It's not MY fault for dressing provocatively. It's YOUR fault for looking at me!

[mikeymikec]

I think some interesting assumptions are being made here. Admittedly I made one myself in my first post on this thread, being the 'rebellion' angle. Even the admin made an assumption that the hypothetical girl is dressing to provoke.

If people here honestly think that women dress primarily to provoke men, then they very likely need more experience with women. I bet that any guy here who's been in a long-term relationship knows how much thought many women put into how they're dressing, yet I'd also bet that most guys here honestly couldn't give two craps about what colour nail varnish their partner is wearing, or that she's made the effort to ensure that the trim of her top colour-matches with two other aspects of her attire. Face it, many women have a much greater interest in their appearance than you probably do about yours.

While I'm sure that most bi or heterosexual women will at some point dress to provoke a reaction, hopefully with a guy that they find attractive, I think that men here are deluding themselves to the extreme if they think that most women will dress with that intention most of the time.

One other thing, google (images) 'visible bra straps'. I don't know about you guys, but most of the images I'm seeing there hardly qualify as 'provocative'.

 

[FerrelGeek]

This wasn't directed at you. Your post was mainly a springboard to a, freely admitted, mini-rant.

Is this post specifically aimed at my post that it quotes? I'm still a bit incredulous, but it makes even less sense if I try to read it any other way.

Ok. I'll start with the basics and move from there. I would condemn anyone who engages in non-consensual sexual behaviour. However, unlike many on this forum, I think it is wrong and is in no way justified to assume that most (or a large enough number of) Muslims, refugees or otherwise, want to engage in this kind of behaviour and judge and subsequently treat them en-masse. IMO it is as absurd as assuming that most Americans are cool with the idea of celebrities (sports players, etc) engaging in non-consensual sexual behaviour because I've heard plenty of stories involving American citizens putting such people on pedestals and complaining that victims speaking out are "ruining their careers/lives" (ie. the perpetrator's).

I'm good with this point. Totally agree with celebs getting a virtual free pass on this stuff by some. And I'm not trying to impugn all Muslims by any stretch. But it does give one pause when some of their Imams talk about it being their right to violate 'infidel' women.

If you consider an anti-prejudicial attitude towards a multitude of people is "downplaying", then frankly I think you need to examine your own prejudices, and I honestly wonder whether some people need some kind of official public announcement that says "guess what, most people do not think it is OK anymore to disparage group X of people in some irrelevant way to what defines that group of people".

I understand that very well and generally agree with you. That being said, my comment above still stands. I have no desire to condemn an entire group due to the revolting actions of a minority. But as been pointed out, government officials are deliberately downplaying incidents and blaming the victims.

I do not subscribe to the logic of common victim-blaming tactics, and frankly I find the idea hair-raising that the major of a civilised town/city would dare to advise such avoidance tactics. IMO the only way to counter such criminal behaviour is to confront it directly and discourage it from happening in future. There's no excuse for it.

I won't respond again to the "rules is rules" point because I and others have already said what ought to be said on that topic IMO.

Fine, as long as rules are equally enforced.

I completely agree with the paragraph that starts "If people dress in a manner that attracts attention...", though some might start with such a paragraph and then move on to saying things like "this is why women should dress conservatively / not walk home alone / etc", which I'm not saying you believe, but it's such a common line of reasoning that I thought I should point it out. A woman should be able to do all the things a man can do without fear that some men can't keep their rapey nature to themselves.

Agree.

I'm not sure what conclusion you came to that resulted in the insult, which is partly why I was wondering whether this post was specifically aimed at me. If there's a huge mix-up, PM me and we can decide how to alter the posts.

No insult to you was intended; it was a general comment.

 

[rga]

If people here honestly think that women dress primarily to provoke men, then they very likely need more experience with women...

I bet that any guy here who's been in a long-term relationship knows how much thought many women put into how they're dressing

My wife of eight years dresses to look as good as she can to men, without provoking other women to call her a slut. As far as I'm concerned, I like when other men give her attention. One of my biggest attractions to my wife is that she is loyal to me, and that I can trust her to look as good as she does without crossing the line from being attractive to, to becoming involved with, other men.

There is no doubt in my mind that when women dress provocatively, they do so for attention from men, and to compete with other women for that attention.

But that doesn't give men the right to label, slander, or attack women. Men have to understand that a woman's body is her own. It's not up to a man to decide what he's going to do to the body of a woman whom he finds attractive.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's not up to a man to decide what he's going to do to the body of a woman whom he finds attractive.

:sneaky:

 

[glenn1]

Is this post specifically aimed at my post that it quotes? I'm still a bit incredulous, but it makes even less sense if I try to read it any other way.

