This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it's not "fair" and it's not "equal," but women's bodies are more sexual than men's because of the differences between male and female sexuality.
Homie, women's thighs are sexual. Women's butts in tight jeans are sexual. The curve of a woman's silhouette in a fitted dress is sexual. Lipstick is sexual. Women's clothing/lack of clothing can accentuate or attenuate these features of their bodies in ways that actually make a huge difference in the amount of visual stimulation that is flooding into a man's eyes.
Apparently women aren't exactly privy to this? But try looking at a target and notice how naturally your eyes are drawn to the center.
I'm not trying to go Sharia on everyone's asses, but I am getting older, and the share of women in my life who are younger than me is only going to keep increasing. Women's fashion was fun when I was a horny teenager. As a married man however it's incredibly distracting, and I'm not allowed to talk about it.
Women know; it’s uncouth to admit it. But if you happen to hear women trashing other women, it is pretty clear they know.
More options
Context Copy link
Plenty of conservative religious groups talk about it all the time, including directly to the young women -- you could go spend time at one of their men's groups if you want to as well?
Conservative religious men's groups don't bring up modesty very much- although they do bring up staying away from porn/internet filters/whatever you want to call the topic.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for the reply. I am religious and do have some people I might possibly discuss this with, carefully.
Out of curiosity, what do you imagine a men's group's response would be if I complained to them about, say, someone at work who frequently shows cleavage in a low-cut top?
Their response would be to not look at it because you can't do anything.
More options
Context Copy link
What advice would you give to someone who complained about a coworker who wore well-tailored slacks?
"Typical human beings are not distracted by such things, so I think you're not sincere about it".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure.
I was Evangelical as a teenage girl, so I got the teenage girl side of the conversation, where the advice was usually not to wear low cut tops unless you're, um, courting or something, but it was not well followed outside the very conservative homeschool groups I also participated in. As an adult, I've been Orthodox Christian, where they emphasize that flowy skirts and scarves and blouses are beautiful and dignified and fun to wear. I strongly prefer this approach. Female office wear is generally not very fun or beautiful, and I suppose the woman feels a bit better about her appearance in the low cut top than other options. It doesn't work super well on most figures, aesthetically, to do something like tucking a button up into trousers, because it just looks kind of drab. When I have to go into work in jeans and my official work t-shirt that's in a color that looks bad on me, I feel kind of irritable and like I don't want anyone to look at me all day. I don't know what women are supposed to wear in offices lately, but I'm pretty sure it includes a bra, anyway.
I think more women would choose to be modest if the options were better. If you want modest stuff, it generally is either childish or tent-like or otherwise just ugly. I want to be modest enough to not attract sexual attention.
Tin-foil hat conspiracy: This is self-evidently true but is expressed by objectively ugly clothes / styles currently being in fashion.
It started with their weird 1970s extra large glasses. One of the hallmarks right now are the giant, boxy, usually light wash jeans that are in no way flattering to either waist or hips. My (again tin foil hat) theory is that this is a way to get back to "neutral" non-sexually signaling clothing without capitulating to "traditional" styles. The entire "normcore" aesthetic has to be this, right? There's no way these styles can be considered ... good looking ... right?
I've thought the same thing, like ugly Zoomer fashion is just young women trying to act out a sexual counter-revolution without having to dress up like it's the 1950s.
But then I remember that young men have moustaches and mullets now, and I don't believe for a second that they are trying to desexualise themselves. Fashion is just arbitrary and weird (which, I suppose, seems pretty obvious when I look back at how some of my more fashionable friends dressed when we were teenagers).
I don't see it as young men trying to sexualize themselves. As with pretty much all male fashion outside of the military, the objective is to attract young women.
If young women are dressing in line with a retro-counter-sexual revolution, it would stand to reason that a male response would be to also dress in a "retro" manner. Perhaps they're missing the point and only picking up on "what was cool in the 1970s and 1980s is cool again." Still, this seems like a straightforward movement-response dynamic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you sure women's bodies aren't "more sexual" than men's because of ... men? Maybe you're wanting to require us to wear bras because of your issues, not ours?
