No question that our physical appearance is a multichannel broadcast, but in addition to clothing that also means our hair, height, physique, skin tone, facial features, teeth, everything that's visible. I do feel this post is a touch overthinking things... not everything about clothes is about sexuality. Clothes have a practical side to them, as well as an expressive side that aligns with our identity rather than sexuality. We also can't worry too much about what we communicate to everyone bc we cannot control what others think. Granted, in certain heavily patriarchal societies, the women and girls are basically told what to wear (you can guess what I think about that!) But if I had to think about what others are going to think about what I wear I'd never leave the house.
Personally, I like to dress nice for me, first and foremost, whether I'm going out with someone or not. I also feel it's important to dress the part—if I go for a 9-mile hike like we just did, I wear my hiking gear, for safety and comfort. If it's a business meeting, a sharp-looking outfit. When I was working in the camera dept on Hollywood films, I wore a vintage pilot's overalls, military fatigues, and a tool belt. Think what you want about all that :)
I covered some of your first part in The Beauty Quandary a few months ago about the other features and you're right. They do matter. (That essay was linked near the top of this one)
As far as the other outfits I also agree. Some of it is practical but there are also a lot of stereotype signals we send. Take that hiking outfit. How many brand names were being worn? It's not sexual signalling (though with the form fit and cuts they have now you get both) but it is signalling other things.
I also think many of us really do know what we're doing and can own the signal responses. I'm just fascinated how many people seem willfully ignorant of the implications.
The brand names aren't visible but the gear is made specifically for hiking—convertible pants, three layers for the torso for moisture wicking and coverage against wind, good socks, sturdy high quality hiking boots. The key is comfort and safety for long hikes. It really isn't about signaling anything. Sure, you could say other hikers we pass by might notice what we're wearing but the intent is not to show off anything, it's literally to stay warm (or cool) as needed.
Well, maybe the bunnies and the deer did notice, and are now discussing our outfits amongst themselves... :)
Right, but wear that outfit off the trail and your certainly signalling. Just like yoga pants and a tank top are highly practical in a studio and signal differently elsewhere.
Going up a Carhartt was lightly practical winter wear. It also signalled a different culture than my snowboarding jacket which was just as practical for the winter.
That's where the blend of stereotype signalling blends with clothing and selection signalling. (think snow bunnies on the ski hill)
The skillful person adapts to all these nuances and understands the signals and has agency over them.
You're right that not everything is sexual and I hope I left enough wiggle room for that in this essay which was focuses on that one element.
Mmm I disagree Michael. I did wear the outfit off the trail... we went straight for dinner, in the same hiking gear. No overt signaling there... everyone else in the restaurant was wearing all sorts of different clothes.
Now, if a couple came into the same restaurant wearing fancy evening clothes, or wore an opera ball gown to go hiking, you bet your hundred bunnies that heads would turn!
In general, I would say here in America people dress down, or dress a lot more casually. I'm from Europe, and people always ask me "why are you so dressed up" when for my tastes, I'm actually not. Clothes are highly cultural, so that's really when the communication signals you're talking about come into play.
Given the topic, I couldn't resist clicking on your profile pic to see what you might be, intentionally or unintentionally, communicating. You wrote that you take pains with grooming and workout, and, looking at your photo, I see no reason to doubt that self-assessment. Your beard is nicely trimmed, muscles nicely filling out what might look like merely a conventional business shirt on another body. Am I a cad for saying so? Probably. As an older gay man I suspect I'm not the target audience of your fashion choices. But I think there's value -- and indeed morality -- in owning our own eroticism. Societal suppression of sexuality is a big driver of bad behavior and so much goes right when we allow ourselves to be who we are, to be, as you quote, "in our bodies." Thanks for a courageous piece.
Clothing absolutely communicates a message, something I became hyper-aware of right as I was getting into punk rock. I chose to communicate a huge middle finger to sexual selection norms (T-shirts way too big, deliberate ugly piercings, brightly colored hair), and to everything else considered "societal." That's kind of what 18 year olds do, I guess: take everything to the extreme.
#MeToo applies to us too. I was a massive flirt when I was younger but #MeToo (and #HimToo) made me rethink things. Well, at my age I'm not as touchy-feely as I was when I was a cute 25-year-old belly dancer (and that was, erm, decades ago) and I don't think I ever grabbed someone's crotch but the rules IMO really do apply to us too, and no, not all female attention, overt or otherwise, is always welcomed. Not do I think men 'should be grateful for any attention they get'. Just imagine if someone said that about a fat, homely woman.
