Indecent clothing... what is, what makes? (+ consequences)

Remove all ads!

I've been wearing 501's for years (very snug fit) and have three children. Tight pants are not an issue for me (both in the indecency and reproductive category).

 

@Sydax: Yeah, the biggest problem is with the youngest girls. Firstly the risk, secondly the lack of experience in "such matters", thirdly peer pressure.

I don't think adult women should wear what you described. I mean, I don't have a problem with it in cultures where it's the normal way, and I can think of some, especially from different historical periods. But in our "Euroatlantic" civilisation, I think it's too much. I don't have a problem with being comfortable or pretty, but I have a problem with being sexy and "public display". If you get my meaning.

@Susipaisti: Yes, I'm not talking about different cultures. Heck, my own father was a painter and sculptor, so I'm far from the "OMG, skin!" effect. I just dislike the vibe of forced sexiness, the omnipresent sexualisation of life, the vibes people send when they know they shouldn't be wearing what they are.

And yes, in the ideal world clothing wouldn't be needed. I don't have a problem with people losing some clothing for comfort, but I have a problem with it when it's because of trying to be sexy rather than comfortable.

It does. But while people would be jumping to conclusions, would they really just be seeing things or would have a little point there? There is always the question of why she is wearing that. Some women seem to want to be able to wear clothes that titillate men without being seen as women who (wear clothes that) titillate men. And that's one of the biggest problems in the clothing area I can imagine. I wouldn't mind having nudist friends or African tribal friends. But I wouldn't be comfortable with people wearing little or wearing such clothes as to make other people have sexual thoughts and fantasies.

Ah, you seem to be nailing it in the last paragraph. Yes, the "use once and destroy" mentality. Seducing people for sport. Taking pride in giving people a hard time and so on. As well as peer pressure, yeah. You see, at least in my perception, people who are comfortable with what they are wearing don't send the same bad vibes. It's possible to be totally naked and asexual, while it's possible to be fully clothed and very sexual. The point is: what makes people dress indecently. We wouldn't be talking about indecent clothes if it were just clothes.

Paradoxically, the general modern imperative to dress in sexy ways (revealing, clingy, prostitution-inspired) may actually lead to nudity and tightness being desexualised and people may eventually become indifferent. Actually, the recent decline in such tendencies in fashion may be a sign of that. It's been pointed out to me that models seem to be more covered than a couple of years ago and that seems to be true.

 

@Arendil:
No, they're not tight in the crotch area, just the thighs and behind. I know about the temperature deal (frying your swimmers), but thanks for the thought.

 

Yes, the forced sexiness thing...I don't have a problem with skimpy clothing in itself, but the fact that it comes from the minds of marketing people bugs me. That it's not a genuine thing but just a means to make money and manipulate the masses. Following an example without questioning it.

They might. They might not. The "why" is the important thing here. In this hypothetical situation I would be in a better position to know than just some fellow in the street.

To further clarify my stand, the "now people think she's a slut" thing wouldn't be about me. Not about "now people think I am with a slut." It would be about whether she realizes that's what they'll think, and whether she'll have to deal with some kind of BS as a result.

Ain't I noble today... Well, it might also make me uncomfortable that people are staring her who is MINE MINE MINE.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I despise. In my book crossing the line happens when it's not harmless fun for both sides. If everybody knows what they're doing, intentions are laid out plain and nobody gets hurt, knock yourself out - even though it won't earn any respect points from me. But seeing some insecure teens emulating behavior they don't really even understand...it's pretty sad.

Exactly. And I think black-and-white rules can't really be applied here.

It's an interesting development. It's likely that covering things and having to use one's imagination are becoming popular again, seeing as showing as much as possible has or will soon be stretched to the limit and done to death.

 

A bit like compulsory skimpy outfits that border on sluttiness in games. Erm, they don't just bordern on it, on second thought. Sometimes it's just selling sex. That's bad. I think dressing in a sexy way when going to a shop or service point or some such specifically to get a discount or better treatment is a lower form of prostitution. This is also why I don't buy most actors' excuse to undress for films. Besides, forced sexiness loses the charm, it just makes everyone uncomfortable. Unless someone's into that thing.

Of course. But wouldn't you still ask yourself why she's wearing that? I mean, it's a different thing if she's an undercover police officer or a journalist gathering material for an article, you know, something that helps people in the long run, and a different thing when she just dresses like that. With teenage girls, it often comes with extremely poor manners and a kind of language that makes sailors blush, so I guess it's part of being bad and dragging oneself low to show how bad he or she is. Something like that. Never really been able to understand it fully.

