Audra Williams has a really great question“:
I said at a Mediawatch board meeting this weekend that I feel like it’s impossible to get upset with young girls dressing in revealing clothing without also signing onto the notion that it’s possible to dress as if you are sexually available. I would like to talk about this, because I feel like most people disagree with me but I can’t find a way to separate those two streams of thought.
What I mean is, I feel like people around the table believed that girls were dressing as if they are sexually available, and I don’t think it’s POSSIBLE to dress as if you are sexually available.
I don’t understand how the same feminist women who fought for the idea that the way someone dresses is NEVER a green light for sex can now say that teenage girls are “dressing like skanks” or use terms like “prosti-tots”?
I think the point she’s making is a really good one. It’s one thing to talk about the range of clothing available to girls, it is quite another to make any sort of comment about the girls that wear them.
But I actually want to take this off in a slightly different direction. One of the comments on my recent post about the Buffy comic books talked about the artist ‘sexualising’ Willow. I really object to that language. The character of Willow was sexual – she once spent an entire episode in bed (and not in a bad way like Buffy and Riley). Giving someone larger breasts and an impractical garment doesn’t sexualise them – it objectifies them, and being sexual and being an object of desire are not the same thing.
Of course this conflation is hardly rare. There are many, many different ways women are taught that for us being sexual is being desired, rather than desiring. It is very hard to shake this idea off entirely. Women who do not fit the conventional idea of what is desirable have no way to be sexual.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be wanted, and I imagine most people find being found sexually attractive a turn on. The problem is that women’s sexuality is reduced to our desirability, and the extent to which we conform to a code of desireability, defines whether or not we’re seuxal.
Women can’t fight this by changing what we look like and particularly not by criticising what other women look like. Instead we need to reject any analysis which buys into the idea that women’s sexuality and appearance are one and the same and to talk about women’s desires and sexual agency, so that the next generation of girls knows that what they want matters.
Pingback: Figleaf's Real Adult Sex
Pingback: Jenn Tile - MySpace Blog
Pingback: jennhi
Pingback: Being Amber Rhea
Pingback: Queer Dewd Formerly Known As ( )
Utterly insightful. Thank you. I am going to sit here for a minute simply being awed by how much of what I think of as the “wrongheaded” current of feminist thought is tagged out by the ideas in this post.
I mean, it does get very complicated: there are codes of desirability — they do exist — there are mainstream ones and less mainstream ones, and when dressing to be desirable, one can dress to be desirable-to-(target)-others, or desirable-to-(target)-self. For example, I think of the image of a woman in a man’s suit, ala Marlene Dietrich, as amazingly sexy, and I’m fairly sure I’m not the only one, but a twelve-year-old girl dressed the same is unlikely to set off any “Arr! They’re skanking ’em up!” alarms.
I think I’ve figured out how to say it: gender is a construct. It’s a really big construct made of lots of little constructs strung together.
“Dressing Sexy” — a major sub-section of gender — can be separated into “Style of Dress” and “Intent to be viewed as desirable.”
Analyzing how these things connect with each other and are often conflated in the public eye? That’s good, that’s smart, that’s what we should be doing. They do get linked, after all.
Taking the link for granted, conflating these concepts ourselves without analysis? That is harmful and reinforces negative gender politics. If others view the construct as a single, solid, un-deconstructable thing, that must be observed and engaged with; but to win in that engagement, we cannot subject ourselves to the same view.
Objectify, that is a very good term. As mother of a three year old girl and a feminist, I have thought quite a bit about clothing for her. We made a decision at the start that we would not dress her in clothing that advertised. To me, it reduces the wearer to billboard for the company it is advertising for, an objectification of sorts. Now later on, when she is better informed if she chooses to wear that sort of thing, I won’t stop her, but I am not going to use her a billboard to advertise my choice of products. I also avoid clothing with non-commercial statements that put words in her mouth or labels on her. No “princess”, “cute chick”, or even “I’m in charge” emblazoned across her chest or buttocks. To me these are all labels inviting others to reduce and objectify my daughter, and I won’t have anything to do with them.
