DVDizzy Forum

A note for those just now coming into this discussion. This thread was split from another topic, the original thread can be found here:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

Women can dress any way they want, and it is a man's fault if he wants to rape her. That said, the way a person dresses reflects on their personality and maturity. If a woman (or man, for that matter) wears next to nothing, she's saying she wants to call attention to her body (not be raped, of course). Overtly calling attention to your body shows you don't have tact/good style or are desperate. That's how I look at it.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Geek wrote:-Ariel wasn't miserable enough to go looking for Ursula earlier, and besides, Trition didn't forbid Human contact, to make Ariel miserable. He forbade it in order to stop her swimming up to a ship, which he believed would almost certainly end with her getting speared by a harpoon, or caught in a trawler net.

That way well be, but even then it made Ariel miserable. It doesn't matter what Triton's reasons were for forbading Ariel to have contact with humans --he *did* and that made his daughter unhappy. I call the destruction of Ariel's cavern the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The fight she and Triton had at the beginning of the movie obviously wasn't the first, as evidenced by his words. Was the deal with Ursula smart? No. Do teenagers do stupid things? Yes. Should we hate them for it? I don't think so.

Lets just agree to disagree on Ariel

Goliath wrote:

Disney Geek wrote:-Jafar might have wanted power, rather than Jasmine, but she still let herself be a means of aquiring it, and she's a skank because she flirted with Jafar despite having no desire to. She could have distracted him by pinching his staff, or letting Rajah out of the cage, but she chose to turn him on instead. So much for doing something bold.

You are so wrong in more ways than I can describe --or care to. Jasmine wasn't "letting herself be a means of acquiring" anything. I'm sorry, but that's not a difference of opinion. She simply wasn't. She never wanted to be with Jafar, so how was she a means for him to acquire power? That doesn't make sense. And Jasmine distracted Jafar to save Aladdin, her father and herself. You can see how much she hated doing it. Saying that she is a 'skank' for doing so makes no sense. At all. Not even remotely. And it still saddens me that a woman would call another woman a 'skank' (or a 'slut' or 'whore' or whatever derogatory names there exist for women), no matter what the context.

I know Jasmine didn't want to marry Jafar, or get him hot and bothered, but that's my point. She was submissive, and I know why she distracted him, but my issue is how she distracted him. She kissed him even though it obviously didn't appeal to her. Regarding the word Skank, I meant it only as a lamentation of the submissiveness I see in Jasmine, but then it isn't really reclaimed if it's used in a critical sense.

Goliath wrote:Oh, and of course none of what I wrote has to be taken personally.

Don't worry. It hasn't been

Disney's Divinity wrote:Maybe they give her overly sexual clothes to symbolize her rejection of those repressive values similar to her rejection to arranged marriages, marrying nobility, etc.

Now you're talking. Jasmine may dress that way as a form of defiance and protest against the patriarchal traditions that oppress her. You just assumed that just because of the way she dresses she must have been seeking out attention, to get flattering looks etc. But in the film Jasmine does not show any signs of being that type of person.

Disney's Divinity wrote:But if I see someone dressed like that, I instantly think "skank"--and I don't feel bad for it at all. It’s no different from meeting people who look like crackheads. They still have every right to do what they want; doesn't mean I want to be around them.

So you would just reject a person solely on the way they dress? Do you apply that only to women who dress provocatively or to all people who dress out of the norm and the mainstream?

It's one thing to say that you dislike people who have a certain type of behavior or a certain type of personality and that type may dress up in a certain way but to reject a person and label them "skank" or "crackhead" just because of they way they look or dress, prior to exhibiting a behavior or a character you dislike, is highly problematic.

Disney's Divinity wrote:If you’re dressing like a stripper--who basically live lives as objects--then that’s obviously the comparison you’re asking for. I doubt any woman just wears a thong or high heels because she likes them (those things can chafe ).

Dressing sexy = getting attention. Do you dress sexy for yourself? No. You do it to get people to look at you. (I know, I've done it. If I were just being comfortable, I'd wear sweat pants...not flattering.)

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the bow. However short-lived that moment was.

I didnt realize strippers wore dem pants!

The way she dresses makes her feel free. That's pretty obvious because people *do* feel more comfortable physically when they're not wearing much. Also, freedom's kinda her thing.

Sotiris wrote:You just assumed that just because of the way she dresses she must have been seeking out attention, to get flattering looks etc. But in the film Jasmine does not show any signs of being that type of person.

