Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Questions that you always wanted to ask but were afraid to ask

Questions that you always wanted to ask but were afraid to ask (Page 16)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2022, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
And the obvious response is that at no point have either of them expressed any concern for society's puritanical roots or ingrained misogyny, though they have shown patterns of supporting and benefiting from existing power structures.
I can’t speak to your BIL, but I strongly object to this characterization of Glenn.
( Last edited by subego; Sep 20, 2022 at 07:47 PM. )
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2022, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
My BIL also likes to complain about how "girls these days" all dress like "total skanks" because some of them occasionally show some midriff. Let them do what they want, it's not up to them to please your delicate sensibilities.
That seems to a thing these days. Men decrying women as sluts, skanks, whores, etc. for pretty much anything they do, or however they dress, etc. even as they ogle away. Patriarchy is a helluva drug.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2022, 10:49 PM
 
Pressuring women to wear certain clothing in the workplace is still very common I imagine. In certain places/circles.

Interesting comments about women wearing more revealing clothes these days and showing midriff. Over here the fashion is to wear early 90s high waisted trousers, not the midriff-showcasing low riders from the mid to late 90s. I see very few belly buttons these days compared with when I was a teenager. For the record thats not a complaint.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2022, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Over here the fashion is to wear early 90s high waisted trousers
Sounds like mom jeans.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2022, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Over here the fashion is to wear early 90s high waisted trousers, not the midriff-showcasing low riders from the mid to late 90s. I see very few belly buttons these days compared with when I was a teenager. For the record thats not a complaint.
I see the same here. Mom jeans have been a thing for a few years now. A girl selling buckets of cookie dough (a school fundraiser of some kind) came to the door last week, and she was wearing mom jeans with apparently-still-fashionable slashes across the legs. She couldn’t have been older than 13 or 14, so I would assume she was on the tip of Indiana affluent-suburban fashion trends.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2022, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Pressuring women to wear certain clothing in the workplace is still very common I imagine. In certain places/circles.

Interesting comments about women wearing more revealing clothes these days and showing midriff. Over here the fashion is to wear early 90s high waisted trousers, not the midriff-showcasing low riders from the mid to late 90s. I see very few belly buttons these days compared with when I was a teenager. For the record thats not a complaint.
High-waisted jeans let you wear and even higher shirt and still only show an inch or two of midriff. I keep seeing rumors of the low-waist jeans coming back and the general reaction I see from women is "Don't you dare bring those back."
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2022, 12:36 PM
 
low rise jeans only look good on 5% of people, and fall down.

Among teens I see, high rise dressy pants are back, paper bags waists have been spotted, and midriff tops as well. My teen got a bag of circa 90s clothes from a friend and could not have been more thrilled. Instant vintage.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2022, 04:03 PM
 
In contrast, BDU (army) pants look good on 80-90% of frames.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2022, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In contrast, BDU (army) pants look good on 80-90% of frames.
Cargo pants by any other name...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2022, 05:02 PM
 
As long as it’s cut to blouse nicely out of a boot.


Edit: a spec BDU will use ripstop fabric, which is good stuff IMO.
( Last edited by subego; Sep 21, 2022 at 05:28 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2022, 06:24 PM
 
I have two points of view on this.

“All the world’s a stage” is very much a literal thing. Are you going to feel a deep level of trust in a surgeon who is dressed as if he was just tinkering with his car, or one who’s dressed in slacks, a shirt and tie, and wearing a white coat with “Dr. Surgeon” embroidered on it? The “costume” one wears speaks volumes about one’s professionalism, competence and trustworthiness. If one does not dress to match their professional role, they send conflicting messages about who and what they are.

So to me, whatever the reason a woman dresses in clothes appropriate for partying with all of her friends, she does not seem focused on the business at hand. But if she’s supposed to be working with me on estimates for constructing an extension to my building, her “costume” doesn’t match that role, and that makes the business interaction feel less businesslike.

Most men, given the chance to “dress comfortably” in a business setting would not go for an expensive custom suit with gold stick pin and hand-crafted necktie. They’d more likely go for jeans and a comfortable shirt. And their choices would still not conflict with being a business person. So why does “provocative” become “she’s comfortable dressed that way” and thus OK for women? Women can dress however they like, even if their clothing is not consistent with the business/professional/whatever role they are supposed to be filling just because they’re women? Holy double standard, Batman!

Yes I know that “traditional” business dress for women is dowdy and dull. But isn’t the universal uniform for men in business expected to be a suit and tie? How “un-dowdy” is it when a man’s business dress is only really visible because of his choice of tie and pocket square? Is the clothing supposed to be the point of the job, or is it the job itself?

