Provocative attire and defenses thereof

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I don't think it's as objective as everyone makes it out to be.

I'm mistaken for a "good listener" when my inner voice is really thinking "aww, her face is so cute!"

So...you know that no one really gives a shit about whatever goes on in your head, right?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the supposed objectivity (or lack thereof) to the distinction between looking at someone as a person and looking at them like a piece of meat?

[Cannot think of a name]

So...you know that no one really gives a shit about whatever goes on in your head, right?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the supposed objectivity (or lack thereof) to the distinction between looking at someone as a person and looking at them like a piece of meat?

Right...were you under the impression that women had the ability to read minds instead of this being about behavior?

[Inkopolitia]

So...you know that no one really gives a shit about whatever goes on in your head, right?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the supposed objectivity (or lack thereof) to the distinction between looking at someone as a person and looking at them like a piece of meat?

So, were you FINALLY able to get the point across through Little Johnny's story

[Dakini]

Now, that leaves behind one question; for what purposes is provocative attire even worn? Is the whole point to attract male attention? If not, what is it?

A five year old was forced to cover up because she wore a sundress with spaghetti straps. She was not seeking male attention. She was wearing a cute dress. Any adult male who gives her that sort of attention is a pedophile because she is a child.

It's dishonest to suggest that dress codes in schools, which primarily target the clothing of girls and women, is about "provocative" clothing when you're dealing with schools that are forcing five year olds to cover up. Also, the way these policies are enforced requires women and girls to be responsible for considering whether or not they are distracting the men and boys in their school instead of expecting the boys and men to be responsible for their own fucking feelings and learning to focus on their work instead of oggling their classmates. The net result is that instead of boys being slightly distracted (maybe), girls are singled out and taken away from the classroom for wearing clothing that usually isn't actually inappropriate.


Also, most of the time, women aren't wearing something hot to impress men. We do it because we like wearing cute outfits sometimes.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

A five year old was forced to cover up because she wore a sundress with spaghetti straps[/url]. She was not seeking male attention. She was wearing a cute dress. Any adult male who gives her that sort of attention is a pedophile because she is a child.

The intended target of this is teenagers. But if they weren't extended to children, they'd have inevitably raised the question of when to start targeting this sort of thing, taking early puberty into account, sparking criticism no matter what is decided. The only fair approach is to start good habits early.

So no, that doesn't make it "dishonest."

Also, the way these policies are enforced requires women and girls to be responsible for considering whether or not they are distracting the men and boys in their school instead of expecting the boys and men to be responsible for their own fucking feelings and learning to focus on their work instead of oggling their classmates.

Do you seriously think girls don't already know boys are going to look at what they're showing off before picking an outfit that shows it off?

The net result is that instead of boys being slightly distracted (maybe), girls are singled out and taken away from the classroom for wearing clothing that usually isn't actually inappropriate.

Isn't actually inappropriate? According to whom? The voters have already made their decision through the school boards they've elected. What makes you think you know better than all of them combined?

And yeah, boys can get singled out. Probably not by the school; and not even by classmates at any school I've taught at; but from what I've heard, girls wearing stuff to show off then demonizing the boys for noticing and/or getting aroused does happen. And usually the people who say otherwise are the same ones behind all the nonsensical "rape culture/pedophile" talking points, so I've learned not to expect anything of value where that comes from.

Also, most of the time, women aren't wearing something hot to impress men. We do it because we like wearing cute outfits sometimes.

And where precisely do you think the perception of them as "cute" came from in the first place?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the supposed objectivity (or lack thereof) to the distinction between looking at someone as a person and looking at them like a piece of meat?

Right...were you under the impression that women had the ability to read minds instead of this being about behavior?

And yet, people still have yet to specify what behaviour they're referring to. Funny how that works out.

[Galloism]

dress codes in schools, which primarily target the clothing of girls and women,

[citation needed]

[Galloism]

And yeah, boys can get singled out. Probably not by the school;

This may or may not be true, or it may be situational by school.

A school I assisted on a mandatory state audit for had, as their legal defense to a lawsuit for making a girl wear a t-shirt over her clothes, the audit trail showing boys were cited three times as often for girls for dress code violations - the most common being wearing a sleeveless shirt.

