1. But it IS pretty much impossible to see something and choose not to notice it. You are still noticing it, even if you pretend not to out of politeness. Perhaps you mean that you can see something but choose to ignore it?

I was alluding indirectly to the quip, “nakedness is often seen but never noticed”.

Debbie’s objection to this woman’s attire was official notice - that’s official solely in the sense of public - of her alleged clothing transgression. Jam points out, quite rightly, that different church traditions may have different ideas of what’s appropriate attire for church. What’s non-distracting attire for one church may be incredibly offensive for another.

Who makes that judgment call of to what clothing standard interfaith or interdenominational gatherings will adhere?

We’re not all perfectly informed about every faith or every denomination of a particular faith, or every church and their practices in that denomination. Spend enough years in just your church and you’ll probably forget other people do things differently. It may not even occur to you that a funny hat - or nipples, or speaking in tongues, or snake-handling, etc. - is distracting.

now, believe it or not, i’ve actually been to church. actually, make that “churches”. some have had guys with extremely distracting & funny hats leading the services, some have had folks with strange facial tics giving sermons, not to mention folks with sadly tonedeaf voices leading the hymns…. some as well have had “Liberated West Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian” types leading the service. to tell the truth, i never sat close enough to the front to ascertain the state of their nipple coverage.

here’s the thing, in the original article, we only really get a detailed account of the LWCFEDH-WC’s reaction (& please note the over-the-top characterization). we don’t hear anything really about how “Debby” presented her nipple suggestion, if suggestion it was. and why no characterization of Debby? i guess we can assume she’s not a LWCFEDH-WC but then… what? maybe she’s a Repressed East Coast These-Leather-Boots-Were-Made-For-Stomping-Hippies Republican Christian? who knows? here again is that assumption of the “average Christian”, the average church-goer. more, we are led to assume that Debby spoke for the whole group. what? did she take a vote? again, who knows? maybe she did. or maybe she was projecting her nipple-insecurity onto the whole group.

Aegis writes: I think it is perfectly fair to say that if someone is going to lead a prayer, that the onus should be on them to avoid distracting the audience from that prayer with their clothing/body.

ok, so cover those nipples! and stop with the funny hats! and, please, if you have some kind of physical deformity, could you just not even come to church, because you know, that would be distracting.

and if you’re a super hot babe or major beefcake then the same applies…. i’m trying to pray here! not imagine you… and me… up there…. on the altar… in front of everyone… wearing funny hats….

lead me not, i say!

“Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to recognize the existence of norms even if they are arbitrary.

Reconciling men getting over discomfort vs. girls not being comfortable with dressing sexually”

Sure. I just don’t think that leading prayer braless is a very good way of contesting the norm.

Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to recognize the existence of norms even if they are arbitrary.

Reconciling men getting over discomfort vs. girls not being comfortable with dressing sexually

Sidra Vitale said:
Because, of course, it’s physically impossible for anyone around her to see those nipples but choose - out of politeness - not to notice them. Wouldn’t that really be the responsible, adult reaction, regardless of the venue (church, the mall, a political protest) of the offending activity?

“Oh, I see someone being tasteless (whether it’s going braless in church or hatless at Easter). But I don’t know them well, so, I won’t say anything.”?

1. But it IS pretty much impossible to see something and choose not to notice it. You are still noticing it, even if you pretend not to out of politeness. Perhaps you mean that you can see something but choose to ignore it?

2. It’s not just an issue of any person going braless or dressing tastelessly. In the specific circumstances, the person in question was leading a prayer service. I think it is perfectly fair to say that if someone is going to lead a prayer, that the onus should be on them to avoid distracting the audience from that prayer with their clothing/body. This applies because of the role you take on, and the responsibilities inherent in that role, regardless of whether you are male or female. True, you can’t please everyone, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to please anyone. Hence, you should avoid dressing in a way that will distract a majority of your audience, regardless of whether you share their norms of what is distracting or not. In the case of nipples, it is clear that they will distract a large subset of an audience during prayer.

Ah, yes, it’s the ever-popular ‘Men are Beasts’ theory, which appears most often in conjunction with the ‘Women are Mothers’ theory - the ‘Men are Beasts’ theory always involves a complaint that women aren’t mothering the world enough and protecting these horrid, beastly men from their horrid beastly caveman selves.

