Questions For Women

[Emily Lake]

but not a single one of you who have replied to me have actually addressed the thing i said, you're just dreaming up a fantasy based on a lack of reading comprehension and then spewing idiocy at me and acting like you just invented bread.

Mmm... to be fair, you have actually reduced women to nothing more than sex-seeking objects of male attention.

You've pretty much discounted that clothing selection has a lot to do with many things other than attracting male attention. In particular, you've sort of glossed over choosing clothing that is comfortable, clothing that reflects current fashion trends regardless of whether one is involved in sexual signaling at all, clothing chosen to appeal to one's already-secured mate, clothing chosen to signal one's membership in a particular subculture, clothing to signal social status, and... especially... clothing chosen by women because those women like that clothing irrespective of the opinions of any men at all.

Whether you intended it or not, you've essentially cast humans, and especially women, as having no thoughts outside of trying to attract sexual attention from every male within viewing distance. Which is rather insulting to women.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'd like to invite the men posting in this thread to take a step back and consider: Would you feel so comfortable having a whole thread talking about "what women be like" were the topic one of race instead? Why does it seem that women are fair game for continued stereotyping and complaints against an entire class of people based on gross generalizations?

 

[Treedbear]

I'd like to invite the men posting in this thread to take a step back and consider: Would you feel so comfortable having a whole thread talking about "what women be like" were the topic one of race instead? Why does it seem that women are fair game for continued stereotyping and complaints against an entire class of people based on gross generalizations?

I'm not against the idea of examining cultural differences between various groups. It's just that most of us probably have long experience with male-female relationships and far less with other races. I'd welcome observations about middle class white male behavior by both women and whoever thinks they have some unique perspective. Those having the intent of being helpful of course. Or just to satisfy their curiosity and are seeking to learn something. I mean it's probably an important way of increasing understanding and tolerance. Maybe it gets to seem unfair because it appears there are so many more males on the board than females. Sorry about that.

ETA - And what about generalizations about other groups, such as political, generational, and professional? As groups they have particular interests and traditions.

 

[Rhea]

but not a single one of you who have replied to me have actually addressed the thing i said, you're just dreaming up a fantasy based on a lack of reading comprehension and then spewing idiocy at me and acting like you just invented bread.

Except that I did address precisely what you said in a whole post giving supporting arguments and comparisons.

How ironic that you didn’t give credit to anything I said, which you even replied to. Did you forget we had a little conversation there? It’s post 38. You responded, and I followed up in post 41.

But now, “not a single one of you who have replied to me have actually addressed the thing i said,”. How do you expect to have a conversation while not noticing what your conversational partners even say?

Anyway, to recap, I think your point is completely obviated by the evidence of how human women act, and the examples I gave. Women do not wear push up bras only for men. Women are not dressing for you, the vast majority of the time.

 

[skepticalbip]

Anyway, to recap, I think your point is completely obviated by the evidence of how human women act, and the examples I gave. Women do not wear push up bras only for men. Women are not dressing for you, the vast majority of the time.

Gotta agree. My experience is that women dress more for other women. That is except maybe for unattached women in their teens and twenties (or cougars) who dress for other women and to attract that 'dreamboat' guy. Men generally dress to fit in with their 'bros' except when they want to attract women by donning more elaborate displays.

I noticed quite a while ago that the women who would hang out with us guys would wear little to no make-up and 'comfy cloths' unless we were going to drop by to see some of their female friends. Then they would put on make-up and select more stylish clothing.

Of course that is just observation from limited personal experience.

 

[prideandfall]

Mmm... to be fair, you have actually reduced women to nothing more than sex-seeking objects of male attention.

no, actually, to be fair i have not done that even remotely.

You've pretty much discounted that clothing selection has a lot to do with many things other than attracting male attention.

no i haven't.

In particular, you've sort of glossed over choosing clothing that is comfortable, clothing that reflects current fashion trends regardless of whether one is involved in sexual signaling at all, clothing chosen to appeal to one's already-secured mate, clothing chosen to signal one's membership in a particular subculture, clothing to signal social status, and... especially... clothing chosen by women because those women like that clothing irrespective of the opinions of any men at all.

not only have i not done that, i specifically and clearly indicated that i wasn't doing that as a disclaimer in my very first post on this subject.

seriously, are you even reading what's in front of you?