I didn’t assume, because most people who dress that way are looking for attention. The only way to rationalize it is to go outside the movie and think “maybe the creators meant it to symbolize this.” In the reality of the movie, I still don’t understand why Jasmine would get enjoyment or "freedom/independence" out of dressing the same way as women in harems.

So you would just reject a person solely on the way they dress? Do you apply that only to women who dress provocatively or to all people who dress out of the norm and the mainstream?

No, I apply it to anyone and everyone who dresses in a sexual way in a public place. The problem is that you take certain words (skank/slut/etc.) or modes of dress (dressing sexy) and think they only apply to women, when they don't. It’s one thing to criticize the practice of judging people by slutty clothes, it’s another to call someone sexist for doing so--considering this is not a strictly women’s issue (anymore), and hasn’t been for a while now. Which is why I said earlier, "this is not an abortion topic" where it the matter is only applicable to women and where rights are trying to be taken away.

I don't like the re-titling of this thread since it's really more about if the princess clothes are revealing or not...But I actually have a problem with the off-topic making in the first place.

I looked up some old pictures of harems...and the women covered up more (except when they completely removed their tops!).

So perhaps Jasmine still would have had a little more fabric on her.

And since a harem is a place for havig casual sex any time a guy wants it, if she's trying to be like that, that's not good. I'm actually surprised they wore pants in harems, I would have thought skirts would be easier for what they would be doing, but maybe they only ever thought of pants in that culture and it does draw attention to the legs of course.

I suppose only the idea of her wearing it because she's a rich princess and she can inside is the best bet, but I don't know if she'd wear that everywhere, like with her dad or Jafar or meeting suitors. But I just think Jasmine's top should have just had a little more material to cover a bit more, not that much.

I also thought about Ariel, but I understand "merpeople are different from humans" and they are a made up culture that has no basis in something as known to be real as Middle Eastern royalty and she covers up as soon as she's on land, starting with that dress made from a sail!

Disney's Divinity wrote:I didn't assume, because most people who dress that way are looking for attention.

Again, you are generalizing. Clearly, as I've pointed out earlier, there can be other reasons one would want to dress in such a way, regardless if you believe in those reasons or not.

Disney's Divinity wrote:In the reality of the movie, I still don’t understand why Jasmine would get enjoyment or "freedom/independence" out of dressing the same way as women in harems.

Dressing provocatively in a conservative or puritanical society is a mode of expressing yourself and can be a form of protest. Just think about the Sexual Revolution.

Perhaps, you think that a woman by dressing up "sexy", does not protest the dominant societal norms but rather conforms to them. Perhaps you think that this type of dressing up is a disservice to women, that it "allows" men to objectify and belittle them and perpetuates female stereotypes.

While this is a valid point/concern, it is also highly debatable. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong in your assessment; I'm saying that there are other equally valid perspectives regarding this matter that you need to address. You cannot simply dismiss them just because you don't agree with them. You need to be more open-minded and take into consideration other points of view other than your own.

Disney's Divinity wrote:No, I apply it to anyone and everyone who dresses in a sexual way in a public place.

So, basically you disagree with the expression of one's sexuality in public, whether that translates into modes of dressing or of contact. Well, that's a different issue. Although I still find this very conservative and prudish.

Disney's Divinity wrote:The problem is that you take certain words (skank/slut/etc.) or modes of dress (dressing sexy) and think they only apply to women, when they don't.

I disagree. While it would be nice and fair for this issue not to apply solely to women, unfortunately that is the case. It's always women who get judged, criticized, labeled, or objectified for the way they dress. A man could just go in public almost naked, with only some short pants on, for example, and not be viewed as dressing "sexy" or be criticized. It's true because we still live in a highly patriarchal world.

Sotiris wrote: Again, you are generalizing. Clearly, as I've pointed out earlier, there can be other reasons one would want to dress in such a way, regardless if you believe in those reasons or not.

I disagree. Even in the case of dressing provocatively as a form of protest--that is still a ploy to get attention (albeit for a good cause). Except, in this day and age of the Katy Perry's and the Kardashian's of the world, it is not done as a form of protest. It is provocative for its own sake, for women to sell themselves--not to make a stand against patriarchy. It only further degrades women and commodifies their sexuality.

