Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens

[ruby sparks]

The point is: girls dress to please themselves.

Look, over there. It's complicated and multifaceted reality, where there are no blanket statements like that. Head for it Toni. Maybe you'll get there.

 

[Toni]

The point is: girls dress to please themselves.

Look, over there. It's complicated and multifaceted reality, where there are no blanket statements like that. Head for it Toni. Maybe you'll get there.

You never will get it because you are certain you know what's inside the minds of girls and women. You think being a father gives you more insight into the hearts and minds of girls and women than actually being a girl or a woman.

It's just that simple.

Oh, sure, I could go on and on about how men cling to this belief in a world where their ability to control women's dress and behavior and opportunities is fading, a world where women are increasingly taking their power to speak up for themselves and to make their own decisions about their lives that have nothing to do with pleasing daddy or catching themselves a good man to impregnate them and keep them safe and protected--from other men.

But I won't.

Men won't believe what women say about what women think because it's too scary for them. Personally, I think it's a control issue but I don't really care. It's unattractive and you all should stop it.

I'm sure you and other men will be offended by me, a woman, daring to state why I think men do what they do. And will have not a single ounce of self recognition in their own responses in this thread. Or life.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

Oh yes it was.

 

[ruby sparks]

You never will get it because you are certain you know what's inside the minds of girls and women. You think being a father gives you more insight into the hearts and minds of girls and women than actually being a girl or a woman.

It's just that simple.

It's not, Toni. It's that it's just plainly, obviously, demonstrably and factually wrong to say that girls or women dress or groom or apply make-up only to please themselves. It's not just my opinion, and no I don't think it just because I'm a father of girls. I was only the father of two girls anyway, and there are literally are and have been billions of girls and women that I have not been a parent of. Nor is it just the opinion of men or fathers anyway. And by the way, just because you are a woman and have been a mother to a girl and may know other women and girls, that does not mean that you know what is in the minds of all other women and girls either. You can't do that and you literally do not speak for all women or girls any more than I could for men or boys, which I can't.

It (that women and girls may also dress and groom and make up for things other than only to please themselves) has been said by women and girls, including about themselves as well as about other women and girls (see posts earlier in this thread). You can disagree with me, but are you so dogmatic that you don't believe them either? It has also been widely studied and analysed, by academics and experts in a number of relevant areas. It's just wrong. It is an incorrect statement. In fact, it's as wrong about girls as it is about boys, men, women or anyone. Ditto for more than just so-called sexy dress and appearance, because it applies to other instances of dress, grooming and enhanced or modified appearance also, including make-up.

 

[ruby sparks]

Uh, that's not what he said.

Oh yes it was.

It was not all you said. Imo, you should clarify or justify why you also specifically used the term skanky (smelly) hoes (prostitutes). So far you've avoided doing that.

 

[Toni]

You never will get it because you are certain you know what's inside the minds of girls and women. You think being a father gives you more insight into the hearts and minds of girls and women than actually being a girl or a woman.

It's just that simple.

It's not, Toni. It's that it's just plainly, obviously, demonstrably and factually wrong to say that girls dress or groom or apply make-up only to please themselves. It's not just my opinion, and no I don't think it just because I'm a father of girls. I was only the father of two girls anyway, and there are literally are and have been billions of girls that I have not been a parent of. Nor is it just the opinion of men, or fathers, anyway. And by the way, just because you are a woman and have been a mother to a girl and may know other women and girls, that does not mean that you know what is in the minds of all other women and girls either. You can't do that and you literally do not speak for all women or girls any more than I could for men or boys, which I can't.

It (that women and girls may also dress and groom and make up for things other than only to please themselves) has been said by women and girls, including about themselves as well as about other women and girls (see posts earlier in this thread). You can disagree with me, but are you so dogmatic that you don't believe them either? It has also been widely studied and analysed, by academics and experts in a number of relevant areas. It's just wrong. It is an incorrect statement. In fact, it's as wrong about girls as it is about boys, men, women or anyone. Ditto for more than just so-called sexy dress and appearance, because it applies to other instances of dress, grooming and enhanced or modified appearance also, including make-up.

