Viewing Of Underclothing Not Desired ?

[Takoush]

It depends on the job and the function. If I want to work in a tattoo parlor, I hardly doubt they will hire me because I'm wearing a suit! Chances are big, they'll even turn me down. Same if I want to work as a coastguard on a nudist beach. Which is why I said that, thank god, I still have a choice to choose where I want to work, and therefore dress as I wish.

 

So Domino, you would hire me as a legal counselor for the Bank of America if I wore a mini-skirt, stilettos, and a tight-fitting shirt, as long as I did not show my underwear? Is underwear your only criteria?

 

As for your rape blah blah.. Girls get raped regardless of what they are wearing. If a rapist is in for it, they will pick on anyone, even if it means ripping off layers of clothing.

 

As for sexual harassment: it happens everywhere, all the time, regardless of clothes worn. In big companies, where the employees must wear a suit to work every day, sexual harassment is as alien as it would be in a brothel.

No of course it depends on the job and the job requirement on your first paragraph; but I hardly think that Armenian girls after educating themselves to masters or better would be inclined to work in a tattoo parlor. Though yes obviously if you are not willing to work in a corporate environment then employers and or requirements would differ.

 

Unfortunately yes sexual harassment does exist even if a girl for example is working in a corporate environment and is usually dressed quite conservatively. But I think Domino somewhere above has mentioned that in middle or high schools it was noticed and observed already that sexual harrassment and even violence was diminished substantially when girls and boys were dressed within the required dress code of the high school.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2007 by Anahid Takouhi

[DominO123]

No, mini-skirts won't be OK for a legal counselor for the Bank of America, a legal counselor needs to show discipline and need to look like more formal. This is not to say that for some other job it could be OK. Underwear on the other hand, unless someone has as job to dance naked or such jobs involving consent adults, I don't think of any situation where it could be OK. If it takes legal ages to buy erotic magazines (not even pornographic), I don't see how anyone could suggest that walking with dress wide open showing ones underwear could be OK. Are you even for selling those magazines to children?

 

Girls get raped regardless of what they are wearing. But wearing makes a difference for a sexual predator who could get arosed, particularly when he see underwear

 

Your last paragraph is full of crap sorry, it defy logic, runs against human behavior and contradicts statistics. Many girls when harassed are embarassed to report because they're afraid of being accused of searching for it, so those with more open dress will be less likely to report. Not many girls working in brothels will dare reporting harassement.

 

It depends on the job and the function. If I want to work in a tattoo parlor, I hardly doubt they will hire me because I'm wearing a suit! Chances are big, they'll even turn me down. Same if I want to work as a coastguard on a nudist beach. Which is why I said that, thank god, I still have a choice to choose where I want to work, and therefore dress as I wish.

 

So Domino, you would hire me as a legal counselor for the Bank of America if I wore a mini-skirt, stilettos, and a tight-fitting shirt, as long as I did not show my underwear? Is underwear your only criteria?

 

As for your rape blah blah.. Girls get raped regardless of what they are wearing. If a rapist is in for it, they will pick on anyone, even if it means ripping off layers of clothing.

 

As for sexual harassment: it happens everywhere, all the time, regardless of clothes worn. In big companies, where the employees must wear a suit to work every day, sexual harassment is as alien as it would be in a brothel.

 

[nairi]

Girls get raped regardless of what they are wearing. But wearing makes a difference for a sexual predator who could get arosed, particularly when he see underwear

 

Your last paragraph is full of crap sorry, it defy logic, runs against human behavior and contradicts statistics. Many girls when harassed are embarassed to report because they're afraid of being accused of searching for it, so those with more open dress will be less likely to report. Not many girls working in brothels will dare reporting harassement.

 

Oh, please. I don't know where you get your stats from, but if you truly believe that less girls get raped or harassed in the most repressed Middle-Eastern countries compared to Western countries, then you are living in a repressed dream. Rape is more often than not a power and control tool, rather than a sexual relief one. Would you enjoy having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you? If so, then you are not sexually frustrated. Instead, you're merely a sadist who is after control and power and you like to cast that onto weaker victims, because you don't have the balls to take out your anger on someone your own size.

 

Honestly, Domino, even in Armenia people are much more open-minded towards nudity than you are. Please watch, for instance, Symphony of Silence and tell me how much it arouses you! (I'm talking about the shower scene, not the nightclub one).