Ok. I'll start with the basics and move from there. I would condemn anyone who engages in non-consensual sexual behaviour. However, unlike many on this forum, I think it is wrong and is in no way justified to assume that most (or a large enough number of) Muslims, refugees or otherwise, want to engage in this kind of behaviour and judge and subsequently treat them en-masse. IMO it is as absurd as assuming that most Americans are cool with the idea of celebrities (sports players, etc) engaging in non-consensual sexual behaviour because I've heard plenty of stories involving American citizens putting such people on pedestals and complaining that victims speaking out are "ruining their careers/lives" (ie. the perpetrator's).

If you consider an anti-prejudicial attitude towards a multitude of people is "downplaying", then frankly I think you need to examine your own prejudices, and I honestly wonder whether some people need some kind of official public announcement that says "guess what, most people do not think it is OK anymore to disparage group X of people in some irrelevant way to what defines that group of people".

I do not subscribe to the logic of common victim-blaming tactics, and frankly I find the idea hair-raising that the major of a civilised town/city would dare to advise such avoidance tactics. IMO the only way to counter such criminal behaviour is to confront it directly and discourage it from happening in future. There's no excuse for it.

I won't respond again to the "rules is rules" point because I and others have already said what ought to be said on that topic IMO.

I completely agree with the paragraph that starts "If people dress in a manner that attracts attention...", though some might start with such a paragraph and then move on to saying things like "this is why women should dress conservatively / not walk home alone / etc", which I'm not saying you believe, but it's such a common line of reasoning that I thought I should point it out. A woman should be able to do all the things a man can do without fear that some men can't keep their rapey nature to themselves.

I'm not sure what conclusion you came to that resulted in the insult, which is partly why I was wondering whether this post was specifically aimed at me. If there's a huge mix-up, PM me and we can decide how to alter the posts.

There's a difference between "dressing in a manner which attracts attention" and that which doesn't meet the dress code. For example a guy wearing a kilt to school would probably attract attention but would OK providing it met the "finger tip length" requirement of skirts. The person who wrote the note in the OP is unclear about the difference between necessity and sufficiency.

 

[mikeymikec]

There's a difference between "dressing in a manner which attracts attention" and that which doesn't meet the dress code. For example a guy wearing a kilt to school would probably attract attention but would OK providing it met the "finger tip length" requirement of skirts. The person who wrote the note in the OP is unclear about the difference between necessity and sufficiency.

I'm not sure whether you picked up on the distinction I was making with my post, being the intent to provoke which so many assume.

The OP clearly was going for the shaming/indecency angle with the original title of the thread, and I've heard the argument plenty of times before that the reasoning for such rules was to ensure that "other students aren't distracted", which I called bullshit (on the reasoning) already for the reasons I've previously stated.

The "rules is rules" point you're making has already been covered.

I had to google the "finger tip length" business and came up with an interesting point, someone saying that they felt that a skirt was too short if underwear can be seen if the wearer bends over.

Personally I think it's time a lot of dress codes were re-examined, there are so many old values and bullshit reasons behind many of them that they could do with a bit of airing! I remember working as a developer in one of my first jobs and the employer was adamant that for a non-client facing role, a tie was essential, and wearing a jumper than partially covered the tie on a freezing cold January was frowned upon. WTF.

 

[mikeymikec]

But it does give one pause when some of their Imams talk about it being their right to violate 'infidel' women.

The only example I can think of where someone supposedly ultra-orthodox displayed an attitude that wasn't positively medieval, but while the role of the Pope is usually awarded to someone who is ultra-orthodox, I think the current Pope is comparatively extremely progressive!

The medieval attitude is still worrying, I agree. It gives rise to rapey-inclined people feeling that someone of note is supporting their inclinations, which is also what irritates me about so-called slut-shaming.

 

[shira]

I had to google the "finger tip length" business and came up with an interesting point, someone saying that they felt that a skirt was too short if underwear can be seen if the wearer bends over.

So the wearer in such cases should just take off their underpants. Problem solved.

 

[realibrad]

So the wearer in such cases should just take off their underpants. Problem solved.

I love this idea!

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Considering the only evidence submitted by the OP is the picture of the flyer, did anyone think to applaud the straw man?

Dressing "like a hooker" would be an issue, but since we don't know the dress policy of that school, it is possible were talking about a girl who showed her ankles. Unlikely, of course, but so is the "hooker" comment.

What a load of bullshit!

Feminist make this argument all the time.

public School dress codes are all fairly similar

Boys also have to follow the rules

Dress codes apply in the real world too

 

[waggy]

So I guess teaching boys how to behave in civilised society is wrong and/or pointless, after all, they should be allowed to do what's natural to them, and everyone else should work around that "natural" behaviour?