Whether you intended it or not, you've essentially cast humans, and especially women, as having no thoughts outside of trying to attract sexual attention from every male within viewing distance. Which is rather insulting to women.

wow, yeah you have not read a single thing i've posted. this is hilariously ridiculous.

try actually reading my posts, because whatever ends of whoever's ass you're pulling this out of is absurd.

 

[prideandfall]

Except that I did address precisely what you said in a whole post giving supporting arguments and comparisons.

no, you posted at length against a strawman that had nothing to do what i actually said.

How ironic that you didn’t give credit to anything I said, which you even replied to. Did you forget we had a little conversation there? It’s post 38. You responded, and I followed up in post 41.

i absolutely did give credit and conceded the point to the few things you said which actually were pertinent to the topic. the rest of post 38 is you hallucinating a side of the conversation which wasn't actually happening, so there's nothing there for me to realistically respond to.

But now, “not a single one of you who have replied to me have actually addressed the thing i said,”. How do you expect to have a conversation while not noticing what your conversational partners even say?

oh i've noticed you're posting, it's just none of you are posting in response to me despite quote tagging me.

Anyway, to recap, I think your point is completely obviated by the evidence of how human women act, and the examples I gave. Women do not wear push up bras only for men. Women are not dressing for you, the vast majority of the time.

to recap, spend 3 minutes googling 'why humans dress the way they do' and actually read some of the numerous psychological studies that have been done on the subject and then get back to me.
when you're done with that, go back to post #26 and #40 like 5 or 6 more times until it actually sinks in, because clearly not a single word of it has penetrated.

or, be like toni and just keep harping on about a fantasy you're concocting and then accusing me of not participating in your delusion. whichever floats your boat.

 

[Toni]

no, you posted at length against a strawman that had nothing to do what i actually said.


i absolutely did give credit and conceded the point to the few things you said which actually were pertinent to the topic. the rest of post 38 is you hallucinating a side of the conversation which wasn't actually happening, so there's nothing there for me to realistically respond to.

But now, “not a single one of you who have replied to me have actually addressed the thing i said,”. How do you expect to have a conversation while not noticing what your conversational partners even say?

oh i've noticed you're posting, it's just none of you are posting in response to me despite quote tagging me.

Anyway, to recap, I think your point is completely obviated by the evidence of how human women act, and the examples I gave. Women do not wear push up bras only for men. Women are not dressing for you, the vast majority of the time.

to recap, spend 3 minutes googling 'why humans dress the way they do' and actually read some of the numerous psychological studies that have been done on the subject and then get back to me.
when you're done with that, go back to post #26 and #40 like 5 or 6 more times until it actually sinks in, because clearly not a single word of it has penetrated.

or, be like toni and just keep harping on about a fantasy you're concocting and then accusing me of not participating in your delusion. whichever floats your boat.

Like the fantasy where I quoted your entire post?

 

[prideandfall]

Like the fantasy where I quoted your entire post?

you mean the post where you didn't actually understand a single word that was said and uttered some random nonsense completely disconnected from the content of the text you quoted?
yes, like that.

 

[Toni]

Like the fantasy where I quoted your entire post?

you mean the post where you didn't actually understand a single word that was said and uttered some random nonsense completely disconnected from the content of the text you quoted?
yes, like that.

So this one?

Wait, so this wasn't you, then? Post 26.

disclaimer: i'm going to be referring to human nature and psychology on a macro level. i'm not a psychic and i'm not delving the secrets of humanity out of anybody's brain, for all i know SH is the one human in the history of the planet earth who grew up in a bubble and never experienced cultural factors and is a pristine android immune to social influence.
barring that, my responses are predicated on the reality of human social engineering and the psychological motivations behind many of our actions due to us evolving as social animals.


because you do.
(or, to please women, in the case of lesbians)


yes you do.

