# Sexual Equality/Dress Codes & Segregation



## Descriptive_G

If men and women should be treated equally, should n't the dress code be the same? If a man can walk around with no shirt on shouldn't women be able to, and feel comfortable, walking around with no shirt on? Shouldn't there be shared bathrooms. Why the bathroom segregation? Shouldn't boys and girls shower together and change together at high schools and at gyms?

I have a friend who told me that in their culture, girls wore veils and that during their parties, the boys danced with the boys and the girls danced with the girls. 

We don't do that in America but we do similar things. Girls don't have to hide their faces but they have to hide their boobs. Girls dance with us boys but they shower in separate places at the gym.

What's up with that?

A bare chested man on TV? OK. A bare chested woman? Porn. Why?


----------



## Ana Raquel

I see some non-porn bare chested woman at TV, on fashion shows for instance, or on the news about beaches in summer. Men are not bare chested at class, at work or on the street either. There are cultures where chest is not to hide.

Regarding the showers in gyms, I think they could be shared.
Bathrooms no! the more privacy, the better.


----------



## Descriptive_G

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> I see some non-porn bare chested woman at TV, on fashion shows for instance, or on the news about beaches in summer. Men are not bare chested at class, at work or on the street either. There are cultures where chest is not to hide.
> 
> Regarding the showers in gyms, I think they could be shared.
> Bathrooms no! the more privacy, the better.


Do you think America is more sexist than where you are, it's not America and I can tell by the your TV, because you cannot see female breasts on TV? (I'm not including cable) 

You can see bare chested men on the street all the time in the US. In the summer, I run without a shirt (I bet you guessed I'm a man) but I doubt that my sister would do the same. Basically, when it's hot, I go bare-chested just about anywhere I can get away with. Women in the US, bare-chested on the beach? Not a common sight.

Are places where women hide more necessarily more oppressive to women?

And as a follow-up question, are cultures where the same amount of nudity is permitted for both sexes more fair to women?


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Descriptive G, 

Thanks for your question.  Perhaps, however, you need to delve a bit into your own country's history and culture, which will provide you with a fairly apt idea of why this "double-standard" exists.

In short, our Puritan founders believed that nudity was reserved only for marriage and the marriage bed.  The hint of a wrist or ankle were considered almost obscene. 

This remained more or less unchanged until the ante-bellum period, when women's fashions allowed "short" (just below the elbow) sleeves and shoulder-baring dresses.  

Complete "change" to more "immodest" dressing did not come about until the post WWI period of the 1920's, when "flappers" shortened not just their hair, but their hemlines.

"Boobs" - as the name you used suggests - has been and will most likely always be seen as a sexual in our culture.  

This is not the case in all cultures and societies.  In parts of Europe, nudity is much more acceptable and it is not uncommon to see ads or commercials for bathing products depicting a women whose "boobs' are on full display.

In parts of Africa, it is very common to see bare-chested women as breasts are not necessarily considered as an erotic body part.  They are viewed as a functional organ, used for their actual intended purpose, which is to provide sustenance for the women's children.  In these cultures, however, women wear wrapped skirts that go down to their ankles.  For them, the thigh is considered as "erotic" and it is kept covered.

Think about this.  If women were allowed to bare their chests and walk down the street without any covering, as you suggest, it would take away completely the sexual mystery that men now enjoy by being able to "imagine" with their eyes and minds.  Reality, much of the time, is far different than the "imagined."


----------



## Descriptive_G

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Think about this.  If women were allowed to bare their chests and walk down the street without any covering, as you suggest, it would take away completely the sexual mystery that men now enjoy by being able to "imagine" with their eyes and minds.  Reality, much of the time, is far different than the "imagined."


Hi Gen,

So bare-chested women in America is sort of like bare-headed women some Islamic societies?


----------



## GenJen54

You could possibly look at it that way, although I believe the reasons behind the "covering" are different.  

In my understanding, covering of one's head in Mulsim culture is so that other men may not "covet" "his neighbor's wife." When women are together in private, they often take their coverings off.

