A Man’s Perspective on Leggings
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A few weeks ago an Indiana mother wrote a letter to the Notre Dame University school newspaper, asking women not to wear leggings to Catholic mass. After sitting behind a group of girls in church with her four sons she wrote:
I was ashamed for the young women at Mass. I thought of all the other men around and behind us who couldn’t help but see their behinds. My sons know better than to ogle a woman’s body — certainly when I’m around (and hopefully, also when I’m not). They didn’t stare, and they didn’t comment afterwards. But you couldn’t help but see those blackly naked rear ends. I didn’t want to see them — but they were unavoidable. How much more difficult for young guys to ignore them.
Maryann, I’m so sorry that leggings have made it so “difficult” for you to teach your sons that women are people before they are bodies. Maybe you need to be lectured on proper parenting instead of lecturing us about our clothing choices.
If you raise boys that can only treat women as people when they are dressed a certain way, something has gone terribly wrong. This reminds me of the “if you’re wearing a skirt you’re asking to be raped” mentality.
I’m sorry if my leggings are making men ogle me. Maybe they should have some restraint and the brainpower to realize I’m more than a body part.
Women, including myself, my nieces, my 75-year-old mother, should wear whatever the heck they want. We should wear what makes us feel good, strong, smart or pretty. Anyone else’s “discomfort” is not our problem.
Many Christian women share these attitudes. Any suggestion that they dress modestly is seen as oppression, body shaming or victim blaming. Drew Brown writes in Relevant magazine:
You’d also hear…how women are temptations to men, and should be crossing their own legs to help temper the male sex drive. You’d think women held responsibility for keeping men pure. Turtlenecks and chastity belts and all that.
When women are made responsible for the sex drives of men, they are conditioned to feel responsible for sexual abuse, often defaulting to silence for fear of the retribution they will receive for their perceived role in that abuse. Women don’t come forward because they think they were wrong for having been in the situation in the first place. Or they shouldn’t have been wearing those clothes. Or drinking that much. The shame and false responsibility flows out of this broken view of a woman’s sexual responsibilities.
These tweets and comments are built on a set of flawed assumptions about men. As a man, I’d like to set the record straight.
First, men don’t choose to have sexual thoughts, so you can’t teach a man not to look at a woman’s body. Men won’t necessarily lust, but they will look. Men’s sexual interest in women is driven primarily by testosterone – not poor parenting. Young men have twenty times as much T coursing through their bodies as young women do.
Shaunti Feldhan asked four hundred men this hypothetical question: “Imagine you were sitting alone in a train station and a woman with a great body walks by and stands in a nearby line. What is your reaction to the woman?” Ninety-eight percent of men admitted they would look. (I think the other two percent were either gay or lying.)
Feldhan summarizes her findings this way: “Men can’t not want to look at a beautiful woman.” The desire itself rises unbidden. Men cannot stop it. All they can hope to do is control their response.
Second, most Christian men really do want to see women as people and not merely bodies. But society makes this very difficult for us.
We live in the most sexually stimulating society in history. Images of beautiful, airbrushed, surgically enhanced women are everywhere. On the web. In our e-mails. On TV. At the mall. Lining the grocery store check stand. Companies use sexy images of women to sell their products to both genders – and there’s nowhere to go to escape these images.
No generation of men has ever been exposed to this level of constant sexual stimulation and visual temptation. It’s completely unprecedented. This nonstop parade of gorgeous women trains our brains to seek out more attractive women.
Third, women and their clothing are not responsible for “making men ogle” them. If a man has lustful thoughts toward a woman, it’s 100% the man’s fault. It’s up to men to control their thoughts. Which leads us to our next point:
Fourth, men can control their desires. Women don’t have to do it for them. Truth is, men control their desires every day. Every hour of every day. From the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep.
Fifth, men are not trying to control, oppress, blame or objectify women by hoping they would dress modestly at church. We just want a break from the nonstop sexual imagery and temptation that bombards us every day. Church should be a sanctuary, a safe place for us to focus on God and nothing else.
Sixth, no one is blaming the victim. Men (and their mothers) are just asking for women’s help dealing with a very strong, testosterone-driven temptation that’s common to all men.
Seventh, comments and tweets like the ones above discourage men. There’s a modern tendency to take a simple request and re-interpret it in the worst possible light. By imagining all sorts of impure motives and absurd consequences (such as chastity belts) we justify our refusal to help. To illustrate this, here’s the story of two roommates, Juanita and Rebecca.
One day Rebecca brings home a fifth of whiskey, cracks it open and leaves it on the kitchen counter. Juanita comes to Rebecca and admits past struggles with alcoholism. Rebecca can respond two ways:
Response #1: “Juanita, I don’t understand your problem, but I’m going to do what I can to help. I’ll keep this stuff locked in the liquor cabinet so you won’t have to think about it.”
