Do leggings make women just too arousing for Catholic men (and women) to handle?

[pgwenthold]

I will just point out that no one in this event has complained about anyone looking at the pants. The only one ogling them was the letter writer, and that isn't the complaint. It was her nonsense attitude that drew the response. So it's really hard to claim that they are wearing the pants for others to see when the whiner admits her kids that are so corrupted didn't notice.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by luchog

Sorry, no. You're making too many false equivalency fallacies in this post.

How someone dresses should be their business alone. How someone reacts is solely and entirely up to the person reacting. How I react to someone walking nearly-nude down the street is just as much my own responsibility as how I react to someone walking down the street in arctic survival gear. In no way is whoever I'm looking at "responsible" for my thoughts and actions.

This strikes me as the same sort of naive mindset as many libertarians.

First off, how people react to you is NOT entirely up to them. That's simply unrealistic. If an attractive woman walks around nude, she will sexually arouse men. There's a significant involuntary component to that reaction. What men do with that sexual arousal is within their control, walking around nude isn't an invitation to sexual assault or rape, but there's still a component to the reaction that is due to the person wearing (or not) the clothing in question.

If you don't want to sexually arouse others, then don't dress in sexually provocative clothing. That's really not a hard concept to grasp. I don't say that to excuse sexual misbehavior. One can argue that one is entitled to sexually arouse without being sexually assaulted or even mistreated. But you cannot reasonably argue that one is entitled to wear sexually provocative clothing without sexually arousing people. That's not the way humans work. Furthermore, while people who misbehave when sexually aroused are responsible for their misbehavior, the fact is that such misbehavior is predictable, and society has good reason to try to avoid conditions where it occurs.

And that basic reality is reflected in our laws. If it were true that what you wear is truly no one's business but your own, then there should be no laws at all against public nudity. There are such laws, however, because we as a society don't accept that position. It IS other people's business, to a degree. We have decided that society works more smoothly when we dampen sexuality in public spaces, including through basic dress codes. There's considerable debate about the extent to which we should do so (Iran requires head coverings on women, New York allows women to be topless but not bottomless, Europe allows full nudity on some beaches but not everywhere), but there really aren't any modern societies which have no dress code at all. So the debate is really about where the limits of appropriate dress should be, not whether there should be any at all. There's basically universal consensus that there should be some.

Quote:

Once you start trying to police other peoples' appearance to justify your own sensibilities, you're starting down a slippery slope that can too-easily end up in oppressive, sometimes brutally oppressive, social customs and legislation.

That can happen, but generally it doesn't. Everywhere in the world polices people's appearance to some degree, but most places aren't sliding down any slippery slope in that regard. Most places are fairly stable in regards to how they regulate appearance. The places which become oppressive about appearance seem to be mostly Islamic countries, and in those cases, it seems like Islam, not the basic idea of modest dress, is the real problem.

[korenyx]

The library I work at allows leggings but only under dresses and skirts. They cannot be worn by themselves or under anything that looks like it's just a long shirt or sweater.
At a library you have to bend over sometimes and wearing leggings is better for everyone.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by luchog

Insisting that someone else's appearance invites anything more than an appreciative or disapproving glance

It seems like you may have misread my post as an argument that included justification of particular actions based on what other people are wearing. I apologize if I gave that impression, but that was not my intent.

Quote:

Once you start trying to police other peoples' appearance to justify your own sensibilities, you're starting down a slippery slope that can too-easily end up in oppressive, sometimes brutally oppressive, social customs and legislation.

Hypothetical. A neighbor shows up at your grandmother's funeral with a T-shirt with a picture of your granny and in large clear letters "So happy the ***** is dead!" on front and back. (If you didn't like your grandmother, substitute any person you care(d) for deeply)

Would it be going down that same slippery slope if someone were to tell that t-shirt wearer that perhaps they shouldn't wear that today?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Can you find an example of dress that *doesn't* conflate speech along with it?

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Can you find an example of dress that *doesn't* conflate speech along with it?

Free speech is generally more protected and argued for than dress, so I didn't think that would be an issue.

Are you or luchog suggesting that dress should be more protected than speech? Or that dress which constitutes speech warrants less protection?

