ruby sparks
Contributor
No. What is wrong with you? Did you even bother to read what I actually said before your knee jerked? I said it would not be my number 1 problem. My number 1 problem and my priority would be my daughter. Obviously.
-
Features
Contemplating short dresses and cleavage on teens
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
No. What is wrong with you? Did you even bother to read what I actually said before your knee jerked? I said it would not be my number 1 problem. My number 1 problem and my priority would be my daughter. Obviously.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,740
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Not that obvious, no. Possibly because you used the word 'blame.' As though there were some possible question about where blame lay.
ruby sparks
Contributor
As well as at times ignoring facts, you misinterpret a heck of a lot Toni.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,740
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
That's funny. The whole point of this thread is that boys and men misinterpret why teenage girls dress fancy. And ignore facts.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Some boys and men do that, yes, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,740
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Then you should really stop.
But not before you think about your word choices: you used the word blame, you said you wouldn't worry about who was to blame if one of your daughters should be raped (heaven forbid).
Think about that. It's pretty hard to argue that your daughter would be your first priority if you are actually shoving aside assignment of blame.
Grammer et al. 2004: "Results show that females are aware of the social signal function of their clothing and that they in some cases alter their clothing style to match their courtship motivation."
Montemurro and Gillen 2013: "The main way interviewees defined contemporary women’s sexual expression was in ‘‘the way they dress.’’ There was a general consensus that women use clothes to communicate sexual desire or attract sexual attention."
Smolak et al. 2014: "In the focus groups, participants talked about a variety of behaviors in which women routinely engage to look sexy for men. These included wearing particular clothing such as tight clothes, low-cut shirts, special underwear, and high heels.Comments specified "less covering clothes, more low-neck shirts," "push-up bras," "revealing clothes," and "high heels." They also mentioned using make-up (such as "smoky eyes, big eyes" and "mascara"), doing their hair, and working out to keep in shape."
We're not saying dark alley. We're saying not anywhere. He can't drive it anywhere without being presumed to be asking for it.
- - - Updated - - -
Slightly.
Recall that the OP was a lament that despite the girls NOT dressing this way to offer sex, that some people would accuse them of such.
(Which, on this thread, they did.)
Or, to make it analogous, don't go anywhere ever in that tee-shirt, or people will assume you are trying to start a fight, throw that tee shirt right out.
It's a decent try, but it breaks down somewhat when you consider if you ever wear the tee-shirt, and take a picture, someone who sees it might punch you six months later. So just know that ever wearing the tee even once makes you a target for life. And if you get collected by the police after a fight, even if you were not even the instigator or target of the fight, if anyone finds the picture, they'll assume all fights are your fault. So just don't think you can actually wear what you want.
My dear.
We know.
We've been telling them all their lives how to try to protect themselves from men. They've given up a LOT. Because men won't agree to stay home until they are decently civilized.
So, yes, we agree, except about the part where someone laments about men slut-shaming teen girls and you reply, "well, right, yes, but instead of talking about that, can we talk instead about the ways in which they need to change their behavior to accommodate men?"
Interestingly, you did not choose to spend much time at all talking about how parents can work to change their boy-children. Mentioned in passing "Oh, boys, too," But what SPECIFIC things SHOULD parents teach their boys to stop this problem?
Challenge: Spend as many words on that as you spent on what parents should tell their girls about protecting themselves from men and telling girls what they should give up and not do because of men.
I cannot watch videos. You'll have to explain what it says.
Instil in them a duty of responsibility for the well-being and safety of people around them.
Tell them to butt into other people's business:
"Is he making you uncomfortable?"
"Did anyone see where she went? She was pretty wasted."
"You're acting like a creep."
Tell boys you expect them to overcome bystander apathy and to get involved in something that might cost him or get him attacked for just trying to help. And live up to the standard yourself, otherwise you're a hypocrite with no moral authority.
Here it is.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/ChangesinDress in press pspb.pdf
FYI, You can often get access to articles by doing a web search for "filetype:pdf <article title>" or by using sci-hub.tw (when it's working).
Last edited:
Even if they do dress sexy in order to attract men for mating purposes, that doesn’t mean that they want to mate with EVERY man. If you’re not one of the ones she’s thinking of and you misconstrue the mating signals she’s directing at others to be directed at you, you’re still the one in the wrong, not her.
She can dress however she wants for whatever reasons she wants and if those reasons don’t involve you then ... you’re not involved, no matter how much you’d like to be.
She can dress however she wants for whatever reasons she wants and if those reasons don’t involve you then ... you’re not involved, no matter how much you’d like to be.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,740
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
The parts bolded x 1000.
