Provocative attire and defenses thereof

[Inkopolitia]

Free expression is better.

This.

This²

[Ifreann]

How women dress has nothing to do with me and therefore does not require my input.

The only good take.

[Inkopolitia]

How women dress has nothing to do with me and therefore does not require my input.

The only good take.

Hey, this guy is right, for once!

[Nazis in Space]

So, I'm wearing a shirt with a middle finger print on it.

Some random dude comes up to me on the street, yells at me, pushes me, and eventually decides to beat me up until I require hospitalisation.

How many people would step forward and say 'Well, he was dressing provocatively, clearly he was just asking for it.'?

Yeah, I haven't heard of that kind of thing before, either.

So I'm kind of at a loss as for why the precise same scenario, just involving a short skirt instead of the middle finger shirt, and unwanted penis-in-vagina action instead of hospitalisation (though, one can certainly combine those two) does frequently involve people stepping forward and saying 'Well, she was dressing provocatively, clearly she was just asking for it'.

[Makdon]

However, I think the best case for the idea that it's a problem is the irrationality of those who say otherwise. They conflate all criticism of it with "rape culture," despite dress codes at public services like schools being done on behalf of the same voters who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder. They assume those who enforce what they signed up to enforce are only "projecting" their own supposed nature onto others, and not, you know, acknowledging that people who made it that far in university are not necessarily reflective of everybody else. They complain about assuming "without evidence" that males are horndogs who'll be distracted easily, (proven by the irrationality of those who say otherwise) but their response being to assume things about others without evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they never really objected to assumptions not based on evidence.

If you're an opponent of school dress codes, how do you justify smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile? How do you justify claiming to value evidence and then going along with such smears anyway?

Me, I think the case for dress codes to limit distraction has been vindicated.

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?

Why should women be punished for mens mistakes? There's nothing wrong with uniforms or dress codes, but it's bullshit to say we need to them to prevent women from dressing too "provocatively". You can't just say the only solution to this problems is to punish women, the victims, and then act you the other side is being crazy for saying you're wrong, just because you're a "voter who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder". Good job doing the right thing there, but not being a jerk doesn't mean you get blame women. Also, how in the world does disagreeing with what you said constitute "smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile"?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

For a private institution, I have no problem with the concept. You agree to go there, you agree to the rules they set; don't like them, you can always leave.

For a public school, however, as long as the existing laws against public nudity are not being violated, students should be allowed to express themselves in whatever clothing choices they make. Like everything else in life, of course, choices have consequences. If you chooses to dress provocatively, do not complain that people are looking, just like if you wear a button down shirt with a pocket protector, you will be called a nerd.

"Telling boys who look at women provocatively to not be creeps and to have a competent system that punishes creeps harshly? Pfft, no! I'll just tell women how to live their lives and call it a day!"

Why complain that someone looks at what you are showing off?

[Bienenhalde]

Why can't people just quit complaining and follow the rules? Is it really that hard?

[Kernen]

Why can't people just quit complaining and follow the rules? Is it really that hard?

Clearly because the rules contain a more harmful implication than any benefit the dress code offers.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

However, I think the best case for the idea that it's a problem is the irrationality of those who say otherwise. They conflate all criticism of it with "rape culture," despite dress codes at public services like schools being done on behalf of the same voters who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder. They assume those who enforce what they signed up to enforce are only "projecting" their own supposed nature onto others, and not, you know, acknowledging that people who made it that far in university are not necessarily reflective of everybody else. They complain about assuming "without evidence" that males are horndogs who'll be distracted easily, (proven by the irrationality of those who say otherwise) but their response being to assume things about others without evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they never really objected to assumptions not based on evidence.

If you're an opponent of school dress codes, how do you justify smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile? How do you justify claiming to value evidence and then going along with such smears anyway?

Me, I think the case for dress codes to limit distraction has been vindicated.

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?

