Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens

[DrZoidberg]

I haven't heard anybody saying "boys will be boys" to condone male transgressions since the 1970'ies.

The 1970'ies feminists ( second wave) won. They actually changed the world. So we can stop fighting their battles now. That war is since long over

Given that you're the one who doesn't believe in toxic masculinity, it's not really all that surprising that you think the above too.

I don't know if I believe in it. I think it's a poorly defined concept. Some things men do are bad. Is everything undesirable men do "toxic masculinity"? That's what it looks like to me. If that's the case it's a worthless concept.

I get the impression from third wave feminists that their problem is with masculinity in general. So what they mean is that they want men to be like women. The adage "toxic" is redundant. I personally don't think it is a battle that can be won. I find third wave feminists mostly just loud mouths who want stuff without realising that there are costs involved. Masculinity has things going for it. They want all this while also want men to be women at the same time. Good luck with that.

I have loads of friends in the queer community. The popular men are extremely masculine but have figured out what words to say to fly under the radar. It's all just theatre IMHO. Women clearly prefer masculine men for sex. Perhaps not all women. But certainly the attractive high status women who tend to get what they want. Lipstick and some glitter doesn't make these men less masculine.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Some of the discussion in the thread veered into the intentions of adult women, not just teenagers.

Probably best just to stick with the age group in the OP, because it's apparent from women's responses that teenage girls don't share the same intentions as adult women.

That's a good point. I think at times, everyone on all 'sides' (horrible word) has brought 'women' into the discussion, but it's not as you say the OP. Were we to stick to the OP (in which I'm presuming there was no actual image ever posted by the way, presumably for understandable reasons of privacy) there would imo likely be general differences, as there might be differences between younger and older teenagers (19 is different from 13 etc). I think the OP was referring to 15-17 year olds?

Perhaps someone should post a typical photo from the internet of the sort the OP is about?

In fact, what the heck, I'll post one, for discussion purposes, allowing of course that it might not be like the one Rhea was citing:

View attachment 19993

This is not unlike the sort of 'pre-night out' pics that one of my daughters might have been in a few years ago when they were about 15-17. Rhea ca let me know if it's not like the one she had in mind.

Speaking broadly, my guess is that the girls in that photo are likely dressing and making up much more to please themselves (and possibly each other) than to impress boys and that they are not likely hoping to have sex that night. I can't get into their heads, and I would not be surprised if some of them in some ways were also dressing to impress other people, including perhaps boys, or at least some boys, or a boy, but on the whole, I would guess that it's much more about pleasing themselves. Don't ask me to guess the percentages. There's no way I could know from just one pic! They might not all be heterosexual for one thing.

I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone here thought that judging by that photo, any of those girls was necessarily or likely to be 'trolling for sex', or much worse, assumed that they were.

I don't think anybody has said that they dress like that because they are hoping to have sex. Dressing to attract men sexually isn't the same thing as wanting to have sex.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't know if I believe in it. I think it's a poorly defined concept. Some things men do are bad. Is everything undesirable men do "toxic masculinity"? That's what it looks like to me. If that's the case it's a worthless concept.

I get the impression from third wave feminists that their problem is with masculinity in general. So what they mean is that they want men to be like women. The adage "toxic" is redundant. I personally don't think it is a battle that can be won. I find third wave feminists mostly just loud mouths who want stuff without realising that there are costs involved. Masculinity has things going for it. They want all this while also want men to be women at the same time. Good luck with that.

I have loads of friends in the queer community. The popular men are extremely masculine but have figured out what words to say to fly under the radar. It's all just theatre IMHO. Women clearly prefer masculine men for sex. Perhaps not all women. But certainly the attractive high status women who tend to get what they want. Lipstick and some glitter doesn't make these men less masculine.

Sure, but I think it's going too far to suggest we should not believe in toxic masculinity (even with your qualifiers) or that 'the war is over' or that boys will be boys is gone.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dressing to attract men sexually isn't the same thing as wanting to have sex.

