Hi EVO.. no mate no.. no no no :) your comment is one of capitulation to fashion trends. You are looking at the status quo and not recognizing how it was manipulated to be where it is.

It's like some German person waking up in the middle of Nazisms glory days and thinking it's always been that way and mocking someone who sounds the 'danger' signal.

Robert.. 'my mind' ? hmm I detect a bit of self righteous sermonizing there also.
No Rob.. my mind dwells on basic fundamental psychological fact. You sound like ur on the edge of a forest saying "what forest? all I can see is trees."

CJ.. in good form, as usual, - blind and abusive :)

Polycarp,

Your self-deception astounds me. Do you really not understand why no one wants to engage with you on this issue? Do you really believe that you can "see" something others cannot?

I don't know if it's sad or funny.

Look within.

David, I can see the forest and the tree's. The problem seems to be that you see a tree and decide that means the tree wants to be woodchips.

Your approach to womens clothing choices reminds me of an old joke

http://www.funnyhumor.com/jokes/900.php

R0bert

Not a bad joke Robert :)

Veronika.. of course I can see other views here. And very few of them are actually answering why female attire is so often much more skimpy than males.

They are just doing what you did.. "we want to look good" kind of thing.

Well.. I suggest they are just repeating the required mental position the fashion industry dictated to them during it's marketing campaigns.

The effectiveness of such campaigns is evidenced by the simple fact that so few people are prepared to question it..and they see someone who does (me) as some kind of wierdo :)

If the differences in attire were due only to 'looking good' etc.. rather than geared to capitalize on the male female attraction element where the female is much more potent to a man (ask the Muslims:)...then one would expect blokes to rock up to the next High Anglican Mass with muscle singlets on.

Listen to Veronika, Boaz.

>>Do you really not understand why no one wants to engage with you on this issue?<<

Smart.

What many have spotted is that you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

Nothing anybody says will convince you that this topic has as much life as that much-celebrated Norwegian Blue. You can bang it on the counter, shout "Ello, Mister Polly Parrot" in its ear and nail it to the perch, it is still utterly without relevance and meaning.

Even you are having a hard time inventing new angles.

>>They are just doing what you did.. "we want to look good" kind of thing. I suggest they are just repeating the required mental position the fashion industry dictated to them during it's marketing campaign<<

Either that or - hey! they might actually be expressing their very own view, consistent with their self-image and their self-confidence.

>>The effectiveness of such campaigns is evidenced by the simple fact that so few people are prepared to question it.<<

Aaaaah, the sweet smell of conspiracy theory.

"ASIO have put a tail on me, recording my every move"

"I can't see anybody"

"Of course you can't, that's how I know they're there...."

...or, Boaz, it could just be that the campaigns are ineffective, so there's nothing to "question".

>>If the differences in attire were due only to 'looking good' etc.. rather than geared to capitalize on the male female attraction element where the female is much more potent to a man (ask the Muslims:)...then one would expect blokes to rock up to the next High Anglican Mass with muscle singlets on.<<

Are you sure this isn't a secret fantasy of yours, Boaz?

Let's be honest with each other for a moment, shall we?

I'll admit that I don't believe for a moment that you are atracted to blokes dressed in muscle singlets.

And you, for your part, admit that this thread was just a troll, to enable you to sermonize.

No Pericles I don't admit it was a troll in the sense that's normally used.

You said:

"Either that or - hey! they might actually be expressing their very own view, consistent with their self-image and their self-confidence."

Now that is an 'angle' but it's at the core of what I'm arguing.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it..you should be able to see that a persons sense of 'self confidence' connects to specific psychological factors and attitudes.

Let's take an example "If u've got it..flaunt it" is a commonly used one.

"Generous breasts".. Lets show them off. Perhaps the blokey equivalent is "I've got a rippling muscular upper body and I'll make sure I wear a tight T-shirt to show it" now.. just near us is a major gym and I often notice blokes with that combination of physique and attire at Safeways.
I must confess.. that while I don't have so much of a physique.. I also use the T-shirt thing, but it get's jolly unbearably hot here sometimes.

I think it's mostly about context and appropriateness. On a stinking hot day, a girl can wear pretty skimpy clothes without deliberately choosing clothes which reveal 30% of her boobs.
The problem is.. today 30% tomorrow (due to fashion dictates or perhaps carnality...its 40% then 50%....and so on.

Female shorts might cover their bum cheeks.. but next year..it's fashionable to show 20% of them..... then.. and then... and so on..

I don't think it's a matter of confidence but morality. I have oodles more respect for a girl who dresses modestly but sharply than one who shows it all off.

CONTEXT has to be taken into account. Beach.. near nude, but ok.
Office.. smartly dressed. Church.. modestly. As long as we as a culture reinforce the right message in context we should be ok.

I do care how we function as a community. And I think we would be much better off with a more modest approach to attire. Hence...this thread.