Now the second point of view, and to me the more important one. There is a major disconnect between focusing on one’s professional activities and “dressing to be comfortable”. I am not talking about women who dress attractively or even somewhat provocatively. I’m talking about women who dress in such a manner as to appear to be intentionally distracting.

Now let’s look at that. If you are intentionally distracting, by dress or by verbal mannerisms, or whatever, what is it you don’t want me to pay attention to? What part of this business interaction are you trying to keep me from seeing?

Joe Conman, dressed in what he thinks is the slickest suit in the world and all bedecked in nugget rings and gold chains and such would automatically set off alarm bells for most people. It would be obvious that he was trying too hard, and was “up to something.”

But Jill Pseudoprofessional dresses in clothes appropriate for partying, and everybody is supposed to give her a pass because she’s “expressing herself?” Really? When did getting a job done require expressing oneself? When did it become off-limits to suspect some motive other than “comfort” for Jill, when Joe’s appearance screams con?

I could write volumes on how very poorly most women walk in heels that are even somewhat high. That poor walk comes from lack of comfort - which is reasonable, considering how such shoes f-up ankle mechanics, balance and more. So telling me that “she’s comfortable dressed in those heels” while she’s lurching about on them is clearly disingenuous.

So the bottom line is that I do not understand why it’s OK for women to dress all fancy and provocatively, even if their dress does not match the job they’re supposed to be doing. And why have men put up with this double standard, when they have to essentially wear drab and boring suits for their job? In EVERY job I’ve ever had, it was made clear from the beginning that I represented my employer, and that whatever I did would reflect on my employer. Why is it that “party time” clothing is accepted when a woman is representing her employer? I simply don’t get that.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2022, 06:42 PM
 
I should add that my wording, intended to be humorous and to evoke a particular type of footwear, seems to have failed at both goals. Oops.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2022, 09:05 PM
 
Presumably you're observing small businesses, less likely to have dress codes.

If women are OK with it, and most men like the appearance too, then I don't see the problem. A vocal minority will complain, but you get that with anything.

I hate ties, and will not normally wear one. I've sometimes been around rotating machinery, for which a tie is death waiting to happen. Machine grabs the end, reels you in, and game over. This is far more than an appearance issue, there are real victims in the cemetery. But I haven't seen ties vanishing. Apparently a majority likes the appearance, since they serve no practical purpose. So I'm outvoted.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2022, 07:02 AM
 
I don’t think anyone has any problem with the concept of employees professionally representing their business.

I think the pause came because of your immediate association of showing some skin to prostitution. I suspect you would probably be surprised at how very very negative the reaction would be to that characterization in a truly public forum (ie not MacNN).

Of course, on the other hand I think social media has blurred the line about what it means to receive value in exchange for….actions of a sexual nature. That’s a different topic.

Regardless, I think we know what you meant. And it probably wasn’t phrased in the best manner. But just be careful about repeating that comment in a facetious manner elsewhere.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2022, 05:18 PM
 
I miss the internet where a “questions you were afraid to ask” thread was paired with an implied understanding jumping people’s shit defeats the purpose.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2022, 07:07 PM
 
I have to admit that, despite the inflammatory nature of my initial post on this, some supposedly business office women I've encountered (mostly in health care, and all of those in health care were "marketing" people - the ones who convince families to send granny to this nursing home or that one) have dressed very similarly to actual women I've witnessed standing under street lights in specific areas of New Orleans... Yes, actual "working girls."

So not hyperbole, just a nearly 1:1 connection between women marketing themselves and women marketing beds in nursing homes.

And I stand by the point that MY physical comfort with what I wear while working is of no consequence to my employer, as long as I present myself professionally in (not kidding) "Barney purple" scrubs. I do not accept that representing the employer is somehow different for a business major (with a bachelors degree and that's it) than for a masters prepared occupational therapist (with a national certification and a state license to practice my profession).

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2022, 09:39 PM
 
A good rule of thumb is to leave women to wear whatever they feel comfortable in and don't comment until you're asked, which if you are, just say they look very nice.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2022, 12:41 PM
 
“I dress this way because it’s a true representation of me.”

Bullshit. You dress that way because you want attention, and can’t get it from being actually interesting.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2022, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I miss the internet where a “questions you were afraid to ask” thread was paired with an implied understanding jumping people’s shit defeats the purpose.
Shit wasn't jumped due to the question asked, it was because of the reeeeally poor attempt at trying to be funny.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2022, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“I dress this way because it’s a true representation of me.”

