In an age when men are being fired up more and more by pornography should women think more carefully about what they wear?
The Shiek surely thinks so when he referred to Australian women as being like "uncovered meat".
A male christian friend of mine also says he has trouble in shopping centres with all of the boosums hanging out and with dresses half way up the backside.
Slinky gym gear likewise seems to have the potential to encourage disrespectful thoughts in many men and dare I say it, once again, probably encourages the sex criminal.
Do you think designers could be more discrete in what they design? Are some adding to the crime rate by establishing a vamp thinking in young girls?
Should the average woman think twice before putting on enticing clothing?
Even for her own safety?
Surely we dont need any more sex encouragements in society.

Dear Gibo,

Visual excitation is often involved in normal sexual activity, so a natural question is whether provocation via attire is one of many factors in rape and molestation.

A recent study was done in the US which invited expert opinions by mail from 1,769 randomly selected US psychiatrists. Of these 581 (33%) from 50 states replied via completed questionnaires. A highly significant majority of both sexes concluded that what a young female wears may affect her risk.

An important variable is whether the attire invites direct sex attention.

Another majority conclusion stated that provocation by revealing attire may result in resentment by some males, who perceive it as uncaring teasing by females.

Therefore parental awareness of these insights might reduce the risk for young females.

Maybe women could wear what they like and men could wear blindfolds?

I agree Foxy about revealing attire creating resentment.
I remember as a young man, before I got married and before my born again christian years, feeling just that at times because of the clothing girls wore.
A sort of a left out kind of feeling.
I guess that can be normal though for young guys, lonely and wanting a life companion but not finding one at that stage.
Some girls do tease, though I know its not all by any means.
The slinky gym gear gives me problems and I frequently have to avert my eyes these days (a part of the christian walk) and I wonder "why not just change at the gym".
It would be less provocative for the those men who give in to the lust factor.
Theres some bad boys out there today because of the porn. The Lord protect the women of this age.

My gripe is with shop owners who leave their cash registers in plain view, thus encouraging armed robbers, and the home owners who allow any passing stranger to see into their living room and be moved to burgle the house out of jealousy over their wonderful appliances.

Such arguments are nonsensical, but I've written before that for single men, the frustration of seeing beautiful but unattainable women in public can border on physical pain. But to use that as a justification for burqa-ising women is just flat-out primitive. What else? Should rich, handsome men be required to dress like paupers and grow terrible beards to avoid encouraging gold-digging trophy wives?

Our DNA screams at us to mate with as many healthy females as possible, but dictating how women dress is simply not on in a civilised society. Control yourselves, gentlemen.

Anyone else ever notice how fundamentalists, regardless of which religion, seem to have similar hangups and yet they're all at each other's throats?

So... Gibo. You're saying Sheik Hilaly was on to something with his 'uncovered meat' comments then? Or will you only accept that same rhetoric, when it comes from proper Christian spokespeople?

They could carry canes so they don't bump in to things.

Yeah- but without the canes they could accidentally bump into the boosums.

Dear Vanilla & Romany,

What about Stainless Steel Chastity Belts for men?

The answer is fairly simple. If women want to be seen as sex objects they will and do dress accordingly. A women dressing modestly might not win the fashion stakes but they will more than likely win respect.

Is that a cane in my pocket or have I been unwittingly exposed to some boosums while shopping?

Dear runner,

I think it depends on the woman - and the message she sends out, i.e. the body language.

You can cover up Catherine Zeta - Jones, or Sharon Stone, or Glenn Close, or Helen Mirren or even Pamela Anderson, - and they will still exude - a certain 'something.'

On the other hand, Nicole Kidman could be 'buck naked,' and - zilch, zipo, nothing!

You either have 'it' or you don't.

CJ, you must have one of those extendable canes that elongates when you need to put it into action.

It's ironic because it was probably the proliferation of boosums that sent you blind in the first place.

The Sheik doesnt want change lest it threaten traditional. The traditions of the men have always dominated the women.
Women must do what men want.
Its all powerplay through fear and the fear is in the men in not offending the allah being. Plus they want their own way (sexual power).
Its all spirit manipulation of men and women. And the spirits are not good ones.
God is love and does not support manipulation of women by men. In fact any manipulation is witchcraft.
The Word says that "there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus"...Galatians 3:28. The men are to love and care for the women and treat them as equals.
My concern is that modern trendy dress doesnt attract the bad boys that seem to all over the place these days. Back to that foul porn again.
Mohammed on one occasion I believe had a woman drawn and quartered for an offence. The original foundations of Islam arent pleasant. We dont want sharia law here.