But would it really be BS? If a woman dresses like a prostitute and does so convingly, what right does she have to be offended when a prospective john walks up? Aren't one, why try to pass for one? One could as weal put on some jail wear and get offended at the mere suggestion he might ever have been in a slightest conflict with the law.

I'm not a big fan of claiming ownership of people or ordering them around. I mean, of course I can take control, shout some orders and all, but I'm not a boss or parent. However, I do think that certain kinds of clothing give you every right to ask yourself if the person is really serious about the monogamous relationship. It's either polygamous tendencies (or exhibitionism or some other personality issue) or extreme vanity and thoughtless cruelty (seducing people for sport).

I understand that and agree almost totally but still with some reservation. In many cases people aren't able to mark the exact moment when it stops being harmless fun and I don't like the sitting on the fence notion. Plus, sometimes complications are much delayed. Or people act on misguided compassion or sense of tolerance and agreeability. I don't think they're asking for it and have only themselves to blame, as it always takes two people and the blame can't be cast away just like that.

Yeah. Individuals have different minds and outlooks and cultures also differ. I think there is a couple of absolute lines here, like seducing someone for fun or some deceitful purpose, seducing people's spouses, that kind of thing. I would also add dressing in such a way as to make people fantasise about you, but the difference between that and simply being attractive isn't often clear. The difference between pretty and sexy or sexy and sexual or seductive and seducing isn't so easy to grasp, either.

What I don't like is the "OMG! Skin! Zong!" approach or the "everyone can wear what he wants or nothing at all" one. Some of the things people wear are more sexual than even full nudity. After all, human body is a natural thing and it's impossible to call it indecent. Again, the problem is not so much "what" as "what for?" Maybe in what way, as well.

Yeah, plus maybe people have started noticing it's quite tacky.

 

Am I seeing a bit of double standard here? Women are not immune to lust. In a business enviroment men who dress to show off muscles and other items can be a distraction. And just because a woman is old enough to be your grandmother doesn't mean she can't be distracted by those tight jeans, t-shirt or cleavage. Oh yes, men go in for cleavage, too.

 

Excellent point Nakia!

It is good to hear a woman voice in this cruel, male dominated SP world... ....

 

I think the two important standards are the environment (hot/cold, wet/dry) and the reactions of (mainly) the opposite gender. Have a little respect, people (men and women both). Don't wear stuff intended to distract others unless the situation is right (beach, club, bedroom, etc.) If you are going to work or school, you should dress like your grandmother is the only one there. I have no problem wearing a t-shirt around my grandma if its hot, but not a muscle shirt.

 

Speaking of dressing appropriately for the environment, am I the only one who finds it a little strange that male characters/images/portraits in CRPG's (and on the boxes)tend to wear full armor and females (especially on box/covers) tend to wear the "chain mail bikini?"

Are the publishers really targeting teenage boys that hard?

 

Hey! It's not just "teenage" boys they're appealing to there!

 

@NOG:

I think I would go further. On the beach, it's all about the heat and tanning, not about showing off. So swimsuits are OK but swimsuits which are intended to distract are bad. By this I don't mean a nice, unique design, but rather something provocative. I think it's still bad, it's just less is expected to be covered.

As for bedroom, well, yeah. But I still don't think that the club is an excuse to wear things that would be very much indecent elsewhere. I'm not sure what exactly you mean, so... Looking good would be right, perhaps even fishing for partners that some people do in clubs isn't a problem. But whatever is intended to arouse, what really shows a lot, is not okay in clubs either, I think. I think whatever shows something that a swimsuit would cover is still bad.

@Gawain: Yeah, it's no longer amusing. It's like I don't know... looks like the lite version of improving ticket/DVD sales of films by putting more sex scenes in them.

Edit: I'm not saying it's good or even justifiable. I think it's selling sex for money. The difference between that and prostitution is that no one real is doing anything with you and that you don't get sex but just something to get off on. I'll still play the games rather than give up on them, but I don't like the trend.

@Nakia: Correct! I will still maintain that male cleavage isn't the same as female cleavage. But yeah, men should be more careful sometimes. In case you wonder, before I put something "enhancing" on, I always give a thought to females who are going to look at me.

 

True.

But I get a little tired of my wife asking me "Exactly what kind of game is this again?"

So I tell her "I only buy it for the game engine."

 

I meant the intended purpose of a beach, not what some people make of it.

And don't get me started on thongs.

Someone could always work as a model or sell drinks on the beach or some such.

 

Same here...apparently it's that silly rebellious phase gone overtop. A lack of understanding what the hell one is doing. And a lack of parental control.