Of course, none of those parents sued.

[Cannot think of a name]

Right...were you under the impression that women had the ability to read minds instead of this being about behavior?

And yet, people still have yet to specify what behaviour they're referring to. Funny how that works out.

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

[Ors Might]

dress codes in schools, which primarily target the clothing of girls and women,

[citation needed]

It’s certainly the most commons perception, though I don’t actually recall having a whole lot of freedom to dress how I desired while in school. At least, not any more freedom than the girls did. Guys were basically restricted to t-shirts, long-sleeves, pants, and shorts. For the girls, I think they couldn’t show their shoulders, no skintight bottom wear, and skirts had to be certain length. They could wear all the same stuff we could, too.

[Neutraligon]

And yeah, boys can get singled out. Probably not by the school;

This may or may not be true, or it may be situational by school.

A school I assisted on a mandatory state audit for had, as their legal defense to a lawsuit for making a girl wear a t-shirt over her clothes, the audit trail showing boys were cited three times as often for girls for dress code violations - the most common being wearing a sleeveless shirt.

Of course, none of those parents sued.

From what I recall, my school dress code for "distraction" tended to focus on things girls tended to wear at the time(tank top with spaghetti straps, shirts that did not completely and always cover the belly), while the stuff that focused on boys was more along the lines of bandannas (baggy was apparently in for boys since that was what they wore). The one exception I can think of was added when boys started wearing pants around their knees. I will admit the pants around the knees was distracting, mainly because I was wondering how they could walk like that and hoping they would not trip and fall down the stairs....

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And yet, people still have yet to specify what behaviour they're referring to. Funny how that works out.

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

They imply objectivity to the distinction, they should have to define it.

Though frankly, as far as personal experience goes I've nothing to go on other than the irrationality of those who object to dress codes anyway.

[Galloism]

And yet, people still have yet to specify what behaviour they're referring to. Funny how that works out.

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

Netflix went with the five second timer option.

[Neutraligon]

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

They imply objectivity to the distinction, they should have to define it.

Though frankly, as far as personal experience goes I've nothing to go on other than the irrationality of those who object to dress codes anyway.

You have yet to give a reason why there should be dress code beyond the basics of maintaining hygiene and safety.

[Galloism]

[citation needed]

It’s certainly the most commons perception, though I don’t actually recall having a whole lot of freedom to dress how I desired while in school. At least, not any more freedom than the girls did. Guys were basically restricted to t-shirts, long-sleeves, pants, and shorts. For the girls, I think they couldn’t show their shoulders, no skintight bottom wear, and skirts had to be certain length. They could wear all the same stuff we could, too.

In our society, “world ending, women most affected” is kind of a true statement.

Boys tend to have a more restrictive dress code than girls, typically speaking. Imagine if a little boy had showed up wearing the same outfit that the girl cited by Dakini did. I bet you the school’s reaction would be even harsher.

[Ors Might]

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

Netflix went with the five second timer option.

What in the actual smack-gobbing fuck

[Ors Might]

It’s certainly the most commons perception, though I don’t actually recall having a whole lot of freedom to dress how I desired while in school. At least, not any more freedom than the girls did. Guys were basically restricted to t-shirts, long-sleeves, pants, and shorts. For the girls, I think they couldn’t show their shoulders, no skintight bottom wear, and skirts had to be certain length. They could wear all the same stuff we could, too.

In our society, “world ending, women most affected” is kind of a true statement.

Boys tend to have a more restrictive dress code than girls, typically speaking. Imagine if a little boy had showed up wearing the same outfit that the girl cited by Dakini did. I bet you the school’s reaction would be even harsher.

Depending on where he lives, he might’ve ended up disowned and in a hospital.

[Galloism]

This may or may not be true, or it may be situational by school.

A school I assisted on a mandatory state audit for had, as their legal defense to a lawsuit for making a girl wear a t-shirt over her clothes, the audit trail showing boys were cited three times as often for girls for dress code violations - the most common being wearing a sleeveless shirt.

Of course, none of those parents sued.

