Dear Polycarp,

David has answered you beautifully.

I'm not going to continue to explain
things to you - you obviously don't
get what many people are trying to tell
you (including myself).

All I can say is - if you want things to
change on this Forum - you have to change.
You can't expect to keep doing what you're
doing, and get different results.

That's illogical.

Davidf:
"I would also prefer to see girls dressing themselves as they want without meeting your demands of coverup or other demands that they exploit their sexuality. If they want to coverup, exploit their sexuality or make some other choice it should be their decision."

I agree completely. While there are times I wish I could advise people (male as well female) that their choice in clothing is not at all flattering, it is not my place to do so. Instead I try to set an attractive and stylish example instead.

Point for EVO to consider regarding your mammary memories, female babies are breast fed too. Think about it.

I think I understand now. Thanks Bronwyn.

>>Far from being truly liberated, I see women today as more captive than ever to the dictates of fashion and to the need to dress in a way that wins them male approval<<

This is, suitably paraphrased, what every woman says to her man, in the seconds before she dives into yet another dress shop.

"I'm only doing this to make myself beautiful for you, dear", she says

"Oh, don't bother on my account," he says dutifully, looking around for the nearest pub that's showing the footy, "I think you are beautiful as you are".

"Oh, you're just saying that", she dimples, and disappears inside.

The reality is that they both know it's just a game.

She simply needs an excuse to buy a new dress (because that's what women do), and he is happy to play along, so long as she doesn't drag him in with her instead of letting him retreat to the pub.

Fashions have changed over the years, not so that increasing amounts of flesh may be shown, but to continue the commercial practice of selling attractive apparel to women who - by definition - like pretty clothes. I saw hemlines rise in the sixties, only to fall (to ground level, in fact) in the seventies. I've seen skin appear and disappear at different times, not through increased lasciviousness, but through the desire of clothing manufacturers to maintain their own personal "bottom line".

This female/male attractiveness thing is simply a convenient fiction.

It is maintained by all parties in order to keep domestic peace ("I suppose you'd rather I went round in a sack?") and to keep the rag-trade in business.

Fractelle! Woman check-out one another's breasts all the time,( but as a baby, its just food for all sexes ) and you know it. So you've never seen women size each other up? Some pay more attention than men do( regardless of clothing ) and more conscious of the physical based competition with ferocious consequences.

Polycarp. Its a wonder how you religious, breed at all! May I ask you, does the bible tell you how to have sex. I bet you don't answer this one. Is there a ritual you must follow and can you sin while you do it?

Fully cloth-en women in some nations, was very efficient, to safe-guard, to prevent misconduct and so forth. What you cant see, wont get you into trouble, and this was some of the thought,s all those thousands of out of date practice's ago.

Foxy is right! You need to change mate, or loose it altogether. I think the depth of your religion maybe doing you some harm.

Take it easy, and and chill out man!:)

EVO

Polycarp: <<I'm trying to explore a serious issue...and it must be misconceptions or apathy as to why not many are engaging.>>

You're wrong. It's certainly not apathy — the OLO community is actively engaged in questions of society, hence their presence on the board. It's not misconceptions either, whatever they might be — there are plenty of conceptions to be had about the issue and theoretically a lively conversation could ensue.

The reason that no one wants to engage on this issue with you is because of you. The fact that you couldn't answer my question demonstrates your remarkable lack of insight and perspicacity. You railroad yourself through the argument misunderstanding pretty much everyone, and forcing round arguments into the square holes of your laughable misreading of Christian and Muslim texts. It's shot through with your own idiotic brand of man=protector/women=nuturer bullsh!t.

It's really, really, really boring. It's not the conversation — to be honest, I find it interesting and wouldn't mind contributing to a thread on the topic. It is you.

You're a blind man who refuses to believe the world has colour and dimension. Once again, look within.

Very droll, Pericles!

Whether or not we dress to please ourselves or our men, we are, as you point out, as enslaved by the fashion industry as we ever were. I can't see that changing any time soon, but maybe one day it might.

As an individual, I still feel it's possible to resist that entrapment in several ways - shopping less for example, buying recycled, choosing classics and rejecting overpriced brand names.

The trend towards sexualised dressing, however, irrespective of who it's intended to please, is I think harder to separate from. Having the freedom to choose how much of ourselves we wish to reveal is all well and good. But when the trend to skimpiness becomes entrenched, as it now has - over several fashion cycles, it just makes the challenge for women - to be taken seriously and judged on their words and actions rather than their sex appeal - that much more difficult.

That's the reason I dislike the trend. It has nothing to do with religious or moral values. I just see it as demeaning to women. To me, it's just another way for those who want us there to keep us in our place.

Polycarp

"Well said Bronwyn... and much as it might erk some who probably delight in a degee of antagonism between myself and you.. we are in complete agreement, and.. dare I say..for the same reasons."

You and I occasionally find ourselves on the same side of a debate, Polycarp, but believe me it is always for VERY different reasons.