At the risk of attracting stinging witticism of the cane and boosum variety, which I must admit is very amusing, I’m going to be a wet blanket here I’m sorry and weigh in with some somewhat more ponderous comment!

I'm not concerned so much with the safety risk of women dressing vampishly, though I'm sure it exists. My concern is the way this trend tends to demean females as a whole, and, yes, I hear you groan, I know I have mentioned this once or twice before!

The more we have young girls, older women and every female in between vamping themselves up to highlight their sexual allure, the more we are all as women trapped by the pressure to conform to this role of having to look sexually appealing in order to please men. I firmly believe that we will never be on an equal footing with men while we remain chained to this subservient role.

I have no problem with women aiming to dress smartly or attractively or dressing lightly in hot weather and comfortably when exercising, but I do find it depressing that so many women seem to see the need to scream out their sexuality in such an obvious and ingratiating manner. The end result is that all women, no matter how hard they might fight it, tend to be reduced to the role of sexual object. I long for the day when we can all get out there and be judged purely for what we say and do, irrespective of how sexy or otherwise we might look. That’s the day we’ll be truly liberated.

So, while I’m not coming to this issue from the same perspective as you are, Gibo, yes, I do share your concern.

Yes I think woman should cover up more, and by that I do not mean they should have to cover up including their head. But certainly flashing large amounts of cleavage, flashing mid-drifts and flashing leg with butt in view is really not something that we would want to encourage our daughters to do so therefore one would have to accept that it isn't in females best interest.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/
Our children deserve better

"The more we have young girls, older women and every female in between vamping themselves up to highlight their sexual allure, the more we are all as women trapped by the pressure to conform to this role of having to look sexually appealing in order to please men."

And you think this is exclusive to women because? Let me tell you something. It's NOT. Men have equal 'physical' pressures in this society. Whether they are short, fat or too thin, the same issues exist and the same sexualisation in advertising and culture exists. Women in government really have to simply drop the mentality that women have exclusively these problems. They do not. Not by a long shot.

Gibo Adam and Eve remember them? they wandered about without their gear on did they not?
I never liked apples! not that I look well sometimes I do not.
Its evolution Gibo hard wired into our brain sex is every animals first want .
Some humans act like animals but you are not forced to look.
Pope what ever said how ashamed he was yesterday but what part did clothing play in those infamous acts? of most Church's too not just his one?

Steel, I don't think we've got equal pressure in that department yet (although it's growing), rather the pressures are in different area's. I don't believe the solution lies in restricting peoples choices, rather by increasing the freedom to choose. One of the great things achieved over recent years by feminism (and the debate around it) is an increasing freedom for both genders to make choices outside traditional gender roles.

As a single dad I've really noticed the shift even in the last few years of a change in attitude to men making family friendly choices in the workplace.

One of the criticism's is that some sections of feminism are considered to have emphasised career at the expense of full time parenting as a choice rather than giving support for both as options for women. I've still not worked out how much truth is in that claim but it's one that surfaces a lot.

This is one where the concerns raised by Bronwyn are best addressed not by restricting womens choices in clothing but by ensuring that they do have a choice and know it.

As for Gibo's concerns - he has based his opening argument in part on the assumption that porn is increasing problems rather than reducing them. On his main claims about porn he has been clearly shown to be wrong on other threads and refuses to consider the evidence. Not much point in taking him seriously. If he or the sheek have problem controlling their reactions to stimuli then they should seek professional help rather than expecting everybody elses freedoms to be limited to accomodate them. As others have pointed out life is full of things which can cause problems if we choose to let them, it's our own choice what we do with life.

R0bert

Dear fellow posters.

this is a valuable thread, but TRTL, I don't see too many throats being ripped out mate?

THE FINE LINE...... between 'looking good' and 'provocative sexualized attire' is a subjective one indeed.

CONTEXT.. I believe we absolutely need to place 'sexual intimacy' into a very secure "values framework".
I think it is a self evident principle, that if either males or females dress in such a way as to advertize their sexual side much more than their 'character' side, they will inevitably be perceived as more of a 'sex object' than a whole person.