I like chocolate chip cookies. I specifically like and prefer the chocolate chip cookies that I make myself, using specific brands of ingredients, using specific baking sheets in my own oven, which temperature I select myself, adjusting depending on what texture of cookie I am looking for.

I did not invent the recipe. I found it on the back of a bag of chocolate chips of a much less quality than I currently can afford and use and are readily available to me. I’ve tweaked it a bit now and then. Occasionally I will make some adjustments: I like to put unsweetened cocoa powder in to make chocolate chocolate chip cookies.

I don’t make them nearly now as often as I did when I had kids at home. I only got into the habit of making them regularly because my husband assured me that all boys required cookies when they got home from school. Turns out girls require cookies every bit as much as do boys. And by god no kid of mine was going to have to settle for lesser quality mass produced ‘cookies’ loaded with all sorts of unnecessary preservatives and artificial colors and flavorings. So I made a lot of cookies as kids have friends who also like chocolate chip cookies. It was gratifying and sometimes frustrating to see them disappear so quickly. I even ate a few.

Plus they were affordable, simple to make, and I knew the recipe by heart—no need to look it up. Bonus: this is the first thing I taught my now husband to make. His own mother did not allow anyone else in the kitchen. My mother saw no reason to bake anything at all if it could be avoided and certainly nothing ‘from scratch.’ They are so simple to make that this is also one of the first things I taught my own kids to make. Now husband and kids were all enthusiastic about learning because, as I mentioned, the cookies are delicious.

As a biologist (although not an evolutionary biologist) I am aware of evolutionary and biological forces and processes that drive the human craving for fats and sugar. And salt. And warmth in food. I’m also aware that non-Americans may have no idea what I’m going on about when I talk about cookies, much less chocolate chip cookies. But let me tell you: they are delicious. Now my friends from India assure me that it is bizarre to pair sugar with salt in a sweet. Many of my Asian friends vastly prefer my lemon pound cake which has no chocolate and virtually zero salt. It’s also delicious but not the best cake I bake. That cake is:chocolate, with a deep, dark fudgey chocolate ganache frosting. I bake some pretty darn good brownies as well. And don’t get me started on the chocolate coffee whiskey cake that I live even though I dislike both coffee and whiskey. That one has ground black pepper in it and as improbable as it seems, it is delicious even with no frosting. But it does have mini chocolate chips in it so there’s that.

Nonetheless, while there are certainly sentimental and evolutionary as well as budgetary and familiarity forces at work, I bake chocolate chip cookies and eat them because I like the way that they taste. And smell.

If I want to eat chocolate chip cookies, I spend s few days talking myself out of it before telling myself that it’s been weeks to months (depending on time of year) since the last batch and I deserve them. I usually find someone who could use a dozen or two and share them as honestly, I don’t need another damn cookie ever.

But I bake them and I eat them because I like them.

Not only are my cookies delicious but baking them fills the house with the delicious scent and anticipation of freshly baked cookies.


As far as clothing goes, of course what is currently fashionable influences what girls and women (and boys and men) want to wear. Fun fact: relatively few fashion designers are straight men. I admit that I avoid the color pink because my mother kept trying to convince me to wear it and also in defiance of the relatively modern stereotypes surrounding wearing pink. Weather is a much greater determining factor in what I wear than is fashion. I wear jeans for their practicality rather than for their place in fashion. If you saw me, you would have zero doubt in your mind that I dress to please myself and no one else.

I’m not unusual at all in this respect.

 

[Derec]

Uh, that's not what he said.

What do you think he said?

 

[Derec]

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.

First of all, 'fancy' and 'sexually revealing/appealing' are two different things. There is an overlap, of course, but clothes can be fancy without being revealing and vice versa.

Second, a teenage girl 15-17 knows full well what she is doing by wearing sexually appealing clothes. Even if she is doing it to please herself, or to entice envy from her friends/frenemies, the fact that these clothes also attract men is certainly not lost on them. They are 15-17, not 5-7 for FSM's sake!