Response #2: “Juanita, this is your problem, not mine. This is my apartment and I have every right to keep a legal substance here. Why are you blaming me for your weakness? Are you trying to shame me for having a drink after work? Who made me responsible for your sobriety?”
With Response #1, Rebecca offers understanding. With Response #2, Rebecca offers judgment, interpreting her roommate’s request in the worst possible light. By putting words in Juanita’s mouth, dismissing her concerns and questioning her motives Rebecca frees herself from having to care about her friend’s predicament.
When men read tweets and articles like the ones I quoted above, they hear Response #2.
Men have admitted a weakness. They’ve asked for help. But instead of compassion, their request is met with anger and defiance. On top of this, the person they’ve asked for help dismisses, disparages and ridicules them for making the request.
Men have no desire to control, shame or blame women for their choice of wardrobe. Men are not holding women responsible for male chastity. Nor are they casting women in the role of temptress or telling them to be ashamed of their bodies.
Men are simply admitting a weakness and asking for help. Isn’t that what Christians are supposed to do?
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
I'm not sure that I agree with much, here... but it has me thinking...
This clothing is not appropriate for church.
I tend to agree with the guy writing the article.
The last few times I have gone to a wake I have been struck by the young ( late teens or early 20's) women at these wakes who wear short or extremely short skirts or other sexually provocative clothes. I think to myself, "where do these people think they are at ?" There are times for some level of respect for the occasion and a funeral is one of them, I think. And church services is too, in my opinion.
You know, I actually agree that it's not appropriate for church.
This article doesn't really seem to confine disapproval of leggings to church settings, though. I doubt Mom is only worried about her sons ogling women in church, and nowhere else.
I think that's so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.
That would be enough to have a woman arrested and punished in many Mosques around the world, yet there are nudist Churches where this would be overdressed.
I believe making something taboo is what creates the excitement, it's similar to supply and demand. If you grew up as a male but had reached age 18 without ever even having seen a woman's ankle, that bare ankle is going to be pretty exciting once you get to see it. If you lived all your life in some places in Europe, you've seen women's naked breasts everywhere, from beaches to TV commercials, like it's no big deal, and thus it really is no big deal.
So what we need is for every woman to wear leggings all the time and men will acclimate to where leggings arouse a man about as much as bare ankles do today. Increasing the supply will inevitably decrease demand.
It is called, "dressing to fit the occasion." Many women (see picture) would have a scarf in their bag or around the neck which can be draped around them front to back or the inverse accordingly. The aware woman understands the sway she holds over heterosexual men. I see it all the time around me. Despite all the patriarchy nonsense men engage it—women are influential power-brokers in a man's life!
The focus of Church/sanctuary is calm from the 'noises' of life. The same would go for men "sagging" or "manipulating (holding) themselves in their clothing" while in the sanctuary. Heaven forbid!
These are faux-pas in a place of worship - while relatively harmless on the street!
And to me (and this just my opinion), strapless wedding gowns are a faux pas in church. But that's just me
If Yahweh was offended by nudity, then why didn't he clothe Adam from day 1 and then Eve after cloning her from Adam's rib?
I have no argument, Mo. It's just my personal opinion. It's illogical and emotional but it's all mine
Which is fully subjective.
Interesting choice of words. Sounds very close to victim blaming, but it's true that history is filled with woman using their "famine whiles" to accomplish goals.
No problem. The question was meant philosophically.
So what does, ""dressing to fit the occasion" mean to you, Eg? Say it slowly (no condescension) intended, but I really want you to think about it:
"Dressing. . . to. . . fit. . .the. . .occasion."
Church is the occasion. If one is a regular- or intend to be regular churchgoer -a set of "success" guidelines sprang to mind. I have no desire to belabor this point, nevertheless. If people do not want to be impacted by the ideas, rituals, and customs of others—come as you are!
If you get past the "authorities" (deacons, church mothers, pastors and teachers) attend away.
Are women by nature victims, Eg? Women are not victims in my opinion.
Being a voluptuous women (top/front/back) is not a crime or guilt-factor - any more than a man or boy "packing" is a crime or guilt-factor.I hope you understand that male sexual urban expression.
However, churches have experiences with women who in the "heat" of services, become excessively 'wrapped up in the spirit' and stuff tumbles out for all to see! Maybe, its because those two organs were not 'stowed' properly in her top. Or, a man/woman/boy/girl front pants crotch is too tight and you can see a certain 'shape of things.' Or, the back of the pants have wording which draws the eye, or over-accentuate "the bigness," "the roundness," and/or "the goodness" —suggesting its may be holding a "meet and greet ."
Uh-uh. Church ain't for that. No victim-blaming need apply (if one knows the rules beforehand).