Does a girl 'need' to have a low top and plunging cleavage for we blokes to know she has or does not have 'generous breasts' ? Or.. putting it more realistically, as one lady said "anything more than a handful is a waste".
All we need to see is the basic shape and we can decide if we are physically attracted or not.

BLOKES
Does a bloke need to wear really tight bum hugging, package displaying jeans for a girl to know what his physical credentials are like? Nope.. I can't see that. Much better for her to attend a footy game and she can see all she needs of him.

But that aside, how nice it would be, if we could all simply realize that overexposure and wongly emphasized exposure will have predictably negative outcomes in the long term.
Modesty is a wonderful thing... truly. "If u've got it flaunt it" is just one more of the stupid lies of Satan, like "Just do it".. a sign in the office at my gym. I think to myself "ok..sure...I'll just kick the DOOR DOWN"

Belly,

Don't forget Adam and Eve's hearts were not corrupted like yours and mine at that stage. The corruption of people's hearts are displayed daily on OLO as people support the promotion of perversion, deny the results of porn and worship the created (themselves) rather than God. You seem very confused although mixing evolution ( a fantasy) with creation explains it.

What i said R0bert is not an opinion, it's a fact. The male archetype is used in advertising as much as sit is the female.

Yes Runner youre right again:)
We arent the same as the Original pair.
The Fall so changed things I think its remarkable that we've survived this long.
Has to be Gods Grace.
That Grace does run out at times though...the Flood got rid of a whole world of perversion. Civilisations fell when they hit the idolary, sexual immorality and sacrifice (abortion today) levels too much for The Lord to bear.
The Bibles endtimes will do the same as the Flood if change doesnt come to the hearts of men.
Its an proud, arrogant site here at times.

Is that the flood in which God killed every human on the planet, including the innocent, men and women, the elderly and the children and babies, and unborn. And the one in which he included in this genocide all innocent living creatures and animals?

God aborted the entire human race and animal life of a planet, if this story were real.

You know the story Steel.
HE spared eight, Noah and his family.
The rest we are told were as "all of their thoughts were towards evil all of the time"...Genesis 6:5.
Can you imagine that Steel...all of their thoughts towards doing evil all of the time.
And the Bible says about the world of tomorrow that it will be like in the days of Noah. People will be building and getting married with no care for God or for Judgment...and then it comes.
The christians disappear (The Rapture) and the rest get whatever hell on earth Revelation describes.
Thats why its important to get Jesus into your life now. Invite Him in and get set free. Most of you guys later on will be recruited for the defence of Australia somewhere down the timeline.

So you support executing Australians for thought crime, including the unborn?

I thought we were on about womens attire.

Steel

Your arrogance is typical of many who have rejected God. You paint Him as evil and yourself and other humans as good and wiser than Him. You distort the character of a Holy Righteous loving God and as a mere created being point your finger at an all powerful God. You really do sound pathetic. Just as Adam and Eve questioned the goodness of God you also question the One who suffered a horrible death so you and me could avoid eternal damnation. Hopefully your eyes will be open to your finger pointing. You are evidence that God is gracious and to this stage has not treated you according to your sin.

Sancho: "My gripe is with shop owners who leave their cash registers in plain view, thus encouraging armed robbers, and the home owners who allow any passing stranger to see into their living room and be moved to burgle the house out of jealousy over their wonderful appliances."

My gripe is with American high schools, which allow students to walk freely about the hallways, thus encouraging disaffected, video-game-addicted teens to go on a shooting rampage with their weird best friends and their uncle's hunting rifle.

May I just say I love your posts, Sancho.

"You distort the character of a Holy Righteous loving God and as a mere created being point your finger at an all powerful God."

I don't see the distortion. God executed all life on the planet in one swift flood. Do you do that to people you love? All humans were killed (bar a handful) because they had "evil thoughts". It's all there in the Bible. He decided to drown all innocent animal life on the planet as well. That is pretty much, execution for thought crime. I can't think of much worse if he was not a loving God. Torture them all first?

"You are evidence that God is gracious and to this stage has not treated you according to your sin."