Here is what one of our Muslim friends says about the practice in his society.  It is from Post #57 of THIS thread.  More opinions, of course, are certainly welcome.



			
				Devoted Deserter said:
			
		

> Laia, if you find a pearl what will you do with it, expose it to the world or keep it beyond the world eyes?
> Women hair can be charming and attractive and this is why they have to hide it. Please think a second about this statement, a priori it seems unequal but a posteriori what is the point behind showing ones charm?
> Seduction?! Do you think that a married woman shall charm another man? Turning on someone else? Make someone jealous? Do not all this come from our ego?




I think this "covering up" in the U.S. is more an act of "modesty." 

Think about the "boobs" you see on display most of the time. They are pert, perky, come in all sizes, but in most instances are suppsed to show us what is "perfection" - plastic-formed balloons that supposedly set the beauty standards for women's breasts everywhere - at least in the U.S. 

Breasts weren't necessarily meant to look like that. Some are flat, some are fat, some are floppy. Not all meet the "standard" that popular men's magazines and Hollywood have perpetuated. Just like the "men" you see walking around bare-chested. Not all fit the "standard" of fitness our society is supposed to idealize. Do you really want to "see it all?"


----------



## cherine

I don't think it's the same. Although I've never been to America, I can imagine how "shocking" the sight of a bare-chested woman would be. But a bare-headed woman in a muslim society is not shocking, even in those societies where hijab (scarf) is obligatory (and I think it's obligatory only in Saudi Arabia).
Here in Egypt, for example, many many girls and women don't cover their head, and there's no problem with that; but a woman with bare chest


----------



## natasha2000

Men and women should be treated equaly, but they are NOT the same. There are differences between them. Let's see.... Seeing a barechested woman in the street would be the same as seeing a pantyless man. It simply is not the same. 
On the other hand, at least in Europe, the beaches are full of not only barechested women, but completely naked people, and nobody is molested. Nakedness, yes, but not everywhere.
Besides, imagine how the trafic would be if women would go down the street with their brests naked? More than one traffic accident happened thanks to some good looking woman who was, by the way, completely dressed... Now imagine the mess if she had been with her breasts naked...


----------



## Descriptive_G

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> More than one traffic accident happened thanks to some good looking woman who was, by the way, completely dressed... Now imagine the mess if she had been with her breasts naked...



It's interesting that in societies were women go bare-chested, men are not shooting themselves on the foot with bows and arrows or falling off trees. I guess self-control and drooling at the sight of some body parts is culturally conditionned.


I guess what I was saying/asking was...I don't see why a woman in Iran should have to cover her head. A woman's hair is not a pearl to me and if I can show mine she should be able to show hers. Some tribesman from the Amazon may wonder why we insist in covering only women's breasts...if men can show theirs then women should be able too. 

I don't see the big deal with a woman's hair. That tribesman doesn't see the big deal with women's naked breasts.

It's also interesting that we make a bigger deal out of them in the United States than in some European countries.


----------



## cherine

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> I don't see the big deal with a woman's hair. That tribesman doesn't see the big deal with women's naked breasts.


Exactly, I think it's called cultural differences (cultural diversity ?) : you don't perceive things the way an amazon tribesman does, nor does he think the way you do. Each society has its own way of perceiving things.


----------



## natasha2000

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> It's interesting that in societies were women go bare-chested, men are not shooting themselves on the foot with bows and arrows or falling off trees. I guess self-control and drooling at the sight of some body parts is culturally conditionned.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I was saying/asking was...I don't see why a woman in Iran should have to cover her head. A woman's hair is not a pearl to me and if I can show mine she should be able to show hers. Some tribesman from the Amazon may wonder why we insist in covering only women's breasts...if men can show theirs then women should be able too.
> 
> I don't see the big deal with a woman's hair. That tribesman doesn't see the big deal with women's naked breasts.
> 
> It's also interesting that we make a bigger deal out of them in the United States than in some European countries.


