Merged Sexual Harrasment, after the fact? (Inez Sainz)

[Captain.Sassy]

so...she wanted to look
- cute
- good
- feminine

you are traipsing around the obvious here. Dressing in a way to highlight your attractiveness is designed to evoke a sexual reaction.

Here is a photo of how she was dressed that she posted herself:
http://twitpic.com/2nu00w

Now skintight jeans might be in fashion right now, but it's hard to argue that those jeans in particular do not highlight her bum. She has a wedgie. Come on. Are you seriously contending that wearing jeans like that makes one look 'cute', 'good for the cameras' and 'feminine' in a completely asexual way?

She could have worn a more loose-fitting pair of slacks or a business-casual suit if she had wanted to. She was flaunting her sexual attractiveness.

Look at the video you posted and look at how much more cleavage Ms. Sainz is showing than is the woman interviewing her. Look at where her pendant falls.

Are you telling me there is nothing at all about her dress whereby she intends to draw attention to her breasts? I find it hard to imagine why, other than to evoke at a certain level a sexual reaction, she would draw attention to her breasts in that way.

There's nothing wrong with that IMO, and I do think that hooting and hollering could well have been inappropriate.

But I still maintain that provocative dress is intended to generally provoke a reaction; what level of reaction is acceptable and under what circumstances?

 

[sthomson]

Now skintight jeans might be in fashion right now, but it's hard to argue that those jeans in particular do not highlight her bum. She has a wedgie. Come on. Are you seriously contending that wearing jeans like that makes one look 'cute', 'good for the cameras' and 'feminine' in a completely asexual way?

I find nothing sexy or sexual about her outfit, besides the fact that it shows that she has a body that is considered "feminine". These pants are pretty damned tight and the uniform highlights the ass, thighs, shoulder, and groin area of a man. How provocative!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

so...she wanted to look
- cute
- good
- feminine

you are traipsing around the obvious here. Dressing in a way to highlight your attractiveness is designed to evoke a sexual reaction.

Here is a photo of how she was dressed that she posted herself:
http://twitpic.com/2nu00w

Now skintight jeans might be in fashion right now, but it's hard to argue that those jeans in particular do not highlight her bum. She has a wedgie. Come on. Are you seriously contending that wearing jeans like that makes one look 'cute', 'good for the cameras' and 'feminine' in a completely asexual way?

She could have worn a more loose-fitting pair of slacks or a business-casual suit if she had wanted to. She was flaunting her sexual attractiveness.

Look at the video you posted and look at how much more cleavage Ms. Sainz is showing than is the woman interviewing her. Look at where her pendant falls.

Are you telling me there is nothing at all about her dress whereby she intends to draw attention to her breasts? I find it hard to imagine why, other than to evoke at a certain level a sexual reaction, she would draw attention to her breasts in that way.

There's nothing wrong with that IMO, and I do think that hooting and hollering could well have been inappropriate.

But I still maintain that provocative dress is intended to generally provoke a reaction; what level of reaction is acceptable and under what circumstances?

Have done with it - she should wear a burqa. Obviously men cannot control themselves when they see a pretty women...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

so...she wanted to look
- cute
- good
- feminine

you are traipsing around the obvious here. Dressing in a way to highlight your attractiveness is designed to evoke a sexual reaction.

Here is a photo of how she was dressed that she posted herself:
http://twitpic.com/2nu00w

Now skintight jeans might be in fashion right now, but it's hard to argue that those jeans in particular do not highlight her bum. She has a wedgie. Come on. Are you seriously contending that wearing jeans like that makes one look 'cute', 'good for the cameras' and 'feminine' in a completely asexual way?

She could have worn a more loose-fitting pair of slacks or a business-casual suit if she had wanted to. She was flaunting her sexual attractiveness.

Look at the video you posted and look at how much more cleavage Ms. Sainz is showing than is the woman interviewing her. Look at where her pendant falls.

Are you telling me there is nothing at all about her dress whereby she intends to draw attention to her breasts? I find it hard to imagine why, other than to evoke at a certain level a sexual reaction, she would draw attention to her breasts in that way.

There's nothing wrong with that IMO, and I do think that hooting and hollering could well have been inappropriate.

But I still maintain that provocative dress is intended to generally provoke a reaction; what level of reaction is acceptable and under what circumstances?

