So you accept that comfortability is a factor, but think that it couldn’t possibly be the only factor? So every woman who wears one does so for sex appeal?
I think there’s a very fine line for women to walk with regards to dressing in “scanty, sexually provocative clothing”. While there may be social pressures to look sexually appealing, it’s very easy to go too far and get socially ostracised for being a ‘slut’ or ‘whore’ simply for dressing a particular way. It’s certainly not a universal expectation to dress that way, nor do I think it’s expected to go to any extremes in everyday situations.
As I said upthread, I’m only 20. I’m just recently (if two years ago is recent) out of high school. I’m not going to claim any kind of cosmic understanding of girls but I think, based on my (admittedly limited) experience that it’s silly to think that the sexiness of the garment isn’t at least partially what’s motivating the choice. Sure, she could be the exceptional 14 year old girl who somehow knows that they’re more comfortable, but I think it very unlikely.
And again, even though I think the sexual element of the garment is of partial motivation, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
This makes sense. She probably wants them because her friends are wearing them. I think it’s a small thing to give in on. Tattoos and piercings are where you might want to draw the battle lines.
Actually, I get uptight and rolleyes-y about absurd “medical” advice from unqualified people. And unless you figure that the girl intends to wear her thong eight inches above her dangling pants, there’s no equivalence to the conversations about boys underwear that you refer to. I think we can all agree that we’re entitled to have an opinion about underwear we can actually see. I’m a little less clear on why people feel the need to concern themselves with what teenage girls should be “allowed” to wear under their clothes.
For sure, and speaking of battle lines just this week my 14yo was telling me about the older brother of a friend who likes to wear skinny jeans. His parents hate skinny jeans, so they will let this 16yo get a tattoo if he promises to not wear skinny jeans. Isnt that stupid!(he wrestles, it’s cool to tat your family name on your back, yeah like a cage fighter truly wtf!). So what next, he gets inked and starts wearing lowriders? :dubious:
I’m not saying that girls don’t dress sexy–I’m saying that maybe we as a society are more likely to interpret what girls are wearing as sexy than when a guy wears it, and to react with shock and awe accordingly. If a girl and a guy wear a tight tank top, on the girl it’s shocking and possibly inappropriate because “Oh no, boobs!” I don’t hear people saying that revealing or tight clothes will make a guy too sexualized at a young age or that it’ll get him wrong attention. It probably won’t get him the wrong kind of attention, true, but I think that’s because we assume as a society that it’s normal for everyone to have some opinion on a woman’s body.
Read “Cheaper by the Dozen”. Not any of the movie versions, the book. You will probably enjoy it (I did, around your age). It is set in the 1920s.
There is a scene, in the latter part of the book:
Anne, the oldest daughter, wants to start wearing teddy underwear and silk stockings. The father initially refuses to give her permission, but eventually does
This thread reminded me of that scene. It shows that this same sort of thing was going on between parents and children in the 1920s. My grandmother was a flapper.
OK. So that he won’t wear a pair of jeans that will get donated to Goodwill or thrown out sometime in the next few years, they’re letting him get a tattoo that he’ll have for the rest of his life.
Yeah, but tramp stamps? THONGS? Can you get any more debauched? It’s up there with eating till you vomit and then picking out a eunuch to service you orally while you fiddle as Rome burns.
Historian John Keegan had something to say about the pathological character of classical Rome – the same Rome whose moral decency you extol.
This is exactly the disconnect Americans have when rating movies. A little sex, even committed sex between married people, gets a more severe rating than almost limitless quantities of murder.
Not having sex, while killing your gladiators for entertainment and your neighbors as a matter of…almost habit, is a weird definition of “moral decency.”
edit: ah, I see other folks caught this one.
