Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

Skip wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:04 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 am It is irrelevant THAT those women.... Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
The same reason it's all right for you to judge "those women" - whoever they are, wherever they are, whatever they actually said about anything - for their judgment: because everybody judges everybody else and nobody wants to be judged by others.
I dislike being partially quoted when it hides context. The capitalized, "THAT", is an accent to refer to what you removed and is intentionally attempting to misplace my intended accent.

Don't try turning tables here. I defend peoples right to be different and dress as they like ....but under the same limitations for all people equally as well,. not to have special exemptions for some CULTURALLY defined arrogance of superiority.

That is, if we are discussing the front lines of war, the soldier is expected to wear the uniform common to all others in context. As such, if I were to ask you it appropriate that the freedom of expression is still appropriate here, you are implying it more appropriate that the soldier who is female should uniquely be disqualified from this requirement.
THAT is the issue.
If that's an issue, it's unresolveable.
Actually it is. For instance, when making laws, if it is generalized to apply to all people, it resolves the interpretation that such rules are not biasing people. In contrast, like my own country's tendency to do, making laws that LIST which groups of people are caveated for discrimination, it SPECIFIES a set of stereotypes exist by the creators of such laws with clear logical proof of their hate and discrimination.

Rule example for restaurant: All people, male or female, must wear pants and flat shooes, not skirts or high heels!

I used this actual real example for a place I worked at that was here in Canada but owned and operated by an American company. I noticed that contrary to the rule, the girls (teens), intentionally would bring and put on skirts and high heels to exploit the nature of those who tip to give more presumably. When they worked without the main management around, they'd switch to them. In contrast, the a restaurant by the same company but owned strictly by a distinct francizing agreement for Canadians elsewhere, did not press this uniformity and in fact is what our system demonstrates in bias because the government here believes in distinct status of peoples' rights based upon their genetics.

We have laws that specify something called "hate crimes" which here do that listing too. As such, for it NOT being generalized to the uniformity of people proves clear and arrogant discrimination.
I was asking if you assume discrete stereotypical beliefs about others. Obviously you do.
I'm not sure how you find that obvious, but you're certainly within your right to think so.
You separated religious people's excuse for distinction as justified but not those with apparent gender oddities.

'Gender attire' is the cultural definition of behaviors that are based on ones freedom to choose what they wear that expresses something meaningful to the weare just as 'religious attire' is the cultural interpretation of the same for their religious beliefs.
One can assume that, though it's not likely to be true of all the people of whom we choose to believe it. Very often, the men in a culture have far greater choice as to their own self-expression than the women. Indeed, some cultures impose unequal dress requirements and behavioural limits on their members, and the patriarchs of some cultures, when transplanted to a different dominant culture with different rules, feel entitled to keep their old-world stranglehold on their female dependents , while they themselves take full advantage of the freedoms of the new culture. So it's always questionable what garb is freely chosen by the wearer and what garb is forced upon them.
If you restrict the question to religiously significant items worn by an independent adult male, yes, he is expressing something that is important enough to him to make a public statement in his everyday encounters, and in that case, yes, it does tell us something meaningful about his attitudes, priorities and loyalties. If he's putting on a costume for a photo-shoot, that tells us rather less about him. If it's an entertainer putting on a costume, it tells us nothing personal about him.

The situation with western feminine attire is somewhat different, in that most of what people wear is chosen, more or less freely, under the auspices of multi billion dollar fashion industry, in tandem with multi billion dollar industries in other aspects of beauty, all of which benefit greatly, vastly, enormously and obscenely from undermining women's self-esteem and persuading them to emulate a fictitious heterosexual male fantasy of feminine appeal. If enough of them keep doing it, it's the norm and any deviation is noticed - sometimes with approval, sometimes critically. No deep cultural truth here: Girls just want to look pretty for boys. (*sigh* and for other girls and boys want to be attractive to girls and other boys and old men and women and people who haven't decided .... just stay away from the kiddies, all right?)
These attempts by the vast majority of women to conform to a cultural ideal of what men desire in women are, of course, doomed to eternal failure, which means they never stop throwing more money into the bottomless pit of futility and garnering the society's contempt both for the effort and for the failure, so they console themselves by indulging in the other multi-billion dollar industry of making people fat.

While profit and religion are both powerful players in modern society, and while I wouldn't be surprised if churches invested in liposuction clinics and palm oil processing, the psychological mechanism doesn't operate quite the same way in both cases.
The logic is the same. Religion is not superiorly distinct to all other cultural beliefs. If you think it alright in one context, it is just as relevant to other cultural factors because we all think differently about these as signficant.