So, if I happen to like the way you look in whatever you're wearing, I have a right to shout the homosexual equivalent of it, right? I mean, you obviously had no other criterion or goal in choosing those pants than to give me a boner, and I'm entitled to tell you all about it, right? I mean, right?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm not wearing pants.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Oooer. Shake that hairy booty, baby

 

[C_Felix]

With respect to all this "she dressed provocative" stuff...

She uses her sexiness as part of her selling point.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And so do a lot of males. I could even Goodwin the thread by providing an example of a prominent mid-20'th century statesman who stayed single, among other thing, because the female demographic liked him more that way. Or you don't think that Microsoft and IBM salesmen put on a costume and tie just because they absolutely coincidentally happen to like wearing a costume and having a tie around their neck. (Especially anyone with a thyroid problem would feel like they're being choked there. And it's actually not an uncommon condition.)

People dress to look good to other people all the time.

Doesn't mean that that IBM salesman is automatically giving everyone an implicit right -- and according to some people apparently even invitation -- to holler at him, "Show us you ass, baby!" or

Edited by LashL: 

Removed content inappropriate for public forum

Well, at least that's what my boss said after the last time we had a meeting with an IBM guy, anyway

 

[Checkmite]

With respect to all this "she dressed provocative" stuff...

She uses her sexiness as part of her selling point.

She was not "selling" anything in the locker room. She was conducting an interview.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

So, if I happen to like the way you look in whatever you're wearing, I have a right to shout the homosexual equivalent of it, right? I mean, you obviously had no other criterion or goal in choosing those pants than to give me a boner, and I'm entitled to tell you all about it, right? I mean, right?

lol

In your opinion, do women ever deliberately dress in such a way as to play up their sexual attractiveness?

In response to your question, what I'm trying to establish here are the appropriate responses to provocative dress. If I were wearing a shirt, tie and slacks (as I am now) you could probably say 'hey, lookin' sharp today Cap!', but I would probably be shocked at hooting and hollering (which, as I noted above, are likely over the line of appropriateness in most situations).

If I were wearing a tank top , jockey shorts and chaps, I might expect to elicit a different reaction, no?

Or do you think that all dress is intended to elicit exactly the same (non) reaction from people around you?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I find nothing sexy or sexual about her outfit, besides the fact that it shows that she has a body that is considered "feminine". These pants are pretty damned tight and the uniform highlights the ass, thighs, shoulder, and groin area of a man. How provocative!

Lol

These conversations are verging on the absurd.

Football players wear football equipment because it enhances their abilities on the field.

I haven't seen that many reporters show the kind of cleavage Ms. Sainz was showing in that interview, or wear pants that hike quite so high up the bum as those jeans.

However, leaving aside the question of whether or not the jeans Sainz wore were or were not provocative i.e. whether they did or did not deliberately highlight her sexual attractiveness, let's move along to what I feel are the more interesting questions:

1) do women (men) ever dress in a way designed to draw attention to their sexually attractive attributes?
2) if 'yes', what is the appropriate level of response to this invocation of sexuality?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Have done with it - she should wear a burqa. Obviously men cannot control themselves when they see a pretty women...

I take from your hyperbolic and sarcastic comment that you feel that either
a) there is no such thing as 'dressing sexy'
or
b) there is no acceptable level of reaction to someone 'dressing sexy'




daisy duke wears daisy dukes for comfort. nothing sexual about it.

 

[John Jones]

And so do a lot of males. I could even Goodwin the thread by providing an example of a prominent mid-20'th century statesman who stayed single, among other thing, because the female demographic liked him more that way. Or you don't think that Microsoft and IBM salesmen put on a costume and tie just because they absolutely coincidentally happen to like wearing a costume and having a tie around their neck. (Especially anyone with a thyroid problem would feel like they're being choked there. And it's actually not an uncommon condition.)

People dress to look good to other people all the time.

Doesn't mean that that IBM salesman is automatically giving everyone an implicit right -- and according to some people apparently even invitation -- to holler at him, "Show us you ass, baby!" or

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of content inappropriate for public forum

Well, at least that's what my boss said after the last time we had a meeting with an IBM guy, anyway

Has anyone ever suggested that you have a feminist ontology?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

so...she wanted to look
- cute
- good
- feminine

you are traipsing around the obvious here. Dressing in a way to highlight your attractiveness is designed to evoke a sexual reaction.

