An exceptionally long post on girls, boys, dress and desire

A number of folks in the "femosphere" (my new term for feminist blogosphere) have been discussing the latest salvo in the "Teenage Fashions are Turning Our Daughters into Whores and it's all Feminism's Fault" wars, this Washington Post piece from yesterday's paper:  What's Wrong with This Outfit, Mom?  Today, Amanda and Jill both offer excellent "fiskings" of the Patricia Dalton op-ed.

I wouldn't add my own thoughts, save for two particular paragraphs near the end of the article.  Dalton writes in the first one:

The girls who dress the most outrageously are often those most starved for adult male attention, first and foremost from their fathers. This happens most commonly with girls whose fathers have disappeared from their lives, perhaps following a divorce, or because their workaholic schedules leave them little time for their children. Children who are raised with attention and affection tend to identify with and admire their parents. This identification is the basis for both discipline and the transmission of values. Without it, parents can't do their job.

I'm with her so far. Dalton is spot on that the absence of safe, loving adult male figures (fathers in particular) is linked to young women's need for attention.   To be fair, it ignores the possibility that some teenage girls have their own agency, and are interested in sex with boys not because of absent fathers but because of their own libidos. I do not suggest that they are the majority of young women, but they are not an unheard-of subset of American adolescents.  Still, Dalton is to be applauded for her suggestion that men's workaholic schedules play a part in the problem.  Anyone who is advocating that fathers spend more quality time interacting with their sons and daughters and less time at work, on the Internet, or in front of the TV is going to get no argument from me!

But the second quoted paragraph is a disaster:

I often recommend that fathers be the parent to take the lead in setting limits on their daughters' dress, because opposite sex offspring typically cut that parent more slack. Fathers can say, "Honey, you can't wear that. I know teenage boys -- I was one!" A dad like this is looking out for his daughter and treating her as someone special.

Jill does a nice job tackling this:

No, he isn’t. He’s putting her in an even more vulnerable position — if something does happen with one of those teenage boys, she’ll internalize it as her fault for dressing in a particular way. When she goes out of the house and sees other girls dressing in more revealing clothes, she’ll become part of the group that looks at them and says, “You’re a slut.” Adolescence is hard enough on young women; when they’re already desperately trying to fit in and find their own identities, the worst thing one can do is encourage greater rifts between “good girls” and “bad girls,” and create even deeper insecurities in all of them.

And where is the dad who says, “Honey, I was a teenage boy once. I know that they’re capable of being reasonable human beings, and of treating women well. Don’t accept anything less than that” — and who tells his sons the same thing? Sexual equality and women’s physical safety simply cannot come from women alone. Shaming young girls about the way they dress isn’t the way to achieve anything.

Jill nails that,and I agree completely.

Thinking about what I would much rather have men say to their daughters, and thinking about what I say to teenage girls and boys, leads me into another youth group anecdote (you knew it would).  Three years ago, we were in the midst of our "sex month" with the kids at youth group.  (Four consecutive Wednesday nights of talking about sexuality, dating, and Christian ethics "All Saints style").  As we always do, we spent some time in single-sex groups.  There were just two youth leaders at the time, and my female colleague took the girls off to one room, while I went to another with the boys.

It was May.  The weather was warm.  One girl in our group, widely regarded by both sexes as being among the "hottest" of her peers, had worn some very short shorts, flip flops, and a tiny top to youth group.  As soon as I got the boys alone in the room, two of them started talking excitedly about what "Janae" (name changed, of course) had been wearing.   One of the boys, using what seemed to be the pervasive lingo of 2003, said "Dang, when I look at those shorts all I think is how much I want to 'hit that'!" (The meaning of "hit that" ought to be clear even for those of you who don't hang out with the younger set these days.)  The other boys all laughed and concurred,and then turned towards me with sheepish grins.  Yes, their youth minister was with them -- but he was also a man, and they were operating under the homosocial assumption that even in church, it's okay to objectify women and girls as long as only other men are around.

