[LMB] Levels of Sexuality

kerry weisselberg kerilli at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 13:34:30 GMT 2011

Jeff wrote:
 The push-up corsetry under a Renaissance neckline says "handle freely."
> As do slits and things. Slogans on t-shirts and the back of shorts do the
> same thing.
> Except when they don't... amazing how much of that crowd can instantly
> convert to the "no means no" philosophy if they want to.

No,I disagree, I think they say "Look what I've got", absolutely NOT
"help yourself, grab a handful". Many women dress for themselves, not
for their audience.

Stacey wrote:
 It is NOT OK to assume that any style of
dress means that you can harass the wearer and NO absolutely means NO

I am convoluted on this. Yes, of course "No means No", and all men
should accept that any No is a bona fide No. However, some women do,
unfortunately, use the "no..." which actually means "chase me, seduce
me, convince me"...

Also, clothing sends a message, this in escapable. A woman dressed
like a prostitute gives that impression. It is of course perfectly
possible to dress well, even sexily, without giving out the 'totally
available' vibes.

Does anyone remember the furore over the judge in the U.K. some years
ago who opined that a scantily-clad woman who was raped was, iirc,
"asking for it".
Or the fuss when Karl Lagerfeld did a collection of tight,
curve-enhancing dresses which was called "Shaped to be Raped"?

Sexy clothing can be... hobbling. I can't think of the word,
'debilitating' isn't right, but... endangering. Very high heels, long
tight skirts. Short skirts allow free movement but also very easy

I'm overjoyed that I live in a country where I can dress as I like,
that I can walk down the street in a bikini if I choose and not get
arrested. Stared at (or worse, perhaps) but not arrested. So, the only
habiliments that annoy me at all nowadays are full-length
face-obscuring religious garments. Women have fought, and died, for
the level of equality and acceptance we enjoy nowadays in many parts
of the world, so for women to give this up makes me very sad. If it is
their individual choice, then great, of course, but if not...
I think it sends out a very odd message about their menfolk, too, if
the reasons for them dressing that way that I have been told, are
No offence meant to anyone on the list.

As for the subject of close friendships with no sex involved, people
seem unable to believe it's possible. One of my close school-friends
allowed me and a couple of friends to use his lovely house in London
once while he was away. My (girl) friend quizzed me carefully about
him, having seen a few pictures of him around. Having established that
he's good-looking, well-paid, ticks all the boxes really, was single
at the time, and that there has never ever been anything between us
(we've known each other since we were 11 or so), she wouldn't let it
go. WHY didn't I fancy him? WHY weren't we together? Surely we must
have tried at least once? She absolutely couldn't accept that we were
just friends. No sexual frisson, ever. Eventually, in desperation, to
shut her up, I said it was because I'm taller than him. Pathetic
cop-out, I know, and not the reason at all, but it satisfied her
immediately and she let it drop. People are strange.

I don't mind sexiness in advertisements, but I strongly object to
sexism. Perfume ads are the best for sexiness - after all, how else do
you portray a complex smell other than by association? Some of the
Christmas campaigns such as the Chanel 'couple on a train' one have
been delightful. I can appreciate beauty in both male and female
forms, with pleasure... they're a visual feast.
But the 'it's fine for the guys to pee on the floor because it makes
the womenfolk HAPPY to be so useful and to get to clean it up' type...
give. me. a. break. I share Paula's fury at that sort.


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list