Perhaps, you think that a woman by dressing up "sexy", does not protest the dominant societal norms but rather conforms to them. Perhaps you think that this type of dressing up is a disservice to women, that it "allows" men to objectify and belittle them and perpetuates female stereotypes.

Yes, I do.

You need to be more open-minded and take into consideration other points of view other than your own.

I understand other points of view--that said, understanding other opinions doesn't change my own.

So, basically you disagree with the expression of one's sexuality in public, whether that translates into modes of dressing or of contact. Well, that's a different issue. Although I still find this very conservative and prudish.

I don't find it prudish at all. As I said before, I don't expect people (or Jasmine) to wrap themselves up like nuns--but there is a line (usually depending on the context), and crossing it becomes "slutty" to me.

Disney's Divinity wrote:The problem is that you take certain words (skank/slut/etc.) or modes of dress (dressing sexy) and think they only apply to women, when they don't.

I disagree. While it's would be nice and fair for this issue not to apply solely to women, unfortunately that is the case. It's always women who get judged, criticized, labeled, or objectified for the way they dress. A man could just go in public almost naked, with only some short pants on, for example, and not be viewed as dressing "sexy" or be criticized. It's true because we still live in a highly patriarchal world.

Maybe in the world you live in, but inside gay culture men are also judged by the way they dress. I know I had complained several years ago about the trampy guys in the gay pride parades who go out wearing only thongs (or nothing) and hurt the cause more than they help it. So, yes, it is the case that men are also judged by their dress. It's just not as popular for men to dress provocatively the way it is for women, so it happens less often.

Disney Duster wrote:but I don't know if she'd wear that everywhere, like with her dad or Jafar or meeting suitors. But I just think Jasmine's top should have just had a little more material to cover a bit more, not that much.

She does wear it in front of Jafar, suitors and the guards though. She's in the outfit when that guy storms out of the palace at the beginning, and talks to Jafar several times that way. She even goes out with Aladdin dressed like that. I agree with the other thing you said, that if there'd just been a little more fabric, like something to actually cover the sides of her breasts, it wouldn't affect me. As it is, if you looked at her from the side, you could get a full shot.

Disney Duster wrote:[...] A princess who dresses sexy because she likes it but also risks her safety and her reputation? She can dress how she wants inside and alone, you don't wear jeans to job interviews, you don't go nude in public, etc.[...]

But I do have to say, that you can choose to dress in ways that make you look good or sexy just for yourself. When you think you look good, it makes you feel good. But if you dress too sexy...better save it for home or the clubs! Not your everyday formal wear!

That the train of thought of muslim men who force their women to wear burquas or headscarves, so men will not get turned on by the female body. They, and as a consequence of your reasoning, you too, lay the responsibility of the men to control themselves in the hands of the women. You say to the women: cover yourself, because men can't control themselves. Not only do you treat men as cavemen and little children that way, you also give them an excuse to not control themselves. When you're putting the responsibility on the women, as you do (to not 'dress sexy'), you're essentially saying to men that it's okay to objectify women because they 'asked for it'. If you don't agree with this, you may want to rethink your opinion, because what I said above is the only logical consequence from your train of thought.

(And yes, I did read your post right and no, I didn't misunderstand you.)

Disney's Divinity wrote:You also got the rest right, but thanks for that most of all. I didn't realize I would have to defend the fact that I'm not a rapist.

Hey, I never said that. I just said you used the same thought-process. Those are two different things entirely.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Though thinking more about what you said about the Middle Eastern thing, maybe they give her overly sexual clothes to symbolize her rejection of those repressive values similar to her rejection to arranged marriages, marrying nobility, etc.

Very good point! I hadn't thought of it that way. This is what makes film studies so fascinating to me, all those multiple interpretations and theories...

Generally, there are two sides to this coin: there's a lot to be said for your point of view, which is that women degrade themselves or are degraded by a male (entertainment) culture, when they dress provocatively. That's a very valid position, and one I've taken (and still take) for a long time (and, depending on my state of mind, I still do). It's not a black-and-white issue, is what I'm trying to say. It's not good when women wear almost nothing to impress men or to get things done, rather than work hard for it. Pink made a good video about this a few years ago, to her song 'Stupid Girls', in which she parodied the Paris Hiltons and jessica Simpsons of the world. So yes, I would agree with you on that point. But I'm equally opposed to men judging women for the way they dress. I don't think men have any right to criticize the way women dress. Even if it can be seen as degrading, it still is the woman's choice to wear whatever she wants. You may say that's given in by a desire to please men in a man-dominated culture and you may be right, but by judging women by the way they dress, you're automatically reinforcing patriarchal habit of putting women in their place.