A younger Hugo would have rebuked them sharply.  I could so easily have given them the "Janae is your sister in Christ, boys!" lecture, and tried to shame them.  An even less mature Hugo might have validated what they were saying by agreeing about Janae's attractiveness, if for no other reason than to affirm my masculine bona fides by showing them that I too was, after all, "just another guy" who enjoyed looking at pretty girls.  (Obviously, for the record, I never have nor will I ever use sexually objectifying language about any of the kids in my youth group.  But  I have heard stories of other male youth leaders at other churches who have not felt the same need to restrict, sadly enough).

But since the subject was supposed to be sex anyway, I figured I'd use Janae's shorts as a teaching moment.   So I asked the boys: "What's it like when a girl like Janae is showing a lot of skin? How does it make you feel?"  The replies came fast and furious:  "Dude, it's so awesome!"  "I love it when you can see so much!"  And, of course "I can't stop looking!"  I let the boys share and laugh and get squirrely, and then I quieted them again.  I asked: "When you say you can't stop looking, what does that mean?  Do you really have no choice?" 

Silence.  One boy, "Aaron", blurted out "No way, dude.  No choice.  Girl that fine, can't control my mind."  Other boys laugh and agree.  I wait, and then follow up: "Do all of you feel like Aaron feels?"  None of you think you can control where your eyes go and where your mind goes?"

More silence.  "Roger" speaks up: "I guess it kind of is a choice.  I mean, when you first see a pretty girl, you can't help but look.  But you can choose whether or not you keep staring at her legs or her tits.  You don't have to make the girl feel uncomfortable."  Several other boys quickly agreed, and Aaron found himself on the defensive: "I don't know dude, I don't know how you can say you really like girls and not be totally distracted by something so fine."  I smiled inwardly; Aaron, bless his heart, was trying to bully the other boys by threatening their masculinity if they didn't take his side. 

To my delight, what followed was a serious discussion lasting fifteen minutes.  (That may sound short, but getting eight to ten boys in mid-adolescence to have a serious discussion for even that long is, I assure you, a significant achievement!)   With my prodding questions, the boys debated their own ability to control themselves. In the end, even Aaron grudgingly admitted that he too had a choice with where his eyes went.  Roger, his foil, high-fived him at this and said "Hey, Aaron, welcome to All Saints!" (A reference to the church's staunch pro-feminism.)

What I said to the boys was something like this: "I don't think that there's anything wrong with noticing girls.  I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with fantasizing about them!  I do think there's something very wrong when your focus on their bodies makes it impossible for you to also see them as people, as friends, as human beings. When you find yourself noticing a girl's body, and staring at her skin, I don't want you to beat yourself up.  But I don't want you to make her uncomfortable either."

"Next time you're looking at Janae's legs, Aaron", I said, "I want you to gently remind yourself that Janae is more than just her body.  It's okay to think she's sexy.  But remember she's not a pair of legs or breasts.  She may be hot, but she's also a person, and whether you believe it or not, you are strong enough and good enough to never forget that she's a person.    She gets frightened and tired and happy just like you do.  She may want you to look at her body, but even more than that, she hopes that you'll also see her as a human being.   And no matter how hot she is, you've got it in you to never, ever forget that."  Aaron nodded solemnly, and I don't know if he really heard me or not.

But other boys did, and I had a couple of them come up to me thank me for what I said and to talk more about the topic.  Boys almost never hear that they have choices about where they ultimately direct their thoughts and their eyes.  The myth of male weakness and the myth of the raging adolescent male libido that can never be contained are powerful influences. I don't deny that young men can be very, very horny; I do deny that that horniness is so supremely overwhelming as to make it impossible for adolescent boys to see the essential humanity of even their scantily-clad female peers.