It’s interesting that this complaint apparently relies on the assumption that women control the world. Huh. Ever notice how chicks only get a matriarchy when it’s All Our Fault?

Anyway,

Robert wrote, ’round about comment 52: I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.

Because, of course, it’s physically impossible for anyone around her to see those nipples but choose - out of politeness - not to notice them. Wouldn’t that really be the responsible, adult reaction, regardless of the venue (church, the mall, a political protest) of the offending activity?

“Oh, I see someone being tasteless (whether it’s going braless in church or hatless at Easter). But I don’t know them well, so, I won’t say anything.”

(You know, no one seems to have hit on what I see as the simplest explanation for the original hoo-haw: this woman forgot to wear a bra, or didn’t realize it would be so obvious with her choice in shirt that she wasn’t wearing one, and then got pissed off about being pulled aside over it. I sure would get pissed off if someone pulled me aside in a multichurch conference setting to criticize not the inclusiveness of my prayer or the logic of some analysis of doctrine, but my fucking underwear! Especially if such attire was the norm “back home”. Not all women wear bras. Not all feel the need, physically or culturally.)

Once again, the onus is on the woman to not offend, instead of the viewer to be empathetic, compassionate, or, dare I say, even Christian.

The problem with requiring the other party to never offend, is that you cannot not offend someone, somewhere, somehow, unless you negate your very existence.

Which is why we need to find ways to contest the fetishization of women’s breasts, rather than simply accepting it. When an overtly harmful social practice is in operation, it’s best to contest it, not passively accept it.

I chose the word “fetishization” because the way breasts are treated goes beyond eroticization. I have, on occasion, found a lover’s ankles erotic, along with the texture of her skin, and the sound of her laughter, and all sorts of other things that all together add up to the experience of the physical presence of another person. But I don’t think of any of those things in isolation. The trouble with “fetishization” is that breasts are treated as objects of sexual fascination, separate and alienated from the human being they’re part of. The part is treated as more important than the whole.

Nevertheless, I must point out that we do NOT live in such a culture today. Whether male attraction to nipples is completely hardwired or caused by cultural conditioning is not the point: the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men do find nipples erotic. In our culture, ankles are not considered to be erotic, so nowhere near as many men are going to be distracted by them.

Anyways, you don’t have to be a heterosexual male to find nipples distracting. On Hugo’s blog, one female poster mentioned that she found breasts and nipples distracting. Neither do those nipples have to be female to cause a distraction. If a man led prayer in a thin white t-shirt that showed his nipples, many people regardless of sex would find it distracting. Should they just get over it? Is their distraction their fault and all in their heads?

It seems as if clothing norms for church services exist for a reason: to ensure that people focus on the service, rather than on the body of the person giving the service. Hence, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask anyone giving a service to dress in a manner appropriate to giving a service considering what most people in the audience will consider a distraction (regardless of whether their distraction is based on anything rational or not!). It is not appropriate for me to lead prayer dressed as Big Bird, not because there is anything wrong with Big Bird, but because a Big Bird costume will be considered intersubjectively distracting. Should I say to an audience, “You only find my Big Bird costume distracting due to current arbitrary social constructions… There are cultures in which people do conduct religious ceremonies dressed as birds… so it’s your fault if you are distracted!” ??

yeah, that must suck, Robert. i imagine there are many who share your frustrations… not being able to read myself, i know that i often frustrate folks in these online dialogues/donnybrooks.

but even when i asked my friend, Mr. Snuffaluffagus, to help me sound stuff out, i still wasn’t able to find anything more definitive in your statements other than vague statements concerning personal responsibility & the ever-popular “common sense.” a few times you’ve been a bit more forthright, but when challenged (as Sally & others have), you generally retreat into the hazy “adults should act responsibly” again (btw, responsible to who?)

you know what would help me out (i know you don’t care about helping me out, but let’s just pretend for a moment)? if you could make a list of social norms/constraints divided into those which are oppressive & those that aren’t, maybe cross-referenced with those that are worth fighting against & those that are inevitable & will see us all in our cold graves. if you use small words & maybe write it up in block capitals i might not even have to ask Mr. Snuffaluffagus for help! in the meantime, i’ve got to get back to Spot & the Big Red Ball. i’m right in the middle of a good part: “See the ball, Spot. See the big red ball. See the big red ball bounce!”

ah, Western literature….