 
You have said... It is the question of a culture. The  men of those societies see the breats of women as a just another part of their bodies, like a hand or a toe... Remember those african tribes who put a piece of wood in a hole made on the upper lip, and with years they go on putting bigger and bigger piece of wood until they have a real plate hanging from their mouth... For us, it is horrible, but for them it is very very beautiful... 

On the other hand, the question about difference USA-Europe, I think that someone here has alredy answered about it... Puritans are to be blamed...


----------



## Descriptive_G

cherine said:
			
		

> Exactly, I think it's called cultural differences (cultural diversity ?) : you don't perceive things the way an amazon tribesman does, nor does he think the way you do. Each society has its own way of perceiving things.



*And would it be fair to also say that each Muslim society and each Western society has it's own way as well?* 

Most people I know wouild be shocked to see people in naked sunbathing in the park but I think in some other Western countries that's not a big deal. So I imagine that although a woman will get ??? (I don't know what happens but I think it's bad) for not covering her hair in Iran that not all Muslims societies are exactly like that. *Is that a fair statement?*

Also, in larger cities it might be different too. That's the way it works in the US; in small towns, people talk but in the big city, you can be more free to wear, say, mini-skirts in the middle of the winter.


----------



## Descriptive_G

I guess nobody has addressed the issue of correlation of strict dress codes and treatment of women. I can understand not wanting to talk about religion because all that's been happening *but are more egalitarian dress codes a indication of a more fair society towards women?* 

If women in Europe. let's say, can sunbathe topless, does this mean that women in Europe are less opressed than, let's say, in America?

On the one hand, it's an extra right American women don't have/want? But then again, I have European female friends who complain their husbands don't ever help out while my American female friends get their husbands to do quite a bit of helping (although not nearly enough).

*Can we look at a societies and their dress codes and assume that this reflects that women are worse off or better off there? Are women treated better in societies where they show as much as the men show?*


----------



## cherine

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> *And would it be fair to also say that each Muslim society and each Western society has it's own way as well?*


Not just fair but more of realistic. They DO have their different ways. Western society are "supposed" to be Christian societies, but this doesn't mean that only Christianity govern them (culturally speaking), there are differences, or diversity. Same goes for Muslims societies, each has its own different culture, mixed with Islam.



> Most people I know wouild be shocked to see people in naked sunbathing in the park but I think in some other Western countries that's not a big deal. So I imagine that although a woman will get ??? (I don't know what happens but I think it's bad) for not covering her hair in Iran that not all Muslims societies are exactly like that. *Is that a fair statement? *


I don't know what happens either  But yes, not all Muslim societies are like that. In Egypt, as I said, not all Muslim women cover their hair, not to mention non-muslim women who -of course- are not to abide by muslim tradition. In Tunisia -a muslim country- I heard that hijab is even banned, prohibited.
So, you see, not all muslim societies are alike.



> Also, in larger cities it might be different too. That's the way it works in the US; in small towns, people talk but in the big city, you can be more free to wear, say, mini-skirts in the middle of the winter.


I think this goes everywhere. "Metropolis" has its own laws and traditions that differ from those of villages (more conservative) even in the same country.


----------



## natasha2000

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> *And would it be fair to also say that each Muslim society and each Western society has it's own way as well?*
> 
> Most people I know wouild be shocked to see people in naked sunbathing in the park but I think in some other Western countries that's not a big deal. So I imagine that although a woman will get ??? (I don't know what happens but I think it's bad) for not covering her hair in Iran that not all Muslims societies are exactly like that. *Is that a fair statement?*
> 
> I think so. i think that somebody from Egypt already said that there there are a lot of women going around without a veil.
> 
> Also, in larger cities it might be different too. That's the way it works in the US; in small towns, people talk but in the big city, you can be more free to wear, say, mini-skirts in the middle of the winter.


 
Mini skirts in the middle of the winter?hmmm I would say it is more a matter of a good sense than morality... Yes, women in Europe can go in mimi skirts in the middle of the witner (as a matter of fact, there is some other thread on that topic in England), *but is it healthy*? I cannot possibly imagine myself in a mini skirt at -10ºC....


