"That is not what I meant, at all": How to Connect Respectfully

[Paul Hexem]

1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

To women regarding the clothing choices we make, here's how this reads:

Bad people are 100% responsible for their own bad behavior.*

*terms and conditions may apply

Good. Women should be looking at those terms and conditions.

The choices we make come with risks and rewards. These things aren't fair, but they are facts.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

19 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

To women regarding the clothing choices we make, here's how this reads:

Bad people are 100% responsible for their own bad behavior.*

*terms and conditions may apply

Good. Women should be looking at those terms and conditions.

The choices we make come with risks and rewards. These things aren't fair, but they are facts.

It's not the clothes a woman wears or her perceived sexiness that causes the rape or assault though.
I read cases of elderly women in their 80's and 90's being raped, and I highly doubt it was due to their extreme sexiness & clothing choices.
It's all about domination & abuse -- NOT sexual attractiveness -- so why would a woman's clothing choices matter?

[Orwar]

   What women wear, and how they are treated as a cause of their choice of apparel, isn't exactly a new topic - nor do I suspect that this thread is going to find the answer to what's 'right'; it's an issue that requires multiple parties, each with their own perspectives, and as such there's little to no plausibility to reach a conclusive resolution.

   About two decades ago, this very issue came up to debate on Swedish television, and one party exclaimed that 'if so I walked naked through central Stockholm, no man should be allowed to touch or look or fantasize about me'. I think that was wrong for several reasons (even as someone who hadn't yet lived to see a full decade at the time) - indecent exposure (and trust me, men flashing kids was NOT on her okay-list) being part of the law for one, and that where anyone chose to focus their gaze or what people do in their minds is simply none of anyone's business but their own. How a person chose to approach another is entirely up to them, there simply can't be laws for being a social donkey - as long as no non-consensual physical contact (which in SL isn't really a thing anyway) is made, or overt verbal, sexual harassment is conducted, there's no crime.

   In SL it's very simple - if a person contacts you in a manner which you don't find appropriate, whether it's because it's lewd or simply because their lack of punctuation wakes murderous urges in you; you have no obligation to respond whatsoever, and if they persist, you can very easily stop any and all communication through blocking them. Heck, you can block them before they even write you, the moment you notice that their camera position is locked on your bosom, crotch or posterior if you like - or just because they appear shady or because they've copy-pasted some airy quote in their profile. If I ever come across a person with 'Carpe Diem' in their profile ...

[Beth Macbain]

33 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Good. Women should be looking at those terms and conditions.

The choices we make come with risks and rewards. These things aren't fair, but they are facts.

I'm not going to assume this by your troll profile pic, but are you a man?

[Paul Hexem]

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's not the clothes a woman wears or her perceived sexiness that causes the rape or assault though.
I read cases of elderly women in their 80's and 90's being raped, and I highly doubt it was due to their extreme sexiness & clothing choices.
It's all about domination & abuse -- NOT sexual attractiveness -- so why would a woman's clothing choices matter?

You don't spray disinfectant on public doorhandles because you're guaranteed to catch the flu from them. It's just one of the optional preventive measures you can take. 

2 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

I'm not going to assume this by your troll profile pic, but are you a man?

Oh, here it comes.

[Beth Macbain]

6 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Oh, here it comes.

Yeah, it does. 

You see, it's almost always men who put in that caveat about risks, and protecting oneself, blah, blah, blah... DO YOU REALLY THINK WOMEN DON'T ALREADY KNOW THAT?? Do you really think we're THAT stupid? Not only do we know we have to protect ourselves, but we also know that it doesn't really matter what we're wearing. Some dude is going to dog-whistle, or sneak a little grab in on the subway, or god forbid, shove us into an alley. We know clothing really doesn't freaking matter because we have been pinched, groped, felt up, whistled at, propositioned, hugged, kissed, injured and killed all while wearing anything and everything from burlap sacks, to burkas, to dirty sweats, and grungy jeans, and sweatshirts that are four sizes too big trying to cover up our naughty pillows and curves. 

We do NOT need men telling us that how we dress tempts the unsavory men who just can't keep their hands to themselves so when we're dressing to go out to a bar with friends we have to consider whether or not we're showing too much leg, or too much cleavage.  We do NOT need men telling us to not walk down the street in certain neighborhoods after dark, or to not leave a drink unattended in a bar, or any number of other (and I really do hate this term, but it is what it is) mansplaining things that we already freaking know because we live it every single day. This is crap that men don't have to deal with... men created the damn problems that we have already found solutions for even though we shouldn't have to because men should be able to control themselves.