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This strikes me as the same sort of naive mindset as many libertarians.

Well-poisoning fallacy, not a promising start.

Quote:

First off, how people react to you is NOT entirely up to them. That's simply unrealistic. If an attractive woman walks around nude, she will sexually arouse men. There's a significant involuntary component to that reaction. What men do with that sexual arousal is within their control, walking around nude isn't an invitation to sexual assault or rape, but there's still a component to the reaction that is due to the person wearing (or not) the clothing in question.

I think you're misreading me, because you're partly just re-stating what I said.

Whether someone reacts sexually is not relevant in the slightest. What is relevant is how they act on said arousal.

Quote:

If you don't want to sexually arouse others, then don't dress in sexually provocative clothing. That's really not a hard concept to grasp.

That's completely ignoring the point, however. Again, whether or not what a person wears sexually arouses others isn't really the important point. Unless you're going around in in a full burka and niqab or chador, chances are someone somewhere is going to find something sexually arousing. That's a pointless truism that should not need to be re-stated here.

What you are doing is trying to indirectly excuse bad behaviour by subtly shifting responsibility, while denying that's what you're doing. More on the latter part of this comment below.

Quote:

But you cannot reasonably argue that one is entitled to wear sexually provocative clothing without sexually arousing people. That's not the way humans work.

Irrelevant, and starting down the slope. Incidentally, how do you define "sexually provocative"? This is something that varies hugely by culture, and what one society would consider modest and commonplace, another may consider irredeemably provocative and sleazy. Hell, it even varies from place to place in a single society, and by immediate context.

Quote:

Furthermore, while people who misbehave when sexually aroused are responsible for their misbehavior, the fact is that such misbehavior is predictable, and society has good reason to try to avoid conditions where it occurs.

And there we are, round-about, indirect victim blaming. Said behaviour is only "predictable" because we accept that it is a valid reaction, and do not do more to educate people on expectations of behaviour and consent; and all-too-often excuse bad behaviour with victim-blaming. "Well, yes she shouldn't have been raped, but with the way she was dressed she should have expected it" is just a cowardly, offhanded version of "she was asking for it".

Quote:

And that basic reality is reflected in our laws.

Nope. This shows a profound ignorance of why such laws were enacted to begin with.

Quote:

If it were true that what you wear is truly no one's business but your own, then there should be no laws at all against public nudity.

Wrong on two levels. One, it's not true, because the reason that "modesty" laws regarding public nudity and public displays of affection were enacted into legislation were almost entirely religious. That's the same reason for the Hayes Code, anti-pornography laws, "blue laws", and so on. And the Roman Catholic church has been one of the prime movers in pushing for an enacting such legislation.

Second, there are actually valid reasons regarding hygiene for prohibiting certain types of public nudity in most places. But hygiene is almost never the reasons used for enacting public modesty laws.

Quote:

There are such laws, however, because we as a society don't accept that position. It IS other people's business, to a degree. We have decided that society works more smoothly when we dampen sexuality in public spaces, including through basic dress codes. There's considerable debate about the extent to which we should do so (Iran requires head coverings on women, New York allows women to be topless but not bottomless, Europe allows full nudity on some beaches but not everywhere), but there really aren't any modern societies which have no dress code at all. So the debate is really about where the limits of appropriate dress should be, not whether there should be any at all. There's basically universal consensus that there should be some.

And here you've simply replaced religious tyranny with the tyranny of the majority; backed by prejudices that may or may not be religious in origin. Right down the slope.

You've also unknowingly illustrated the root problem with public modesty laws: they are almost entirely arbitrary, and based on sensibilities that have nothing to do with practical matters. There is absolutely no objective standard for "modesty", it's an extremely nebulous concept that has almost as many different interpretations as there are people.

You're also patently ignoring why people dress the way they did in many historical societies, and where their dress customs came from. Almost universally, it was from environmental pressures, not social pressures (ie. you don't want to wear bikinis all the time in Scandinavia, and you don't wear want to wear Inuit anoraks on Tahitian beaches).

Quote:

That can happen, but generally it doesn't. Everywhere in the world polices people's appearance to some degree, but most places aren't sliding down any slippery slope in that regard. Most places are fairly stable in regards to how they regulate appearance. The places which become oppressive about appearance seem to be mostly Islamic countries, and in those cases, it seems like Islam, not the basic idea of modest dress, is the real problem.

