Robert I enjoy the thought you put into your posts. I do agree with your observation about the ‘hairy chest/gold chain’ look. That was never sexy. Sex appeal isn’t about how much skin you can reveal – that’s the province of the young anyway.

For example, Gerard Depardieu; big, over weight and as sexy as hell when he wants to be. Its all about confidence and attitude. I don’t believe this is off topic as it is all about how we see ourselves. A man who is well groomed and who has put thought into his appearance is far more alluring than one who clearly doesn’t care. Women want lovers who are sensitive and caring. Someone who thinks he doesn’t have to put in any effort is about as sexy as a lump of cold porridge. I think there is a poster or two who fits that image. ;)

I take your point about whether a particular look is a requirement of employment. One could not work in the ‘adult’ entertainment industry wearing blunnies and overalls – although I think that work clothes on a healthy body is far sexier than tinsel and feathers. But then, I’m a down to earth sort of gal.

From what I understand about the article, the wearing of a mini skirt was not essential to the job. Therefore, what one chooses to wear in one’s private life is not a good enough reason to have to wear the same to work.

I remember when living in the USA I worked as a waitress and I had to wear tight T-Short and short shorts – I really didn’t like it very much, but needed the money and that was the uniform. Was the judge correct? Only if the miniskirt was a requirement for the job.

What we choose to wear in our private lives is our business and should not be used to judge us. Besides its fun. Who needs to be serious, ernest & worthy all the time? Well, I could name a poster or two - but that would be shallow. ;)

Ringtail, the only place I see private dress standards being relevant to the workplace is where an attempt is made to claim an exemption from the rules based on beliefs/values.

That would be someone who refused to wear a standard uniform at work/school etc because of religious beliefs and yet dressed outside work in a manner which was inconsistant with the claim's used to justify the work issue. Seems kind of unlikely. Even in that context there is a difference between what someone may choose to wear amongst friends and what they might choose to wear in a public place.

Thanks for your interesting input into this and other discussions. Although we may disagree from time to time you generally put your views in a way that helps my understanding of where you are coming from. That is one of the key aspects of forum's such as this for me.

Boaz_David, I think that a reading of Ringtails other posts does not convey a value system that puts the emphasis on "eye-candy". Physical beauty is one aspect of human beings which can easily be appreciated. It does not mean that a person is only valued for that aspect of their whole but it is a real part of the human makeup. Whilst shallow relationships based only on how someone looks (or the size of their bank balance) are very unhealthy, enjoying beauty is not. Unhealthy attitudes to the human body are in my view a significant factor in a lot of social issues society faces, maybe when we get past the idea that there is something bad about the body or appreciating it then we can move on to a healthier society.

RObert,
I think that there have been many posts saying that “if you’ve got it - flaunt it, because it is fun”. However this depends on what “it” is. Our society has a definition of what beauty is, and more often than not, that definition has come from advertising and from the media. It is not a natural definition.

Having been on many boats etc, I have seen many people in various states of dress or undress, and more often than not, the people with the most beautiful bodies (by the media’s definition of beautiful) were usually the most useless. When it came to actually doing something like sailing the boat, it was best to put the “beautiful” people in the cabin and kept out of the way.

It has to be remembered that the majority of charges of sexual assault, sexual harassment etc are on males. This is not necessarily because the males are at fault, but because how the system currently operates. The idea is that the woman can do whatever she wants, and if something goes wrong, the male is given the blame somehow or other.

Therefore the male should ignore any woman that is flaunting herself. She is attempting emotional manipulation, and probably useless at most things anyway (except flaunting herself). If the male ignores her, he is less likely to be charged or accused of something also.

The waitress probably has a right to complain about having to wear short dresses at work, but that workplace would be extremely rare. It would be the exception and not the norm. The author runs a feminist web-site, and feminists will routinely pick on the exceptions and try and make it appear as though it is the norm. It is their tools of trade.

Timkins, timkins, timkins, you answer my post about a woman intentionally flaunting herself. Non Non, a bikini or a one piece? I'll have more skin cancers being an ex beach bunny than lovers approaching me on the beach. (Can't believe i used to waste my time that way!) We really just wanted the perfect tan, not the man. And if it got your eyes off the swell, well! Swell! A good day at the beach, nothing deeper than that, unless of course, you got dumped! This is so off the beaten track of the article!

Timkins, I'm largely in agreement with your comments from your last post. You might note the point Ringtail made about confidence and style/care, neither are about the media definition of beauty.

If there is a difference in usefulness between the "beautiful people" and the not so well endowed it is probably a spin off of being spoilt through out life. I've also met some very useless people who don't have good looks as an excuse and some good looking ones who work well.

I don't know the background of the author, the terminology certainly sounded feminist but so what? I am in agreement with the feminist agenda's which are about people being treated as people. I'm also strongly opposed to those agenda's which seek to divide us (in my view an misuse of feminism to persue other goals).

If skimpy attire is not specifically relevant to the job then demanding it in the workplace is inappropriate regardless of how the person chooses to dress elsewhere.

In terms of people to avoid for relationships I'm more concerned about dress which indicates big insecurities. I don't think I can define that clearly but the level of cover up does not have to be a factor - I'd probably be nervous about some showing significant body phobia's as well as very revealing in an inappropriate setting.

I'm not to aware of anybody dressing specifically to manipulate me especially when I am meeting new people. Again if that was happening there are probably some other behavior's which might concern me more. I like balance, dress up for dress up times and down and scruffy in the garden or other places it suits.

Well said Robert! Now just promise us you'll never climb into a safari suit no matter how tempted. I like your analogy about dressing up and down for the occasion, not the person.