Why is slut dressing cool?

Is it because it would traditionally be something seen in the bedroom, maybe before sex?
What is the main influence over last 500 years that made both flesh and sex forbidden? Religion.
It's too ingrained in society. Having a child out of wed lock was taboo, again religion.

"There is no equivalent of terms like "temptress" for teenaged boys."

I'd never really thought of that, but you're right, there isn't is there?

BOF yes and I think the interesting thing is where the variation between the sexes is so explicit.

When people see a 15yo boy drenched in lynx with silly trousers on, they see a young person who is trying to fit in, trying to be attractive to people he wants to be attractive to (other teens who he finds attractive), trying to get to grips with sexuality and identity and so on.

When a person sees a 15yo girl doing the equivalent, short skirt, makeup and so on, far far too often they see a sexually knowing individual who is out to use sex appeal for her own ends (whatever they may be) and is interested in attracting sexual comments / contact etc from any man (of any age / looks etc) who comes her way.

Why is this?

There is no equivalent of terms like "temptress" for teenaged boys.

Ok. Why is flesh seen as racy and sexual freedom/promiscuity as taboo?

Oh yes, without a doubt, I'd be very surprised to find tribal areas were strongholds of equality!

I just find it interesting that we've ended up with this tightrope between women being expected to appeal to men and yet not be allowed to be too appealing.

I think it's culturally-specific, Murder. It's just that there are other ways of controlling women in other societies.

Murder - that was the point I was making

Greenie - maybe but what is more damaging the fear of a man or a higher power. I think being religious is the ultimate anti feminist

*these judgements, sorry.

I really don't think this is a judgemental thread, btw. It's a discussion.

Curious about whether in more tribal areas of the world (eg. where nudity is much more accepted) whether there is this idea of "sluttishness"?

I suppose that anthropologically, much of the preening behaviour seen among teens and young adults (including boys drenched in Lynx!), is directed towards the search for a mate, isn't it? That is the imperative going on at a very basic level.

The difficulty comes with the cultural arrangements we have developed, the patriarchal society, which overlays all this: women's sexuality in particular is very proscribed. We either look "too sexy", or "not sexy enough", and this judgements are used to control women's behaviour by keeping them in fear of being overlooked and invisible with no real power, or, at the other extreme, of being blamed for provoking rape and violence against them, which again is disempowering.

Until we have thrown off women's oppression, clothing will always be seen as a way of "reading" us, and keeping us in our place.

I don't think it is just religion. I think it is about our male dominated society. We are taught that dressing how most men would like us to dress is fashionable and trendy.

Nice - maybe. It all stems from religion. Showing flesh is sinful, it's forbidden. I think that without this religious bullshit there would not be this judgemental thread. It's this forbidden mentality that has caused this panic over flesh. As religion has become less meaningful fashion has changed but the ingrained religious view is still there, like a cancer.

Yougotbale I think you misunderstand my posts

Yes it really is.

Girls have been rolling their skirts up at the waist at school for decades. Everyone knows this. And everyone knows they do it because that's the fashion, it's what all their friends do.

Yet people can seemingly simultaneously know this, and know that everyone else knows too, and "know" that those girls are no good and if anything happens they only have themselves to blame.

Bizarre. Total cognitive dissonance (is that what it's called?). All in order to blame victims and thus not have to face up to any unpleasant truths.

A good question is WHY it has been the fashion for decades for girls to roll their skirts, to show more leg. Fashions change, but apparently young female skin is always in. Why is showing more skin seen as "grown up" with girls. I think most of us probably know the answer but still it always bears thinking about and being reminded just how bad it is.

Nicetabard - that is mainly because you are conditioned to think that showing your body is sexual and traditionally sinful. You are conditioned by centuries of religion.
Imagine if we had never worn clothes, always naked, how would a naked body look to you if that was the case?

BBut why are the fashions the type that would appeal to many men?

Nice It's a horrible vicious circle isn't it?

Clothing is simply a piece of cloth. I don't care what anyone wears.

But clothing is influenced by our society. We don't freely choose what we wear. And that is even more the case for young women.

I think that for the vast vast majority of women how they dress is nothing more than a reflection of what the prevailing fashions / looks are within their peer group.

Same as for men, TBH.

The real question is why prevailing fashions / looks are always more revealing for women than for men.

Someone mentioned Geordie Shore, upthread. I've only seen it once but the young men on the show were conforming to a "look" and style that looked pretty extreme to me as well.

What gets my goat about all of this is this:

• Teenager /schoolgirl wears very short skirt - 99% of the time because that is the fashion / her friends wear short skirts etc.
• Everyone knows that teenage / schoolgirls wear short skirts as it is the fashion
• Still lots of people pretend that they don't know this, and that teenage / schoolgirls in short skirts are wearing them to attract male attention from any old bloke / because they are sexually available or promiscuous etc
• And some men people use this as an excuse for street harrassment of young women and girls
• And a smaller number of people use it as an excuse for more serious sex crimes
• And then we go full circle where a very large number of people in society buy into the idea that a skirt can "send a message" and "what did she expect" and all the rest of it. Even though everyone knows that the vast vast majority of young women and girls who are in short skirts are not doing it because they want attention (of whatever sort) from random men

Whole thing is ridiculous

Greenie - you are missing the views behind the clothes. The morals behind the material. Your interpretation of clothing is conditioned, mainly by religion.

That's a fair point BOF

Most of my "sluttiest" outfits were worn at a time when I'd come out of a really abusive relationship and during a period when I was stubbornly remaining single, but I was exploring my own sexuality in a safe and solitary way. Getting to know myself, my limits, and what I wanted from life/relationships.

To an outsider I probably looked like I was desperately trying to appeal to men, but it couldn't have been further from the truth.

Slut walk is I think very misguided. It sends out the idea that it is okay to call women sluts. I think we should be clearly saying no woman is a slut.

And women dressing "sexily" as many men like, is not in any way challenging or feminist. In fact it is totally buying into what society says our role is - to be there for the benefit of men.

Slut dressing isn't cool.
If you look at what 'cool' people wear, its not slutty.

There are a lot of women who seem to think slut-attire is hot. They are not interested in being cool.