Most of us dress to please ourselves, regardless if we wear high heels, dresses, or skinny jeans like I do. In fact, despite the fact that my husband is constantly telling me things like, "you look mighty sexy in those jeans, babe", I'd dress the same way if I was single and never left the house. I dress to please myself. I like the way I look and I really don't give a shit if anyone else likes or dislikes my style.

and *why* exactly do you do that?
i've seen women doll themselves up a hundred times and then claim they're doing it for themselves, and every excuse i've ever heard was a shallow attempt to justify it being some personal choice.

if you like how you look, it's because you perceive how you look being desirable to your preferred potential mate type.
if dressing 'sexy' makes you feel confident, your confidence is in feeling like men are looking at you and liking it.

this is all true of men too btw, i'm not just slagging on women - *everyone* dresses in a way that they feel signals to their preferred mate type. nobody dresses "just for them" like they live in some vacuum where the gaze of others isn't a factor.

you know who "dresses for themselves"? the people at walmart you occasionally see a picture of where a shirtless old woman has her tits tucked into the top of her sweat pants.
anyone who puts even a modicum of attention into their fashion is doing so to display to potential mates.

Huh.

Can you show me what I didn't understand? Can you point out my 'random nonsense?'

Even better, could you perhaps consider backing up any of your assertions that women dress to be sexually attractive to men (except, of course, for lesbians) with some actual academic articles or data? Because otherwise, your assertions seem like so much...what is the word I'm looking for? Oh, yeah: random nonsense.

 

[Emily Lake]

no i haven't.

Can you point me to a post of yours where you discuss reasons other than being sexually attractive as a reason for clothing selection?

 

[prideandfall]

Can you point me to a post of yours where you discuss reasons other than being sexually attractive as a reason for clothing selection?

er... literally every single post i've made on the subject?
granted a lot of my replies in this thread so far have been me stupidly engaging with the idiotic strawmen that others have been throwing around so there's a lot of noise to signal here, but every single post i've made that expounded on the subject either explicitly states that, or rather strongly implies it.

i can't even conceive of how you could possibly be actually reading my posts and miss this.

my first post:

disclaimer: i'm going to be referring to human nature and psychology on a macro level. i'm not a psychic and i'm not delving the secrets of humanity out of anybody's brain

post #33:

*i'm not saying you personally choose your clothing for the reason of displaying to men, but whether or not you personally as an individual in your mind consciously make the choice of doing so, the entire purpose of 'fashion' is solely as a means of display - it has replaced swollen vulvas or feathers or whatever else animals use for sexual display.

*regardless of whatever purpose that individual might have in mind the anthropological reason is for sexual display - ie, to please the preferred gender you're looking to attract.

*choosing clothing for practical reasons or comfort is an entirely different issue, and everyone does that of course - my assertions are strictly about when men or women 'dress up', which i think is the true context of the original point that spurred this discussion in the first place.

post #40:

*it's not like men and women wake up and think "ok today i will dress in a manner which displays sexual receptivity to potential mates."
what i'm saying is that the concept of non-utilitarian fashion is fundamentally the human equivalent of peacock feathers, and if you look at the history of clothing and clothing accessories in the last 600 years or so this becomes blindingly obvious.
the conclusion is that any human 'dressing up' is at its core an act of sexual display for the purpose of attracting a mate, from a strictly anthropological perspective - even if that isn't necessarily the specific cognitive decision being made by the individual.

and mind you, i'm not saying that 'dressing up' means 'i want to fuck somebody' or is correlated to actively searching for a sexual partner. i'm absolutely not some lunatic saying if a woman dresses a certain way she's 'asking for it' or that dressing a given way infers any kind of obligation to participate in sex.
i'm just stating an anthropological fact that 'dressing up' is the human equivalent of a peacock spreading its wings or a cricket chirping, and thus *all* 'dressing up' is by its nature for the sake of the gaze of one's preferred gender in terms of why 'dressing up' exists as a thing humans do in the first place.

obviously the existence of the prefrontal cortex complicates things in humans and obviously this is all broadly generalizing about homo sapiens on a macro level, but if you put even a cursory amount of time into looking into research on the subject this bears out in numerous studies on human behavior.

*if you drill down into the motivations behind these behaviors they all loop back around to the same conclusion.
dressing up nice by yourself makes you feel good about yourself because you feel like you're fuckable.