I don’t see how the last 2 paragraphs of comment 32 in any way equates to the statement that providing women with a genuine choice of mode of dress is in conflict with allowing women equality. I see that Amp worries about the pressure to present as sex-object, not that a choice of dress is in conflict with equality. Your statement is self-negating in the sense of - White is black! Down is up! Allowing women equality in this specific area is oppression! And honestly I find it offensive to hear you say that allowing choice restricts freedom and having you expect that to be believed.

Your statement that there is no point to challenging certain social norms seems absurd on its face. It, in essence, reduces “certain social norms” to objective fact. Why is there no point in challenging the current social norms of women’s mode of dress? Can it not be changed? Has it always been what it is now in the US?

I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.

So it didn’t violate her right to dress as she pleases? Freedom of expression anybody? You aren’t asking her to restrict her choices/freedom of expression because you think others are unable to control their own impulses/urges? Why not ask those offended to ignore it? Is that more of a violation of rights than ignoring offensive speech? Your politely phrased/thinly veiled moral judgement that it is up to the woman in this case to moderate her behaviour rather than it being up to her fellow congregants not to ogle is offensively sexist. Or it is offensively anti-religious (or sexist if we’re only talking about male congregants) if your meaning is that the congregants couldn’t control their distraction enough to continue in prayer to their god.

Those statements may not be uncontroversial here, but to equate them to me saying that women who dress in a certain way are asking to be raped is offensive.

Be intentionally obtuse if you want, but I was comparing the logic that you have been using here to the logic that others have used to excuse rape, not equating your words to saying that women who who dress in a certain way are asking to be raped. Besides which, so much of what you have said here is offensive that I must think to myself, “Pot, kettle, black.”

so, you’re not making any kind of general argument then? other than the vague “people should act responsibly”?

still, so much to chew on! let’s go on, shall we?

Robert proclaims: There’s no point to challenging certain types of social norms; they are inevitable.

hmmm… where have i heard this one before?

(You might want to change them to something more comfortable for you - but you will just be making things less comfortable for someone else.)

bummer. i always feel bad about making authoritarian sexists, self-righteous moralists, & other self-appointed protectors of the social order feel less comfortable.

When there is no way to get to “justice”, trying is destructive. Some things have to be traded off. Be contemptuous all you like, and refuse to make the tradeoffs all you like; at the end of your life spent fighting against this particular aspect of social organization, you will be dead, and the tradeoff will remain.

y’know what? despite the fact that i generally think white men telling the rest of the world what they need to accept & endure is the height of entitled arrogance, you’ve convinced me, Robert. fighting against oppressive social insitutions is useless & selfish & a waste of time. wouldn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable, would we? from now on, i’m going to say only nice things, go to church, & dress appropriately. after all, i don’t want to have wasted my life fighting for something & then just end up dead. easier to just go with the flow, don’t rock the boat, follow orders… etcetera

after all, if i can’t end sexism in my life… actually, why be so generous with my time… if i can’t end sexism in the next half-hour, what’s the point?

Saying that people ought to act responsibly.

…you seem to be saying that rather than challenge the social norms, we should all conform since we know what the reaction will be if we do otherwise…I have contempt for you for appearing to prefer the trade-off (and the patronizing and stifling behaviours and injustices that go along with it) to changing the social norms and/or the pressurized sexual culture.

Last paragraph of comment 20. There’s no point to challenging certain types of social norms; they are inevitable. (You might want to change them to something more comfortable for you - but you will just be making things less comfortable for someone else.) When there is no way to get to “justice”, trying is destructive.

Some things have to be traded off. Be contemptuous all you like, and refuse to make the tradeoffs all you like; at the end of your life spent fighting against this particular aspect of social organization, you will be dead, and the tradeoff will remain.

The culture, however, we can change. I’m all for desexualizing the popular culture. Want to join my club?