When people say things like "no that's not slutty, you're just thinking like a rapist" I don't think they are being willfully ignorant. I think they are unable to articulate the nuance of their opinion because they aren't well versed in logical arguments, debating or opining in articulate ways. But that doesn't make their position false or untrue and suggesting it does is in itself is a fallacy.
OG comment: "“they’re not dressing like a slut, you’re just thinking like a rapist”
Your response: "Quite the comment… also devoid of any scientific, biological, or anthropological merit."
Nina's comment: "It only makes sense if the argument is that 'communicating you're attractive makes it okay for people to do X.'"
Your response: "That's not my goal but it is. (did I miss something here? What is what?) You don't have the freedom to communicate anything divorced from interpretation."
What does this mean exactly? Everything is open to interpretation. That doesn't therefore mean that every interpretation is correct. Forget about freedom, we don't have the ability to communicate anything divorced from interpretation. But more importantly, what are the implications of that and how is it relevant to your argument?
Your response continued "That's like covering yourself in steaks and jumping into a shark tank and being upset at the outcome."
A woman dressed provocatively and walking around in public amongst men is like covering yourself in steaks, jumping into a shark tank and being upset at the outcome. Did I understand your comment correctly or are you going to accuse me of a straw man? I'm asking in good faith hoping to understand your argument, which I don't.
Are you defending people's right to interpret that someone is dressed like a "slut" without then being interpreted by others as a sexual predator and also at the same time comparing a general public of men (and lesbian women?) to sharks?
If so, that's problematic and I'm not sure how you could make a true statement out of this either.
Are you saying that If women wearing revealing clothing deems them sluts, then others are allowed to deem them sluts? Seems circular.
And we haven't even defined what a "slut" is yet.
Is dressing provocatively "slutty"? Is this not an interpretation and judgment that amounts to potato/potahto wherein someone insists on a correct and morally righteous pronunciation?
One person's "slutty" is another person's "sexy". Both are communications, with two different interpretations.
Are anthropologists the arbiters of correct interpretations? I'm pretty sure most dikes and dudes walking around seeing t & a are not educated as such.
Whereas slutty is a slur used to assign someone as sexually "loose", sexy is used to mean that someone is desirable.
One word assumes license, based on the (wrongful) assumption that a presumably sexually active, non monogamous person is there for the taking, by anyone within view.
The other word (sexy) doesn't assume license, it only acknowledges the desirability of said person.
Are men sharks? Human adult males are carnivorous predators ready to eat anything within their line of sight?
Or are they advantageously eating, omnivorous if we may, primates with completely different evolutionary trajectories?
In other words, human adults with impulse control who can discern the difference between a signal of sexual attractiveness vs. a communication of sexual desire?
Signaling that one is anything is simply not an invitation to unwanted advances. What that person is signaling they are to begin with is open to interpretation.
But the interpretation is just that, an interpretation. It can be incorrect.
I don't think Nina is falling victim to logical fallacies. I think the confidence you exhibit in your argument outweighs its solidity.
Also, calling a logical fallacy on someone is a logical fallacy in itself. Just because someone might be making a logical fallacy doesn't mean their argument is false.
I see no evidence that Nina even did that. She just questioned your line of reasoning and you ad hominem'd her by throwing the straw man card instead of answering her questions which appeared to be asked in good faith.
Surely your position is less fragile than that.
If you aren't saying that women have no right to dissent to disparaging comments or unwanted behaviors regarding their choice in clothing when they choose to wear revealing clothes, and if you aren't saying that women are telling the world they want to fuck everyone who sees them by wearing revealing clothes then what IS your argument?
I’m glad you led with the strawman claim because that is the easiest part to clear up. I also feel like you almost read the article because you kind of got close but then jumped the shark.
My saying her comment is devoid of scientific, biological, or anthropological merit is not a strawman. I did not misstate her position and then attack a weaker version of it. I said her comment lacked substance. That may be blunt, but it is not a strawman.
You also keep collapsing two different things into one. Description is not endorsement. Explaining that clothing communicates and that people interpret signals is not the same as saying any interpretation is correct or any behavior is justified. Prediction is not permission. That distinction is basic, and the article makes it repeatedly.