Your probably lucky he hasn't with his policy of indiscriminate genocide.

to those guys who have trouble with scantilly clad females. You know there are certain surgical procedures that can cure these uncontrollable urges

Dear Bronwyn.....

as one who has sharply criticized some of your posts in the past... I have to give credit where it is due here, (sorry I didn't notice your post earlier) and note your very balanced and honest post.. and one of your key points deserves further amplification.
You said about women vamping themselves up.. then other women feel "pressured to conform" and I say *BINGO*.. how true that is.
You've latched onto a crucial marketing tool also.. peer pressure.
Onya :)

SANCHO.. you could have found a MUCH better analogy than the cash registers one. The more appropriate analogy would be the way sweets are stacked at the FRONT of the cash registers, most of them being at 'pocket height' in service stations etc. Now..I sometimes feel hesitant to stand too close to the counter because of the potential of being 'seen' as a sweet thief. :)

Now...Vanila, CJ and Romany.. you all need a mild scolding:) 'mocking' ? huh? *frown*.... this is an important issue of social concern, and mocking others beliefs or positions publically does nothing to address it. Makes me wonder of you mob used to sit at the back of the school bus yelling out at everyone else.

Sancho says "our dna screams out to mate" so far so good, but then he goes on to say "with as many healthy females as possible".. actually the Bible calls that 'the flesh' and it is to be repented of!
Mating with ONE female, in a respectful loving supportive family is what our DNA screams, but 'the flesh', sin, is what drives promiscuity.

If someone is sexist and presumptious they will think and say disrespectful things about you or to you regardless of what you wear.

I am a native of Punchbowl who currently resides in L.A.. On Friday, I had my first conversation with my regular bus driver. After the basic "where are you from" questions he disclosed tp me when he first saw me he assumed I was a "stripper". When this man sees me I am usually wearing sweats for the gym (long sleeved & covered) or my business suit (no cleavage, never above the knee). The reason? Because I have "body" and I "walk seductively".

I am a fully covered, well-spoken & intelligent woman yet was relegated to "hoe" status by a Black male because I do not walk like I have a stick up my butt. And to add insult he stated it before other passengers and my 3 year old son.

A disrespectful person will create or distort ANY observation to judge a person, period.

Gibo’s latest thread (which should also be known as “The Meat Tray Effect”), is an example of the modern Christian "modesty" movement. This kind of attitude is at its extreme in Islam (the burqa) but is also at the foundation of much male hatred towards women in our own society, simply because young (and not-so-young) heterosexual men are excused as incapable of controlling their lustful thoughts about women all the time.

Where misogyny starts:

(1) Belief that lustful thoughts are sinful.

No, lust is simply human.

(2) Belief that women have a moral responsibility to prevent men from thinking lustful thoughts.

No-one is responsible for another’s thoughts. We are individually responsible for how we react to any situation. We can acknowledge to ourselves that we find someone sexually alluring; we should also keep in mind that the person we find attractive does not necessarily feel the same way about us.

Most men manage to both genuinely like and respect women irrespective of their sexual attraction. However there is a significant percentage (mostly religious men, but also those embittered men have not fared too well in their relationships) who prefer to shift the blame onto women rather than reflecting upon their own behaviour.

Cont’

Cont’d

While we continue to view modesty in women as a moral imperative and placing responsibility on women for reining in men's lust, we will continue to be an inequitable society.

I am 166cm tall, blond hair, blue eyes, slender build and I could wear a neck to knee sack and men would still think of me in objective terms. When I lived in the inner suburb of St Kilda, in Melbourne, it didn’t matter that I was in my daggiest baggiest track-suit and no make-up, men would still try to pick me up – after all I was an attractive female in a red-light suburb - I must be on the game, that I simply happened to be a resident of St Kilda, simply didn’t occur to some men.

Men make totally inaccurate assumptions about women all the time. It is not my fault, nor the fault of any other woman, how a man thinks.

Now it is time for men to become the captains of their own lives, to learn a level of independence for themselves. Taking responsibility for your sexual thoughts is an act of maturity and autonomy. Until then, you will continue to be lead around by your dicks, still blaming women for the problems that your own thoughts have caused.

Guys admit it: women cause lust just by BEING. Anti-lust attitudes that is attitudes that place responsibility on women for causing lust , are inherently anti-woman, and a very dangerous strain on our well-being and our ability to truly communicate with each other.

To cover up or not to cover up...that is the question.

From a purely anthropological standpoint I wonder how our sexuality would have evolved if we all still walked around completely starkers!

Do men in nudist colonies walk around in a perpetual state of arousal? Or do they see the body purely as a natural form and separate the sexuality aspect to the bedroom. I don't have any answers just putting this out there for discussion.