What does matter is to whether things are uniform across people. If one thinks exceptions apply, then they are begging some particular peoples' transcendent beliefs are superior to others. If one is permitted to wear a strong religious garment freely [context: uniformed or government supported places], then it shouldn't matter if that person is wearing any other of the same.
We hypocritically accept it fair to demand restrictions on what one wears that might insult another, such as a Nazi uniform one might choose to go to school in because many believe the opposite no restrictions applies to religious attire and ambiguosly restricted to gender attire choices.
I don't. I think every school, workplace, restaurant, club charitable and sport organization has a right to set a dress code for its members. It should not, however, discriminate by member but by item of clothing.
That is: neither boys nor girls, men nor women are allowed to wear a swastika, crucifix, turban, stiletto heels, shredded jeans or leather collar with studs. Both women and men, girls and boys must wear overalls, face masks, safety harness, life jacket, bullet-proof vest, hard hat. Simple.
Then we are more on the same page. However, note that I have worked in real places that demanded dress codes to intentionally be utilized as a means to discriminate. The particular code regarded wearing 'collars' to a night club. The boss specified to us all in a meeting that this was to permit the bouncers the freedom to exclude natives. I quit right then and there and was the ONLY one who stood up against that, including oddly, one of the Native bouncers!
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

attofishpi wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:19 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 am While it is effeminate for Style's choice, the context is missing. Vogue magazine is itself about flaunting runway style imagery and raising awareness of the variety of choices people can have in ones attire or presentation. That 'context' tells me that for whatever reason he is wearing it as the cover story, it likely has a backstory that requires one invest in reading it to determine, not just looking at the pictures.
IT WAS A PUBLICITY STUNT - NOTHING MORE. Look, here we are talking about a shit magazine!!
I didn't open the thread and am responding to those who may have thought this so odd to ridicule. My arguments are a to reflect the innocence of his choice. It is also in the appropriate context of the magazine's own philosophy regarding runway modeling and contemporary clothing styles. I don't read it either but would not dismiss it as trivial. The nature of the entertainer to be willing to be published in controversy also has the advantage of affecting CHANGE in how we perceive people. Harry Styles is a musician adored enough by straight women who would be able to transfer ideals of what used to be a standard of acceptance to something more open to gender issues. In effect, his presense there acts 'politically' to break down stereotypes.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by attofishpi »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:04 pm
attofishpi wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:19 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 am While it is effeminate for Style's choice, the context is missing. Vogue magazine is itself about flaunting runway style imagery and raising awareness of the variety of choices people can have in ones attire or presentation. That 'context' tells me that for whatever reason he is wearing it as the cover story, it likely has a backstory that requires one invest in reading it to determine, not just looking at the pictures.
IT WAS A PUBLICITY STUNT - NOTHING MORE. Look, here we are talking about a shit magazine!!
I didn't open the thread and am responding to those who may have thought this so odd to ridicule.
I didn't state you started the thread.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:48 pm [Scott Mayers: It is irrelevant THAT those women.... Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.]
[S: The same reason it's all right for you to judge "those women" - ? because everybody judges]
I dislike being partially quoted when it hides context. The capitalized, "THAT", is an accent to refer to what you removed and is intentionally attempting to misplace my intended accent.
Okay. Here, I left all your quotes intact, but elided mine for brevity.
This is the offended selection:
It is irrelevant THAT those women who want choice for themselves may favor that of men. But they would interpret that freedom in way that they do not want others to interpret of them: that if a man wears a dress, he must be gay and someone I would not want to date for that assumption, while still wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages. Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
I don't see how the context changes the situation. We all judge and don't like being judged. I don't think you can pass a law forcing people to like what they don't like. So long as they do not try refuse men the same rights that they demand for themselves, those women are free to think what they think and date whoever appeals to them - if that person wants to date them.
Don't try turning tables here. I defend peoples right to be different and dress as they like ....but under the same limitations for all people equally as well,. not to have special exemptions for some CULTURALLY defined arrogance of superiority.
There, we agree.
That is, if we are discussing the front lines of war, the soldier is expected to wear the uniform common to all others in context. As such, if I were to ask you it appropriate that the freedom of expression is still appropriate here, you are implying it more appropriate that the soldier who is female should uniquely be disqualified from this requirement.
I do not imply. I state categorically and explicitly. At no time and in no place have I said that female soldiers should have a different uniform from male soldiers. (Except for physique-specific undergarments that are not seen. I mean brassiers and/or jock-straps - explicitly.) Indeed, I stated very distinctly that all dress codes should apply to all members of the affected collective, regardless off sex/gender/religion/proclivity/fashion/cultural norm.
[SM:THAT is the issue.]
[S: If that's an issue, it's unresolveable. ]
Actually it is. For instance, when making laws, if it is generalized to apply to all people, it resolves the interpretation that such rules are not biasing people. In contrast, like my own country's tendency to do, making laws that LIST which groups of people are caveated for discrimination, it SPECIFIES a set of stereotypes exist by the creators of such laws with clear logical proof of their hate and discrimination.
How does the passing of laws stop people from making personal judgments? Or even harbouring personal prejudices?
(I grant that, if good and fair laws are passed now and enforced for a generation or two, popular attitude will change and many of those prejudices will fade.)
Rule example for restaurant: All people, male or female, must wear pants and flat shooes, not skirts or high heels!