You then spend a lot of time arguing against claims I did not make. (ironically you’ve got literally dozens of stramen) For example, I did not say revealing clothing is consent. I did not say bad behavior is okay. I did not say men are sharks. That is your reconstruction, not my argument.
And no, pointing out bad reasoning is not itself a logical fallacy. That is just debate jargon used badly. Same with the ad hominem claim. Criticizing the quality of an argument is not attacking the person making it.
The bigger issue here is that most of what you are asking was already addressed in the piece. The role of signaling, interpretation, misinterpretation, boundaries, and responsibility were all in there, with caveats. So before acting like the argument is fragile, it would help to engage the argument that was actually written, not the one you built out of your objections.
If you want the short version, here it is: clothing communicates, people interpret, interpretation does not equal consent, and pretending signals mean nothing does not make you nuanced. It just makes you unrealistic.
Next time spend more time reading for comphrenesion and less time typing statements that prove you didn’t follow the nuance of the article.
As a rule, women complain about "slutty" dress. Men rarely do. We appreciate that kind of thing. What is bizarre is for women to dress in a revealing way in inappropriate settings, then get angry about others' (usually women's) responses.
No one wants women to be attacked. A woman walking naked down the street should not be assaulted. That said, she might find that restaurants do not want her coming inside to eat, although some bars might.
The largest problem I see is that girls dress in a way they like without realizing why they are doing so. They used to grow out of this in high school, but now it appears that the delusions last longer. I used to think that women arguing the delusion were just playing around, but now I believe that they genuinely have no idea how human reproduction works. Their mothers get it, but with motherhood becoming ever more rare, we now have large groups of delusional people misleading children. The creeps on the male side are getting the concern required (see Tate brothers), but the female creeps are not, and they are more numerous and more public. I do not agree with most of the article above, but it is delusional to think females accentuating the physical features men use to determine reproductive suitability is not a conscious or unconscious display to attract sexual attention. The problem today is how long it is taking for some women to become conscious of their own decision-making. A delusional teenage girl is understandable, or even endearing. A delusional 25-year-old is sad.
I very much agree with that which was the point that what you wear signals whether you understand that or not. And I agree, that the majority of the time, it’s women policing what women wear, sometimes enforcing it through the men, but men would love to go to a pool with beautiful naked women strolling around.
Even here in liberal Oregon, there are limits to what people will accept in clothing. There was a woman who used to go naked down the streets in Ashland. Even though it was considered protected speech under the constitution, it really grossed out a lot of people. Not sure exactly what happened, But eventually, she stopped parading around naked in the streets.
100% agree that clothing sends a message. My uncle, who was a professor of cultural anthropology, used to say that even though you may have to wear clothing for protection, what clothing you choose tells us something about you.
Mike, loved your analysis and interpretation. I also like to do a multi view analysis of different life scenarios but trying it out as fiction. Do check out my stories. I am guessing you may like them.
I hadn’t heard that one before but that’s quite true. It would be interesting to see that visually and see if our interpretation of the ‘elite’ holds up when they’re naked.
As a father of an 18 year old boy and a 14 year old girl your article resonated. I would love to see you write more on not only how not to send wrong signals (to the right or wrong audience), but also how to send the right signals. I am 50, work out regularly, dress sharply and I would like to see the younger generation too to take care of their turnout. Finally would end my comment by bringing up the matter of 'sexual attacks being blamed on the women's dress' by sharing this meme that i came across recently:
Sending the right signals is interesting because it depends on what your goal is. There’s nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with your daughter wearing a miniskirt and crop top… what’s wrong is if she’s not ready / not managing the reciprocations. It’s also a question of the intrasexual competition with the other women. Sending the right signals is managing that for your desired outcome.
Similarly with your boy. I’m at a point in my career where I can show up to a customer visit in Jeans, a starwars T-Shirt and a sport coat and it’s actually a type of professional flex… I don’t need a three piece suit. Conversely, for years, Lockheed, a company I worked for, required employees to wear a shit and tie to any customer visit. It was obvious (and often pretentious) when you’d have a poor sap, out with the military, in the desert at a test range, wearing a sweat soaked shirt and tie. It wasn’t a good look regardless of ‘fancy.’