Women do have sway over heterosexual men and I would think that is something positive a woman can be proud of being able to do. Lord knows, I see it and frankly if I was a jealous type of person, I would envy a woman for it. (I am not the "covetous" type. It is not in my nature.)
a closet prude. I knew it. looks like there's a few catechism dust bunnies left over from the past.
LOL! You figured me out
Perhaps church is not appropriate for this woman.
I feel bad for young men in this day and age. The seeded article highlights more issues than I think the author realizes.
If you tell a woman what and what not to wear, you're trying to control her, whether you're a man or a woman yourself.
This mother sounds like a nightmare future mother-in-law.
Almost every other word of this article shows this to be bullshit.
In Biblical times, women were not allowed to attend the Temple. Churches and Religions are relics of the past.
Not true. They participated in the outer courtyard.
Simple to fix. Don't let any female under 50 or not wearing a circus tent in your church. churches can afford to turn younger members away. Did the woman and sons HAVE to sit or stay sitting right behind those girls?
I've been in church, you are allowed to move and even change pews.
I wish the best for this woman and her sons, and hope they never again have to be exposed to any attractive women anywhere. Just so I can keep looking.
So, is it cool if men start going to church dressed like this?
Maybe I'll start going to church if that's what's walking thru the door these days
We'd need a front view to make that determination.
When did Kavika shave his head?
Oh my ! I may be returning to the flock !
Perhaps, but they can chose their words and actions.
Oh, so men acting like leg humping dogs is societies fault?
Make up your mind. This third point contradicts the first point.
I don't even know what this fucking means. Are not desires thoughts & ideas?
Yes, they kind of are.
Denying it happens all too often isn't helping the problem.
An illustration making men again out to be driven by impulses they can't control? It's clear the author is trying to rationalize men's behavior and put all the onus on the women.
This is the extreme reaction the writer referred to. It's unfair. No one is trying to justify humping anyone's leg.
How are you going to "control" an autonomic physiological response to stimuli?
There's actually nothing in there about rationalizing any male behavior.
Just because you have a biological reaction doesn't mean that you are required to act on it. Please learn to control yourself.
You are trying to defend your inability to control yourself.
I didn't say anything about acting on it and neither has anyone else. Please read the seed before commenting. That distinction is a key point in the article.
I have done any such thing. Please try reading both the article and the comments before posting.
Putting the onus on the woman for the reaction of men to how she's dressed is exactly rationalizing poor male behavior. This article is only trying to be polite on the surface, but underneath is the normalization of victim blaming.
And what's wrong with that? We put the onus for the reaction of women on men all the time. We see story after story about toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and other nonsense. These stories are never about action taken against women. They're all about how men make women feel. We're supposed to care about that and change the things we say and do, but apparently women are free to not give a shit about how their behavior makes men feel.
What "behavior" are you talking about? There's nothing in this article about behavior.
Oh! Well, if we want to talk about what's "underneath," we can invent anything that enters our imagination, can't we? Suppose we just assess the article for what it actually says and not what you imagine it could mean? Otherwise, we can freely go down any rabbit hole you choose.
There's no victim to blame in this article. See above.
What behavior do women exhibit that make men feel shame, weak, terrified, terrorized, exhausted, and bored?
I don't know about you, but I take responsibility for my own actions and taught my son the same.
It's interesting, but predictable. Toxic masculinity is NOT how men make women feel by simply wearing tight pants in public.
Why is polite and respectful so difficult?
You can pretend we aren't talking about the objectification of women all you want.
For starters, the reaction to articles like this seed, where men are asking women to simply dress a little more modestly in church and they are being treated as if they are trying to justify rape.
I didn't see that when I seeded... and having just now re-read the article, I still don't. I see
But it wasn't a man in this article asking women to dress modestly....it was a woman
So....any answer to my question?
Yes! Why IS it so difficult to respond politely and respectfully to men trying to talk about how the behavior of some women makes them feel? Why is the response that men are just trying to justify outrageous behavior of their own when no such behavior has even been referenced? How is that polite or respectful?
You reference that vaguely as if it's some thing that only evil men do. A certain amount of objectification is natural for men. As I have said already elsewhere here, it's not the end or limit of a male/female relationship, but it is a biological fact that men are attracted to what they see more than women are.
The Triggers of Sexual Desire: Men vs. Women
No one is trying to justify rape or sexual harassment. All I am suggesting (like this author) is that women be a little bit sensitive to this biological/physiological reality in certain situations. That, to me, would be "polite and respectful."
True. Nice to see a woman care about what's going on with the men around her. I don't see how that changes the importance of what she's saying. As I said, the female behavior is referenced in the article and in the reaction we see to this article.
So...again...how do women make men feel threatened?
I would like an example of toxic femininity
Like someone getting her knickers in a knot over hot girls wearing leggings in front of her sons and writing the college newspaper about it? You mean like that?
Or how about the 90+% of America's "shaming" that women are responsible for?
No...I don't think that's quite it.