And here your prejudices are showing again.

First, this is far from unique to Islamic countries. Look at some South Pacific island nations. In most of them, indigenous peoples dress in ways that Eurosphere populations can and long have considered "immodest", and they were treated that way by colonizing Europeans.

Second, those appearance traditions in Islamic countries almost universally pre-dated Islam. Like many other traditions the west associates with Islam (like female genital mutilation), these were local customs long before conversion to Islam. And if you look at history, some pagan and Christian communities enforced clothing customs that were every bit as restrictive as some of those used by many modern Islamic communities, including the Puritans and Shakers and others who founded the US.

Third, pagan societies did and continue to have clothing customs which, while different from Eurosphere or Islamosphere nations, are just as rigidly enforced, and violation can result in public censure, ostracism, or worse. Bare breasts are taboo in most Eurosphere nations -- even where laws permit, social custom often does not, and enforcement of said custom has often been brutal. For example, in nearly all Pacific Island cultures prior to European colonization and proselytizing by Christian missionaries, traditional standards of modesty allowed bare breasts as perfectly normal, which most Eurosphere nations would and do consider sexually provocative outside a very very narrow context (and sometimes even then). Meanwhile, in some of them. showing the upper thigh, even wearing shorts or trousers, is considered inconscionably immodest, and subject to punishment, some of which could be quite physically brutal by Western standards.

Fourth, look at how these laws and customs are applied. The overwhelming majority are imposed by men upon women, and are used to regulate women's sexuality and their availability to men. I shouldn't have to go into the long history of subjugation and control of women by male-dominated cultures; but I'm sure someone here will chime in with some sort of justification for it, or revisionist denial.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Would it be going down that same slippery slope if someone were to tell that t-shirt wearer that perhaps they shouldn't wear that today?

And again, you're conflating two completely unrelated scenarios. This has nothing whatsoever to do with modesty, which is the subject of this thread.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by luchog

And again, you're conflating two completely unrelated scenarios. This has nothing whatsoever to do with modesty, which is the subject of this thread.

So this that you posted before is specific to issues of modesty and doesn't apply to appearance around any other issues?

Quote:

Once you start trying to police other peoples' appearance to justify your own sensibilities, you're starting down a slippery slope that can too-easily end up in oppressive, sometimes brutally oppressive, social customs and legislation.

My position is that our dress is just a subsection of our expression in general. When we can reasonably predict our expression will evoke an emotional/psychological response in others, we can ask questions about whether we find that acceptable, appropriate, or any of the other questions we tend to ask about expression.

To say that clothing is a separate issue from other kinds of expression, you'd need to argue for that special separation.

[ahhell]

It is an odd choice for church.

[epeeist]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

It seems like you may have misread my post as an argument that included justification of particular actions based on what other people are wearing. I apologize if I gave that impression, but that was not my intent.



Hypothetical. A neighbor shows up at your grandmother's funeral with a T-shirt with a picture of your granny and in large clear letters "So happy the ***** is dead!" on front and back. (If you didn't like your grandmother, substitute any person you care(d) for deeply)

Would it be going down that same slippery slope if someone were to tell that t-shirt wearer that perhaps they shouldn't wear that today?

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Can you find an example of dress that *doesn't* conflate speech along with it?

While there are issues with how it was expressed, is there anything wrong with suggesting that, even in the absence of a formal dress code, people should think about what they wear to church (or synagogue, or temple, or mosque, etc.) and choose something different from what they might wear just to go shopping?

I've only worn a t-shirt once to church, and it was because there was a power outage for several days and I had no other clean clothes nor hot water to shower with. However, I'll wear t-shirts more often when I'm not going to church. That's me, I don't say it's wrong for others to wear a t-shirt to church, but I would hope it's a t-shirt in good condition? I almost never wear a suit, jacket, tie or sweater to church, some other men almost always wear a suit. Etc. We dress differently, but we all choose what to wear as being at least a bit better than usual casual weekend attire, which varies for each person.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by luchog

And there we are, round-about, indirect victim blaming.

