What amazes me in this supposedly post-feminist era, is that a lot of young women consider that the sexual freedom they suppose comes from certain behaviour and dress code is actually empowering them. It comes from wanting to be the same as men, but it will never happen. Women will always be labelled by both men and other women. Sadly, it is a fact of life.

Barbera, you had me liking the balance of the the article until I came to "run by men letting their fantasies rip". Where did that come from?

You make a good point about kids looking up to their slightly older peers for an idea on what it means to be adult. Now follow the chain and a lot of the same messages seem to be spread across magazines aimed at females and from what I've seen most of the editors of those are female.

Your simple summation of who is driving this stuff appears to choose to ignore the roles of the many women involved in the publishing, advertising and entertainment industries.

I suspect that it's much more about wanting to appear to be "out there" and pushing boundaries by magazines trying to keep circulation numbers up than it's about men with fantasies of young girls.

It's so easy to blame men for everything but you have to ignore the efforts of a lot of women to do so in this case.

You raise some good points which are worthy of discussion but you need to think a bit more carefully about the mantra that it's all mens fault.

R0bert

I am very sorry that you were a victim of rape and I'm also sorry that you couldn't have satisfying sex for a couple of decades, however, in the majority of cases, rape is NOT about how a person is dressed! It's about power. Victims are 'chosen' for many, many reasons such as opportunity and vulnerability; dress/clothing is often way, way down the list.

Yes, there are issues here worthy of discussion such as the influence of music videos with women in provocative dress but you are confusing the issue with why women are raped with how they are seen in society.

A civilised society is not democratic until ALL women are equal in law.

I feel this article has tried to cover too many angles in the one topic.

Sexualising of children in advertising is a concern and something that should be addressed.

Presuming that women dress a certain way, because they are being hoodwinked into it, is another matter entirely and I don't feel that a blanket comment can be made. Up until a certain age, women may be considered fashion victims...but at what age is a woman permitted to be open about her sexuality, either in the way she dresses, talks, paints, writes...without someone presuming that a partriachal society has bludgeoned her into it. While men possess more testosterone, I feel that we possess similarly wired buttons in regard to exhibitionism, eroticism, fetishism etc, and it's a very individual thing. It cannot be pigeonholed into male/female, bare/demure...you cannot judge a book by it's cover (or lack thereof)

The way a person dresses, in this day and age, doesn't really have a bearing on their ideals and beliefs. In some ways, the naked form is less sexual than the artfully clad form - so degrees of undress are entirely subjective as a means of litmus-testing sexuality.

Dressing as 'sexually available' again is a label that presumes way too much. The issue is that people should get a grip - grow up - be less inclined to judge. Men are, and will always be responsible for their own actions. Your article focused on the education of how women see themselves...well how bout educating men on how to see women...and the best way to do that if for women to be themselves...and fight for their rights to do just that.

Society needs to grow up - and journalists need to see bigger pictures. Covering up WILL NOT PREVENT RAPE. Rapists are violent criminals...you have perpetuated the myth that bare flesh is the ultimate motivation. This does not explain why old women are raped, why babies are raped, young boys are raped. Rape is a crime of a sick mind...focus on the criminals...not the victims.

Interesting debate,What came first the chicken or the egg.
A girl who dresses inappropriately may be looking to get the attention of one or a number of males.The problem for the young male is it him.
Some mothers do hav'em,may be more to the point.
Most mothers will protect their young by advising their daughters, what is appropiate or not.
The mufti's message to his congregation was simply "don't let your daughters go out like meat,roasting in the sun."
Good advice to parents.Especially with skin cancer reaching epedemic
poportions and slip slop slap is not as good as being fully robed.

