General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Women in public, no matter how they're dressed, are not "inviting" ANYTHING. [View all]unblock
(52,205 posts)this is true for men as well, although the code is different. a uniform means something different from a suit, which means something different from casual attire, which means something different from uh, bedroom attire.
men who walk around in their underwear may or may not be "inviting" stares, but they're fools to think they're not going to get some, not to mention denied entry to certain places such as restaurants or the office.
now, it is true that some men take liberties in interpreting what a woman's clothing may mean. in particular, a woman may be dressed nicely because she has a date later that evening, in which case the message she is sending was intended only for that one special someone, but many men will choose to take the message as intended for them, or for that matter, for anyone. this is where much of the problem lies.
if you mean to say that the whole of fashion is a patriarchal construct and that clothes *ought* to be nothing other than practical, I don't think i'd particularly disagree; but as it is we do have fashion and that means that certain clothes do make certain (if sometimes nebulous) statements.
perhaps my refinement to your point would be that i think anyone attempting to interpret whatever statement clothing is attempting to convey would be well-advised to get corroboration from the wearer's words, body language, etc. without such support, the statement is easily misinterpreted, with the result often being that the wearer gets offended or insulted.
needless to say (and yet, it needs to be said) no one ever asks to be raped, and nothing, certainly not clothing, changes that.