My thought, also. "Trolling for sex" implies they're looking to get laid that night. I doubt most women who dress like that (even #3) are looking for sex now. However, I do think many are either looking to please existing romantic partners or to hopefully find a romantic partner.
-
Features
Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
My thought, also. "Trolling for sex" implies they're looking to get laid that night. I doubt most women who dress like that (even #3) are looking for sex now. However, I do think many are either looking to please existing romantic partners or to hopefully find a romantic partner.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Can I just say, that it does matter, a lot, to me, when i'm replying to you. I know that you were attacked, and your daughter too, because you have said.
When I comment, it is usually about things in more general terms.
And in any case, the point about how dress does not affect the risks of being sexually assaulted is generally accepted. Well, I generally accept it. It may not be as widely accepted as it should. Incorrect perceptions persist, unfortunately, and not just to do with dress, or grooming or make up, but with behaviour. Even behaviour during an assault! It is imo literally incredible that today, in somewhere like Spain for example, the victim of a gang rape (which was videod) can be blamed, in court, for not fighting back. Incredible, shocking and appalling. Literally.
I have mentioned other things that dress etc may be correlated to, such as unwanted attention etc but that is not rape or assault.
- - - Updated - - -
It's hard to know. As I said, that pic is very reminiscent, to me, of many of the sort of pics that my daughters were in, only a few years ago, and I am pretty certain that the girls in the pics were not necessarily even thinking about boys, even assuming they were straight. I'm not even sure it's fair to say that they were necessarily subconcsiously/naively signalling sexuality to boys either, to be honest. I think the fact that girls have several other reasons for dressing like that is way underplayed. My daughters were not specially naive in that way. They were bright, smart, savvy modern girls in many ways. Sometimes it's just not about the boys, or not much, or not as much as boys think it is.
Every girl and every context differs. For starters, there's 'girl culture' to do with peers. And then there's just personal preferences. And then, to throw into the mix, there's consumerism and the influences of modern media. That's an interesting one. Here's a question, are teenage girls (or boys) who get botox, doing it to 'please themselves' only? In some ways, yes (it's what they want, for themselves). In some ways no, imo. To 'consumerist capitalism', young people, indeed all people, are just potential purchasers (and guess what, nowadays they have more money). There was no teenage botox in my day, as far as I know. Why is there now?
A slightly separate even if related question to the OP, I know.
Last edited:
The apologists, who protect the perpetrators whether they think they do or not, are exhausting.
"Well I'm not saying she's a slut, but you gotta see why blokes think so,"
No. No, I don't. That dress does not mean she is trying to sexually attract anyone.
And yes, you may remember that Toni was attacked. Remember that MOST OF US either have been or are related to someone that has been. And we care not only about the ones who have been attacked but about preventing future ones from being attacked - by changing the risk of being an attacker. Taking away the social permission.
It starts with people who think they are not attackers, making judgments about how easy it will be for the perp to get away with it, because public opinion gives him a pass.
And that's why being a sideliner, an apologist or a silent observer with no bad opinion is just as dangerous for these girls; because it feeds into their attacker's calculation of whether he'll get caught or punished for his act. He hears every day that people will support "no punishment." And so, he goes ahead.
My attacker got "no punishment" even though he still had a baseball bat in his hands when the police showed up. The mitigating claim in court? "She knew me."
ruby sparks
Contributor
That's awful. You were attacked too? I didn't know.
I should not be so surprised. I know several women who were at least sexually harassed (eg unquestionably rubbed up against on a crowded subway, to the point of the man apparently ejaculating into his trousered underpants), and both my mum and my little sister were raped, though that was arguably pedophilia, sort of (my sis was 12-13 and my mum was 11-14, it went on for a few years). My wife was flashed at, as a child, and as a student at university, and had her breasts groped around the same time (as a student) while she slept. In none of those cases were any of the girls/young women in any way 'provocatively' dressed.
