gender specific, against women, proclamation. It's an acknowledgement that in our culture people have a tendency, especially the older generation, to want a professional look in the people they trust their money with and come time to apply for a loan, they'd prefer to talk to the person in the professional look instead of the casual one. It's the bank's customers so they have a right to dictate what they want and one can work there or go someplace else.

 

As for the $500.00 heels, the bank doesn't care what she paid for them and if she wants to do that to her feet, that's her business. :huh: I like my feet so standing all day in heels would be a NO GO, but again, if the heels aren't banned in the work place handbook, then she may feel free to do so. The fact that they are paired with short shorts or a tight jacket doesn't really mean anything. The bank probably doesn't care about the form fitting jacket, and the shorts, well if they said "no shorts" then it's a moot point. If they didn't say "no shorts" then they shorts must conform to whatever the handbook did say. Most work places expect business wear and business wear unless you work for Ron Jon's on Merritt Island or Sport's Authority or some other similar entity is not shorts.

[Erin]

Why are short-shorts considered unprofessional, though?  

Is this, as a previous poster stated, setting "up people to be judgmental, superior, gossipy, and to bully or exclude others while wrapping it up in a righteous cloak?"

 

Is that really the purpose of a dress code?

[Farrar]

Whenever I hear these discussions, I think that a number of people are, by criticizing girls - especially younger girls and preteens - for wearing "inappropriate" clothing, doing the exact opposite of what they intend.  They are sexualizing these kids by assuming sexual motives - both for the girls' style of dress and for everyone around them if they wear these clothes.  I think the reality is that 7 yo girls want bikinis because they're cute.  12 yo girls want to wear tight little shorts because they're comfortable in summer and they're not ashamed of their bodies.  And the effects of this sort of critique is to make them ashamed of their bodies - not to make them feel "modest" but to make them feel ashamed.

 

I also raise my eyebrows when I see young girls wearing things that literally say "sexy" across the back of their pants or that are cut as if they have bodies they don't have.  But the sense of blame for those kids makes me much more upset with the people making it than I could ever be with the girls.

[Farrar]

Boys must wear jacket, tie and no jeans.  Girls must have dresses longer than fingertip and covering front and rear cleavage.

 

 

Truly...what's the "one thing?"  

With boys it's just the dress code of a formal occasion but with girls it's the burden of a patriarchal society?  

 

The one thing is that the boys code is loose and simple.  Jacket and tie.  For the girls it's measurements and numbers and extremely specific when you're saying the length of straps and inches from the knee and so forth.  They're clearly different.  (ETA: In the example you were responding to - in the example you give, I agree that they're similar, though really, the girls' rules are much more open to interpretation still and I think that's where people get into trouble.)

[zoobie]

Does this apply in the workplace?   

Should shorty-shorts be allowed for people like bank loan officers, for example?  

Should there be such a thing as "professional?"  

Should an employer be allowed to restrict what is or isn't worn?

 

In a business, yes, but governing the employee's dress outside of work hours would not make sense to me. Some creeper making the secretaries all dress like Robert Palmer girls would be inappropriate...

 

I wouldn't feel relaxed and comfortable in a meeting with a lawyer or professional in shorts because I'd be thinking he/she was on his/her way out somewhere. One of the partners at an old firm would not change after going to the gym at lunch intentionally when he had a bunch of work to crank out that afternoon. He knew people would assume that he was on his way out and not bother him. He wasn't dressed for work. People do make assumptions based on appearances.

 

If it's your business, dress how you want and own the repercussions. If you work for my business, you follow the dress code and rules I set. Maybe it's for safety, maybe it's for professional appearances, maybe it's because I like khakis. Same with my children.

 

I don't have a dress code for clients. Or other people's businesses or other people's children.

[Dory]

Some more thoughts... keep in mind, I only have girls, and after a few bad years we ran screaming from the "Christian Homeschooling = Modesty" thing... but I wonder: What about the boys being raised to find a pure modest girl to court. SInce this boy knows that a girl like this = marriage, what if he starts getting all hormonally bothered by girls in ankle-length skirts and shapeless oversized t-shirts and sneakers.  If he's fantasizing, what more can the poor girl do?  She is doing everything she was rasied to do to be un-alluring to boys, yet still, the very fact that's she's so pure-looking is what's turning him on!

 

A girl can't win. :glare:

 

 

I think the mindset of dressing to please others always ends up with the girl losing. Whether she is dressing super modestly or showing as much skin as she can. It can get carried too far either direction. A girl draws attention to herself when she works super hard to cover everything up. My aunt dresses like that and people notice her.

 

Again, that's why my girly is being taught to think through why she wants the clothes that she wants. Clothing serves a purpose and it isn't just to keep us warm. Clothes make statements about who we are and how we see ourselves. Different clothes draw attention from different people. They can make or break job interviews. They can make us feel secure, or exposed.

 

I do teach my boys the same thing. After all, if I am working to teach them to think critically about what they put on the inside of their bodies, why would I not teach the same about what they put on the outside.