Here is a photo of how she was dressed that she posted herself:
http://twitpic.com/2nu00w

Now skintight jeans might be in fashion right now, but it's hard to argue that those jeans in particular do not highlight her bum. She has a wedgie. Come on. Are you seriously contending that wearing jeans like that makes one look 'cute', 'good for the cameras' and 'feminine' in a completely asexual way?

She could have worn a more loose-fitting pair of slacks or a business-casual suit if she had wanted to. She was flaunting her sexual attractiveness.

Look at the video you posted and look at how much more cleavage Ms. Sainz is showing than is the woman interviewing her. Look at where her pendant falls.

Are you telling me there is nothing at all about her dress whereby she intends to draw attention to her breasts? I find it hard to imagine why, other than to evoke at a certain level a sexual reaction, she would draw attention to her breasts in that way.

There's nothing wrong with that IMO, and I do think that hooting and hollering could well have been inappropriate.

But I still maintain that provocative dress is intended to generally provoke a reaction; what level of reaction is acceptable and under what circumstances?

Dude, you need a serious reality check. You sound like a dirty old man.

I'm a young female who is very in shape and has a good sized chest. And do you know why I dress in shorts and a tank top rather in the summer rather than loose fitting formless slacks? BECAUSE ITS HOT OUTSIDE.

I'm sure you'd just love to think my only possible motivation is to lure you in with my siren song of seduction....but you'd be wrong.

Get this straight, the world of all women does not revoilve around men. I know this may be hard to grasp...but it's not all about you. The fact that you think the only possible reason a woman might not intentionally hide her body with loose fitting clothing is because she's trying to get the attention of men is just sad.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

So, to be clear, is your contention that there is no such thing as 'dressing sexy'?

That women never dress in a way to deliberately increase their sex appeal or highlight sexually appealing attributes?

That when I've looked at women at red carpet functions with very low cut dresses exposing their cleavage and thought 'my, that looks sexy' what I actually should have been thinking was 'my, that woman is dressing in a comfortable manner'?

Whew! must have been 40 degrees in the shade!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm a young female who is very in shape and has a good sized chest.

Pics?

preferably in shorts and a tank top.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Whew! must have been 40 degrees in the shade!

40 degrees (F) would be quite nippy in an outfit like that.

Come on people, loosen up here

 

[KingMerv00]

Good question. If two people comment to each other in what they assume is a private conversation about a third person, e.g. make comments about that person's sexual attractiveness, is that sexual harassment? Is it harassment if it is overheard by a third person? By the person who is the subject of the comments?

I doubt it. I'm guessing the mens rea for sexual harassment is at least "knowingly". I could be wrong though.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

lol

In your opinion, do women ever deliberately dress in such a way as to play up their sexual attractiveness?

In response to your question, what I'm trying to establish here are the appropriate responses to provocative dress. If I were wearing a shirt, tie and slacks (as I am now) you could probably say 'hey, lookin' sharp today Cap!', but I would probably be shocked at hooting and hollering (which, as I noted above, are likely over the line of appropriateness in most situations).

If I were wearing a tank top , jockey shorts and chaps, I might expect to elicit a different reaction, no?

Or do you think that all dress is intended to elicit exactly the same (non) reaction from people around you?

Just to make it clear, we're not talking a bunch of guys saying "wow, you look sharp". We're talking about some guys saying something which she only didn't understand because she was already trying to not hear or even look left and right, but apparently (A) creeped the crap out of a different journalist who did understand what they're saying, and (B) it creeped her out once she got told what they said.

I'm guessing it might have been a tiny bit more inapropriate than "wow, she looks sexy", wouldn't you think?

Also, just to make it clear, we're talking a female news reporter, not a hooker or even a cheerleader or even some shock-value singer. While looking sexy might be a factor in her job description, it's not like she's selling sex or anything.

Dressing like that is just about as much part of her actual job and role as it is for the IBM salesman in my analogy to dress in a suit and tie. There's a reason why I picked that analogy, basically. Yes, certain looks are expected, but her or his job description still isn't really about selling sex or even selling a sexy image. And taking it as an invitation for anything else is reading into it what's not even there.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Has anyone ever suggested that you have a feminist ontology?

No idea what that would mean, but thanks