Attire is very much conditioning as exemplified by the variations in dress codes between different cultures. A semi naked women in an Papuan, South American or African village is not considered inappropriate but in the CBD of Sydney it might be. When we see Amish women or Muslim women in full burkha we react again to the severeness of the dress and the connotations of patriarchial societies.

I agree wholeheartedley with the sentiments expressed by some above that we are not responsible for the thoughts of others, we are only responsible for our own behaviour and conduct.

To speak in context of our own culture, women are still burdened with the pressures of what society expects. Equally a woman wearing the hijab or a woman in a skimpy mini-skirt in a particular situation have both been scorned and both have reported being spat on

Love your work there steel - when a man questions god's genocide, naturally, it's the man who is being evil.
Though, by now I'm sure you've noted, that it's rigged. Regardless of what happens, god is always good, and anything that isn't good can be laid at the feet of man.

Particularly mischievous doubters, like us. No doubt god's planning more genocide for us? Or was the whole crucifixion thing, a bit of a mid-life crisis, and does He not get up to those hi-jinx anymore?

It would explain why all the wacky mythical stories don't seem to happen anymore, (now that the species is capable of actually recording and explaining these things, though don't tell gibo that, he still thinks we're grappling with demons).

Anyhow... back to the topic - well said Fractelle. Both genders have sexual urges, but it's always up to us to control them. I find it interesting that it's the same people who are cheesed off about porn who seem to be on about these dress issues.

The real question is whether it really does come from this mindset that reduces the responsibility of male actions in response to what women wear.

What's particularly interesting, is that these notions of what is 'scantily clad' are in no way universal.

Consider this - in certain African tribes, the women dress in a topless manner. The result, is that their breasts have been de-sexualised. They're part of the norm - there certainly isn't all this handwringing over what they should and shouldn't be wearing, and whilst you can point to different courtship rituals, there are a plethora of examples I can point to, where reducing women's dress results in de-sexualisation.

Once upon a time in European society, bare ankles were considered to be pornographic. This de-sexualisation, is quite the opposite of the sexual hangups associated with conservative versions of Christianity, who seem to approach the issue from some kind of absolutist standpoint, as if this same discussion hasn't been had time and time again in the past, without the dire consequences associated with the changes they predict.

BD,

To begin with "mild scolding" is an oxymoron. The verb "to scold" means to reprimand or criticize harshly.

So, o.k., you want me to take seriously such statements as: - "Do you think designers should be more discrete?" O.k. My answer is No. They are varied enough already for my liking, thank you.

"A male Christian friends of mine also has trouble in shopping centres with all of the boosums[sic] hanging out and with dresses halfway up the backside."

"...slinky gym gear also gives me problems."

""I remember as a young man...feeling [resentment] at times because of the clothing girls wore. A sort of left out feeling."

Are these the "serious social issues" of which you speak Boaz? The private difficulties of an elderly born again Christian and his friend with their own suppressed sexuality which, it appears, is somewhat in doubt if the last quote is to be taken at face value.

Actually the above comments disturbed me greatly. I saw in them reflections of an unwholesome side of christianity. I saw reverberations for the whole of society. I could indeed take them seriously and the resultant polemic would be blistering, contentious, and extremely upsetting and hurtful to the simple soul who uttered them. I chose rather to lighten up a little simply because I found not just the remarks, but what they represented, to be symptomatic of much of the offensiveness encountered in society.

Thankfully I didn't embark upon such an over-the-top reaction and the last couple of posts have admirably expressed a more rational approach with which I agree wholeheartedly

It is not your place to "scold" me. I am neither an erring child nor your subordinate. We disagree. Profoundly. But do not presume to take the higher ground because of this. You stated once that God was on your side - unlike the devout, humble and committed Christian who considers themselves rather to be on the side of God.

Do not let this cause you to feel that you are also his mouthpiece.

ps. and I STILL sit in the back of the bus.

Fractelle, very well said.

Steel, whilst some of the same pressures exist for men I'm not convinced that they are equal for men in regard to clothing. If you want to suggest that on balance men face equivalent pressures in other area's I'll be with you all the way but I really don't think mens appearance has yet become the same issue that it is for women.

To all -
Thinking about this discussion and Fractelle's post it occurs to me that there is part of this which is not so clear. The impact on teenagers and younger.

I'd happily rephrase a part of Fractelle's excellent post for women concerned about social pressure and appearances

"Now it is time for women to become the captains of their own lives, to learn a level of independence for themselves. Taking responsibility for your own choices is an act of maturity and autonomy."