The last thing we need is the so-called nice guys concern trolling in order to teach us how to deal with their baser instincts. We wrote the book on how to deal with sloppy drunk frat boys. 

What we DO need is men to harness their freaking need to assert their "superior" knowledge when it comes to self-protection of us little ladies and just freaking say "the victim is never to blame". Period. Full-stop.

Just that. Nothing more. Because we already know the freaking obvious unspoken rules. It's not obvious to men because you don't have to deal with it.  It's like you have these light bulb moments where you suddenly realize that woman have to take extra precautions when it comes to our safety.  Well, no duh, genius. You don't need to tell us. We connected those dots waaaaaaaay before you did. 

The victim is never to blame. 

Say it with me... The victim is never to blame. 

Ah, ah, ah... no, don't add anything else. It's not necessary or needed. Just those few words there. The victim is never to blame. 

See how easy that is?

 

[Paul Hexem]

17 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Yeah, it does. 

You see, it's almost always men who put in that caveat about risks, and protecting oneself, blah, blah, blah... DO YOU REALLY THINK WOMEN DON'T ALREADY KNOW THAT?? Do you really think we're THAT stupid? Not only do we know we have to protect ourselves, but we also know that it doesn't really matter what we're wearing. Some dude is going to dog-whistle, or sneak a little grab in on the subway, or god forbid, shove us into an alley. We know clothing really doesn't freaking matter because we have been pinched, groped, felt up, whistled at, propositioned, hugged, kissed, injured and killed all while wearing anything and everything from burlap sacks, to burkas, to dirty sweats, and grungy jeans, and sweatshirts that are four sizes too big trying to cover up our naughty pillows and curves. 

We do NOT need men telling us that how we dress tempts the unsavory men who just can't keep their hands to themselves so when we're dressing to go out to a bar with friends we have to consider whether or not we're showing too much leg, or too much cleavage.  We do NOT need men telling us to not walk down the street in certain neighborhoods after dark, or to not leave a drink unattended in a bar, or any number of other (and I really do hate this term, but it is what it is) mansplaining things that we already freaking know because we live it every single day. This is crap that men don't have to deal with... men created the damn problems that we have already found solutions for even though we shouldn't have to because men should be able to control themselves.

The last thing we need is the so-called nice guys concern trolling in order to teach us how to deal with their baser instincts. We wrote the book on how to deal with sloppy drunk frat boys. 

What we DO need is men to harness their freaking need to assert their "superior" knowledge when it comes to self-protection of us little ladies and just freaking say "the victim is never to blame". Period. Full-stop.

Just that. Nothing more. Because we already know the freaking obvious unspoken rules. It's not obvious to men because you don't have to deal with it.  It's like you have these light bulb moments where you suddenly realize that woman have to take extra precautions when it comes to our safety.  Well, no duh, genius. You don't need to tell us. We connected those dots waaaaaaaay before you did. 

The victim is never to blame. 

Say it with me... The victim is never to blame. 

Ah, ah, ah... no, don't add anything else. It's not necessary or needed.

It's almost always women that get all hysterical and completely miss the part where the men are agreeing with them. Multiple times, if they'd calm down and read what was written, instead of launching into sexist tirades because "he's not saying exactly what I want, exactly how I want". Trololololol...

But for you, I'll say it again. The victim is never to blame.

Not for what happens to them, and also not for trying to prevent it ahead of time if they chose to do so.

[Akane Nacht]

1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

Yeah, it does. 

You see, it's almost always men who put in that caveat about risks, and protecting oneself, blah, blah, blah...

... men created the damn problems that we have already found solutions for even though we shouldn't have to because men should be able to control themselves.

Well, I largely agree with Gadget and I am most assuredly a woman. And I gotta point out here, dress norms are enforced by women too, not because we are trembling in fear for what men might do, but more to do with anxiety about being criticized or shunned by other women. Harsh truth, men often don't even notice what we are wearing, unless it's something outrageous or revealing.

ps. In some cultures, dressing provocatively is indeed an "advertisement", and both sexes will see it that way. That's not a risk, that's a communication fail.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

trying to prevent it ahead of time if they chose to do so

Gadget, I want to try approaching this from a slightly different angle, because I think it might get at the crux of the disagreement here.