----------



## cherine

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> I guess nobody has addressed the issue of correlation of strict dress codes and treatment of women. I can understand not wanting to talk about religion because all that's been happening *but are more egalitarian dress codes a indication of a more fair society towards women?*
> ...
> *Can we look at a societies and their dress codes and assume that this reflects that women are worse off or better off there? Are women treated better in societies where they show as much as the men show?*


I don't think dress code has much to do with equality nor opression. It's more of a moral or cultural thing. For example, covering the body is considered in some countries as "modesty", in other countries it's a religious thing. In neither example it has to do with women being oppressed or forced to do so, nor does it have to do with their being equal to men or not. So again it's a matter of cultural diversity, the way people consider the subject (i.e. dress code) not the way women are valued or treated.
This is at least is as far as I humbly understand the question. Others would have different opinion.


----------



## tvdxer

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> If men and women should be treated equally, should n't the dress code be the same? If a man can walk around with no shirt on shouldn't women be able to, and feel comfortable, walking around with no shirt on? Shouldn't there be shared bathrooms. Why the bathroom segregation? Shouldn't boys and girls shower together and change together at high schools and at gyms?
> 
> I have a friend who told me that in their culture, girls wore veils and that during their parties, the boys danced with the boys and the girls danced with the girls.
> 
> We don't do that in America but we do similar things. Girls don't have to hide their faces but they have to hide their boobs. Girls dance with us boys but they shower in separate places at the gym.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> A bare chested man on TV? OK. A bare chested woman? Porn. Why?



In American culture, at least, a bare-chested man is a very common sight - whether on the beach, at work on a hot summer day, exercising, whatsuch.  I'm not a female, so I don't know this for fact, but I think that for most women, seeing such a man would not be arousing or have much of a sexual association at all (unless he was well-built and attractive). 

Breasts, however, are very much considered a "sexual zone" in our culture, and I would think in most of the rest of Western culture as well.  It would generally be indecent to expose them in public, since most men would become aroused, and have lustful thoughts (of course, some of the clothing I see women wear has the same effect on many).  The virtue of modesty prompts women to cover them up.


----------



## natasha2000

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I'm not a female, so I don't know this for fact, but I think that for most women, seeing such a man would not be arousing or have much of a sexual association at all *(unless he was well-built and attractive). *
> quote]
> 
> Well, I doubt that some *unatractive female breasts* would arouse any sexual association in men, either...
> 
> Of course, I agree that female brests attract more attention (male AND female, and mainlu because it is considered immoral, and NOT because it is sexually attractive), than male chests....


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> You can see bare chested men on the street all the time in the US. In the summer, I run without a shirt (I bet you guessed I'm a man) but I doubt that my sister would do the same.



No kidding!  

If there is any woman on this forum who would do sports bare-chested, I will burn my sports bras here and now....

Imagine playing ice hockey without a jock strap.  You need to separate the idea of sports attire from dress conventions, at least in this thread.


----------



## Descriptive_G

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> No kidding!
> 
> If there is any woman on this forum who would do sports bare-chested, I will burn my sports bras here and now....
> 
> Imagine playing ice hockey without a jock strap.  You need to separate the idea of sports attire from dress conventions, at least in this thread.


OK. I wash my car with no shirt on. My sister would not do the same. Is it because we live in a society that opresses women?

In all modesty, I believe my naked chest would arouse most straight women unless they are visually impaired.


----------



## natasha2000

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> No kidding!
> 
> If there is any woman on this forum who would do sports bare-chested, I will burn my sports bras here and now....
> 
> Imagine playing ice hockey without a jock strap. You need to separate the idea of sports attire from dress conventions, at least in this thread.


 
Very good observation, Chaska...

As I already said, man and women are not the same. They do not have the same bodies, therefore, they cannot uncover the body in the same way... I think today at least in Europe, generally, women are not obliged to wear any kind of clothes from moral or religious point of view... It's just a practical way of dressing in most of the times. The bras burning by feminists in the '70, I personally consider stupid, since a bra is a part of female clothing that is NECESSARY for most of the women because of their health, and for sure it is not any symbol of female oppresion. 
We are just different.