am very sorry u were
a victim of rape
but i dont think
its right to band girls
from wearing sexy chlothes
most of them are aware of the risk
but they dont really care
they dont want to be seen
as plain
they want to be seen as a women
as someone who is experienced
but u are right in most pionts
but bannin them
they'll totally hate
the person who banned them
and they'll get out of controll
there gonna wanna be disobedient and rude
and it wont make much difference
cuz most parents would protest 2
they want there duaghter to
experience life
they want them to dress how they
want
but i think explainin the risk to them

would help them
but bannin them
would only make things
worse

Pity Barbara did not read the bible years earlier. She might have come to many of the same conclusions a long time ago

As if the Bible has anything relevant to say ! Paul is the only writer who mentions women's attire (always keen to lay down rules for women)and he only advises to dress modestly. Let's leave utterly outdated religious texts out of this debate for once. I agree with Barbara; I also agree that dressing decently won't stop rape, which is an expression of power. However, I'm no prude but on aesthetic grounds alone I do not like to be confronted by half-bared bosoms, "muffin tops" hanging over low-cut trousers, young girls dressed as sexy sirens and old mutton dressed as lamb. On moral grounds, it seems sad to me that women are so desperately eager to identify themselves as sex objects first and foremost. You would think that women have nothing else going for them as human beings. A bit of an insult to women in general.

The house of religion in which this man speaks, have a religious dress code that covers all parts of the body, showing only the face and hands.

They believe that the slightest show of the legs, arms and feet are not to be seen outside their home.

The dress was designed by religious leaders, for women to know their place outside the home.

I fail to see the relevance of conservative dress versus this type of religious fashion.

Let us ask the question of what an infadel is?

Curious to see 'feminist' ideas supporting conservative christian notions of modesty - and both of them congruent with the mad mufti in his attribution of unrestrained lust in men to the clothing choices of women!

Speaking of which - "old mutton dressed as lamb". Nothing to do with cat's meat, I presume?

A question: what is the research the proves that rape is about power not sex. By research I mean data, not a post-modernist exposition.

Is it that society simply doesn't want to admit that sex can be forced for the sake of sex? I would have thought that there are many ways to express (inflict) power; most of which carry lesser penalties and would probably be more easy to execute.

The recent OLO article on porn and rape raised a similar question.

An interesting question that I have been pondering too. Maybe rape is violence that manifests itself as sex, or is it sex that manifests itself as violence?

I too have been wondering exactly what Peterjh and Laine have been asking.

It seems that we almost have what I would describe as a mental illness type attitude to sex.

On onehand sex is bad then on the other sex is good.

I saw in one of the Dear Mable type abvice column actually suggesting to a woman that what she wears to attract men. DUH! I was actually convinced that women dressed the way they what want to because they felt comfortable.(actually I didn't beleive it, but pretended I did)

So when it comes down to it human behaviour is very complex and much of it covert rather than being open and honest

Being a survivor of rape, and having a good friend who survived incest and peodiphilia, I feel qualified to make a comment here. I am a man who was raped by a woman, my friend is a woman who as a child was repeatedly raped by her grandfather, I have also been molested as a naive teenager by a male peodaphile.

These people [peodaphiles] are not sick, they are pure evil, they ruin an individuals life, the harmony of that family for life. Rape is a power trip, forced on those who these monsters feel are vunerable. Most, not all survivors have later onset of mental illness, such as myself, I don't believe in the death penalty, however these monsters bring me close to approval if it applied strictly to them and mass murderers.

There is no excuse for rape, no reason for rape, however listening to the mufti last night on 60 Minutes I can see how a sensationalist media can interperate his words and turn them into bombs. When I grew up Italians were arriving, and had different ways of expression which took tolerance and understanding to understand exactly what they meant. I am RC and don't subscribe to Islam, neither do I gamble, but don't mind if others do, it's a free country, or should be, for all.

My church is trying to break down the barriers between ourselves and other religions, I wish the broader Australian community would do likewise.

Sex and Love are not always together is very true. It is worth remembering that two dogs under a street light can have sex, but only two people who love each other can "make love" or for the technical term tantric sex.

I have experience both and I know which I'd rather have, unless there is a committment, it's just another bodily function.