[DominO123]

You have not answered my question, do you think chidren should have the right to buy porno or erotic magazines?

 

Also, quit putting words in my mouth, you have addressed none of my points, incapable of doing so you have attempted to select and manipulate my remarks to better answer them, that is cheap if you ask me.

 

You won't achieve anything by comparing an extrem with another one, and sorry to say your understanding of human behavior are near to none. While it is true that rape is about power before anything else, sex is a driving force, the behavior of rape is an evolutionary psychology, how judgemental and clueless is your remark about me that I will even not waste my time on this but rather ask you to read about rape and statistics before talking about something which it seems you ignore totally. When you start studying human and animal behavior like I have we can talk about it. For now, what I can do is to propose you a work. The Natural History of Rape, and its review: Evolutionary Psychology: Reason, Rape, and Angst in Behavioral Studies.

 

You believe underclothing is not desired and ultimitly you are attacked by extremist Nairi. Perhaps when you have a daughter, not a baby, a daughter in her pre-teen year, your homonal reaction and maturation will change your behavior, but then it will be your daughter not some other girl.

 

Oh, please. I don't know where you get your stats from, but if you truly believe that less girls get raped or harassed in the most repressed Middle-Eastern countries compared to Western countries, then you are living in a repressed dream. Rape is more often than not a power and control tool, rather than a sexual relief one. Would you enjoy having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you? If so, then you are not sexually frustrated. Instead, you're merely a sadist who is after control and power and you like to cast that onto weaker victims, because you don't have the balls to take out your anger on someone your own size.

 

Honestly, Domino, even in Armenia people are much more open-minded towards nudity than you are. Please watch, for instance, Symphony of Silence and tell me how much it arouses you! (I'm talking about the shower scene, not the nightclub one).

Edited September 9, 2007 by Domino

[nairi]

Domino, I'm no longer in the mood to discuss anything with you. You have picked on me from the very beginning. Even if I said that grass is green, you'd somehow find a way to argue that it's in fact purple, just because I said it's green.

 

As for pornography: that is not what we were talking about. We're talking about nudity, without sexual connotations per se. Think about African tribes, where children grow up seeing their mother's breasts and their father's balls.

[DominO123]

Domino, I'm no longer in the mood to discuss anything with you. You have picked on me from the very beginning. Even if I said that grass is green, you'd somehow find a way to argue that it's in fact purple, just because I said it's green.

 

As for pornography: that is not what we were talking about. We're talking about nudity, without sexual connotations per se. Think about African tribes, where children grow up seeing their mother's breasts and their father's balls.

 

You should have thought of this before throwing on me provocative comments like this and expecting I'll shut up. But even at the end you threw nonesense. Those tribs you are talking about have no parental stability, they have sex about 5 times more than the average people in our society. This is called social evolution, and unlike you I do believe there are more evolved civilizations and that from this social evolution process there should be less place to instinct and more to rationality.

 

As for nudity, I'll prefer stiking to the belief that if we restrict children nudity magazines, movies or any other media, the same should apply in the streets. There are always those tribs in Africa to fit to your social structures, but we do not live in such a society for the better.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Domino

[Stormig]

You make a lot of false assumptions.

No more than you do...

[Stormig]

I don't think that dress codes in school get to the source of the problem. Girls still wear whatever they want out on the street - and what about harassment then? The right thing to do is teach respect to people for the choices they make. Otherwise there is no point in teaching algebra and physics to those brains... You might not be able to do anything about the dude on the street, but someone who receives an education ought to sport a better attitude, no? I think this is no less important than sex education. Oh wait, the Amerikanskis have it bad - Bush and his loony goones threw that out.

[Stormig]

No of course it depends on the job and the job requirement on your first paragraph; but I hardly think that Armenian girls after educating themselves to masters or better would be inclined to work in a tattoo parlor. Though yes obviously if you are not willing to work in a corporate environment then employers and or requirements would differ.

But of course - nobody that "educated" and "respectable" would want to be caught dead working in a place like THAT - a tattoo parlour!

[Anoushik]

This is called social evolution, and unlike you I do believe there are more evolved civilizations and that from this social evolution process there should be less place to instinct and more to rationality.

Thank you!