Toxic masculinity affects women. Its opposite....toxic femininity affects men. I need an example.
Your examples are just Mean Girls.
Everyone should follow and read Bf's link
It is... ... ... interesting ...
It's a number for which I'm sure Jack will be happy to supply a link...
Why would you presume either of those to be the case? Why would "toxic" masculinity not affect men, and why would "toxic femininity" not affect women?
Yes. Toxic femininity.
Ok, then....what aspect of toxic masculinity affects you?
The Reply should be interesting...
If I get one....
"Shaming" is all about controlling other people by manipulating their emotions.
Men don't generally use "shame" as a means of control.
Generally speaking, we don't "shame" fat girls, we ignore them. We don't "shame" scantily clad women, we enjoy the view...yes, even in church. We don't "shame" promiscuous women because we don't actually want a world with less sex in it. We don't "shame" women who drink because the more they drink the better we look and the more the other shaming wears off.
We don't try to "shame" each other because it almost never works.
A small number of men engage in "shaming". They are usually members of the great shaming institutions, like churches, and the driving force behind all churches are middle-aged and old women, who account for the majority of both attendance and activity. The other great shaming institutions include political groups, where the shaming is driven by young women and co-opted by the young men who want to sleep with them so they go along.
The lady in this article is trying to use shame as a tool for hanging on to her boys and not having somebody else become the most important woman in their lives. It's such a mom stereotype they make commercials about it.
Intellectually, she knows the day will come when some other woman will steal her little boy away from her. It's the inevitable and natural course of life. Emotionally, she's dreading that day, and if she can just get every young woman in America to stop dressing like a tart/hussie/floozie/*insert your favorite shaming phrase here*....she can postpone it a little longer.
The idea that it only impacts women is a bit strange. I'm just curious though, were you thinking that ALL of the violence committed as part of "toxic masculinity" was directed at women? You don't think guys get their asses kicked? You don't suspect guys change behavior to avoid getting their asses kicked? You don't imagine lots of guys get intimidated in those situations?
The first idea many people miss is that men aren't really even allowed to talk about how they're impacted without being told to "turn in their man card", so I guess it follows women might not have any idea about what they're going through.
That said, it affects friends of mine more than me personally. I'm 6'4", 210 lbs, I lift weights, and I was a coach for 27 years. I'm a large, confident guy who has spent years bossing around athletes, who tend to be other large, confident guys. Even utter neanderthals recognize I'm not really somebody they want to bother.
But as an example, one of the guys who works for me is 5'8" and 140lbs. He's straight, but a bit artistic. When we've been out at restaurants or happy hours other places together, I've overheard people say things to him and treat him like shit....until they realize he's with me....at which point it's remarkable how quickly attitudes and tones of voice change. He knows it's happening, I know it's happening, and I've seen him physically shaking a time or two. But he can't change it and he talk about that to anybody.
I have gay friends who've been beaten up. I other friends who've been bullied in public. Guys aren't really allowed to complain about that, or they have to turn in their "man card". You're supposed to "not let it happen" or "do something about it".
The difference between mansplaining and a woman's wardrobe is the object. Mansplaining is done TO women. A woman isn't choosing her wardrobe to belittle men. Multiple women here have said they wear leggings because they're comfortable, not to torment or belittle men.
I'm going to agree with you about toxic masculinity affecting men, too. I'd use as an example the derision faced by stay-at-home dads.
I bumped into an article on "toxic masculinity" this afternoon. (It's 5h30 pm right now.)
I'll seed it tomorrow - I've already seeded five today.
Never said their was. I wasn't the one that brought it up.
Below is the standard definition of "Objectification". Degrading, or demeaning, a woman to a mere thing is not a good idea. It isn't a good basis of any healthy relationship. My girlfriend/mother/sister/daughter is NOT a thing! They are not objects to set on a pedestal to be admired, traded or possessed. They complete persons with thoughts, ideas and feelings of there own. When one reduces another to an object it is the first step in what all too often does end in evil.
Have you not heard of "love at first sight?"
OK. Then there is no reason to worry about how we look. No reason to be concerned about fit bodies, fashion choices, hair styles or makeup. And yet . . . people are.
That's more like "lust" at first sight. It's an immediate hormonal response, mostly from elevated testosterone levels. Oxytocin release, among other hormones, leads to feelings of love.
And that's sort of the point.
Nothing wrong with lust.
Do at least attempt to follow along, won't you?
Attraction and objectification are two different things.
I really don't get why you equate physical attraction, which we have little control over, with attitude which we do have control... Frankly it's weird.
I'm not. I didn't do that. I didn't say anything about long term relationships or attitudes.
Everything about this seed is the first moments when we see a person. On the one hand, we have a voice saying "hey, let's give the men in church a break and dial back the sex appeal a little" but the responses are "you're condoning rape" and "why can't men control themselves?" So, I'm not the one equating a moment of physical attraction and distraction with something more. That's coming from the other side.