No there are other bits of clothing that do not advertise so bluntly, are often seen as advertising sexual availability. Low cut shirts, tube tops, clothing cut to emphasize parts of the body deemed sexual. I am less bothered by some of this clothing because it seems that young mothers might choose it so they can dress their daughters like themselves. I find it hard to object to a v-neck that reveals nothing but a tiny bit of flat chest and in any case I think that it is the viewers problem if they don’t like what clothing reveals. Those that find a v-neck objectionable when nothing sexual is revealed by it have sexualized the clothing itself, which I find pretty sad. Generally I don’t choose these items for my daughter because I find them tacky and or impractical.
Not long after I blossomed, I was teased mercilessly by other children accusing me of stuffing my bra. My mother bought three scoop necked tops for me that next fall when I started junior high. Versions of these tops were owned and worn by most of the girls in my class. Mine were the only ones that revealed cleavage. The teasing about stuffing my bra, which was very distressing to me, stopped. I am very glad my mother was not so worried about “sexualizing” me that she would not let me wear shirts like those. Instead she taught me that I should wear what I like and not let other people’s expectations dictate my behavior.
As the father of two girls I have also thought a lot on this. I am still too confused to contribute but I wanted to chime in on the “excellent post” bandwagon.
All kinds of behavior sends messages. In Arabic countries I would be regarded as untrustworthy if I declined to stand sufficiently close to others that I could smell their breath. In most western nations, in contrast, such proximity would be regarded as flirtatious at best, rude or creepy at worst. Now, I may protest to my Arab hosts that I mean nothing by the fact that I maintain greater physical distances from them than they are accustomed to, that my posture is perfectly neutral and that their cultural norms are silly. Some will understand me and overcome any preconceptions my behavior may have created; others will not. The message is sent regardless of my meaning or intent.
I can’t help but note that my daughter’s behavior sends messages as well. She may deny that she intends to convey a message, or that she even knows the language. She may argue that her behavior is perfectly neutral. But others will receive a message nonetheless. I do my daughter no favor by leaving her ignorant of the messages she sends.
I’m not arguing for censorship here; I’m arguing for knowledge. Whatever message she sends, she should know that she sends it.
The desire to remain neutral and send no message is especially challenging where sex is concerned. I understand that sexually mature animals are programmed to be aware of potential mating partners, and that (all?) human cultures develop rituals around signaling when someone is “sexually available” (coming out parties, bar mitzvahes, etc.). Sometimes this takes a negative form, signaling when a person is NOT available (wedding rings, nun habits, etc.). But efforts to create a neutral zone around a person’s sexual availability fight against a pretty strong current.
I sense the larger concern about how certain clothing will “sexualize” girls is that many people are quezy about sex. I want to guard my daughter from being raped or even having consensual sex unwisely. I can lull myself into a calmer state if her behavior, including dress, conveys an indifference to sex. Modest clothing isn’t to protect her; it’s to protect me.
I don’t want her to be indifferent to sex forever, mind you. I want my daughter to emerge into a healthy understanding of her own sexuality. I want my daughter to see herself as desirable in every sense. But I fear that her early exposures with portray sex as ruthlessly competitive and exploitative and degrading. I fear she will grow to see her desirability as making her a more attractive target. And I fear that people who are new to their own sexuality may be more exploitative and degrading simply because they don’t know any better. I had a girlfriend who equated sexual intercourse with being stabbed. She was (and is) a wonderful person with a huge burden. I hope my own kids won’t be similarly encumbered.
I hadn’t given a lot of thought to whether she is desiring as well as desired. I’ve generally assumed that hormones will take care of that, so I don’t need to worry about it. Not that the issue isn’t important to her; it’s just not something I feel the need to try to influence.
nobody.really Writes:
I think you’ve gotten confused about what is meant in the quote by the term “sexually available.” I was too, but then I read it a couple more times and in the context of the next sentence:
By “dressing as sexually avaiable,” the author seems to mean the idea that certain choices of clothing automatically give a green light for sex; not the weaker reading that certain choices of clothing can serve as conventional signals that the wearer is looking to have sex with somebody at their own discretion.