So, no matter how you look at it: men are assholes and women are the victims of this men's world. Although that does imply I see women as victims, which I don't want to do, because that way, I would devalue them.... AAAARGH! STOP THINKING, MARK!!!

Sotiris wrote:What's even more unfortunate is that a lot of women have come to embrace patriarchal values and mentality instead of opposing them despite continuously being the recipients of that patriarchal oppression and despotism.

Over the last 10 years, I've seen, in my own personal circle of classmates, students and family-members, a trend among women to reject the victories and achievements of feminism of the 1970's and 1980's. It may have something to do with what I'm seeing in the media a lot more often the last few years, which is a re-focussing on what's "typically male". Feminism is seen as something for old, sour joy-less middle-aged women, unfortunately. That's the image they're given nowadays. Men are, according to the media, suppressed by (and a victim of) the newly gained power of women and they should fight back by being 'more manly'. This idea was presented already more than 10 years in Married with Children with Al Bundy's club "No Ma'am" (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood). But that was just a joke, a parody. Nowadays, this idea is being taken seriously. Ever since men existed, a few ten (hundred?) thousands of years, men have always been in charge. Now women are gaining power for the first time for a lousy 30 years, and all the men are playing the victim...

By the way, I had always thought you were a woman! Maybe we are two 'feminist' men?

Linden wrote:[...] Overtly calling attention to your body shows you don't have tact/good style or are desperate. That's how I look at it.

I don't see how 'drawing attention to your body' and 'not having tact/style' are connected. I've seen women who were drop-dead gorgeous and who wore sexy clothes and who were extremely smart. College was filled with them.

Goliath wrote:Over the last 10 years, I've seen, in my own personal circle of classmates, students and family-members, a trend among women to reject the victories and achievements of feminism of the 1970's and 1980's.

Yes, there is. I was recently watched a re-run of a games show called The Power of 10 or something (with Drew Carey as host), and it basically asks percentage questions to guess. One question was, "How many American women consider themselves feminists?" The answer was 29%. My jaw dropped. I just felt--how ungrateful (or ignorant?) this new generation is to all that their mothers and grandmothers did for them.

After more thought, it doesn't really surprise me though. I know there's been a counter-revolution taking place for the past decade or two, but it's really depressing to think that so many women see feminists as ball-busting, childless, domineering nags. I know I had a debate with a woman on another forum about it, and she said she felt women already had rights and that modern feminists are just playing the vicimt to try and get undeserved power/jobs/etc. easier than men do (sort of how a lot of people think that racial pop.s rely on "the race card" to get advantages). That really bothers me, mostly because I don't think it's true. And even if it were, you could still consider yourself a feminist in the sense that you believe in equality for women regardless of what other people do.

Men are, according to the media, suppressed by (and a victim of) the newly gained power of women and they should fight back by being 'more manly'.

I think the backlash really started to grow once metrosexuality became more common. Metrosexuals started to be thought of as guys who'd been neutered by the feminists.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Maybe in the world you live in, but inside gay culture men are also judged by the way they dress. I know I had complained several years ago about the trampy guys in the gay pride parades who go out wearing only thongs (or nothing) and hurt the cause more than they help it. So, yes, it is the case that men are also judged by their dress. It's just not as popular for men to dress provocatively the way it is for women, so it happens less often.

That's not the same. The way gay people dress in gay pride parades and gay clubs is not indicative of how gay men dress in public elsewhere. Gay men don't go out in thongs in their everyday life. When gay men are criticized about the way they dress, it always has to do with their sexuality. (i.e. when they dress more effeminate).

Disney's Divinity wrote:I agree with the other thing you said, that if there'd just been a little more fabric, like something to actually cover the sides of her breasts, it wouldn't affect me. As it is, if you looked at her from the side, you could get a full shot.

Honestly, I don't know where you're getting this. I've watched the movie a thousand times and I never noticed such a thing. And I'm a guy.