I used this actual real example for a place I worked at that was here in Canada but owned and operated by an American company. I noticed that contrary to the rule, the girls (teens), intentionally would bring and put on skirts and high heels to exploit the nature of those who tip to give more presumably. When they worked without the main management around, they'd switch to them. In contrast, the a restaurant by the same company but owned strictly by a distinct francizing agreement for Canadians elsewhere, did not press this uniformity and in fact is what our system demonstrates in bias because the government here believes in distinct status of peoples' rights based upon their genetics.
I suppose that became relevant when you changed the subject from feminists' judgment of cross-dressing men to workplace dress code. It shows what I've been saying: that 'feminine' apparel is designed to appeal to heterosexual male fantasy. Women wear it to appeal to men. Thus, it is unlikely to appeal to a heterosexual women when worn by a man. And THAT is why they do not choose Harry Styles over Jude Law.
We have laws that specify something called "hate crimes" which here do that listing too. As such, for it NOT being generalized to the uniformity of people proves clear and arrogant discrimination.
Oooo-kaaayy... But what's it got to do with a magazine cover?
[I was asking if you assume discrete stereotypical beliefs about others. Obviously you do.]
[I'm not sure how you find that obvious, but you're certainly within your right to think so. ]
You separated religious people's excuse for distinction as justified but not those with apparent gender oddities.
I distinguished religious/cultural motives from pragmatic, sexual and peculiar ones, without "excusing" any breach of uniform or safety protocol. I also distinguished free agency from coercion when judging others by their attire. I don't see how that shows anything about stereotypical beliefs - which I can't assume anyway, since I don't know what they are.

['Gender attire' is the cultural definition of behaviors that are based on ones freedom to choose what they wear that expresses something meaningful to the weare just as 'religious attire' is the cultural interpretation of the same for their religious beliefs. ]
[S: (cultural difference) not .....true of all people..... the men in a culture have far greater choice....than the women. .... what garb is freely chosen by the wearer and what garb is forced upon them.
[S: (contextual difference) If .... religiously significant items worn by an independent adult male... is expressing his attitudes. ...costume... tells.. nothing personal...
[S: (free western women)... fashion .. beauty... self-esteem ....the norm: No deep cultural truth...
.... the psychological mechanism doesn't operate quite the same way in both cases.]
The logic is the same.
No, it isn't. Sometimes, no logic involved at all.
Religion is not superiorly distinct to all other cultural beliefs.
Of course it isn't. It just carries a lot more clout in some cultures than others.
If you think it alright in one context, it is just as relevant to other cultural factors because we all think differently about these as signficant.
I think differently about different things, because they have a difference significance in different situations for different people.
And yes, I do believe that it's all right for a Catholic to dress like an imam if he's playing that part in a movie, but not if he's doing it to defraud Muslim clients. I do think it's okay for either a man or a woman to wear an evening gown to the opera, but not to a construction site.
What does matter is to whether things are uniform across people. If one thinks exceptions apply, then they are begging some particular peoples' transcendent beliefs are superior to others. If one is permitted to wear a strong religious garment freely [context: uniformed or government supported places], then it shouldn't matter if that person is wearing any other of the same.
I never said they should.
[We hypocritically accept it fair to demand restrictions on what one wears that might insult another, such as a Nazi uniform one might choose to go to school in because many believe the opposite no restrictions applies to religious attire and ambiguosly restricted to gender attire choices. ]
[S: I don't. I think every school, workplace, restaurant, club charitable and sport organization has a right to set a dress code for its members. It should not, however, discriminate by member ]
Then we are more on the same page. However, note that I have worked in real places that demanded dress codes to intentionally be utilized as a means to discriminate. The particular code regarded wearing 'collars' to a night club. The boss specified to us all in a meeting that this was to permit the bouncers the freedom to exclude natives. I quit right then and there and was the ONLY one who stood up against that, including oddly, one of the Native bouncers!
Not my fault.
I worked in health care and we all put on the same white lab coat and most of us wore sensible rubber-soled footwear. Except that one stupid girl who kept showing up in open-toed sandals and there was nothing the chief tech could do about her, because there was no shoe code.
Still not my fault.
PS It it helps redeem me in your sight, I used to be a loyal NDP voter, until Singh. To me, the suit and turban convey a negative message about his motivations. No great loss - things haven't been the same since Jack Layton. It was time to go Green anyway.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

