Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    European women are very sexy compared to U.S. women...you are right
    there.  Women in Europe are very aware of fashion, like the latest
    things, good quality accesories (leather shoes, belts and bags to
    match, etc)and generally refuse to wear anything outdated while in the
    U.S. women don't care if their clothes are right updated or last
    seasons' or their shoes and bags are old fashioned or not, they don't
    seem to care to wear tennis shoes to go to work...How many women do you
    see in Geneva wearing bulky tennis shoes to work????
    Sexually speaking they are also freer than U.S. women...though there
    are "good girls" as well as "bad girls" just like everywhere else... I
    guess that geographies have little to do with that, customs and
    principles, self-reslect...all that play a good part in the game.

    Re: .1
    
    >U.S. women don't care if their clothes are right updated or last
    >seasons'
    
    Fashion trends usually hit the US about six months to a year after they
    get to Europe.
    
    >they don't seem to care to wear tennis shoes to go to work
    
    They wear them *to* work but they don't wear them *at* work.
    
    If the differences you list hold true in general, then it seems that US 
    women take a more practical approach (functionality and investment) to
    clothing and fashion, while European women are more concerned with style 
    and appearance.  If that's true, then it's not surprising for European
    women to look sexier.

    coordinated handbags, shoes, and accessories, in my opinion, do
    not a "sexy woman" make.  Sexy is in the eye of the beholder...
    
    One reason I don't follow fashion is that I just don't have the
    MONEY to do so.  It is VERY expensive to keep up with trends, and
    honestly, even if I HAD the money, I doubt I would spend it on
    high-fashion clothing....
    
    As for why American women are discouraged from being sexy, it has
    something, perhaps, to do with morality....something to do with
    power and equality, too.  Also, in America, "powerless" women are
    often seen as sexy (not always, but often).  The family woman is
    seen as "proper" , and a woman who is married with children
    seldom clothes or conveys herself in public as "sexy".  I've never
    been to Europe, so I can't comment on how the women there are.
    
    -Jody
    

    I think there's a time and place for everything.  Sexy clothes do not
    belong in the workplace.  They do belong on the beach, at a party, etc.
    
    IMHO,
    Marge

    I have never been anywhere in Europe except to England, and the
    sexier dressers must have been indoors getting fitted into their
    sexy outfits, because I felt right at home in my dowdy Pendleton
    suits.  But a friend says that while she was in Paris she felt
    downright dowdy at times, and *she* doesn't wear Pendleton suits!
    
    I wonder if most men really like passive women; I think they perhaps
    like women who appear to be passive and sexually non-interested in other
    men.  And if they can fool themselves into thinking that is true,
    then they can rest assured that while they are out eyeballing
    everything female that moves, their little woman waits patiently
    to be lit up by their presence.
    
    Sexy clothing doesn't make a sexy person.  Some of the best books
    have the dullest titles.  Gotta look inside to find the treasure.
    But IMHO, most people [translation: generally men] think the cover
    *is* the product.  Amazing what marketing can do.     
    
    M
      

    some general observations... as an American..
    
    One thing I noticed in Europe many years ago is that, in general,
    Americans are slobs compared to the Europeans, both men and women,
    and American tourists could be spotted at about a hundred yards.
    It is our heritage of casualness.
    
    Secondly, we are generally much more prudish about displaying our
    bodies than the Europeans. The Victorian era had a bigger hold on
    our imagination, apparently.
    
    Third, the pendulum swing back towards a more conservative era in
    the U.S. meant also more conservative, less-sexy dressing. Sexy
    clothing is inappropriate for the workplace, as well, if one is
    to be taken seriously. 
    
    I was recently in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which attracts a lot
    of European tourists this time of year. I was struck by the German
    family on the beach next to me; their teen-age daughter was sunbathing
    top-less, which seemed utterly normal to them. I cannot imagine
    the typical American dad reacting with less than a heart-attack
    at this idea. There were also problems, reported in the Florida
    papers, of the European tourists sunbathing nude at whatever beach
    they happened to be at. To them, it was normal.
    
    -roger
    

    Levi's, a t-shirt and a good pair of tennis shoes.  Do I feel sexy?
    
    You bet!
    

       Being an European woman, I don't see the connection between 
       topless swimming or going without a bra and expressing sexual
       desire. For me, it's just personal habit and I feel much more
       comfortable without. I don't consider my usual jeans and t-shirt
       as 'sexy' clothing. The few times I wear a bra, it's mostly in
       connection with dressing up, and that can very well be 'sexy'.
       And yes, I got a comment on this topic in the U.S. :-)

       As for sunbathing (in Munich), there is a good mixture of 'fully
       dressed', topless and nude at most places, although nude is
       restricted to designated (but not enclosed) areas. I usually
       decide depending on majority and with whom I am.