Goliath wrote:Generally, there are two sides to this coin: there's a lot to be said for your point of view, which is that women degrade themselves or are degraded by a male (entertainment) culture, when they dress provocatively. That's a very valid position, and one I've taken (and still take) for a long time (and, depending on my state of mind, I still do). It's not a black-and-white issue, is what I'm trying to say. It's not good when women wear almost nothing to impress men or to get things done, rather than work hard for it. Pink made a good video about this a few years ago, to her song 'Stupid Girls', in which she parodied the Paris Hiltons and jessica Simpsons of the world. So yes, I would agree with you on that point. But I'm equally opposed to men judging women for the way they dress. I don't think men have any right to criticize the way women dress. Even if it can be seen as degrading, it still is the woman's choice to wear whatever she wants. You may say that's given in by a desire to please men in a man-dominated culture and you may be right, but by judging women by the way they dress, you're automatically reinforcing patriarchal habit of putting women in their place.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous post.

Goliath wrote:By the way, I had always thought you were a woman!

That's probably because of the Disney avatars and siggies I've been using.

Goliath wrote:Maybe we are two 'feminist' men?

I guess we are. Obviously, you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. For me, it's simply a matter of trying to defend and stand-up for what you believe is right and fair.

I can't look through all of Aladdin, but from what I know I don't think you would see a shot of breast from Jasmine's side. I don't think you would see a "side boob" as dubbed by Family Guy lol. However, she should have more material cover above, below, and perhaps around even the sides, as you said, of her "top". Here is a picture of Jasmine with the other princesses:



Notice how Belle and Aurora's bust lines, or the height of their tops, is farther above Jasmine's. In other words the material gets closer to their necks and shoulders. If Jasmine's top just had material up to their, and more material below, she would be a little more like the wholesome Disney princesses we know. : )

Goliath, no. You can't say what someone is or what they are doing if they don't agree. You can say what you think they are doing or thinking, in your opinion, but not what you said. Anyway, no, you can think people shouldn't dress a certain way, so that people will not do bad things to them, and not say it's the "girl's fault the bad man did that to her". When you tell children not to talk to strangers, you are supposed to do that, it is good to do that, and you're not "blaming the child" for what happens to them. Also, you are allowed to tell people how they should dress for an interview, or a certain event, or other things because it is good for them instead of letting them dress in certain ways that bring bad to them, whether it be bad impressions, reputations, or worse. If I had a daughter I would tell her, out of love, not to dress too revealing while out at night, just for her freaking safety, and still not blame her. I would be doing good.

Disney Duster wrote:[...] If Jasmine's top just had material up to their, and more material below, she would be a little more like the wholesome Disney princesses we know. : )

But why can't someone be "wholesome" when they dress a little more provocative than others? Since when does being "wholesome" depend on the clothes somebody wears? What if women who dress decently sleep around all over town (not that I would care) and those who dress in a sexy way don't do that at all? I feel it's short-sighted to base your opinion of someone on their appearance.

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath, no. You can't say what someone is or what they are doing if they don't agree. You can say what you think they are doing or thinking, in your opinion, but not what you said. Anyway, no, you can think people shouldn't dress a certain way, so that people will not do bad things to them, and not say it's the "girl's fault the bad man did that to her".

Yes, I can, because it's the train of thought you use. Men will do "bad things" to women regardless of how they're dressed. Because sexual assault isn't about lust or sex perse, but about power. Why else do you think rape is used as a weapon of war in large parts of Africa? When 80 year old grandmothers are being gangraped, that's not because the men thought she was so hot. Rape is about power. To say "don't dress provocatively, because that will save you from assault" is exactly the same as saying "if you get assaulted, it's your own fault for dressing provocatively". Because one is the consequence of the other.

Disney Duster wrote:When you tell children not to talk to strangers, you are supposed to do that, it is good to do that, and you're not "blaming the child" for what happens to them. Also, you are allowed to tell people how they should dress for an interview, or a certain event, or other things because it is good for them instead of letting them dress in certain ways that bring bad to them, whether it be bad impressions, reputations, or worse.

None of this has got anything to do with how women dress in everyday life and possible consequences, i.e. sexual assault. And I find it very denigrating of you to compare women to little children who are needed to be "taught" how to dress or how to behave.

Disney Duster wrote:If I had a daughter I would tell her, out of love, not to dress too revealing while out at night, just for her freaking safety, and still not blame her. I would be doing good.

No, you would *not* be doing good, as I pointed out above. You would be naive. Utterly and completely naive. As always.