It is irrelevant THAT those women who want choice for themselves may favor that of men. But they would interpret that freedom in way that they do not want others to interpret of them: that if a man wears a dress, he must be gay and someone I would not want to date for that assumption, while still wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages. Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
I belatedly realized what the contentious bit was that I had failed to address directly:
wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages.
For some women, there certainly is an element of hypocrisy in their thinking. In most cases, however, it's simply conforming to the norm; feeling that it's not practical for them to wear 'masculine' apparel, because it would elicit a negative reaction from clients, superiors and colleagues - not only potential romantic interests. Of course, the same would be true for men. Men who showed up for work in dresses and heels might not get dates with women, but they would get a great deal of hostility from other men.
People in general are very conformist: they tend to disapprove of deviation in every area of social encounter. They tend to reject change in other people's appearance, behaviour, relationships and manner, because it forces them to think about other people and their own reasons for their reaction to other people. As long as everybody looks and acts in the way we're accustomed to, we can ignore them and think about ourselves.
Once everybody dresses in jeans, work-shirts, overalls and sweat-suits, this whole question will be moot.

Besides - most of the time, women (I don't know whether this includes feminists) do choose feminine clothing to attract men, so it's reasonable for them to assume that men - who have no practical need to do so - choose feminine clothing for the same reason. I did make the case, a couple of times, that, in the absence of practical reason, nobody in their right mind would choose feminine clothing.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:06 am
It is irrelevant THAT those women who want choice for themselves may favor that of men. But they would interpret that freedom in way that they do not want others to interpret of them: that if a man wears a dress, he must be gay and someone I would not want to date for that assumption, while still wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages. Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
I belatedly realized what the contentious bit was that I had failed to address directly:
wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages.
For some women, there certainly is an element of hypocrisy in their thinking. In most cases, however, it's simply conforming to the norm; feeling that it's not practical for them to wear 'masculine' apparel, because it would elicit a negative reaction from clients, superiors and colleagues - not only potential romantic interests. Of course, the same would be true for men. Men who showed up for work in dresses and heels might not get dates with women, but they would get a great deal of hostility from other men.
People in general are very conformist: they tend to disapprove of deviation in every area of social encounter. They tend to reject change in other people's appearance, behaviour, relationships and manner, because it forces them to think about other people and their own reasons for their reaction to other people. As long as everybody looks and acts in the way we're accustomed to, we can ignore them and think about ourselves.
Once everybody dresses in jeans, work-shirts, overalls and sweat-suits, this whole question will be moot.

Besides - most of the time, women (I don't know whether this includes feminists) do choose feminine clothing to attract men, so it's reasonable for them to assume that men - who have no practical need to do so - choose feminine clothing for the same reason. I did make the case, a couple of times, that, in the absence of practical reason, nobody in their right mind would choose feminine clothing.
How would you know 'why' women do or wear 'anything'? You seriously believe that women wear (what you refer to as) 'feminine' clothing to attract men? That might apply to prostitutes, but the vast majority of women wear clothes that are comfortable and suit them.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:57 am
Skip wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:06 am
It is irrelevant THAT those women who want choice for themselves may favor that of men. But they would interpret that freedom in way that they do not want others to interpret of them: that if a man wears a dress, he must be gay and someone I would not want to date for that assumption, while still wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages. Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
I belatedly realized what the contentious bit was that I had failed to address directly:
wanting others to interpret the woman's choice to wear a dress as NOT meaning they are using it for its sexually favorable advantages.
For some women, there certainly is an element of hypocrisy in their thinking. In most cases, however, it's simply conforming to the norm; feeling that it's not practical for them to wear 'masculine' apparel, because it would elicit a negative reaction from clients, superiors and colleagues - not only potential romantic interests. Of course, the same would be true for men. Men who showed up for work in dresses and heels might not get dates with women, but they would get a great deal of hostility from other men.
People in general are very conformist: they tend to disapprove of deviation in every area of social encounter. They tend to reject change in other people's appearance, behaviour, relationships and manner, because it forces them to think about other people and their own reasons for their reaction to other people. As long as everybody looks and acts in the way we're accustomed to, we can ignore them and think about ourselves.
Once everybody dresses in jeans, work-shirts, overalls and sweat-suits, this whole question will be moot.