       On the other hand, I've noticed many more women in the U.S. then
       around here walking on the street or going shopping in shorts.
       That's something I would never wear outside my own garden, I'd
       feel like nude.

       I don't dress in fashion for two reasons. I simply don't have the
       money and to spend my time discussing with friends, reading or
       other hobbies has a higher priority to me than shopping.

       In my opinion, there is no relation between these habits and
       being sexual active/passive. But I haven't the experience to
       compare myself, European or American women in that area.


       Gr��e aus M�nchen,
                          Christine

Re .1

>there.  Women in Europe are very aware of fashion, like the latest
>things, good quality accesories (leather shoes, belts and bags to
>match, etc)and generally refuse to wear anything outdated while in the
>U.S. women don't care if their clothes are right updated or last
>seasons' or their shoes and bags are old fashioned or not, they don't
>seem to care to wear tennis shoes to go to work...How many women do you
>see in Geneva wearing bulky tennis shoes to work????

	Huh?  Er, I believe that "Women in Europe" is just a WEE BIT
	of a generalization.  Your reply evokes an image of swarms
	of fashion models with armfuls of expensive leather accessories.
	That is, in fact, quite far from the truth.  Perhaps at a
	fashion convention in Paris it would be the case, but the
	women I see on a day-to-day basis do NOT spend 90% of their
	salaries on clothing -- the cost of basic necessities is too
	high for that!  Please do not generalize about an entire
	continent when you are 3'000 miles away from it!

>European women are very sexy compared to U.S. women...you are right

	In any case, I do not see a connection between leather
	accessories and the "latest thing", and "sexiness."
	In fact, I am rather turned off by a woman who's shoelaces
	match her earrings;  to me "sexy" is a woman who dresses
	naturally and does not look like she spent all morning
	putting on her face and wears clothes that do not hide
	her natural beauty.


Re .2,.3

	Like .1, these replies seem to infer that "sexy = fashion
	goddess."  I don't think I said anything to imply this,
	and I certainly don't believe it.

Re .5

>I think there's a time and a place for everything.  Sexy clothes do not
>belong in the workplace.  They do belong on the beach, at a party, etc.

	Surely.  European women don't dress for a party at work any
	more than American women.

Re .5

>...The family woman is 
>seen as "proper," and a woman who is married with children
>seldom clothes or conveys herself in public as "sexy"...

	This hits close to the point.  It implies that "proper"
	or "family" are contradictory to "sexy." THIS is the
	root value which I am questioning:  why is it that,
	in woman, "proper" is incompatible with "sexy"? The
	fact that women in Europe tend to conceal their sexual
	attributes less than women in the U.S., does not
	imply that they are ready to jump in bed with every
	available male.  Yet it seems that in the U.S., a woman
	who does not dress as a "modified nun" (to borrow from
	Dave Barry) is perceived as a "slut".  WHY???


Re .7

>Secondly, we are generally much more prudish about displaying our
>bodies than the Europeans...

	I think this is a good summary of what I observed.  It
	remains to be determined WHY Americans are more influenced
	by the "Victorian era," as you called it.


Re .8

>Levi's, a t-shirt and a good pair of tennis shoes.  Do I feel sexy?

	I have always had a weekness for this type of dress. :-)
	Baggy sweat shirts, with sweatpants, on the other hand...


Re .9

>Being a European woman, I don't see the connection between
>topless swimming or going without a bra and expressing sexual
>desire.  For me, it's just a personal habit and I feel much more
>comfortable without...

	In the U.S. going without a bra is seen as being a little
	"gauche" -- it's NOT personal habit.  In my books, that's
	restriction of "sexual expression," for lack of a better
	term.  In Europe, it's seen as normal.  roger said in .7
	that he was struck by a topless teen-age daughter on the
	beach:  he said that he "cannot imagine the typical
	American dad reacting with less than a heart attack."
	I have grown up "sitting on the fence," so to speak:
	I can understand both the European and the American
	points of view to some extent.  I personally am more
	comfortable with the European.  My purpose in writing the
	base note was to try to understand whether the American view
	is based in strong beliefs that are part of American
    	culture, or just based in habit/convention.

-Keith

    
I could not agree more with Christine in .9.

We are different in Europe and we dress for comfort and smartness as the 
place and situation requires.

Yes we go topless on the beach - it's more comfortable and who wants strap 
marks messing up their tans. 

We also look smart and as well dressed as money and time allows (french 
women spend days in the bathroom getting that chic look according to my sister).

Yes you can spot the American tourists in Europe by the shabby way they dress.