I can see this discussion is not going to center on the appropriateness of clothes for church or other occasions. The writer probably should have stayed in that realm rather than make excuses for all of men's paying attention to women's appearance. The real question is if there is anything wrong with men noticing women who look sexy. I dont think so, but you also have to keep it to yourself , usually.
I would agree that at churches, funerals, etc. people should not be wearing sexy clothes - whether it's a woman in skin tight leggings or a man in a muscle shirt. It's just common courtesy.
We need a petition against construction workers - they need to start wearing loose, long sleeved shirts. Because a construction worker with great arm and back muscles always catches my eye, and it's not fair for them to tempt me like that.
I like guys in Carhartt bibs. Or the UPS guy.
My heart stops when I see a Marine in his dress blues.
I never got that. I like them in their khaki Class Ds instead of the formal dress uniform.
I also like guys in nice jeans and ironed white shirt with the cuffs rolled up instead of a suit or a tux.
Guys in a Nomex firesuit tied around the waist get my attention. That and cyclists in very sweaty and shiny spandex(Tour De France) YUMMMMM!
British, French, or Australian accents also work for me.
Pitter Patter goes my heart - those dress blues....
My husband could always fill out the butt of a pair of black levis - YUM
As I read the seed, "men's paying attention to women's appearance" is the article's topic. Church is just an exacerbated case.
Yup. It's not simple. If you don't compliment a woman... you're callous. If you do compliment her... ... there are other risks...
Really? I don't find this to be true except with my girlfriend. A very different dynamic than say a co-worker or the young lady at the coffee shop.
There's less risk when saying, "You look nice today." than "Nice ass!"
Less risk in saying, "That top looks great on you." than "You are hot!"
This has been cited as harassment.
I would never say that to someone I didn't know or even to a female I worked with. No way. You are just asking for a complaint if you do.
I'll compliment people I work with (male or female), and a guy at work might tell me he likes my dress. So might a woman. I'm fine with that. One guy had on a really cool shirt the other day and I told him I liked it.
If I'm out with friends and a woman I don't know walks by, I might compliment her clothes, but if it's a man I don't know, I don't. Unless it's shoes - one guy had Washington Capitals sneakers on and I just had to compliment them. Shoes seem safe.
The best compliment isn't "that top looks good on you" but rather "you make that top look good." Try the difference out on your wife and see!
As far as "you look nice today" - watch out. I knew one person who was so messed up that she accused the person of implying that normally she doesn't look nice, but today she happened to look nice.
I could take something like that the wrong way depending on my mood.
I once had a woman tell me my make-up looked good that day. Since I rarely wear make-up I wasn't sure how to take it so I just said thanks and went about my business.
Here's the crux! We really do not know what's unacceptable, acceptable, welcome, desired, ...
1. How about understanding that women are individuals with individual personalties? What would bother one woman won't faze another.
2. Unless you KNOW the individual well enough to comment on their appearance - DON'T.
Why are you shouting?
To do everything that I can to clear up the confusion that some males have about what is acceptable.
Do you think that shouting makes it easier to understand you?
You'll have to link me to a particular case. That comment on it's own cannot be construed in any way shape or form as harassment.
I have said it dozens of times to co-workers. I've also said, "I like your blouse/shirt/shoes/pants/tattoo/hair" to any number of random women.
Like most things in life, it is an individual thing. Make of it what you will and allow others to do the same. Most people realize that other people's lives do not revolve around them.
I certainly do. For example, I would never shout at someone in an initial contact unless I had a good reason - good enough to be explained in public.
Bob, go have a cup of coffee and relax.
I don't need to relax. I'm not upset.
Don't tell me what to do!
I don't know what you mean by "on its own." There will always be context for something. For some people in certain settings, those words would be enough.
‘Complimenting’ Women At Work Is Sexual Harassment
I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but the threat of losing your job over what you thought was an innocuous human interaction is real.
Me too. I can be civil, say it, accept a comment in reply, and move on.
Two things...
First, the author is a man. Several Comments seem to think it's a woman.
Second, I think the article must be read with nuance. For example:
The author obviously agrees:
The situation is crazily contradictory.
Female beauty is everywhere: on TV, in the press, on the Internet. Advertising presses women to be beautiful and presses men to take note. The reward for conforming to these pressures, according to the same sources, is a fantastic sex life!
But then... mustn't touch... mustn't say anything out of line...
Our species is kinda odd, sexually. Among large mammals, we're quite dimophic. We're in heat all the time.
It's complicated....
Yes. It's complicated, but (as a straight middle aged white man) I vehemently don't agree that men can't control their impulses.
I agree, but they can't help their thoughts which have been biologically put there by evolution.
so...