Besides - most of the time, women (I don't know whether this includes feminists) do choose feminine clothing to attract men, so it's reasonable for them to assume that men - who have no practical need to do so - choose feminine clothing for the same reason. I did make the case, a couple of times, that, in the absence of practical reason, nobody in their right mind would choose feminine clothing.
How would you know 'why' women do or wear 'anything'? You seriously believe that women wear (what you refer to as) 'feminine' clothing to attract men? That might apply to prostitutes, but the vast majority of women wear clothes that are comfortable and suit them.
accordin' to some ladies, women often dress as they do, with the make up & and the form- revealin' and -accentuatin' clothin', as kind of competition with other women
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Would men have women wear large tents, so as not to be accused of 'trying to attract them' by showing any hint of a female shape underneath?
That in itself would be regarded as 'titillating' by many men, so women can't really win whatever they do.
Most young women are oblivious to the effect they have on creepy males. My own daugther can't wear ANYTHING without being leered at by sleaze bags in the street, much to her disgust.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:23 am Would men have women wear large tents, so as not to be accused of 'trying to attract them' by showing any hint of a female shape underneath?
That in itself would be regarded as 'titillating' by many men, so women can't really win whatever they do.
Most young women are oblivious to the effect they have on creepy males. My own daugther can't wear ANYTHING without being leered at by sleaze bags in the street, much to her disgust.
well, like I say, accordin' to some ladies, women dress as they do often as a competition with other women, not a competition for men's attention but as a one-up(wo)menship game

some men do the same...gym rats, for example...the expression goes doin' curlies for the gurlies but really they work them biceps to impress & shame other guys

-----

I haven't paid much attention to the thread...how'd it drift from sissy boys wearin' dresses to women's motivations?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Scott Mayers »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:43 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:23 am Would men have women wear large tents, so as not to be accused of 'trying to attract them' by showing any hint of a female shape underneath?
That in itself would be regarded as 'titillating' by many men, so women can't really win whatever they do.
Most young women are oblivious to the effect they have on creepy males. My own daugther can't wear ANYTHING without being leered at by sleaze bags in the street, much to her disgust.
well, like I say, accordin' to some ladies, women dress as they do often as a competition with other women, not a competition for men's attention but as a one-up(wo)menship game

some men do the same...gym rats, for example...the expression goes doin' curlies for the gurlies but really they work them biceps to impress & shame other guys

-----

I haven't paid much attention to the thread...how'd it drift from sissy boys wearin' dresses to women's motivations?
My fault; I raised the point that women tend not to favor males who are 'effeminate' even while the opposite (implied, not discussed) doesn't. I think that men TODAY are less biased now then women. This is probably a 'swing' effect whereby many women getting political powers to recognize them are favoring a counter to Patriarchy by demanding a flip to a Matriarchal one rather than an 'equal' one, as the general majority of the prior feminism from the 60s.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by henry quirk »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:03 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:43 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:23 am Would men have women wear large tents, so as not to be accused of 'trying to attract them' by showing any hint of a female shape underneath?
That in itself would be regarded as 'titillating' by many men, so women can't really win whatever they do.
Most young women are oblivious to the effect they have on creepy males. My own daugther can't wear ANYTHING without being leered at by sleaze bags in the street, much to her disgust.
well, like I say, accordin' to some ladies, women dress as they do often as a competition with other women, not a competition for men's attention but as a one-up(wo)menship game

some men do the same...gym rats, for example...the expression goes doin' curlies for the gurlies but really they work them biceps to impress & shame other guys

-----

I haven't paid much attention to the thread...how'd it drift from sissy boys wearin' dresses to women's motivations?
My fault; I raised the point that women tend not to favor males who are 'effeminate' even while the opposite (implied, not discussed) doesn't. I think that men TODAY are less biased now then women. This is probably a 'swing' effect whereby many women getting political powers to recognize them are favoring a counter to Patriarchy by demanding a flip to a Matriarchal one rather than an 'equal' one, as the general majority of the prior feminism from the 60s.
are men less biased or more pussified?