*humans being humans there's always going to be exceptions, and yes yes i'm sure that 90% of the exceptions to the rule are the people reading this thread because you're all such incredible snowflakes totally outside the bounds of the human condition.

*the original question was:
"Why do men seem to think that women dress to please them?"

the answer is: because women do.

maybe not every single woman, and maybe not all of the time, but broadly taking the context of that question and applying it to the well established western cultural catechism on the subject leads inevitably to the same conclusion.

... i mean at this point, i'm just copy/pasting my existing posts in this thread.

i never said that mate signaling is the reason individual people choose articles of clothing, and i never said ANYTHING about 'being sexually attractive', so that is 100% a straw man.

i said that in humans clothing-as-fashion is a display trait, because it IS - if you disagree with that, please dig up some research that backs your point.
seriously if you just open a new tab and google 'why do humans dress the way they do' you'll find 50 articles and a handful of actual research papers showing psychological studies over the last 40 years concluding that clothing-as-fashion is anthropologically a display characteristic.
if you can find one paper, just ONE credible article that shows a conclusion that non-utilitarian clothing is completely divorced from social interactions and has nothing to do whatsoever with trait signaling, i would love to see that.

but i've looked - i've tried to prove myself wrong. but the truth is, i'm just relaying a scientifically verified fact about human psychology, and 5 *pages* of replies later not a single person responding to me has addressed that.

 

[Politesse]

Please don't cite my discipline as evidence for your sexist opinions, we do not and never have claimed as a field that sexual display is the only reason people choose clothing.

There is quite a considerable distance between "the ...reason is for sexual display - ie, to please the preferred gender you're looking to attract" and "completely divorced from social interactions". Attracting mates is not the only possible social motivator a person might have, as should be obvious to anyone who belongs to a society. For instance, you are obviously not motivated by a desire to attract a woman at the moment, as you are unconcerned by the fact that you are pissing off all the women in this thread, and some of the men.

There are also obvious utilitarian reasons for wearing some kinds of clothing, having nothing to do with external affect (which is what actual social scientists call your "display"). Everyone wears boots in the snow for instance, not because it displays their ankles beautifully, but because they help you walk in the snow.

Sayng that you've done research is not as interesting or convincing as actually citing that research. A social scientist myself, I would normally accept a person's testimony about their motivations to be evidence of what their motivations are. If there is some pressing reason to assume that people don't know why they are dressing a certain way in the morning, to the point of ignoring or even contradicting self-report, I'd want to see that reason substantiated by evidence, not just claimed.

I googled the search term you suggested and found very few actual academic resources. But, the academic resource that comes up first is a review paper by Johnson et al (2014), which does discuss the implications of provocative dress in creating situations of sexual objectification such as you are advocating for... but also many other possible personal and social motivators for defining dress. Quite logically. So what are you referring to? Are you just assuming we wouldn't actually conduct said google search and see for ourselves that the first real hit contradicts your point?

 

[prideandfall]

Please don't cite my discipline as evidence for your sexist opinions

please justify to me how "all humans adhere to the anthropologically verified fact that fashion is trait signaling" is in any possible way sexism.

and if this is "your discipline" then i'm sure you have bodies of research at your fingertips that can easily dispute my assertion.
by all means please provide one single solitary piece of backing evidence that refutes me. i'm waiting for it eagerly.

we do not and never have claimed as a field that sexual display is the only reason people choose clothing.

ok... that is both true and totally irrelevant to what i'm saying, not to mention completely off topic.
i never claimed that, so i fail to see how that relates.

There is quite a considerable distance between "the ...reason is for sexual display - ie, to please the preferred gender you're looking to attract" and "completely divorced from social interactions".

so then you're saying that you disagree that sexuality and/or social status trait signaling are present on some level in basically every human interaction (note: interactions not within established relationships, more surface level "out and about" engagements with either strangers or lesser known persons).
if you genuinely believe that, hoooooly shit is your opening gambit a misfire.

Attracting mates is not the only possible scoail motivator a person might have.

also true, and also completely irrelevant to my point not to mention utterly oblivious to the fact that i've literally said that exact same thing multiple times. seriously, is anyone even reading what i'm typing?