Why should women be punished for mens mistakes? There's nothing wrong with uniforms or dress codes, but it's bullshit to say we need to them to prevent women from dressing too "provocatively". You can't just say the only solution to this problems is to punish women, the victims, and then act you the other side is being crazy for saying you're wrong, just because you're a "voter who made sentencing for it generally second only to that for murder". Good job doing the right thing there, but not being a jerk doesn't mean you get blame women. Also, how in the world does disagreeing with what you said constitute "smearing every male who ever bothered to teach as a pedophile"?

There was a kerfluffe a few years back somewhere in Canada where a popular narrative spread among opponents of dress codes that men who enforced them must've been pedophiles.

You know how many opponents of dress codes distanced themselves from this talk? 0.

EDIT: Way to miss the point of the "voters" thing. Both the legal system and the education system are catering to the will of the voters, which means if voters push both dress codes and tough sentences for rape, it means dress codes and tough sentences for rape come from the same minds, not opposite minds.

[Inkopolitia]

"Telling boys who look at women provocatively to not be creeps and to have a competent system that punishes creeps harshly? Pfft, no! I'll just tell women how to live their lives and call it a day!"

Why complain that someone looks at what you are showing off?

Wow! Maybe it's because I want to feel confident in who I am and I do not want creeps looking at me not as a human but instead as a sack of walking meat?!?!?!? I don't know!

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So, I'm wearing a shirt with a middle finger print on it.

Some random dude comes up to me on the street, yells at me, pushes me, and eventually decides to beat me up until I require hospitalisation.

How many people would step forward and say 'Well, he was dressing provocatively, clearly he was just asking for it.'?

Yeah, I haven't heard of that kind of thing before, either.

So I'm kind of at a loss as for why the precise same scenario, just involving a short skirt instead of the middle finger shirt, and unwanted penis-in-vagina action instead of hospitalisation (though, one can certainly combine those two) does frequently involve people stepping forward and saying 'Well, she was dressing provocatively, clearly she was just asking for it'.

You mean like how wearing hate speech in public is seen as asking to be attacked? Sure, it's only a movie, because most people know better than to do this in real life with cameras rolling, but the reaction to this movie shows they apply this idea elsewhere.

If anything, it's more often refuted when said in the context of sexual violence in particular. What more could people do? Stop it from being said in the first place?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Why complain that someone looks at what you are showing off?

Wow! Maybe it's because I want to feel confident in who I am and I do not want creeps looking at me not as a human but instead as a sack of walking meat?!?!?!? I don't know!

Who gets to say what constitutes "as a human" and what constitutes "as a sack of walking meat"?

[Inkopolitia]

Wow! Maybe it's because I want to feel confident in who I am and I do not want creeps looking at me not as a human but instead as a sack of walking meat?!?!?!? I don't know!

Who gets to say what constitutes "as a human" and what constitutes "as a sack of walking meat"?

Basic decency. Your argument of "B-But according to who?!" Is really pretentious. Do you always behave like this?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Who gets to say what constitutes "as a human" and what constitutes "as a sack of walking meat"?

Basic decency. Your argument of "B-But according to who?!" Is really pretentious. Do you always behave like this?

When dealing with people who invoke platitudes that have no real definition? Absolutely.

[Inkopolitia]

Basic decency. Your argument of "B-But according to who?!" Is really pretentious. Do you always behave like this?

When dealing with people who invoke platitudes that have no real definition? Absolutely.

It's really ludicrous that someone expects basic decency and people pull out the very douche-baggy behavior of "YOU EXPECT BASIC DECENCY AND TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING?! Well, according to my definition, you don't constitute MY definition of decency, so therefore I can be a creep as much as I want!"

[Cannot think of a name]

Basic decency. Your argument of "B-But according to who?!" Is really pretentious. Do you always behave like this?

When dealing with people who invoke platitudes that have no real definition? Absolutely.

What are you looking for, exactly? A timer for how long you look, one second shy and you're cool, one second longer and you're a creep? A list of approved comments you can make? How much permission are you seeking to impose yourself on someone else?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

t's really ludicrous that someone expects basic decency and people pull out the very douche-baggy behavior of "YOU EXPECT BASIC DECENCY AND TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING?! Well, according to my definition, you don't constitute MY definition of decency, so therefore I can be a creep as much as I want!"