This is a predictable response, but way off base. The question I'm trying to address isn't about who is to blame for anything. The question is what should society do.

Quote:

Said behaviour is only "predictable" because we accept that it is a valid reaction

No. There's nothing about the reaction being invalid that makes it unpredictable, and nothing about it being predictable which makes it valid. This is a giant logical fallacy here.

Quote:

and do not do more to educate people on expectations of behaviour and consent

There is a limit to how much society can educate, and to what education, no matter how much of it you have, can accomplish. Could we be doing more than we are now? Perhaps. Would doing more stop all misbehavior? No, it would not. Would doing more alleviate the social utility of minimum dress codes in public? No, it would not.

Quote:

Wrong on two levels. One, it's not true, because the reason that "modesty" laws regarding public nudity and public displays of affection were enacted into legislation were almost entirely religious.

Religions were a big part of how societies codified their understanding of how societies should function. Furthermore, I was addressing a hypothetical which this is irrelevant to.

Quote:

Second, there are actually valid reasons regarding hygiene for prohibiting certain types of public nudity in most places. But hygiene is almost never the reasons used for enacting public modesty laws.

This is relevant, but mostly wrong. A butt flap would suffice for hygiene purposes.

Quote:

And here you've simply replaced religious tyranny with the tyranny of the majority; backed by prejudices that may or may not be religious in origin. Right down the slope.

You keep referring to a slope, and yet social standards for public dress have been extremely stable, and arguably relaxing, in western countries. There is no slope.

Quote:

You've also unknowingly illustrated the root problem with public modesty laws: they are almost entirely arbitrary, and based on sensibilities that have nothing to do with practical matters.

You say that like sensibilities don't have practical consequences. But they absolutely do. This is why I accused you of libertarian fallacies. Humans are social creatures. We aren't completely rational and independent actors.

Quote:

There is absolutely no objective standard for "modesty"

True. Why does there need to be?

Quote:

You're also patently ignoring why people dress the way they did in many historical societies, and where their dress customs came from. Almost universally, it was from environmental pressures, not social pressures (ie. you don't want to wear bikinis all the time in Scandinavia, and you don't wear want to wear Inuit anoraks on Tahitian beaches).

Primitive societies don't function the same way as modern societies. In primitive societies, you know almost everyone you interact with. Meeting strangers is a rare exception. In modern societies, you have to deal with strangers on a daily basis. Modern societies must be more regimented than traditional societies in order to facilitate that.

And climate isn't why a person can expose their midriff in most places in the US but frequently not their nipples.

Quote:

First, this is far from unique to Islamic countries. Look at some South Pacific island nations. In most of them, indigenous peoples dress in ways that Eurosphere populations can and long have considered "immodest", and they were treated that way by colonizing Europeans.

And is that going on now? Are European standards of dress brutally oppressing Pacific Islanders today?

No, they aren't.

Quote:

Second, those appearance traditions in Islamic countries almost universally pre-dated Islam.

Perhaps. And yet, Islam is what's spreading them now.

Quote:

And if you look at history, some pagan and Christian communities enforced clothing customs that were every bit as restrictive as some of those used by many modern Islamic communities, including the Puritans and Shakers and others who founded the US.

Puritan and Shaker dress codes were never as oppressive as a burka. And while some modern Christian communities like the Amish have restrictive dress codes, members of those communities are quite free to leave (and do leave), making claims that they're engaging in "brutal oppression" an obvious attempt at false equivalency.

Quote:

Third, pagan societies did and continue to have clothing customs which, while different from Eurosphere or Islamosphere nations, are just as rigidly enforced, and violation can result in public censure, ostracism, or worse. Bare breasts are taboo in most Eurosphere nations -- even where laws permit, social custom often does not, and enforcement of said custom has often been brutal.

Modern dress code enforcement in the west isn't brutal. Maybe it is in parts of China, but otherwise the brutal enforcement now is pretty much just Islamic countries.

Futhermore, you claimed that there was a slope. But the bare breast taboo in Europe isn't a slope, it's a long-standing stable social custom. Whereas modern Islamic dress codes, while often harking back to ancient times, are often actually very recent impositions.

