How is this not sexual?

[BMMNonsense]

I was at the British Motor Museum today with family. In among the car and miniature railway enthusiasts (mainly families with kids and older men) was a couple in their forties. Two men. Except one of them was dressed as a "woman". 4 inch stiletto heels, sheer tights, a skirt and matching jacket. He was clearly wearing a fake cleavage, complete with fake collar bones and balloon like fake boobs, which visibly shone in the light. The cleavage reached down past where a bra would sit. It was grotesque, completely and overtly sexualised, in a setting where almost everyone was wearing long-sleeved tops and long trousers. How is this anything other than a man living out his own sexual fantasies? I don't need this kind of thing forced on me and even less so on my kids! Before people start: there was another man there who was wearing female clothes/ accessories too. I have no issue with that. Just keep it out of my face and limit your sexual fantasies to the privacy of your own home.

True, but society doesn't just run on the basis of 'if it's not illegal, anything goes'.

It's not illegal to barge to the top of the checkout queue in the supermarket; if you owe someone £50, it's not illegal to pay them with a bag of pennies [it wouldn't be legal to pay for something in a shop with a bag of pennies, but to pay a debt is legal]; it's not illegal to leave your bag on the seat beside you on the bus when somebody wants to sit down.

Plenty of things are not illegal, but they are also not pro-social, and people who insist on doing them anyway are a pain.

Most people have a fair idea of what's socially appropriate and what's not, and dressing in very revealing clothes is not appropriate in most contexts..

Personally, I'd put wearing fake boobs with fake cleavage on a visit to a museum in the 'not socially appropriate' category, whether the wearer was a man or a woman.
If they are very inappropriate in the given setting, they might well be 'designed to cause offence', but we shouldn't need fear of legal sanction to do the pro-social thing..

Dress how you like, caveat social norms still apply.

I don't go shopping in a bikini.

Until Stonewall decide the next cash cow is 'Some people are wrinkly and middle aged. Get over it #nodebate' I'm constrained to my jeans in Lidl if I don't want people to think I'm mentally ill.

Sorry, did I mention the law?

I am talking about social rejection. I will reject, eye roll, scoff and generally give no respect to both types of men for expressing their sexist beliefs.

Neither deserve my respect.

No, you responded to my post which was talking about the law.

You don't have to give respect to anyone you don't want to.

True, I agree with you, but if we're talking about violations of consent then we are by necessity talking about whether something is illegal or not because consent is fundamentally a legal concept.

It's an interesting question isn't it.

If the fella had a burka fetish and been wearing a burka out and about , would you see it differently? Do you think that could be so offensive as to fall foul of the law, or at least asked to leave, and if so, why the difference?

Peeps, I wasn't talking about law or consent, just about it being inappropriate! Totally agree with social laws (usually known as norms/ moral codes) being highly relevant as well though! I think it is disingenuous to say that I wasn't being forced to look, when that was clearly this person's intention.

It would depend on the context. If he did this at some sort of Muslim conference with the intention of enraging or upsetting people then I'd say he's clearly committing an S5 PO offence.

If he's just walking down the street, enjoying himself but keeping that enjoyment to himself, then I don't see how that would be breaking any laws.

Paraphilias cluster. He's clearly an exhibitionist as well as an autogynophile.

Sorry, but you brought up consent (and therefore the law) in your second post!

How do we establish intent, especially in this case?

Yep. Wearing a burka would not generally be perceived as sexual. I might find it offensive because of what it represents, but it's not harming me so I just have to accept it. Me and my children being involved in someone's sexual fetish is harmful to us and I therefore do not have to accept it.

I came across a guy with those comedy enormous breasts too - they were particularly unsettling below a full beard. He was sporting these, in something tight and leather-look-y, at a work event at a children's museum in Oxford. As ever, context is all: I don't think that an overly sexualised look is appropriate in museums where kids are likely to be, regardless of the sex wearing the clothes/fake body parts.

I understand, I was moving away from the concepts of consent and legality and was suggesting that people have ways of being together in societies that don't involve the Law with a capital L.

Dress that is inappropriate in some social contexts is one of those, I think.
There's nothing illegal about wearing fake boobs and cleavage on a visit to a museum, but many? most? people would think the wearer was, as my granny would have said 'Making a holy show of themselves'.

Well to take my rather extreme example, you'd look at background, patterns of behaviour, history etc and decide based on that whether there is reasonable doubt that said man went to a Muslim conference to cause trouble.

It's the same with indecent exposure (illegal) vs public nudity (surprisingly legal). To cross the line into indecent exposure there has to be intent to cause alarm and distress.

It is an interesting discussion, but I maintain that a man dressed like a complete prat at a motor museum isn't actually breaking the law or violating anyone's consent just by being present and dressing like a prat, he might be weird but I'll defend his right to be weird, and I don't want to live in the kind of society that imposes modesty restrictions on how men and women dress.

And I agree with your granny! But in the UK we all have the right to make a holy show of ourselves by dressing bizarrely even if everyone else thinks we're an arse. Legally AND socially (we are famously a nation of eccentrics).

The museum of course may have its own dress code of which I am unaware and if he was breaking that then sure, he should be asked to leave.

Fucking hell. someone wearing fetish gear to a children’s museum is a walking red flag.

Isn't he a chemistry lecturer or something? Can you imagine as a female student having to go to a tutorial with fake boobs guy? Creepy as fuck. I don't think he's even claiming a trans identity.

Same reason a cis woman dressing as she likes isn't sexual.

Stop repeating rape myths and try going outside.

I do think there's a difference between "weird" and "dressing up as an offensive parody of another group".

The former, fill your (kinky) boots. It might be icky but it's not really hurting anyone.

The latter has gone beyond just being about you, and starts to raise questions about whether it's reasonable/ acceptable to portray an offensive chariacture of someone else, and whether the people so portayed have a right to object. It's not just about one person any more.

I've explained in a previous post what the difference is.

I have no idea which rape myths I'm repeating. I tried going outside but it's really wet, hence trying the Motor Museum...

Let's be honest, he went to a predominantly family area because he got off on it. He is a pervert.

Are you suggesting that it's not possible for a woman to dress in a sexual way?

So not only do men make better women than actual women, but it's not possible for women to dress in a sexual way.

What a strange world you live in. Perhaps it's you who should get out more, and meet some actual women, rather than just the male parody version.

Yes. It reminds me of the rubber-clad wanker who worked for the NSPCC.

All done in plain sight and gets away with it because trans innit...