Neither that or the original version seem completely appropriate when we consider the personal or social pressures facing teenagers and youngers. The issues will be harder for them than for adults as they deal with the changes occuring in their lives.

I tend to the view that the best way to help teenagers with the struggles they will face is to teach and model healthy attitudes to sexuality and the body rather than perpetuating guilt and shame.

Elderly christains clinging to a flawed morality deserve no sympathy if their choices cause them problems in the real world. If their god has not transformed their minds by now then it's time for them to accept that what they believe is wrong and change their minds themselves.

R0bert

Thanks R0bert

I agree with your points.

Women are made to feel ashamed of their bodies, and men are made to feeling guilty for having normal desires..... and for that matter, vice versa. And the more you feel that sex is somehow 'dirty' the more problematic it becomes. Yes, indeed, both men and women do need to be captains of their own sexuality. But I do think that too many men are stuck in the past (me Tarzan, you Jane), while women have started learning but not really getting it quite right (Paris Hilton?)

The best way for young people to deal with the hormonal rollercoaster that is sexual awakening, is not through pious self righteous denial of our natural selves. It is through acceptance of who we are - sexual beings.

TRTL is correct in pointing out that the sexual perception of women's breasts is just a state of mind - in societies where bare breasts are common place they are not regarded with the 'sturm und drang' as in our culture.

And the usual religious suspects would have women covering and cowering and men feeling ashamed.

The following is a link to a website that takes the entire judgement on women's dress to an extreme I would not have imagined in our Western culture. Sisters our Levis make us sluts AND Lezzos - who'da thunk it? (and of course that feminists are hell-bent on world domination - but Steel knew that already) this site is hilarious:

http://www.savethemales.ca/

First apologies to all who don't like bible verses being quoted on OLO. I think in the context of this discussion it's worth it.

Gibo (and other "bible believing christians") I've just remembered that Jesus gave a specific command for the very problem you are facing.

The command is repeated so apparently god wants you to pay attention.

- Matthew 5:29 http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/5-29.htm
- Matthew 18:9 http://biblecc.com/matthew/18-9.htm
- Mark 9:47 http://bible.cc/mark/9-47.htm

Strangly enough Jesus does not command or encourage you to try and force others to change. Rather deal with what's in yourself that's the problem.

R0bert

Fractelle - went onto the site and for a moment was totally dislocated - thought I'd had a Back to the Future type experience. Oh I do hope Steel links in: he can wallow about to his hearts content.

Fractelle,

'attitudes that place responsibility on women for causing lust , are inherently anti-woman'

I think you may be confusing the issue. Most men (apart from the religious) merely want women to take responsibility for their actions.

If I, as a man, decided to wander around the office in a midriff shirt, or a fishnet vest, I would accept people will look at my exposed toreso. Yet I find so many women wear low cut tops and belt-skirts, and complain about men looking at their exposed flesh.

As a man, when a woman leans over your desk with an extremely low cut top, virtually shoving her breasts in your face, if you look you're guilty of sexual harassment these days. I think if anything the guy is being sexually harassed.

I know what we can do gentlemen, so it isn't a problem for you:.....

Let's put women in a full flowing gown with only eye holes.

BRILLIANT!

You'd have nothing to complain about then..................;-or would you?

Ginx

That's brilliant, I wonder why no-one has ever thought of it before, men's reaction to women is the woman's fault......hang-on a doggone minute, I think someone already has. Well that's the collective unconscious for you.

And next season the new black is:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wda0331l.jpg

It'll be a hit, pole-dancing will never be the same.

What a hoot Fractelle!!

Eye holes?!

Fractelle you saucy Jezebel, how dare you? Holes for eyes?

Honestly, there's a mesh alternative so those scantily clad ocular organs aren't put on display where they're bound to get men all steamed up.

"If I, as a man, decided to wander around the office in a midriff shirt, or a fishnet vest, I would accept people will look at my exposed toreso. Yet I find so many women wear low cut tops and belt-skirts, and complain about men looking at their exposed flesh."

Women can be wearing a sack and if a man is of low character he will find a way to sexualize it or sexualize the woman and/or attempt to degrade her.

I shared one story earlier and I will share another. One man I was acquainted with (I ate at his restaurant on occasion) saw me at the bus-stop one day waiting for the bus. When he saw a friend of mine the next day he told them I was a prostitute. When the man asked how did he know that he asked "Why else would she be waiting at the bus stop? And how else could she afford a Dolce & Gabbana phone"?

