Aren't the low-neckline, exposing cleavage, and the miniskirt, exposing the thighs, just that - striptease? — TheMadFool
Do you think it is a matter of fact, and not a matter of perception in relation to a culture? How extraordinary it seems to me that you should suggest it! — unenlightened
Why is it always the woman whose dress is questionable? — unenlightened
You speak for women do you? — unenlightened
All you've said is that it's become customary for women to dress in the way they do. You haven't offered me a reason why? — TheMadFool
Society needs a way to manage sexual relations such that the species continues doing what it does (mainly procreating senselessly but that's a different issue). Habits of attraction form to move this along (pretty clunkily as we aren't as cut-and-dry like many other animals). So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. Apparently showing ample cleavage, slightly larger hips, clear-of-blemished face, with a hint of color, shadow and and lining around the eyes to make it stand out, hair done in certain styles, and showing off a larger buttocks (but not too large) region is set as the norm in many places. This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like.
Wearing certain clothes and make-up for women also seen as a signifier 1) The woman is buying into the set norm of what looks good to others, and thus wants to present herself as following this norm, and thus showing to herself or others that she can follow this norm and exemplify it herself. 2) The woman might be showing other women she can exemplify this norm. 3) The woman might be showing men that she can exemplify this norm, possibly trying to attract them (or women for that matter) in a sexual or physically pleasing way.
Men also have norms of dress and looks that signify that they are buying into a set of norms around what counts as attractive (could be things like form-fitting shirts, showing off more muscles, following popular trends of sorts). Mainly though, males have set up the norm that they are the gazer.. the one who views in this physical realm. They were also enclturated but to mainly be the viewer.. So they formed habits from friends, society, the like of how to show appreciation and pleasure from staring at the women who is exemplifying the norm of attraction. Brett had a point where it could have started as wa way to bond with friends, or something someone picked up from a family member, or peer. Thus their norms might be something like 1) If I want to buy into the set of norms for what to do when a woman exemplifies the norm of looking a certain way to be attractive, I must stare a little longer to show my appreciation for following this norm.
The effect is usually something like 1) The women gets the ego-boost from the recognition. 2) The male gets some sort of aesthetic pleasure from the viewing, and possibly an unconscious idea of possession from the staring. Many times these are all signifiers if its for attraction so 3) The male hopes the female recognizes his appreciation and thus recognizes him 4) The female may or may not act on this appreciation depending on her level of attraction, etc.
At the end of the day, all of this can dissipate in theory if both sides just decided to not buy into the narratives. It is much harder obviously to actually do because it is so ingrained in society and habit-formation, but it could happen. Then, the power the women gets from trying to attract would not even matter... No need for the ego-boost and no need to stare longer. It can even happen if it was one-sided. If scantily clad women walked around and no one stared longer or cared or thought anything more than seeing a pebble on a beach, then women would no longer walk around scantily clad. For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time..no one cares in the tribe as it is not a habit to find this anything of significance. — schopenhauer1
Connect the dots and you get the image of women dressing up to be something they've spent a whole lot of time and effort rejecting as part of their identity. — TheMadFool
I not only gave a reason for why society started it but three reasons why women would participate in the tropes. I also mentioned how it's a two way street and the reasons why men also participate in it. The sign is only significant when there is someone who interprets it and acts accordingly. Males take the information and make something out of it, making it significant. What else do you want? That is a reason why on both accounts. — schopenhauer1
I also mentioned how the whole thing would disappear if one party thought it wasn't significant anymore. — Schopenhauer1
What are they dressing up as that they've spent time and effort rejecting? ( He asks, pretending for no good reason that women always dress the same way.) — unenlightened
There’s no more reason to assume that it already existed in people than that it is learned through mimicking and group association. — Possibility
As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off. — “brett”
Nor do I think it’s only “scantily clad” women that are stared at. Nor do I think the men who lean out car windows yelling at girls are the same as men who might idly look at a passing women, That might just be a difference of maturity or upbringing. It’s not so simple is it? Not that I’m suggesting you were saying so. — “brett”
What are they dressing up as that they've spent time and effort rejecting?
— unenlightened
As sex-objects. — TheMadFool
The following is a perfect example of this:
As soon as a transaction takes place, in this case money, all bets are off.
— “brett” — TheWillowOfDarkness
The point is, however, that all those men have something in common: they think of the woman as thing which must give them their sexual sexual satisfaction, they all objectify her. — TheWillowOfDarkness
We would recognise respecting her as a person and performer entails being aware of the sexual relation she is comfortable with. We would choose not to stare in ways she found uncomfortable because her well-being is important to us, and we recognise the interaction as an event of mutual agency. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Aren't the low-neckline, exposing cleavage, and the miniskirt, exposing the thighs, just that - striptease? — TheMadFool
A man's sexual/intellectual/nutritional/etc. attention? — TheMadFool
Indeed, that doesn't follow because a woman may just want to display her goods in a manner of speaking without wanting to actually sell them to anyone but the fact that she's spreading out her merchandise for men to see suggests that women, let's just say, know what men want. — TheMadFool
Are you saying that a woman who wants sex wants to be objectified? That a woman who wants to excite a man wants to be treated as a sex object? — unenlightened
in my humble opinion, has consequences viz. being seen only as a means to satisfaction of carnal urges. — TheMadFool
Nothing humble about that opinion. Do you apply it to yourself? Do you objectify yourself whenever you try and attract a sexual partner? Or are you just an ordinary male chauvinist? — unenlightened
what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed? — TheMadFool
I know what’s being revealed but I don’t know why. — Brett
Put 2 and 2 together is my advice. — TheMadFool
That’s a surprising statement on a philosophy forum. How can you know the thoughts or feelings, and more, of another person? — Brett
I'd like to ask you a simple question: what is it that's being revealed by wearing revealing clothes and what is the purpose of revealing that which is being revealed? — TheMadFool
It’s entirely possible, and more than likely happens often, that a women revealing parts of her body to a man isn’t about enticing him but ridiculing him. — Brett
So a woman is ridiculing a man by belittling herself? Something doesn't add up. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.