An interesting aside, for women, is that the Mormons have figured out how to be modest yet stylish in ways others don’t do well. It’s also possible to wear ‘modest’ clothing in highly provicative ways… just ask the one Soldier I had who tailored her uniforms to augment her curves.
To summarize, sending the right signals isn’t a single answer. It’s a combination of situation, your goals, who’s there, etc. and aligning them.
"I only care that she understands what she’s communicating and who else might see it. The target boy might receive the signal, but so does the boy who has a crush on her who is friend-zoned. So too, the girls receive her signal, interpret it, and react."
You hit the nail on the head with that. Great article, well done.
Where it gets really tricky is “I am engaging in signalling because social norms do not allow you to respond to it”, often as a form of status or peer play
You say clothing (makeup, hair, grooming), sends complex signals. I don't see anything complex about it. You also say clothing advertises sexuality, (or lack of interest). The first commenter talked of hiking gear. That advertises (communicates), practicality, ability, and experience in hiking.
I think some of your observations come from your son and daughters. There is so much going on with adolescence, both before and after sexuality, that you have to take a very close look at it. Dressing sharp is part of the pecking order. Getting "hit-on" may be the score (points in the game) you keep with your peers, and not much to do with who is making the advances. (Just look at "how popular" I am.)
Boys might make their points by how sloppy they appear. I reject the whole social order of "you preppies", and I am provocative by the rags that I adorn myself with.
There are those who do not play any status games. They dress in a very neutral way with no obvious markers, no attachments to any group. I was always repelled by the first tier girls. I am not a buyer for your marketing ploys. I disapprove of your provocative diamond tongue piercing or ring in the nose as fake snot drooling down.
When a male talks about female tendencies or sexuality, I see a lot of assumption and fantasizing. At least it must be coming from centuries old biases. I would prefer reading it from a female author. The woman is also talking from those same male/female archetypes, but maybe she has an inner sense that has partially pierced it. You could ask your wife to make a guest post.
I have experienced several times a very sexual beginning, and then a "drying out" in a year or two. So, was the sex real, or just another part of marketing? Do women fake and orgasm? Ask your wife. When I say marketing, it means coupling not on the basis of love, respect, and sexuality. It is a business deal. You give me security, and I will satisfy your "needs". It is very very prevalent. Sex can be a mutual play, and lead deeply into mysteries. But if it is not mutual, it is ugly. This marketing business is human trafficking, only the lady is trafficking herself. I want nothing to do with it. And nothing says women shouldn't "choose to look nice", as they see it.
SEX CAN BE AUTHENTIC TOO, don't get me wrong. I know it both ways.
We met on ARGO, on my guest post "There are NO Unmarked Women". I don't know these things that I wrote, but I wanted to get a female response. I said:
"To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social presence of women, has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
This is the archetype. Repeat; "Women develop a presence AS A RESULT OF THEIR INGENUITY! under such tutelage". What is this ingenuity? Apparently developing it has become the most important part of being a western woman. The commenter Chantal replied that "Women have a different kind of power - a power men cannot have."
I asked her to say more about that. You said "females are also the ones who are the ‘peacocks’ and perform overt signaling more so than men." This has become the necessity in the modern western archetype. It's not in the female genes. In other words, it is programming. We can play out our programming, but who are we before the programming?
I am asking you to delve underneath these stereotypes. Who are we, as man and woman?
I love this comment. It proves my point better than I coul make it. It's perfectly signed to my point. If I could rewrite this I'd quote you. Love it!! It makes my point so well. Thanks for commenting!
No question that our physical appearance is a multichannel broadcast, but in addition to clothing that also means our hair, height, physique, skin tone, facial features, teeth, everything that's visible. I do feel this post is a touch overthinking things... not everything about clothes is about sexuality. Clothes have a practical side to them, as well as an expressive side that aligns with our identity rather than sexuality. We also can't worry too much about what we communicate to everyone bc we cannot control what others think. Granted, in certain heavily patriarchal societies, the women and girls are basically told what to wear (you can guess what I think about that!) But if I had to think about what others are going to think about what I wear I'd never leave the house.
Personally, I like to dress nice for me, first and foremost, whether I'm going out with someone or not. I also feel it's important to dress the part—if I go for a 9-mile hike like we just did, I wear my hiking gear, for safety and comfort. If it's a business meeting, a sharp-looking outfit. When I was working in the camera dept on Hollywood films, I wore a vintage pilot's overalls, military fatigues, and a tool belt. Think what you want about all that :)
Great points.
