Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry. I don't quite understand this sentence in the whole context of your post.
...But anyway, I really don't care what a woman wears, when she wears it either. If she violates some kind of dress code, that is between her and that establishment. If I don't like what I see, then I will look somewhere else. She ain't dressing for me (who is). If she feels good in what she wears, then that's great. I want people to feel good about themselves.
I don't think the problems come when you don't like what you see and look elsewhere, it's when you do like what you see and look right at whatever the outfit is accentuating. And of course most of those problems can be avoided if you know how to look without looking like you're looking.
I see all kinds of ink being spilled on this topic. Honestly, I dont care what women wear, when they wear it, what color it is. If its a horrible color, I'll look the other way. If she's got cleavage, butt cheeks, or camel toe showing, I may look or maybe not.
But what I dont get is women who want to show that much skin or criticize others who do? One time, a coworker of mine was sent home because of a short skirt. It came mid thigh sitting down? Her butt was completely covered. ? I don't get it.
You are focusing on one factor, skirt length, but not the overall picture. I'm faced with Jury Duty next week, and the summons specifically states that I dress appropriately for the courtroom. I have several pairs of brand new pants that fit perfectly, aren't overly tight, and don't reveal an inch of skin. However, I can't wear them as they are inappropriate for the courtroom.
Those pants are made of denim.
I've seen a number of skirts at Forever 21 that would meet length requirements for court, but the fabric and style is unmistakably casual weekend wear. A lawyer should wear a suit, but his professionalism would take a hit if his suit was a leisure suit.
Dressing appropriately at work shows you are willing to cooperate with the level of professionalism the company wishes to present. But it's not like anyone's forcing you to not be "you". There's always self-employment or a job at the mall if you can't handle some conformity for the rules.
Beaches and corporate/personal dinner parties, for example, are not places of ‘mystery’ or puritanism (and simply can’t be compared to a courtroom or professional workplace environment). It’s ridiculous to even suggest it’s part of the same argument in the thread, because everyone agrees with professional dress codes when it comes to ‘too much skin’.
That said, it is not acceptable to drink at work either - but it is acceptable (even expected) at a corporate dinner party. Some even get drunk. There is always a way of taking things too far - the point is, it’s a personal choice for women to make. Not ours - or Chanel's.
Correct on "there is always a way of taking things too far". Which the above is a perfect example.
If it's a person's choice...then endure the consequences. Be it a compliment or a slight eyebrow raise.
Last I read ..opinions can still be expressed. I'll take Chanel's suggestion before taking Bambis'.
Location: As of 2022….back to SoCal. OC this time!
9,297 posts, read 4,583,293 times
Reputation: 7613
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB
Looking like a cheap ho isn’t a feminist statement, I’m sorry. Classy girls understand how to dress and that’s not like they’re street walkers. You can dress however you want and I’ll judge it as much as I want. Free country and all that. You dress like a lady of the night, I’ll assume you’re loose.
Assuming a woman is "loose" because she has a formal dress on that is backless, low cut, or showing too much skin in your opinion........is the same as saying "she was asking for it". It's a "barbaric" way of thinking.....& makes *you* the unclassy one.
At my daughter's high school, the principal demonstrated the appropriate length for shorts and skirts by putting her arms down by her sides. Shorts and skirts must reach the end of the fingertips.
A week later, my daughter got dress-coded for having shorts that were too short. She showed the principal that they actually did reach the ends of her fingers.
The principal went, hmmm. It turned out that the principal has a very short torso and long arms, and her fingertips almost reach her knees.
My daughter has a longer torso and shorter arms. Her fingertips clear her rear end by a couple of inches and stop 7" above her knees.
Shorts and skirts that look very modest on the principal look very short on my daughter.
It's not always as easy as it seems.
That's why they should stick with something like "x number of inches above the knee."
Assuming a woman is "loose" because she has a formal dress on that is backless, low cut, or showing too much skin in your opinion........is the same as saying "she was asking for it". It's a "barbaric" way of thinking.....& makes *you* the unclassy one.
No, it isn’t. There’s a huge difference between thinking a girl is a sloot and thinking it’s ok to touch her or something. You must be a liberal to make that kind of illogical leap. What’s unclassy is dressing to reveal as much skin as possible. I’ll judge any girl who does that as I see her - we all know what kind of girls they are.
Location: As of 2022….back to SoCal. OC this time!
9,297 posts, read 4,583,293 times
Reputation: 7613
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB
No, it isn’t. There’s a huge difference between thinking a girl is a sloot and thinking it’s ok to touch her or something. You must be a liberal to make that kind of illogical leap. What’s unclassy is dressing to reveal as much skin as possible. I’ll judge any girl who does that as I see her - we all know what kind of girls they are.
Yes it is...& that's my opinion just like you have yours. So...every girl in a backless or low cut formal dress is "loose"? to you. You are judging being loose on *looks* instead of oh yea...BEHAVIOR. Lol....okie.
I didn’t say that, I said my assumption just looking at what she’s wearing is that she’s a certain kind of girl. If I actually knew more, maybe she isn’t. The same as I assume someone drive erratically may be drunk but it’s entirely possible they’re not drunk, just a bad driver or distracted by a phone.
Backless dress usually = no bra and that’s behavior - slooty behavior
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