Isn't it ironic that men are cast in the role of 'protector' but the thing that they need to protect women from is...men? Maybe men could just start acting better and cut out all that middle fighting/chest thumping part?
I guess so? Does it matter?
There's a recurring message that comes out of these discussions: women are angry about the fact that they have to protect themselves from men. But float the idea that other men should step in, and that also makes you angry?
LOL. I hope you chance upon a magic lamp.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I know. But I'm not saying he can't drive it anywhere. I'm not even saying he can't park it overnight on the dark alley in the wrong part of town if he wants to. It's his car. All I'm saying is that imo it is not unreasonable to remind him of the dangers (especially if he's a kid who may need reminded) and perhaps, yes, think of his actions as having some sort of contributory personal responsibility element. Don't worry, I know how potentially controversial it is to say that.
The rich kid with the Porsche is not the best analogy. Nor was my Irish Tricolour t-shirt analogy (for different reasons). I understand why the issue of personal responsibility when it comes to rape and sexual assault is so sensitive. It's because of a long, past history of victim-blaming for those particular types of wrongdoing (and because the attitudes which informed that tendency towards victim-blaming are still very much widely present, for a variety of complicated reasons, none of which are justified). I get that. As such, and in order to counter that, I am good with the emphasis going the other way as a counterbalance, including in a court of law, not least because some of the victim-blaming may also, additionally, be internalised by victims and potential victims, and we should counter that too. And I might throw in that we should counter any self-objectification also.
That is why, imo, it is ok to have an ad for things like getting your car stolen which might include aspects of personal responsibility (and in fact insurers will bring it up even if no one else does, for example if you leave it unlocked, you can't claim) and not ok to have the same aspects emphasised, and possibly not even mentioned at all (unless some demonstrably preventative good is likely) in an ad about getting sexually assaulted. And that's personal responsibility, if even mentioned, not blame, and especially not victim blame. They are all not quite the same thing.
Yes, that too. As I said above. Victim-blaming. Though on that particular point itself the analogy is not so far away, because I would be blamed (somewhat) in the t-shirt analogy. People would say I was an idiot, if I was a local and knew the score. Ditto, in that specific way, if I leave my car unlocked. It's not that people don't get blamed, or that aspects of personal responsibility are not brought up before and after the event, in many situations, it's just that for sexual assault, victim-blaming is very prevalent and unfair and even extends to where there is absolutely no personal responsibility element whatsoever that anyone could advise about. For example, a rape victim may be blamed, in the court of public opinion and even in some actual courts today (there was a recent shocking case in Spain for example) for not fighting back during the attack, which is just plain ridiculous, since what's happening is that she's either in shock or is trying to save herself from additional trauma and physical injury, and possibly other reasons.
No, not necessarily that. That would not necessarily be assumed. And also the wearer of the t-shirt might, hypothetically, even be a tourist for example who just doesn't know that it's controversial. He could still get agro, even
if it is known that he is a tourist who doesn't know the score.
I still don't see a problem with that. There could be a potential problem with it if it contained the implicit message that the boy or man is not to blame for an assault. But of itself, imo, it is a good thing. In any case, my guess is that many or perhaps most teenage girls already know it anyway, especially if they are well into their teens, so giving them advice may be unnecessary (though a parent might still do repeat reminders because they are...a ...parent).
And although I like you, and although I understand that you personally may know, I'm not your dear, and you're not my teenage daughter, who may also know, but who I might still want to remind, just in case.
Although, as I have tried to emphasise, what I remind her of and how exactly I do it are important. 'Don't get too drunk in certain situations' might, broadly, be one, though I accept that's not specifically to do with dress. Others would be more educational (if needed) such as 'watch out for toxic males' and not attempted instructions as such. Which, as any parent knows, many kids won't take on board precisely because they are framed as instructions. Which is a reason to be careful about how to frame them and also another reason to be concerned that they are not in fact appreciating the risks, being the 'indestructible' teenagers who 'already know it all' they sometimes think.
I get that. And perhaps, in an ideal world instead of the real one, men, or let's better say the ones who are culprits and potential culprits here, could hypothetically be asked to stay at home until they are decently civilized. And that might indeed be a better world. But teenage girls do not go out into that world. Which is why, especially if it's my daughter (or indeed was my son) I'm ok with some advice if I think it's needed or might help prevent something untoward or indeed awful.
No. Not instead. As well, but only up to a point (that it's useful and preventative and risk-reducing). And with the emphasis firmly on the men's behaviour.