Yes, of course.

All I'm saying, as I hope is obvious, is that teenage girls, in many ways just like anyone, albeit with some general differences that may pertain for teenage girls in particular, almost certainly dress, groom and make up the ways they do on this or that occasion for a variety of reasons. I won't make a list. I think I may even have done that already earlier in the thread.

The whole topic, including the wider one as it pertains to women, men, boys and so on, and how it pertains across cultures and societies, and how it has changed over time, is truly fascinating and incredibly complicated, nuanced and multi-faceted, imo. And it would be a pity if it devolved into a tit for tat argy-bargy battle of the sexes thing the way such topics seem to, not least on internet discussion forums.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

What's especially masculine about harassment? Sexual or otherwise. It desn't sound very manly to me? Do you now understand my problem with the term?

Of course I've googled. I think the concept is a mess

 

[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.

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?

The male Titanic survivors were social outcasts and treated like cowards and having betrayed all that is sacred.

 

[ruby sparks]

Briefly, on the general topic, I found this book, written by (female, as it happens) Historian Reay Tannahill, to be very interesting and informative. I'm not sure it covered the isues it covered right up to the present day and the sorts of things the OP refers to, but it covered things such as the riole of dress, grooming and make up in a number of societies in the past:

 

[ruby sparks]

What's especially masculine about harassment? Sexual or otherwise. It desn't sound very manly to me? Do you now understand my problem with the term?

Nope. I don't.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dressing to attract men sexually isn't the same thing as wanting to have sex.

Yes, of course.

All I'm saying, as I hope is obvious, is that teenage girls, in many ways just like anyone, albeit with some general differences that may pertain for teenage girls in particular, almost certainly dress, groom and make up the ways they do on this or that occasion for a variety of reasons. I won't make a list. I think I may even have done that already earlier in the thread.

If what they wear is to expose, enhance and draw attention to their sexual characteristics they are doing it to get sexual attention. That might not be what they tell themselves or eachother. But only an idiot could fail to connect these dots.

We also live in an hyper sexual age. Where sexual attractiveness is held up as the highest value. There's a reason wealthy and successful men also spend hours in the gym. In our culture, it doesn't matter how wealthy or successful you are, if you're not also sexy nobody is interested in what you have to say. This is multiplied many times for the young. So exposing themselves as sexual objects mught just well be a way for these young girls to prove they matter a damn and are worth spending time with. Even to eachother. But it's still all about what men find attractive. Or what people sexually attracted to women think.

I highly recommend spending time with lesbians and listening to what they have to say on this matter. They often go out of their way NOT to dress in a way that men find attractive because they don't want male attention. But they still find, pretty much, the same things attractive. And in women only environments they often have the same kind of sexy clothing. At least if they're sexy lesbians. I've high fived with lesbians many times when a hot girl in a short skimpy dress walks by.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What's especially masculine about harassment? Sexual or otherwise. It desn't sound very manly to me? Do you now understand my problem with the term?

Nope. I don't.

How about this definition? Do you agree with this?

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Just complete nonsense from start to finish. Deluded incoherent nonsense IMHO.

I also reject the idea that the patriarchy is capable of oppressing anyone. I don't think it exists outside the head of third wave feminists.

Men have in all ages been treated like disposable cannon fodder and men are generally fine with that. Where is the oppression?

 

[thebeave]

Some of the discussion in the thread veered into the intentions of adult women, not just teenagers.

Probably best just to stick with the age group in the OP, because it's apparent from women's responses that teenage girls don't share the same intentions as adult women.

That's a good point. I think at times, everyone on all 'sides' (horrible word) has brought 'women' into the discussion, but it's not as you say the OP. Were we to stick to the OP (in which I'm presuming there was no actual image ever posted by the way, presumably for understandable reasons of privacy) there would imo likely be general differences, as there might be differences between younger and older teenagers (19 is different from 13 etc). I think the OP was referring to 15-17 year olds?

