Dress Codes and Women's Reproductive Freedom

[lewisnotmiller]

I know there is value in women being allowed to make the choice for themselves. Did I imply otherwise?

A little. You talk of choice within culture and community. Whilst that makes sense, I'm unsure how else I should interpret it other than it being fine to have different standards of modesty for men and women, and for that to be controlled by society other than individual.

Add that to a patriarchal society and I can't see how women are getting choice other than within parameters defined by men.

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but that was my reading of what you posted.

 

[Smart_Guy]

A little. You talk of choice within culture and community. Whilst that makes sense, I'm unsure how else I should interpret it other than it being fine to have different standards of modesty for men and women, and for that to be controlled by society other than individual.

Add that to a patriarchal society and I can't see how women are getting choice other than within parameters defined by men.

Apologies if I've misunderstood, but that was my reading of what you posted.

No worries. I just asked if I implied it to know if I did

My point generally was that even tho we are free to make choices for ourselves, it should be governed in general because it could have effects on others either and the community directly or indirectly. It is just that we are people and people have systems to follow, not just doing anything we want anytime. Otherwise some people could do real damage maybe even in a way we can't clearly pinpoint the source of what caused it. I think this counts as preventative measures.

Perhaps I'm saying that because in my belief the good of the community has higher priority on the good of individuals. That does not mean individuals' freedom is not important, of course.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No worries. I just asked if I implied it to know if I did

My point generally was that even tho we are free to make choices for ourselves, it should be governed in general because it could have effects on others either and the community directly or indirectly. It is just that we are people and people have systems to follow, not just doing anything we want anytime. Otherwise some people could do real damage maybe even in a way we can't clearly pinpoint the source of what caused it. I think this counts as preventative measures.

Perhaps I'm saying that because in my belief the good of the community has higher priority on the good of individuals. That does not mean individuals' freedom is not important, of course.

I understand the view generally. Specifically around female dress code, where would you draw the line?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I understand the view generally. Specifically around female dress code, where would you draw the line?

Hmm... I wouldn't draw lines. For that, I'd follow the cultures those women live in, in my perception. But if you mean my own understanding and approval, the dress would be wide, opaque and comfortable, enough to not show body details, long sleeves at least to the beginning of the wrest joints and same for the pants or skirt with the ankle, and at least covering up to the collar bones. I don't mind the hair and the face, but without clearly attractive getup like makeup, yet I prefer wearing a headscarf.

The above is just sharing my standers. I hope it does not attract haters

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hmm... I wouldn't draw lines. For that, I'd follow the cultures those women live in, in my perception. But if you mean my own understanding and approval, the dress would be wide, opaque and comfortable, enough to not show body details, long sleeves at least to the beginning of the wrest joints and same for the pants or skirt with the ankle, and at least covering up to the collar bones. I don't mind the hair and the face, but without clearly attractive getup like makeup, yet I prefer wearing a headscarf.

The above is just sharing my standers. I hope it does not attract haters

Have to admit, then, that I'm completely confused by what you mean when you said earlier that you see the value in giving women the choice.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Have to admit, then, that I'm completely confused by what you mean when you said earlier that you see the value in giving women the choice.

Hmm, I'll have to go back and read my own words for that.

 

[dawny0826]

No, in this case, I don't think it's how the OP is worded. I think it's laziness on the part of several posters. And I don't feel obligated to help out because of that.

I doubt that anyone wants your help, Phil. You either find value in contributions or you don't.

Accusing people of laziness and belittling their contributions as amusing without elaboration, appears lazy, if not arrogant, in and of itself.

You should have put a disclaimer in your OP.

 

[Thanda]

I've long maintained that one of the best ways to restrict or limit a woman's reproductive choices is to force her to dress "modestly" or in an unattractive manner.

"Reproductive choice", simply defined, is being able to pick and choose who to mate with.