My goal is to reach young men "where they are" with a message about their sexuality that is realistic, loving, and both authentically pro-feminist and Christian.  Ultimately, I don't want anyone, male or female, to feel ashamed of their desires.  I don't expect them not to lust for each other.  But what pro-feminism and Christianity both insist on, even for young men, is that sexual desire, no matter how powerful, cannot be used as an excuse to rob our brothers and sisters of their humanness.  Whether Janae is in sweats or in short shorts, how the boys perceive her is ultimately their responsibility.  Of course they'll be more easily aroused by her in short shorts!  Yet even if she were to wear a burka, plenty of her male peers would find themselves stimulated by even a flash of ankle.  The teenage libido is a powerful thing, after all.  We do well, I think, when we don't fear all of that raging sexual energy.  We do well to acknowledge it, even celebrate it, and then ask that it always be tempered with a recognition of the other's essential humanity.  That's a far more effective strategy than either demeaning boys for lusting or asking girls to cover up in order to prevent the boys from doing so.

Yes, I do think adults should have input into how their teenagers dress.  I think it's right and proper to ask kids to consider the consequences of their clothing choices, and to ask them to take some responsibility for the messages they send to others.  But I also think that we must do the more difficult -- and yet ultimately far more rewarding -- job of challenging the most basic beliefs about boys, sexuality, and the damaging discourse of the raging, uncontrollable, male libido.  When and if I have a daughter, I expect I will say to her what I have already said to many girls in my youth group and in my classes:

"Your body is not your enemy.  Whatever you wear, in winter or summer, you have both rights and responsibilities.  You have the responsibility to consider the time and the place you are wearing your outfit.  You should be aware that clothing can create envy.  But in the end, no matter what you wear, no one has the right to refuse to see you as a person because of your clothes or your skin.  You don't ever have to choose between being desired and being taken seriously, and you don't have to believe the myth that men cannot control their eyes or their actions.  Whether in a miniskirt or sweats, you are still a woman who deserves respect, because respect is not contingent on your body or your attire.  Believe it, and be willing to demand it."

Comments

[Antigone]

Thank you!

You have finally articulated why I had such a problem with my dad saying he didn't trust "teenage boys" because he was one. That bothered me, and now I finally know why.

[Erin C.]

Wow, Hugo, it sounds like you handled that really well.

[Hugo]

Erin, I hope I did -- I'm capturing the gist of what I said two and a half years on.

Antigone, I've always thought it was a vaguely creepy thing for Dads to say to their Daughters "I know how boys think when they look at you." I can't predict the future, but I can't imagine myself saying that to my future daughter.

[sparklegirl]

Yeah, that is creepy. I'm really glad my dad never said anything like that to me.

And good job using that boy's comment to make a teaching opportunity!

[Scarbo]

OK, then how do I tell my daughter that I don't like it when she dresses "that way"?

My job as a parent is to guide, and to help my daughter make proper choices. There are times, of course, when I feel perfectly justified in saying "No. You will not do that."

If I see my daughter choosing "slutty" clothes, I feel it is my job to say something. I now know what you all deem inappropriate for me to say to her. Then, what would you say? Or would you just let your daughter wear what she wants no matter what?

[Hugo]

Gosh, Scarbo, I thought I already addresed that. I said in my final paragraph that it's perfectly okay to say "You have the responsibility to consider the time and the place you are wearing your outfit." If, say, she wants to wear something wildly revealing to church or to school, I'd feel comfortable saying "That's not an appropriate outfit for the setting you're heading off to." Adding the term "slutty" would not be necessary; you are free to use whatever language you choose, but no young woman or man with whom I work or whom I father will hear that word from my lips.

It's possible to set boundaries without

a. shaming young women for their bodies and their sexuality
b. implying that women are responsible for male reactions
c. suggesting that wanting other's attention is "slutty"
d. making one's daughter feel icky about herself

I've never had my own daughter, but I've been working for years and years very, very closely with lots of good folks and their daughters, and I've seen that needle threaded perfectly.

[bmmg39]

I guess the right thing to do would be just to ask questions, as Hugo does with the boys: "Why, do you think, you like to dress like that?" "Do you appreciate the kind of attention you receive when you dress that way?"