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.

I would agree with part of it. But whether or not they are sexually active, my point is that they are of an age where girls get interested in sexuality and many are sexually active. Even those who are not sexually active are aware of sexuality. To say that revealing clothes have nothing to do with sexual signalling, as Rhea tried to say, or that a 15-17 year old is the same as the 6 year old Jo Beignet Ramsey as steve_bank was saying is just silly!

 

[Derec]

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

Attract sexual attention, yes, among other things. And even before she is sexually active, but sexually mature, one of the reasons is certainly to attract sexual attention (even if there is no intention to reciprocate).

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

Nobody said anything approaching that. You are knocking down a straw man so big you could take it to the Black Rock City as a centerpiece.

 

[Derec]

It was not all you said. Imo, you should clarify or justify why you also specifically used the term skanky (smelly) hoes (prostitutes). So far you've avoided doing that.

Ho may have originated as a contraction of whore, but thanks to op hop, has taken on a much broader meaning.

In any case, how is saying that many high school girls are promiscuous in any way implying that TSwizzle should be banned from being near a school? Because that's what Toni said.

 

[ruby sparks]

In any case, how is saying that many high school girls are promiscuous in any way implying that TSwizzle should be banned from being near a school?

It wouldn't be. But he also seemed to imply that they could be described as skanky hoes. I already said that.

To be exact, he said there were an awful lot of girls at the high schools in his area who put it about openly, who dress as skanky hoes and act accordingly.

Now, that's not outright calling them skanky hoes, obviously, but it seemed to me a bit close to it. Plus, 'an awful lot' is....well.....quite a lot.

I just need the exact names of the schools Derec.

 

[Toni]

It was not all you said. Imo, you should clarify or justify why you also specifically used the term skanky (smelly) hoes (prostitutes). So far you've avoided doing that.

Ho may have originated as a contraction of whore, but thanks to op hop, has taken on a much broader meaning.

In any case, how is saying that many high school girls are promiscuous in any way implying that TSwizzle should be banned from being near a school? Because that's what Toni said.

Nope. I said that TSwizzle referring to girls in high school as skanky hoes is the reason he should be banned from migh schools. And middle schools.

 

[Toni]

In any case, how is saying that many high school girls are promiscuous in any way implying that TSwizzle should be banned from being near a school?

It wouldn't be. But he also seemed to imply that they could be described as skanky hoes. I already said that.

To be exact, he said there were an awful lot of girls at the high schools in his area who put it about openly, who dress as skanky hoes and act accordingly.

Now, that's not outright calling them skanky hoes, obviously, but it seemed to me a bit close to it. Plus, 'an awful lot' is....well.....quite a lot.

I just need the exact names of the schools Derec.

And you should also be banned. Seriously, dude. That's so gross. How would you feel if someone was speaking that way about your daughters? What would your wife think? What would your daughters think?

Just don't. It's not funny or manly. It's just outing you as what my daughter termed 'a creeper.'

Don't be the creeper.

 

[Toni]

You never will get it because you are certain you know what's inside the minds of girls and women. You think being a father gives you more insight into the hearts and minds of girls and women than actually being a girl or a woman.

It's just that simple.

It's not, Toni. It's that it's just plainly, obviously, demonstrably and factually wrong to say that girls or women dress or groom or apply make-up only to please themselves. It's not just my opinion, and no I don't think it just because I'm a father of girls. I was only the father of two girls anyway, and there are literally are and have been billions of girls and women that I have not been a parent of. Nor is it just the opinion of men or fathers anyway. And by the way, just because you are a woman and have been a mother to a girl and may know other women and girls, that does not mean that you know what is in the minds of all other women and girls either. You can't do that and you literally do not speak for all women or girls any more than I could for men or boys, which I can't.

It (that women and girls may also dress and groom and make up for things other than only to please themselves) has been said by women and girls, including about themselves as well as about other women and girls (see posts earlier in this thread). You can disagree with me, but are you so dogmatic that you don't believe them either? It has also been widely studied and analysed, by academics and experts in a number of relevant areas. It's just wrong. It is an incorrect statement. In fact, it's as wrong about girls as it is about boys, men, women or anyone. Ditto for more than just so-called sexy dress and appearance, because it applies to other instances of dress, grooming and enhanced or modified appearance also, including make-up.

Trust me: I've never once thought that I should dress this way or that way in order to attract the attention of random men or even a specific man. If there was a specific man, I already had his attention.

I'm not really different than other women and I wasn't different from other girls back in the day.

Yes, I saw some of my friends have a LOT of sexual expectation put on them at far to young an age. By adults. Not because they were doing anything except existing while pretty. My friends were overwhelmed, embarrassed, ashamed to be themselves, confused by all of it. This is not what they were looking for. Not at all.

 

[Derec]

Nope. I said that TSwizzle referring to girls in high school as skanky hoes is the reason he should be banned from migh schools. And middle schools.

Nope. You may have meant it, but you did not reply to that post of his, but the one above it.
Besides, why should saying that many MS/HS girls dress "like skanky hoes" lead to a ban anyway?

 

[Derec]

So, Toni, Rhea and other experts.

When teenage girls sext teenage boys, is that also completely non-sexual and merely "fancy"/"pretty in a non-childish way" and meant only to please themselves and impress their female friends?
Sprawling sexting probe ensnares Va. middle school
Asking for a friend.

 

[Toni]

Nope. I said that TSwizzle referring to girls in high school as skanky hoes is the reason he should be banned from migh schools. And middle schools.

Nope. You may have meant it, but you did not reply to that post of his, but the one above it.
Besides, why should saying that many MS/HS girls dress "like skanky hoes" lead to a ban anyway?

Adult men who regard girls in high school and middle school as skanky hoes should not be allowed access to high schools or middle schools.

- - - Updated - - -

So, Toni, Rhea and other experts.

When teenage girls sext teenage boys, is that also completely non-sexual and merely "fancy"/"pretty in a non-childish way" and meant only to please themselves and impress their female friends?
Sprawling sexting probe ensnares Va. middle school
Asking for a friend.

You getting a lot of those, Derec?

- - - Updated - - -

So, Toni, Rhea and other experts.

When teenage girls sext teenage boys, is that also completely non-sexual and merely "fancy"/"pretty in a non-childish way" and meant only to please themselves and impress their female friends?
Sprawling sexting probe ensnares Va. middle school
Asking for a friend.

Watch the film Thirteen and then get back to me.

 

[Derec]

Adult men who regard girls in high school and middle school as skanky hoes should not be allowed access to high schools or middle schools.

First of all, he did not say all of them were "skanky hoes", only that some of them dress and act as if they were skanky hoes. Please do not misrepresent what other posters are writing.

And why stating an opinion grounds for a ban? If you think that many high school and middle school boys are horn dogs, should you likewise be banned?

You getting a lot of those, Derec?

Not any. But that's not the point. The point is that these things happen, and so Rhea's claim that not a singe one teenage girl dresses provocatively for male sexual attention is ridiculous and naive.

Watch the film Thirteen and then get back to me.

Why? What is it about? Besides, what's the relevance? The OP was specifically about 15-17 year olds. That's 2-4 years older than 13. An eternity in that age range.

 

[Toni]

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.

First of all, 'fancy' and 'sexually revealing/appealing' are two different things.

Indeed they are. Rhea said fancy.

There is an overlap, of course, but clothes can be fancy without being revealing and vice versa.

And can be sexy without being either revealing or fancy. And who is wearing the garment is much more a factor of whether or not a garment is sexy.

My son, at age 3 or so, was extremely fond of wearing my bras. No one thought he was trying to be sexy. All of my kids, male and female, liked to try on my high heels because they were high heels and a novelty. They also liked to try on my husband's snow galoshes because of the novelty and the fact that they were outrageously big. No one was trying to be sexy.

Second, a teenage girl 15-17 knows full well what she is doing by wearing sexually appealing clothes.

