It's Not Slut-Shaming If the Dress Doesn't Fit

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Thinkprogress has an article denouncing slut-shaming in school dress codes because . . . a school did not allow middle schoolers to wear tube tops to their middle school prom. I take issue with the article. Granted, female nudity and all its variations are still made too much of, but while banning high school students from wearing tube-top dresses is both futile and inane, banning middle school students from wearing tube-top dresses . . . kind of makes sense. What are they wearing tube tops for anyway? It's like the legendary student at Berkeley who went around naked (with a towel, so there were no hygienic concerns): you could do it. But why?

Let's list all of the reasons a girl (middle school age or older) might wear a tube top (or other item of clothing), from most to least damning, more or less.

1. You are emulating a pop star/movie star/that girl from Cosmo
2. All the other girls are wearing it
3. It's Fashion!
4. It's really pretty
5. You are rebelling against one or more adult figures in your life
6. You want sexual attention
7. You want to feel sexy/pretty/confident
8. You want to express your personal style
9. For political reasons
10. Because it's really hot (the weather, not the tube top)

How dare she dress like that?

Notice that hardly any of these have to do with male sexual attention. More of these have to do with female attention, peer pressure, and the fashion industry. Starting about three-quarters down, we get into the whole dress-for-yourself thing, and one political motive (think Femen)--where you are still utilizing your body for shocking, attention-getting reasons, albeit to point out the fallacy of the shockingness of the female body.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with a middle school (how old are these kids? 13?) banning tube tops. Frankly, I actually think it's more of a concern that high school Mormon girls have to custom-make their prom dresses if they want actual sleeves on the dresses. There were some comments in the Thinkprogress article that noted that the school dress codes seemed to be imposed by old men, but the fashion industry is still largely perpetrated by men as well (albeit gay men).

Why is this fashionable?

As long as the school dress code is consistent, gender-equal, and can explain itself, then it's not slut-shaming to send a girl home for wearing a tube-top, anymore than it is to make a boy wear P.E. shorts because he cannot un-sag his pants. Dress codes exist for a reason, especially at school. Adults have to follow them, why shouldn't students? Would it be appropriate for a middle-school teacher to wear a tube top to chaperon the prom? Probably not, because a teacher should be trying to maintain an air of professionalism, even at a party. We should have the same standards for students when they attend class. It's a learning environment, not the beach, or even the mall.

Now let's get to the unwanted male attention part. Though I do believe the best way to prevent sexual assault is to teach people to not assault others, woman should also be defensive. Just as people learn to be defensive drivers, because they know there will always be jackasses on the road, people should be defensive dressers because there will always be weird sexual predators in the world. We put off certain vibes based on how we dress. How a girl dresses may not affect whether or not she gets raped, but girls in scanty clothing are more likely to talked about in terms they'd most likely rather not be discussed in. If a girl wants the attention, then fine, as long as she is informed. If a girl does not want the attention, or not the that degree, at the very least, the girl will be labeled a tease.

Aren't we getting too carried away with this? Like with Janet Jackson's supposed nipple incident? Sure. Maybe someday women can go around topless. Hey, women do it all the time in Europe. At the beach. Not at work. Not at school. Maybe that will change someday, and society will be better for it. Nowadays? It's just not worth it.

In the meantime, dress fabulously--even if you do have to cover up.

Sure, Blame Feminism for the Hook-up Culture

Interesting article in The Atlantic magazine today about how interviewer Freitas determined the hook-up culture is not all that it's cracked up to be. It argues that hooking up is, well, boring most of the time, or leads to unsatisfying sex. This makes sense. How are people supposed to get good at sex if all of their experience are drunken one-night stands?

Stereotypes aside (the article features much anecdotal evidence, if no statistics), it's an interesting way of giving people and excuse to opt-out of the hook-up culture without seeming like a Puritanical prude. It reminds me of something (god help me) Stephanie Meyer once said about Edward and Bella's relationship (before all the BDSM of their marriage night),"I get some pressure to put a big sex scene in," Meyer says. "But you can go anywhere for graphic sex. It's harder to find a romance where they dwell on the hand-holding. I was a late bloomer. When I was 16, holding hands was just--wow" (Time).

Sounds pretty good. Why settle for mediocre sex when you can get great hand-holding (and more)? This reminds me of "The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy" from The Vagina Monologues, where it is stated that "moans are connected with not getting what you want right away."

When we fall in love, a smorgasbord of chemicals in our brains make us lose appetite, develop OCD, but also make us very, very happy. That only lasts for about a year though. Some scientists have used that as evidence that humans aren't made for monogamy. There are even love addicts now, that go in search of a new partner as soon as the hormonal and neurotransmitter high fades. In a way, this may seem like an endorsement of of hook-up culture, but hey--a year. That's a long time to be with someone in these hook-up times.

In any case, assuming that hook-up culture is boring, what is one to do? The article argues that the solutions Freitas are not viable. That's reasonable when the only proposed solution seems to be for adults to warn young adults of the dangers of unsatisfying hook-ups. Any viable inroads on this subject probably have to come from within the generation itself, such as in young adult TV (Girls portrays sex as pretty mediocre most of the time), facebook groups, etc.

My real issue with the article though, is that it states Freitas "feminism a pass, even while acknowledging that many feminist writers have welcomed the destruction of the traditional date, because such courting rituals 'propped up patriarchy,' as one feminist critic quoted in the book put it."

Since when has feminism ever gotten a pass? Most people don't even know what feminism is, or at least it's definition is very much in dispute, with people all up in arms every time a celebrity like Zooey Deschanel or Stephanie Meyer or Marissa Mayer choose to embrace or not embrace the label. The problem is that there have been at least three movements of feminism, and they don't always agree with each other.

It's probably somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd movement that the traditional date was destroyed though. It probably propped up patriarchy because . . . men asked women out? Men paid for the dates? Sorry, but it seems pretty easy to resurrect the traditional date with feminist trappings: go Dutch! And yes, women can ask men out too sometimes (even if most date books which dabble in evolutionary psychology advise against this). And yes, women can arrange dates as well!

My boyfriend (now my fiance) and I did all three. I told him that I liked him, and we mutually decided where to go for a date. At the end of the date I told him that I believed in going Dutch, which he had no problem with (though he subverted the practice by buying me chocolate bars). When we go out nowadays? The planning? All me. Which seems to be the norm among married couples. (It's called "invisible work.") Every once in awhile in complains, but then again he doesn't have any alternatives (besides staying home, and since we stay home 80% of the time, I win the 20% of the time I arrange dates).

In short, while "it seems legitimate to wonder if feminism has unwillingly equalized the sexual playing field to allow women the freedom to behave with as much recklessness as men, as Ariel Levy argued in Female Chauvinist Pigs" whatever's done can be undone. The pendulum continues to swing. While, sure, feminists want the freedom to act like chauvinist pigs without any more condemnation than male chauvinist pigs, that doesn't mean that we all want to be chauvinist pigs, anymore than all men want to be chauvinist pigs. I don't believe feminism is women becoming like men. I think feminism is men and women becoming like each other. Somewhere in that middle ground, maybe we can not participate in hook-up culture without becoming Puritanical prudes.