why do women show more skin than men?

[Kuchana]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

it'll be a bit difficult to simply throw away societal norms. not to mention millions of years of evolution. this view is too idealistic. in everyday life, a man would have to constantly check his thinking whenever he saw a woman. passing judgement on a woman's physical attractiveness is innate. when considering attraction, if a guy is looking for a long term relationship, i'm sure most of them will consider brains. otherwise, the next items of importance are: do i have any chance w/ her and does she have STDs? intelligence level means less than diddly squat unless it's somehow related to a fetish if ur talking about one night stands.

how many guys would like a shot at jessica simpson vs how many guys would like a shot at madeline albright? the answer to that question simply isn't going to change overnight.

how is it too idealistic? as long as you strive for it then hey why not? being how men seem to focus on women so sexually? and it doesn't help when women help in the process.

so just because it's a social norm or because we've spent millions of years of evolution makes it right? the point is it's just sex, sex, sex. you hear it, you read it, and you see it.

if you have a balance then i think that's an ideal to pursue and one that's obtainable.

oh so let's see...how many guys would prefer a shot at a hottie who's a ditz vs a not so hottie but still attractive girl who's got brains at least? i think for a lot of guys, the former would be more preferable.

Originally Posted by YuheiCarreau

What I find strange is the line people draw between which areas of the body are acceptable to 'show skin'. I remember in HS there was a big thing about spaghetti-strap tank tops. For some reason, the heaviest criticism came from the female teachers, especially those 30 and up. They didn't blink an eye at girls wearing halter tops, tube tops, a T-shirt with no bra, form-fitting blouses, or shirts that crept up their belly if they so much as inhaled, but a shirt that showed her bra straps was just too much!

That is baffling. I don't get her reasoning.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally Posted by Kuchana

how is it too idealistic? as long as you strive for it then hey why not? being how men seem to focus on women so sexually? and it doesn't help when women help in the process.

so just because it's a social norm or because we've spent millions of years of evolution makes it right? the point is it's just sex, sex, sex. you hear it, you read it, and you see it.

i'm not saying it's right. i'm saying it is. if u can get guys to strive to overcome how they view women, i welcome it. but i think overcoming racism will be a cakewalk compared to overcoming this.

oh so let's see...how many guys would prefer a shot at a hottie who's a ditz vs a not so hottie but still attractive girl who's got brains at least? i think for a lot of guys, the former would be more preferable.

depends on what type of relationship u're talking about, but i agree that a lot of guys would find the former more preferable. i don't see how that helps ur argument.

but whatever. i think we're off topic b/c the subject has switched from women to men.

[Shuriken]

Originally Posted by heykitten

*nods* It only amounts to girls equating their selfworth to their appearance or what others perceive them to be. The way they dress also mean they're sexualized at a much younger age, even if they're seen as older and treated as such. They are still undeniably little kids, talk about a confusing time for them!

I believe that a sense of self-worth ought not to be utterly dependent on looks. But the flip side of that is that you need to at least be presentable to attract others, either on a romantic or non-romantic level. I spoke to a woman in a bar last night. She was a bit heavier than a typical beauty contestant would be. But she seemed comfortable with her weight and wore it well. She obviously had a sense of inner beauty and self-worth that made her attractive — to me, at least, and probably her boyfriend as well. If she didn't have this sense and spent most of her time obsessing about her weight, she would likely come across an an unattractive person.

But one thing that I don't like is beauty pageants for children. The whole idea repulses me. Give these kids a childhood, for Pete's sake! I think that the Jon-Benet Ramsey case showed what an ugly underbelly the whole child-pageant industry brings with it. I don't follow the Ramsey case for this very reason, but I understand that Jon-Benet was raped before she was murdered. This is precisely one of the negative extremes regarding appearance that I was talking about. If the Ramsey case doesn't function as a cautionary tale and illustrate the need to shut down beauty pageants for children, I don't know what else could.

Originally Posted by nola

The sexual revolution in the 60s did indeed backfire on women in that it lead to men not taking responsibility for unplanned pregancies, child care and child support so many women ended up raising children themselves. (I read that somewhere and didn't make it up).

The women's movement was a different movement which did empower women.

I don't know if Nola is writing expressly to discredit liberal views or not, but whatever she read was probably written by one of those "blame the '60s first" conservatives. Pregnant women have been abandoned by the men who impregnated them since time immemorial.

The "sexual revolution" of the '60s was ignited because 1960 was the year that the FDA first approved birth-control pills, enabling women to indulge in a certain sexual freedom that they had never experienced before. For the first time for women of child-bearing years, sexual intercourse did not necessarily mean the possibility of getting pregnant. And, in the opinion of many, this greater equality in the bedroom directly led to the push for greater equality outside the home. So, it was the sexual revolution, which supposedly "backfired," that enabled the women's movement, which empowered. It was not "different."

[nola]

It was a radical feminist piece and the end result of the sexual revolution, to be distinguished from the women's liberation of the 60s, was alot of unplanned pregnancies. Women had more uncommitted sex and men didn't feel that they had to own up to the responsibilties of uncommitted sex.