[Anoushik]

Coincidence? Or is CNN reading HyeForum?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/0....mini.skirt.cnn

By the way, those people interviewed on the street were all young, college age students, who of course wouldn't have any problems with what she was wearing. It wasn't fair of CNN to only show young adults' responses. Honestly, I wouldn't care either if a classmate wore that and sat next to me in a class. But she was in a family-friendly environment, with young kids everywhere and she should know better that her outfit wouldn't please parents with 10-year-old kids. This is one of the reasons what this debate is about.

[Anoushik]

Hmm, another one.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20687879/?GT1=10357

[Takoush]

This is called social evolution, and unlike you I do believe there are more evolved civilizations and that from this social evolution process there should be less place to instinct and more to rationality.

 

I also thank you.

 

[Stormig]

I see nothing wrong in the girl's outfit. And CNN provides the irony and bigotry as well - the advertorial. Who the hell are they to lecture her on proper clothing?

Nobody care to comment on what I said? Let me draw it up again - if you put girls up on a pedestal for the education they receive and the intelligence they are supposed to have, what of the people who harass them, who are also supposed to be intelligent and educated and what-not? Why is so much being expected of girls only? What happened to the sexual revolution? That girl was a lady for being "embarrassed" and "upset" - in her situation I would have force-fed the bigots my shoe.

[nairi]

By the way, those people interviewed on the street were all young, college age students, who of course wouldn't have any problems with what she was wearing. It wasn't fair of CNN to only show young adults' responses. Honestly, I wouldn't care either if a classmate wore that and sat next to me in a class. But she was in a family-friendly environment, with young kids everywhere and she should know better that her outfit wouldn't please parents with 10-year-old kids. This is one of the reasons what this debate is about.

 

OMG, you're talking as if she was offering blow-jobs to fellow passengers in the middle of the plane! Give me a break! Should kids be banned from beaches too from now on? Why is it that on a beach (apparently an appropriate place) women can walk around topless without getting harassed by anyone, but someone who neither shows underwear, nor belly, nor lower back, gets rightfully thrown off a plane?

 

The logic of our conservatives defies everything!

 

One last time: leave people alone! Let them make their own choices and simply respect them, or at least leave them alone. Is it that hard? You're free to wear what you wish, so why do you feel the need to reprimand someone like Ebbert and force her, by law, to wear your grandmother's outfit??

[nairi]

As for CNN's report, I'm actually more disgusted that none of the other passengers stood up for her.

[DominO123]

By the way, those people interviewed on the street were all young, college age students, who of course wouldn't have any problems with what she was wearing. It wasn't fair of CNN to only show young adults' responses. Honestly, I wouldn't care either if a classmate wore that and sat next to me in a class. But she was in a family-friendly environment, with young kids everywhere and she should know better that her outfit wouldn't please parents with 10-year-old kids. This is one of the reasons what this debate is about.

 

I don't think in this case it was only about it being too short, that girl obviously has no taste, it looks like aghdod, not in the sense of it being too short.

[DominO123]

I see nothing wrong in the girl's outfit. And CNN provides the irony and bigotry as well - the advertorial. Who the hell are they to lecture her on proper clothing?

Nobody care to comment on what I said? Let me draw it up again - if you put girls up on a pedestal for the education they receive and the intelligence they are supposed to have, what of the people who harass them, who are also supposed to be intelligent and educated and what-not? Why is so much being expected of girls only? What happened to the sexual revolution? That girl was a lady for being "embarrassed" and "upset" - in her situation I would have force-fed the bigots my shoe.

 

I see something wrong, not in it being too short though, but rather it being unfit for her job, it doesn't look ''clean'', she could've at least used her domestic iron. The airline will probably use this as argument in court and they also probably have dressing codes.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Domino

[Stormig]

but rather it being unfit for her job

I missed the part about the job. What is it?

[Stormig]

As for CNN's report, I'm actually more disgusted that none of the other passengers stood up for her.

I think in this case they had no understanding of what was going on.

[phantom22]

I went to an office-related party at a sports lounge last evening. The young people here regularly dress to show their underwear.

 

There was one fellow who carried this even further. At first I thought that it was his forgetfulness, but the woman I was with told me that this is now a style choice to leave one's pants zipper unzipped. Hasn't this "it's the style" argument gone too far?