From what I recall, my school dress code for "distraction" tended to focus on things girls tended to wear at the time(tank top with spaghetti straps, shirts that did not completely and always cover the belly), while the stuff that focused on boys was more along the lines of bandannas (baggy was apparently in for boys since that was what they wore). The one exception I can think of was added when boys started wearing pants around their knees. I will admit the pants around the knees was distracting, mainly because I was wondering how they could walk like that and hoping they would not trip and fall down the stairs....

Yeah, our local school instituted a rule on the baggy pants thing when that became a thing. Hell, the school went so far as to buy a bunch of belts.

[Cannot think of a name]

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

They imply objectivity to the distinction, they should have to define it.

Though frankly, as far as personal experience goes I've nothing to go on other than the irrationality of those who object to dress codes anyway.

You understand that you're asking people to socialize you in the span of a forum post when that process usually takes around 18-20 years of development and supervision by one or more adults. If you have reached this stage in your development and are unable to tell when you have made someone uncomfortable and need it to be explained to you in precise detail you might just want to restrict your contact with other human beings until you can find someone to finish your development.

Otherwise, you can stop being obtuse and have an actual conversation about the subject. It's kind of up to you.

[Galloism]

Netflix went with the five second timer option.

What in the actual smack-gobbing fuck

You’re welcome.

[Cannot think of a name]

Again, what kind of permissions are you looking for? Do you want a timer? An anatomic doll that tells you what you're permitted to look at? What level of behavior are you trying to excuse?

Netflix went with the five second timer option.

Normally I'd consider such a rule arbitrary and odd, but given the scope of recent conversations I'm going to concede that apparently there are people who need this level of guidance.

[Galloism]

They imply objectivity to the distinction, they should have to define it.

Though frankly, as far as personal experience goes I've nothing to go on other than the irrationality of those who object to dress codes anyway.

You understand that you're asking people to socialize you in the span of a forum post when that process usually takes around 18-20 years of development and supervision by one or more adults. If you have reached this stage in your development and are unable to tell when you have made someone uncomfortable and need it to be explained to you in precise detail you might just want to restrict your contact with other human beings until you can find someone to finish your development.

Otherwise, you can stop being obtuse and have an actual conversation about the subject. It's kind of up to you.

This post makes me really uncomfortable, tbh, with the acute dismissal of those who have a lifelong struggle understanding human interactions, particularly those suffering some kind of autism, aspergers, etc.

Just telling them to restrict contact with other human beings because they might make someone uncomfortable by struggling with social cues is a horrific solution to the very minor problem of someone being uncomfortable sometimes.

[Cannot think of a name]

You understand that you're asking people to socialize you in the span of a forum post when that process usually takes around 18-20 years of development and supervision by one or more adults. If you have reached this stage in your development and are unable to tell when you have made someone uncomfortable and need it to be explained to you in precise detail you might just want to restrict your contact with other human beings until you can find someone to finish your development.

Otherwise, you can stop being obtuse and have an actual conversation about the subject. It's kind of up to you.

This post makes me really uncomfortable, tbh, with the acute dismissal of those who have a lifelong struggle understanding human interactions, particularly those suffering some kind of autism, aspergers, etc.

Just telling them to restrict contact with other human beings because they might make someone uncomfortable by struggling with social cues is a horrific solution to the very minor problem of someone being uncomfortable sometimes.

Cool, random champion of things. Wasn't really getting a 'I have a cognitive difficulty in reading peoples emotions and I would appreciate some guidance' vibe but instead, "I should be able to leer at women and unless you can give me an arbitrary definition that I will then ridicule for its specificity" bit that is also common. But if you want to co-opt the difficulties that aspergers and other people on the spectrum face in order to form a disingenuous defense of people trying to excuse shitty behavior, you do you.

[Sizna]

School uniform codes are needless. I get that we need to have some form of ID to prevent just anyone from walking onto school grounds but that could just be a clearly-visible name badge around a lanyard like we had at my college, not "you can't dye your hair this colour" or "you can't have that piercing" or "you can't have any less than X amount of stripes showing on your tie" or "thou shalt not do this, that and the other" (and no, I'm not even exaggerating about that tie example; we really did have that at my high school. I think it was three stripes if you had a high V-neck jumper and seven if you had a low V-neck). As a young teenager, your appearance is pretty much the only way you have of really expressing yourself unless you're rich with connections to other rich people or if you're unusually precocious/talented for your age and have the means to become a celebrity, so why should we take that freedom of expression away from young people?