I exceeded the word limit so I put it all here: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-display-im-tired-of-silly-articles.html

Basically, it's weak to assume men are just slaves to their desires, and shame on the religious "leaders" who have failed to see that. To pander to this weakness does nobody any good. If men's weaknesses are just taken as given, it won't matter what women wear.

Every time this issue is raised it provokes a lot of response and far less animosity than we see on many other topics here. We might not have like what the mufti said, but his statements did give us an opportunity to air our thoughts on something that's obviously important to a lot of people.

Why then, have we not had this debate on the scale we're currently debating global warming?

Kangy..... the comments in the Bible about modesty are simple plain as the nose on your face common sense mate. They are not even 'commdandments' and especially not 'LAWS'...

But there is something quite strong, it is indeed a 'command' from God and here it is

1/ (SECRET MENS BUSINESS)

"this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity, that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honour , not in the passion of lust like heathens who do not know God" (1 Th 4:3-5). (actually, this applies to both genders)

2/ (SECRET WOMENS BUSINESS) err C.J...its from Peter not Paul. Please don't rob Peter to pay Paul.)

1 Peter 1
3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.

All this is saying in my view is... don't over apply the lippy.....
You don't need to FAKE beauty or try to emphasize your attraction machinery unduely. I think a man is entitled to know your basic shape, and look, but deep down, (if he is a real man with a sense of love and responsibility) a man wants a reliable, trustworthy, faithful and decent women. He really does WANT a 'nice' girl rather than a naughty one.

The problem comes, when his testosterone is raging, and his brain is caught by the message "I'm naughty" by the clothes and makeup, and he looks for the short term gratification (lawful) of a one night stand.

3/ (Open secret Gods Business)
Is it not far better that as a community, we all seek to promote values of inner worth rather than the shallow external ? We will still be attracted to those we like, but in a more enduring way.

Boaz-David, yes the Bible is fairly straightforward about modesty, but it actually puts the responsibility on men to behave in ways that please god.

When David saw Bathsheba and had her husband killed to cover up his sin, God held David responsible, not the woman for bathing in public.

A girl / woman should be able to wear what she wants to wear, unfortunately we do not live in a perfect society. There is men's behaviour which is at best distasteful, and at worst criminal.

However there is also behaviour that can be considered foolish and reckless.

If I was to walk down the backstreets of Kings Cross or St Kilda openly counting a large wad of bank notes, and I got robbed, it is the person who steals who is at fault, but I am pretty damned stupid to put that sort of temptation out there in public.

If I advertise an expensive car for private sale, and then let someone take it for a test drive without going with them, and they don't come back, then they are the criminal, but once again I have been stupid and foolish.

One thing often forgotten in this sort of discussion about women's clothes is that by and large women don't dress up to impress men. They dress up to compare themselves with other women. When you see a sexily dressed woman walk by take a look around at the watchers: the guys will take a look and look away. It is the women who follow her with their eyes until she is out of sight.

Perhaps women should look inwardly to see why they dress the way that they do: many, if not most, do not want to provoke men, they actually want to provoke other woman to reactions of either shock, admiration or jealousy.

The thing that I wonder about with this is how come whenever women have been covered over in history
it has gone hand in glove with the oppression of women.

Why is that?

I think religion struggles to cope with the power of attraction that women can have on men.

Some feminist suggest neutering us blokes and regardless of our veneer of civilization, we are still basically subjected the choices of genetic selection made by our ancestors.

We like to think because we are human that we are not driven by our base animal desires, yet it obvious that some posters are driven by a basic emotion like anger. Animals will attack to protect the young, their food etc. The males of some species will fight each other in order to have a chance at mating.

For example if an attractive woman walked into a pub and said she'd sleep with the winner, there would be a number of blokes who would be prepared to fight each other just for the chance of mating with her.

Despite the best efforts of sexologists we still struggle with human sexuality.