Apparently if you do not drive a car in Los Angeles you must be a prostitute or stripper. Hmmm, maybe people do not want to spend $4.27 for gas?

I share these stories to show how women are disrespected who DO cover themselves. The problem is not the attire, but the mentality of choice people.

MsMerising,

'Women can be wearing a sack and if a man is of low character he will find a way to sexualize it or sexualize the woman and/or attempt to degrade her. '

Surely you aren't equating looking at a woman who chooses to reveal parts of her body with the above? From your stories you seem to come into contact with some rather strange men. I see this term 'sexualizing' women a lot. I don't get it to be honest, I think women are sexual beings. How can a man 'sexualize' a woman?

I also think if you don't want someone to see your clevage, don't show it. If you do want people to see it, and why not?, don't complain when people look. That's all I'm saying and I feel people are getting the wrong idea.

Ginx, Fractelle,

I for one love to look at what ever parts of their body women are willing to show. All I resent is being castigated by women for looking. It has nothing to do with blaming women for getting me 'all worked up'. Who doesn't want to be all worked up anyway:-)

Usual Suspect

What a coincidence, I enjoy looking at a well honed male body - doesn't matter how well covered he is - I can always tell if he is a hottie.

Cleavage - sexual response or lack of it is simply a cultural one. Plenty of cultures have women going bare-breasted - no big deal.

What we desperately need is acceptance of our sexual natures, not suppression.

It wasn't all that long ago that women were not even considered to have sexual feelings, let alone orgasm. We still have a ways to go.

However, the comments that MsMerising received from the bus driver were out of line and inappropriate - and so were your comments. For some women it means that she must button up to her neck to hide an expansive cleavage. Get over it. Women have breasts, I don't think that is going to change any time soon.

If you are fortunate enough to be on the viewing end of a beautiful D'ecolletage, enjoy.....even if you do have to remain seated for a while.

;-)

Fractelle,

'out of line and inappropriate - and so were your comments. For some women it means that she must button up to her neck to hide an expansive cleavage'

Ever heard of a t-shirt. They're pretty comfortable. My wife seems to manage not to dangle here ample breasts everywhere and remain in comfortable clothing. She chooses to because she doesn't like other people to see what she doesn't want them to see, and I think that's a sensible attitude. Much more sensible than a neurotic woman in a push up bra and gaping neck line complaining that men look at her breasts.

Please explain what comments I made that were 'out of line and inappropriate '?

'Get over it. Women have breasts, I don't think that is going to change any time soon.'
Get over what? Where have I objected to women's breasts

Booty is in the eye of the beholder, in my opinion ;)

So, CJ, does that mean cleavage is more than skin deep?

Definitely, TRTL - in fact, I reckon those of us who appreciate cleavage must be suffering from 'repressed mammary syndrome'....

So most agree that the answer to the question which opened the thread is a resounding NO.

My summary to date
- Women do not need to be more covered, they have the freedom within the bounds of the law to cover or not to cover.
- Cleavage can and should be appreciated without comment, gesture and excessive ogling or it can be ignored.
- Those who choose to flaunt what they have should just accept that others may look and get over it. That does not mean having to put up with moronic behaviour.
- Some of this gets more difficult for teenagers to navigate but openness and healthy attitudes to sexuality work a lot better than guilt and shame based morality.
- Fundies who find that a problem have clear biblical instruction from Jesus on what to do about their problem (but perhaps they should talk to their pastor about how "bible believing" does not really mean bible believing before following that instruction).
- The are plenty of good gender jokes around.

R0bert

hEYYYYYY Romany.....

whats this 'slinky gym gear gives me problems' associated with ME bit?

I didn't say that. grrrrr...

Also fractelle.. I have to say it.. ur thinking is.. fractured mate.

I am yet to see 'non' 'baby out with the bathwater' comment from you on this kind of issue.

WHO the heck said male lust is WOMENS problems ?

What we are saying.. well me anyway..is that when you dress deliberately to PROMOTE the sexy bits.. and lets face it..there are 'sexy' bits to our bodies... its more likely to be thought of as a sex object.

RATIONAL BASIS... is..when the following occurs.

-When the 'mean/norm' of accepted culture is exceeded.

As one poster pointed out, the bare breasted Africans have 'de sexualized' breasts.. thus they arn't a source of unusually high titillation (pun intended) in that culture.