Lemme give you an example. I've always been of very below average height and when I started high school aged twelve (here in the UK we typically start HS aged eleven but my birthday is in early September so I turned twelve just before I started), I was 4'10" and underweight. I had to get my uniform specially tailored to my size because their smallest size didn't fit me. All in all, PE uniform included, it cost about £300. My family was pretty damn poor at that time and my school was very rich so the two reasonable options would have been a) pay for the uniform for me, or b) make us pay it but in small amounts similar to a debt. Did they do that? Nope, they made us pay it all in one go and that was meant to be our "luxury". They didn't care about me or my family; they only cared about making themselves look professional and they reinforced that through treating me like utter crap in general throughout my HS years. If they hadn't made us pay that, I could have afforded nicer clothes to wear casually, therefore I wouldn't have had to worry about "keeping up with the latest trends" (which is something I've never been too concerned about anyways). The reason schools impose school uniforms to such a harsh extent is because it's an intentionally smaller rule that, if broken, is indicative of an all-around troublemaker who will break the more significant rules (in school staff's eyes, at least). It doesn't really make much sense, but that's why they do it and that's why "rebellious" students and those who are more outspoken are stigmatised even if they haven't technically done anything wrong, as opposed to students who are very passive and "doormattish" but keep their heads down and do as they're told.

Another reason I was given is that "if we let one person do it, we have to let everyone do it"... so, let everyone do it? What would be the harm in that? Maybe people wouldn't be so worried about keeping up with the latest trends (as I mentioned earlier) if you let them do something besides look like everyone else. There's also the case of boys painting their nails; if a girl does it she's a slut but if a boy does it he's "being brave" and "coming to terms with who he is". Way to profile people, HS. Honestly, the entire education system from the rules to the curriculum needs a complete overhaul but perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.

ETA: I got a little carried away. In terms of prudism/provocative attire, a short skirt is just something that a lot of people see anyways. If a boy doesn't see it at school he's gonna see it walking down the street or on TV. There's no avoiding it. Besides, it's not like boys are feral beasts who are gonna assualt someone if they happen to be wearing something above the knee. Have a little more faith in society, people.

[Galloism]

They imply objectivity to the distinction, they should have to define it.

Though frankly, as far as personal experience goes I've nothing to go on other than the irrationality of those who object to dress codes anyway.

You understand that you're asking people to socialize you in the span of a forum post when that process usually takes around 18-20 years of development and supervision by one or more adults. If you have reached this stage in your development and are unable to tell when you have made someone uncomfortable and need it to be explained to you in precise detail you might just want to restrict your contact with other human beings until you can find someone to finish your development.

Otherwise, you can stop being obtuse and have an actual conversation about the subject. It's kind of up to you.

This post makes me really uncomfortable, tbh, with the acute dismissal of those who have a lifelong struggle understanding human interactions, particularly those suffering some kind of autism, aspergers, etc.

Just telling them to restrict contact with other human beings because they might make someone uncomfortable by struggling with social cues is a horrific solution to the very minor problem of someone being uncomfortable sometimes.

Cool, random champion of things. Wasn't really getting a 'I have a cognitive difficulty in reading peoples emotions and I would appreciate some guidance' vibe but instead, "I should be able to leer at women and unless you can give me an arbitrary definition that I will then ridicule for its specificity" bit that is also common. But if you want to co-opt the difficulties that aspergers and other people on the spectrum face in order to form a disingenuous defense of people trying to excuse shitty behavior, you do you.

No, I'm merely remarking that you don't seem to have sufficient development to be able to tell when you're making people uncomfortable with your statements, and need it explained to you by me in this thread right now.

Perhaps you should restrict your contact with other human beings until you can find someone to finish your development.

Or, you can stop being obtuse and consider differing groups and experiences before making broad sweeping statements about hiding those who have trouble with social cues from society so no one suffers the ultimate indignity of being uncomfortable.