If the purpose of church is to be spiritual, then leggings defeats that purpose. The guy behind you is busy looking at your butt. Sorry ladies, but I kind of get this. Time and place counts.
Leggings, especially the pleather leggings in the picture are for evening or personal time.
Religious services or work environments deserve pants or a knee length skirt and a blazer.
I don't do skirts and blazers. I wear dresses instead.
When I have to do a hearing, I have a suit I like to wear. It looks more professional to me than a dress. Of course, the men only have to wear a tie.
I've been thinking on just this point. It seems to me (and I can only speak for me here) why would one really need to change their behavior (and dress in this case) for church? Why should church be anymore spiritual than anywhere else for a religious person? Is not the God of Abraham all knowing and all seeing? If He does not approve of leggings in Church then why would He approve of leggings at Starbucks? I'm again struck by they seeming hypocrisy of human nature and I find it fascinating and bewildering at the same time.
I think it's just a matter of respect for your fellow people, not because any god would care what you wore. Certain occasions deserve more formal attire IMO.
I was told by clients that I couldn't wear t-shirts and jeans in the office and that I should wear "business casual" dress shirt and khakis. I often have to crawl around under desks and move dusty, dirty computer components. I still wear jeans, but most often now wear a polo shirt with my business logo as a compromise.
I don't really get it. So it's not a woman's fault that all men are dogs, but they should still be respectful and not dress too sexy anyway? And leggings are too sexy?
Devil's advocate aside; I understand I shouldn't wear a clown suite to wedding. There are levels of taste, but I who's to say what those are for other people. Personally I can only judge for myself what I think is appropriate for me. I don't wear skinny jeans - I don't like how they look (on anyone) so I don't wear them and try not to judge those guys that do. That's just me...
I can understand why most in the room would not be paying as much attention to the hearing as to the men in the room.
LOL!
Took me a minute....but ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bad choice of words
Nah! Brightened my day. Thank you.
It's a designation and a destination. Tradition holds that houses of worship are reserved for being "set apart." One would no more undress oneself or copulate or 'spoil' the location, because it is another's (and the many) destination. This holds even for outside temples, mosques, or civil establishes. One should not labor to defeat the purpose for which the building was intended. That would be considered bad form.
You're welcome
CB, that is the laziest excuse to continue doing something.
There have been plenty of splinter sects of the Christian religion that have AND DO just that. They aren't main stream and they aren't widely excepted but it does happen.
Why does the manner in which I dress have any bearing on the purpose for which the building was intended? Especially in the context this article where we're just talking about seeing the shape of woman's backside, I fail to see how it's relevant except for the prudery of some church goers.
I have an exceptionally long tie for just such occasions.
Are we JUST talking about the shape of a woman's backside, Eg? Really? Or, should we talk like 'down and dirty' because we simply can't 'catch' what's at stake here? Even NT has standards against gratuitous vulgarity for its own sake. Why can't a religious sanctuary simply be a 'temple for a person's mind and spirit?
We, you, have the rest of the whole world (outside the church) and a clock for of time to be 'just so' in. But, not to worry: EG, the "sects" can play by their own set of rules. Right? Fixed it!
It's an article written by a man, in agreement with a statement written by a woman. I object to both.
As others have said, it puts the onus for upholding men's emotional comfort on women. Women they might not even know. Men aren't owed that. No woman is obligated to tailor her attire to satisfy random men on the street who might feel guilty if they glance at her ass (or cleavage, or whatever). Women are responsible for their clothing choices, not for male reactions to them. If a man can't behave respectfully toward a woman who is wearing leggings, he'd better stay away from the beach, or pretty much any warm area during summer, when shorts and tank tops abound.
Women who wear leggings (or other revealing clothing) are well aware that men will look. So there is no need, other than an overdeveloped sense of prudery, to feel guilty for looking at a woman. Women look at men, too. Just recognize that the fact that a woman is attractive and is wearing clothing to enhance that attractiveness is not an invitation to all who look to act on their attraction. I certainly don't think every man with nice pecs and a tight t-shirt is inviting me to comment on or touch his pecs. I just enjoy the view and go on with my life. Men can do the same. It's neither difficult nor complicated.
If only everyone could agree with that... and relax with it...
Very well said.
Nailed it!!!!!
Thank you. And thanks, mocowgirl.
I think most men who have been raised to be civilized gentlemen know you don't just touch or grab a woman in certain ways or say certain things. There is a collection of behaviors most of us would agree are appropriate or inappropriate.
Unfortunately, the lines don't always make sense anymore. Women go to an effort to look attractive that men do not. Logically, this effort is for the benefit of everyone who will see that effort. But sometimes if you merely acknowledge the success of that effort - no matter how politely - it's sexual harassment.
That’s how it seems to me.
I had to google because I did not know the definition of hypergamous.
I did find that studies are showing that as countries become more gender equal there is less "gold digging". In a gender equal society, women have the same education, occupation and financial opportunities as men.