Quote:

Fourth, look at how these laws and customs are applied. The overwhelming majority are imposed by men upon women, and are used to regulate women's sexuality and their availability to men. I shouldn't have to go into the long history of subjugation and control of women by male-dominated cultures; but I'm sure someone here will chime in with some sort of justification for it, or revisionist denial.

Female sexual signaling is more visual than male sexual signaling. If the point is to dampen public sexuality, then it makes sense that dress codes would focus more on women than on men.

If your objection is that society shouldn't try to dampen sexuality in public, you should simply say so. If you don't object to that, then your complaints about dress codes in general ring hollow.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by ahhell

It is an odd choice for church.

I can still remember when a woman turned up to church many years ago wearing jeans with a button up fly. That caused a few comments

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by luchog

Sorry, no. You're making too many false equivalency fallacies in this post.

How someone dresses should be their business alone. How someone reacts is solely and entirely up to the person reacting. How I react to someone walking nearly-nude down the street is just as much my own responsibility as how I react to someone walking down the street in arctic survival gear. In no way is whoever I'm looking at "responsible" for my thoughts and actions.

If I think someone is attractive, then I will look, but I will do my best not to be a creep about it. And unless there is already a clear indication that the person wants comments, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

Insisting that someone else's appearance invites anything more than an appreciative or disapproving glance is nothing but an attempt to shift responsibility for one's own lack of self-control to the target of that lack of self-control. It's a very popular tactic of religious fanatics for a reason: It absolves them of responsibility for their actions. "It's not my fault I raped/groped/harassed/catcalled that person, just look at how they were dressed!". Not just religious fanatics, of course, plenty of men, and a few women, have found it a popular excuse for refusing to take responsibility for their own poor behaviour.

Once you start trying to police other peoples' appearance to justify your own sensibilities, you're starting down a slippery slope that can too-easily end up in oppressive, sometimes brutally oppressive, social customs and legislation.

Blackface and an Indian headdress?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by ahhell

It is an odd choice for church.

American Catholics tend to be fairly casual in their demands for church attire. Everyone wears short during the summer here and sandals are not unheard of. Just not tacky ones. Compared to my protestant upbringing of coat and tie at every service, it took some time to get used to.

Especially since the basilica is on or near campus.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

American Catholics tend to be fairly casual in their demands for church attire. Everyone wears short during the summer here and sandals are not unheard of. Just not tacky ones. Compared to my protestant upbringing of coat and tie at every service, it took some time to get used to.

Especially since the basilica is on or near campus.

Yep. We wore Sunday best in the Baptist church I grew up in. My wife's Catholic congregation says "it doesn't matter what you wear, just so long as you are there"

[bytewizard]

Maryanne White needs to get a life laid.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by epeeist

While there are issues with how it was expressed, is there anything wrong with suggesting that, even in the absence of a formal dress code, people should think about what they wear to church (or synagogue, or temple, or mosque, etc.) and choose something different from what they might wear just to go shopping?

I've only worn a t-shirt once to church, and it was because there was a power outage for several days and I had no other clean clothes nor hot water to shower with. However, I'll wear t-shirts more often when I'm not going to church. That's me, I don't say it's wrong for others to wear a t-shirt to church, but I would hope it's a t-shirt in good condition? I almost never wear a suit, jacket, tie or sweater to church, some other men almost always wear a suit. Etc. We dress differently, but we all choose what to wear as being at least a bit better than usual casual weekend attire, which varies for each person.

I assume that if going to church is something that you do often then you'd be more willing to dress casually when you do it, especially if they don't go there completely willingly.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah. William Parcher claims it is a Poe. I wouldn't say that, but I wonder if the author is not who it claims to be.

I'd suggest it was written by a priest, but given the focus is on women...(rim shot)

He's here all week folks (try the chicken)

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by casebro

And who uses "Leggings"? Yoga pants I've heard of. I think I need pics for comparison.

But while I enjoy viewing trim bodies, I think camel toes are a bit too far. Same for guys in pants so tight you can not only tell their sex but their religion too.

"Yoga Pants" is I believe an Americanism, you never hear it in the UK (the rest Europe will have names for them in their own languages obviously). "Leggings" is the normal term here and basically covers any close fitting trouser type garment normally without a zipper or fastener made from a material with any degree of elasticity. They range from thick, completely opaque material that is close fitting but not skin tight to pretty much footless tights. All called leggings.