Your basic argument, as I understand it, is that, while those engaged in harassment, sexual assault, and rape are 100% to blame for what they do (and again, thank you for that), women could help prevent these things if they wear less provocative dress. Does this sound more or less right?

What we know, statistically, is that the vast majority of cases of sexual assault and rape are not perpetrated on women who are "provocatively dressed." We know, for a fact, that it's not women dancing at clubs, or at parties, or pool halls, who are at the greatest risk. Most rapes occur in people's homes, or at a place of work, by someone already known to the victim. Date rape is most assuredly a very real thing, but even there, there is no evidence that I've ever seen that the victims were most often scantily or sexily clad. In fact, in most of the cases that I know of, through the media or in my reading, this is not the case.

The same is true of harassment: it happens to women clad in very ordinary clothing while they are walking to work, or to the grocery store or at the laundromat. It happens a lot at places of work, where what the victim is wearing is generally restricted by professional norms for her job, whatever that may be, and where it is most usually part of a long-term pattern of behaviour that has nothing to do with what the woman is wearing on any particular occasion.

In fact, the instances of women being harassed or assaulted while wearing "provocative dress" must represent a very small percentage of cases indeed. So, given that the great majority of women being victimized this way are not dressed "suggestively" or in a sexually provocative way . . . why would you think that not dressing that way will help in any way?

The vast majority of victims are already following your advice. It's not helping.

The real problem, surely, is not that women are not doing enough to prevent sexual assault, but rather that the attitude persists, despite the evidence, that a woman has either provoked, or might have prevented, a sexual assault by dressing differently. That attitude or perception is at variance with the reality of how most of these crimes occur.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra
Added last paragraph

[ThorinII]

5 hours ago, Orwar said:

'if so I walked naked through central Stockholm, no man should be allowed to touch or look or fantasize about me'. I think that was wrong for several reasons

Why is that wrong, @Orwar?

Okay, I think I need some elaboration to my question. Where I grew up (in the GDR), FKK was a thing. So when my brother and I were minors, my parents and us kids used to travel to the Baltic Sea each summer - or went to a lake in about 20mi distance in the rare cases that my parents didn't get vacation during the season - and headed to one of the FKK beaches there. So we got used to seeing naked strangers, learned that there is nothing explicitly sexual to simply seeing someone naked, and learned that being naked is not something unnatural or unacceptable. And you could often see naked people (or wearing just bikini or swim pants) walking around in the town near the beaches, going to the bakery, to a café, or to the local grocery market. And nobody except some elderly people even batted an eye. During the summer season, it was normal to see naked folks around there.

And to be honest: Although I don't go to FKK beaches anymore, I don't see anything wrong in walking around naked or in "indecent" clothes, and I think that indeed "no man should be allowed to touch" or ogle  any person who walks around like that.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

59 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Well, I largely agree with Gadget and I am most assuredly a woman. And I gotta point out here, dress norms are enforced by women too, not because we are trembling in fear for what men might do, but more to do with anxiety about being criticized or shunned by other women. Harsh truth, men often don't even notice what we are wearing, unless it's something outrageous or revealing.

I'm not sure I can disagree with anything you say here, Akane. What I'm not clear on is how it reinforces what Gadget is saying?

1 hour ago, Akane Nacht said:

In some cultures, dressing provocatively is indeed an "advertisement", and both sexes will see it that way. That's not a risk, that's a communication fail.

Absolutely. My OP explicitly suggests that women (and men, for that matter) sometimes dress in particular ways to communicate something about themselves, including, possibly, their interest in sex.

I don't think that's in dispute. What is in dispute, at least a little, is whether dressing as an "advertisement" entitles someone to assume that it's open season on that particular person. Or whether a woman might prevent being raped, assaulted, or harassed if she dressed differently. Or, finally, whether a woman should have to worry about these things at all. (I think Gadget would agree that she should not, but that the reality of our culture requires that it is wise to do so.)

[Akane Nacht]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not sure I can disagree with anything you say here, Akane. What I'm not clear on is how it reinforces what Gadget is saying?