Gender equality is beneficial to everyone with the possible exception of men who feel the need to buy, own, control and/or feel superior to the female gender.
If relationships are becoming more equal, then neither are men.
Not necessary to speculate one iota. Lived, observed and studies bear it out.
Marriage is more advantageous to men than women. Therefore, women should be far choosier than they are before committing to a long term relationship because it very likely will be detrimental to their mental, physical and financial well-being.
That's gonna make some heads explode. Take cover
This should not be new news. LOL!
Later. I am painting exterior of my house and need to get back to it. We are expecting intermittent thunderstorms for a week beginning on Sunday.
Wow......
There is absolutely nothing wrong with men going their own way. However, in the case of the MGTOW movement it sounds as if these are self-centered males (probably with multiple personality disorders) who want a woman for breeding purposes and can't secure one of their choosing.
I find it best to deal in reality instead of fantasy. Relationships can be very difficult and are not for everyone.
There is not someone for everyone. There never has been throughout our history. It is what it is.
There is a very nice young woman in the UK that explains that women are people, too.
I have watched a few of her videos that I have found comforting and inspirational. I hope you like.
Where I come from, a relationship is a partnership. One does not have to be dominate.
Having a disagreement over some things is not domination over another.
Which of their complaints do you believe are legit?
Not sure I understand. Can you give examples?
Have a good time.
As long as these particular men are going their own way, women and society will probably benefit immensely because these men have completely self-centered, ego driven personalities. Some of these particular men might benefit from therapy, but it really isn't in a woman's best interest to have men channeling Henry VIII's personality in her life. The same is true for men.
I believe it would be beneficial for everyone to research and understand various personality types in order to better understand themselves and others.
These guys could be narcissists seeking a target for their rage....and occasionally finding one and abusing the target until they drive them away.
I saw an article about MTGOW guys seeing suicide as a way to "stick it" to women. What woman would want to saddle herself with such an idiot?
Do "sane" people threaten suicide? Is this a red flag that these guys need professional help?
MTGOW seems to be an organization of irrational guys who need intense therapy to gain perspective on life and respect for others. It may not be possible for anyone to help men with the mental deficiencies that make it impossible for these men to form respectful relationships with women.
From everything I have read to date, no woman should ever have contact with these men for the sake of her own mental and physical safety. Self-centered men rarely commit suicide to "stick it" to women....they usually vent their hatred of women on women by beating and/or murdering them.
I wonder how many of the MTGOW were cited for domestic abuse at some point in their life?
They might need professional help, but it's unlikely they'd seek or accept it. So yes, women should avoid them, as they are and choose to remain a risk to themselves and others.
I actually think most are sane in the sense that they know what they're doing. They're just too angry to care who is harmed by their behavior, and too immature to express their anger in a healthy way or even examine their anger to determine whether it's justified.
I can honestly say I hate seeing women wearing leggings as pants in public. I really do not want to see all their goods. If I wear leggings in public I have a tunic or dress covering all the interesting parts. My daughter does the same. However, I would never tell someone NOT to wear them. I just look the other way.
I do believe there are places that leggings should not be worn as pants out of respect and professionalism. Church, a funeral, even an office. BUT again that is my opinion.
I suppose there are some places where dromedary digits just aren't acceptable...
Too funny ! About 15 years ago my daughter and I were sitting in the airport. I was reading a newspaper (that's how long ago it was). My daughter was listening to her music. All of a sudden she says "Did you see that camel toe ?!". I start looking at people's feet for the camel toe. She had to explain. Lol.
I think leggings with a skirt or long shirt/tunic looks good on any woman. And, you have to admit, they are comfy.
We're not supposed to wear them at work but I see women wearing them with long tops, so maybe the rule means they aren't to be worn as just pants. Who know? Our dress code is outdated
I'll wear leggings with long tops to work. But I wear them more as tights than as pants, except when I'm going to the gym.
Honestly, I'm addicted to skorts in the spring/summer/fall for casual wear.
I live in leggings. They are just too comfortable. And yes I cover my butt with a tunic or long sweater.
I wish the women at my place of employment would wear them with a skirt, dress or long tunic. However, it is their choice. They are very comfy and I run around in them at home all the time with a t-shirt, but I would never in my wildest dreams wear them to work as a pair of pants. That's just me....
That's how my daughter wears them. They do not run as easily.
That they are, just like pajama bottoms, which again I would never wear out in public.
They make great tights!
I mostly agree. I honestly don't notice what most people wear unless they look disgustingly gross.
I wear jeans with either t-shirts or dress shirts wherever I go.
I wear leggings all the time and nobody gives me shit.
;~)
Oh, yeah...
I really needed that image stuck in my head...
Hummmm.... Larry in leggings? I'm intrigued.
Don't knock it till ya try it lol!