Perhaps someone should post a typical photo from the internet of the sort the OP is about?

In fact, what the heck, I'll post one, for discussion purposes, allowing of course that it might not be like the one Rhea was citing:

View attachment 19993

This is not unlike the sort of 'pre-night out' pics that one of my daughters might have been in a few years ago when they were about 15-17. Rhea ca let me know if it's not like the one she had in mind.

Speaking broadly, my guess is that the girls in that photo are likely dressing and making up much more to please themselves (and possibly each other) than to impress boys and that they are not likely hoping to have sex that night. I can't get into their heads, and I would not be surprised if some of them in some ways were also dressing to impress other people, including perhaps boys, or at least some boys, or a boy, but on the whole, I would guess that it's much more about pleasing themselves. Don't ask me to guess the percentages. There's no way I could know from just one pic! They might not all be heterosexual for one thing.

I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone here thought that judging by that photo, any of those girls was necessarily or likely to be 'trolling for sex', or much worse, assumed that they were.

This comment probably won't go over too well with some, but seeing that picture reminds me of what I heard someone say recently, in that the way girls dress these days, its nearly impossible to tell the difference between the prostitutes (who obviously ARE trolling for sex) walking the streets and the girls/young women just out club hopping on a Friday night. The club hopping scene isn't my thing now (not that it ever really was), but from what I've seen and heard, there does seem to be some truth to that observation. So, maybe this is a case of "you reap what you sow" kind of a thing. Just like young men who like to dress like thugs and gangbangers, but are often good kids overall and not prone to fighting or getting in trouble with the law. Unfair as it is, they do get stigmatized and stereotyped as being up to no good.

 

[ruby sparks]

If what they wear is to expose, enhance and draw attention to their sexual characteristics they are doing it to get sexual attention. That might not be what they tell themselves or eachother. But only an idiot could fail to connect these dots.

Possibly. But equally, only an idiot could also assume (a) that is the only reason or (b) how much of a reason it is if it is part of the reasons.

We also live in an hyper sexual age. Where sexual attractiveness is held up as the highest value. There's a reason wealthy and successful men also spend hours in the gym. In our culture, it doesn't matter how wealthy or successful you are, if you're not also sexy nobody is interested in what you have to say. This is multiplied many times for the young. So exposing themselves as sexual objects mught just well be a way for these young girls to prove they matter a damn and are worth spending time with. Even to eachother. But it's still all about what men find attractive. Or what people sexually attracted to women think.

I highly recommend spending time with lesbians and listening to what they have to say on this matter. They often go out of their way NOT to dress in a way that men find attractive because they don't want male attention. But they still find, pretty much, the same things attractive. And in women only environments they often have the same kind of sexy clothing. At least if they're sexy lesbians. I've high fived with lesbians many times when a hot girl in a short skimpy dress walks by.

All good points if one allows that they are very general. Generalities are useful, imo, but there is a risk of applying them to individuals. There is a lot of common ground and overlap on virtually all the distribution curves and the like which distinguish between the sexes. As someone here I think opined, sex is often not the best line to divide people along, and there are others. Sex is (like race) just an obvious one, literally. That does not mean it is the most appropriate predictor of differences in behaviour, although the fact that it is obvious may mislead us into thinking is.

Point taken about lesbians. I guess we are tending to assume the pic(s) here are of straight girls. When I said that the issue varies across sexes and across ages, I should also have said across genders and orientations, with things that are common and things that differ in all categories, when we speak of generalities.

 

[bigfield]

Some of the discussion in the thread veered into the intentions of adult women, not just teenagers.

Probably best just to stick with the age group in the OP, because it's apparent from women's responses that teenage girls don't share the same intentions as adult women.