I covered some of your first part in The Beauty Quandary a few months ago about the other features and you're right. They do matter. (That essay was linked near the top of this one)
As far as the other outfits I also agree. Some of it is practical but there are also a lot of stereotype signals we send. Take that hiking outfit. How many brand names were being worn? It's not sexual signalling (though with the form fit and cuts they have now you get both) but it is signalling other things.
I also think many of us really do know what we're doing and can own the signal responses. I'm just fascinated how many people seem willfully ignorant of the implications.
The brand names aren't visible but the gear is made specifically for hiking—convertible pants, three layers for the torso for moisture wicking and coverage against wind, good socks, sturdy high quality hiking boots. The key is comfort and safety for long hikes. It really isn't about signaling anything. Sure, you could say other hikers we pass by might notice what we're wearing but the intent is not to show off anything, it's literally to stay warm (or cool) as needed.
Well, maybe the bunnies and the deer did notice, and are now discussing our outfits amongst themselves... :)
Right, but wear that outfit off the trail and your certainly signalling. Just like yoga pants and a tank top are highly practical in a studio and signal differently elsewhere.
Going up a Carhartt was lightly practical winter wear. It also signalled a different culture than my snowboarding jacket which was just as practical for the winter.
That's where the blend of stereotype signalling blends with clothing and selection signalling. (think snow bunnies on the ski hill)
The skillful person adapts to all these nuances and understands the signals and has agency over them.
You're right that not everything is sexual and I hope I left enough wiggle room for that in this essay which was focuses on that one element.
Mmm I disagree Michael. I did wear the outfit off the trail... we went straight for dinner, in the same hiking gear. No overt signaling there... everyone else in the restaurant was wearing all sorts of different clothes.
Now, if a couple came into the same restaurant wearing fancy evening clothes, or wore an opera ball gown to go hiking, you bet your hundred bunnies that heads would turn!
In general, I would say here in America people dress down, or dress a lot more casually. I'm from Europe, and people always ask me "why are you so dressed up" when for my tastes, I'm actually not. Clothes are highly cultural, so that's really when the communication signals you're talking about come into play.
Given the topic, I couldn't resist clicking on your profile pic to see what you might be, intentionally or unintentionally, communicating. You wrote that you take pains with grooming and workout, and, looking at your photo, I see no reason to doubt that self-assessment. Your beard is nicely trimmed, muscles nicely filling out what might look like merely a conventional business shirt on another body. Am I a cad for saying so? Probably. As an older gay man I suspect I'm not the target audience of your fashion choices. But I think there's value -- and indeed morality -- in owning our own eroticism. Societal suppression of sexuality is a big driver of bad behavior and so much goes right when we allow ourselves to be who we are, to be, as you quote, "in our bodies." Thanks for a courageous piece.
And when I was younger I might have been creeped out by a gay man's attention. Now I realize my signal was landing. So thank you for the compliment. 😀
What is a male engineer communicating at work wearing cargo pants with zippers that convert to shorts?
A). Ready for retirement.
B). Confident and hard working.
C). Overweight and just doesn’t care because no matter what he does he’ll never be in the in crowd.
Hey now, I'm a male engineer and I love my cargo pants that convert to shorts! (though for hiking only) :)
I did wear non converting cargo pants for a very long time until I got senior enough that I switched to dockers and button downs.
Now I love rocking tapered jeans, starwars t-shirts, and a tailored sport coat.
Beta slob here!
Clothing absolutely communicates a message, something I became hyper-aware of right as I was getting into punk rock. I chose to communicate a huge middle finger to sexual selection norms (T-shirts way too big, deliberate ugly piercings, brightly colored hair), and to everything else considered "societal." That's kind of what 18 year olds do, I guess: take everything to the extreme.
Great example! And people received that signal and reacted.
#MeToo applies to us too. I was a massive flirt when I was younger but #MeToo (and #HimToo) made me rethink things. Well, at my age I'm not as touchy-feely as I was when I was a cute 25-year-old belly dancer (and that was, erm, decades ago) and I don't think I ever grabbed someone's crotch but the rules IMO really do apply to us too, and no, not all female attention, overt or otherwise, is always welcomed. Not do I think men 'should be grateful for any attention they get'. Just imagine if someone said that about a fat, homely woman.