There are also obvious utilitarian reasons for wearing some kinds of clothing, having nothing to do with external affect (which is what actual social scientists call your "display"). Everyone wears boots in the snow for instance, not because it displays their ankles beautifully, but because they help you walk in the snow.

yeah no shit, i said in that in my very first post (well ok to be fair i more inferred that within the disclaimer i put before my first post), and then repeatedly stated it outright throughout my subsequent posts.

 

[Politesse]

also true, and also completely irrelevant to my point not to mention utterly oblivious to the fact that i've literally said that exact same thing multiple times. seriously, is anyone even reading what i'm typing?

I quoted your own post. I am baffled as to how that could be a "misinterpretation".

"the anthropological reason is for sexual display - ie, to please the preferred gender you're looking to attract"

Those are your words. You typed them. And then you quoted them again.

If you are not being clear about your point, perhaps you should try again. Because quoting yourself very much seeming to say that sexual attractiveness is the only motivator for female dress is not clarfying whatever point you are trying to make.

And I did cite a source, address it if you are able.

It's interesting that you're now trying to insist that you weren't claiming such a dumb thing in the first palce, and accept it as a sign of progress. If it is possible that other kinds of social status are operant than sexual attraction, then many of your previous statements in this thread are obviously false. But even if you had always intended to encompass all negotiations of social status in your post, you're still leaving out the whole concept of self-perception and self-categorization, which is a major component of the Johnson et al 2014 article you directed us to by asking us to google a certain search phrase in lieu of an actual citation. Self-perception is not a type of display aspect, and though it may be culturally defined, it isn't really a social motivator either. If you disagree with your own source, you should be able to demonstrate why.

 

[prideandfall]

I quoted your own post.

you quoted one sentence out of a much larger post. and you also completely and utterly dodged the entire body of my response to you.

so come on Politesse, you're the one getting indignant at me abusing "your discipline", actually put some effort into it and show me where my facts are in error instead bleating like a goat stuck in a trash can over a falsehood you've created.

my statement of fact is that non-utilitarian clothing evolved in humans as a means of trait signaling, and as such from a social and cultural anthropological perspective the purpose of non-utilitarian clothing in humans is ultimately to signal traits.
if you dispute this statement of fact, provide me with evidence. i'd rather be correct than be proven right, so if i have misinterpreted the data available from numerous studies which i have perceived to all conclude that non-utilitarian clothing in humans is trait signaling, please show me the information which shows this is not true and educate me.

my personal assertion in light of the above is that due to non-utilitarian clothing in humans being trait-signaling, the vast majority (if not functionally all) of that trait-signaling is ultimately sexual display - this is derived from the simple correlation that even in the instance of trait displays that are not explicitly about sexual receptivity, most (if not all) other types of display (for example wealth or class status) are ultimately still sexual in nature because i posit that the point of being seen as wealthy or successful or high class is to increase your value on the sexual marketplace.
(to put it very succinctly, it's all about the fuckin')

ipso facto (and wow do i kind of feel like a douche for saying that, but in that case i literally mean what ipso facto means), all non-utilitarian clothing in humans comes down to trait-display because that's the entire reason that non-utilitarian clothing exists in the first place.
it seems pretty bog-standard logic to me to then conclude that non-utilitarian clothing is by necessity of its existence about showing off for potential mates, since showing off for potential mates is (as just established) the entire purpose of trait display in the first place.

this isn't rocket science or some wild conspiracy theory, i didn't just dream this up out of nowhere in order to invent a reason clothing exists, i posit this assertion because it is the valid conclusion of the facts in evidence.
look at the studies, look at the data - this is all well established.

if i've misinterpreted the data, fine - show me where i'm wrong and i'll gladly change my perspective.
but just sitting there crying that i'm a sexist meanie poopoo head because.... what, because you don't like the data?
well that's just pathetic.

I am baffled as to how that could be a "misinterpretation".

so am i, and yet you people keep doing it. it's honestly kind of impressive.