That's a good point. I think at times, everyone on all 'sides' (horrible word) has brought 'women' into the discussion, but it's not as you say the OP. Were we to stick to the OP (in which I'm presuming there was no actual image ever posted by the way, presumably for understandable reasons of privacy) there would imo likely be general differences, as there might be differences between younger and older teenagers (19 is different from 13 etc). I think the OP was referring to 15-17 year olds?

Perhaps someone should post a typical photo from the internet of the sort the OP is about?

In fact, what the heck, I'll post one, for discussion purposes, allowing of course that it might not be like the one Rhea was citing:

View attachment 19993

This is not unlike the sort of 'pre-night out' pics that one of my daughters might have been in a few years ago when they were about 15-17. Rhea ca let me know if it's not like the one she had in mind.

Speaking broadly, my guess is that the girls in that photo are likely dressing and making up much more to please themselves (and possibly each other) than to impress boys and that they are not likely hoping to have sex that night. I can't get into their heads, and I would not be surprised if some of them in some ways were also dressing to impress other people, including perhaps boys, or at least some boys, or a boy, but on the whole, I would guess that it's much more about pleasing themselves. Don't ask me to guess the percentages. There's no way I could know from just one pic! They might not all be heterosexual for one thing.

I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone here thought that judging by that photo, any of those girls was necessarily or likely to be 'trolling for sex', or much worse, assumed that they were.

This comment probably won't go over too well with some, but seeing that picture reminds me of what I heard someone say recently, in that the way girls dress these days, its nearly impossible to tell the difference between the prostitutes (who obviously ARE trolling for sex) walking the streets and the girls/young women just out club hopping on a Friday night. The club hopping scene isn't my thing now (not that it ever really was), but from what I've seen and heard, there does seem to be some truth to that observation. So, maybe this is a case of "you reap what you sow" kind of a thing. Just like young men who like to dress like thugs and gangbangers, but are often good kids overall and not prone to fighting or getting in trouble with the law. Unfair as it is, they do get stigmatized and stereotyped as being up to no good.

That would make sense if the problem these girls faced was men asking them for a schedule of service fees.

 

[ruby sparks]

What's especially masculine about harassment? Sexual or otherwise. It desn't sound very manly to me? Do you now understand my problem with the term?

Nope. I don't.

How about this definition? Do you agree with this?

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Just complete nonsense from start to finish. Deluded incoherent nonsense IMHO.

I'm not, actually, even going to follow up that link. I'm happy to assume it could be an iffy definition. Those exist, for almost everything. This does not make a valid issue and a valid concept, which is problematical, disappear.

I also reject the idea that the patriarchy is capable of oppressing anyone. I don't think it exists outside the head of third wave feminists.

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 agree that sometimes, some feminists have or have had theories of patriarchy that seem, imo, too simplistic and too ideological, but that doesn't mean that patriarchy as a valid phenomenon and issue disappears, any more than toxic masculinity does, just because sometimes, some people (probably a minority and probably a radical one) might, arguably, define or apply it it not very well or less than perfectly or accurately. Besides, not all feminists define or apply it the same way. There are large differences in emphasis. In some cases, the idea has been superseded by other theories, such as kyriarchy for example, or intersectionality, which, imo are on the whole better, because they are more complex, even if I do not necessarily subscribe to all flavours of how they are defined, applied or perceived.

By and large, patriarchy has benefitted men more than women and by and large women have been subordinated under it (more so the more pronounced the patriarchy and for example it is not, relatively speaking, all that pronounced today in several 'western' developed democracies). I can say that and still agree with people, eg you, who cite ways in which it did not benefit men and/or benefitted women.

Worth noting also that by and large when men were used as cannon fodder, it was usually under the orders of other men. This is another aspect of both patriarchy and toxic masculinity. It's not good for many men either, by and large. To some extent (and this does not negate the point about subordination of women) patriarchy, as played out, has mostly benefitted an elite cohort of men, and many 'common' men have suffered under it. To repeat, that does not negate the fact that patriarchy has by and large subordinated women. On the whole and all other things being equal, a man in a patriarchal system, or one with patriarchal emphasis, has and has had more benefits and more privileges, overall, than a woman, generally.