[In2why]

Does this apply in the workplace?   

Should shorty-shorts be allowed for people like bank loan officers, for example?  

Should there be such a thing as "professional?"  

Should an employer be allowed to restrict what is or isn't worn?

In a workplace the employer is paying a salary and if they have a dress code it is in place either for safety or customer service.   I am sure you realize that there are many places where the dress code, either written or just known is to be more sexy, not less.  Sexy women are very good at sales, and often used in male dominated fields because a male business owner is less likely to tell her he needs to discuss a purchase with his wife, and more likely to make ego driven decisions.

 

 Employer, employee decisions are quite different then Mom's in a committee meeting deciding based on their personal beliefs, their own body image issues, their son's sexual urges, and their possible power trips.  Seriously isn't that mostly what dress codes found in homeschooling situations really about?    I believe that in an effort to make sure no one thinks they are falling down on their mother of the year contest, and certainly have virtuous daughters it gets a bit ridiculous and down right silly as they contemplate the issue as if they were saving the world and going to get handed a medal from Jesus, when in reality they are just bullying and smug.  

 

With that said, if you choose to do or join something with a dress code then your children should adhere to it.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Boys must wear jacket, tie and no jeans.  Girls must have dresses longer than fingertip and covering front and rear cleavage.

 

 

Truly...what's the "one thing?"  

With boys it's just the dress code of a formal occasion but with girls it's the burden of a patriarchal society?  

 

A boy can show butt cleavage or a crotch outline under those rules, yet the dress code doesn't seem concerned about the possibility.  Yet it specifically addresses how much of the female body can be seen.  Why is that?

[Corraleno]

Boys must wear jacket, tie and no jeans.  Girls must have dresses longer than fingertip and covering front and rear cleavage.

 

 

Truly...what's the "one thing?"  

With boys it's just the dress code of a formal occasion but with girls it's the burden of a patriarchal society?  

 

The girls' equivalent of "Boys must wear jacket, tie, and no jeans" is "Girls must wear formal attire, no jeans."

 

The male equivalent of a dress code that focuses on girls' buttocks, crotches, and cleavage would be something like "no tight pants that show off the buttocks or crotch area, no skintight shirts that show abs or pecs."

 

The dress code for boys focuses on formal vs casual wear; the dress code for girls is entirely focused on their breasts, butts, and crotches. 

 

You really don't see the difference?

[Erin]

Seriously isn't that mostly what dress codes found in homeschooling situations really about?

I have no idea.  I've never been to a homeschool event with a dress code.  

It looks like you're making a pretty broad assumption, personally.

 

 

I was speaking to the purpose of dress codes in general.  There seem to be standards and expectations in certain situations and environments.  (Business being one that no one seems to have disagreed with.)  

 

Yet in other realms there should be no standards or expectations?  Why is that?

Or are there some kind of standards?  

Are we OK with nudity in school?  Why or why not?  If parents should determine what is, or isn't acceptable for their kids to wear to events or school, what if other parents think nudity is OK?  

 

 

At what point do we get to establish guidelines for the simple fact that we live in a society with other people?

[Denise in Florida]

I think I just realized that I'm not at all cut out for message boards like this. 

 

I think we (you and I) have different reactions because of the age difference of our kids.  Mine are 23 and 20, so I have really shifted my parenting role in the last few years.

 

Stay.   Enjoy the discussions. 

 

You are totally correct about sexy clothes on young children.  I did not let my girls dress that way as children.  

 

You are also correct that society and clothing designers have created a "look" that many teenagers feel they must meet.

 

I hope my next statement makes sense, all I can say is it worked for my girls and me.

 

As they get older I gave them more and more control of what they wore.  I was right there with them and could run interference as needed. One girl found her look early, sort of a long skirt, fangirl, bohemian pirate thing. HA, she was definitely an individual and was cute without immodest.  She still prefers vintage, second hand or comic con clothing.

 

The other girl...well...sigh.  We went through "sparkly malibu barbie", "goth princess" and "what the heck is that!" before she settled into a style that shows her figure attractively but still covers the important stuff. 

 

At a certain age a mom telling a teen what to wear not only doesn't work but it prevents them finding finding their own style.

 

I hope this helps

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have no idea.  I've never been to a homeschool event with a dress code.  

It looks like you're making a pretty broad assumption, personally.

 

 

I was speaking to the purpose of dress codes in general.  There seem to be standards and expectations in certain situations and environments.  (Business being one that no one seems to have disagreed with.)  

 

Yet in other realms there should be no standards or expectations?  Why is that?

Or are there some kind of standards?  

Are we OK with nudity in school?  Why or why not?  If parents should determine what is, or isn't acceptable for their kids to wear to events or school, what if other parents think nudity is OK?  

 

 

At what point do we get to establish guidelines for the simple fact that we live in a society with other people?

 

I must have missed where someone is arguing that dress codes are never appropriate.  I personally have no issue if a group/business/what have you implements a dress code.  I do believe dress codes that focus on the female body are patriarchal and indicative of a somewhat disturbed mindset behind the codes.  I also thing vague dress codes can lead to as many problems as they prevent.