Eta: And they're considered perfectly ordinary clothing over here, not specifically, or even particularly, sportswear.

Here's a link to a selection of sport, casual, smart and fashion leggings

https://www.freemans.com/womens/leggings/_/N-1lZ1z13yzh

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Can you find an example of dress that *doesn't* conflate speech along with it?

Fashion is meant to be commented on and it is perfectly acceptable to do so. The woman in the OP doesn't like leggings. I like leggings. There you have it! Two opposing answers and no legging wearer was harmed in the process.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by luchog

There is one passage in scripture that is very often used to support restrictions on womens' appearance; mainly because it is the only passage in scripture which speaks about appearance.

“Women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with elaborate hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing” -- 1 Timothy 2:9

That bible thing is just chock a block full of anti-capitalist, hippy types trying to tell others what they should be doing.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

It's not an actual letter. It's a fictional letter. Maybe a Poe. Or a Poe of a Poe.

It should be ignored because it isn't real.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Shame on anyone who thinks that this letter is real. Go back to critical thinking school. Thanks for listening to the lecture.

I don't know, but I actually think it's probably real. You seem so sure it's not, but I see no particularly compelling reason to think it isn't real. The newspaper is a Catholic newspaper (website) for Notre Dame, St. Mary's and Holy Cross. It's a complaint specifically about attire worn to Mass.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think your certainty is unwarranted. It's likely to be a real person with a sincere opinion; one that is well within the mainstream of Catholic thought.

[Delvo]

Before this thread, the only use for "leggings" I'd ever encountered was for big loose things, possibly either more fluffy or more baggy & wrinkly, but definitely not anything tight or thin. And they were worn under skirts or dresses in cold weather.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Eta: And they're considered perfectly ordinary clothing over here, not specifically, or even particularly, sportswear.[/url]

And, in fact, they are considered perfectly ordinary clothing in many places here. For example, on college campuses.

They are so common, I don't even notice.

As I've said, it's no different than someone with their hair dyed blue. If you aren't in the environment where it is common, you might be struck by it. But if you are around it routinely like I am, it's not all that noticeable.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

And, in fact, they are considered perfectly ordinary clothing in many places here. For example, on college campuses.

They are so common, I don't even notice.

As I've said, it's no different than someone with their hair dyed blue. If you aren't in the environment where it is common, you might be struck by it. But if you are around it routinely like I am, it's not all that noticeable.

I think this is the key point. One gets accustomed to styles of dress (and undress) in surprisingly little time. What is scandal provoking and arousing in one society is just normal and unnoticed in another, and it changes with time. Naked women's breasts were/are fine in many tropical cultures and I doubt this style of attire drives the men in these cultures to spasms of lust. The Victorians (or even American society in the 1950s) would be horrified with the semi-nudity/nudity in just the photos that are routine in our ads today; can you imagine what they would think of our beach attire, TV shows, or even our PG ranked movies! Writings from the Victorian era indicate the men found just glimpses of lower legs very sexual. Certain religious groups today have the same reaction and require women to be covered head to foot, including their hair.

It is the difference from the "public" attire that people find arousing or disturbing (together with the context), not the attire itself. Probably because if a certain attire is everywhere we no longer consider it as special enough to be indicative of a promise of a sexual encounter. This have been observed over and over again. A particular style of dress (lesser dress?) takes hold and at first it can generate sexual reactions in many observers: bikinis, mini-skirts, bare midriffs, and yes, even tight leggings. But months later the constant exposure makes it hum-drum. We tend to bore easily, even when it comes to the amount of exposed flesh we consider provocative.

In regard to the OP: I am glad that most posters here agree that the reactions of the men to certain styles of women's attires are the men's responsibilities, not the women's. But ironically banning or squelching a given style as provocative is what keeps it provocative. Continued routine public wearing of tight leggings will, in a year or a few, make it too routine to be provocative or lust inducing. In the same way most of us in Western culture accept exposed hair and faces, a neckline below the neck, and exposed knees to not be worth notice.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

It's not an actual letter. It's a fictional letter. Maybe a Poe. Or a Poe of a Poe.