One last thing, patriarchy definitely exists outside the minds of third wave feminists. Like many things, it is widely accepted and has often been studied by academics in relevant disciplines, and not just Gender Studies or Women's Studies either. It's a thing. The big clue, as it often is with many things (including for example Feminism) is in the name. It's as untenable to deny, in its own way, as that girls (and women) sometimes dress, groom and make themselves up for reasons other than only to please themselves.

 

[Rhea]

If what they wear is to expose, enhance and draw attention to their sexual characteristics they are doing it to get sexual attention. That might not be what they tell themselves or eachother. But only an idiot could fail to connect these dots.

Right. This is the same logic that bars women from breastfeeding in public.

I GUARANTEE YOU we are not advertising sex when we have a hungry kid.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think anybody has said that they dress like that because they are hoping to have sex. Dressing to attract men sexually isn't the same thing as wanting to have sex.

You think wrong. Yes, people say they are the same. Yes, people say that they "asked for" assault when they dressed this way. Yes, people say they are "advertising" sex. Yes, people say they are "skanky hos putting it about." And yes, men will say they are entitled to take sex because her dressing this was is permission.

And THAT is the problem. People DO think those things and they are wrong to do so.
Your opinion that men never think that way is belied by their own testimony in court and in public recordings.

 

[Rhea]

View attachment 19993

Sure, that is a fair representation of what I was seeing. A little less sequin, but sure. And, again, I'm looking at photos where I personally know most of the girls through chaperoning, substituting, hosting at home, and being facebook friends as they caption their pics.

I personally would be very surprised and disappointed if anyone here thought that judging by that photo, any of those girls was necessarily or likely to be 'trolling for sex', or much worse, assumed that they were.

I am disappointed, but not surprised. Hence my OP.

 

[thebeave]

This comment probably won't go over too well with some, but seeing that picture reminds me of what I heard someone say recently, in that the way girls dress these days, its nearly impossible to tell the difference between the prostitutes (who obviously ARE trolling for sex) walking the streets and the girls/young women just out club hopping on a Friday night. The club hopping scene isn't my thing now (not that it ever really was), but from what I've seen and heard, there does seem to be some truth to that observation. So, maybe this is a case of "you reap what you sow" kind of a thing. Just like young men who like to dress like thugs and gangbangers, but are often good kids overall and not prone to fighting or getting in trouble with the law. Unfair as it is, they do get stigmatized and stereotyped as being up to no good.

That would make sense if the problem these girls faced was men asking them for a schedule of service fees.

I'm saying it may be more of a subconscious association thing. You can put a MAGA hat on some random guy, and its likely people who cross paths with him will think, if not outright say, that person is racist. Or put a turban on a guy and some people will think he's probably up to no good.

And I have no doubt that many young female clubbers have been approached by men thinking they were actually prostitutes, without any intent to insult or degrade them.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am disappointed, but not surprised. Hence my OP.

If you want my honest tuppenceworth (which you may not, lol) what you are validly drawing attention to is something that, luckily, applies to only some men, and imo, not many men, if even any, here in this forum. I'm talking specifically about the idea that some men will think those girls are trolling for sex. My guess is that even out in the real world, it would still be a minority of men who would literally go as far as to think specifically that, just from the way the girls are dressed and made up.

Of course, that in no way denies that more than a minority may misinterpret in lesser ways. Nor does it suggest that even if it is only a minority of men (or boys) who would go as far as that (the 'trolling for sex' thing), that it is not still a problem. Overall, I totally agree that it's a problem, and that by and large it is boys who need to be educated about it, not girls. There may also be some other ways in which I think girls may usefully be educated about boys, and I have previously mentioned them, but of the two, I would definitely emphasise the former (boys needing educated) and particularly in relation to your example, because at the end of the day, girls really should feel free to dress and make up like that, if they want to, and not be labelled as something they are not.