But I was only being partly silly though;,,,,I mean it seems like a double standard. Men aren't judged the same.
I wear shorts, t-shirt and sandales almost all the time. Probably not the summum of elegance.
I got news for you guys.
On the beach in France, the women were checking out the men in speedos and the men were checking out the women with no bathing tops.
Again, time and place.
And no I am telling you what I was wearing.
There are some men who certainly shouldn't wear short shorts in public for fear of flashing some low hanging fruit...
LMAO!!!!!
At least shorts are not as short as they were in the 70's, 80's.
Some women don't look that good in 'Daisy Duke's.' (grin)
Great article.
It seems to me the Christian thing to do would be to show a little compassion for the men, rather than accuse them of trying to do something awful to women. I think it's a strange response to get angry. It's as if wearing the most revealing clothing possible is the only way a woman can show she is strong, free, worthy of respect, etc. But think about that. Being sexual is the filter through which you seek respect? I thought you wanted men to respect you for your character? Here, the men are asking for just that. Be less sexual in this situation. Just be another person in the room.
Now and then I see women appear in church as if they were going to the club - tight leggings with short tops, short and/or tight dresses, low-cut tops, 4 or 5 inch heels - and I have to wonder what drives that fashion choice. Surely they want people to look at them, no? Surely, they know men will look at them.
Some people don't like to hear this, but men are hard-wired to objectify women. They literally see women as sex objects. Of course, this is not only how they perceive women and it's not the limit of the kind of relationships they want with women. But if you think it's some kind of natural state for men to be oblivious to the female form, you're ignorant or in denial of basic male biology and sexuality.
By the same token, if I see a well-built man without a shirt, I'm going to look. I just can't help it.
Some people like to look sexy and that's up to them. I think they should expect to be looked at - and my assumption is they want the attention - but it doesn't give anyone the right to catcall or ogle or make inappropriate comments. Sure, take a glance, but that's it - same as when I see a hot scantily clad man.
To me, it's simply a matter of respecting the place where you are and dressing appropriately. I might try to look attractive at church just as I would anywhere else, but I definitely wouldn't be trying to look sexy. You don't wear clothes to church or work that you'd wear out to a club IMO (well, depending on where you work, that might not be accurate). I recall one woman I worked with years ago - she was in business development and she had a "closing skirt" that she deliberately wore to try to get more sales.
The beach is a different matter but I still can't stand seeing men in speedos or anyone in thongs. I find the speedos to be a turnoff, and the idea of dental floss between butt cheeks has never appealed to me.
There you go. Me too.
agreed.
Exactly!
I'm not a speedo fan, but I do see the women checking it out. It kind of reminds me of baboons presenting. And I hate thongs. My daughters wear them because they don't want visible panty lines, but I would rather go commando and do more laundry than have something up my butt.
Oh....I don't believe you.
If you grow some love handles then she'll probably make you wear a t-shirt at the beach
*snort*
I agree. I can't even stand bikini undies. But, having some strap stuck up my rear is totally uncomfortable.
I've tried thongs but I just can't wear them for more than an hour or so. I'd wear Spanx so there isn't a panty line instead of a thong wherever possible. I feel like I sat on dental floss and it stuck to me.
I am not a fan either. Wore one to a beach once.....once. Not very comfortable. Without saying too much, um....not a lot of room in there if you need to make an adjustment.
Ok, I think sexual repression leads to over sexualization.
Teaching things like body parts are bad and something to be ashamed of, imo, just leads to more confusion, curiosity.
The more sexual repressed tend to be the ones doing things in back alleys and bathroom stalls.
I knew a woman from Germany. She was going to wait to take her son to see her home country when he was older. She said there and other places one can see women topless all over the place. It is normal there and she didn't know if her son could handle it, as he was Americanized.
We need to stop teaching that bodies are bad or need to be hidden. Stop treating normal parts as taboo.
Repression can lead to aggression.
I don't know how some manage to go to the beach or a pool. My god, everyone looks. That is what sunglasses are for.
That's funny right there
It's the simple things that make life easier.
I completely agree.
We need to quit allowing sexual predators to victim blame....which is kinda what articles like this are really about. Thankfully, our society is becoming somewhat less tolerant of supporting sexual predators by trying to openly or covertly blame their victims of any age or gender.
I have always wondered why people think it is better to teach their children words like "peepee" instead of penis and "girl areas" for the vagina, vulva, labia... I taught my children the correct terms early on. Makes for less confusion and shame later on. The worst one ever that I have heard is "girlness". That is what my grandniece was told...I told my niece that pretending that vagina, and labia are dirty words may lead to feelings of shame. Breasts, vagina, labia, clitoris, penis, testicles, and scrotum are not dirty words.
Very well said.
Thank you.
I know I'd look for sure.
But there are a bunch that should really get a full length mirror before they go outside !