All else being equal, a woman who can attract more men to her has greater reproductive choice than a woman who can attract fewer men to her. Put differently, women tend to increase their reproductive options by making themselves more attractive to men -- or to the sort of men they wish to attract. One of the ways they sometimes do this is to make themselves physically attractive. Consequently, forcing a woman to dress in an unattractive way is effectively messing with her freedom to choose who she wants to mate with.

Anyone interested in discussing this?

It has also just dawned on me that you have equated modesty with unattractiveness. What makes you think modesty is unattractive? By whose standard is it unattractive?

 

[viole]

I've long maintained that one of the best ways to restrict or limit a woman's reproductive choices is to force her to dress "modestly" or in an unattractive manner.

"Reproductive choice", simply defined, is being able to pick and choose who to mate with.

All else being equal, a woman who can attract more men to her has greater reproductive choice than a woman who can attract fewer men to her. Put differently, women tend to increase their reproductive options by making themselves more attractive to men -- or to the sort of men they wish to attract. One of the ways they sometimes do this is to make themselves physically attractive. Consequently, forcing a woman to dress in an unattractive way is effectively messing with her freedom to choose who she wants to mate with.

Anyone interested in discussing this?

Human sexual restrictions have, among several causes, a very important one: we women are different from our fellow primate females in the way we show our fertile days. We do not show any visual hints about our current fertility status.

That makes males pretty nervous, obviously. And that is why virginity and sexual modesty are considered a value for males. For, those poor male souls have all interest to control women behavior at all time because they have no clue when they run the risk to grow a kid that is not theirs. Better safe than sorry, so to speak.

If we blushed in the face, or in some other parts, during those fertile days, this so-called moral restrictions would not exist, or they would be limited to a few days per month.

In other words: all sexual morality, coming from religion or whatnot, is just a natural adaptation, like every thing else, including the religion that dictates it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sunstone]

You should have put a disclaimer in your OP.

Next time I might: "Please do not respond with straw man arguments". Or maybe, "Please read the OP". Think it will do any good?

 

[Sunstone]

It has also just dawned on me that you have equated modesty with unattractiveness. What makes you think modesty is unattractive? By whose standard is it unattractive?

Really? I did not equate modesty with unattractiveness. I equated "modesty" with unattractiveness. Granted the difference in meaning is subtle, but I was assuming when writing the OP that most folks were up to the challenge of a bit of subtly. I won't make that assumption again, if I can help it.

 

[Sunstone]

Doesn't this rely on cultural norms of what is attractive?
And is largely subjective anyway?

I don't think it does rely on cultural specific norms of what is attractive because -- so far as I know -- every culture on earth has one concept or another of women being physically attractive.

Can you name even one culture which has no concept or notion of women as physically attractive? It's true, I think, that specific notions of what makes a woman physically attractive vary from culture to culture. For instance, in Japan, a woman's neck was traditionally considered one of the most physically attractive aspects of her body, while many or most other cultures never placed such emphasis on the neck. So specific notions of what makes a woman attractive somewhat vary from culture to culture (there are also a very few cross-cultural universals too, such as the rosy glow of heath, facial symmetry, etc.), but it seems that all cultures have a concept of physical attractiveness for women. But please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I submit that making a woman (or for that matter a man -- but the OP is not discussing men) cover up those features of her that would be considered physically attractive in her culture reduces the number of men who will be physically attracted to her. All else being equal, that most likely reduces the pool of men from which she can pick and choose a mate or mates.

Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply that all cultures don't also have a notion or concept of physical attractiveness for men.

Second Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply that women don't also attract men to them via means having nothing to do with physical attractiveness, such as by the qualities of their personalities, or by their skills and accomplishments, etc.

Third Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply that women must intend to attract men physically in order to attract men physically, nor imply that a women who does not intend to attract men physically never attracts men physically.

Fourth Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply that a man whose initial attraction to a woman is physical never comes to be attracted to that woman for any other reasons than her physical attractiveness to him.

Fifth Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply that all men -- or even that a majority of men -- are only physically attracted to women.

Sixth Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply that women's dress comes in only two styles: Madonna and whore. i.e. That she either covers up or she dresses "provocatively".

