Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens

[bigfield]

Perhaps I have misconstrued what you said.

1. I want men to quit behaving badly.

2. When men are behaving badly, I want men to step up and tell them to knock it off. Many men do but too many are silent or worse: cheer them on.

3. I want women to step up and tell men to knock it off. Many women do and I want all women to feel empowered to stand up to abuse no matter the source.

#2 is all I was after.

And now I have a question for you.

Do you have any sort of issue with that (#2)? See also: Gillette ad, above.

No, of course not. I said something similar myself earlier in the thread. I also posted my views on what young men should learn, about a year ago.

That's the first time I've seen the Gillette ad. It's exactly the type of thing I believe in: stepping in, looking after others. Any room should be safer simply because you're in it. It doesn't hinge on vengeful violence. It just requires the resolve to make someone else's problem our problem; to stick our necks out rather than keep our heads down.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's the first time I've seen the Gillette ad. It's exactly the type of thing I believe in: stepping in, looking after others. Any room should be safer simply because you're in it. It doesn't hinge on vengeful violence. It just requires the resolve to make someone else's problem our problem; to stick our necks out rather than keep our heads down.

But we do stick out our necks. How many times have you been in situations where no man does? Every time I have not stuck my neck out in defence of someone I feel intense shame. As I should. I don't think I'm special. My problem with the Gillette ad is that I'm unclear what it's for. You are describing what 99% of all men are already doing. That 99% of men were never the problem. Nearly all transgressions are carried out by a tiny minority of men. I'm guessing that that minority already knows they're sociopaths and couldn't care less about the Gillette ad.

How aren't they kicking down a wide open door? They're being hailed as having done something amazing and taking a risk. All I see is a brand preaching to a choir. And I understand the men who get offended by it. Because it's saying that toxic masculinity (whatever that means) is a big problem within most men. It's saying that me and you, as men, are broken and need to be fixed. That's just insulting. And ignores the reality for nearly all men. It's like making an ad for fake tits and saying that all women who don't have perky double D's and have ugly natural tits are flawed women and should be ashamed of themselves. ...or is it meant to stroke the ego of people like you and me, and suck our cocks, because we know we're not targets of this message? That would be even more cynical of them.

I'm personally not insulted because I'm a big boy and I can see lame attempts of corporate virtue signalling to peddle overpriced flimsy plastic garbage products. We're all corporate shills just for discussing it at all.

 

[bigfield]

That's the first time I've seen the Gillette ad. It's exactly the type of thing I believe in: stepping in, looking after others. Any room should be safer simply because you're in it. It doesn't hinge on vengeful violence. It just requires the resolve to make someone else's problem our problem; to stick our necks out rather than keep our heads down.

But we do stick out our necks? How many times have you been in situations where no man does? Every time I have not stuck my neck out in defence of someone I feel intense shame. As I should. I don't think I'm special. My problem with the Gillette ad is that I'm unclear what it's for. You are describing what 99% of all men are already doing. That 99% of men were never the problem. Nearly all transgressions are carried out by a tiny minority of men. I'm guessing that that minority already knows they're sociopaths and couldn't care less about the Gillette ad.

I think your numbers are way off, but that's just my finger in the wind.

How aren't they kicking down a wide open door? They're being hailed as having done something amazing and taking a risk. All I see is a brand preaching to a choir. And I understand the men who get offended by it. Because it's saying that toxic masculinity (whatever that means) is a big problem within most men. It's saying that me and you, as men, are broken and need to be fixed. That's just insulting. And ignores the reality for nearly all men. It's like making an ad for fake tits and saying that all women who don't have perky double D's and have ugly natural tits are flawed women and should be ashamed of themselves. ...or is it meant to stroke the ego of people like you and me, and suck our cocks, because we know we're not targets of this message?

The Gillette ad is an ad. They're buying brand loyalty by signalling the moral virtue of the brand to their existing customers.

I'm personally not insulted because I'm a big boy and I can see lame attempts of corporate virtue signalling to peddle overpriced plastic products. We're all just corporate shills for discussing it at all.