Bullshit. You dress that way because you want attention, and can’t get it from being actually interesting.
Too obvious, needs more subtlety.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2022, 02:16 PM
 
True story.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2022, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“I dress this way because it’s a true representation of me.”

Bullshit. You dress that way because you want attention, and can’t get it from being actually interesting.
Yep. I wear snakeskin boots and amusing t-shirts, and long hair, because in reality I’m just boring as fuck.

Sad, but true.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2022, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“I dress this way because it’s a true representation of me.”

Bullshit. You dress that way because you want attention, and can’t get it from being actually interesting.
So there are certain ways of dressing that can't possibly be a true representation of any woman who could possibly exist then?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
True story.
Still got 'em.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So there are certain ways of dressing that can't possibly be a true representation of any woman who could possibly exist then?
No.

What I’m saying is when people give the excuse “I wear this for me”, they’re lying. They’re wearing it for you, because what they want is a reaction from you.

It’s akin to homosexual children coming out to their homophobic parents. They will almost always tell you coming out to their parents is about being true to themselves. That’s bullshit. It’s about sticking it in their parents’ faces as payback for being unsupportive.

The coming out isn’t for themselves, it’s for their parents.

I don’t have a problem with dressing to provoke a response, or coming out to homophobic parents. I have a problem with the delusional excuses for why.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 11:28 AM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 11:44 AM
 
Hmmm… I hadn’t thought of it that way.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hmmm… I hadn’t thought of it that way.
You gotta be sneakier.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 12:13 PM
 
Being sneaky is bullshit.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It’s akin to homosexual children coming out to their homophobic parents. They will almost always tell you coming out to their parents is about being true to themselves. That’s bullshit. It’s about sticking it in their parents’ faces as payback for being unsupportive.
Wow. I find that assessment really, really saddening. I'm actually really sorry to read that from you. Absolutely no snark intended.

I'm not even entirely sure what I find the most problematic about your view of things. I had "the talk" with my dad when I was about 23, and it didn't involve coming out. It was about trying to get through, somehow connect to him, and making a last-ditch attempt at salvaging whatever relationship we might have had. It most certainly was NOT about "sticking it in his face".

I just stopped mid-fight one day and signalled a time-out, and requested that, for the sake of everything we might still have, he please just sit quietly and let me talk, and not say a word until I said I was done.
He did, he let me finish (about fifteen minutes), and then he got up without a word and left.

After that, our relationship made an almost complete 180° reversal. We became good friends for the rest of his life.

He just needed the wake-up call to finally clearly see who the fuck he was dealing with, after having fled/avoided/narcoticised for most of his life.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 01:55 PM
 
I’m not sure how I’m supposed to relate this story to my point. It sounds like a different scenario.

If your story involves homosexuality somehow, I note you said you didn’t come out, so that would in fact be the exact opposite of what I described.

Likewise, if your dad was treating you like shit because he’s homophobic, there was no point in coming out because he clearly already knew.

As far as I can tell, my previous post takes no issue with your example.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 02:25 PM
 
You saying all these things are always performative and punative (take that, dad) is kind of insulting. The conversations (either way) need to happen. Sometimes they go well. Sometimes they don't. They are always awkward. Why presume intent?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The conversations (either way) need to happen.
Do they? Why?

If it’s to try and change the person, fine. That has nothing to do with being true to one’s self, it’s about changing someone else.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 03:25 PM
 
If your parents are homophobic and you want to rub it in their faces that you’re a homosexual, knock yourself out. Seriously. I’m sure they deserve it.

That’s not being true to yourself. That’s not trying to fix homophobia. It’s sticking it to someone.

Again. Go ahead. What I take issue with is deceiving yourself or others as to the purpose.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 03:57 PM
 
No coffee today?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 04:02 PM
 
Pre-ground Starbucks from Walgreens.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 04:14 PM
 
Ah, that explains it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 05:01 PM
 
Explains which part?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No.

What I’m saying is when people give the excuse “I wear this for me”, they’re lying. They’re wearing it for you, because what they want is a reaction from you.
I don't see how what I said doesn't logically follow from this.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I don't see how what I said doesn't logically follow from this.
I’ll rephrase.

I’m not questioning whether a given outfit is a true representation of one’s self. This may or may not be the case, depending.

What I’m challenging is the declaration that being true to one’s self is the intent.

When someone dresses provocatively, the intent is to provoke a response. The intended response may be sexual in nature or something else. While that manner of dress may indeed be true to one’s self, in this case that fact is being used as an excuse to deflect from the other fact , which is that one is intentionally engaging in provocation.