Absolutely. My OP explicitly suggests that women (and men, for that matter) sometimes dress in particular ways to communicate something about themselves, including, possibly, their interest in sex.

I don't think that's in dispute. What is in dispute, at least a little, is whether dressing as an "advertisement" entitles someone to assume that it's open season on that particular person. Or whether a woman might prevent being raped, assaulted, or harassed if she dressed differently. Or, finally, whether a woman should have to worry about these things at all. (I think Gadget would agree that she should not, but that the reality of our culture requires that it is wise to do so.)

His point was clear to me, mine was an additional insight, just to muddy the waters more 😀 

It's hard to debate the point you raise when violent assault is conflated with propositioning or even flirting (which was what your original post was referencing, as I understood it, as violent assault is impossible in SL). You said "YOU do not get to define who is or is not a "sl*t," or even who looks like one: that is their choice and their determination."

Is that really reasonable? I do think such an appearance is "open season" for any sexual advances within the bounds of the law. 

Unless we curtail human interaction to such an extent that we have to engage our lawyers to say Hi to someone, there are bound to be miscommunications between the sexes. I think Gadget was pointing out (he is free to correct me ofc) that deliberately making the chance of miscommunication worse isn't helpful. 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 hours ago, Orwar said:

About two decades ago, this very issue came up to debate on Swedish television, and one party exclaimed that 'if so I walked naked through central Stockholm, no man should be allowed to touch or look or fantasize about me'. I think that was wrong for several reasons (even as someone who hadn't yet lived to see a full decade at the time) - indecent exposure (and trust me, men flashing kids was NOT on her okay-list) being part of the law for one, and that where anyone chose to focus their gaze or what people do in their minds is simply none of anyone's business but their own.

I think Thorine has responded effectively, above, but I'll just give you my own take on this.

You've chosen a pretty radical example here to make your point, but I'd like to bring it back to the very real. I used to live in a neighbourhood which featured, along the main street, at least one, or sometimes two, sports bars on every block. During warm weather, the sidewalk in front of each of these would generally be crowded -- at almost any time of day you might imagine -- with men. (I need hardly add that women were not welcome in such places, unless they were servers.) To go grocery shopping, or make my way to the streetcar stop would very often require me to walk 4 blocks past a number of these places. I wasn't provocatively dressed, and certainly not naked, but it was like running a gauntlet. Comments, whistles, catcalls, and even the occasional casual "pat" or "bump" were the rule.

In other words, to repeat the point I made to Gadget above, what I was wearing or not wearing didn't matter: it happened anyway.

I don't have much of an opinion on whether people should be allowed to walk naked down the street, to be honest, but in my city, it is legal for a woman to be topless. It doesn't much matter: it's beside the point, because what a woman is attired in isn't causing or preventing these behaviours in any case.

6 hours ago, Orwar said:

In SL it's very simple - if a person contacts you in a manner which you don't find appropriate, whether it's because it's lewd or simply because their lack of punctuation wakes murderous urges in you; you have no obligation to respond whatsoever, and if they persist, you can very easily stop any and all communication through blocking them. Heck, you can block them before they even write you, the moment you notice that their camera position is locked on your bosom, crotch or posterior if you like - or just because they appear shady or because they've copy-pasted some airy quote in their profile.

Yes, I could block the person. (I don't: I generally just ignore them or, if their remarks are particularly egregious, I give them an earful.) Or I could just not go to that place at all, right? Sort of the same way I could choose a different, if much less convenient, route to the streetcar stop in example I gave above. Or not go dancing, or to a bar, or out to dinner, or out past sundown, etc. etc. etc. All of these changes to my routine would doubtless make such inappropriate actions less common.

But, I am not the one doing these things. SO . . . I shouldn't have to.

We really don't require advice on how to avoid creeps. We need people to stop being creeps.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Zeta Vandyke]

33 minutes ago, ThorinII said:

Why is that wrong, @Orwar?

Okay, I think I need some elaboration to my question. Where I grew up (in the GDR), FKK was a thing. So when my brother and I were minors, my parents and us kids used to travel to the Baltic Sea each summer - or went to a lake in about 20mi distance in the rare cases that my parents didn't get vacation during the season - and headed to one of the FKK beaches there. So we got used to seeing naked strangers, learned that there is nothing explicitly sexual to simply seeing someone naked, and learned that being naked is not something unnatural or unacceptable. And you could often see naked people (or wearing just bikini or swim pants) walking around in the town near the beaches, going to the bakery, to a café, or to the local grocery market. And nobody except some elderly people even batted an eye. During the summer season, it was normal to see naked folks around there.