[Shuriken]

Originally Posted by nola

It would be liberating for men to dress as scantily in public as they wanted to also without ridicule or censure.

Have you ever hung out around a gym? Men dress scantily there and sometimes wear their gym apparel to other places as well. Also, there is quite a bit of male skimpy dressing in the gay community, as my frequent drives through West Hollywood have shown me in the past.

[nola]

Public as in out in the street, not in the gym. Gay men does not equal heterosexual men.

[Shuriken]

Originally Posted by Kuchana

That sounds like a good assessment. Thanks for posting that. I've already posed this but with that, why are women usually judged by their appearance? Isn't that well...superficial?

I don't have any applicable books on biology at my fingertips, so I could be wrong, but interest in appearance is probably hard-wired into our biological makeup. Andrea Dworkin notwithstanding, as our society (and our species) has evolved, men have been the initiators of romantic relastionships. For a woman to initiate dialogue in a blatant way still smacks (however unfairly) of unbecoming "aggressiveness."

So, women's social behavior and their fashions have largely functioned to attract a man to initiate exchange (I'm sure that there must be some exceptions to this). Consequently, we have the stereotype — with some basis in reality — of a man always being "on the prowl" with his "wandering eye" for a potential mate, while women are more selective about who initiates contact with them. As our society has changed, this social behavior has changed to a certain degree, but it has also remained remarkably consistant over time.

Whether this is more biological or social, we may never know. But the idea of the profligate seed and the discriminating soil seems like a good way for nature to balance itself.

And when you consider that attracting a mate is an extremely important element in human reproduction and perpetuation of the species, is it really that superficial?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally Posted by YuheiCarreau

For some reason, the heaviest criticism came from the female teachers, especially those 30 and up.

I don't really find it that surprising at all. Here in HK girls are the most critical of other girls who dress skimpy. I think it's cartel behaviour --- they're trying to keep the "price" of seeing some skin high, so girls who are showing it off for free are undermining their efforts at "price-fixing".

[yoMAMA]

because men are superior to women.......

[robotic]

showing bare skin; at the same time as it does not liberate or empower a woman's right to express her sexuality through other means, it also creates a wide drift between people - encouraging jealousy (a girl in a tight-top vs. a girl in a t-shirt? winlosewin~), inferiority, a show-case of ones wealth/popularity/coolness (although however indirectly)

and above all, outfits and the way you can dress can be a representative of, you, 'yourself'. although girls who show bare skin have always been stereotyped as such; i've never felt comfortable around a person who felt confident and sexually superior.

where's the equality and celebration of the beauty within yourself, man?!

._. i'm not so sure, maybe it's really just me.

[heykitten]

An interesting book to read that I recommend is Survival of the Prettiest by Nancy Etcoff. A well constructed book on the research of beauty, concluding that be beauty is not created to keep women in line. Whereas The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf argues that it is. I haven't read The Beauty Myth yet but I'll be looking for it in the library soon.

[Shuriken]

Originally Posted by nola

It was a radical feminist piece and the end result of the sexual revolution, to be distinguished from the women's liberation of the 60s, was alot of unplanned pregnancies. Women had more uncommitted sex and men didn't feel that they had to own up to the responsibilties of uncommitted sex.

I haven't read the article, so I can't really comment on it.

But by the way that you describe it, it sounds like the author's intent was to divorce the women's movement from the role that sex and sexual pleasure played in it. A critic who would do this might have as her (or his) goal to deny that sex ever played a significant role in the women's movement. In this way, the author might try to encourage progressive women to side against pornography, or something like that.

But again, I haven't read the article.

[nola]

Sex and pleasure are an important part of the womens' movement but single motherhood is the untold story of the sexual revolution. It may have been Ruth Sidel because I was summarizing her book Women and Children Last in Women and Public Policy class when this fact came up during the discussion.

[Shuriken]

I just want to make clear that I don't mean to be flip or sarcastic about any of these issues. As an adult male who stands under five-feet tall, I have given a lot of thought to the role of appearance in society, and one would think that I ought to have a vested interest in overturning the automatic assumptions made about the way people appear — or "looksism."

But I think that the role of the way people appear in society is a complex one that can't always be reduced to such notions of prejudice as "looksism."

[Shogun Empress]

Originally Posted by AliBabaIncorporated

Doesn't seem to hold true for HK either. Outside of bar districts on Saturday night, I have barely seen any female of any age (other than tourists or expats) showing bare shoulders, e.g. sleeveless shirt. (The closest thing you get with most local girls are those freakin annoying "chicken wing sleeves"). On the other hand, at any time of day you can walk around and feast your eyes on overweight construction workers and scarecrow-like newspaper vendors in tanktops, flashing around their arms, backs and bellies. Maybe even with a pantleg rolled up if you get lucky. Not to mention schoolboys with their shorts pulled up around their nuts.

Uhh. Thanks for the visualization...