Esther Vilar in her book The Manipulated Man wrote "women train and condition men with the occasional use of their vaginas."

Im male and yes we do like looking at the female body ,its male nature and yes women do like looking at the male body thats female nature , some men have no respect for women I think because they fear them they fear there neediness of female company ,this fear gets twisted into hate ..so they feel the need to degrade women .

Women and Men are not so much different really , we both want love and companionship and yes sometimes we want sex ..thats just human nature it isnt evil at all

I've had a look at Barbara's background:

http://www.abc.net.au/farnorth/stories/s1677469.htm

Yes, she's certainly gone through some harrowing experiences and that can explain some of her attitudes. But her extraordinary life is far from typical, in all sorts of ways.

We're all, at least to some extent, products of what we've experienced/been taught/found to work for us, etc. This is something about me.

When I was 16, my mother told me that the best way to meet girls was to learn dancing. How true! Because I could dance, I didn't need Dutch courage to approach a girl, so, unlike most of my mates, I didn't get in the habit of going for a drink or three first. So I was better able to control my thoughts and actions

My mother also told me that some families were only concerned about the daughters not getting pregnant, but it was just as important to her that I didn't get a girl pregnant. In other words, I was taught respect.

Going dancing, I tended to meet girls who kept themselves slim, healthy and active. And they generally liked to dress attractively, perhaps sometimes cheekily or sexily. I liked that, but didn't unfairly judge them, or try to take advantage of a situation. Nothing special about that, I'd say just normal.

My first wife [a dancer] looked like a prettier version of Italian film actress Pier Angeli. We weren't suited and eventually divorced, but what do young people often think when they meet someone? "Wow, I like the look of THAT one!" We wouldn't get a dog or buy a car just on that basis, would we? Oh, the joys of youth!

My second wife had won a number of beauty contests, long before we met. Her father encouraged her to enter, he was very proud of her, but I'm told used to say that she'd never be as beautiful as her mother. Nice sentiments!

Her first fiance forbade her to enter any more.

cont

Although he sounded to me like quite a nice guy in many respects, she had the sense to get rid of him. Then she married a man who was very jealous and blamed her for being attractive. Maybe a like-mind to Hilali!

When we went out together, she could dress like one of the glamourous "celebrities" from the social pages, but I wasn't jealous, I was very proud to be with her. We had a beautiful, loving relationship for many "dancing years", until I sadly lost her a few years ago.

My ladyfriend is also an accomplished dancer and I've been asked if she has been a model. I'm sometimes accused of being shallow when I talk like this, but these three main ladies in my life have also been unusually intelligent, artistic and talented, so I hope that makes it OK. LOL.

I live close to a legal clothes-optional beach. The local Christian extremists sometimes whinge about it, but the council and police say it's quiet and trouble free. And they'd know better than the "great brainwashed", wouldn't they?

It's hot here today and I've been out to the shops. Plenty of lightly dressed girls in our beachside area, but no big deal to normal men. And we can't run a society constantly trying to accomodate the social misfits, can we? To me, a person who can't sensibly handle a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one. Similarly I would suggest that a serial rapist or paedophile shouldn't be allowed to own testicles.

Like some other posters, I regard rape as a sex crime. After all, presumably the man is getting off on having an orgasm, isn't he? And, if he can't control his weapon, then he should be disarmed.

In Perth's yesterday Sunday Times, Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey is aping Hilali's line [although he says he isn't]. Also criticising condoms. Promoting chastity doesn't work to stop unwanted pregnancies and abortions. But sensible, non-judgemental sex education and availability of contraception does work:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

Another factor isn't so much what a woman wears, but the context in which she wears it.

Rex mentioned a 'clothes optional' beach. At such a beach, or at any beach, a woman wearing little or nothing is usual, and can barely expect to attract attention. The recent debates about privacy in a public place also can be applied here.