Pretty much. That's why I ignored the ad until now.

 

[ruby sparks]

And now I have a question for you.

Do you have any sort of issue with that (#2)? See also: Gillette ad, above.

No, of course not. I said something similar myself earlier in the thread. I also posted my views on what young men should learn, about a year ago.

That's the first time I've seen the Gillette ad. It's exactly the type of thing I believe in: stepping in, looking after others. Any room should be safer simply because you're in it. It doesn't hinge on vengeful violence. It just requires the resolve to make someone else's problem our problem; to stick our necks out rather than keep our heads down.

Gotcha. Well said. I agree.

I confess I don't do it very often, the stuff in the ad. Mainly because I don't see anything to intervene on very often (I actually do believe here is different from, for example, the USA, or what I perceive of the USA via the media, and also, I don't get out as much as I used to now that I am older and domesticated, I probably associate with like-minded people, in certain types of places, etc) but I will, sometimes, non-aggressively, say something if I do see it. I could be missing it of course. It depends what exactly it is though.

Then there's the personal safety consideration. A man intervening can not unreasonably fear for his own safety, since the sort of man, who may also be drunk, who is likely to warrant an intervention, is also the sort of man, often anyway, who will react aggressively to being intervened on, perhaps especially by another man, another male negatively judging him, making a challenge. And I'm useless in a fight. In that hypothetical case, I'd do something nonetheless. Just be there and be seen to be there. And/or report it. Intervene if it becomes a serious physical assault. Or help others (good not to be the only intervener).

I am sure there are some, perhaps even one or two women here, maybe men too for all I know, who think the sort of thing I'm talking about here is not doing enough. I respect that. That's cool. People will always disagree about where exactly the line is.

Would I actually step in on a guy (as in the ad) who goes after a pretty woman in the street? That depends. I'm not sure I would. Perhaps, if it's as obvious as it was in that scene that he was literally 'going after her' with his eyes popping out. But in other situations, it might not be so clear. If I saw something 'like' that, I might, assuming I had the time, watch for a bit, to see what happened, and possibly intervene. But maybe the woman will tell him to fuck off, or handle it effectively in some way, and I might be seen as a Patronising White Knight if I step in before she exercises her agency. How do I know the woman even wants me to 'look after her'? It's not my job to be a social vigilante, necessarily. If that sounds controversial, I'll take the hit on that.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... it's saying that toxic masculinity (whatever that means) is a big problem within most men. It's saying that me and you, as men, are broken and need to be fixed.

I'm not seeing that.

Or, to the extent that it is alluding to or implying that, it is saying it about...traditional attitudes...'small', everyday potentially unbenign norms, such as 'boys will be boys'.....not necessarily condoning 'serious' toxicality or being it. Which things are still quite common, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

But what does it mean? Can you give an example of a toxic masculine behaviour.....

Sexual harrassment.

I think I have posted stuff to elaborate on toxic masculinity at least a few times. Check my and others posts in the 'Toxic Masculinity' Thread. Otherwise, google is your friend too. There is a lot of stuff out there.

Your point about it 'only being a small minority of men' is fair enough, if we're talking about serious harassment, assault or rape, but the further down the scale from that you go, the bigger the percentage. In any case, it being a minority does not make it not a problem, or a reason not to believe in it, which is what you said.

What (exactly) is terrorism? How many people are terrorists? If it's a tiny minority, that's no reason not to believe terrorism exists. Count the victims? Measure the prevalence and severity of outcomes?

 

[ruby sparks]

Personally, I do feel insulted, if the suggestion is that it's men generally or most men, who are the problem. Because they aren't, not when it comes to the serious stuff, the stuff that matters most. But (a) I don't hear that suggestion very often and (b) in some ways, it's true, especially for the lesser stuff, imo (of course there are also a lot of really 'good' men too). It depends how it's put and who's saying it (and what) and in what way in what context. I can read a book entitled 'Demonic Males' and agree with it throughout, for example. It's a balanced, empirical, intelligent book with no political agenda or overt ideology. It's not myopic. It doesn't seek to focus on blame unnecessarily or overly, and doesn't over-simplify. It also sees the issue from more than one perspective, and doesn't neglect to mention counterpart issues. It doesn't take a 'side' in other words. Equally, I can read articles by people, including women, and/or feminists, and more or less totally agree for similar reasons. Very occasionally, I come across something I disagree with or object to, but not very often, and I can't think of an example off the top of my head. But there are always minority extreme views, on any topic.