And to be honest: Although I don't go to FKK beaches anymore, I don't see anything wrong in walking around naked or in "indecent" clothes, and I think that indeed "no man should be allowed to touch" or ogle  any person who walks around like that.

That is because its in the proper context. If you go to a Halloween party you wear scary costumes, if you go to nude beach you wear nothing, if you go to work you wear appropriate work outfit. Or would you be insulted if you show up at work nakid and they send you back home?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

16 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

It's hard to debate the point you raise when violent assault is conflated with propositioning or even flirting (which was what your original post was referencing, as I understood it, as violent assault is impossible in SL)

I don't think we are conflating these things; sexual assault is clearly very different from verbal harassment. But we are acknowledging the fact that the same "justification" is frequently used in both the milder, and the more serious, of these kinds of behaviours: that the woman "is asking for it."

And yes, you're absolutely right: violent sexual assault, as we understand it in RL, is impossible in SL. So too is sex, but a virtual version of it happens all the time here, and is apparently effective enough that people keep doing it.

I would never claim that I am being "assaulted" in SL by someone who emotes to me, without my consent, that they are doing something physical to my avatar. But that doesn't mean that being told that someone is doing something unasked for and unpleasant is not still, in some way quite different from the RL thing, an unwanted experience that does have an emotional impact, in just the same way that virtual sex does.

24 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

You said "YOU do not get to define who is or is not a "sl*t," or even who looks like one: that is their choice and their determination."

Is that really reasonable? I do think such an appearance is "open season" for any sexual advances within the bounds of the law.

Well, we may have to agree to disagree here.

One issue with calling someone a "sl*t" because she's wearing provocative clothing is that it conflates her appearance with her supposed behaviour. I can wear something provocative, and be very much not having sex with lots of people, which is the generally accepted meaning of "sl*t." In fact, I do on occasion wear things that might be considered sexually provocative in SL, and I am as chaste and virginal (well, for the last 7 or 8 years anyway) as the undriven snow. There is no correlation between my clothing on such occasions and what I do.

Another important point, of course, is that we are (I hope) well past the point where a woman employing her sexual freedom should be stigmatized in this way. However one might choose to represent oneself for RP purposes or for "titillation," I'm pretty sure that you'll agree that that word is, or should be, meaningless as a way of actually describing a woman's sexual behaviour.

And the corollary of both of these points -- that how one dresses need not reflect one's behaviours, and that the term itself is no longer an appropriate way of describing a woman exercising her sexual freedom -- is that no one has the right to call me that name based purely on how I dress -- or even on whether I'm having lots of sex with lots of people. In that context, the only meaningful use of that term is its employment by the person herself, usually to signal an interest in a particular kind of sexual encounter.

Finally, I don't think this is at all about "law." I think it's about accepted cultural norms, and about changing these.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

That is because its in the proper context. If you go to a Halloween party you wear scary costumes, if you go to nude beach you wear nothing, if you go to work you wear appropriate work outfit. Or would you be insulted if you show up at work nakid and they send you back home?

In general, Zeta, I agree with you: contexts are important in establishing what is "appropriate" dress.

However, those contexts, and the rules associated with them, are not fixed absolutes, but rather dynamic and always changing. 60 years ago, you might well have been sent home from a clerical job for wearing slacks, or a skirt that was above the knee, or a blouse that was too tight or showed "too much" cleavage.

These conventions dictating the relationship between dress and context are continually changing, and will do so in the future. And while I don't think it very likely that nudity will be acceptable at most places of employment in the near future, the essential point remains valid: if there is no absolute, eternal, fixed way of determining what is or is not appropriate, then one similarly can't say that there is a fixed and eternally "correct" way of responding to them. If what one era calls "inappropriate" is deemed entirely ok in another, then there is no essential reason, beyond cultural context, why one form of dress (or undress) should provoke a particular kind of response.

[Zeta Vandyke]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

If what one era calls "inappropriate" is deemed entirely ok in another, then there is no essential reason, beyond cultural context, why one form of dress (or undress) should provoke a particular kind of response.

