Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Why is slut dressing cool?

170 replies

Hullygully · 03/10/2013 15:44

I don't get this.

I get that everyone should dress as they like/not be judged on appearance/not be victim blamed etc

I get all that

What I don't get is why women dressing in a way MEN deem sexually attractive: short skirt, tits hanging out, monster unwalkable in heels = empowering.

It's nonsense.

OP posts:
MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 22:45

The funny thing is that fashion changes used to be way more pronounced for men (the rich anyway), wonder why it's slowed down? High heels were originally a man thing!

KaseyM · 03/10/2013 22:48

I agree with everything Nice says. Teenage girls are just following fashion and their peers who are following fashion. The question why does fashion always demand that women be more naked than men and why does we heap more vitriol on girls than boys as they fumble through the perils of teenage identity and expression of sexuality. We assume girls to be manipulative Lolitas who are playing games.

Maybe it's to do with the fact that girls are more likely to be victims of sexual assault. I'm just reading "a mind of its own" and it talks about this study that found that the more victimised someone was the more the observers vilified the victim out of a need to protect themselves from the possibility that it would ever happen to them.

So when we blame assault on the victim's clothing we are trying to convince ourselves that all is right with the world and that we are safe as we would never dress like that.

KaseyM · 03/10/2013 22:49

Sorry for typoes. Stoopid phone.

NiceTabard · 03/10/2013 22:50

that was a tiny part of history though.

YY men painted their faces and wore heels.
The women they were with though were still much more "done up".

Having said that there have been times when gender was more flexible and there was much more freedom between the sexes in terms of hair makeup etc

BOF · 03/10/2013 22:50

Yes, Kasey, I think that's right.

NiceTabard · 03/10/2013 22:51

sorry that was to murder!

Yougotbale · 03/10/2013 22:53

Murder - what is the point about promiscuity? I don't understand? If it were males that gave birth and they were from a species that had to hunt or pay for that baby. Wouldn't you want to know?
These species would eat or kill unfit babies. I'm not sure it is a good comparison

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 22:53

That's true, I guess in those times the divide was way more pronounced between rich and poor than man and woman. Which changes the dynamic slightly.

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 22:57

Promiscuity is obviously going to be heavily tied to how "desirable" a mate is. In our culture that's often about being "sexy".

A promiscuous female would mean the males would have no way of knowing which offspring (if any) were theirs, so reducing her promiscuity - for example by slut shaming her - would help the male with his base desire to produce offspring.

And that's something that will have predated religion by a long way.

Yougotbale · 03/10/2013 23:00

Murder - I think monogamy is a newer concept than polygamy. I don't think that is right

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 23:13

It's not quite about monogamy, I mean look at in nature. Most animals aren't monogamous, but the males do tend to ward off other males between the female being fertile and giving birth. So it's not monogamy just making sure that particular offspring are theirs.

Yougotbale · 03/10/2013 23:19

That seems more nurturing

NiceTabard · 03/10/2013 23:22

I'm not sure about comparing to nature at all TBH.

Are we like birds? No. Lizards? No. Spiders? No.

We have always operated in social groups I think and co-operation.

Some chimps and the great apes seem closest... But they are still miles away. Social groups tend to have 1 dominant male and everything revolves around that. Like with lions and things.

I think it is maybe unreasonable to try and draw comparisons and thus conclusions about humans from other animals on the planet. We are very deeply different from all other life on earth ** and I suspect always have been. So when people (not here) start wittering on about peacocks maybe it's best to just pat them on the head and move on.

** possibly excepting mice and dolphins Wink

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 23:25

There's nothing wrong with it, obviously. But it's a factor when we talk about why women have been the ones to be controlled/guilted.

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 23:26

I think it'll play a part because we'll have carried some ideas over from way back in the mists of time and incorporated them into developing cultures.

NiceTabard · 03/10/2013 23:51

In the mists of time though, we don't know whether humans lived in groups with one dominant male and only females and young ones, or with groups which were fluid amongst the adults and raising children together, or whether women made the decisions, or anything.

I have read some stuff (on here) which posits that before people realised that sex made babies, societies were matriarchal. Or at least not oppressive of women.

And looking at us over the last few 1000 years, we change so much (and not at all) and, well, I think better to study humans in the here and now than observe them now and try and justify / explain their behaviour based on different species. And even putting aside what we know about humans in study-able history. All this comparing post victorian brits to monkeys. Well OK. What about comparing human societies around the world now. And what we know of ancient societies, who had very different norms to us.

The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear that anyone who says "well look at the chipmunks" or whatever, is trying to make an excuse for something.

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 23:53

No excuses here at all, just trying to point out that religion is in no way a sole culprit. It's way more complicated (and fucked up) than that.

Yougotbale · 03/10/2013 23:57

Murder - what about incest in nature?

MurderOfBanshees · 03/10/2013 23:59

I can't say I have any idea about that, or how it relates to promiscuity/slut shaming?

NiceTabard · 04/10/2013 00:07

YY murder it seems to me that religions picked up the pre-existing cultural norms. Which at the time saw women as chattel etc.

This talk of "religion".

I have a friend who is a pagan and that is all about nature and trees and stuff and not at all about beating women to death if they get impregnated by the wrong guy.

I would like to cite culture/religion in ancient greece and rome (again).

When you say "religion" I imagine you are talking about the judeo/christian gang and probably islam. Because "religion" while not something i believe in is not always awful. And people are quite capable of being awful without religion, also.

Bottom line is some (very popular) religions reinforce a subservient role of women in society. But they didn't start it, and they aren't the cause of it, they are a symptom.

NiceTabard · 04/10/2013 00:08

obv not all that post aimed at you, murder.

Yougotbale · 04/10/2013 00:10

Most religions are fundamentally wrong. It's the moderates that pick and chose their bits that stop religion being held accountable for what it is.

Yougotbale · 04/10/2013 00:12

Nice - not alway awful!!!!! Jimmy saville raised millions for charity

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 04/10/2013 00:14

Bale's on is last orgasmic death throes.

Yougotbale · 04/10/2013 00:17

What?

Swipe left for the next trending thread