And maybe you'll get the kid to think about it and, who knows, perhaps she won't WANT to dress that way anymore, when she examines her reasons.

bg

[Scarbo]

Sorry, Hugo, I guess I wished your long post was shorter; I read about half way through and skimmed the rest.

But c'mon, guys, statements like "You have the responsibility to consider the time and the place you are wearing your outfit", and "Why, do you think, you like to dress like that?", and "Do you appreciate the kind of attention you receive when you dress that way?" don't cover the subject. They're just openings. Each and every one of those has a dialogue that follows. And I'll guarantee you they will all end up with: "I want to wear this anyway, why shouldn't I wear it?" And I'll have to state WHY the clothes are inappropriate.

So, seriously, please give me your version of the proper statement to make as to why those clothes are innappropriate. I can SAY they are and hope she just goes "OK, Dad", but I know she's thinking "No, they aren't" or "I don't care if they are, I want to wear them anyway" or " I want to wear them BECAUSE they're inappropriate."

Personally, I tend towards discussing what clothes say about the wearer. For instance, you wear pants that hang halfway down your rear end? That says you're a slob, in my book. Don't like the fact that people pick up the "wrong" message about you based on the way you dress? Sorry, hon, that's the way the world works. Don't like it? Well, don't complain to me after that job interview you were dressed inappropriately for. You can say "you can't judge a book by its cover" all you want, but this is still how the world works. I see it every day in my job.

[The Happy Feminist]

I was always taught about proper dress in terms of etiquette, rather than morality or safety or sexuality. It is good etiquette to dress in conformity to the occasion so as not to call undue attention to yourself or make others feel uncomfortable. My parents thought it was perfectly fine for me to wear a bikini to the beach, or even to go topless at a European beach where female toplessness was the norm, but wearing a bikini top to school or cleavage baring outfit to work would be rude.

[mythago]

And I'll guarantee you they will all end up with: "I want to wear this anyway, why shouldn't I wear it?" And I'll have to state WHY the clothes are inappropriate.

Well, sure. Is it so awful that you had a thoughtful discussion first instead of skipping right to the "You're not wearing that, young lady!"?

And there is a big difference between pointing out that clothing is inappropriate, immature, or not something your family standards permit, and calling it "slutty".

[Joseph]

If a woman is dressing in a sexually provocative fashion, then she is engaging in sexual harassment against every male whom she encounters. Those men have every right to engage in a class action sexual harassment suit against her.

[The Happy Feminist]

Joseph, that's just silly. Sexual harassment means subjecting someone to severe and/or pervasive sexual conduct such that it becomes a condition of the person's employment (or possibly involvemenr in other activiites.) If my male co-worker wears a shirt with the neckline plunging to his navel and super tight pants, that may be disconcerting but it's probably not sexual harassment -- but if he exposed himself to me, it probably would be. If a female co-worker dresses provocatively it's probably not sexual harassment but if she flashes her breasts at her co-workers, it probably would be.

[Mike]

Hugo-

This was an excellent post- I didn't think it was too long at all. I like how you differentiated between sexual attraction and reaction formation. It is one thing to be attracted to a woman, it is another matter entirely to dwell on that attraction to the point where it overwhelms the ability to see that woman as a person.

[Scarbo]

Mythago -- of course it's not awful to have the dialogue, never said I thought it was. The question, again, is: HOW do you explain (what words do you use) to convey why certain outfits are not acceptable? Seriously, I'm looking for help here. I'm an engineer -- my forte is not verbal skills, and yes, I can be very blunt at times.

And there is a big difference between pointing out that clothing is inappropriate, immature, or not something your family standards permit, and calling it "slutty".

Of course; totally agree. I have not and I will not call her clothes "slutty" to her face. I used the adjective here on this blog so that y'all would know what I'm talking about, nothing more.

But again: Dad says "that's inappropriate."

Daughter says, "Why?"

Dad answers: "________________________________"

Help me fill in the blank.