Did your parents teach you not to stare?

shrug. it's nature. Many women dress for that exact reason.

both sides are being nuts though.

yes boys will look. No i don't blame them. Should they stare? nope. on the same side girls should be allowed to dress how they want (without being to far). A tank top? fine, a spaghetti tanktop? fine and short shorts? whatever.

neither side should get pissy. they are only doing what is natural and healthy.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

shrug. it's nature. Many women dress for that exact reason.

both sides are being nuts though.

yes boys will look. No i don't blame them. Should they stare? nope. on the same side girls should be allowed to dress how they want (without being to far). A tank top? fine, a spaghetti tanktop? fine and short shorts? whatever.

neither side should get pissy. they are only doing what is natural and healthy.

No, both sides follow the rules. If you have an issue with the RULES, then change them. Blaming boys is moronic!

 

[waggy]

No, both sides follow the rules. If you have an issue with the RULES, then change them. Blaming boys is moronic!

where am i blaming the boys? they are doing what is natural. Its part of being male. they look at women. Pretty women more. pretty women dressed provocatively we look a alot. Saying that they shouldn't stare.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is little point in discussing this. Conservative brain defectives will find it threatens their male egos and victimize the victim as conservative brain defectives are wont to do.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

where am i blaming the boys? they are doing what is natural. Its part of being male. they look at women. Pretty women more. pretty women dressed provocatively we look a alot. Saying that they shouldn't stare.

By even mentioning them, you are going off track. The issue isn't boys and girls are attracted to one another, NOTE NOT JUST BOYS, it's that some special snowflakes don't want to follow the rules.

A school is a professional work environment, and everyone has to dress appropriately for that environment.

Again, these rules apply to boys as well. I saw several boys get called into the office for inappropriate attire. It's not just about sex appeal! One kid in my hs got called in, because of his green hair, and he was forced to dye it another color.

 

[buckshot24]

I love this idea!

Disturbing since we're talking about school age kids.

 

[MongGrel]

By even mentioning them, you are going off track. The issue isn't boys and girls are attracted to one another, NOTE NOT JUST BOYS, it's that some special snowflakes don't want to follow the rules.

A school is a professional work environment, and everyone has to dress appropriately for that environment.

Again, these rules apply to boys as well. I saw several boys get called into the office for inappropriate attire. It's not just about sex appeal! One kid in my hs got called in, because of his green hair, and he was forced to dye it another color.

You and you're special snowflake BS.

It's getting old fast.

Either your defective or you do not remember what having raging hormones did when you were 14 and looking at hot girls in the 8th grade even.

Crap, and that was even in the 70's to me, you must have been a real chick magnet in high school

Kids going to school are not in a professional work environment last I knew of, but there should be some guidelines of course.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

You and you're special snowflake BS.

It's getting old fast.

Kids going to school are not in a professional work environment last I knew of, but there should be some guidelines of course.

Ohh it's the small % native american snowflake! lol I am sorry, I had to.

It is for the teachers. It's a more casual work environment for the students.

 

[MongGrel]

Disturbing since we're talking about school age kids.

It's disturbing you're thick as a brick to me personally.

 

[CitizenKain]

By even mentioning them, you are going off track. The issue isn't boys and girls are attracted to one another, NOTE NOT JUST BOYS, it's that some special snowflakes don't want to follow the rules.

A school is a professional work environment, and everyone has to dress appropriately for that environment.

Again, these rules apply to boys as well. I saw several boys get called into the office for inappropriate attire. It's not just about sex appeal! One kid in my hs got called in, because of his green hair, and he was forced to dye it another color.

Gotcha, slavishly follow the rules, because thinking is hard.

 

[MongGrel]

Ohh it's the small % native american snowflake! lol I am sorry, I ha to.

It is for the teachers. It's a more casual work environment for the students.

I've all ready explained that joke to you to begin with, but you're going to be ignorant and persist.

Have at it oh ignorant one, most people know better all ready.

Keep digging a hole, and making yourself look stupid in the process.

Just repeating that makes you look worse every time you do it.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I've all ready explained that joke to you to begin with, but you're going to be ignorant and persist.

Have at it oh ignorant one, most people know better all ready.

Keep digging a hole.

It was a joke? No, I didn't see the explanation.

 

[MongGrel]

It was a joke? No, I didn't see the explanation.

I guess you should go back and read replies to your posts more often then, instead of flailing away like a dip shit all of the time lately.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I guess you should go back and read replies to your posts more often then, instead of flailing away like a dip shit all of the time lately.

Okay special snowflake!

 

[realibrad]

Disturbing since we're talking about school age kids.

Oh, I must be off the list. I guess this means I can ask you to back up your claims about evolution again eh?