With one exception: except under very specific circumstances, it is illegal to take, or have in your possession, pictures or videos of a girl (or a boy for that matter) under 16 without clothes or in what could be described as 'erotic' situation, but can also be described as pornographic poses or situations.

There is an anomaly here in the law: a girl under 16 can legally go topless on many beaches (every beach in Sydney at least). So she can consent to displaying her breasts, and on clothes optional beaches the rest of herself as well, but she cannot consent to having her photograph taken in the same state of undress, as such a photo is in itself against the law. I am not arguing here that child porn should be allowed: I am simply pointing out an anomaly under the law.

So the law attempts to protect against child pornography, but does not present children from exposing themselves. Perhaps children under 16 should not be permitted to expose themselves on beaches or anywhere else?

Getting back to context: a girl wearing a Lycra outfit with a gym bag over her shoulder in a suburban shopping centre is simply showing that she is going to the gym. The same attire, at 2.00am in Kings Cross, St Kilda or on Canterbury Road is saying something very different.

And rape isn't always about power: as an example, a man who takes sexual advantage over a drunk girl at a party is as guilty of rape as someone who uses a knife to threaten. However one can be seen as a sexual encounter without informed consent, the other can be seen in the context of sex and power, obviously without consent.

If you walk about naked in public you'll get arrested. And some would say that's just silly if a woman is involved...try doing it if you are a man.

An article made extraordinary by its courage and bravery. Thank you.

"As a feminist, I want to shout out to young girls, like an onlooker in a pantomime, watch out, you’re being had.

Agreed. The biggest con job lately is this idea that the best way to impress the opposite sex is to assert your sexuality. The "pop" dress code implies that our mainstream culture regards sexuality as the quality in a woman that men regard with most esteem. Thus women who are neither experienced nor available attract lecherous dolts who are being lead along by their testosterone rather than their heads. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for lecherous behaviour from males.

Dressing and behaving like this is distracting and even embarrassing to even the most liberal man. My Doctor said to me the other day whilst discussing my blood tests. "Ronnie there is actually some blood in your testosterone -you must be getting old."

Here is where the woman may get her power trip. She has replaced her shoulder pads with cleavage and leg. This "girlpower" is again a con because it so pretentious and depends on a power that doesn't involve the intellect, character, culture or even a proper sensuous aspect.

I am not saying that women shouldn't dress sexily and seductively during special times or walk down the beach in a brief, but gee wiz I'd sooner sit on a train with a group of real punk rockers (who would most likely agree that girlpower is more music industry a scam) than sit on a train or a workplace with tits and bums flashing all over the place.

In certain situations the advertisers have conned the girl into marketing her own gullibility and a demeaning a one dimensional model that will only attract a person of limited character. Often the girls have attributes that are very appealing but the people they attract aren’t interested in a real well-rounded woman. Girlpower and flashing is just a male way for certain women to feel secure. Having said this, it goes without saying that this is no excuse to harm people who choose to dress provocatively. No excuses.

Hamlet...well said..*context*..... and strangely enough, there are different 'boundaries' depending on context.... like beach has one set, office has another, family gathering another.

SHOCK HORROR.. we are talking about... wait.. CULTURE :)

Ronnie.. ditto on the gullability of girls and the pressure from the Music industry... we should stone the MTV producers at the outskirts of the city :)

David, re: music industry. So you do have soemthing in common with alternate old-school punk rockers. Maybe if youngsters were more individual they would give the manufacturers of godlike icons that must be followed to fit in the finger and assert their own self worth.

Barbara can I please go off topic here for a moment? David take a look at a the movie/doco "New York Dolls". It tracks the life of base guitarist Arthur Kane (Killer K)who died a while back. Take special notice of David Johannsen's tribute song to KillerK. Hymm 29 "Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." Take notice also of the the way the other band members who aren't really converts respect Killer K.

Notice also the how the ones who step outside the music industry's genres are the ones who are treated as heretics - at first. New York Dolls saved the music industry - set down the roots for alternative music. Maybe we should encourage our kids to be heretics for they are the ones who will undermine the culture of unthinking obedience to the mainstream music industry's pap.