I need to make the following very clear. I have no inherent issue with dressing provocatively, I’m taking issue with misrepresenting the intent. I have no inherent issue with a homosexual child provoking their homophobic parents, I’m taking issue with misrepresenting the intent.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 06:23 PM
 
All while presupposing the intent? How do you know it's misrepresentation - perhaps a little transference on your part?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do the conversations need to happen? Why?
If it’s to try and change the person, fine. That has nothing to do with being true to one’s self, it’s about changing someone else.
It's not about changing anyone. I have had very frank convos with my kids, not wanting to assume their preference, so I could if necessary adjust default thinking. I think it's part of modern parenting, explaining birds, bees, and possibly other winged creatures.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2022, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I have had very frank convos with my kids, not wanting to assume their preference, so I could if necessary adjust default thinking. I think it's part of modern parenting, explaining birds, bees, and possibly other winged creatures.
I said coming out to homophobic parents. That’s quite obviously not you.

The reason I presuppose intent is because homophobic parents either know their child is homosexual, or they don’t want to know. There is absolutely no reason to come out to them unless the intent is to get in their face.

Maybe getting in their face is what someone should do. Now that’s situationally dependent, and I don’t claim to know. What I do know is it’s about getting in their face.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2022, 05:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I said coming out to homophobic parents. That’s quite obviously not you.

The reason I presuppose intent is because homophobic parents either know their child is homosexual, or they don’t want to know. There is absolutely no reason to come out to them unless the intent is to get in their face.

Maybe getting in their face is what someone should do. Now that’s situationally dependent, and I don’t claim to know. What I do know is it’s about getting in their face.
Okay, since you're genuinely not getting it, maybe I'll try:

If the intent is to salvage or reinstate whatever may be left of a real relationship, the first step is to clarify standpoints or establish identity. I'm sure there are parents who are homophobic and fully aware of their own child's homosexuality. But probably more often than not, homophobic parents just don't realise that their attitude applies to their own kid.

What I find so sad is your insistence that "the talk" is necessarily and absolutely a "fuck you!", and not a "hey, see me!"

Explaining to your parents where you stand, how you feel, and what they've been doing to you is probably going to be confrontational when it's necessary, but its intent likely goes way beyond that.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2022, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Explains which part?
I can't tell if you're having the conversation in bad faith to make a point or if you're legitimately picking a strange hill to all of a sudden begin assuming ill-intent on, but it's out of character for you.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2022, 11:31 AM
 
@Spheric

What you term “the talk” is not at all the same as “coming out”.

Like so…

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I had "the talk"… and it didn't involve coming out.
For it to be “coming out”, it has to involve coming out.
( Last edited by subego; Sep 28, 2022 at 02:02 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2022, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I can't tell if you're having the conversation in bad faith to make a point or if you're legitimately picking a strange hill to all of a sudden begin assuming ill-intent on, but it's out of character for you.
Is it clear I’m not taking issue with people being provocative, but people who say “I am being true to myself” to justify their provocation?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2022, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I can't tell if you're having the conversation in bad faith to make a point or if you're legitimately picking a strange hill to all of a sudden begin assuming ill-intent on, but it's out of character for you.
I was thinking exactly the same.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’ll rephrase.

I’m not questioning whether a given outfit is a true representation of one’s self. This may or may not be the case, depending.

What I’m challenging is the declaration that being true to one’s self is the intent.

When someone dresses provocatively, the intent is to provoke a response. The intended response may be sexual in nature or something else. While that manner of dress may indeed be true to one’s self, in this case that fact is being used as an excuse to deflect from the other fact , which is that one is intentionally engaging in provocation.

I need to make the following very clear. I have no inherent issue with dressing provocatively, I’m taking issue with misrepresenting the intent. I have no inherent issue with a homosexual child provoking their homophobic parents, I’m taking issue with misrepresenting the intent.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it clear I’m not taking issue with people being provocative, but people who say “I am being true to myself” to justify their provocation?
It really feels like you're making a sweeping generalisation though. Sure, some people are looking to provoke and a subset of these are going to lie because they know admitting they want to provoke could make them look bad, but I'm not sure the provocateurs are a majority of people when it comes to coming out or dressing a given way.

When it comes to coming out, if you don't do it then you are lying to the people you care about and are supposed to care about you. You can't establish an honest adult relationship if you have to lie about such an integral part of yourself and your identity. You might expect confrontation, and be comfortable with risking it because the payoff is potentially high, but thats a long way from wanting it. This doesn't sound like a scenario that would be uncommon to me. Maybe even very common.