Well I am only taking the current era in consideration when deciding how to dress appropriate

The essential reason why a form of dressing does invoke a response is nature. If you are presenting yourself in a very attractive sexual way, this will initiate a response in those that are attracted to you, that's just nature doing its job.

Though how they act on that reaction, that is what matters. A look, a smile, a head turning, that's all a response, but generally not considered rude or inappropriate, but a response non the less. 

[Amina Sopwith]

8 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

Wearing a "Cops suck, smoke weed!" t-shirt into a police station and being surprised when the police aren't very courteous is an example of the first.

Oh, to be a copper with nothing worse to worry about. 

8 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

"She was asking for it, wearing that skirt." is an example of the second.

I'm glad we've established that. Can you believe, there are still some people with such a low opinion of both women's human rights and men's basic ability to have agency that they still can't grasp this simple concept? I know, right?

[kiramanell]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I don't think we are conflating these things; sexual assault is clearly very different from verbal harassment. But we are acknowledging the fact that the same "justification" is frequently used in both the milder, and the more serious, of these kinds of behaviours: that the woman "is asking for it."

And yes, you're absolutely right: violent sexual assault, as we understand it in RL, is impossible in SL. So too is sex, but a virtual version of it happens all the time here, and is apparently effective enough that people keep doing it.

I would never claim that I am being "assaulted" in SL by someone who emotes to me, without my consent, that they are doing something physical to my avatar. But that doesn't mean that being told that someone is doing something unasked for and unpleasant is not still, in some way quite different from the RL thing, an unwanted experience that does have an emotional impact, in just the same way that virtual sex does.

 

^^ And this here alone is why I love your posts! ❤️ You have a very keen insight into the human psyche, and an almost even keener way to express your thoughts.

Edited June 26, 2019 by kiramanell
And if only I could spell properly, like you :P

[Akane Nacht]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 But we are acknowledging the fact that the same "justification" is frequently used in both the milder, and the more serious, of these kinds of behaviours: that the woman "is asking for it."

Depends on what "it" is. A date maybe? 

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, we may have to agree to disagree here.

One issue with calling someone a "sl*t" because she's wearing provocative clothing is that it conflates her appearance with her supposed behaviour. I can wear something provocative, and be very much not having sex with lots of people, which is the generally accepted meaning of "sl*t." In fact, I do on occasion wear things that might be considered sexually provocative in SL, and I am as chaste and virginal (well, for the last 7 or 8 years anyway) as the undriven snow. There is no correlation between my clothing on such occasions and what I do.

Another important point, of course, is that we are (I hope) well past the point where a woman employing her sexual freedom should be stigmatized in this way. However one might choose to represent oneself for RP purposes or for "titillation," I'm pretty sure that you'll agree that that word is, or should be, meaningless as a way of actually describing a woman's sexual behaviour.

And the corollary of both of these points -- that how one dresses need not reflect one's behaviours, and that the term itself is no longer an appropriate way of describing a woman exercising her sexual freedom -- is that no one has the right to call me that name based purely on how I dress -- or even on whether I'm having lots of sex with lots of people. In that context, the only meaningful use of that term is its employment by the person herself, usually to signal an interest in a particular kind of sexual encounter.

Finally, I don't think this is at all about "law." I think it's about accepted cultural norms, and about changing these.

Yep, afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, but I thank you for your explanation of your reasoning.

To me, how we choose to present ourselves via dress is a behaviour, and we know we send a message with it.  I, personally, don't give a hoot what names people call me, cos that's on them. Sticks and stones.. 

As to cultural norms, they can and do change, if it makes sense to do so. I'm not sure taking clothing out of the equation as a mode of communication is workable - nor is a general consensus across the globe on what particular clothing means outside of specific contexts. You may be able to change norms in your neighborhood, but if you log on to SL and meet people from other parts of the world you'll find they have very different ideas.

[Mother Mystic]

This is a very interesting topic.

As a sex worker, forced to have 1(one) pick of the club as agreed job requirement, I almost always get hit on with sexual requests.

The funny thing is that my profile in its entirety states nothing else remotely connected to sexytime and I mostly walk around in baggy clothes or RP outfits without any sexy parts revealed.