I'm thinkin' it's the latter
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:57 am How would you know 'why' women do or wear 'anything'?
I listen to people.
You seriously believe that women wear (what you refer to as) 'feminine' clothing to attract men?
That's certainly one big personal, rather than practical, reason. Same as men wear and say and do what they think will attract women. Mating hasn't gone out of style in the robotic age. Married people even dress to please their spouses sometimes.
That might apply to prostitutes,
For practical reasons, it also, if you've read Scott Mayers' post, applies to waitresses. It very blatantly allies to models, singers and other female entertainers. For only slightly less obvious practical reasons, as I mentioned above, it applies to women in clerical, executive and even professional positions, who know or believe that coming on as too butch can hurt their career.
but the vast majority of women wear clothes that are comfortable and suit them.
Oh, right! Why else would anyone walk around on 3" heels and squeeze her toes into tiny sharp points but for comfort?
Horsefeathers! The vast majority of women wear in public is what they're used to, what's expected of them, what fashion dictates, what their friends are wearing and what they, rightly or wrongly believe, will show them to the world to their best advantage - some kind of advantage.
At home they wear what's comfortable; in most jobs, they wear a uniform, whether one that's formally mandated or one that's simply the norm in that environment.
Would men have women wear large tents, so as not to be accused of 'trying to attract them' by showing any hint of a female shape underneath?
In Saudi Arabia, yes. And there is quite a variety of attire between that and the 2020 Superbowl halftime show.
However, what men would have women wear is some way removed from what women would have men not wear.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:41 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:57 am How would you know 'why' women do or wear 'anything'?
I listen to people.
You seriously believe that women wear (what you refer to as) 'feminine' clothing to attract men?
That's certainly one big personal, rather than practical, reason. Same as men wear and say and do what they think will attract women. Mating hasn't gone out of style in the robotic age. Married people even dress to please their spouses sometimes.
That might apply to prostitutes,
For practical reasons, it also, if you've read Scott Mayers' post, applies to waitresses. It very blatantly allies to models, singers and other female entertainers. For only slightly less obvious practical reasons, as I mentioned above, it applies to women in clerical, executive and even professional positions, who know or believe that coming on as too butch can hurt their career.
but the vast majority of women wear clothes that are comfortable and suit them.
Oh, right! Why else would anyone walk around on 3" heels and squeeze her toes into tiny sharp points but for comfort?
Horsefeathers! The vast majority of women wear in public is what they're used to, what's expected of them, what fashion dictates, what their friends are wearing and what they, rightly or wrongly believe, will show them to the world to their best advantage - some kind of advantage.
At home they wear what's comfortable; in most jobs, they wear a uniform, whether one that's formally mandated or one that's simply the norm in that environment.
Would men have women wear large tents, so as not to be accused of 'trying to attract them' by showing any hint of a female shape underneath?
In Saudi Arabia, yes. And there is quite a variety of attire between that and the 2020 Superbowl halftime show.
However, what men would have women wear is some way removed from what women would have men not wear.
Don't know where you are from but I rarely see women tottering around in stillettoes in their daily lives, and when they do wear them it's because they like them, and love the look and feel of them. Men are so egocentric.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:19 am Don't know where you are from but I rarely see women tottering around in stillettoes in their daily lives, and when they do wear them it's because they like them, and love the look and feel of them.

You don't watch television, visit professional office buildings, walk along city streets or ride public transit. OK.
High heeled shoes are worn for comfort. The women you know love the look (down? How often?) and feel of them so much that when they get home, they do not kick those shoes off in the front hall and sigh with relief, or hope their empathetic spouse of either sex will massage their poor abused feet, but keep those lovely shoes on through their private leisure hours. OK
Men are so egocentric.
And that's a uniquely masculine trait.
uhu
Last edited by Skip on Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Harry Styles Wearing a Dress

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:46 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:19 am Don't know where you are from but I rarely see women tottering around in stillettoes in their daily lives, and when they do wear them it's because they like them, and love the look and feel of them.
You don't watch television, visit professional office buildings or ride public transit. OK.
And high heeled shoes are worn for comfort. Women love the feel of them so much that when they get home, they kick them off in the front hall and sigh with relief, but keep them on through their leisure hours. OK
Men are so egocentric.
And that's a uniquely masculine trait.
uhu
[/quote]

Keep believing what you want. I'm just a woman so I wouldn't know :roll:
Post Reply