I also agree, as does for example Heather Heying, with the specific idea that a lot of Feminism is implicitly 'divisive'. Ditto its male counterpart(s).

 

[thebeave]

That's the first time I've seen the Gillette ad. It's exactly the type of thing I believe in: stepping in, looking after others. Any room should be safer simply because you're in it. It doesn't hinge on vengeful violence. It just requires the resolve to make someone else's problem our problem; to stick our necks out rather than keep our heads down.

But we do stick out our necks. How many times have you been in situations where no man does? Every time I have not stuck my neck out in defence of someone I feel intense shame. As I should. I don't think I'm special. My problem with the Gillette ad is that I'm unclear what it's for. You are describing what 99% of all men are already doing. That 99% of men were never the problem. Nearly all transgressions are carried out by a tiny minority of men. I'm guessing that that minority already knows they're sociopaths and couldn't care less about the Gillette ad.

How aren't they kicking down a wide open door? They're being hailed as having done something amazing and taking a risk. All I see is a brand preaching to a choir. And I understand the men who get offended by it. Because it's saying that toxic masculinity (whatever that means) is a big problem within most men. It's saying that me and you, as men, are broken and need to be fixed. That's just insulting. And ignores the reality for nearly all men. It's like making an ad for fake tits and saying that all women who don't have perky double D's and have ugly natural tits are flawed women and should be ashamed of themselves. ...or is it meant to stroke the ego of people like you and me, and suck our cocks, because we know we're not targets of this message? That would be even more cynical of them.

I'm personally not insulted because I'm a big boy and I can see lame attempts of corporate virtue signalling to peddle overpriced flimsy plastic garbage products. We're all corporate shills just for discussing it at all.

Exactly. There are a number of videos showing random men stepping up to help a woman who is being verbally or physically assaulted by another man, but when the genders are reversed, few people (men or women), if any, step up. In fact, people not only just pass on by, but make jokes and think he deserves it. Not to mention men sacrificing their own lives for the sake of women's lives. Titanic, anyone? The reality is that men step up to save and protect women far more than the other way around. If we as a society are truly about gender equality, shouldn't women be sacrificing and stepping up to help men more often?

 

[bigfield]

Exactly. There are a number of videos showing random men stepping up to help a woman who is being verbally or physically assaulted by another man, but when the genders are reversed, few people (men or women), if any, step up. In fact, people not only just pass on by, but make jokes and think he deserves it. Not to mention men sacrificing their own lives for the sake of women's lives. Titanic, anyone? The reality is that men step up to save and protect women far more than the other way around. If we as a society are truly about gender equality, shouldn't women be sacrificing and stepping up to help men more often?

Women make our babies. That's a kind of help you have to work hard to match.

Men and women aren't equal. Men are useful in ways women aren't. Men are horrible in ways women aren't. And vice versa. We all know it, so let's not play this silly game of but-gender-equality.

 

[TSwizzle]

Exactly. There are a number of videos showing random men stepping up to help a woman who is being verbally or physically assaulted by another man, but when the genders are reversed, few people (men or women), if any, step up. In fact, people not only just pass on by, but make jokes and think he deserves it. Not to mention men sacrificing their own lives for the sake of women's lives. Titanic, anyone? The reality is that men step up to save and protect women far more than the other way around. If we as a society are truly about gender equality, shouldn't women be sacrificing and stepping up to help men more often?

Step up ? Just as likely is people are going to whip out their phones and record it these days.