For what it's worth, typically not wearing a bra doesn't accentuate breasts. If, as a woman, I want to accentuate my breasts, I'm involving a bra. Not wearing a bra is them in their natural state. If I want to accentuate my lips, I'll wear lipstick. Eyes, eyeshadow. If I'm not wearing lipstick or eyeshadow? It's just my face. I'm not accentuating anything. My face is with me everywhere I go. Like my breasts. Can't leave home without them.
I'm clearly in agreement with you that it's men's "issue." Your own bedroom, where you're not being perceived by anyone else, because of this, does not have a dress code. Indeed: men, and more specifically men's visual perceptions of women, are precisely why women's bodies are more sexual than men's. But...you do know you share a world with men?
This is obviously a sensitive topic. And it's not women's fault that they are (by default) effortlessly pleasing to look at. I'm just saying that women's bodies have greater and more pronounced visibly sexual qualities than men's, and this fact has social consequences that the sexes should negotiate with each other cooperatively.
In the past cultures have put guidelines on a woman's appearance, without negotiating with women about it. And now the shoe is simply on the other foot: women's visible sexual qualities are a man's problem, and he should simply ignore the bombardment of visual stimulation as women largely fail to realize just how potent the stimuli are because men have been socialized into silence on the matter. There's gotta be something in the middle.
I agree with fribble that this is a statement about the viewer's sexuality, not about women's bodies. Women are not pleasing, others are pleased to imagine the things they could do to them. Women are not sexual, they are sexualized. (We also need more gay dudes in the conversation, I guess.)
Re: social consequences, here's a weak parallel case. One reasonably common hardwired female response to a man's body is fear. Men are on some level intimidating to be around, with their height, thick muscles and wide shoulders. To a much smaller person, male bodies telegraph, accurately, the potential to inflict violent physical harm and domination, regardless of how nice the guy actually is. This is why many little kids are instinctively afraid of strange men, before they're socialized to suppress that feeling. Some women find it attractive, particularly in a context where it could be aligned with their own interests. But the physicality of an unaligned male is generally at least a little viscerally scary.
Male fashion is also designed to emphasize and aestheticize those same traits of physical dominance. It accentuates shoulders, chest and neck, making the body look squarer and more muscular. Much male fashion even mimics the working clothes of violent occupations, like military uniforms and gangster clothing! If you're a guy and have an outfit that you think looks really sharp, odds are good that some part of the design, deliberately or not, is making you look more intimidating.
Now, suppose you're wearing your favorite perfectly normal mall-purchased outfit to work, and a woman in the office objects. It's anxiety-causing for her, your big scary body in these strength-emphasizing clothing makes her feel on edge all the time and limits her ability to act freely around you. Why should you be allowed to dress to frighten other people? If you were really considerate, you'd wear something softer, frillier, maybe with a cute animal print or something to signal your harmlessness.
That woman's biological fear response to your body is just as real and unpleasant as your biological arousal response to a sexy coworker. But you didn't dress to be "scary" to her! Probably you didn't think of her reaction at all. You just wanted to look presentable within the normal idiom that gendered fashion currently provides for you.
Does it seem more reasonable that you should go home and put on something frillier? Or that she should get therapy to gain more control over these maladaptive biological responses?
You have neglected to mention option 3: avoidance. Instead of requiring people to change either their clothes or their opinion, just give people the option to not work with people who make them unavoidably afraid or aroused.
In a state of nature, sure. But in a society, everybody is expected to muster the self-control to behave sociably to others in public spaces like the workplace, as long as others are behaving conventionally in return (and all the clothing mentioned in this thread has been extremely middle-class conventional; nobody's asking people to roll with assless chaps or nudism).
I think the problem is in assuming that because certain fear and arousal instincts have a biological basis, they're therefore radically "unavoidable," indeed unalterable, and justify making outsize demands for accommodation from others. It didn't make sense back when anxious students were demanding full veto power over triggering college syllabus material, and it doesn't make a lot of sense in this context, either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In your worldview going braless to work is an aspect of trying to look presentable?