Yes, she knows she's wearing an outfit she thinks she looks good in. YOU believe (along with a whole lot of men) that she's doing it consciously or unconsciously in order to attract sexual attention to herself. That is not necessarily so.

Once, I went out with my friends to buy swimsuits. They assured me I looked very sexy in the string bikini that I wouldn't wear. I did not want that kind of attention. I also did not want to look like a grandma. In my mind, those were the options I had in swimsuits: too revealing or too grandma. I settled on a less revealing bikini. I was more worried that my stomach maybe stuck out or my butt looked big. Note: I weighed under 100 lbs and I could lay a ruler flat over my hip bones--no stomach stuck out. In fact, my sister pointed out that my shoulder blades tuck out more than my boobs. She was right. Anyway, my friends and I went to the pool and a guy came up to us in the pool and was clearly impressed by how I looked. I never wore the suit again. It really disturbed me. And he wasn't even being creepy. And we were all older than 17. I did not want that kind of attention.

For most of my life, I wore mostly jeans/t-shirts. Sometimes I got a lot of attention from guys; most of the time I did not. I tended to cover up more to avoid attention from guys. I was not unusual.

if she is doing it to please herself, or to entice envy from her friends/frenemies, the fact that these clothes also attract men is certainly not lost on them. They are 15-17, not 5-7 for FSM's sake!

Envy and approval are not the same thing. Girls are mostly looking for approval. The fact that these clothes attract men's attention is often simply not on their radar and when it has to be on their radar, they often regard it as creepy and confusing. Men may be aroused but that doesn't mean that the person who aroused him has any knowledge, intention or understanding of his arousal or what she did to arouse him.

As upsetting as you and every other male who is responding finds this: how you or any man might feel and what you might think is not necessarily on the minds of any of those girls and certainly is not on the minds of all of them. You might find it arousing. Even if you were Jason Momoa, if the arousal were obvious, if the guy made a move on a girl without there being some already established relationship between them, the girl is much more likely to find it upsetting and gross than to be pleased. In the abstract: Sure, it would be great. In reality: most girls aged 15-17 are not ready for that.

Admiration at a distance? Sure. Girls usually like that, just as guys usually like that. Being oogled? Nope. Realizing that some random guy is horny because of her outfit? Nope. That's gross.

Most girls that age think that sexy = pretty in a grown up way. Not sexy = I want to have sex with you or anybody else. Not wanting to be seen as a little girl is not the same thing as wanting to be seen as a sex object. Or the object of any man's sexual desires. Admiration? Yes. Arousal? No thanks.

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.

I would agree with part of it. But whether or not they are sexually active, my point is that they are of an age where girls get interested in sexuality and many are sexually active. Even those who are not sexually active are aware of sexuality. To say that revealing clothes have nothing to do with sexual signalling, as Rhea tried to say, or that a 15-17 year old is the same as the 6 year old Jo Beignet Ramsey as steve_bank was saying is just silly!

Derec, some guy thought my baggy long sleeved turtleneck and matching slacks on my skinny, flatchested body was 'signalling' my willingness to be groped, knocked to the ground and fucked when I was so young I thought that fuck was only something people wrote on the bathroom wall. He assured me I wanted it when I had no idea what he was talking about. I am really fortunate that when it comes to flight/fight, I'm a fighter and that he wasn't expecting any resistance. Some guy thought it was very appropriate to wolf whistle at me when I was obviously immensely pregnant waiting for my bus on my way to work. Some guy thought I was so sexy he had to pull me into his lap while I was immensely pregnant. Some guy thought I was so sexy that it didn't matter that I was fighting him off: I was drunk (and wearing raggedy jeans and a t shirt--how sexy!!) because I was drunk.

Guys seem to find anything sexy if they are in the mood to find something sexy.

And riddle me this: If guys are so damn good at knowing what's on a girl or woman's mind, why is it that so many have trouble getting laid?

 

[TSwizzle]

Adult men who regard girls in high school and middle school as skanky hoes should not be allowed access to high schools or middle schools.

I said “dress like skanky ho’s” and plenty adult women say the same thing.

What other thought crimes should get an adult banned from high school ?