Well, What Were You Wearing?

[NanceGreggs]

20. There are instances ...

... where what a woman wears does invite undo attention to her "natural assets".

By way of example, I worked with a woman who was "abundantly endowed in the chestal area", as Archie Bunker would put it. She always wore skin-tight, low-cut tops to work - and then complained that men were looking at her breasts. It was impossible NOT to look - it was like she was serving her rack up on a platter, and even the straight women in the office found it hard not to stare. It was THAT blatant an invitation to look at her breasts - which she then insisted was not an invitation at all.

Wearing clothing that is meant to accentuate one's sexual assets and then being infuriated that people notice is like wearing a neon sign that says: "Warning - DO NOT LOOK AT THIS NEON SIGN!"

Inviting unwanted attention happens. Most women don't do it - but some women do. And comparing an invitation to LOOK to an invitation to rape/molest is like comparing a shoplifter who pockets a stick of gum to someone who robs a store at gunpoint; they are NOT equal crimes of theft.

I believe that women should be equal to men, in terms of equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for advancement in their careers, et cetera. The idea that women never knowingly invite sexual harassment regardless of what they say, or do, or wear promotes the idea of being not equal, but of women requiring special treatment by virtue of their gender.

If modern men wore codpieces to accentuate their "natural assets", would you fault the women who commented on their obviously-displayed penises as "uninvited" sexual harassment? Would you compare that harassment to being physically molested or forcibly raped?