 

[Toni]

I am disappointed, but not surprised. Hence my OP.

If you want my honest tuppenceworth (which you may not, lol) what you are validly drawing attention to is something that, luckily, applies to only some men, and imo, not many men, if even any, here in this forum. I'm talking specifically about the idea that some men will think those girls are trolling for sex. My guess is that even out in the real world, it would still be a minority of men who would literally go as far as to think specifically that, just from the way the girls are dressed and made up.

Of course, that in no way denies that more than a minority may misinterpret in lesser ways. Nor does it suggest that even if it is only a minority of men (or boys) who would go as far as that (the 'trolling for sex' thing), that it is not still a problem. Overall, I totally agree that it's a problem, and that by and large it is boys who need to be educated about it, not girls. There may also be some other ways in which I think girls may usefully be educated about boys, and I have previously mentioned them, but of the two, I would definitely emphasise the former (boys needing educated) and particularly in relation to your example, because at the end of the day, girls really should feel free to dress and make up like that, if they want to, and not be labelled as something they are not.

It seems pretty clear to me that there are men posting in this thread who do regard girls (and I mean girls: not women but girls) who dress up in pretty dresses that might be showing some long legs or bare arms or even some cleavage are advertising their availability for sex. Even if they don't know it. Maybe that rings a bell with you?? It should. It is also clear to me that some men posting in this thread regard normal teenage girls as skanky hoes who are looking for sex all the time and others who wonder where they can locate that high school. Maybe it's a joke. It doesn't feel much like a joke. I don't think it's a joke. I think that's exactly the attitude a lot--not just a few but A LOT of men have.

Because I've read plenty of threads on this forum about girls and young women at parties getting raped, sometimes by multiple men that they don't know and have no relationship with and plenty of posters on this forum opining that the girl or young woman in question simply regrets that she was such a slut, that she was asking for it by dressing that way, by going to that party, by drinking, by going into that bedroom, by passing out, by being so intoxicated that she was vomiting (a sign of acute alcohol poisoning, btw) and the guys were probably drunk too so it was mutual rape even if it took 4 or 5 of them to hold her down while took turns, with someone on the look out to ensure that her little fun time isn't interrupted and can be enjoyed in complete privacy and recorded for posterity and shared all over all social media. Because it ain't rape if the guys aren't black or if they are athletes.

It does not matter how many times I write that I was attacked when I was extremely covered up. It doesn't matter that other women write about being attacked despite being dressed very modestly. I can't post a photo of that outfit because it went straight to the bottom of my closet, never to be worn again. I didn't even try to get the grass stains out of it. I just piled more stuff on top. I could never stand to look at those clothes again. And honestly: I never even wore that color again.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.

A friend just posted some photos of her 16 year old daughter and friends all dressed up for the winter semi-formal dance. All he skirts are well above the knee. Dresses have spaghetti straps or no straps. Figures are displayed. But what I see are the smiling faces of these lovely young girls, who are excited to be dressing up fancy, wearing some make up, trying on their fantasy of adulthood, showing off their newly emerging adult bodies and hoping that people will respond to them as adults. OK, as adult princesses. Princesses, remember, are always virginal in fairy tales.

Mostly in my part of the country, girls and women wear jeans and tops or maybe yoga pants or leggings and tops, underneath heavy jackets this time of year. And boots. And really, their outfits are not that much different than what they wore in grade school ---or than what their mothers are wearing. What I'm sitting here wearing right now.

So getting all dressed up real fancy once in a while, trying out this different persona, this semi-adult identity, this fantasy of what being a grown up is all about is a treat.

I see their smiles. And their hopeful eyes saying: Look at me now! See how I have grown! See that I am (almost) a woman! Someone to be loved and cherished and respected.

Why are men so eager to crush those dreams?