susie@uwmacc.UUCP (sue brunkow) (05/20/85)
In article <186@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >I know that this will probably start flames, and I wish it wouldn't: > >If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night, >and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody >mugged me, would you be shocked??? > ... >So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative >clothing? If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the >women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be >aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make Why does this comparison between $100 bills and a women's legs, breasts, or whatever disturb me so much? Well, maybe because, you don't need to carry the $100 bills at all. Women don'T have the option of leaving behind any body parts which someone might consider provocative. A more inportant question, is : how will we define provocative clothing? There isn't an absolute answer. One recent posting pointed out that there are cultures who consider a completely covered, except for a veil, woman as provocative. In the beginning of the century, a glimpse of an ankle was considered a turn-on. In the sixties, we wore minis and micro-minis. In France, in the 1700's dresses were cut to reveal the entire breasts, but not a glimpse of ankle or calf. Currently, there seems to be a double standard. Low cut blouses are 'attractive', unless they are 'provocative.' String bikinis are ok, unless they are 'provocative.' Styles which one person would consider attractive, another will condemn as provocative. It seems to me that the labellling of clothing as 'provocative' is pretty arbitrary. If it ok (actually encouraged) for me to wear a tight blouse and a short skirt to a party, then is it fair to say, 'but if you wear it walking home afterwards, that is provocative'. How else am I supposed to get home? Sue Brunkow University of Wisconsin {allegra, seismo, ihnp4}!uwvax!uwmacc!susie