Those are your words. You typed them. And then you quoted them again.

and you evidently joyfully ignored all the other words around them in order to harp endlessly on the most ridiculous extrapolation one could possibly make based on a single sentence.
and then, despite the fact that i have no said "no, that is not what i meant" to your ridiculous straw man, you're here STILL harping on me about it completely ignoring the fact that i've attempted to correct you people a dozen times.

at this point it's rather clear that you're going the route of "ignore what is front of you because you have a pre-existing rage boner you need to satisfy" and i'm just the unfortunate target of your bias.

i'd also like to point out the delicious irony of people, notably toni, doing literally the thing they're falsely accusing me of: making the claim that they know the inside of another person's head better than they do.

way to follow fox news logic, people.

 

[Toni]

also true, and also completely irrelevant to my point not to mention utterly oblivious to the fact that i've literally said that exact same thing multiple times. seriously, is anyone even reading what i'm typing?

I quoted your own post. I am baffled as to how that could be a "misinterpretation".

Welcome to the club.

 

[Emily Lake]

er... literally every single post i've made on the subject?

i never said that mate signaling is the reason individual people choose articles of clothing, and i never said ANYTHING about 'being sexually attractive', so that is 100% a straw man.

i said that in humans clothing-as-fashion is a display trait, because it IS - if you disagree with that, please dig up some research that backs your point.
seriously if you just open a new tab and google 'why do humans dress the way they do' you'll find 50 articles and a handful of actual research papers showing psychological studies over the last 40 years concluding that clothing-as-fashion is anthropologically a display characteristic.
if you can find one paper, just ONE credible article that shows a conclusion that non-utilitarian clothing is completely divorced from social interactions and has nothing to do whatsoever with trait signaling, i would love to see that.

but i've looked - i've tried to prove myself wrong. but the truth is, i'm just relaying a scientifically verified fact about human psychology, and 5 *pages* of replies later not a single person responding to me has addressed that.

All of your posts consistently frame it as a SEXUAL display - your reference to swollen vulvas really reinforces that. What you seem to be missing is that a whole lot of clothing is STATUS display and TRIBAL display. Anthropological displays are not limited to sexual displays alone. And you've spent nearly all of your posts hammering on that one aspect of display.

 

[Emily Lake]

my personal assertion in light of the above is that due to non-utilitarian clothing in humans being trait-signaling, the vast majority (if not functionally all) of that trait-signaling is ultimately sexual display - this is derived from the simple correlation that even in the instance of trait displays that are not explicitly about sexual receptivity, most (if not all) other types of display (for example wealth or class status) are ultimately still sexual in nature because i posit that the point of being seen as wealthy or successful or high class is to increase your value on the sexual marketplace.
(to put it very succinctly, it's all about the fuckin')

This is the part that I take umbrage with. It is NOT all to increase value on the sexual marketplace. In young single people looking to form a relationship, it's certainly going to involve signaling sexual receptivity. But extending that to the entirety of social interactions is as dumb as it is insulting.

FFS, I'm in my late forties, married, fat, and happy. I choose my clothing for a variety of reasons. When it's just me & my spouse at home, it's almost entirely chosen for comfort. I personally like pajama sets with pants, of a soft material, of a color that pleases me. Some of them my spouse dislikes and thinks are ugly, but I'm not wearing them for him, I'm wearing them for me.

When I go out in the world in a non-professional setting, my clothing choices reflect my personal style - signaling to some degree aspects of my personality, colors that I like, the "kind of person" that I am. Thus, it's usually pretty easy-going jeans and t-shirts, often 3/4 sleeve tops because my elbows get cold, even in summer. I choose shoes that are comfortable and that I think look nice - to myself as well as to other people around me. My clothing is also chosen to reflect my perceived status to some degree - I rarely by cheap clothing, but I also don't spend oodles on high fashion stuff because that's not important to me and I can spend that money on other things I like better (like video games).

When I dress for work, I dress to communicate my professionalism and my expertise in my field. I choose outfits that communicate that I know what I'm talking about, but that I also have some humor and an easy-going personality.

Very little of my clothing has anything at all to do with sexual signaling. To suggest that every aspect of my dress and appearance is dominated by sexual signaling is pretty much to devalue me as a human with a complex personality.

In addition, you've framed nearly all of your posts from the perspective of female sexual signaling... and you've ignored and insulted the women in this thread when they've told you that you are incorrect. Which comes across as a bit sexist, even if it might be subconscious.