----------



## Cath.S.

> In my understanding, covering of one's head in Mulsim culture is so that other men may not "covet" "his neighbor's wife." When women are together in private, they often take their coverings off.


The difference is, Western women are too hung up most of the time to take off their tops even when there's no male around and there's a heatwave.

Muslim women hide their hair in order not to be coveted. It's the same for breasts, Western women hide their breasts in order not to be coveted.
For instance, I've often thought that the French government were being real bad hypocrits when they said wearing a hijab (head-scarf) was a sign of unequality between Muslim men and women.

I wish I could take off my shirt the way men do on scorching summer days. 

Not only is it illegal for me and all my sisters to do so, and it would get us arrested if we did, but even though wearing a bra is not compulsory many women in France often feel uneasy if they don't, even if the size of their breasts does not make it necessary or more comfortable for them to wear one.

I'll believe women are equal and that people are free in the West when we can all walk around in our birth costume!


----------



## GenJen54

> OK. I wash my car with no shirt on. My sister would not do the same. Is it because we live in a society that opresses women?



I continually fail to see how women "covering up" as a societal norm is considered as "oppresive," especially when we're talking about the country that has one of the highest number of female government officials, and the highest number of female CEOs than any other country in the world?

Women have countless opportunities in this country that women in many other countries will never see.  While we still have some ways to go, allowing women to "walk around topless" would certainly not change this course.

I just don't see how wearing a bra or bikini top - or a respectable suit at work - is oppressive.


----------



## Cath.S.

Bras make me feel like I'm choking. They always have. Maybe women who used to wear bodices in Victorian times failed to see how those garments could be oppressive.
But I also think that, for a man, wearing a business suit and tie is oppressive. If I were a man I'd never wear a tie. My man never does.


----------



## I.C.

Let’s start with mentioning that I’m male.

Last Friday I saw an article in a local newspaper, which has a monopoly for it’s area, of which parts are somewhat rural. No readership with specialised tastes, everyone and his grandma and parrot have to be kept happy. Frequent coverage of fire brigade activities, shooting competitions and so on.
The topic of the article in question was the reconstruction of female breasts after surgery. It came complete with a reasonable large photo of an exposed female bust, one breast having been reconstructed, the other still being in it’s original state.

Firstly I consider this a perfectly normal example of serious journalism. To print such an image is the most obvious thing to do when the topic is improvements of reconstruction, _visually_ more pleasing results. For one or the other potentially concerned, the good photo of a good result may even have lowered the threshold for reading an article on a topic laden with quite a few fears.
Secondly, it was a nice bust. So what’s wrong with that? 

If some people think the human body or sex are “dirty” or “sinful” – that really is their problem, not mine, and I’d prefer it if they don’t attempt to project their problems onto others. If people view the exposure of the human body as "immoral" - that's their morals, not mine, and I want no share of theirs. 

Now - totally hypothetically, of course such an almost unspeakable  thing could *never* happen in reality – what would I do if I saw an attractive female on the beach, in a mixed sauna or elsewhere in public or semi-public, her breasts being completely exposed or (how shocking!) her being completely naked. 
Would I stare obnoxiously , begin to drool, wolf-whistle after her, harass her? Flip out, go to my car and get my assault rifle, run amok, gunning down as many members of this sinful municipality as possible? 
No. None of the above.
Would I appreciatively notice her? Of course. Why wouldn’t I? Same applies to passerbys on the street. Just because I think someone is attractive, doesn’t mean I become obnoxious. 
So does that mean I’m gay or not really a man, no instincts?
I couldn’t care less if some or even many of you thought so. Least if such a judgement were influenced signifcantly by an affinity to machismo (wannabe or real).


----------



## JazzByChas

I believe that social norms, mores, customs, and cultural history determine what is appropriate for women to wear in the society in which you live. Not all societies are the same, so there are different rules for the amount of breast baring or anything else that goes on. 