I was honestly blown away when that double standard was thrown at me with zero jest.
When people say things like "no that's not slutty, you're just thinking like a rapist" I don't think they are being willfully ignorant. I think they are unable to articulate the nuance of their opinion because they aren't well versed in logical arguments, debating or opining in articulate ways. But that doesn't make their position false or untrue and suggesting it does is in itself is a fallacy.
OG comment: "“they’re not dressing like a slut, you’re just thinking like a rapist”
Your response: "Quite the comment… also devoid of any scientific, biological, or anthropological merit."
Nina's comment: "It only makes sense if the argument is that 'communicating you're attractive makes it okay for people to do X.'"
Your response: "That's not my goal but it is. (did I miss something here? What is what?) You don't have the freedom to communicate anything divorced from interpretation."
What does this mean exactly? Everything is open to interpretation. That doesn't therefore mean that every interpretation is correct. Forget about freedom, we don't have the ability to communicate anything divorced from interpretation. But more importantly, what are the implications of that and how is it relevant to your argument?
Your response continued "That's like covering yourself in steaks and jumping into a shark tank and being upset at the outcome."
A woman dressed provocatively and walking around in public amongst men is like covering yourself in steaks, jumping into a shark tank and being upset at the outcome. Did I understand your comment correctly or are you going to accuse me of a straw man? I'm asking in good faith hoping to understand your argument, which I don't.
Are you defending people's right to interpret that someone is dressed like a "slut" without then being interpreted by others as a sexual predator and also at the same time comparing a general public of men (and lesbian women?) to sharks?
If so, that's problematic and I'm not sure how you could make a true statement out of this either.
Are you saying that If women wearing revealing clothing deems them sluts, then others are allowed to deem them sluts? Seems circular.
And we haven't even defined what a "slut" is yet.
Is dressing provocatively "slutty"? Is this not an interpretation and judgment that amounts to potato/potahto wherein someone insists on a correct and morally righteous pronunciation?
One person's "slutty" is another person's "sexy". Both are communications, with two different interpretations.
Are anthropologists the arbiters of correct interpretations? I'm pretty sure most dikes and dudes walking around seeing t & a are not educated as such.
Whereas slutty is a slur used to assign someone as sexually "loose", sexy is used to mean that someone is desirable.
One word assumes license, based on the (wrongful) assumption that a presumably sexually active, non monogamous person is there for the taking, by anyone within view.
The other word (sexy) doesn't assume license, it only acknowledges the desirability of said person.
Are men sharks? Human adult males are carnivorous predators ready to eat anything within their line of sight?
Or are they advantageously eating, omnivorous if we may, primates with completely different evolutionary trajectories?
In other words, human adults with impulse control who can discern the difference between a signal of sexual attractiveness vs. a communication of sexual desire?
Signaling that one is anything is simply not an invitation to unwanted advances. What that person is signaling they are to begin with is open to interpretation.
But the interpretation is just that, an interpretation. It can be incorrect.
I don't think Nina is falling victim to logical fallacies. I think the confidence you exhibit in your argument outweighs its solidity.
Also, calling a logical fallacy on someone is a logical fallacy in itself. Just because someone might be making a logical fallacy doesn't mean their argument is false.
I see no evidence that Nina even did that. She just questioned your line of reasoning and you ad hominem'd her by throwing the straw man card instead of answering her questions which appeared to be asked in good faith.
Surely your position is less fragile than that.
If you aren't saying that women have no right to dissent to disparaging comments or unwanted behaviors regarding their choice in clothing when they choose to wear revealing clothes, and if you aren't saying that women are telling the world they want to fuck everyone who sees them by wearing revealing clothes then what IS your argument?
I’m glad you led with the strawman claim because that is the easiest part to clear up. I also feel like you almost read the article because you kind of got close but then jumped the shark.
My saying her comment is devoid of scientific, biological, or anthropological merit is not a strawman. I did not misstate her position and then attack a weaker version of it. I said her comment lacked substance. That may be blunt, but it is not a strawman.
You also keep collapsing two different things into one. Description is not endorsement. Explaining that clothing communicates and that people interpret signals is not the same as saying any interpretation is correct or any behavior is justified. Prediction is not permission. That distinction is basic, and the article makes it repeatedly.