Seventh Note: Nothing in the above paragraphs should be taken to imply anything that is not explicitly stated in the above paragraphs.

 

[Thanda]

Really? I did not equate modesty with unattractiveness. I equated "modesty" with unattractiveness. Granted the difference in meaning is subtle, but I was assuming when writing the OP that most folks were up to the challenge of a bit of subtly. I won't make that assumption again, if I can help it.

There is no subtlety in the meaning - unless you assume we all come from the same background and automatically have the same images when we think of a modestly dressed woman. I'm a Zulu from South Africa. There is a good chance that what is modest in my culture is not necessarily considered modest in yours or vice versa. Also what you and I consider modest many not be what the Saudi Arabian members of this forum consider modest and vice versa.

 

[Sunstone]

There is no subtlety in the meaning - unless you assume we all come from the same background and automatically have the same images when we think of a modestly dressed woman. I'm a Zulu from South Africa. There is a good chance that what is modest in my culture is not necessarily considered modest in yours or vice versa. Also what you and I consider modest many not be what the Saudi Arabian members of this forum consider modest and vice versa.

Upon consideration, I think you've got a point. Using the word "modesty", even in quotes, appears to have thrown a number of people off. My apologies for a poor choice of word.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

One of my partners recalled a date he went on recently. He met her through an online dating site and agreed to get together for a drink.

He saw her and noticed how much she looked like a magazine model. Then they began talking. Within 30 seconds, he was wondering how he could get out of that date smoothly and painlessly. He recalled it being one of the worst dates he'd ever been on.

"Even though she's beautiful?" I asked.

"She's not beautiful," he said, "Her measurements unfortunately came with a horrible and empty personality."

I thought his story is fabulously noteworthy - on so many levels - for both men and women.

What a great story to recount to woman you want to impress with your depth and sincerity.

I'll have to remember that one.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What a great story to recount to woman you want to impress with your depth and sincerity.

I'll have to remember that one.

Well, if the shoe fits...

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't think it does rely on cultural specific norms of what is attractive because -- so far as I know -- every culture on earth has one concept or another of women being physically attractive.

Well isn't that just a matter of what males subconsciously look for vs females?

I mean men typically want physical attractiveness but women tend to correlate intelligence with attractiveness. Science is still trying to explain all the various details, evolutionary psychology and all that jazz. But that seems to be the basics.

And would dress and what feature they cover (or not cover) not influence the cultural aesthetics anyway?

Conservatively raised people (regardless of culture) do seem to prefer modest dress and even find it sexier than looser apparel. Generally speaking, of course.

And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there males who find business attire or otherwise authoritarian like clothes on a lady to be very sexy?

And the oldie Traditionalists (and I mean Indians in this scenario) seem to vastly prefer traditional Indian attire. Men (and even women) seem to prefer Saris or a Kameez on women as aesthetically pleasing while some traditionalist females seem to prefer a Dhoti or Kutar on a man. (For reference see here http://www.utsavfashion.com/men)

Hell the Punjabi ladies I know seem to vastly prefer facial hair on a man as aesthetically pleasing and "manly." And by facial hair I'm not talking about the rugged stubble look, which to be fair can look very manly and pleasing on some males. I'm talking about straight up beards.
And yes, you absolutely can look to their cultural norms to see where that specific opinion on what is "manly" and attractive came from.

I mean, modest clothing might have come about to restrict access for the female and her reproduction access (depending on the specific culture.) But sooner or later cultural norms that would have evolved around such dress would inevitably make them aesthetically appealing anyway.

I don't know, excepting some cultures that do literally make women subservient to men, it kind of seems like a loosing battle to try to control reproduction with clothing. At least in the long run.

I guess I can see it perpetuating the cycle of needing/wanting modest clothing. But not necessarily restricting access to certain swathes of breeding choices for females. Given that most males who grow up in a culture where women wear modest clothes, would probably prefer modest dress on a lady anyway.