Last edited:
I was attacked more than once. That was just the most violent of them. I was 15. I had never met that person before he showed up at my house.
My point in saying so is to remind people that
- Women ALREADY KNOW how dangerous men can be
- It is MUCH more prevalent than the apologists will admit
- MANY people are affected by those standing by and doing nothing to change the perception attackers have that the public will not punish.
- It's wrong, every time, to judge people as deserving of crimes against them
- Many more women than you know have been attacked, and they don't tell you because they don't feel safe sharing their pain with you or they feel nothing will change by them trusting you with their pain.
- And just to repeat - attackers are more likely to attack when they think the public is willing to blame the victim. So stop letting them know you are willing to lay blame for their attack on the victim.
ruby sparks
Contributor
ruby sparks
Contributor
Just on this, whilst I agree generally that at least many women already know this, how well do teenage girls specifically know that some men can be dangerous, or just how dangerous they can be, about certain things (eg sex), in certain situations? It will vary, according to a lot of things (including age) from individual to individual. Some teenage girls will be more savvy and smart and mature than others (and in general more mature than their teenage boy counterparts). But by and large, their teenage years are when they are foraying for the first time into new situations, and even if before that they knew boys could be assholes, they may not appreciate that those same boys are also entering the new arena, involving changes in both biology (including both external bodily changes and biochemical changes) and culture for both sexes. 'Nature' is setting them up to do what evolution 'wants' them to do, more than anything else. It's arguably a potent brew, and by and large it's new territory.
What should this mean? Does it have any implications for how we might treat or educate or advise teenage girls? I have already opined on this. It is boys more than girls who need to be advised and educated, but I am not against (in fact I am for) advising and educating, when and where advice and education are warranted, not just just boys, so long as the emphasis and content of the advice are imo the correct ones. As I said before, it's a question of emphasis and degree and the ways in which such things are handled.
Get it wrong and for instance you can go in the direction of victim-blaming, as society unfortunately has tended (and in many cases still tends) to do when it comes to sexual wrongdoings, more so than for other wrongdoings.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
And, away from dress specifically, to other matters of appearance, something I've mentioned once or twice:
As I understand it, the person in the 1st picture had the 'enhancement' done as a teenager (though she is now 21).
What issues does this raise? Does it mean that a teenage girl who has lip treatment and/or applies red lipstick is trolling for sex? No. Not even that she is signalling sexual interest or wants to gain sexual attention or is expressing her sexuality, though that last one may be part of it (or it may not). My guess is that it is perhaps often part of it (don't ask me to speculate on how often), but not necessarily the main reason and not always directly. There are too many other reasons.
But at the same time, engorged/plumped or reddened lips are (a) associated, biologically, with sexual arousal and (b) are an aphrodisiac to most straight men.
Setting even that aside, there is the issue of the influence of social norms and pressures and the role of media and advertising in this. Certain issues are not even directly to do with sex or boys. Examples might be risks of self-objectification and other body-image issues. There are, at least, some reasons not to be 'all good' about this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting it should be automatically condemned or that people should be denied their agency and free choices. It's just another one of those nuanced issues imo.
Anecdotally (and this is purely my own opinion and indirect experience) one of our teenage daughters had her tongue pierced and the other liked other piercings (a nose piercing and ear piercings) and we were good with that (my wife slightly less so than me). Personally, I am not fond of plastic surgery and the like, especially in teenagers and young people. As for tattoos, I'm pretty ok with those, but I can be averse to them when imo they are extensive or obvious and it depends what the tattoo is. My feelings on tattoos, piercings, plastic surgery and other enhancements are similar when it comes to boys and young men. I realise it is not my position to judge and I am only giving my personal opinion.
As I understand it, the person in the 1st picture had the 'enhancement' done as a teenager (though she is now 21).