You then spend a lot of time arguing against claims I did not make. (ironically you’ve got literally dozens of stramen) For example, I did not say revealing clothing is consent. I did not say bad behavior is okay. I did not say men are sharks. That is your reconstruction, not my argument.
And no, pointing out bad reasoning is not itself a logical fallacy. That is just debate jargon used badly. Same with the ad hominem claim. Criticizing the quality of an argument is not attacking the person making it.
The bigger issue here is that most of what you are asking was already addressed in the piece. The role of signaling, interpretation, misinterpretation, boundaries, and responsibility were all in there, with caveats. So before acting like the argument is fragile, it would help to engage the argument that was actually written, not the one you built out of your objections.
If you want the short version, here it is: clothing communicates, people interpret, interpretation does not equal consent, and pretending signals mean nothing does not make you nuanced. It just makes you unrealistic.
Next time spend more time reading for comphrenesion and less time typing statements that prove you didn’t follow the nuance of the article.
As a rule, women complain about "slutty" dress. Men rarely do. We appreciate that kind of thing. What is bizarre is for women to dress in a revealing way in inappropriate settings, then get angry about others' (usually women's) responses.
No one wants women to be attacked. A woman walking naked down the street should not be assaulted. That said, she might find that restaurants do not want her coming inside to eat, although some bars might.
The largest problem I see is that girls dress in a way they like without realizing why they are doing so. They used to grow out of this in high school, but now it appears that the delusions last longer. I used to think that women arguing the delusion were just playing around, but now I believe that they genuinely have no idea how human reproduction works. Their mothers get it, but with motherhood becoming ever more rare, we now have large groups of delusional people misleading children. The creeps on the male side are getting the concern required (see Tate brothers), but the female creeps are not, and they are more numerous and more public. I do not agree with most of the article above, but it is delusional to think females accentuating the physical features men use to determine reproductive suitability is not a conscious or unconscious display to attract sexual attention. The problem today is how long it is taking for some women to become conscious of their own decision-making. A delusional teenage girl is understandable, or even endearing. A delusional 25-year-old is sad.
I very much agree with that which was the point that what you wear signals whether you understand that or not. And I agree, that the majority of the time, it’s women policing what women wear, sometimes enforcing it through the men, but men would love to go to a pool with beautiful naked women strolling around.
I must apologize. I thought i was replying to the original poster https://substack.com/profile/17459654-drea-m-strayly?utm_source=substack-feed-item
Ah. No issues. Your point lands better on hers! :) Not that I could make much, heads or tails, from it....
Even here in liberal Oregon, there are limits to what people will accept in clothing. There was a woman who used to go naked down the streets in Ashland. Even though it was considered protected speech under the constitution, it really grossed out a lot of people. Not sure exactly what happened, But eventually, she stopped parading around naked in the streets.
Right. Now imagine if that were a man and what kind of outrage that would have elicited. There is a generally acceptable in most things.
100% agree that clothing sends a message. My uncle, who was a professor of cultural anthropology, used to say that even though you may have to wear clothing for protection, what clothing you choose tells us something about you.
"Dress for success." We also apply clothing to communicate group affiliation. Clothing has layers of communications.
Very cool read!!!
Girls are huggable. They have no idea how attractive they are.
Mike, loved your analysis and interpretation. I also like to do a multi view analysis of different life scenarios but trying it out as fiction. Do check out my stories. I am guessing you may like them.
I’ll check them out.
Clothing also acts as a mask, which is why it is said that, "regardless of position, or class, nudity is a great leveler."
I hadn’t heard that one before but that’s quite true. It would be interesting to see that visually and see if our interpretation of the ‘elite’ holds up when they’re naked.
As a father of an 18 year old boy and a 14 year old girl your article resonated. I would love to see you write more on not only how not to send wrong signals (to the right or wrong audience), but also how to send the right signals. I am 50, work out regularly, dress sharply and I would like to see the younger generation too to take care of their turnout. Finally would end my comment by bringing up the matter of 'sexual attacks being blamed on the women's dress' by sharing this meme that i came across recently:
I was raped said the skirt.
So was I said the burkha.
Me too said the diaper.
Sending the right signals is interesting because it depends on what your goal is. There’s nothing inherently ‘wrong’ with your daughter wearing a miniskirt and crop top… what’s wrong is if she’s not ready / not managing the reciprocations. It’s also a question of the intrasexual competition with the other women. Sending the right signals is managing that for your desired outcome.