Yet, some people are so shallow they see me quietly meditating in a corner or riding my horse or gardening and they believe I'm up for funky time by default just because of my job which pays for my mesh and other things. ^^

I wish there were more hangouts/cafes/gardens/lounges and what have you without tags such as BDSM, sex, daddy etc.

Some are here for soul food, ya know. :3

Edited June 26, 2019 by ErukaVonD
tiny typos

[Zeta Vandyke]

1 hour ago, Akane Nacht said:

As to cultural norms, they can and do change, if it makes sense to do so. I'm not sure taking clothing out of the equation as a mode of communication is workable - nor is a general consensus across the globe on what particular clothing means outside of specific contexts. You may be able to change norms in your neighborhood, but if you log on to SL and meet people from other parts of the world you'll find they have very different ideas.

I think this is a major point. In SL we are dealing with an international, global community. With cultures where values and norms can be vastly different. What is normal and acceptable for me, can be outrageous, rude or just weird and foreign to others. Its not just in how we deal with sexuality, or woman rights, but in everything.

A very direct, macho and passionate Italian guy (to give a stereotype example) can come over quite intimidating and maybe even rude to someone not used to it, while if they use the same approach to a "local" girl, they are used to it and consider it normal. 

 

[Orwar]

3 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I think this is a major point. In SL we are dealing with an international, global community. With cultures where values and norms can be vastly different. What is normal and acceptable for me, can be outrageous, rude or just weird and foreign to others. Its not just in how we deal with sexuality, or woman rights, but in everything.

A very direct, macho and passionate Italian guy (to give a stereotype example) can come over quite intimidating and maybe even rude to someone not used to it, while if they use the same approach to a "local" girl, they are used to it and consider it normal.

   Entering a Swedish home with your shoes on is almost as bad as going to the toilet in the kitchen sink, unless the host or hostess tells you that you may keep your shoes on.

[Beth Macbain]

8 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

The essential reason why a form of dressing does invoke a response is nature. If you are presenting yourself in a very attractive sexual way, this will initiate a response in those that are attracted to you, that's just nature doing its job.

Though how they act on that reaction, that is what matters. A look, a smile, a head turning, that's all a response, but generally not considered rude or inappropriate, but a response non the less. 

I'm sorry, I am at work and have a crazy busy day right now and can't devote the time I want to in drafting a response to this.

But it is most definitely NOT nature. It's a learned behavior. Nature would imply that it's been around since the dawn of time, and there were no clothes then so manner of dress had nothing to do with anything because it simply didn't exist. Men were not born with some sort of intrinsic knowledge that showing cleavage equals open for business. Mainly because it doesn't. 

And who is anyone to judge me or decide what is appropriate for me to wear? My boss, sure. I live in an at-will state and I understand that there will be consequences if I come to work in a pair of Daisy Dukes and a push-up bra. But walking down the street? What I wear is my decision. Are there consequences to that as well? Yes, of course.

If I get sexually assaulted, whistled at, or groped is that in any way my fault? No, it isn't. 

Men can control themselves. Nothing I do, say, or wear has the power to steal a man's control from him. It's his control to control. Period.

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

We really don't require advice on how to avoid creeps. We need people to stop being creeps. 

This, this, this, this, this. THIS line right here. That's it in a nut shell. Concise, succinct and to the point. I'm going to put it on bumper stickers and billboards and t-shirts. ❤️

[Zeta Vandyke]

10 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

But it is most definitely NOT nature. It's a learned behavior. Nature would imply that it's been around since the dawn of time, and there were no clothes then so manner of dress had nothing to do with anything because it simply didn't exist. Men were not born with some sort of intrinsic knowledge that showing cleavage equals open for business. Mainly because it doesn't. 

Its natural that (straight) men are attracted to women. What is considered attractive is learned and personal taste and this picture changes over time, but the fact that there is attraction is natural behavior. Men (and women) were born with the instinct of picking up signals and though showing cleavage does definitely not mean "open for business", it is generally considered sexy and attractive and will trigger a response at some level.

If I walk trough the park and see a fit attractive girl walk past me in tight pants, I will most likely look at her ass in appreciation. I will not whistle or grope or anything rude, but my eyes will definitely go there. That's a reaction. Not harmful, though some might even find just looking disrespectful.

11 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

If I get sexually assaulted, whistled at, or groped is that in any way my fault? No, it isn't. 

I never said this.