I would have no problem doing that. And I did bring it up at least twice. But it would take a long time to do it full justice, because there are many, many things that a parent of a boy could and should do, and many of them are obvious and well-documented. As I said before, if I had been the parent of a boy, he would not have grown up with any of the attitudes that are associated with toxic masculinity if I could have helped it. And I would have started at week 1. I can add more to this if you wish. No prob.
It's not easy to sum up in a few words but at one point, she touched on the idea of toxic femininity (which imo is a much lesser issue than its male counterpart and I think she would agree, and she supports feminism generally). And in the part of the video I specifically mentioned (about 3 minutes in the middle) she spoke about the ability, I think she called it the power, that women and young women specifically, particularly if they conform to norms of what is considered physically attractive, can have and can sometimes exert over social situations and over men in particular (though not exclusively men). She was talking in general terms as an evolutionary biologist and referencing anthropological explanations too. If that sounds very controversial to you, I think if you saw the whole discussion you might see that it was a very reasonable discussion generally and that she was not advancing any kind of ideology or agenda. Also, it was in the end her opinion, albeit informed. And I don't think I agree with her totally, or that it refers to all young women, which she wasn't suggesting anyway.
Last edited:
Testy Calibrate
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
- Messages
- 491
- Location
- a pretty sidestreet in Happiness
- Basic Beliefs
- complicated
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.”
You apparently don't remember being 15. They can't help it. But aside from the accidental advertising of their nascent sexuality, it is not our job as olds to tell them what it is going to be like when they get old. Kids often wear revealing clothes. Fact. Kids are living kids' lives. Fact. Educate but don't preach. It's obvious and they don't care.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Absolutely, yes.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I totally agree. I think it's a red herring.
But this is not a secret. We know why some men do it. It's only learned behaviour to a limited degree. Most men and women know how to behave and are respectful to one another. But people are different. And far out on the fringes of extreme violent behaviour we find only men. Not most men. Only a few men. But only that same few men who are guilty of all transgressions against all women. And the only way to mitigate this is having social functions in place to prevent it... as much as we can.
And we're all aware of this. On some level. That's why whenever a man behaves inappropriately toward a woman every other man in the vicinity will intervene and pounce on him. But not when women do it. Those same people just look passively uncomfortable when women are out of line. This is also why women can, pretty much, do whatever they want and get away with it. Because we assume they're not going to be violent. Which they usually aren't.
I don't like the fantasy of that all we need is education of men. That we can teach boys not to rape. As if we just do the right thing, these violent men will be reformed. It's a naive hippie fantasy. It's a poison spread by people like Sartre, and that idea makes the world more dangerous. Because these men will never learn. All society can do is hit them really hard with a stick whenever they're out of line. But they'll keep doing it. We know so much from prison populations. And recidivism rates. Humans are part of the primate world, and as such we are inherently violent creatures. Some of us more than others. The mystery isn't why some men are so violent. The mystery is why so few are.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I think the guys who misconstrue those signals are doing it on purpose. Because our culture has chosen to accept it as an excuse. If we didn't, that bullshit excuse would stop being said. So it's great that so many are challenging that idea today.
It's just madonna/whore bullshit, slut shaming. It's nonsense conservatives have told themselves in all ages. Just to give themselves a free pass to mistreat some women.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Sorry to be a pedant, but the only study cited so far suggests otherwise for the 1st one (passes). As to unpleasant remarks, I don't know. I suspect (fwiw) that what a woman wears or doesn't wear may affect that, though perhaps her behaviour would have to be added in and it may not be the clothes themselves. Sexual assault, yes, what a woman wears is not correlated to that, according to the two studies I've heard of. As far as I am aware, other recent studies seem to confirm this. As to touching, I don't know. I mean just touching, not groping or pinching. Touching can be said to be a form of sexual assault, if it's unwanted, of course, particularly touching exposed skin, and perhaps even more so for certain parts of a body (back of hand versus inner thigh?) but imo it'd be a comparatively mild example. And we might even distinguish briefly touching from both 'keeping your hand there' and also from stroking.
As for rubbing yourself up against the person standing next to you on a crowded underground train, which is apparently very common and has happened to several women I know, I would suspect that does not depend on the clothes.
As has been pointed out, an attractive woman provocatively dressed can be intimidating to at least some would-be male approachers and perhaps many if not most would-be assaulters, because it implies confidence, so in some ways, wearing sexually provocative clothes may be a deterrent. Though not in terms of getting unwanted looks or stares, perhaps.
Consuming alcohol. That, apparently, is a risk factor. For both potential victim and potential perpetrator of...whatever they perpetrate (going all the way from looking.....up to rape, and everything in between).
Last edited: