Not to mention judgmental as hell. They're not dressing for you, either to impress or offend you, dude. I know it blows your mind but they're not thinking about you at all. If you think butts are sexy, or gross, or some combination thereof, I kindly invite you to look away. It's not like she's shoving her ass in your face and blocking your entire field of vision. I'm 100% sure you can find something else to focus on if you try.
I don’t know, I think it’s a fair question and an interesting conversation. I typically work out in the early AM on weekdays and don’t see much of this. I happened to go mid-morning last Saturday and it was impossible to miss. And look, I’m not judging. Have at it, I don’t care.
But it did make me wonder what the purpose of it is. I can’t imagine it serves a functional purpose for your workout, so it must be purely aesthetic. And, as you say, ‘they’re not dressing for you' (i.e. for men), so who is it for? For themselves? For other women? I am honestly curious and would love to understand it better.
Final question/point, is it ok for men to stare? If not, that seems like an unrealistic, dare I say unfair, expectation. At some point it becomes nearly impossible to navigate a gym while averting your eyes from dozens of mostly naked women. Someone’s likely to get injured lol
It’s definitely an interesting conversation if we approach it with open minds and in good faith, like you’re doing. Personally, I like to wear compression leggings when I work out because they make me feel more supported and energized. Tight clothing also lets me see my muscle tone in the mirror and helps ensure good form, especially in classes like Barre or Pilates. When I’m home lounging on the couch, I like to wear baggy clothes. So I can’t speak for everyone, but I definitely dress for myself. I’m also married, so I don’t go to the gym looking to attract male attention. Now, do other women (and men) go to the gym in outfits they think are likely to attract the attention of potential partners? I’m certain some do. But if you’re not on the market and/or you’re offended by what they’re wearing, you’re most likely not the target audience, so you don’t need to worry about it.
I don’t think it’s ever OK to stare unless you have consent from the person you’re staring at. Suppose I have a rash or a scar or a giant pimple on my face. Unless you’re my dermatologist and I’m there for an examination, your staring is going to make me feel self-conscious. We’re all human and it’s natural to take that first quick look, but after that you should try to tear your eyes away so that you don’t make the person in question uncomfortable. “But they’re making ME uncomfortable with their choice of clothing!” you may answer back. And I think the solution is the same: just don’t look. It’s a lot easier to control our own eyeballs than it is to control the behavior of everyone else in our environment.
Yeah, but your point of differentiation seems to be that Lululemons are OK, but thinner leggings are not. I want to ask who made you the judge, but obviously judging is the whole point of your essay here, so… I don’t know. Have at it, I guess.
Thanks for the reply. This is really interesting. I’m not going to vouch for the other comments being made in reply to our back and forth here, but a few thoughts…in good faith as you’ve mentioned…
I totally get the functional aspects of what you describe (i.e. support), but it’s as much about the lack of clothing as it is the skin-tight nature of what is actually worn. Some of the tops are more aptly described as bras than as shirts/tanks. Again, I’m not judging…just observing.
Speaking of observing, I take your point…’stare’ was not a good choice of words. I agree it’s gross to be gawking at people. Perhaps repeated ‘quick glances’, to use your word. Afterall, we are all human, as you say.
With that said, I think it’s useful to appreciate (i.e. understand) how the male brain works. We think about sex…a lot. It fades somewhat with age, but for young men, it is literally several times a minute…in any setting…all day long. It is in our nature and a necessary element of how we’ve evolved as a species. So when one is in a gym setting, with testosterone already elevated, and a half-naked woman walks by, he is going to sneak a look and, 10 times out of 10, several looks. His conscience and shame will, in most cases and for normal people, stop him from staring or acting inappropriately. He may walk straight into a squat rack in his attempt to avert his eyes, but 95% of guys will do the right thing.
I don’t think women really understand this. It’s by no means a cause for sympathy, but it’s not as ‘easy’ as you imply it is. It’s as though you believe these instincts are optional. Controllable? Yes. Optional? No. It’s like asking you not to yawn when you’re tired.
All of this is to say that there is an element of tempting nature in this whole debate that should be acknowledged and, frankly, accepted. If a woman is going to wear little more than lingerie to do squats at the gym, she has little room to complain when men notice her, whether or not she desires that attention, let alone provides permission for it.
This in no way condones unwanted advances or abuse of any kind. That is unacceptable. And I don’t think women have any responsibility for the deviance of some men, as some are apparently arguing for in this thread. But i do think most of this just boils down to men, and women for that matter, behaving like normal, healthy, human beings.
Your point about the difference between controllable and optional sums it up nicely. Instincts are not optional, but (for humans at least) they are controllable.
When JD says “But evolutionary reality doesn’t need their permission. It plays out anyway.” That’s rape culture talking. She was asking for it, because she wore revealing clothing. Not OK.
The other end of that spectrum (nowhere near as serious) are the women who record unassuming men looking at them at the gym and then publish it to social media with a tone of umbrage/insult. That is ridiculous. Their outrage is all performative anyways, i suppose.
I have no value judgement here, mainly just curiosity. I don’t go to a gym; do men at the gym also wear leggings to enjoy their support and energization, and to have a better ability to see form?
I do often see women on the street and other public spaces, wearing leggings without a long shirt or sweater as a cover up, and not infrequently the top is a sports bra. Again, no value judgement, but as a matter of curiosity: has there ever been a popular style of casual wear that was as revealing? What’s next?
Bike shorts and singlets seem more popular form-fitting attire for men than leggings. Unless you go to Ann's gym, where apparently they just let their hairy balls hang free.
Sure, it’s easier for me to do nothing, stay quiet, and look away, rather than try to convince people of my worldview, but that misses the point because it’s far easier for women to dress differently than for men to be hyper-conscious of where their eyes happen to stray. I can’t just zone out and not think about it, and that’s stressful. I have to think about the person so as to avoid looking at them, which frankly feels rude. I don’t like the idea of a culture where people are expected to not look at each other.
For gym though, I don’t really care. I will say though, keep in mind that more than a third of young men had porn addictions, and may still have them, and you coyuld be tempting them to relapse. Maybe gyms should be segregated by sex.
In general though, i’d rather in public spaces have people dress more formally even if I used to hate the idea because I wouldn’t have been able to climb trees. There’s pros and cons, but I think the pros outweight the cons. To live in society you must comprise. Given that you’re married I assume you sort of understand.
Also, the idea of more diversity in dressing and agreement on what it signal just sounds awesome. I’m not exactly mad about having lost this, I’m just ecstatic at the idea of potentially getting it back.
Sorry, you lost me at "it’s far easier for women to dress differently than for men to be hyper-conscious of where their eyes happen to stray." If it's really that difficult for y'all to mind your own, then yes, perhaps you should have your own gyms. SMH
It’s not that it’s suuuuper difficult, it’s just a chronic stressor. I also dislike the idea of having to avoid looking at people. It’s so anti-social.
I may have misspoken and when on tangents, but my point was that it’s not a choice between trying to “control everyone” or “diverting our eyes”. Men are sharing their experiences as men and you are shaming them for it. Imagine if you told a guy friend that you were bothered by how a man was gazing at you and he said that if a woman did it to him he’d be flattered. He’d be missing the point because men and women experience the world differently. You’re doing a similar thing as that guy friend. You assume that “just not looking” is a similar experience for both men and women even when men tell you it isn’t.
I’m just confused at your refusal to be sympathetic. I mean, there’s the biological differences in how men in women are effected, there’s the fact that historically being revealing would be a sexual cue, and thus we are hardwired to see it as such (unless you don’t believe in evolution), and there’s also that fact that the average age that people are first exposed to porn is 12. How can you be mad at people for having had their brains messed up as a child? I really don’t see where you’re coming from.
It feels silly to have to point this out but men's brains and physiology is literally triggered by sexual flaunting by women (low cut tops, make up, skimpy outfits etc).
These are INVOLUNTARY reactions (bodily responses to external stimuli) that men have no control over. They can no more control their responses than hungry people can prevent their mouths salivating and stomachs rumbling when you come into the room carrying a pan with fried sausages and bacon on it. If you've ever been in a situation where all you can think of is food, then you might be able to sympathise with men's predicament.... or maybe a situation where a neighbour keeps hooting a horn or slamming a car door at 3am and giving you adrenaline spikes from the shock and alarm. These are responses you have no control over. Being considerate to other people's bodily responses (basic physiology) is all part of living in a high trust society.
And while you've probably never been driven to steal food (no matter how consumed by food cravings) I'm sure you can appreciate how obnoxious it is to intentionally manipulate hungry people by wafting the scent of food in their direction when you could just as easily put a lid on it.
It is literally easier for women to dress modestly and treat men with respect, than it is for men to shut down their involuntary responses to sexual stimuli.
Unless of course, you are arguing that provocative dress and behaviour is also an involuntary response that women have no control over. But we seemed to have managed a healthy balance of modesty/ free expression for thousand of years right up until feminist ideology took over.
Since then it has been a downward spiral, mostly because of this incessant denial of agency, respect, empathy and personal responsibility on the part of 'modern women'.
Ya know what? I'm not interested in seeing men's testicles nearly falling out of their shorts or swim suit either. So no.... I don't have to shut up and pretend like it's "fine". Personal preference.... I think it looks really tacky
Alicia, these clothes are disgusting, on top of invading men’s space, where they’re trying to focus.
Zero self-respect. And many of them do hit on the men there, even if they have a girlfriend. (My guy gets hit on all the time) So many of these women are absolute trash.
Not judging, relaying observed behavior. These women make the dating pool worse for the rest of us. There’s no reason to encourage it. Real women workout in studios, with other women, not trying to get the attention of men in their spaces
One can't blame a man for thinking they are advertising themselves at an hourly rate, it is what the ladies in the windows do in the redlight district. :D It is clear these women are accentuating their sexuality for a reason, either to provoke looks, even if it only to call the guy who looks a pervert.
Actually I take that back, most in the window are more modest. ;)
We don't exist in a bubble and we're not islands. Being judgmental is what keeps society civil. Unfortunately, we can't all just do what we want and dress how we want. Grown-ups understand we have to live together and that means living under certain rules. Unless you live in some zombie dystopia, you can't just do what you want. That's how children think and why they have parents.
Do you remember several generations of feminists whining about how skimpy clothing was imposed onto women by the patriarchy and how women were brainwashed into buying each season's fashion and beauty products - at vast expense - so they could compete at self-objectifying in order to please the 'male gaze'.
Now that it's been admitted that women like to wear body paint in public, and it's actually men who want women to cover up and be more modest, where are all the feminists burning their own books and apologising for getting it all wrong for so many decades?
I'm afraid this is just another example of Schrödinger's Feminism: a woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most...
Here's the real issue: smartphones and social media (including OF, instagram etc) have created a 'shop front' culture where men can see women, but not touch women. This allows modern women to be sexually provocative all day long.
This 'shop front' culture also prevents meaningful social interactions between the sexes, and without all the nuances of flirtation, body language, eye contact, conversation etc, women have no way to communicate with men except putting genitals on display.
Social media and smartphones have reduced modern women to a more basic primate or mammalian behaviour .... except even that is an insult to other animals which exhibit more complex socialising behaviour (sniffing, body language etc) than your average THOT using her phone to live stream her ass from the gym.
Even dogs sniffing each other's bums are more sophisticated than that.
The feminist problem with “skimpy clothing … imposed onto women” is the imposition, not the skimpiness. Just as the problem with forced “modest” dress in another context is the force, not the modesty.
Women can wear whatever they want.
“This allows modern women to be sexually provocative all day long.”
Exactly. Feminists have claimed for decades that sexually provocative clothing is IMPOSED onto women BY men (by the patriarchy).
Turns out this was not true and critics of feminism were right all along. Sexually provocative clothing is imposed onto women by women. And female sexual provocation in the gym, office or street is imposed onto men by women's free choice to dress and act that way.
In other words, women are adults with free will and not passive objects under the spell of men's supreme power, as feminists would have you believe.
"Women can wear whatever they want."
Exactly. And further to that, whatever women decide to wear is DEFENDED and ENFORCED by the majority of men as the 'new normal' and a 'woman's right'.
Women are quick to police men's behaviour and keep men in check, but most men will never return the favour - because most men (as well as most women) have embraced the feminist notion that women are not Adult Human Females, but inert objects with no free will and no ability to behave badly and cause harm to themselves / men / children / society in general.
ME: “This allows modern women to be sexually provocative all day long.”
YOU: "Sure, if they want to. Why do you hate freedom?"
I'm guessing if I complained about a man being sexually provocative in a public space you would not turn to me and say "Why do you hate freedom?"
In the post feminist age we police men's sexuality, but not women's. I'm simply pointing out that double standard. The double standard is so blatant that when women are sexually provocative in public we now blame men's eyes for being provoked (AKA 'the male gaze').
All of this is a result of feminism and its ludicrous and socially corrosive premise that female sexuality is all roses and sugar and male sexuality is toxic and repulsive. In fact feminism promotes the idea that women effectively have no sexuality, no agency, no free will .... and therefore no responsibility to behave in a responsible, adult, restrained manner.
Feminism shifts all agency, power and intention onto men. Feminism is the ultimate objectification of women. As objects ('victims'), women cannot choose to sexually provoke men. If a man is provoked by her behaviour it is his doing, not hers. Feminism is the most regressive ideology imaginable.
And the more we refuse to acknowledge women's sexuality, agency, free will and social obligation to rein it in and be socially responsible - the more we compel young women to turn it up to 11.
Before feminism women were defined as adults and as such women's behaviour actually mattered. Women were judged on a scale of behaviour ranging from virtuous to degenerate, because everyone agreed women were adults and therefore had to behave responsibility - just like men.
In that context women could - and did - communicate with men using the most nuanced and sophisticated social cues, body language and language (I mean in comparison to today's post feminist culture) with no need to reduce their sexual behaviour to the lowest common denominator.
“Feminism shifts all agency, power and intention onto men.”
No, that was the prior norm. Feminism is (in part) a reaction against that. Women were compelled to dress to men’s expectations, playing sexuality up or down, as the case might be. A feminist culture - one that acknowledges women as people, with agency - removes the compulsion, and lets women dress themselves, for their own reasons.
I am reminded of feminists like Emma Watson who - as a feminist - presumably adheres to the feminist claim that women's fashion was always cruelly imposed onto women by men... until feminism came along and liberated women.
But Watson herself has relished the opportunity to play women from these dark ages of patriarchy - including the lavish and exquisite dresses of that age.
Millions of women today (including self identifying feminists) adore period fashion, and go to great lengths to make and wear period costumes, from the 20's 30's 40's and 50's or from the 18th century or 14th century.
Most men are clueless about these fashions. They wouldn't know a bustle from a stomacher. Nor do they care. Women's fashion has always been the prerogative of women.
Feminists are LYING when they claim women's fashion (of any age) has been imposed onto women by men.... just as they are LYING when they say they'd rather encounter a bear in the woods than a man.
These lies are simply attempts to undermine men, denigrate men, insult men, shame men and manipulate men in the most dishonest way - by gaslighting everyone about the true nature of women.
Feminists lie about all the women of history, striping them of their achievements, their pleasures, their nature and their agency, in order to misrepresent them as wretched, helpless, weak victims of male oppression, so that they can morally dominate today's men with a horror story that is simply not true.
You think you sound smart, but you’re not. Just because studies in your name doesn’t mean whenever trash you spew is correct, so save your wrist from carpel tunnel syndrome and fingers from arthritis and don’t reply.
The 'studies' in my name is a deliberate mocking of modern day academia and the ideological claptrap which gets passed off as genuine research under the banner of 'xxxxxxxx studies'.
Idk man….like first of all stupid ass opinion but fair, but there is also the other factor right..like address your own gaze of how you see women right???? You’re at the gym or even out doing your own thing and yeah fine someone’s wearing what they are wearing you’re at the gym exercise and keep moving.
How so? Man not trying to beef you but explain…I can explain my point if asked further can you? Like the article was fine and all but it does just go back to my point man…like your article is making it seem like you’ve never seen tits and ass before…
It's bad enough showing their ass-crack at the gym, but why wear those skin tight, ass-contoured tights at the airport? WTF!! It's a sad commentary, amongst many others, of our declining societal awareness. Yes, some want attention; okay--they all want attention. But some are just clueless morons who have no shame. OK, I'm a boomer; and for me the most attractive females at the gym are the ones who wear the traditional gym shorts, and who dress "modestly". Don't get me started on tattoos...
So let’s talk tattoos. I’m a Boomer too and my 22-yr old son sees them as helpful evidence of trauma or a “high body count”. He’ll pass on any sort of interaction with inked females because he feels they’ll be more trouble than it’s worth investing his time in.
Boomer here with 2 late-life daughters who exemplify these trends. 😭☹️😞 Trying to explain how these fashion choices make them appear to others was totally futile. It was a nightmare. Fortunately they’ve grown out of it in their 30s. It still saddens me to see an entire generation of girls being brainwashed into this kind of exhibitionism. And it only gets worse. Maybe nudists have the right idea!
As a Conservative MAGA nudist, we do have the right idea. I think people, but women specifically should be exposed to all of the body types and learn early on what a real human looks like. They're would be a lot less body image issues and young men paying to see naked women would be very rare.
And be very careful where you look. They want attention, but they cant be seen getting it from a member of the patriarchy. What would the other women say? Its the equivalent of walking through Watts with $100 bills bursting from your pockets and expecting not to get mugged. Women have always had their power, but that wasn't good enough. They wanted men's power too. But they also want to be treated like a lady until they need to be treated as an equal. Of course this hasn't worked because it's an offense against the psychology of both genders, so they had to go to the patriarchy to enforce their mental illness with laws. Fenisinsts are Marixist and should be shot on sight.
This was a super-interesting read that started out hella strong but weirdly turned towards a few overly tired man-woman tropes before righting course again and reaching a pretty cool conclusion so I feel drawn to mention a few things.
First off, big agree that a lot of modern fashion, architecture etc is just weird and ugly. A lot of it comes from losing old constraints - with new building technology you can make things stand up that wouldn’t have stood up in the past, so people go nuts. It’s similar in modern art, there is something to be said for playing at the edges of the genre but too often the form pretends to have intellectual substance when it really does not.
That said, it’s wrong to think of high fashion runways as showing ‘clothing options for women’. That stuff is quite clearly a party trick. That’s not what’s available in women’s clothing stores. It’s about as close to ‘fashion’ as that competition people have to make ‘flying contraptions’ around their bikes and then try to ‘fly’ them off a pier into a river has to do with ‘aeronautics’.
Women’s fashion is still surprisingly conservative in the sense that it offers a ridiculous amount of ‘sensible basics in neutral tones’ (I know this acutely because I spend my life trying to avoid them) and a lot of whatever ‘boho’ is (think florals with willowy flowy fabrics and some ruffles potentially). There is also a healthy selection of retro stuff (like sixties or eighties inspired) with a modern color twist. It’s definitely not wall to wall buttcrack pants.
On the buttcrack pants I totally agree that pulling back from that… umm, display, would be an overall positive. But I will push back on the idea that all the girls are wearing them. Like yeah, I see them, and they weird me out too, but in my gym there are also girls in baggy shorts and shirts, girls in loose clothes and veils, girls in muscle tanks, with muscles to fit. And in my climbing gym nobody wears the bareass shorts. Literally not a soul. So it could be a location/ culture/attention focus bias.
I work with young people so I see a lot of their clothing choices. They are definitely ‘alternative’ in style, just like we were at their age, except in my time it was wearing jeans, oversized men’s shirts and those punk leather bracelets with spiky nits on them. It’s normal for the teenage-young adult population to be dressing contra-tradition. It’s literally a biological part of growing into an adult who thinks for themselves. Most people eventually default back to a more traditional style, or find a completely new niche.
It is true that, since there is more social pressure on men to not react to women displaying themselves as sexually alluring, there are some women who have leaned into that display - for attention and who knows what other reasons besides. I think it also has to do with the fact that young people today meet in person less, have sex less, communicate less outside of social media where visual cues are the only cues. A lot of young people just don’t experience all those other layers of non-verbal communication - the vibes of just hanging out with someone, watching their personality unedited, leaning against them while laughing, getting a whiff of what their hair smells like, whatever. It’s just visuals. So some people are leaning into the visual. Also both genders watch a ton of porn now and that is also tilting people’s thoughts on what’s socially acceptable.
Finally there was the point of what men and women were ‘naturally made for’ and this point always rankles with me because it is always so poorly presented. It’s always like ‘oh yeah women want men’s jobs? Well they can’t handle getting shot at!! Back to the kitchen!’ Like, why is the epitome of men’s work always the stupid army? There are tons of men who are also not fit for the army nor have ANY interest in it. Who actually wants to go risk death or murder other people??
So you also have to consider why the women who want to join the army want to join. And you realize that in the US in particular, for example, the army is a quick reliable way for a poor kid to get access to decent education and healthcare, which has been made strategically unavailable to others from their social group. So rather than girlboss feminism - survivalism?
And yes the average woman is not army, oil platform, wood logging job material. Neither is the average dude. The whole ‘their body is suited for’ business really disintegrates when you stop reaching for those very extreme jobs that few people are fit for. Can you genuinely argue that, I don’t know, women shouldn’t be physics professors because their bodies are not made for physics? It’s weird, right?
On the part of a lot of anti-man hype being weird and hateful I 100% agree. And because it is so loud and vile it becomes the ‘face of the movement’, which is stupid and annoying. I have friends in my own life who actively look for men who, like, don’t move out of the way on the sidewalk or take up an extra seat in the bus with their splayed knees just to get annoyed. Like, objectively, that’s a super small minority. I go around through public transport daily, nobody is banging their shoulders into me as we pass each other. If a guy is sitting with his knees open he adjusts if I go to sit next to him. Heck I with my chunky thighs prefer a slight ‘manspread’ myself, when space allows it.
The hateful rhetoric is stupid and counterproductive and should always be called out. It stops us talking about the actual issues that plague both sides. Like the rise of fascism in the west.
The worst is the god damn beach/water park. These slutkinis are absolutely everywhere. Nearly every chick under 40 has one these days in various levels of sluttiness. From the “modest” version that only shows off 4/5ths of your ass to the extreme version that shows off 98% and it’s definitely not just the hot girls doing this either. For every semi attractive girl with her butt hanging out there for everyone to stare at, there are at least 4 overweight chicks that really shouldn’t be dressing that way and 1 morbidly obese woman that is so fat you have to turn your head in disgust whenever she walks by.
Can we please go back to some type of modesty? I’m really sick of this fashion trend.
I agree completely about women in slutkinis. Even when I was 40 yrs younger and had that hot body, I always wore one piece full coverage suits or very very modest 2 piece suits. Never even walking around without a cover because my body has never been for a stranger to ogle and think God knows what. It’s embarrassing for me as a female to see them dressing like sluts and showing things that should only be seen by loved ones, a partner or a physician. BUT, in all fairness…I have seen plenty of fat/morbidly obese dudes wearing banana hammock/speedos or even regular shorts or swim trunks with the same gross fatness hanging over the waist, shirtless and flopping around with their 🍆 It’s equally as disgusting and embarrassing.
I wonder what kids are learning in their sex-ed class these days.
I’ve been friend with some women for more than 30 years now and one of the things they have in common is that i never saw their cleavage once. Modesty matter.
Some women are doing it on purpose while others have just been manipulated into acting in a way that makes them unattractive to men who want to start a family. They’re displaying the r reproductive strategy behavior and wonder why men only approach them for sex.
Perhaps it would be more valuable to meet this new reality, that you seem to find challenging, with more self reflection and less instinct to condemn or punish. Despite saying you don’t wish to moralise, you make off the cuff comments that equate women’s covered but shaping clothing with pornography.
I’d prefer to meet this topic with honesty. What people in general wear to the gym or in public is none of my business. As long as they’re covered—any desire or disgust I feel is entirely my own to contend with. But considering the fact even the “crazy liberals” of the fashion world also concern you for daring to cover models in interesting or unconventional ways, it seems like the desire to understand is fundamentally clouded by your want for things to be simpler. Perhaps this is best exemplified by the fact that both writers of this piece appear to have PhD’s but grossly misrepresent the concept of “the male gaze”, which is a way of understanding art and not “having to look at women because their advances are so subtle”.
There is, perhaps, the potential for an interesting discussion here but it would require you to not use women of “the bang bus audition” as a punchline for what you admit is your own misunderstanding.
My wife says how embarrassed she is for them. The yoga short shorts are translucent, looking like they were sprayed on with an air brush, hiding nothing. And the top is gone, replaced by designer sports bras.
They pose between sets, checking if anyone is watching, then checking the mirror. Then taking a selfie or texting a friend. 10 minutes between sets.
My wife also noticed they move in front of a guy then bend over in the most obnoxious pretense of a stretch.
I just laugh because it’s true, but a disgrace for public decorum, and their total loss of modesty. They’ve turned their real life experiences into another thirst trap because they’re addicted to attention seeking.
There’s also “man-splaining” and the “man-cold.” They take inherent male traits and denigrate them. Men aren’t aloud to explain anything. We love explaining things, and hearing things explained, and discussing how things work. Mowing the lawn is a legitimate topic of discourse and debate.
The man-cold? Men aren’t aloud to show their weaknesses, so being sick and not pretending you’re well is taboo, and grounds for much ridicule.
Never heard of man-cold so I won't address that but mansplaning isn't just a man explaining anything. It's insisting on explaining something to someone despite them not wanting or needing it explained, usually used when it's a man explaining something to a woman that the woman knows more about than the man does.
Entertaining and on point. Thankyou. For the origins of the term ´thz male gaze´ you can easily find, online, Laura Mulvey´s paper from the early seventies called ´Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema´ She uses examples from Hitchcocks films to argue that cinema positions women as something to be looked at and that this ´male gaze´ is a way to control women.
Film Studies and other academics have been milking it ever since.
There has been some work done on the idea of a ´female gaze´ but the fact that mens bofies are also put on display in film doesn´t fit with the leftist marxist post modernist feminist queer narrative.
“How can you not see this and not disdain the people who made it on principle?” Uh, because those clothes are not meant for actual wear. They’re art pieces meant for looking at or making a statement. And art is subjective. It’s not actual street wear.
I have been to the gym hundreds of times in the last few years. I have never seen a woman with “ass-crack” shorts. Most are so tired of getting stared at, hit on or interrupted with unwanted form advice that they avoid revealing workout clothing, with the odd exception. By contrast, many guys wear bulge-accentuating moose-knuckle spandex or freeballing sweats.
In the end, though, what someone wears in the gym or elsewhere is no one else’s business.
I mean they exist at my gym, but are definitely not the majority. I think a lot of these texts are revealing about where the authors put their attention. They say ‘women’
when they really mean ‘the small subset of women I actually notice’.
Totally depends on type of gym and local culture. No one wears this stuff at my climbing gym, bc they're there to climb. I'd say half the women at the local "normal" gym dress like this...they also wear full makeup and their hair blown out and down. But the people at that gym are there to look good naked and be more fuckable. So it's really not surprising that they also dress in that manner. Very different from the aim of the people at the climbing gym, no one joins those to look sexy, they join to climb.
I mean speak for yourself, I personally joined to suffer, but to each their own :)
I did a climb today I have been fighting with for two weeks and my kid was like ‘that’s great mom, so proud of you! I mean, I flashed it, but you know, the important thing is you’re improving!!’ 😅
C'mon now, you know there's nothing better than when you finally figure a problem out and do it. 😊 But yeah I don't think anyone joins to look good, bc after enough years you basically end up looking like Popeye, with giant forearms and back and no butt. 😂
Whatever bro. You sound like a whiny bitch. Let people be.
Not to mention judgmental as hell. They're not dressing for you, either to impress or offend you, dude. I know it blows your mind but they're not thinking about you at all. If you think butts are sexy, or gross, or some combination thereof, I kindly invite you to look away. It's not like she's shoving her ass in your face and blocking your entire field of vision. I'm 100% sure you can find something else to focus on if you try.
If you ain't judgin', you ain't livin'.
I don’t know, I think it’s a fair question and an interesting conversation. I typically work out in the early AM on weekdays and don’t see much of this. I happened to go mid-morning last Saturday and it was impossible to miss. And look, I’m not judging. Have at it, I don’t care.
But it did make me wonder what the purpose of it is. I can’t imagine it serves a functional purpose for your workout, so it must be purely aesthetic. And, as you say, ‘they’re not dressing for you' (i.e. for men), so who is it for? For themselves? For other women? I am honestly curious and would love to understand it better.
Final question/point, is it ok for men to stare? If not, that seems like an unrealistic, dare I say unfair, expectation. At some point it becomes nearly impossible to navigate a gym while averting your eyes from dozens of mostly naked women. Someone’s likely to get injured lol
It’s definitely an interesting conversation if we approach it with open minds and in good faith, like you’re doing. Personally, I like to wear compression leggings when I work out because they make me feel more supported and energized. Tight clothing also lets me see my muscle tone in the mirror and helps ensure good form, especially in classes like Barre or Pilates. When I’m home lounging on the couch, I like to wear baggy clothes. So I can’t speak for everyone, but I definitely dress for myself. I’m also married, so I don’t go to the gym looking to attract male attention. Now, do other women (and men) go to the gym in outfits they think are likely to attract the attention of potential partners? I’m certain some do. But if you’re not on the market and/or you’re offended by what they’re wearing, you’re most likely not the target audience, so you don’t need to worry about it.
I don’t think it’s ever OK to stare unless you have consent from the person you’re staring at. Suppose I have a rash or a scar or a giant pimple on my face. Unless you’re my dermatologist and I’m there for an examination, your staring is going to make me feel self-conscious. We’re all human and it’s natural to take that first quick look, but after that you should try to tear your eyes away so that you don’t make the person in question uncomfortable. “But they’re making ME uncomfortable with their choice of clothing!” you may answer back. And I think the solution is the same: just don’t look. It’s a lot easier to control our own eyeballs than it is to control the behavior of everyone else in our environment.
I make a point about normal compression leggings at the end.
Yeah, but your point of differentiation seems to be that Lululemons are OK, but thinner leggings are not. I want to ask who made you the judge, but obviously judging is the whole point of your essay here, so… I don’t know. Have at it, I guess.
Common decency is good for cultural hygiene. I don't need to see womens' labias in the gym.
Thanks for the reply. This is really interesting. I’m not going to vouch for the other comments being made in reply to our back and forth here, but a few thoughts…in good faith as you’ve mentioned…
I totally get the functional aspects of what you describe (i.e. support), but it’s as much about the lack of clothing as it is the skin-tight nature of what is actually worn. Some of the tops are more aptly described as bras than as shirts/tanks. Again, I’m not judging…just observing.
Speaking of observing, I take your point…’stare’ was not a good choice of words. I agree it’s gross to be gawking at people. Perhaps repeated ‘quick glances’, to use your word. Afterall, we are all human, as you say.
With that said, I think it’s useful to appreciate (i.e. understand) how the male brain works. We think about sex…a lot. It fades somewhat with age, but for young men, it is literally several times a minute…in any setting…all day long. It is in our nature and a necessary element of how we’ve evolved as a species. So when one is in a gym setting, with testosterone already elevated, and a half-naked woman walks by, he is going to sneak a look and, 10 times out of 10, several looks. His conscience and shame will, in most cases and for normal people, stop him from staring or acting inappropriately. He may walk straight into a squat rack in his attempt to avert his eyes, but 95% of guys will do the right thing.
I don’t think women really understand this. It’s by no means a cause for sympathy, but it’s not as ‘easy’ as you imply it is. It’s as though you believe these instincts are optional. Controllable? Yes. Optional? No. It’s like asking you not to yawn when you’re tired.
All of this is to say that there is an element of tempting nature in this whole debate that should be acknowledged and, frankly, accepted. If a woman is going to wear little more than lingerie to do squats at the gym, she has little room to complain when men notice her, whether or not she desires that attention, let alone provides permission for it.
This in no way condones unwanted advances or abuse of any kind. That is unacceptable. And I don’t think women have any responsibility for the deviance of some men, as some are apparently arguing for in this thread. But i do think most of this just boils down to men, and women for that matter, behaving like normal, healthy, human beings.
Your point about the difference between controllable and optional sums it up nicely. Instincts are not optional, but (for humans at least) they are controllable.
When JD says “But evolutionary reality doesn’t need their permission. It plays out anyway.” That’s rape culture talking. She was asking for it, because she wore revealing clothing. Not OK.
100%.
The other end of that spectrum (nowhere near as serious) are the women who record unassuming men looking at them at the gym and then publish it to social media with a tone of umbrage/insult. That is ridiculous. Their outrage is all performative anyways, i suppose.
I have no value judgement here, mainly just curiosity. I don’t go to a gym; do men at the gym also wear leggings to enjoy their support and energization, and to have a better ability to see form?
I do often see women on the street and other public spaces, wearing leggings without a long shirt or sweater as a cover up, and not infrequently the top is a sports bra. Again, no value judgement, but as a matter of curiosity: has there ever been a popular style of casual wear that was as revealing? What’s next?
Bike shorts and singlets seem more popular form-fitting attire for men than leggings. Unless you go to Ann's gym, where apparently they just let their hairy balls hang free.
Sure, it’s easier for me to do nothing, stay quiet, and look away, rather than try to convince people of my worldview, but that misses the point because it’s far easier for women to dress differently than for men to be hyper-conscious of where their eyes happen to stray. I can’t just zone out and not think about it, and that’s stressful. I have to think about the person so as to avoid looking at them, which frankly feels rude. I don’t like the idea of a culture where people are expected to not look at each other.
For gym though, I don’t really care. I will say though, keep in mind that more than a third of young men had porn addictions, and may still have them, and you coyuld be tempting them to relapse. Maybe gyms should be segregated by sex.
In general though, i’d rather in public spaces have people dress more formally even if I used to hate the idea because I wouldn’t have been able to climb trees. There’s pros and cons, but I think the pros outweight the cons. To live in society you must comprise. Given that you’re married I assume you sort of understand.
Also, the idea of more diversity in dressing and agreement on what it signal just sounds awesome. I’m not exactly mad about having lost this, I’m just ecstatic at the idea of potentially getting it back.
Sorry, you lost me at "it’s far easier for women to dress differently than for men to be hyper-conscious of where their eyes happen to stray." If it's really that difficult for y'all to mind your own, then yes, perhaps you should have your own gyms. SMH
It’s not that it’s suuuuper difficult, it’s just a chronic stressor. I also dislike the idea of having to avoid looking at people. It’s so anti-social.
I may have misspoken and when on tangents, but my point was that it’s not a choice between trying to “control everyone” or “diverting our eyes”. Men are sharing their experiences as men and you are shaming them for it. Imagine if you told a guy friend that you were bothered by how a man was gazing at you and he said that if a woman did it to him he’d be flattered. He’d be missing the point because men and women experience the world differently. You’re doing a similar thing as that guy friend. You assume that “just not looking” is a similar experience for both men and women even when men tell you it isn’t.
I’m just confused at your refusal to be sympathetic. I mean, there’s the biological differences in how men in women are effected, there’s the fact that historically being revealing would be a sexual cue, and thus we are hardwired to see it as such (unless you don’t believe in evolution), and there’s also that fact that the average age that people are first exposed to porn is 12. How can you be mad at people for having had their brains messed up as a child? I really don’t see where you’re coming from.
It feels silly to have to point this out but men's brains and physiology is literally triggered by sexual flaunting by women (low cut tops, make up, skimpy outfits etc).
These are INVOLUNTARY reactions (bodily responses to external stimuli) that men have no control over. They can no more control their responses than hungry people can prevent their mouths salivating and stomachs rumbling when you come into the room carrying a pan with fried sausages and bacon on it. If you've ever been in a situation where all you can think of is food, then you might be able to sympathise with men's predicament.... or maybe a situation where a neighbour keeps hooting a horn or slamming a car door at 3am and giving you adrenaline spikes from the shock and alarm. These are responses you have no control over. Being considerate to other people's bodily responses (basic physiology) is all part of living in a high trust society.
And while you've probably never been driven to steal food (no matter how consumed by food cravings) I'm sure you can appreciate how obnoxious it is to intentionally manipulate hungry people by wafting the scent of food in their direction when you could just as easily put a lid on it.
It is literally easier for women to dress modestly and treat men with respect, than it is for men to shut down their involuntary responses to sexual stimuli.
Unless of course, you are arguing that provocative dress and behaviour is also an involuntary response that women have no control over. But we seemed to have managed a healthy balance of modesty/ free expression for thousand of years right up until feminist ideology took over.
Since then it has been a downward spiral, mostly because of this incessant denial of agency, respect, empathy and personal responsibility on the part of 'modern women'.
And denial of biology too.
Umm, we tried that.
Staring and looking are different, the need to stare is strange
totally agree.
Right? Just a bunch of fragile men that are uncomfortable with themselves or just a bunch nosy Karens.
I hope she saw this dude.
BRB going to the gym and gotta put on my burqa
Ya know what? I'm not interested in seeing men's testicles nearly falling out of their shorts or swim suit either. So no.... I don't have to shut up and pretend like it's "fine". Personal preference.... I think it looks really tacky
I heard there are entire cultures where people go around naked all the time ohhhh noooo so tacky
Operative word… ALL!
DAH …cultural norms exist. And when the majority prefer… .not? Okay. Don't.
So how did women end up wearing pants? That wasn't a cultural norm for a really long time. Is it possible that…. Norms change?
Seriously? You're comparing a shift in clothing style/construction to an absolute removal of clothing.
Apples.... Oranges.
And ... I repeat.... I'm not amused when I have to see a man's hairy balls hanging out.
Hey.... Here's a suggestion....
Let's start greeting each other by dropping our drawers and sticking out nose in the person's butt as a greeting.
I mean... It's just cultural norms, right?
Alicia, these clothes are disgusting, on top of invading men’s space, where they’re trying to focus.
Zero self-respect. And many of them do hit on the men there, even if they have a girlfriend. (My guy gets hit on all the time) So many of these women are absolute trash.
Judgy wudgy was a bear.
Not judging, relaying observed behavior. These women make the dating pool worse for the rest of us. There’s no reason to encourage it. Real women workout in studios, with other women, not trying to get the attention of men in their spaces
I wish you and your man all the best. Good luck.
One can't blame a man for thinking they are advertising themselves at an hourly rate, it is what the ladies in the windows do in the redlight district. :D It is clear these women are accentuating their sexuality for a reason, either to provoke looks, even if it only to call the guy who looks a pervert.
Actually I take that back, most in the window are more modest. ;)
That’s a total lie. Those women are 100% dressing that way to get attention. 🙄
We don't exist in a bubble and we're not islands. Being judgmental is what keeps society civil. Unfortunately, we can't all just do what we want and dress how we want. Grown-ups understand we have to live together and that means living under certain rules. Unless you live in some zombie dystopia, you can't just do what you want. That's how children think and why they have parents.
"You sound like a whiny bitch"
Do you remember several generations of feminists whining about how skimpy clothing was imposed onto women by the patriarchy and how women were brainwashed into buying each season's fashion and beauty products - at vast expense - so they could compete at self-objectifying in order to please the 'male gaze'.
Now that it's been admitted that women like to wear body paint in public, and it's actually men who want women to cover up and be more modest, where are all the feminists burning their own books and apologising for getting it all wrong for so many decades?
I'm afraid this is just another example of Schrödinger's Feminism: a woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most...
Here's the real issue: smartphones and social media (including OF, instagram etc) have created a 'shop front' culture where men can see women, but not touch women. This allows modern women to be sexually provocative all day long.
This 'shop front' culture also prevents meaningful social interactions between the sexes, and without all the nuances of flirtation, body language, eye contact, conversation etc, women have no way to communicate with men except putting genitals on display.
Social media and smartphones have reduced modern women to a more basic primate or mammalian behaviour .... except even that is an insult to other animals which exhibit more complex socialising behaviour (sniffing, body language etc) than your average THOT using her phone to live stream her ass from the gym.
Even dogs sniffing each other's bums are more sophisticated than that.
The feminist problem with “skimpy clothing … imposed onto women” is the imposition, not the skimpiness. Just as the problem with forced “modest” dress in another context is the force, not the modesty.
Women can wear whatever they want.
“This allows modern women to be sexually provocative all day long.”
Sure, if they want to. Why do you hate freedom?
Exactly. Feminists have claimed for decades that sexually provocative clothing is IMPOSED onto women BY men (by the patriarchy).
Turns out this was not true and critics of feminism were right all along. Sexually provocative clothing is imposed onto women by women. And female sexual provocation in the gym, office or street is imposed onto men by women's free choice to dress and act that way.
In other words, women are adults with free will and not passive objects under the spell of men's supreme power, as feminists would have you believe.
"Women can wear whatever they want."
Exactly. And further to that, whatever women decide to wear is DEFENDED and ENFORCED by the majority of men as the 'new normal' and a 'woman's right'.
Women are quick to police men's behaviour and keep men in check, but most men will never return the favour - because most men (as well as most women) have embraced the feminist notion that women are not Adult Human Females, but inert objects with no free will and no ability to behave badly and cause harm to themselves / men / children / society in general.
ME: “This allows modern women to be sexually provocative all day long.”
YOU: "Sure, if they want to. Why do you hate freedom?"
I'm guessing if I complained about a man being sexually provocative in a public space you would not turn to me and say "Why do you hate freedom?"
In the post feminist age we police men's sexuality, but not women's. I'm simply pointing out that double standard. The double standard is so blatant that when women are sexually provocative in public we now blame men's eyes for being provoked (AKA 'the male gaze').
All of this is a result of feminism and its ludicrous and socially corrosive premise that female sexuality is all roses and sugar and male sexuality is toxic and repulsive. In fact feminism promotes the idea that women effectively have no sexuality, no agency, no free will .... and therefore no responsibility to behave in a responsible, adult, restrained manner.
Feminism shifts all agency, power and intention onto men. Feminism is the ultimate objectification of women. As objects ('victims'), women cannot choose to sexually provoke men. If a man is provoked by her behaviour it is his doing, not hers. Feminism is the most regressive ideology imaginable.
And the more we refuse to acknowledge women's sexuality, agency, free will and social obligation to rein it in and be socially responsible - the more we compel young women to turn it up to 11.
Before feminism women were defined as adults and as such women's behaviour actually mattered. Women were judged on a scale of behaviour ranging from virtuous to degenerate, because everyone agreed women were adults and therefore had to behave responsibility - just like men.
In that context women could - and did - communicate with men using the most nuanced and sophisticated social cues, body language and language (I mean in comparison to today's post feminist culture) with no need to reduce their sexual behaviour to the lowest common denominator.
“Feminism shifts all agency, power and intention onto men.”
No, that was the prior norm. Feminism is (in part) a reaction against that. Women were compelled to dress to men’s expectations, playing sexuality up or down, as the case might be. A feminist culture - one that acknowledges women as people, with agency - removes the compulsion, and lets women dress themselves, for their own reasons.
I am reminded of feminists like Emma Watson who - as a feminist - presumably adheres to the feminist claim that women's fashion was always cruelly imposed onto women by men... until feminism came along and liberated women.
But Watson herself has relished the opportunity to play women from these dark ages of patriarchy - including the lavish and exquisite dresses of that age.
Millions of women today (including self identifying feminists) adore period fashion, and go to great lengths to make and wear period costumes, from the 20's 30's 40's and 50's or from the 18th century or 14th century.
Most men are clueless about these fashions. They wouldn't know a bustle from a stomacher. Nor do they care. Women's fashion has always been the prerogative of women.
Feminists are LYING when they claim women's fashion (of any age) has been imposed onto women by men.... just as they are LYING when they say they'd rather encounter a bear in the woods than a man.
These lies are simply attempts to undermine men, denigrate men, insult men, shame men and manipulate men in the most dishonest way - by gaslighting everyone about the true nature of women.
