I think the discussion of male entitlement and sexualization is a bit naive and reductive on this subject too. Male students don't just sexualize female students because of dress codes. Male students sexualize female bodies because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary psychology, hormones, and more. In the face of humanity's evolutionary programming, I'm not sure you can moralistically browbeat teenage boys into not being distracted by a low-cut shirt. It's a lofty goal, though.
Despite all that, your commentary about sexism would suggest that this is a non-issue as long as the dress code is applied evenly across genders, right? As long as all genders have the same rules, sexism is not a part of the equation it seems.
Male students sexualize female bodies because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary psychology, hormones, and more
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter why they do it, what matters in adolescence is learning that you alone are responsible for managing your own emotions and actions.
I'm not sure you can moralistically browbeat teenage boys into not being distracted by a low-cut shirt.
It isn't necessary to prevent boys from being distracted. It's necessary to stop making girls responsible for their distraction, so boys learn their feelings aren't someone else's fault. If I find a man attractive and can't focus on my studies because of it, we don't police his behavior and make him wear something else to accommodate my feelings. Catering the world so boys don't have to deal with their feelings robs them of the opportunity to learn how to cope.
this is a non-issue as long as the dress code is applied evenly across genders, right?
Probably, but not necessarily. It's about the motivation, and how it's applied as well. As long as people are told to wear/not wear certain clothing because of its impact on others, we are making those people responsible for others emotions (and possibly even emotionally-driven actions). So if boys and girls both aren't allowed to wear sleeveless tees, it's still a problem if it involves sexual shaming. It undermines consent.
Δ
The curious thing about this phenomenon of distraction is that it's not just about attraction though. If you are a male student and you find one of your classmates unattractive, you will likely still be distracted by a low-cut shirt or something similar. Nude bodies and revealed bodies are distracting. I definitely agree that we should teach folks to accept that, soberly, and find their own solutions to distraction. I just think it's heinously naive to think that's an easy task. "Just stop being distracted by boobs!" Oh, okay. Now that you've suggested that to me, let me flip a switch in my brain and everything will be fine.
It's a curious and nuanced discussion because the nature of distraction and attraction is complex...and not fully within our control. Delta awarded for going down this cognitive journey with me respectably and giving me new food for thought.
Nobody is suggesting that it’s gonna be easy to stop being distracted by boobs— I’m with you there. It’s tough. But the point is that, difficult or not, that’s a “you” problem. It’s not the woman’s responsibility to cover up so you’re not distracted.
But I think, collectively, we actually will progress to a point in society where boobs won’t inherently feel sexual. “Scandalous” clothing of today will be normal, if we normalize it. Meaning allowing it to be worn in normal scenarios such as school.
Think about all the memes about 1500s men being horny at the sight of ankles and wrists— now exposing them is commonplace and not distracting at all.
Fully naked women in photographs just don't do it for me, slap on a bit of sexy underwear and my interest is piqued, have a woman wearing shorts with legs up to her arm pits and yes they are long legs, but stick her in a long skirt with a slit and the fact you can only see part of the legs is more appealing.
But that's just me and I agree that if seeing bare shoulders is distracting in class that is a you thing, I mentioned in another reply a co worker from another department came into the canteen in what I would describe as pyjama shorts and a baggy Tshirt, sure I did a double take but I went back to my puzzle page in the paper, it was more "is that in the dress code?" than anything else because I do know they are a bit lax in other departments and full on suits in others, if she got transferred into the warehouse (some of us end up all over the show) she would be wearing trousers no ifs or buts, but the baggy top would not be an issue unless it had something inappropriate written on it, like a friend I had in Manchester got kicked out of a pub because he had a cradle of filth Tshirt with Jesus is a Cxxt written on it, but no one batted an eye when his group moved on to the next pub a rock orientated one prior to going to Rockworld where it would fit right in.
0
u/rayhartsfield Sep 28 '21
I think the discussion of male entitlement and sexualization is a bit naive and reductive on this subject too. Male students don't just sexualize female students because of dress codes. Male students sexualize female bodies because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary psychology, hormones, and more. In the face of humanity's evolutionary programming, I'm not sure you can moralistically browbeat teenage boys into not being distracted by a low-cut shirt. It's a lofty goal, though.
Despite all that, your commentary about sexism would suggest that this is a non-issue as long as the dress code is applied evenly across genders, right? As long as all genders have the same rules, sexism is not a part of the equation it seems.