Bras and Society

[SmurfBlueSnuggie]

Also, what about being able to see a bra? I know some women who say that if it's obvious you're wearing a bra, it's immodest. What do you all think about being able to see a bra through a shirt? Say it's not a sheer shirt. Perhaps a light colored shirt and a black bra?

[The Black Ram]

TBS, you mentioned asking more questions. I have one. How is a man seeing a woman's nipples significantly different from a woman seeing a man who is clearly having an erection?

OMG, I’d never thought of that…. I’m off to buy a cod piece *heroic whooshing noise*!!!!

[SmurfBlueSnuggie]

Splendid! New fashions are always the way to solve society's problems.

[TheBlackSheep]

Ughhhh, don't encourage him. I have to live with him and whatever codpieces he acquires.

[Emiliana]

Ughhhh, don't encourage him. I have to live with him and whatever codpieces he acquires.

Bahahahaha.

[Emiliana]

The couple of times I've seen an obviously erect penis (on someone other than my husband) have not been arousing, they've been AWKWARD AS HELL.

[Marduk]

Vorpal, allow me to restate what I see your opinion here as being. It is your opinion that individuals are responsible for their own actions, thoughts, and feelings. Therefore, a man is responsible to control his own thoughts and not give in to wanton lust no matter how a woman is dressed. However, just as we would be expected to think of what we say before we speak, to say things in a way so as to avoid antagonizing others to the extent possible, women, because men are more easily and forcefully visually stimulated, ought to dress in ways that are conservative (as dictated by the environment and culture) so as to not excite lustful thoughts which a man must then struggle to control. This is your essential position as I see it; please correct me if I haven't captured the essence of your position. If this is your position, in my opinion it is neither unreasonable nor extreme.

Portia, this seems to be what I've collected as your position. You want women to able to dress as they please, and to not have men stare at them or blame them if they have lustful thoughts. You argue that many people excuse the crime of rape by blaming the dress or attractiveness of a woman; "the devil (succubus, as it were) made me do it." Although personally I find this to be slightly extreme (we simultaneously allow women the freedom of dress without allowing men the freedom of thought) you then make the position much harder to swallow, adding that you often present your breasts in such a way as to draw attention to them, saying that you like for men to check you out. This makes your position not only extreme, but impossible. It seems that you want guys to check with a woman first before they are allowed to be attracted to them. It is impossible to be able to dress as you want without guys ogling you, and dress as you want when you want the guys to ogle you. Again, please correct me if I've misrepresented your position.

As to the post at large, I'll simply say that it has been my opinion that I think a woman should be able to dress as she wants. I'm in favor of the dissolution of all laws and mores with regard to the standard of dress. If a woman wishes not to bother covering her shoulders/thighs/breasts/tragus that morning, she ought to be able to do so. If she wishes for her shoulders/thighs/breasts/tragus to be covered and only revealed to a select person/group, that is also her right. That being said, in my opinion a man ought to be free in what he thinks. If a man believes it morally right to control his thoughts from lust, that is his right. However, he must be able to do so regardless of how women around him are dressed. On the other hand, if he thinks nothing wrong with finding a woman attractive, and undressing her with his eyes, well, then, this is generally unavoidable regardless of how a woman is dressed. The woman must realize, however, that by thinking lustful thoughts about her, he has in fact taken nothing from her. She remains the same person as ever. His thoughts about her in no way affect her, nor do they give him rights to any physical action regarding her.

[Imogen]

Vorpal, allow me to restate what I see your opinion here as being. It is your opinion that individuals are responsible for their own actions, thoughts, and feelings. Therefore, a man is responsible to control his own thoughts and not give in to wanton lust no matter how a woman is dressed. However, just as we would be expected to think of what we say before we speak, to say things in a way so as to avoid antagonizing others to the extent possible, women, because men are more easily and forcefully visually stimulated, ought to dress in ways that are conservative (as dictated by the environment and culture) so as to not excite lustful thoughts which a man must then struggle to control. This is your essential position as I see it; please correct me if I haven't captured the essence of your position. If this is your position, in my opinion it is neither unreasonable nor extreme.

Portia, this seems to be what I've collected as your position. You want women to able to dress as they please, and to not have men stare at them or blame them if they have lustful thoughts. You argue that many people excuse the crime of rape by blaming the dress or attractiveness of a woman; "the devil (succubus, as it were) made me do it." Although personally I find this to be slightly extreme (we simultaneously allow women the freedom of dress without allowing men the freedom of thought) you then make the position much harder to swallow, adding that you often present your breasts in such a way as to draw attention to them, saying that you like for men to check you out. This makes your position not only extreme, but impossible. It seems that you want guys to check with a woman first before they are allowed to be attracted to them. It is impossible to be able to dress as you want without guys ogling you, and dress as you want when you want the guys to ogle you. Again, please correct me if I've misrepresented your position.