What issues does this raise? Does it mean that a teenage girl who has lip treatment and/or applies red lipstick is trolling for sex? No. Not even that she is signalling sexual interest or wants to gain sexual attention or is expressing her sexuality, though that last one may be part of it (or it may not). My guess is that it is perhaps often part of it (don't ask me to speculate on how often), but not necessarily the main reason and not always directly. There are too many other reasons.
But at the same time, engorged/plumped or reddened lips are (a) associated, biologically, with sexual arousal and (b) are an aphrodisiac to most straight men.
Setting even that aside, there is the issue of the influence of social norms and pressures and the role of media and advertising in this. Certain issues are not even directly to do with sex or boys. Examples might be risks of self-objectification and other body-image issues. There are, at least, some reasons not to be 'all good' about this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting it should be automatically condemned or that people should be denied their agency and free choices. It's just another one of those nuanced issues imo.
Anecdotally (and this is purely my own opinion and indirect experience) one of our teenage daughters had her tongue pierced and the other liked other piercings (a nose piercing and ear piercings) and we were good with that (my wife slightly less so than me). Personally, I am not fond of plastic surgery and the like, especially in teenagers and young people. As for tattoos, I'm pretty ok with those, but I can be averse to them when imo they are extensive or obvious and it depends what the tattoo is. My feelings on tattoos, piercings, plastic surgery and other enhancements are similar when it comes to boys and young men. I realise it is not my position to judge and I am only giving my personal opinion.
Last edited:
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I actually tried to find a reputable one. I have lots of third wave feminist friends. In Sweden they completely dominate the public discourse. And I hang out in the queer/kinky world which is even more progressive/feminist than society in general. I keep my mouth shut about my opinions around them. This is the only place I feel safe to say what I actually think.
A huge problem with discussing this is the dichotomy. We have alt-right on one side and third wave feminists on the other. Both of these narratives dominate the discourse completely. So if you criticise third wave feminism openly you might as well be wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat. And since I like having sex with the fun people it's just not on. So I keep my mouth shut and listen.
Oh dear. We disagree again.
What I would say is that patriarchy, like most things, is complicated, multifaceted and nuanced (I seem to say that about a lot of things, lol, but it's because it's usually true, of any set of human behaviours and attitudes, which imo are among the most capricious phenomena in the known universe).
I would love to see a definition of patriarchal oppression that isn't nonsense. And this is coming from a guy who has read and loves Judit Butler. I think she formulated it better than anyone. I suspect she made it as clear as anyone can. All evidence for patriarchal oppression I've seen fall apart under closer scrutiny because it's all taken out of context. Judit Butler is great to a point, but takes it too far. But she's at least honest about what is conjecture. I don't see that level of academic honesty in any other big name in gender studies.
So then it should be no problem for you to find a theory/definition that isn't nonsense?
How did it benefit men more than women? This thing that most boys go to school while most girls don't is only found for a very short period as a culture transitions from an agrarian economy to an industrial one. Nearly all unfairness feminists complain about are only found in these transition economies.
When resources are scarce humans are exceedingly violent towards one another. In-group and out-group behaviour is much more extreme. Academic learning is reserved for the extreme elite (ie not most men). Feminists have always liked to blame this on men and the patriarchy. Good luck finding anything to support it. It's just assertions and assumed. Based on nothing I can see.
We live in an age of abundant resources and wealth. When we go from resource scarcity to resource abundance the patriarchy seems very ill equipped to cling to power. They always lose their grip on power. It's almost like the patriarchy was never the problem, but grinding poverty. Perhaps the patriarchy never were in control?
Disproved by all the queens and empresses who have ruled efficiently and ruthlessly. The context places demands on our leaders. I see no evidence female rulers are less capable of figuring out that might makes right in the ancient and medieval world, and played the game just as well as men. Thinking that a world ruled by women would be more peaceful is idiotic. Obviously it would be exactly as brutal because the economic paradigm demands it.