I believe OP mentioned braless women on the commute, not at work; the work attire I've seen criticized here was tight AKA "skinny" pants and tops with cleavage. But if you're asking if all these garments can be worn strictly with a view to looking presentable according to current fashion standards, then the answer is emphatically yes. Check out reddit femalefashionadvice and various women's clothing blogs, and you'll hear women trying to use clothes to communicate things like effortless, comfy cool (the braless or bralette tank, loose crocheted cardigan, 90s jeans look) and tailored polish (the skinny office pants look, which you'll be pleased to note has been replaced with swingy trousers). Sometimes women think about sexual display for date-night outfits, but in my decades of fashion discussions I have literally never heard or read a natal female remarking excitedly that an everyday outfit displays her nipples or shows how her breasts move, and will thus doubtless inspire random men to imagine emotionlessly fucking her as they pass by on the train.
On the bra thing specifically, visible bra straps (unavoidable under some tops) have at various points been considered un-presentable, and I've heard women express relief that the braless option solves that fashion problem.
So, I'm going to assume your answer to my question is a "yes, in my worldview going braless to work is an aspect of trying to look presentable."
Affirmative! Sorry, was writing in haste above.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think women fail to realize that men are visually stimulated? We're told this constantly. We're told that if a man acts out, it's because of what a woman wore, how she looked. Sure, men shouldn't rape, but did you see what she was wearing?
Given different cultural standards in modesty and dress, I don't believe that cleavage, breasts, legs, or any particular piece of a woman's body is just instant "brain off, hormones gone crazy" for men. It's all what we're used to.
I have only ever seen this used to denounce hypothetical bad people who might think such an abhorrent thought. I have never seen someone actually state this.
It's generally not actually stated in those stark terms, these days. People try to avoid being seen to blame the victim. But the subtext is definitely still there more often than it should be.
One of my husband's acquaintances is That Guy. The guy who says he can't help but leer at women on the beach, because of what they're wearing (actually on the beach). Not notice and keep it in mind for later thinking or whatever over, but rudely staring in a creepy way. Who'll defend his behavior, because she's wearing a two piece, or is particularly well endowed, or whatever excuse to make his behavior absolutely outside of his control, because of her.
Every single woman I know has been told, more than once, to change what she's wearing because it'll send the wrong message. Which is goofy, because we also know we're going to get catcalled/propositioned/groped wearing a hoodie and jeans, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here it is, women's favorite motte and bailey. Yes, if a man rapes a woman he is responsible for it no matter what she is wearing. However, what you wear is signaling. Wearing clothing that draws attention to your sexual characteristics and then complaining when people give you sexual attention (eg, lewding, catcalling) is sexual harassment. On your end. You initiated it, you are responsible for it.
"Clothing that draws attention to your sexual characteristics" is very culturally relative. Fundamentalist Muslims aren't lying when they say they think women who aren't in burkas are flaunting their sexuality, and even in relatively liberal Muslim countries like Egypt (where a hijab is not required, just "strongly encouraged"), women not wearing hijabs are subject to levels of abuse and catcalling that would make New York steelworkers blush. (And incidentally, even conservatively dressed women don't get much less harassment because once you accept that you can determine a woman's modesty and how much she deserves harassment based on how she dresses, it's easy to rationalize that even women in full burkas are doing something to deserve it.)
There is definitely clothing that is intentionally meant to draw male attention, but if women have a motte and bailey, so do men whose motte is "drawing attention to your sexual characteristics" and whose bailey is "dressing in any way that I notice, especially if the bitch isn't with me."
I mostly agree with this and would say that both extremes here are bad, but I believe that in the West women are getting away with more than men in this case. For instance, women who wear shirts like this should be recognized as doing so to harass men and such harassment should be punished to a greater extent than it currently is.
I really don't think you want to establish a precedent of labeling message t-shirts "harassment" because you think they are meant to annoy you. And how exactly would you like women who wear it to be "punished"?