A case that is in the news in LA just now;

A man caught on video viciously punching two women at a hot dog stand in Los Angeles has turned himself in, cops say. Arka Sangbarani Oroojian was booked for assault with a deadly weapon on Tuesday night, according to the LAPD. His bail has been set at $90,000. The perpetrator can be seen attacking the women early Saturday in downtown Los Angeles and then jogging away. The LAPD released video of the attack on Tuesday. "This guy brutally punched two women at a hot dog stand," cops wrote on Twitter. "Someone knows him, and we would like to be one of those people."

news

The video shows Mr Oroojian punching a couple of young girls, flooring them. Then he runs away. To be fair to Mr Oroojian, the girls kept on steppin'. As he runs away nobody tries to stop him but he is a big guy.

 

[Derec]

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.

That's a pretty bold claim (even though you italicized it), given that a significant fraction of 15-17 year old girls are already sexually active. And by 'sexually active' I do not mean just loss of virginity per se, but the whole baseball diamond system.

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.”

If by "they are asking for it" you mean, rape, then of course, that's nonsense. But it is equally nonsense to think that human females are asexual creatures prior to their 18th birthdays.

 

[Derec]

The Ramsey girl on Colorado was young and from, her pictures her parents dressed her up like a prostitute IMO.

"The Ramsey girl" was a prepubescent girl of 6 when she died, and younger than that during her child pageant days. Yes, those pageants are freaky as hell, but they have nothing to do with what Rhea is talking about, which are girls 15-17, who are sexually mature, almost at age of majority, and (16 and 17 year olds at least) above the age of consent in most Western jurisdictions.

Raise kids, both boys and girls, to equate self worth with sexually appeal and especially tits and ass for girls and we get the growing problem of sexual abuse.

I agree that it is not healthy to equate self worth with sexual appeal, but likewise is it not healthy to pretend people under 18 (or 21 or whatever) are or should be sexless.

Add to that bohemia, obsession with being thin, not uncommon among teens.
girl

What do Czechs or Bohemians have to do with an obsession with being thin?

 

[Derec]

Yeah, sure. Boys can find out whether it;'s the case by looking for other signs besides clothing. If necessary, asking the girls if they want sex.
I'm talking about a high school semi formal dance, so it's not actually necessary for the boys to get laid that night, you know.

It's amazing that we live in a world where girls physically mature before boys do, and we can accept that 16 or 17 year old boys would desire sex, but it is anathema to think any 16 or 17 year old girls would want sex as well.

 

[Derec]

It means that someone needs to put a hard ban on TSwizzle being anywhere near high schools or middle schools.

Why? For stating that plenty of high school girls are sexually active (mostly with high school boys or guys a little older than that)?

 

[Toni]

It means that someone needs to put a hard ban on TSwizzle being anywhere near high schools or middle schools.

Why? For stating that plenty of high school girls are sexually active (mostly with high school boys or guys a little older than that)?

Uh, that's not what he said.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, sure. Boys can find out whether it;'s the case by looking for other signs besides clothing. If necessary, asking the girls if they want sex.
I'm talking about a high school semi formal dance, so it's not actually necessary for the boys to get laid that night, you know.

It's amazing that we live in a world where girls physically mature before boys do, and we can accept that 16 or 17 year old boys would desire sex, but it is anathema to think any 16 or 17 year old girls would want sex as well.

You, as well as most of the men in this thread are missing the entire point of Rhea's OP: The girls are dressing up fancy to please themselves.


There is no comment about whether the girls are dating, are dating boys, are asexual, are sexually active, are saving themselves for marriage or what base they've made. Because that doesn't matter to the girls.

The statement was that these girls dressed up to please themselves and for positive affirmations from their female friends.

This is something that I've noticed over and over and over again: girls and women dress up for themselves. Sometimes, we might wear something in a color or style that our significant other likes...if it fits the occasion and doesn't need laundering and fits and is in good repair and we think we look good in it or that we think we look good in it at that particular moment. This is not a sure thing. At. All.

I used to try to ask my husband if he preferred this outfit or that but he always said something along the lines of whatever. Before I was married, I don't think I ever, even on time, considered what my date (assuming I was going on a date) would think of what I was wearing. Neither did any of my friends. We asked each other what we thought of this or that or how our hair looked or if we were wearing too much makeup/perfume or not enough. Nothing along the lines of: Do you think Tommy will get all hot if I wear my pink dress with the bow on it.