Sorry Goliath, I stand by what I said and say you're wrong on all accounts. I'm not doing what you say I'm doing, simple as that. You say it's not the women's fault, it's what the men think of them? In this case, the only fault here is what you think of me, because I'm doing no wrong. I don't think bad of Jasmine. I'm just saying she could dress better is all. She'd then at least dress as wholesome as the other princesses, not just wholesome in other ways. 'Tis all.

The thing is, in fiction, Middle Eastern women (be they princesses, simple commoners, or harem girls/belly dancers) have always been represented like that - scantily clad, shoulders, bosom and/or waist bared, hair free-flowing. It was part of Hollywood's tradition to idealize or rather romanticize that part of the world, fashion sense included, especially in light-hearted, fairytale-esque, adventure movies like The Thief of Bagdad, Sinbad films, Popeye shorts, numerous Arabian Nights adaptations, and even Raiders of the Lost Ark. So in that regard, Aladdin's portrayal of Princess Jasmine is no different and should not be scrutinized, especially since it partially tried to pay respect to previous adaptations.

Now, it's a whole 'nother story that certain people, here and on other Disney fan sites, have expressed their dislike for the character (for whatever reason; Jasmine's apparently spoiled, bitchy, ungrateful and slutty - seriously, how do people come up with this, did they even watch the same movie as everyone else?), and are using every reason possible to berate the character, including the non-existent harlotry.

Disney Duster wrote:Sorry Goliath, I stand by what I said and say you're wrong on all accounts. I'm not doing what you say I'm doing, simple as that. You say it's not the women's fault, it's what the men think of them? In this case, the only fault here is what you think of me, because I'm doing no wrong. I don't think bad of Jasmine. I'm just saying she could dress better is all. She'd then at least dress as wholesome as the other princesses, not just wholesome in other ways. 'Tis all.

It's very simple, Duster: Jasmine isn't less "wholesome" because she dresses differently or more provocatively. And you always do this: whenever I present a counter-argument to your over-simplistic world-view, you don't rebutt. You don't explain why I was wrong in your opinion. You don't even try to explain why dressing "wholesome" would save a woman from rape, when rape is ultimately about power and not about attraction. You also don't explain how your reasoning is not exactly what I said it was: blaming the women. When you say women will not be raped when they dress "wholesome", you're putting the responsibility on the women instead of on the men committing rape. It's as simple as that. You're very welcome to rebutt all of that, but you never will. You'll simply say that I'm "wrong", like you always do, and that's that. Because anything else would upset your perfectly ordered, simplistic, black-and-white fairytale view of the world.

Am I correct in saying most if not all of the participants in this discussion are guys? Not that it matters: I just wanted to preface my "zomg girl's perspective" post I'm about to make by saying I'm not making it because I think, as men, ya'll can't understand my super special female point of view---I don't. Here goes!

Personally, what I see as "skanky/slutty/etc" has less to do with the actual clothing someone is wearing as it does with the attitude of the person wearing said clothes. I don't think Jasmine is slutty at all, and honestly I think she's an awesome role model for young women. I always loved her as a child & attribute some of my no-bullshit outlook to her. Snooki from Jersey Shore is what I'd call slutty: her entire persona seems to revolve around sex, with anyone who will have her. She could wear a sweatervest and mom jeans and still come off that way, because of her ATTITUDE.

And you know what? She's got every right to act that way. Just because I think she acts like a whore doesn't mean she actually IS one, or that she shouldn't be allowed to do whatever the hell she wants. Who am I to say "ugh, clean yourself up, you disgust me with your blatant sexuality"? That's my problem, not hers, and really the older I get the less I care about what other people are doing in their personal lives. As long as she's not trying to steal MY guy, why should I care who Snooki sleeps with? I don't want to envision her like that at all, honestly....ugh, moving on....

I hate it when people try to shuffle other people, especially women, into tidy little categories based on something so pathetically superficial as appearance/manner of dress. Depending on how I'm feeling on any given day, I may choose to go out in ripped jeans and a stained t-shirt or wear a summer dress and heels. And I've worn the "crackhead" look to school and gone to Walmart dressed "nicely"---I don't care. I wear whatever I want to make MYSELF feel good, NOT to get guys to notice me, believe it or not. It makes me sad to think that whenever I choose to expose my legs there's some idiot thinking I'm doing so for his benefit. Usually it's just because it's a hot day & I don't want to be wearing anything that'll make me sweaty, haha! If he wants to appreciate the view, I can't really stop him (unless he does so in a vocally,physically disrespectful or threatening way, I guess). I know whenever I see a good-looking guy jogging without a shirt, I giggle and give him a once-over (or a twice-over, haha!)