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

I do not want or accept society educating my children, so why would I accept society parenting them.  I decide what is appropriate or is not appropriate for my kids to wear.  I let others decide what is appropriate for their kids.  The only time I have an opinion about what others wear, is if I am deciding to do something that has a dress code.  Other than that why do I even get an opinion? What someone else chooses to wear has no impact on my life or my kids.  Even in a church setting.  Do you guys go to a church that turns people away if they aren't dressed a certain way?   Is that the job of the church?  Is it the job of the co-op or event?   I think dress codes are dangerous because they set up people to be judgmental, superior, gossipy, and to bully or exclude others while wrapping it up in a righteous cloak.  That to me is much more divisive and distracting then the length of someone's shorts.  

 

Why bother having any rules? Why not just let everybody do whatever they feel like and who cares what impact that has on others?

 

I think students have the right to be in a learning environment as free from distractions as possible. That is why I am in favor of schools requiring uniforms. Nothing fancy- a plain polo shirt with khakis would suffice.

[Corraleno]

I have no idea.  I've never been to a homeschool event with a dress code.  

It looks like you're making a pretty broad assumption, personally.

 

 

I was speaking to the purpose of dress codes in general.  There seem to be standards and expectations in certain situations and environments.  (Business being one that no one seems to have disagreed with.)  

 

Yet in other realms there should be no standards or expectations?  Why is that?

Or are there some kind of standards?  

Are we OK with nudity in school?  Why or why not?  If parents should determine what is, or isn't acceptable for their kids to wear to events or school, what if other parents think nudity is OK?  

 

 

At what point do we get to establish guidelines for the simple fact that we live in a society with other people?

 

Since public nudity is illegal, this "slippery slope" argument is pretty silly.

 

The girl thrown out of the homeschooling prom is certainly not the only girl to be sent home from a dance for dressing "too sexy" — there have been many stories in the news about this. Personally I don't think any adult other that a girl's own parents has any right to decide what is or isn't "too sexy." If a dress code for a prom says "formal attire" and someone shows up in a bikini, that's not formal attire. If a girl shows up in a short dress with cleavage showing, IMHO that's her (and her parents') choice, and the idea that other parents are being allowed to judge how "sexy" a teenage girl is "allowed" to look is quite frankly disturbing to me. If they don't like the way she looks, don't look at her. If they're afraid their sons or husbands will be filled with lust by looking at her, then that's an issue that needs to be addressed with the men involved rather than shaming the girl.

[Rebel Yell]

In a workplace the employer is paying a salary and if they have a dress code it is in place either for safety or customer service.   I am sure you realize that there are many places where the dress code, either written or just known is to be more sexy, not less.  Sexy women are very good at sales, and often used in male dominated fields because a male business owner is less likely to tell her he needs to discuss a purchase with his wife, and more likely to make ego driven decisions.

 

 Employer, employee decisions are quite different then Mom's in a committee meeting deciding based on their personal beliefs, their own body image issues, their son's sexual urges, and their possible power trips.  Seriously isn't that mostly what dress codes found in homeschooling situations really about?    I believe that in an effort to make sure no one thinks they are falling down on their mother of the year contest, and certainly have virtuous daughters it gets a bit ridiculous and down right silly as they contemplate the issue as if they were saving the world and going to get handed a medal from Jesus, when in reality they are just bullying and smug.  

 

With that said, if you choose to do or join something with a dress code then your children should adhere to it.  

We do attend a co-op with a dress code.  What annoys me to no end isn't the dress code- my girls have no desire to wear 'provocative' clothing- it;s the uneven random enforcement.  I require that we dress  as the code sates, but many do not, and there seem to be no consequences, except for the busty girls or anyone that a person in charge just doesn't like.

[Erin]

Not true!  In Oregon (Washington?) it's considered free-speech.  And back in the 60's, Tinker v. DesMoines determined that a kid's constitutional rights don't end at the schoolhouse door...

 

So should it be allowed or not? and if not, why not?

Since public nudity is illegal, this "slippery slope" argument is pretty silly.

[Crimson Wife]

I think a dress code for a prom or other formal dance is a different ball of wax than a dress code for daily attendance at school. If someone shows up to prom showing too much skin, it's just a few hours one evening. But school is 30+ hours per week x 40 weeks.

[Corraleno]

Why bother having any rules? Why not just let everybody do whatever they feel like and who cares what impact that has on others?

 

We have laws that protect people from harm. The sight of a teenage girl's cleavage or upper thigh does not cause anyone any harm.

 

 

I think students have the right to be in a learning environment as free from distractions as possible.

 

I have never seen any evidence that allowing girls to wear short shorts or tank tops to school is so "distracting" that it prevents students from learning. In fact, when I was in college in Florida, it was quite common for girls to come to class in short shorts and tank tops or even bikini tops. Guys walked around in shorts and no shirts all the time. I wonder how any of us managed to not only graduate, but get into top graduate and professional schools, with all that distracting flesh around?