For one Islander group.. bare breasts are ok, but exposed THIGHS are 'not'..to show thighs is considered immodest.

So..YES it is culturally relative... to exceed cultural boundaries is to make a statement.

If a girl 'A' wears shorts covering her buttocks and 30% of her thighs, but girl 'B' wears shorts deliberately designed to expose 30% of her bum cheeks.. welllll thats a different story. You KNOW she has chosen them so she can show off her bum, and.. the message sent is also received.

If bloke 'A' wears 'trunks' (lets say that's the norm) and bloke 'B' wears speedo's .. err.. same deal.

It's not WOMEN who must be covered up..its ALL of us who should be sensitive about our bodies and dress so as to communicate the best message.

This is hilarious :) and Fractelle takes the prize for 'making' the argument.

"What a coincidence, I enjoy looking at a well honed male body - doesn't matter how well covered he is - I can always tell if he is a hottie." (BD Races off to the gym :)

Exactly.. so.. it makes the point that you DON'T have to flash and flaunt for the opposite gender to see/know if you appeal to them.

Its clear enough within the bounds of modesty :) I saw a Muslim woman at tullamarine dressed in all black loose clothing and only the face showing.. and could straight away tell she was appealing.

So, neither 'covering up' or not covering up, makes much difference to the ability of the opposite sex to 'get' what we are like.

So..given this wonderful truth, what does it say about OVER exposure?
Clearly...the message is.... 'of the flesh'...

Ok.. now that we all agree on this.. all I can say is to anyone, either male or female, if you dress to emphasize your sexy bits, don't be shocked if you attract those who simply are interested in a roll in the hay!

"Oh Oh.. I can't find a bloke who has any depth..why do they loose interest after they have had me in the sack for a while...we have nothing in common.. its all about sex..and that's getting pretty boring"(says she in her hotpants and skimpy top:)

Nah.. the absolute, most wonderful, most fulfilling, most enjoyable, most thrilling part of being alive is to find true intimacy of the heart and soul...and sorry, ya don't get that when ya flaunt ur boobs or butt to all and sundry :) but hey..what would I know? What would the Almighty know?
Knowing Him..is to know life and find true freedom.

just how many americans are on these boards? seriously..

nevertheless, boaz is correct. a woman should be responsible for her dress. if she chooses to dress 'provocatively' she has no right to whine about men looking etc...however, it's interesting someone asociated me with some blog they saw in a negative light since i'm pretty much the only proponent of choice here for women with regard to being topless. one person even went so far as to say that women were free to dress how they please...absolutely false... i am *for* the sexualisation of bodies and don't see the problem (they are already sexualised regardless, what rocks have you been living under?). there is always this, "as long as it's not sexualised" rubbish floating about. I simply find that illogical. i also don't agree with how people have a problem with what they *percieve* to be the sexualisation of young people. They can dress how they want for all i care, it's really none of mine nor your business and it's not the governments either. This is even more the case for young people going through puberty-i find it asinine that people want to repress these young people. It's all about private and parental responsibility.

Gibo “In an age when men are being fired up more and more by pornography should women think more carefully about what they wear?”

No!

Quoting the deranged ramblings of a retarded Muslim fundamentalist (who should have been deported when Keating had the chance) - Australian women as being like "uncovered meat", adds little credit to your suggestion.

Your mate who has difficulty with “boosums” sounds like he did not like maths at school, it is spelt “bosoms” and also known as a nice pair or hooters (also a good fast food place, try their buffalo wings and hot sauce, accompanied by a waitress with a nice rack and camel toe).

If a girl wants to flaunt her assets, all well and good, it remains up the observing and delighted males to exercise self control and “take them selves in hand” if “keeping it in their pants” does not work.

Personally I support Vanillas suggestion for those who cannot deal with their own “turgid” appendages

“Maybe women could wear what they like and men could wear blindfolds?”

I always know I am doing something right when Boaz resorts (yet again) to personal invective.

My dear man, there is medical help for what ails you, see link below.

http://littlurl.com/w7cn0

;-D

You know I will say it again as really it is simple.

If the type of clothing is such that we would not want to encourage our daughters to dress in that manner then one would have to accept that it isn't in females best interest. Who wants thier daughters walking around looking and/or acting like sluts.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/
Our children deserve better

How about you try to mind your own business Jolanda and allow other parents to decide for their own children what is and is not appropriate. Is that really so hard to do?