I have also been puzzled by the prude attitude to some folks in the US. I was
once on a business trip and was walking across a car park. This guy in a passing
car made a very rude remark to me. I asked a friend why this had happened. To
the locals I looked like a tart - I was wearing a skirt and t-shirt - I was 
bare-legged and was not wearing a bra. The temperature was in the 90's so I
was dressed as I would be in Europe in such weather.

I am amazed that women in the US still wear tights when the temperature is in 
the 90's!! You can even tell who are the US women visiting us at the moment - 
we are having a heat wave - they are almost the only women in the building
wearing hosiery.

It's almost as though in the US being covered up is more important than comfort.
Only when you are at home can you "peel-off" - and then only in front of your
partner.
 
Wonder what the average US person would make of some Germans we met on holiday
in France who because there were 10 of them and only 5 showers, all stripped
off and shared the showers!!

This has got me thinking of how glad I am I live in Europe. A greater sense
of freedom in all situations. 

                       seals

    A similar topic may offer insight in the EURO_WOMAN notesfile:
    topic 26 - Sexy Clothes - Why
    
    

    Words like 'sexy' and 'fashionable' mean different things to different
    people. Even in the same culture people will disagree on them; across
    cultures the differences are greater.

    I have to sit in wonder when I hear things like French women are
    more fashionable or sexier than American women. I mean really I
    find the way most French women dress to be very unattractive. I
    am very grateful that so few American women emulate the French.
    I understand that it may look great to some people but it doesn't
    look so good to me. I mean white stockings? Yuch! To say nothing of
    silly looking hats and dresses.

    As for going topless of bra-less being sexy I don't think that that
    is true as a general rule. There are a lot of breasts that look better
    covered for one thing. There are a lot of men's chests that look better
    covered as well. :-) I guess it is a cultural thing that says that
    going topless or bra-less are signs of being cheep or having low
    moral values. But saying that that culture is wrong strikes me as
    being a bit ethnocentric. It always seems that it is the Americans
    who are asked to accept and value the differences of other cultures
    and never the others being asked to accept and value ours.

    ~Cliff

    Other European memories that startled me.....
    
    Standing at a urinal in what I thought was the men's room of a Belgian
    bar, only to discover that it was a co-ed bathroom, as one of the
    female members of my party gave me a cheerful hello as she walked
    behind me to the stalls. The restroom did have seperate stalls for men and
    women, and one marked "private"; I still wonder about that one.  
    
    And, when the women's showers broke down at an Amsterdam youth
    hostel, the men's showers promptly became co-ed, as well ...
    
    -roger
    

    I think my intention in using the word "sexy" has been misunderstood.
    I was not describing outfits that are deliberately chosen to attract
    sexual attentions, nor was I even THINKING about "Fashion" when
    I wrote the base note.  I was thinking more along the lines of the
    outfit described in .11 (t-shirt and short skirt), and about the
    mentality behind the remarks it elicited.  Perhaps I should have
    used phrases such as "less concealing" or "less prudish."  Both
    of these phrases have judgemental connotations;  I could not come
    up with a descriptor that was "impartial."
    
    Since I have spent a lot of time on each side of "the pond," I have
    some European and some American characteristics.  While I do not
    see "less concealing outfits" in Europe as meaning that the woman
    wearing them seeks sexual attentions, I have always found them to
    be very sexy.  So on a hot day I find half the women walking down
    the street to be very sexy -- not a particularly unpleasant experience
    :-) :-), and it improves my disposition and does no harm.
    
    Re: .13
    
    I don't think anyone said that American culture is "wrong."  What
    we have here is a difference between two cultures, and two different
    perspectives.  As I am both European and American, I should be able
    to understand both, but I cannot understand the American views on
    this subject for some reason.  I am judging;  I am asking for an
    explanation to enable me to understand.
    
    Keith

    Re .15, & .0, well, I guess you're lucky that you spend your summers
    in Europe since you seem to prefer European women to Americans.
     Hey, have fun!  What can I say? :-)  
    
    In a way, though, I think it's weird that you (a 20 yr. old guy?)
    felt compelled to enter a note in =womannotes= (a feminist notesfile)
    to tell American, feminist, Dec employees that you don't think we're
    as sexy as European women.  (Gee, thanks!)  On the other hand, are we 
    really supposed to care?

    But, if you're just commenting on the differences between the two
    cultures, well, I've never been to Europe, but I've heard a lot
    about the differences in culture.  I recently read an article in
    the National Geographic about how the French and Americans would
    like each other more if they only took the time to understand each
    other's different cultural behaviors.  I'm not sure that individuals
    can tell you why these differences exist, in personal terms.  Most
    of us try to fit into the society we're born into.  If most women
    are expected, in the culture we are brought up in, to wear a bra
    and stockings to work even on the hottest days, then most of us
    will.  Afterall, we live here and we have to fit in here, not in
    France, Italy or Germany.
    