As to the post at large, I'll simply say that it has been my opinion that I think a woman should be able to dress as she wants. I'm in favor of the dissolution of all laws and mores with regard to the standard of dress. If a woman wishes not to bother covering her shoulders/thighs/breasts/tragus that morning, she ought to be able to do so. If she wishes for her shoulders/thighs/breasts/tragus to be covered and only revealed to a select person/group, that is also her right. That being said, in my opinion a man ought to be free in what he thinks. If a man believes it morally right to control his thoughts from lust, that is his right. However, he must be able to do so regardless of how women around him are dressed. On the other hand, if he thinks nothing wrong with finding a woman attractive, and undressing her with his eyes, well, then, this is generally unavoidable regardless of how a woman is dressed. The woman must realize, however, that by thinking lustful thoughts about her, he has in fact taken nothing from her. She remains the same person as ever. His thoughts about her in no way affect her, nor do they give him rights to any physical action regarding her.

I think your last statement would be the perfect world. I know my issues arise when, no matter who I'm dressed, men make unwelcome comments about wanting to (insert choice of gross sexual activity here) me or creepily follow me. I think men SHOULD look at whoever they find attractive and say to themselves "Damn...you're hot." They should even be able to approach women and (respectfully) ask for a phone number or a date. But, for some reason, some men can't seem to do that without being total creepers about it/blaming the woman for breathing/calling her names if she's just not interested.

And my tragus is not only proudly exposed, but is adorned with sparkles. If that's not hot, I don't know what it.

[vorpal blade]

The question I was trying to answer was what does a man feel when confronted with female nudity or revealing apparel, and how is that different for a typical male when confronted with male nudity. When my opinion was criticized on the basis that I was excusing men from taking responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, and blaming women for a host of social evils that men should be blamed for, I responded by trying to show that everyone is responsible for his or her own thoughts and actions. I wasn’t giving an opinion on what the proper role of clothes ought to be in our society.

We seem to agree, Marduk, that everyone should take full responsibility for his or her own thoughts and actions. We also agree that individual liberty is a great thing. None of us want to be fettered because someone else is going to use our actions as a justification for doing things harmful to society. I can resonate with the expression, “I am not responsible for his thoughts!”

Have you considered, however, the possible consequences of your point of view in favor of the “dissolution of all laws and mores with regard to the standard of dress?” Allow me to approach this a little tangentially. It is the law that men cannot put up in their private work spaces pictures of women in skimpy costumes. It is considered sexual harassment in that it creates a “hostile work environment.” I agree with the law; I think it is reasonable to believe that some women are going to feel threatened or intimated by the existence of such pictures in a place where they work. Ironically, and inconsistently, women are permitted to come to work dressed in even more revealing attire than they would permit men to display at their desks.

Now, it seems consistent with your beliefs that a man ought to be able to display at work pictures of naked women, if he believes in the intrinsic beauty of God’s creations. It would seem that you feel that if women have a problem with that, the problem is the woman’s. You would believe that she ought to control her thoughts, she ought not to feel sexually harassed, it ought not to affect the way she feels about her work environment. She ought to realize that by thinking lustful thoughts about women, he has in fact taken nothing from her. She remains the same person as ever. His thoughts about women in general in no way affect her, and they do not give him rights to any physical action regarding her. Is that your position on the matter?

Carrying this line of thought a little further; would you be in favor of the dissolution of all laws and mores with regard to pornography? Should a man feel free to display pornography at his place of work? What about situations where children may see the pornography he displays? Are you saying that a man viewing pornography does no harm to society? That women who are married to men who view pornography should just get over it? That in viewing this material he has in fact taken nothing from his wife, and that her personal responsibility is to continue to think that she is the same person as ever?

I do not intend to take your argument to an absurd conclusion. It sincerely seems to me that this is merely the logical conclusion of your train of thought. Can we not temper the absolute and complete freedom to wear whatever you want wherever you want with a certain level of public responsibility and group consideration? Sometimes extreme personal liberty leads to social problems, it seems to me.

Sorry, Imogen. If you want to have the last word you'll have to post again.

[The Black Ram]

As to the standards of art vs. what women are allowed to wear. I agree this is certainly a conflict. In *MY* ideal world management would be able to set the expectations of what is “proper” and have these applied evenly to everybody. I understand that many women feel that business is largely male dominated and this would create an unfair bias, I cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. This leads to government limitations and the conflict to which Vorpal referenced.
Regarding pornography, the line of what is and is not acceptable within a relationship needs to be defined from within the relationship.
My $.02

[Marduk]

My position is a bit more nuanced than that, Vorpal. My conclusion is that a given state of dress or undress is not, or at least ought not to be, directly correlated with sex. Hence, a given state of dress will not be a de-facto assumption of a particular sexual signal. Things that are overtly sexual in nature still ought to be restricted in terms of who can access them, and where they can be displayed. Theoretically, under this assumption, someone could post a picture of a naked woman somewhere in their workplace (legally, although perhaps not based on company policy) without being in violation of law. However, if this picture depicted some sort of sexual act, or the picture by the way it was posed or set was designed to be sexually provocative, then it still would be restricted in a similar fashion. I acknowledge that this would leave a lot of room for ambiguity, but I don't think that it would be more ambiguous than the standard now.

Therefore, the answer to your second question is no. I would not be in favor of the dissolution of all laws and mores with regard to pornography.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Tangentially relevant.