Along with the author and greatest bulk of respondents to OLO, I share a concern about protecting minors and youth from those who would take advantage of them.

However as far as I can see the greatest dangers are neglect and poor parenting, followed by the legal drugs cigarettes and alcohol (illegal drugs cause nowhere near the amount of harm to the community).

I read some of the author’s interviews on the ABC, where this timeline was available:

“At 14 her grandmother sold her to a paedophile barrister
At 16 she was in a psychiatric hospital
At 18 she escaped Cambodia as it fell to the Khmer Rouge
At 19 she was a prostitute in Japan
At 21 she received death threats and caused national headlines
At 23 she becomes a mother
At 27 a classical pianist
At 30 a journalist
At 40 she becomes a property millionaire and finally confronts the man who almost destroyed her. And wins.”
Excerpt from http://www.abc.net.au/farnorth/stories/s1677469.htm

This timeline (first 13 years?) leads me to conclude that the primary cause of her suffering as a child and later as an adult was neglect by her mother and grandmother.

This does not diminish the disgraceful behaviour of the barrister, but it underlines the fact that although child molestation is topical, child neglect is usually implicated as the root cause of the suffering and death of children. However child neglect does not interest the media.

With the greatest respect to OLO authors, the ‘sexy’ feminist subjects such as rape or DV, though awful, are overexposed, while thousands of children (and old people) suffer silently from neglect. Child neglect is of endemic proportions.

It was right to allocate resources to the monitoring of child sex offenders but in a way that problem is just one aspect (symptom?) of the wider problem of child neglect.

It is time we dealt with children's and family problems holistically.

Corporations have figured out the obvious, Sex is a guaranteed pathway to increased sales. In men this testosterone fuelled urge is so overpowering that it brings down governments, destroys successful relationships and is shamelessly exploited by all with something to sell. Women are faced with the difficult prospect of finding a suitable lifelong partner and thus the flipside, sexual allurement becomes another perfect pitch on which to sell unneeded wares.

The Muslim male dominated faith have recognised the potentially destructive nature of sexual desire and allurement thus the Burka has become their crude method of sidestepping the issue. Unfortunately the ‘West’ wont play their game and the progressive Muslims have yet to develop an alternate solution. They at least recognise these biologically programmed urges hold them back from attaining a higher level of spiritual ‘being’. They unfortunately have hold of the wrong end of the stick, lets hope they find a more palatable solution soon!

Similarly Western religions all have their doctrine for dealing with the same problem. Lifelong marriage vows, threats of divine judgement, sexual segregation amongst their religious officers etc. All seem to be ultimately failing, but again credit has to be given in their recognition that in order to rise spiritually ‘higher’, our human 'base level' traits have to be mastered.

The western worlds Corporate development of ‘perfect allurement’ leads us all on a circular path of mutual dis-empowerment. In being constantly surrounded with sex, these unserving traits become re-enforced into the collective psyche. With women striving to be ever more alluring, men are being encouraged to ultimately fail, with both being the ultimate losers.

In recognising that crimes of rape and violence against women are associated with a lower and more sinister aspect of our human failings, I do not believe that the Corporations of the western world hold our best interests at heart when they encourage allurement, and sexual desire within scociety. The sooner we reject this notion and ever broadening pattern of behaviour, the better for all.

Cornflower,
Your last post was impossible to argue against, you are correct of course, how do we lobby for this to be enacted?

Why must we retreat to law. We are examining human behavour which is a social issue. Neglect of children could involve sending them to sunday school. The competitive nature of this society is the base problem,I have no idea how you will change that, but some, including me, have little of it and find no problem recognising male competitive behavour while in female company. I enjoy female company and conversation how often this is spoiled by men who would strut their stuff. Clothes or lack of them is just that, often the reason to talk to them. It matters little if the conversation is not edifying.
fluff