Strictly speaking, if the women of this world were always allowed to be semi-clothed or completely clothed, there would be no stigma attached to it. In fact, in the Bible, Adam and Eve were originally naked, and felt no shame. (See Genesis 2:25) 

Further, God asked them, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:11). So it wasn’t until they were able to see nakedness as something they could pervert that it was “shameful” to be naked.


----------



## Outsider

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> If men and women should be treated equally, should n't the dress code be the same? If a man can walk around with no shirt on shouldn't women be able to, and feel comfortable, walking around with no shirt on?
> 
> [...]
> 
> A bare chested man on TV? OK. A bare chested woman? Porn. Why?


Good question. I, for one, am 100% in favour of allowing women to walk bare chested on the street, too...  



			
				Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> Shouldn't there be shared bathrooms. Why the bathroom segregation? Shouldn't boys and girls shower together and change together at high schools and at gyms?


As a rule, people feel more comfortable going to the bathroom with others of the same gander, than with people of the opposite gender. Especially teenagers, who often have insecurities about their bodies. Besides, it's a great opportunity for women to trash their boyfriends, dates, husbands... 



			
				Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> I have a friend who told me that in their culture, girls wore veils and that during their parties, the boys danced with the boys and the girls danced with the girls.


And, in some Eastern countries, male friends walk down the street holding hands... Isn't culture a funny thing?


----------



## Outsider

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Think about this.  If women were allowed to bare their chests and walk down the street without any covering, as you suggest, it would take away completely the sexual mystery that men now enjoy by being able to "imagine" with their eyes and minds.  Reality, much of the time, is far different than the "imagined."


I'm not so sure of that. In some tribal cultures, men or women, or both, walk around naked, or very nearly so. Have they lost all sense of sexual mystery because of that? Or do they just have a different conception of what constitutes eroticism?


----------



## Outsider

Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> It's also interesting that we make a bigger deal out of them in the United States than in some European countries.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. And there is variation within Europe. There must also be variation in dress codes within the U.S.

P.S. Wow, there's even a name for it! Topfree equality.



			
				Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> Most people I know wouild be shocked to see people in naked sunbathing in the park but I think in some other Western countries that's not a big deal.


This was stated in this thread a couple of times, but I don't think it's right (although I haven't checked it). What you may see in Europe are:

- topless women sunbathing in beaches;
- naked men and women in _nudist_ beaches.

I'm sure you have nudist beaches in the U.S., too. But if a person decides to walk down the street naked, or a woman walks down the street topless in Europe, I think they risk being arrested.



			
				Descriptive_G said:
			
		

> I guess nobody has addressed the issue of correlation of strict dress codes and treatment of women. I can understand not wanting to talk about religion because all that's been happening *but are more egalitarian dress codes a indication of a more fair society towards women?*
> 
> [...]
> 
> *Can we look at a societies and their dress codes and assume that this reflects that women are worse off or better off there? Are women treated better in societies where they show as much as the men show?*


Look at traditional African societies, and draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Fernando

In Europe men have to wear ties in many jobs. Women have not.

Men have to wear black (or dark) shoes. Women have not.

Men have to wear short hair. Women have not.

Men have to wear jacket. Women have not.

If you destroy these kind of conventions you will have to choose:

- Will women have to wear dark dresses, ties and so on, or will rather the men be entitled to wear white shirts, as an example?

In both cases, I do not see why women are discriminated.

And after all, I can not go to my job in summer with naked ARMS and most legs, women can do it. Where is the discrimination?


----------



## Brioche

Please keep your shirts on.
There are _very few_ people of either sex who look good with their tops off.


----------



## GenJen54

outsider said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure of that. In some tribal cultures, men or women, or both, walk around naked, or very nearly so. Have they lost all sense of sexual mystery because of that? Or do they just have a different conception of what constitutes eroticism?



Hi Outsider, 

Please see the last two paragraphs in post 4.  I've already addressed this.


----------