It should be ignored because it isn't real.

Is this just speculation, or do you have information to that effect? And does it really matter? If the letter was written by one of the editors, it still sparked a discussion, and that discussion, alas, is still viable in some communities.

[MetalPig]

Originally Posted by Thermal

My wife's Catholic congregation says "it doesn't matter what you wear, just so long as you are there"

Do they dance in the streets?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Before this thread, the only use for "leggings" I'd ever encountered was for big loose things, possibly either more fluffy or more baggy & wrinkly, but definitely not anything tight or thin. And they were worn under skirts or dresses in cold weather.

Over here I think what you are refering to are known as leg-warmers, peak of popularity was probably around the time of the Fame movie.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is a predictable response, but way off base. The question I'm trying to address isn't about who is to blame for anything. The question is what should society do.

"Society" is nothing but a collection of people. People are responsible for their own actions. There's nothing more that need be said, unless your'e trying to create an excuse for bad actors.

So much of the rest of your comments are not worth addressing, as they're little more than evasions, indirect victim-blaming, JAQing off, and the tired old Islamophobic nonsense.

Quote:

You keep referring to a slope, and yet social standards for public dress have been extremely stable, and arguably relaxing, in western countries. There is no slope.

Seriously? I suggest you look around outside the Eurosphere countries. Hell, even in Eurosphere countries "she was asking for it by the way she dressed" is still used as an excuse for rape, and in courtrooms, rape victims are regularly attacked for their appearance.

[quote]Female sexual signaling is more visual than male sexual signaling. If the point is to dampen public sexuality, then it makes sense that dress codes would focus more on women than on men.[quote]


Talk about a non sequitur. The fact that social dress customs have been used throughout history to suppress women's sexuality for the benefit of men is not even controversial, it's a well-established fact. I'm not seeing why you're even bringing this up.

Quote:

If your objection is that society shouldn't try to dampen sexuality in public, you should simply say so. If you don't object to that, then your complaints about dress codes in general ring hollow.

You really should learn to read for comprehension, and not to find some nitpick you can score a cheap Internet gotcha on, since you seem to have missed this point that I've made (and others have made) several times now.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Blackface and an Indian headdress?

This thread is about modesty and sexuality, not racism. If you want to champion racist caricature and symbolism, best to start a new thread about it.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

American Catholics tend to be fairly casual in their demands for church attire. Everyone wears short during the summer here and sandals are not unheard of. Just not tacky ones. Compared to my protestant upbringing of coat and tie at every service, it took some time to get used to.

Especially since the basilica is on or near campus.

I was shocked(really) to see the way Catholics in Miami dress for Easter. I took my wife's grandma one year. Shorts and flip flops on Easter even? I didn't notice anything especially tight or revealing though.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by luchog

"Society" is nothing but a collection of people. People are responsible for their own actions. There's nothing more that need be said, unless your'e trying to create an excuse for bad actors.

I'm not interested in who you want to blame, but people in groups behave differently than people individually. This is a fact, one which we have to deal with. You're trying to wish away human nature, and it's never going to happen.

Quote:

So much of the rest of your comments are not worth addressing, as they're little more than evasions, indirect victim-blaming, JAQing off, and the tired old Islamophobic nonsense.

And there's the excuses. Islamophobia, that great term which excuses so much and explains so little.

It's always ironic how vociferously some people protest about patriarchy and women's oppression, and yet give the worst offenders a pass. I can find no other explanation for it except that you suffer from oikophobia.

Quote:

Seriously? I suggest you look around outside the Eurosphere countries. Hell, even in Eurosphere countries "she was asking for it by the way she dressed" is still used as an excuse for rape, and in courtrooms, rape victims are regularly attacked for their appearance.

That has jack **** to do with what I said. You claimed that there was a slippery slope. And there isn't. The problem you refer to here is real (though you overstate it), but it's not getting any worse than it's been for a long time. Stable situations, even bad stable situations, are not slopes.

Quote:

Talk about a non sequitur. The fact that social dress customs have been used throughout history to suppress women's sexuality for the benefit of men is not even controversial, it's a well-established fact. I'm not seeing why you're even bringing this up.