Even those girls who wear the FM heels. Trust me: she wouldn't wear them if her girl friends told her they didn't look good.

I've known one or two women who did dress to please their significant other. Because he was an abusive SOB who would berate her and shame her and possibly physically abuse her if she didn't.

So, there's that, too.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, sure. Boys can find out whether it;'s the case by looking for other signs besides clothing. If necessary, asking the girls if they want sex.
I'm talking about a high school semi formal dance, so it's not actually necessary for the boys to get laid that night, you know.

It's amazing that we live in a world where girls physically mature before boys do, and we can accept that 16 or 17 year old boys would desire sex, but it is anathema to think any 16 or 17 year old girls would want sex as well.

Again, that's not the point of the post. It has nothing to do with whether or not some teenage girls are interested in sex or whether these teenage girls are interested in having sex.

Because what they are wearing is about them looking good to themselves and their peers: their female friends. It is not about advertising their availability or willingness to have sex.

That's why girls and women dress the way that they do.

Trust me: some of us have tried taking our husbands or boyfriends shopping with us and they don't like it, aren't helpful and are frankly annoying. Everybody is happier if we just pick out our own clothes that make us feel good about ourselves.

Because, Derec and all you other men reading this: What men really respond to is a woman who feels attractive and confident in how she looks. Which is not predicated on male affirmation.

I know that some of you will find this unbelievable and disappointing. You should all feel relieved.

 

[Rhea]

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.

That's a pretty bold claim (even though you italicized it), given that a significant fraction of 15-17 year old girls are already sexually active. And by 'sexually active' I do not mean just loss of virginity per se, but the whole baseball diamond system.

Oh, Derec. You thought that once a girl is sexually active, then when she dresses fancy it’s to attract sex?

What’s next, that once she has sex with her boyfriend she’s available to all men?

 

[ruby sparks]

It means that someone needs to put a hard ban on TSwizzle being anywhere near high schools or middle schools.

Why? For stating that plenty of high school girls are sexually active (mostly with high school boys or guys a little older than that)?

No. For (indirectly) labelling them, if they are sexually promiscuous, as skanky hoes. I actually don't know if TSwizzle is ok with that term or whether he deplores it and was only referring to its use (by others). If I had to guess, I'd guess the latter.

You made some good points, imo. Yes, we should not assume that such girls are not either expressing their sexuality or indeed seeking sex. Equally, we should not assume that they are. It's not necessarily either one or the other. The idea that young girls dress (and prepare their appearance) only to please themselves is as iffy (and possibly untenable) as the idea that they only do it to advertise their sexuality or because they want sex. In general terms, this is, obviously, similarly the case for boys as well as girls (and men as well as women) allowing for differences also. This, imo, is worthy of being called 'stating the bleedin' obvious'.

 

[Toni]

It means that someone needs to put a hard ban on TSwizzle being anywhere near high schools or middle schools.

Why? For stating that plenty of high school girls are sexually active (mostly with high school boys or guys a little older than that)?

No. For (indirectly) labelling them, if they are sexually promiscuous, as skanky hoes. I actually don't know if TSwizzle is ok with that term or whether he deplores it and was only referring to its use (by others). If I had to guess, I'd guess the latter.

You made some good points, imo. Yes, we should not assume that such girls are not either expressing their sexuality or indeed seeking sex. Equally, we should not assume that they are. It's not necessarily either one or the other. The idea that young girls dress (and prepare their appearance) only to please themselves is as iffy (and possibly untenable) as the idea that they only do it to advertise their sexuality or because they want sex. In general terms, this is, obviously, similarly the case for boys as well as girls (and men as well as women) allowing for differences also. This, imo, is worthy of being called 'stating the bleedin' obvious'.

The point is: girls dress to please themselves.

If we are not their parents with some legitimate need to look out for their best interests and some legal obligations towards them, speculation about their level of sexual activity is 100% inappropriate.