I don't think he's running around topless for me or anyone else, even though he might be, and I don't think I'm a slut for checking him out. And I'd NEVER cat-call or try to embarrass him, as I've had guys holler at me before and can't say that I was "asking for it." Asking for it how, by being female and in public? For example: I was walking alongside a busy road with a friend while on vacation at the beach. Suddenly I heard a male voice holler "YO, Blue Dress!!" from a truck as it sped past us. Obviously he meant me, as I was the only person around wearing a blue dress--one that came down to my knees and exposed nothing up top, I might add. I felt, I'll admit, slightly flattered at first...until my friend made a face and a comment about how nobody ever hollers at her from a car window. It shocked me to think that I would consider some random guy shouting at me a compliment, and that my friend should feel bad about herself for not getting the same treatment. How f-ed up is that way of thinking?

This actually reminds me of a videogame I was playing recently, called 999, in which there is a character who dresses like an exotic dancer (or as some would have it, a "slut"). I instantly assumed she'd be the trashy character who used her body to get all the men to do her bidding, you know: a young female who knows how to work those "feminine wiles" (I honestly have no idea what those are or how they're meant to work, other than allegedly some men are stupid enough to just....do whatever a pretty girl tells them? Ha!)

I really had to eat crow when it turned out she was one of the oldest characters in the game, with two grown children, and was more of a ball-buster than a seductress. And I'm so happy I was wrong--it really made me take a hard look at myself and how I was letting society & my own ignorance tell me how to judge someone based on nothing more than her clothes.

I think sometimes women get nasty toward other women who dress provocatively out of jealousy. I could never pull of Jasmine's outfit and would never even try...because the culture I live in says my body isn't beautiful enough to be put on display. So what's left? Women are either hated for being beautiful and enjoying it, or ignored/mocked for being ugly and daring to show themselves in any way "above" their....league, I suppose. Do you see what I'm getting at? What do we have to do to make you men happy, and WHY should we care? I'd think a happy woman makes a happy man: I know I feel better around guys who are comfortable in their own skin.

TL:DR: I'm a woman--no, a HUMAN BEING-- and I approve this message: F!ck You, I Do What I Want! -snapsnapsnap-

phan258 wrote:I think sometimes women get nasty toward other women who dress provocatively out of jealousy. I could never pull of Jasmine's outfit and would never even try...because the culture I live in says my body isn't beautiful enough to be put on display. So what's left? Women are either hated for being beautiful and enjoying it, or ignored/mocked for being ugly and daring to show themselves in any way "above" their....league, I suppose. Do you see what I'm getting at? What do we have to do to make you men happy, and WHY should we care? I'd think a happy woman makes a happy man: I know I feel better around guys who are comfortable in their own skin.

phan258, I agree with a lot of what you've said and have always found these kinds of conversations interesting.

I think there's a lot to the whole jealousy thing; whether we want to admit it or not, appearance definitely reflects the status quo, and the way we physically present ourselves to the world has a direct bearing on what people think of us. An attractive woman that chooses to show off her body (or is even just wearing a lot of make-up) is often seen as a slut, regardless of her personality. And someone like . . . um, let's say me, lol . . . tried to dress up like Jasmine? I'd be completely ridiculed like those seen on peopleofwalmart.com. Women are comparative creatures by nature; one of my friends that I used to be especially close with stopped speaking to me simply because I'd lost 30 pounds . . . I guess I wasn't worth being around anymore if she didn't get to be the "skinny" one (not that either of us ever were). She even told me once that I was dressing "skanky" . . . because I started wearing jeans and fitted tops. No cleavage, no bare legs or even upper arms! We'd always hid behind oversized hoodies or shapeless t-shirts and I think she got envious when I became comfortable enough to pull away from that.

I also wonder on occasion if people that only know me online think I must be some kind of crazy skank in RL with the kinds of drawings I make, especially when it comes to my avatar. Regardless, I assure you I'm quite average (whatever that is). And if people judge me for my appearance, for dressing at my own comfort level or for other such superficial things? Well, they just might be missing out on making a friend.

to not be ashamed-exactly wh nudism exists.

Anyway, from a guy's pov, I see women as women. true, i may be a little picky, but if a young unobese(but still a bit overweight) woman were to walk right up and blow me, i'd have no complaints.