Feminists lie about all the women of history, striping them of their achievements, their pleasures, their nature and their agency, in order to misrepresent them as wretched, helpless, weak victims of male oppression, so that they can morally dominate today's men with a horror story that is simply not true.
You think you sound smart, but you’re not. Just because studies in your name doesn’t mean whenever trash you spew is correct, so save your wrist from carpel tunnel syndrome and fingers from arthritis and don’t reply.
Is it that at a certain level of intelligence , I mean the mental one not the emotional, it turnes into cynicism? Or is it excess steam, hard to bear?
I dont say your wrong, but why not ad a warmer uplifting irony?
Pants, asses, gym.... ok don't take it personal, but what is your reaction when the subject realy matters, like Gaza, UKR, WW3...?
Care your heart❤️
The 'studies' in my name is a deliberate mocking of modern day academia and the ideological claptrap which gets passed off as genuine research under the banner of 'xxxxxxxx studies'.
I was deliberately making fun of you and your nonsense.
Yes. You attacked me personally, instead of addressing anything I actually said.
K, just don’t spout nonsense like the author.
I wonder how many people will get your “alive or dead” quote , highly on the money by the way . Cheers.
Idk man….like first of all stupid ass opinion but fair, but there is also the other factor right..like address your own gaze of how you see women right???? You’re at the gym or even out doing your own thing and yeah fine someone’s wearing what they are wearing you’re at the gym exercise and keep moving.
What a stupid comment.
How so? Man not trying to beef you but explain…I can explain my point if asked further can you? Like the article was fine and all but it does just go back to my point man…like your article is making it seem like you’ve never seen tits and ass before…
Telling the truth about gym slop is not whining.
Okay incel.
I’m the incel? That’s crazy.
Should've taken your own advice.
Let people be is a slippery slope to hell.
It's bad enough showing their ass-crack at the gym, but why wear those skin tight, ass-contoured tights at the airport? WTF!! It's a sad commentary, amongst many others, of our declining societal awareness. Yes, some want attention; okay--they all want attention. But some are just clueless morons who have no shame. OK, I'm a boomer; and for me the most attractive females at the gym are the ones who wear the traditional gym shorts, and who dress "modestly". Don't get me started on tattoos...
So let’s talk tattoos. I’m a Boomer too and my 22-yr old son sees them as helpful evidence of trauma or a “high body count”. He’ll pass on any sort of interaction with inked females because he feels they’ll be more trouble than it’s worth investing his time in.
your son sounds like a loser I fear
Smart kid
You should fear dyke. Not the mellenials, GenX . We're about to unleash he'll on your Marxist idiots.
Good point. To me it’s an intellectual tell .
Boomer here with 2 late-life daughters who exemplify these trends. 😭☹️😞 Trying to explain how these fashion choices make them appear to others was totally futile. It was a nightmare. Fortunately they’ve grown out of it in their 30s. It still saddens me to see an entire generation of girls being brainwashed into this kind of exhibitionism. And it only gets worse. Maybe nudists have the right idea!
As a Conservative MAGA nudist, we do have the right idea. I think people, but women specifically should be exposed to all of the body types and learn early on what a real human looks like. They're would be a lot less body image issues and young men paying to see naked women would be very rare.
Im just happy I get pants on in the morning to make it to work.
Best one yet!! 😂😂
Blocking now
And be very careful where you look. They want attention, but they cant be seen getting it from a member of the patriarchy. What would the other women say? Its the equivalent of walking through Watts with $100 bills bursting from your pockets and expecting not to get mugged. Women have always had their power, but that wasn't good enough. They wanted men's power too. But they also want to be treated like a lady until they need to be treated as an equal. Of course this hasn't worked because it's an offense against the psychology of both genders, so they had to go to the patriarchy to enforce their mental illness with laws. Fenisinsts are Marixist and should be shot on sight.
This was a super-interesting read that started out hella strong but weirdly turned towards a few overly tired man-woman tropes before righting course again and reaching a pretty cool conclusion so I feel drawn to mention a few things.
First off, big agree that a lot of modern fashion, architecture etc is just weird and ugly. A lot of it comes from losing old constraints - with new building technology you can make things stand up that wouldn’t have stood up in the past, so people go nuts. It’s similar in modern art, there is something to be said for playing at the edges of the genre but too often the form pretends to have intellectual substance when it really does not.
That said, it’s wrong to think of high fashion runways as showing ‘clothing options for women’. That stuff is quite clearly a party trick. That’s not what’s available in women’s clothing stores. It’s about as close to ‘fashion’ as that competition people have to make ‘flying contraptions’ around their bikes and then try to ‘fly’ them off a pier into a river has to do with ‘aeronautics’.
Women’s fashion is still surprisingly conservative in the sense that it offers a ridiculous amount of ‘sensible basics in neutral tones’ (I know this acutely because I spend my life trying to avoid them) and a lot of whatever ‘boho’ is (think florals with willowy flowy fabrics and some ruffles potentially). There is also a healthy selection of retro stuff (like sixties or eighties inspired) with a modern color twist. It’s definitely not wall to wall buttcrack pants.
On the buttcrack pants I totally agree that pulling back from that… umm, display, would be an overall positive. But I will push back on the idea that all the girls are wearing them. Like yeah, I see them, and they weird me out too, but in my gym there are also girls in baggy shorts and shirts, girls in loose clothes and veils, girls in muscle tanks, with muscles to fit. And in my climbing gym nobody wears the bareass shorts. Literally not a soul. So it could be a location/ culture/attention focus bias.
I work with young people so I see a lot of their clothing choices. They are definitely ‘alternative’ in style, just like we were at their age, except in my time it was wearing jeans, oversized men’s shirts and those punk leather bracelets with spiky nits on them. It’s normal for the teenage-young adult population to be dressing contra-tradition. It’s literally a biological part of growing into an adult who thinks for themselves. Most people eventually default back to a more traditional style, or find a completely new niche.
It is true that, since there is more social pressure on men to not react to women displaying themselves as sexually alluring, there are some women who have leaned into that display - for attention and who knows what other reasons besides. I think it also has to do with the fact that young people today meet in person less, have sex less, communicate less outside of social media where visual cues are the only cues. A lot of young people just don’t experience all those other layers of non-verbal communication - the vibes of just hanging out with someone, watching their personality unedited, leaning against them while laughing, getting a whiff of what their hair smells like, whatever. It’s just visuals. So some people are leaning into the visual. Also both genders watch a ton of porn now and that is also tilting people’s thoughts on what’s socially acceptable.
Finally there was the point of what men and women were ‘naturally made for’ and this point always rankles with me because it is always so poorly presented. It’s always like ‘oh yeah women want men’s jobs? Well they can’t handle getting shot at!! Back to the kitchen!’ Like, why is the epitome of men’s work always the stupid army? There are tons of men who are also not fit for the army nor have ANY interest in it. Who actually wants to go risk death or murder other people??
So you also have to consider why the women who want to join the army want to join. And you realize that in the US in particular, for example, the army is a quick reliable way for a poor kid to get access to decent education and healthcare, which has been made strategically unavailable to others from their social group. So rather than girlboss feminism - survivalism?
And yes the average woman is not army, oil platform, wood logging job material. Neither is the average dude. The whole ‘their body is suited for’ business really disintegrates when you stop reaching for those very extreme jobs that few people are fit for. Can you genuinely argue that, I don’t know, women shouldn’t be physics professors because their bodies are not made for physics? It’s weird, right?