Speculating about undercover professions is a bit much, I think, 'cos it would involve actually delving into the world of criminals and not just looking "slutty" in public.

If a woman is pacing the street at night looking like that, then the assumption makes sense. But bold as day going about her business (=something other than pacing a street back and forth browsing well-dressed guys, you know) among crowds of people doing the same, doesn't really warrant that kind of assumptions. A prospective john at a situation like that gives every right to be offended, in my mind. Who tries to hire a prostitute in the bright of day in plain sight, anyway?

By BS I didn't just mean the woman taking a Jerry Springer guest attitude ("Whatever! Whatever! bleep! You don't know me! bleep!") to whatever is being said to her. I broadly mean her receiving any kind of trouble, discrimination, snide remarks, violence etc. based on nothing other than her clothing. That kind of stuff strikes me as wrong. Staring can't be helped, I guess. Staring is not something to get offended over, if you're dressed provocatively. But anything beyond that is bad behavior. Who cares if someone's showing a little too much skin for your tastes. Feel free to disapprove of it, but that should be as far as it goes. With some people it isn't. It really shouldn't be so hard to leave people in peace. That's how I see it as BS.

Taking this a bit more seriously now, I came to think of those rape cases where the accused's excuse is along the lines of "well she wore a miniskirt." It's not such a far fetch from "mistaking" women as prostitutes. The "well look at what she was wearing, she brought it on herself" -attitude. It has to be in the top five on my loathe list. But I digress (who woulda thought...).

Hate to be pointing out the bleeding obvious here, but the wording of the "mine mine mine" -thing was intended as a joke. I didn't mean it in the owning/bossing sense. However it does describe how people's minds often work, mine too to some extent. It's not nice when people stare at someone you care about.

Questioning the person's commitment when wearing provokative stuff in public is one way to look at it, a valid point I think, but it's also easy to go overboard with it. Setting rules of how someone is allowed to dress.

I'm less harsh with this stuff apparently, but all valid points you got there.

 

Hmmm... Just walking by, even at night, shouldn't give the idea but maybe pacing back and forth or standing in one place? Even in the light of day. Not everywhere is prostitution a night job.

You make a valid point about leaving people at peace and that's what I'm trying to do, so long as I'm not responsible for them in any particular way or not exposed to them too much, too often.

However, whatever kind of reaction she would face, it wouldn't be based just on clothing alone. This is a common mistake that many kind-hearted, freedom-respecting people make. Clothing is rarely just clothing. Apart from the fact that clothing choices reflect clothing preference and clothing preference is a part of a person's more general view on things, clothing is often taken as a way of making a statement. Some women make it an, "Even if I'm dressing (and behaving) like a slut doesn't mean I am one and you have no right to judge me," statement.

So long as we are talking about clothes that are not covering enough rather than revealing, it can be just clothes, yeah. And in most cases it probably is. Perhaps some of the "badass" clothes are meant to symbolise emancipation and maybe attractiveness. Perhaps slightly slutty clothes are a protest against a one-sided view (i.e. good for men to cheat and sleep around a lot but if a woman does that, she's no better than a prostitute). However, some clothing is designed to reveal rather than simply left uncovered, if you catch my drift. Other types of clothes are also loaded with immediate, powerful and crude sexual reference. People who wear that tend to know what they are doing.

Hmm... I'm a year away from Master's in law and I've become quite disillusioned about the whole thing. Guys who claim the woman's clothing as defence are making things up. But claiming that the victim's behaviour prior to rape is irrelevant is typical populism geared towards pleasing feminists and the like. So, clothing alone is no excuse. Generally provocative behaviour is neither. But when it becomes more personalised, more serious teasing, and the woman is offering more than she wants to deliver as a game, then I believe it should be a partial defence to some extent. This is because raping a stranger in the dark alley is not the same as ending up having debatably consensual sex after a lot of alcohol, preceded by consensual foreplay. Same way as picking a random person to kill because you feel like killing something is not the same as getting involved in a fight and striking someone down in rage.

Easy, I know it was. But my reference wasn't so dead-serious, either. What you describe is still slightly territorial and jealous, but I actually believe it's a good thing, not a bad one. I don't like it when people stare at someone I care about or am talking to at the moment or something.

Setting rules is bad, I think. It may work for people but I don't like the "let's sit at the table and lay down some law" approach. And I don't think a girlfriend, boyfriend or even spouse is in any position to allow or forbid anything. However, I'm not in favour of closing one's eyes to reality, so I just think people should accept it, find a creative solution or put an end to the relationship. My exes/could-have-beens who flirted with other guys didn't last long, for instance.

