OH GOD, more damned philosophy of culture...
So, I've been reading a lot of Emily Nagoski, lately, and she offers some insights into behavioural motivation and some other stuff that I hadn't considered quite that way, before. Mind, a good bit of it is pretty standard-issue, if you read a lot of sex and gender vs. culture type stuff, but the SCIENCE (because that needs capslock; it does) is a brilliant deviation from the usual.
Anyway, after the usual number of anti-rape and anti victim-blaming posts that occur in a sex blog's archives, I started thinking that there's an entire level of the model that's just missing.
- Woman wears skimpy clothes, to go to club.
- This does not mean she's sexually available to anyone and everyone.
- What does it mean?
- Nothing.
And that's where it breaks down. It doesn't mean nothing. It can mean that she enjoys looking at herself, dressed in those clothes, and more often, it means that she would like other people to enjoy the look, as well. Focus? Visual. Expectation? 'Hey, you look good in that!' It's an invitation to introduce yourself to her, in some relatively culturally acceptable fashion ('Can I buy you a drink?' or 'Those shorts are amazing! Where did you get them?' or even just 'Hi, I'm Chris.') and then accept her decision on whether she wants to continue that conversation. It absolutely is an invitation to notice her. It is not an invitation to ... pretty much anything else.
"Blah blah, women's agency." Yes. Exactly. We are taught from a very young age, regardless of gender, the meaning of certain non-verbal social signals. If you see an ambulance with the lights on, behind you on the road, you change lanes, because that's what you're supposed to do. If someone offers you their hand, palm inward, and you don't want to be rude (and you don't have an applicable phobia), you shake their hand. If it's palm down, the expected response is to kiss the back of the hand, but it's ok to shake it, instead -- although that will impart a bit of a rebuff and potentially alter the power dynamics in play. All of these things, we have learned both to perform and to respond to.
A woman's choice of clothing reflects a number of social (and environmental) cues she is reacting to and others she wants to send. For instance: Lisa lives in a temperate city, and it is winter. She would like to go out to a dance club. She is upper-middle class and has a middle-management job in an office with morally-influenced standards of dress. Lisa is also interested in meeting a nice girl.
Ok, so it's winter. This means she's likely to wear a coat over her clothes, until she gets where she's going. If she is wearing something small, she is probably wearing a very long coat. It is likely she will wear boots with low heels and some tread that cover at least her ankles. Her job, and the possibility of running into someone from work, will mean that she is more likely to dress toward the conservative side of what might be expected in that club. (Alternately, if she knows she won't see anyone from work, she may dress more flamboyantly, but let's stick with it's a popular club, and the guys she works with might be there.) She is likely to choose a skirt or dress that stops close to the knee, likely in a bolder colour than she would wear to the office. Depending on her confidence, the length of her coat, and the temperature, (as well as decorative considerations) she may or may not wear tights or leggings. Sleeves will follow similar parameters, but will depend more heavily on the temperature inside the club. It is likely, but not inevitable, that she will choose some subtle symbol of her sexuality, to signal to women who might be attracted to her that she is interested in meeting them and judging their attractiveness to her. Women looking for men rarely elect to signal their orientation, since heterosexuality is presumed, by the bulk of the population, outside of a gay bar.
And that doesn't even begin to describe the depth of considerations that happen every single time anyone gets dressed. After a while, people begin to develop reflexes and outfits. Going to work? These clothing choices are immediately appropriate and likely. Spending a day at home with the dog? Those clothes over there are the comfortable ones that nobody else will ever see you wear. So, yes, to some extent, the process does develop shortcuts. But, clothing is always about two things: comfort and non-verbal communication. And the point where it goes wrong is when someone hears something that isn't what you said. (And that happens in verbal communication, too, for the record.)
Anyway, after the usual number of anti-rape and anti victim-blaming posts that occur in a sex blog's archives, I started thinking that there's an entire level of the model that's just missing.
- Woman wears skimpy clothes, to go to club.
- This does not mean she's sexually available to anyone and everyone.
- What does it mean?
- Nothing.
And that's where it breaks down. It doesn't mean nothing. It can mean that she enjoys looking at herself, dressed in those clothes, and more often, it means that she would like other people to enjoy the look, as well. Focus? Visual. Expectation? 'Hey, you look good in that!' It's an invitation to introduce yourself to her, in some relatively culturally acceptable fashion ('Can I buy you a drink?' or 'Those shorts are amazing! Where did you get them?' or even just 'Hi, I'm Chris.') and then accept her decision on whether she wants to continue that conversation. It absolutely is an invitation to notice her. It is not an invitation to ... pretty much anything else.
"Blah blah, women's agency." Yes. Exactly. We are taught from a very young age, regardless of gender, the meaning of certain non-verbal social signals. If you see an ambulance with the lights on, behind you on the road, you change lanes, because that's what you're supposed to do. If someone offers you their hand, palm inward, and you don't want to be rude (and you don't have an applicable phobia), you shake their hand. If it's palm down, the expected response is to kiss the back of the hand, but it's ok to shake it, instead -- although that will impart a bit of a rebuff and potentially alter the power dynamics in play. All of these things, we have learned both to perform and to respond to.
A woman's choice of clothing reflects a number of social (and environmental) cues she is reacting to and others she wants to send. For instance: Lisa lives in a temperate city, and it is winter. She would like to go out to a dance club. She is upper-middle class and has a middle-management job in an office with morally-influenced standards of dress. Lisa is also interested in meeting a nice girl.
Ok, so it's winter. This means she's likely to wear a coat over her clothes, until she gets where she's going. If she is wearing something small, she is probably wearing a very long coat. It is likely she will wear boots with low heels and some tread that cover at least her ankles. Her job, and the possibility of running into someone from work, will mean that she is more likely to dress toward the conservative side of what might be expected in that club. (Alternately, if she knows she won't see anyone from work, she may dress more flamboyantly, but let's stick with it's a popular club, and the guys she works with might be there.) She is likely to choose a skirt or dress that stops close to the knee, likely in a bolder colour than she would wear to the office. Depending on her confidence, the length of her coat, and the temperature, (as well as decorative considerations) she may or may not wear tights or leggings. Sleeves will follow similar parameters, but will depend more heavily on the temperature inside the club. It is likely, but not inevitable, that she will choose some subtle symbol of her sexuality, to signal to women who might be attracted to her that she is interested in meeting them and judging their attractiveness to her. Women looking for men rarely elect to signal their orientation, since heterosexuality is presumed, by the bulk of the population, outside of a gay bar.
And that doesn't even begin to describe the depth of considerations that happen every single time anyone gets dressed. After a while, people begin to develop reflexes and outfits. Going to work? These clothing choices are immediately appropriate and likely. Spending a day at home with the dog? Those clothes over there are the comfortable ones that nobody else will ever see you wear. So, yes, to some extent, the process does develop shortcuts. But, clothing is always about two things: comfort and non-verbal communication. And the point where it goes wrong is when someone hears something that isn't what you said. (And that happens in verbal communication, too, for the record.)