I didn't say I could be a creep. I was telling you to define the supposed distinction between looking at someone "like they were a piece of meat" and "like they were a person."

You falling back on twisting my words shows that you don't really have one.

Can't say I'm too surprised.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

When dealing with people who invoke platitudes that have no real definition? Absolutely.

What are you looking for, exactly? A timer for how long you look, one second shy and you're cool, one second longer and you're a creep? A list of approved comments you can make? How much permission are you seeking to impose yourself on someone else?

If they invoke the supposed distinction, it's up to them to define it.

[Inkopolitia]

t's really ludicrous that someone expects basic decency and people pull out the very douche-baggy behavior of "YOU EXPECT BASIC DECENCY AND TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING?! Well, according to my definition, you don't constitute MY definition of decency, so therefore I can be a creep as much as I want!"

I didn't say I could be a creep. I was telling you to define the supposed distinction between looking at someone "like they were a piece of meat" and "like they were a person."

You falling back on twisting my words shows that you don't really have one.

Can't say I'm too surprised.

I would say what constitutes a "piece of meat" but i'd get banned for violating PG-13. You know what a human is. After all, you're at least 13 or older, right?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I didn't say I could be a creep. I was telling you to define the supposed distinction between looking at someone "like they were a piece of meat" and "like they were a person."

You falling back on twisting my words shows that you don't really have one.

Can't say I'm too surprised.

I would say what constitutes a "piece of meat" but i'd get banned for violating PG-13. You know what a human is. After all, you're at least 13 or older, right?

Duh. And if I used the Internet at a younger age, it'd be my own fault anyway.

But we all have lusts, with the possible exception of the completely asexual. There will always be similarities to, and differences from, how we look at "pieces of meat." You have yet to define what sort of "look" one gives either.

Again, I'm not surprised. No one ever did before, either.

[Cannot think of a name]

What are you looking for, exactly? A timer for how long you look, one second shy and you're cool, one second longer and you're a creep? A list of approved comments you can make? How much permission are you seeking to impose yourself on someone else?

If they invoke the supposed distinction, it's up to them to define it.

So you don't think there is a distinction?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If they invoke the supposed distinction, it's up to them to define it.

So you don't think there is a distinction?

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!"

[Inkopolitia]

I would say what constitutes a "piece of meat" but i'd get banned for violating PG-13. You know what a human is. After all, you're at least 13 or older, right?

Duh. And if I used the Internet at a younger age, it'd be my own fault anyway.

But we all have lusts, with the possible exception of the completely asexual. There will always be similarities to, and differences from, how we look at "pieces of meat." You have yet to define what sort of "look" one gives either.

Again, I'm not surprised. No one ever did before, either.

Let me define "look" with a little sotry because you don't have the self-awareness to understand what i'm talking about in YOUR OWN THREAD that YOU made that TALKS ABOUT THIS TOPIC:

Let's suppose you're someone named johnny.

And there's a girl named Vanessa.

You and Vanessa study each other in the same school, and casually you both go to buy things like groceries or candy. Not together, you both just happen to live relatively near a grocery store.

One saturday, you go to a grocery store and see Vanessa. She's with clothing that she considers casual clothing.

Now, at this point, you must know that Vanessa is HER OWN PERSON and not just an extension of you. She's not a property, either.

But you, little Johnny, because you don't have morals, look at her, directly at her parts that you should NOT look at, because, again, she's neither an extension of you or a property.

Vanessa, understandably, gets upset, and tells the store manager. The store manager reviews camera footage, and after 5 minutes, you're told to get out of the store.

You, little johnny, can't say "But my definition of inmorality doesn't include looking at the parts of girls!" Of course your argument is invalid, little Johnny! Why? Well, i'm glad you asked! Your argument is invalid because you're trying to use the concept of "morality" to your favor to try and justify an arguably despicable thing to do such as the way you looked at Vanessa 5 minutes ago.

Do you want me to explain it with drawings?

[Cannot think of a name]

So you don't think there is a distinction?

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?

[Necroghastia]

Why can't people just quit complaining and follow the rules? Is it really that hard?

Not if those rules have no good reasoning behind them.