Well, being harsh or insanely strict for its own sake is quite silly and absolutes don't always work, but I it's good to have the principles straight even if one's going to be light on people.

 

Well, obviously, the situation has a lot to do with it. Obviously, if you're at the beach, it's OK to wear a bikini (if you're a woman of course). One can also expect that men be topless. I don't think that pubic hair should be showing for either sex, but that's a little bit vague as some people shave the hair down there. Also, since I don't have a problem with bikinis, it would be hypocritical of me to have a problem with a bare ass as well, because the backs of most bikinis aren't much thicker than dental floss and leave nothing to the imagination anyway. I suppose spandex is acceptable at the beach (hey, lots of people surf, and you need snug-fitting clothing for that), but please guys, no banana hammocks.

Otherwise, I mostly agree with chev. Climate dictates a lot of what is propoer or not, but basically we should expect everything to be covered except head, arms, and legs. (Backless gowns being somewhat of an exception, but you don't run into them in everyday life.)

Also, I think we've missed one obvious way a woman dresses and acts slutty - wear a skirt and no underwear trick. I've seen that used more than once. Then when she's sitting down at a nightclub talking to a guy she likes, she nonchalantly crosses her legs. It's a perfect tool for a woman who wishes to act that way, because she "chooses" who gets to see the goods.

 

I actually meant the beach and clubs as clothing intended to attract and distract, but nothing that could get you arrested. If a girl wants to wear little more than a bikini to a night club so she can 'troll for guys', I don't have a problem. Don't expect any sympathy when she complains all the guys she meets are a**holes, but that's here decision.
Now the whole thing about rape just strikes me as BS. Ok, if your both drunk and there was consentual foreplay beforehand, I have a problem seeing rape, but even if the girls was flashing you and then says no to sex, if you force her, that's rape (no alcohol here).
Personally, I have a problem with thongs. I don't know about you, but I would never date a girl showing that much off at a public beach. Bikinis I don't have a problem with, but most bikinis I see have ample 'backing'.

 

@NOG: Agreed on club wear. There's still the problem of transparent clothing with no underwear and that I believe is indecent. I'm not a fan of big cleavage but I'm not a bigot, either. Guess it depends on other factors than just the size of it. Showing nipples from any direction or angle or height is bad in my book, unless the girl and/or her family/village/whatever had an exotic outlook on things.

Hmmm... Flashing and then no to sex? Yeah, that's still clearly rape, but I would give a little less time in prison than for rape in a dark alley or some such, if I were the judge. Otherwise it would be pretty unfair towards women who don't play with fire, I think.

Thongs? Maybe if it were normal where them girl lived and I were sure it were about comfort and not about being sexy. But I would have a problem with it. My biggest problem with thongs and topless is that the wearers expect you to pretend they have those parts covered and they turn into diehard prudes when you comment. If they don't see such parts as sexual, they shouldn't react like that but it should be like legs or hands or belly or whatever to them. So a woman who wears thongs on the beach but frowns on them in different circumstances is in denial and so is a topless sunbather who wears a bra outside the beach (if her breasts are like men's, she doesn't need one ever). If 1) the purpose isn't sexual (i.e. it isn't worn for trolling, the person isn't trying to be sexier than anyone or to arouse the other gender) 2) the wearer is consistent (no denial, hypocrisy, double standards etc), I don't care much.

Edit: Before anyone points out I'm denial, yes, I would normally see that as indecent but it wouldn't be indecent on a person acting normally, not trying to be sexy, not aware of it being indecent. Sort of like the (partial) nudity thing with some tribals. For all I know, most thongs do look indecent and resemble what sex workers wear.

Looks like I'm soon going to conclude that the only indecent clothing is one that's geared towards titillation, no matter how much it shows or doesn't...

[ January 19, 2006, 21:41: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Ex-Rapists have said (I don't have a source, but a woman who was raped, and now works for stronger rape laws, and better protection for women, etc, told us this) that: If they saw two twins, exactly the same in every way, with the exception that one had a sexy dress on, and the other a burlap sack, they would not go for the good looking one, but the one wearing the burlap sack. This is because the sexy dress wearing woman seems more confident and more likely to resist strongly, whereas the one wearing the burlap sack seems to have a lower self esteem, confidence, etc, and would not put as much energy into resisting before giving in.

Just saying that clothing does have an input into who gets raped, just not in the way you have been saying. The easier they look, the more likely they have at being raped.

Of course, you probably won't believe me, as I have no proof. However, it does come from a credible source. Alas, I forget her name, so you can't even look her up.