[Hugo]

Dad answers: "How might what you're wearing affect your friends?" It's a good idea to stimulate dialogue about why she wants to wear the outfit first, and explore the repercussions in her larger social group. It's also important that what we wear be congruent with the larger purpose of the public gathering we are attending. What is appropriate for school might not be appropriate for church, what is appropriate at a party might not be appropriate for school, and so forth. It's important to inculcate an understanding of "time, place, and manner."

[Scarbo]

And if I didn't want to answer a question with a question?

[Hugo]

Well, then you won't win "Socratic dad of the week award".

[Sam]

It has bothered me for a long time that the social meme is for fathers to get upset that their teenaged daughters are having consensual sex, like he's "spoiled her" or something like that. How many movies, tv sitcoms, and other cultural products have dad getting angry at a boy he assumes is having sex with his daughter? The George Lopez show recently did the obligatory episode where daughter and boyfriend fall asleep innocently but Dad thinks they've had sex and he threatens and chases the boy around like he's going to maim him while daughter protests innocence.

It would be a great milestone in our evolution if it became regular on sitcoms that instead of dad getting angry at boyfriend for he and daughter having consensual sex maybe dad could say, "Really? You're having sex with your boyfriend now? Oh baby I'm so happy for you and I'm here if you need any birth control or want to talk about it, and I'm sure Mom will also be pleased the nice boy you've been bringing around is sharing physical intimacy with you and I love you, honey. Congratulations."

[Scarbo]

Hugo -- all sarcasm aside...

Rather than y'all being obtuse, how about some direct answers to my question? Anyone? Bueller?

Sam -- do you have any teenage kids? I hope not, because you sound like the type of parent I'd like to take a 2x4 to the head of. The evolutionary milestone you describe is, to me, anything but "great".

[Vacula]

My guess, Scarbo, would be that the best answer would depend more on your daughter and her personality/perspective than any pat answer someone here can give.

Which is probably why Hugo answered the way he did - most kids that age don't want a blanket judgement - they want their opinions validated, not dismissed. Usually they answer much more responsibly if you ask them to think for themselves. None of us know your daughter, so any approach we offer is just a guess when it comes to her response.

[Vacula]

My guess, Scarbo, would be that the best answer would depend more on your daughter and her personality/perspective than any pat answer someone here can give.

Which is probably why Hugo answered the way he did - most kids that age don't want a blanket judgement - they want their opinions validated, not dismissed. Usually they answer much more responsibly if you ask them to think for themselves. None of us know your daughter, so any approach we offer is just a guess when it comes to her response.

[Vacula]

Sorry!

[Hugo]

Scarbo, I can report the conversations I've had with teens here on the blog. But I don't know your daughter, and I don't know the context, so I can't hand you a script -- I could make one up, and then you could tell me reasons why it wouldn't work, and round and round we'd go. Rather, I want the emphasis to be on discussion of clothing and values that invites your daughter to consider that she has both rights and responsibilities, and that encourages her to talk about her hopes and doubts.

[Andermom]

Scarbo,
When you dress provocatively the focus isn't on the clothes, it's on the body in the clothes. A scantily clad girl is effectively saying with her clothes "My body is beautiful therefore I am important." or "My body is the only way I can think of to get your attention." If she's lucky the boys and girls around her will be mature enough to treat her as more than her body (like Hugo's post says they should). If she's not lucky she's going to develop a feeling that she is important *only* because her body is beautiful. Then what happens to her when she gains five pounds?

Dad says "that's inappropriate."
Daughter says, "Why?"
Dad answers: "Because it will give you bad self esteem"

Maybe it won't work with your daughter or anyone else, but it would have worked for me.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

maybe dad could say, "Really? You're having sex with your boyfriend now? Oh baby I'm so happy for you ...

Are there really a lot of dads who would say this to their teenaged daughters? My dad sure wouldn't have, when I was a teenager. Maybe my perspective is skewed by being middle-aged and the daughter of an immigrant, but if I saw a parent saying that on a sitcom, I'd assume the sitcom was about how free and easy about sex the dad was (sort of the way Meet the Fockers gets a lot of its humor from the fact that the mother of the groom is a sex therapist).