On the part of a lot of anti-man hype being weird and hateful I 100% agree. And because it is so loud and vile it becomes the ‘face of the movement’, which is stupid and annoying. I have friends in my own life who actively look for men who, like, don’t move out of the way on the sidewalk or take up an extra seat in the bus with their splayed knees just to get annoyed. Like, objectively, that’s a super small minority. I go around through public transport daily, nobody is banging their shoulders into me as we pass each other. If a guy is sitting with his knees open he adjusts if I go to sit next to him. Heck I with my chunky thighs prefer a slight ‘manspread’ myself, when space allows it.
The hateful rhetoric is stupid and counterproductive and should always be called out. It stops us talking about the actual issues that plague both sides. Like the rise of fascism in the west.
Well said!
While I agree with the points made here, I feel like I have to point out this is obviously written with chatgpt.
Wait, the original text or my response?
The worst is the god damn beach/water park. These slutkinis are absolutely everywhere. Nearly every chick under 40 has one these days in various levels of sluttiness. From the “modest” version that only shows off 4/5ths of your ass to the extreme version that shows off 98% and it’s definitely not just the hot girls doing this either. For every semi attractive girl with her butt hanging out there for everyone to stare at, there are at least 4 overweight chicks that really shouldn’t be dressing that way and 1 morbidly obese woman that is so fat you have to turn your head in disgust whenever she walks by.
Can we please go back to some type of modesty? I’m really sick of this fashion trend.
I agree completely about women in slutkinis. Even when I was 40 yrs younger and had that hot body, I always wore one piece full coverage suits or very very modest 2 piece suits. Never even walking around without a cover because my body has never been for a stranger to ogle and think God knows what. It’s embarrassing for me as a female to see them dressing like sluts and showing things that should only be seen by loved ones, a partner or a physician. BUT, in all fairness…I have seen plenty of fat/morbidly obese dudes wearing banana hammock/speedos or even regular shorts or swim trunks with the same gross fatness hanging over the waist, shirtless and flopping around with their 🍆 It’s equally as disgusting and embarrassing.
Slutkini’s, absolutely right.
I wonder what kids are learning in their sex-ed class these days.
I’ve been friend with some women for more than 30 years now and one of the things they have in common is that i never saw their cleavage once. Modesty matter.
Some women are doing it on purpose while others have just been manipulated into acting in a way that makes them unattractive to men who want to start a family. They’re displaying the r reproductive strategy behavior and wonder why men only approach them for sex.
They learn how to do things the wrong way
Perhaps it would be more valuable to meet this new reality, that you seem to find challenging, with more self reflection and less instinct to condemn or punish. Despite saying you don’t wish to moralise, you make off the cuff comments that equate women’s covered but shaping clothing with pornography.
I’d prefer to meet this topic with honesty. What people in general wear to the gym or in public is none of my business. As long as they’re covered—any desire or disgust I feel is entirely my own to contend with. But considering the fact even the “crazy liberals” of the fashion world also concern you for daring to cover models in interesting or unconventional ways, it seems like the desire to understand is fundamentally clouded by your want for things to be simpler. Perhaps this is best exemplified by the fact that both writers of this piece appear to have PhD’s but grossly misrepresent the concept of “the male gaze”, which is a way of understanding art and not “having to look at women because their advances are so subtle”.
There is, perhaps, the potential for an interesting discussion here but it would require you to not use women of “the bang bus audition” as a punchline for what you admit is your own misunderstanding.
Think of runway fashion like a concept car show. You don’t see those on the roads, for a reason.
Then you mention Marxism of all things… ok, you’re just clueless. Learn more about the world and you won’t feel so impotent and flustered.
🏆🏆🏆 Fantastic. I couldn’t agree more.
My wife says how embarrassed she is for them. The yoga short shorts are translucent, looking like they were sprayed on with an air brush, hiding nothing. And the top is gone, replaced by designer sports bras.
They pose between sets, checking if anyone is watching, then checking the mirror. Then taking a selfie or texting a friend. 10 minutes between sets.
My wife also noticed they move in front of a guy then bend over in the most obnoxious pretense of a stretch.
I just laugh because it’s true, but a disgrace for public decorum, and their total loss of modesty. They’ve turned their real life experiences into another thirst trap because they’re addicted to attention seeking.
Thank you.
AND When did butt floss become common at the beach?
There’s also “man-splaining” and the “man-cold.” They take inherent male traits and denigrate them. Men aren’t aloud to explain anything. We love explaining things, and hearing things explained, and discussing how things work. Mowing the lawn is a legitimate topic of discourse and debate.
The man-cold? Men aren’t aloud to show their weaknesses, so being sick and not pretending you’re well is taboo, and grounds for much ridicule.
Never heard of man-cold so I won't address that but mansplaning isn't just a man explaining anything. It's insisting on explaining something to someone despite them not wanting or needing it explained, usually used when it's a man explaining something to a woman that the woman knows more about than the man does.
Thanks for the explanation!
No problem!
When I’m at the gym, I’m too busy paying attention to my workout to notice what anyone else is wearing.
Ok.
Entertaining and on point. Thankyou. For the origins of the term ´thz male gaze´ you can easily find, online, Laura Mulvey´s paper from the early seventies called ´Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema´ She uses examples from Hitchcocks films to argue that cinema positions women as something to be looked at and that this ´male gaze´ is a way to control women.
Film Studies and other academics have been milking it ever since.
There has been some work done on the idea of a ´female gaze´ but the fact that mens bofies are also put on display in film doesn´t fit with the leftist marxist post modernist feminist queer narrative.
I remember a conversation about 20 years ago, asking a girlfriend why she wore such tiny underwear. "Because I don't want VPL"
"Yes", I said, "But if you don't want the coverage, why wear anything at all? Why did we invent underwear in the first place?"
Blank stare.
What’s VPL? lol.
I’ve never seen that acronym either but I’m going to guess it means “visible panty line”
“How can you not see this and not disdain the people who made it on principle?” Uh, because those clothes are not meant for actual wear. They’re art pieces meant for looking at or making a statement. And art is subjective. It’s not actual street wear.
I have been to the gym hundreds of times in the last few years. I have never seen a woman with “ass-crack” shorts. Most are so tired of getting stared at, hit on or interrupted with unwanted form advice that they avoid revealing workout clothing, with the odd exception. By contrast, many guys wear bulge-accentuating moose-knuckle spandex or freeballing sweats.
In the end, though, what someone wears in the gym or elsewhere is no one else’s business.
I mean they exist at my gym, but are definitely not the majority. I think a lot of these texts are revealing about where the authors put their attention. They say ‘women’
when they really mean ‘the small subset of women I actually notice’.
Totally depends on type of gym and local culture. No one wears this stuff at my climbing gym, bc they're there to climb. I'd say half the women at the local "normal" gym dress like this...they also wear full makeup and their hair blown out and down. But the people at that gym are there to look good naked and be more fuckable. So it's really not surprising that they also dress in that manner. Very different from the aim of the people at the climbing gym, no one joins those to look sexy, they join to climb.
I mean speak for yourself, I personally joined to suffer, but to each their own :)
I did a climb today I have been fighting with for two weeks and my kid was like ‘that’s great mom, so proud of you! I mean, I flashed it, but you know, the important thing is you’re improving!!’ 😅
C'mon now, you know there's nothing better than when you finally figure a problem out and do it. 😊 But yeah I don't think anyone joins to look good, bc after enough years you basically end up looking like Popeye, with giant forearms and back and no butt. 😂
Fashion is fashioned by gay men who hate women (or reek with contempt for them).
…. I’ll pray for you 😆