As for peoples dress sense, lets tackle that from another angle: Think about all the people (mostly women) who don't dress in a risqué manner, purely because they'd be judged or criticised. We've all seen countless scenes in pop culture where women are getting ready for a night out and one asks another "Is this too slutty?". This very strongly implies that there are a lot of people who don't dress the way they truly want to. Which in turn implies that there are people who dress all sorts of ways simply because they like the style or whatever.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2022, 09:59 PM
 
I'd say that part of this whole discussion might actually need to go way back to before "intention."

How do we learn what is "appropriate dress" for various situations? Usually it's from a combination of parents and school rules. I could write a good-sized essay about the school rule thing (spoiler: it's the adults who have the problem, not the kids).

With good guidance and good examples, kids develop a sense of self and of their own style. These become the way the kid expresses themselves, and typically they aren't particularly "extreme" (unless you consider certain color combinations to be extreme). And the kids get the chance to become self assured and comfortable with expressing themselves in the big wide world.

With not so good guidance (and often really crappy examples) kids will emulate the kinds of dress their parents wear. So mom, if you go "out with the girls" in something revealing or really tight, or whatever, your kid is going to think of that as "what people wear." And they won't so much develop that sense of self as a sense that one dresses in a certain way for "reasons?" However, mom is also likely to have a hissy fit if little daughter decides to dress even somewhat like mom did. Drama, screaming, and emotional trauma ensue.

The point is that there is a valid situation for just about every style and mode of dress. (Maybe not rollerskating naked through the park, but that may be debatable.) But the CONTEXT for each style and mode is as important as the style/mode itself.

If we learn about different styles of dress in context (mom and dad going out for the evening, all dressed up, versus then heading out to work), we associate the costume with the role, and the context helps drive our choices. If on the other hand mom goes out for the evening without dad, and is all dressed up (or dressed in revealing/tight clothes), the context gets ambiguous and mom teaches that she can wear whatever - valid, but why is she dressed up to go out in the first place? (And I'm not at all assigning negatives to that going out, just using this as an example.)

When is it "appropriate" to wear a skimpy bathing suit (male or female)? For most people, the answer is "at the pool, at the beach, or the lake". Is it "wrong" to wear that skimpy suit to the grocery store? No, but the freezer section might be uncomfortable. Would it be OK to wear that suit to work? Why or why not? The CONTEXT for bathing suits in general and skimpy ones particularly says not to go work at the Speedy Lube, or the bank in that skimpy suit.

Maybe later I'll address how people learn how to use costume. It's a fascinating process, which is usually in one of two pretty different directions.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2022, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
With good guidance and good examples, kids develop a sense of self and of their own style. These become the way the kid expresses themselves, and typically they aren't particularly "extreme" (unless you consider certain color combinations to be extreme). And the kids get the chance to become self assured and comfortable with expressing themselves in the big wide world.

With not so good guidance (and often really crappy examples) kids will emulate the kinds of dress their parents wear. So mom, if you go "out with the girls" in something revealing or really tight, or whatever, your kid is going to think of that as "what people wear." And they won't so much develop that sense of self as a sense that one dresses in a certain way for "reasons?" However, mom is also likely to have a hissy fit if little daughter decides to dress even somewhat like mom did. Drama, screaming, and emotional trauma ensue.
Just to make sure I'm getting this right - if I see a young woman dressed modestly (not "extreme"), I can assume she had good guidance and examples growing up.

If I see a young woman dressed in revealing or tight clothing, I can assume she had a really crappy example growing up, bad guidance, drama, screaming, hypocrisy, and emotional trauma. She is dressing that way because she has a poorly-developed sense of self.

Am I on the right track?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2022, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it clear I’m not taking issue with people being provocative, but people who say “I am being true to myself” to justify their provocation?
Okay fine you got me, too.

Yes, you've made your point clear over and over again. Your point isn't unclear, your premise is weird.

You're specifically calling out gay kids coming out to their parents as some special, unique scenario. Kids can disappoint their parents all of the times in lots of ways - an atheist child telling their devout parents that don't want to go to church anymore. A child telling their high-pressure parents they're quitting med school to pursue a passion for art. All are scenarios where a parent's expectations aren't being met, for whatever reason.

The second issue is the false dichotomy you present - the reason for "coming out" must be EITHER being true to oneself OR to spite the parents. It ignores that the motivation for the conversation can be due to both, neither, or a plethora of reasons.

The third issue is the assumption of intent. It's already shaky to so confidently assume the internal, subconscious intent of another person. But then you add on the layer of assigning negative intent to a group to which negative intent has historically always been assigned by society, and now the motivation of the intent-assigner is in question.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,