 

[prideandfall]

This is the part that I take umbrage with.

and that's fair - being honest about it, i'd have to put that down to personal perspective more than anything else, i tend to view humans in far simpler terms than most do.

i see the reality that all biological life on this planet is about 4 things: eating, shitting, fucking, and sleeping (well and i suppose technically maintaining homeostasis could be a 5th but that's kind of nebulous)
everything else is just extra steps built on top of that, those 4 things are the foundations of life on on earth.
i see it as pretty obvious that everything is traceable back to one of those 4 things if you drill down deep enough into evolutionary history, but i also understand that a lot of people are utterly mentally incapable of even coping with the idea that someone could conceive that humans are not all super extra duper special snowflakes with bright and vibrant souls who completely undermine the reality of every other form of life on this planet.
so for those folks i suppose live your truth, namaste, sorry the existence of other points of view destroys your ability to deal with reality.

It is NOT all to increase value on the sexual marketplace. In young single people looking to form a relationship, it's certainly going to involve signaling sexual receptivity.

ok and you're still not understanding or responding to the thing i'm actually saying, so i'll just take the hint and give up.

But extending that to the entirety of social interactions is as dumb as it is insulting.

well as for it being dumb, it kinda tracks with evolutionary biology as well as human history.
as for insulting, i completely fail to see how data is insulting, but if this thread has proved anything to me it's that there's a whole lot of people who take data as a personal attack, so i guess i'm just completely out of my depth.

FFS, I'm in my late forties, married, fat, and happy. I choose my clothing for a variety of reasons. When it's just me & my spouse at home, it's almost entirely chosen for comfort. I personally like pajama sets with pants, of a soft material, of a color that pleases me. Some of them my spouse dislikes and thinks are ugly, but I'm not wearing them for him, I'm wearing them for me.

aaaaaand you still haven't read anything i've posted, mmkay.

Very little of my clothing has anything at all to do with sexual signaling.

ok, and since you emily lake solely represent the whole of human psychology, i see now how completely wrong headed i've been this whole time.
glad to know we have found the alpha and omega of human consciousness though, that clears up a lot of things.

To suggest that every aspect of my dress and appearance is dominated by sexual signaling is pretty much to devalue me as a human with a complex personality.

well, two things:
1. nobody has ever suggested that *your* dress and appearance was dominated by anything.
2. if you are devalued as a human being by the existence of things that are, i'm both sorry for offending you by mentioning the existence of things, and deeply sorry for what your life must be like.

In addition, you've framed nearly all of your posts from the perspective of female sexual signaling

which i have done by never mentioning women except in my first post which was directly in response to a gendered question, and having every single thing i've said since then be not only gender neutral but explicitly referring to both genders?
that is some impressive magical interpretation powers you have there.

... and you've ignored and insulted the women in this thread when they've told you that you are incorrect. Which comes across as a bit sexist, even if it might be subconscious.

not immediately capitulating to a declaration by someone who either can't or won't explain their position by providing a rational argument as to why they disagree with your position is not ignoring or insulting someone.
your failure to provide a convincing argument is not me being sexist, it's me not being convinced by your lack of a coherent rationale for stating why my position is wrong - or hell, even addressing my position at all in the first place.
you'd think for what is ostensibly a forum dedicated to inquiry and rational thinking that people would understand the concept that "NUH UH!" is not a compelling argument.

i have the perspective i do about human trait signaling because i've read several articles about humans, human evolution both biologically and culturally, and the history of clothing in the human species.
i have read peer reviewed studies that provide the evidence for the conclusions drawn about macro level human cultural psychology.
i have provided you on at least 3 occasions now with the means by which you can yourself locate some of these studies to read the data for yourself, and invited anyone and everyone to please do so and then advise me on how i've misinterpreted said data to come to the wrong conclusions.

thus far, every single person who has replied to me has instead whined about how i'm a bad person because i pointed out that data exists, and they don't like it.
not a single one of you has mentioned a study to refute any of the data that i am pointing out exists, or given a logical construction for how the data points to a different conclusion.
every single one of you has just had a little snit fit over the fact that you don't like what the data says, and then attacked the messenger for having the audacity to have pointed out that said data exists.