This is speculation, but the reason I believe men were (and are) willing cannon fodder is because in a largely anarchic world if you weren't on a well coordinated team willing to commit cruel acts of violence you'd quickly become wiped out. Which often happened. The end result of ancient battles was often that the losers were utterly annihilated. Their records wiped from history. By creating strong nation states with powerful police forces and armies, we've outsourced this need in men. This is what creates gender equality and nothing else. It's not my personal theory. There's many historians who have drawn the same conclusion. It's simply more efficient if the gender whose sperm can be stretched to many women does the fighting. So our instincts make that happen. To be a man is to be expendable.
Calling mens ability to get shit done and protect their families in the ancient world "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchal oppression" is only insulting to men. And I understand if some of them get upset by it. If your ancestral ancient men wouldn't have done it you wouldn't be here to have this conversation. It's just ungrateful and self serving.
And finally. I like feminism. Best thing since sliced bread. Humans are naturally conservative and when we had the wealth and physical security to allow us to break with the old gender paradigm and have gender equality it was great that the feminists came along and kicked our asses. I think gender equality is good for everyone. But I doubt gender equality could have happened earlier than it did. Social change is slow. And I doubt we've seen the end of it.
Even the old bastion of "patriarchal oppression" the middle east, and particularly in Saudi Arabia is now heading towards gender equality at breakneck speed. Saudi Arabia was nothing a bunch of goatherders as late as in the 1960'ies. The march toward gender equality is going much faster there than it did in the west.
I don't think gender studies in its current form will be around much longer. Now when postmodern philosophy has fallen from grace it'll take gender studies with it. Which today mostly is just a branch of postmodern philosophy. The problem with it is that you have to first agree to the conclusion before studying your subject. I don't think gender studies study what they say they study. I think it's mostly bullshit.
I look forward to new paradigms of gender studies that use things like psychological experiments and psychometrics. Bizarrely enough the experts who study gender differences don't call themselves researchers in general studies. Because the current gender studies paradigm insists on that there are no psychological gender differences and it's all just a social construct. Well... we could prove that was bullshit as early as the 1950'ies.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Didn't you disprove your own claim? Social norms and pressures don't come from nowhere. Now when popularity among teens is measurable in how many Instagram followers you have and our phones are a primarily visual medium, looks are more important than ever. The kids created this culture themselves. Nobody forced it onto them.
It's all about being sexually desirable. NOT having sex. Not necessarily at least. I've met many women who started very early and are happy about it. People have varying degrees of sex drive. But everybody wants to be sexually desirable
- - - Updated - - -
I doubt many teenagers know what they want. I didn't
couch_sloth
Member
Seeing a bunch of semi-formal pictures from various area high schools.
Many of the girls that I know to be 15-17 are shown with their huge happy smiles, feeling fancy in their dresses.
Some of the dresses are extremely short (enough that I’d be annoyed by inability to lean over), some have prodigious cleavage (enough that I’d be annoyed by inability to turn suddenly,) some are accompanied by strappy spike heels (high enough that I’d be annoyed by sore feet and instability). The girls are in bright lipstick and coiffed hair.
But what struck me as I enjoyed how happy their smiles were, was that I knew that not one of them, not a single one, was dressed this way to attract sex.
The think they are fancy. The are fancy.
They think they look more adult. And they do.
And those things are ALL that the girls are looking to be.fancy grown-ups for the evening.
And it is certain that some people would look at the same innocent pictures and duck-lip poses and think, “they are asking for it.”
A couple years ago, I went to a wedding in which a lot of 'young adults' attended (19 to 24 year olds). Nearly all the women of that age group dressed the way you have described. Many of the families there are fairly conservative, so I was a bit surprised.
I just figured that it was the current style, and they wanted to be in style.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I'll change that to people who have written in this thread. Which is what I meant. What various trolls on the Internet are saying, who cares? They are trolls.
USA has the jury system, so it can be a bit random. I don't really think that proves much. Once we get one level up in the judicial system I think that largely goes away?
Last year jurors in Sweden had a wife beater acquitted for the the above mentioned reasons. It was a national scandal. Head line news. The jurors were fired, and the most high profile juror had her entire career destroyed. She was a social pariah. Still is. In the retrial the man was found guilty. This pretty much proves the state of things in the west. This is the current paradigm. If you were correct we wouldn't have seen a stink about it.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/...ake-i-misshandelsfall--for-han-var-av-god-fam
Here's the lady who made the ruling
https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebtisam_Aldebe
Pictures of her
https://www.google.com/search?q=ebt...oECAoQAQ&cshid=1549283495857&biw=800&bih=1280
She's a conservative Muslim crack pot who rose in the Swedish political machine because we just love having photo shoots with brown people without listening to what they are actually saying. That sometimes ends badly
ruby sparks
Contributor
Have a look at this. It's linked to in the OP of the 'Toxic Masculinity' thread. It does not use the specific term 'Toxic Masculinity' as far as I am aware (at least not in the title) but I think it's about much the same thing nonetheless, in at least some ways (it's specifically about sexual assaults, which is only one aspect of the issue).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592333
In a nutshell, toxic masculinity more generally, as I understand it, is, broadly-speaking, both the set of undesirable behaviours related to masculinity, and in particular 'traditional' notions of that, and the set of attitudes that inform or are risk factors for those behaviours. The behaviours and attitudes may, when they are harmful, be harmful to both men and women, including the person having the attitudes (who doesn't even have to be male).
I'll reply to the rest of your as usual interesting post later. Now, I have to work.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Who are you arguing against? I don't think anybody in this thread has said anything that goes against that? Where's the apologists you are arguing against?
A major problem with judging assaults and sexual assaults is that its usually just word against word. If it's not beyond reasonable doubt then the perpetrator is acquitted. And should be acquitted. We don't want to have a system where any women can send any man she's been alone with to jail. It's a unsolvable problem. And thinking that isn't being an apologist
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,959
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Sigh. Unfortunately, it might well mean that her mother is projecting her own insecurities onto her daughter. Also that the family has $$. Sadly, in certain well to do families, a woman's value is how she looks which had better be thin and beautiful and sexy and YOUNG.
Sadly, a certain kind of girl and a certain kind of parents see the world and their daughter through the lens (pun intended) of cellphones and instagram and snapchapt and whatever other apps are out there and it's just too damn early for my brain to call them to mind. For certain people, their real life doesn't matter. What matters is how it LOOKS on some computer app.
AND there is the possibility that the enhancements have been done to further these girls' 'careers' as models, influencers, etc. Again: through social media.
It's a shame. In both cases, each girl's before photo is lovely and looks fresh and alive and displays actual emotion and personality. The others just look...plastic. Especially the second.
Depending on the procedure, the lip enhancement is probably temporary. Maybe somebody will get some sense or a clue?
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Have a look at this. It's linked to in the OP of the 'Toxic Masculinity' thread. It does not use the specific term 'Toxic Masculinity' as far as I am aware (at least not in the title) but I think it's about much the same thing nonetheless, in at least some ways (it's specifically about sexual assaults, which is only one aspect of the issue).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26592333
In a nutshell, toxic masculinity more generally, as I understand it, is, broadly-speaking, both the set of undesirable behaviours related to masculinity, and in particular 'traditional' notions of that, and the set of attitudes that inform or are risk factors for those behaviours. The behaviours and attitudes may, when they are harmful, be harmful to both men and women, including the person having the attitudes (who doesn't even have to be male).
I'll reply to the rest of your as usual interesting post later. Now, I have to work.
I think its telling that they've left that term out. Maybe the problem here isn't masculinity (toxic or otherwise). There's a large overlap in gendered behaviour among humans. If the problem is masculinity we should see some sort of distribution where many women exhibit some of the (toxic) behaviour. But we don't. When feminists talk about masculinity they almost always mean men. Not masculinity. It's all vague language
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,959
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
No no no no no. You took out one (important) line from Rhea's post and you are still are not getting it.
Women already KNOW.
Boys are the ones who need the education. You even glance on that, however briefly. But then move right on to what can we do to TEACH GIRLS HOW TO DRESS AND BEHAVE SO THEY DON'T GET RAPED???????
There is no way that girls can behave or dress to prevent themselves from being raped. ZERO.
FFS, why do you think I've gone on and on and on about what I was wearing the first time I was attacked? My face and hands were showing! How much more covered up should I have been? I did NOT A DAMN THING that any normal person could consider provocative or 'sexy.'
My friend from high school used to spend summers with her grandmother. One summer, there was an intruder who broke into the grandmother's bedroom and raped the grandmother. Was she just too sexy sleeping in her flannel? Did she send off some kind of signal???? Or maybe it was my friend who drew the rapist and he just mistook the window? The police actually suggested that it was that, it was my friend they were after, who frankly generally needed a shower and always wore clothes cast off from: her grandmother! or Goodwill, there being zero trendy second hand shops around.
Why can't men talk about BOYS and MEN needing education? Needing to modify THEIR behavior???????
ruby sparks
Contributor
ruby sparks
Contributor
That is imo a misrepresentation of my post. I get that you don't agree with that. Fine. Personally I won't be engaging with you any further while I believe you are repeatedly misrepresenting what I'm saying.
As for me taking out one line of Rhea's post, I had already agreed with the rest of it, and I was not even totally disagreeing on that one line anyway.
Basically, you are just not addressing my points in a fair and reasonable or indeed accurate way, imo, and as such I am not inclined to discuss them with you any further. You do not appear to be even listening. Most questionably, you seem to think that you can access the minds of all women everywhere and can speak for them, via blanket statements that are in some cases demonstrably incorrect, no matter how many times it is shown to you, and imo it should be totally obvious anyway. And that's not just my opinion, or even my opinion as a man, since in many cases it is the views of women, sometimes academics, about both other women and about themselves. You also seem to think you can read my mind too, telling me what I get and don't get, which is slightly ironic.
Specifically, what part of "It is boys more than girls who need to be advised and educated" is not clear?
Do you also get that the OP is specifically about how teenage girls dress and manage their appearance, and that that may be why I reference girls and discuss issues for them when answering? That does not mean I think the way girls dress is the reason they are raped, or that boys attitudes aren't mainly the problem (both of which I have clarified), before you throw in another rubbish misrepresentation. And if you want me to discuss the education of boys specifically, in more detail, you could have just asked me something specific. I have already brought it up several times anyway and I have already said to for example Rhea that I am happy to discuss it in more detail. It is also well-documented and to me non-controversial. The recent Gillette ad covers aspects of it for example, and on the whole I am good with the issues raised in that ad, which I posted. I have also posted another safety ad specifically warning boys about their sexual behaviour towards girls, which I also think is a good ad. Nobody commented on it, that I can recall. Perhaps if they had, it would have been discussed (perhaps some people including you, can't access it, which is fair enough, but I posted it and said what it was about, so you would have seen that). I have been at pains to disagree with Dr Z about both toxic masculinity and indeed patriarchy. I have criticised TSwizzle regarding what I consider to be the use of a dubious term. I could go on. But I hope you get the point. I'm certainly not asking for praise, but just get off my effin' back, please, especially when you misrepresent the content of my posts, because imo I do not have to put up with that sort of thing, from anyone, male female or whatever, on the internet or elsewhere.
For me, it's not worth the hassle to engage with you. If you feel similar, I suggest we don't engage.
That's my rant. It's not the first time I've felt like saying it to you. You are obviously free to interpret it any way you choose, though if you reply, I may choose not to reply in turn.
Last edited:
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
OK, why do you go on and on about what you were wearing the first time you were attacked ?