Of course. Everything is always for the benefit of men.

Quote:

You really should learn to read for comprehension

That's ironic, given how 90% of your responses have been straw men.

[isissxn]

I pretty much only wear various types of leggings (if I'm not wearing dress pants, of course) because jeans just don't fit me. Almost never. It's really hard to find jeans that fit me, and I just got tired of always walking around tramping on the cuffs and feeling like I'm wearing a denim diaper.

I don't think a number of people in this thread are picturing "leggings" correctly. There are a million different kinds. Some are those tight, spandex-y kind that I don't wear even as a scrawny person. But many are cotton, or thick, winter-lining material, or dress-pants like material (I really don't know my materials, sorry). I have a pair for bedtime that are furry!

I don't think there's anything wrong with all those types of leggings. I do not, however, wear shirts that reveal my arse if I'm wearing leggings. I just don't. I feel funny about it, exposed even. So I always wear longer tops that cover my butt. That's the kind of shirt I prefer to wear anyway since I rock a short torso.

I do not believe the kind of leggings I mean would offend the anti-leggings people, but who knows. "Yoga pants" are something separate from leggings (though they both have a similar BA-DING butt effect). I think of them as exercise wear or lounge wear only.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by luchog

This thread is about modesty and sexuality, not racism. If you want to champion racist caricature and symbolism, best to start a new thread about it.

Nice dodge. Look, either getting to wear whatever you want is a principle you believe in, or it isn't. You claimed it is. That post was a test of whether or not you really believe in that principle, or if you're just engaging in special pleading with regard to modesty and sexuality.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nice dodge. Look, either getting to wear whatever you want is a principle you believe in, or it isn't. You claimed it is. That post was a test of whether or not you really believe in that principle, or if you're just engaging in special pleading with regard to modesty and sexuality.

Straw man, goalpost moving, false equivalency, non sequitur. That's just the obvious fallacies. Not bad for only a small paragraph. The last time I checked, dressing as a racist caricature was not illegal anywhere in the US. Bare female chests are illegal in most of the US. Do try harder, your trolling is becoming painfully obvious and repetitive.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by luchog

Straw man, goalpost moving, false equivalency, non sequitur. That's just the obvious fallacies. Not bad for only a small paragraph.

And the dodges continue. This is what you said:

Originally Posted by luchog

How someone dresses should be their business alone.

If we take you at your word, then blackface is acceptable. So, does that quote of yours actually reflect your honest belief?

[Senex]

I haven't been to a Catholic church in a while. What would help me is if you church goers take photos of the controversy and post the photos on this thread. We can vote whether we think appropriate or not.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

"Yoga Pants" is I believe an Americanism, you never hear it in the UK (the rest Europe will have names for them in their own languages obviously). "Leggings" is the normal term here and basically covers any close fitting trouser type garment normally without a zipper or fastener made from a material with any degree of elasticity. They range from thick, completely opaque material that is close fitting but not skin tight to pretty much footless tights. All called leggings.

Eta: And they're considered perfectly ordinary clothing over here, not specifically, or even particularly, sportswear.

Here's a link to a selection of sport, casual, smart and fashion leggings

https://www.freemans.com/womens/leggings/_/N-1lZ1z13yzh

In the UK Yoga pants and leggings are different AFAIK.

Leggings are skintight, effectively thick footless tights. Whether exercise/running tights are a type of legging is a good question and one I would be happy to research if someone will provide an album of suitably attired attractive ladies

Yoga pants can fit tightly in places and may have cuffs at the ankle, but are also baggy in places, typically around the knees. Very baggy yoga pants probably overlap with hareem pants in form.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I was shocked(really) to see the way Catholics in Miami dress for Easter. I took my wife's grandma one year. Shorts and flip flops on Easter even? I didn't notice anything especially tight or revealing though.

I have found that Catholics are most casual when on vacation or in a vacation area. They don't always bring extra outfits for mass. And if you are from somewhere hot you probably wear shorts and flip flops most of the time anyway.

This does cause some tension overseas. The first time we went to Europe I was not at all surprised that many cathedrals had a dress code. My wife, the Catholic, was offended. She took a single sundress that could fit easily in a daypack so that she could change when we planned such visits.