That's already the precedent for men with message t-shirts. EDIT: Or rather, the harassment isn't in the message itself, it's in the fact that simply looking at where the message is written is a social faux pas.
I already said above, they shouldn't be granted the additional protections against "sexual" harassment that women are typically given. They are giving shit, they should expect to deal with it given in return. EDIT: Importantly in this case, if you don't want people staring at your chest, don't put words there.
More options
Context Copy link
As long as it's considered harassment for men to read the message, there's no worse precedent set by labeling women wearing the shirt also "harassment".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, what I wear is clothing. Your interpretation is your problem. Your behavior is yours to control.
You can be sexually stimulated without acting on it (physically or vocally).
I know Chappelle is persona non grata to one half of the cultural fence these days but comedy is comedy.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't know if you heard about this controversy, but I was wondering what would be your opinion about this charming bloke showing up dressed like that at a conference. Apparently it caused quite a stir, particularly from feminists.
More options
Context Copy link
Your choice in what to wear is expressive speech in the "freedom of speech" sense of the term. Wear whatever you want in private. In public, your choice in what to wear is communication and if your communication is not respectful to those around you then don't expect respect in return.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This may have been a point worth hearing in the past, but it seems wildly out of date by now. Anyone even thinking of trying to use that argument in public would immediately catch a ton of shit. Maybe a recent Muslim immigrant could get away with it, though it will probably depend on what his politics are.
I wish it were wildly out of date.
Girls and women are very clearly told that what we wear makes us responsible for men's behavior towards us.
See the comment above: "Wearing clothing that draws attention to your sexual characteristics and then complaining when people give you sexual attention (eg, lewding, catcalling) is sexual harassment. On your end. You initiated it, you are responsible for it."
What's clothing that draws attention to our sexual characteristics? Anything that makes it clear we have breasts, legs, butt, any part of our anatomy a man might find arousing.
That's not really the same as "Sure, men shouldn't rape, but did you see what she was wearing?". Also a niche forum founded for the explicit purpose of debating controversial opinions is not a good barometer for what's socially acceptable. Show me someone saying that face to face in polite company, or even just on some mainstream Reddit sub.
More options
Context Copy link
And men are told that it is fine to creep shame us if what we wear makes women uncomfortable. So which is it? Are people responsible for what they choose to wear or not?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, that implies that men's visual systems are more inherently sexual than women's. I suppose it's reasonable to say that women's bodies are more commonly sexualized than men's.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's wise for women to go around topless or anything, of course.
If I say oranges are tangy, and someone interjects that it's actually my brain's interpretation of signals from nerves in my tongue that is what's actually tangy, where should the conversation go from there?
It makes sense to say that (many?) women't bodies are sexy, sure.
If someone says they're asexual, or heterosexual, or whatever other kind of sexual, that usually implies something about their preferences, not the viewer's. Oranges don't have preferences, so I'm not sure there's anything analogous that applies to them.
Orange you glad that’s the case?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In my experience, even straight women are more likely to find a woman's body sexual than a man's body. It's actually a little astounding how disinterested many women are in men's bodies. So it seems to me that there's a broad consensus that men's bodies are not particularly sexual. Gay men obviously disagree.
I am a straight woman. I might find particular anatomy aesthetically pleasing, and culturally that might be more true of traditionally female anatomy (I don't know that this is true but it doesn't matter), but a man's body is infinitely more sexually appealing to me than a woman's body. I don't think I am an outlier among straight women in this regard. I also think it's true that straight women are unlikely to be as open, perhaps outside of other straight women, as men are about these things. But I think that's cultural - women who indicate sexual interest, desire, or awareness are sluts and sluts are bad. Girls learn to control themselves and comport themselves appropriately. I am convinced boys are also capable of this, even though our society does not require it of them. However I also think it's perfectly good for girls to comfortably express sexual desire and interest, so rather than have boys learn the self control and denial we impose on girls perhaps we loosen up a bit on expressions of female sexual interest and tighten up a bit on expressions of male sexual interest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like ... literally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link