Similarly with your boy. I’m at a point in my career where I can show up to a customer visit in Jeans, a starwars T-Shirt and a sport coat and it’s actually a type of professional flex… I don’t need a three piece suit. Conversely, for years, Lockheed, a company I worked for, required employees to wear a shit and tie to any customer visit. It was obvious (and often pretentious) when you’d have a poor sap, out with the military, in the desert at a test range, wearing a sweat soaked shirt and tie. It wasn’t a good look regardless of ‘fancy.’
An interesting aside, for women, is that the Mormons have figured out how to be modest yet stylish in ways others don’t do well. It’s also possible to wear ‘modest’ clothing in highly provicative ways… just ask the one Soldier I had who tailored her uniforms to augment her curves.
To summarize, sending the right signals isn’t a single answer. It’s a combination of situation, your goals, who’s there, etc. and aligning them.
"I only care that she understands what she’s communicating and who else might see it. The target boy might receive the signal, but so does the boy who has a crush on her who is friend-zoned. So too, the girls receive her signal, interpret it, and react."
You hit the nail on the head with that. Great article, well done.
Awesome and I appreciate that.
Where it gets really tricky is “I am engaging in signalling because social norms do not allow you to respond to it”, often as a form of status or peer play
Yes!
You say clothing (makeup, hair, grooming), sends complex signals. I don't see anything complex about it. You also say clothing advertises sexuality, (or lack of interest). The first commenter talked of hiking gear. That advertises (communicates), practicality, ability, and experience in hiking.
I think some of your observations come from your son and daughters. There is so much going on with adolescence, both before and after sexuality, that you have to take a very close look at it. Dressing sharp is part of the pecking order. Getting "hit-on" may be the score (points in the game) you keep with your peers, and not much to do with who is making the advances. (Just look at "how popular" I am.)
Boys might make their points by how sloppy they appear. I reject the whole social order of "you preppies", and I am provocative by the rags that I adorn myself with.
There are those who do not play any status games. They dress in a very neutral way with no obvious markers, no attachments to any group. I was always repelled by the first tier girls. I am not a buyer for your marketing ploys. I disapprove of your provocative diamond tongue piercing or ring in the nose as fake snot drooling down.
When a male talks about female tendencies or sexuality, I see a lot of assumption and fantasizing. At least it must be coming from centuries old biases. I would prefer reading it from a female author. The woman is also talking from those same male/female archetypes, but maybe she has an inner sense that has partially pierced it. You could ask your wife to make a guest post.
I have experienced several times a very sexual beginning, and then a "drying out" in a year or two. So, was the sex real, or just another part of marketing? Do women fake and orgasm? Ask your wife. When I say marketing, it means coupling not on the basis of love, respect, and sexuality. It is a business deal. You give me security, and I will satisfy your "needs". It is very very prevalent. Sex can be a mutual play, and lead deeply into mysteries. But if it is not mutual, it is ugly. This marketing business is human trafficking, only the lady is trafficking herself. I want nothing to do with it. And nothing says women shouldn't "choose to look nice", as they see it.
SEX CAN BE AUTHENTIC TOO, don't get me wrong. I know it both ways.
We met on ARGO, on my guest post "There are NO Unmarked Women". I don't know these things that I wrote, but I wanted to get a female response. I said:
"To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social presence of women, has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
This is the archetype. Repeat; "Women develop a presence AS A RESULT OF THEIR INGENUITY! under such tutelage". What is this ingenuity? Apparently developing it has become the most important part of being a western woman. The commenter Chantal replied that "Women have a different kind of power - a power men cannot have."
I asked her to say more about that. You said "females are also the ones who are the ‘peacocks’ and perform overt signaling more so than men." This has become the necessity in the modern western archetype. It's not in the female genes. In other words, it is programming. We can play out our programming, but who are we before the programming?
I am asking you to delve underneath these stereotypes. Who are we, as man and woman?
https://argomend.substack.com/p/10-wnt-there-are-no-unmarked-women
.
You'll likely appreciate ths one too.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/rediscovering-the-goddess
I love this comment. It proves my point better than I coul make it. It's perfectly signed to my point. If I could rewrite this I'd quote you. Love it!! It makes my point so well. Thanks for commenting!