I suspect many people use terms like “sexually available” and “green light” precisely because of their useful ambiguity. These terms arguably encompass both the idea that someone has surrendered her right to refuse sex – a practice widely disparaged – with the idea that someone has declared her willingness to have sex on her own terms – a practice less widely disparaged. People who want to defend a woman from unwanted sex and people who what to keep a woman from having any sex can jointly agree that it’s wrong to signal a “green light to sex,” and imagine that they share a common view.
I understand (third hand) Williams to argue that remarks suggesting that a woman’s attire is inappropriately sexually suggestive reflect a belief that clothing can signal that the woman has surrendered her right to refuse to have sex. In contrast, I suspect (forth-hand) that when a member of the MediaWatch board complains about “prosti-tots,” he’s arguing that girls who are too young to consent to sex should not be signaling an interest in sex. I see no conflict in these positions. (I can imaging a dispute about when a girl is no longer too young to signal an interest in sex, but the issue isn’t addressed in the quote.)
And in contrast to all of the above, I understand Maia to –
1) distinguish between objectifying (depicting someone in a manner to attract lust) and sexualizing (depicting someone as lusting),
2) defend both practices, and
3) argue that a woman’s lusting is given insufficient attention because of the inordinate attention paid to a woman’s ability to attract lust – in particular, attention paid to clothing.
Alas! (heh) I can’t trackback. But I wrote a post here about this post.
Pingback: Jewess » Blog Roundup: On Hoohaas, Husbands, and Mitzvah Gear
Dar quote! woot!
This is a very valid point, that too much emphasis on women’s sexuality being all about being looked at by others warps reality until some people forget that that’s not the sum total of the female sexual experience. Personally I think a big part of the answer to this is to fo everything we can to remind people that women actively lust themselves rather than just being lusted after.
About the idea that clothing can send signals…well, yes and no, and that’s not the real issue. Where things get really messed up is when certain men forget that even if a woman’s clothing IS sending a message (arguable in any case), that doesn’t mean that message is aimed at any guy who happens to walk past, or that said clothing somehow negates her right to have zero sexual interest in any particular man. How do they know she’s not a femmey lesbian looking for a new girlfriend?
So, the problem really isn’t anything to do with clothes when you come down to it, it’s with the fact that some people interpet clothing to mean whatever they want it to mean.
I still think that calling young girls things like “prostitots” (hadn’t heard that one before) is completely unnaceptable on all kinds of levels.
About the idea that clothing can send signals…well, yes and no, and that’s not the real issue. Where things get really messed up is when certain men forget that even if a woman’s clothing IS sending a message (arguable in any case), that doesn’t mean that message is aimed at any guy who happens to walk past, or that said clothing somehow negates her right to have zero sexual interest in any particular man. How do they know she’s not a femmey lesbian looking for a new girlfriend?
Perhaps there is more than one real issue.
I sense we agree that a person does not surrender the right to decline to have sex, no matter what the person wears. Fine.
But when I see this, I see clothing that I associate with sexual titillation, but I doubt that the person wearing them actually intends to send that message. Admittedly, maybe the clothing was chosen by someone who has no knowledge of how Las Vegas burlesque dancers dress, and the similarity is simply a matter of chance. And admittedly, I don’t know for a fact that she’d not a femmey lesbian looking for a new girlfriend. But something in my deeply-sexist upbringing leads me to doubt it.
To reiterate: Do I think these clothing means she has surrendered her right to refuse sex? No. But do I think the clothing, in our culture, signals an interest in sex? Yes. And I experience cognitive dissonance (a/k/a ickiness) in seeing someone who I doubt has an interest in sex engaging in conduct that signals an interest in sex.
Thank you for spelling this out. I have been trying to think of a way to verbalize this point myself with little success. I am a 20-some virgin who likes to go dancing. When I go dancing, I like to dress so that I fit in in the “club scene.” This has sparked men to comment that I “don’t dress like a virgin.” Next time I will have a better answer than stunned silence and the urge to shout “I didn’t know we had a dress-code.”
Great post… for me, when I feel, and perhaps dress, the most desirous, is when I find myself the most desired. But I’m pretty certain it’s not the clothes that are responsible for turning people on, but the turn-on that is a turn-on.
Politically I have to give the whole thing more thought, and you’ve helped.
Love the title, btw. It’s a song I perform, and is now way stuck in my head. Not a bad thing.
Pingback: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » These two things are not the same