Are you saying that providing women with a genuine choice of mode of dress is in conflict with allowing women equality? If that’s what you’re saying please elaborate as I have no idea how that would be so. Perhaps you’re saying both?

See last two paragraphs of Amp’s comment 32.

Please tell me how the comparison of logic in argument was a misrepresentation of your argument. Have you not been arguing that the woman who allowed her nipples to show in church knew what that reaction would be and that, therefore, there is no reason to complain?

No, I have not been arguing that.

I have been arguing that the woman who went braless in church knew what the social norm was for her situation, that the social norm was not so hideously oppressive as to constitute a violation of any of her rights, and that as a responsible adult, she should have modified her behavior to conform to the non-oppressive norm.

Those statements may not be uncontroversial here, but to equate them to me saying that women who dress in a certain way are asking to be raped is offensive.

There is a conflict between equality and, in our highly pressurized sexual culture, providing women a genuine choice as to modes of dress. Social norms concerning attire can be excessively stifling, but at a moderate level, can provide support for women who make choices different than the majoritarian culture.

And here you seem to be saying that rather than challenge the social norms, we should all conform since we know what the reaction will be if we do otherwise. Actually on re-reading that, I’m not sure that is what you are saying. Are you saying that providing women with a genuine choice of mode of dress is in conflict with allowing women equality? If that’s what you’re saying please elaborate as I have no idea how that would be so. Perhaps you’re saying both?

I don’t have contempt for you for recognizing the trade-off. I have contempt for you for appearing to prefer the trade-off (and the patronizing and stifling behaviours and injustices that go along with it) to changing the social norms and/or the pressurized sexual culture.

Please tell me how the comparison of logic in argument was a misrepresentation of your argument. Have you not been arguing that the woman who allowed her nipples to show in church knew what that reaction would be and that, therefore, there is no reason to complain?

well, putting aside the fact that, in the immortal words of Jesse Ventura:

Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare seeing is believing?

i confess that i, like Q Grrl, fail to see your point. we’re not talking about the color of clothes here, i think, or at least not solely. i think we’re talking about how certain kinds of clothing & attire can provoke sexual interpretations/responses in others &, more importantly, whether such responses should be given any weight whatsoever other than as indicators of various individuals sexual proclivities. you’ve said you want people to be mindful of their social context when clothing themselves, but this is not only to assume discrete social environments exist & are easily understood, but also to accept the given “majoritarian” social environments at face value, as if things like ties & button-up shirts were the result of some naturally occurring phenomenon in human society.

Since I’m not doing that, your disgust leaves me somewhat confused.

Riiiiight. Because protecting women is more important than allowing equal dress codes.

There is a conflict between equality and, in our highly pressurized sexual culture, providing women a genuine choice as to modes of dress. Social norms concerning attire can be excessively stifling, but at a moderate level, can provide support for women who make choices different than the majoritarian culture.

You seem to have contempt for me because I recognize this tradeoff. I’m not sure why.

And, of course, if you wear a really short skirt & no underwear you can’t really be surprised if you get raped. I mean, although you have the right to do that, you also know that it tells men that you “want it.”? This is the same logic that Robert is using wrt nipples in church.

Is a childish misrepresentation of my argument the only way you can define your own position?

The second statement carries more weight. Popular culture tells girls from the day they’re born: “you’re a sexual commodity. show off the merchandise, or you’re a loser.”?

Riiiiight. Because protecting women is more important than allowing equal dress codes. Because, of course, the allowing of equal dress codes has no possibility of changing social pressures. Because, even if women were equal, they would still need to be protected.

And, of course, if you wear a really short skirt & no underwear you can’t really be surprised if you get raped. I mean, although you have the right to do that, you also know that it tells men that you “want it.” This is the same logic that Robert is using wrt nipples in church. That is that you have every right to do it, but you know what the reaction will be so stop complaining about “unfairness”. It’s just an “objective fact” that this will happen and you know it. And because you know what the reaction will be, it is an objective fact that can’t be changed so there is no point in challenging it. A rock is a rock, women will always be sexually objectified.

I’m pretty well disgusted by Robert’s string of posts rationalizing (his and others) sexual/dress codes as “objective fact.”