    As far as nudity on beaches goes, it's *illegal* in Massachusetts
    and on all national seashores in the U.S.  I've *seen* people arrested
    on nude beaches and treated like criminals by the police.  You can
    get charged with a $50. fine if you're caught nude on a beach here,
    so why bother.  I think it's a silly law and that it infringes on
    our personal freedoms, but it's doesn't affect me personally since
    I, having been brought up in the prudish U.S., do feel more comfortable
    in a bathing suit.
    
    Well, like I said, have fun oogling those European women.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: Lorna
    
    >In a way, though, I think it's weird that you (a 20 yr. old guy?
    >felt compelled to enter a note in =womannotes= (a feminist
    >notesfile)  to tell American, feminist, Dec employees that you
    >don't think we're as sexy as European women.
    
    	I was, as you later suggested in your reply, commenting on
    	differences in cultural behavior.  By stating that I, personally,
    	find European dress sexier than American, I was explaining why
    	I had used "sexy" to describe the less concealing aspect of
    	European dress in the first place.
    
    >I'm not sure that individuals can tell you why these differences
    >exist, in personal terms.  Most of us try to fit into the society
    >we're born into.
    
    	Societies change.  We try to "fit in" to the society we are
    	born into, but... "traditionally," U.S. society is one where
    	women stay in the home and men run the show.  Fitting in does
    	not necessarily mean accepting all the "rules" as they stand.
    	My original purpose in writing the basenote was to suggest
    	that there is a connection between the the "prudish" morals
    	in the U.S., and the "rape culture" in the U.S.  I ask "Why"
    	the morals are as they are because the reasons underlying them
    	may help to determine whether such a connection exists.  IF
    	there is a connection between American culture's restrictions
    	on women's dress and the "rape culture" which suggests that
    	any woman who expresses any sexual interest/desire "deserves
    	what she gets", THEN perhaps woman have in interest in
    	questioning these morays?  Whether you agree or not with the
    	point I am trying to make, I hope you can now understand my
    	purpose in writing the note -- the discussion on "sexy" and
    	"fashion" was to me more of a tangent than anything else.
    
    	Keith

    warning:  I get the feeling I'm not going to phrase this too well,
    so please don't flame me.  It's a feeling that's hard to verbalize.
    
    I get the impression, from reading notesfiles and some magazines,
    and talking to some people about women in America and in Europe,
    that American women are fighting harder for the rights they would
    like to receive than European women.  They are trying to acquire
    power.  When one is trying to acquire power, it is important to
    be taken seriously.  It is hard to be taken seriously if one is
    dressed in a manner that, in one's own culture, is seen as sexy
    (where often, in America, sexy women are seen as superfluous). 
    Thus women will succumb to a less revealing manner of clothing if
    they wish to be accepted more for who they are rather than how they
    look.  When trying to gain a foundation of credibility in a culture
    which has denied them this in the past, it makes sense to don the
    attire which helps to remove some of the blatant femaleness from
    being female (panty hose sheath bare legs, bras keep breasts from
    natural motion, slacks or close-skirted business suits echo the
    power-attire many men wear, and coordination of accessories is often
    reduced because either the woman does not wish to look like she
    is overly concerned with fashion (the better to spend time concerned
    with greater things) - or she does away with many accessories
    altogether, to reduce the "frivolous" stereotype given to women
    in the past).
    
    So it may have to do with varying perceptions of women's goals in
    America and Europe, and it may have to do with putting aside a certain
    way of dress in order to buckle-down and get to more serious work
    within the culture, primarily that of being given the freedom and
    credibility to be accepted WHATEVER the career they wish to choose
    - be it engineer, teacher, mother, lawyer....
    
    -Jody
    

    That sort of answers the question about reasons for dress at work.
    I won't try to judge whether European or American women are fighting
    harder for power, since I am neither.  It does make reasonable sense
    to me that women in the U.S. might choose to dress "conservatively"
    AT WORK to be "taken more seriously" -- and indeed, women here at work
    seem to dress more conservatively that women here who are outside
    of work.  BUT -- what about the time spent outside of work?  (That's
    intended to be a QUESTION, and not a rhetorical question).
    
    Keith

        > Fitting in does not necessarily mean accepting all the "rules" 
        > as they stand.
    
        No, not all the rules, just the ones with consequences for
        those who break them.  I'm sure you make the same distinctions 
        regarding the rules of your own social environment.
    
    	>My original purpose in writing the basenote was to suggest
    	>that there is a connection between the the "prudish" morals
    	>in the U.S., and the "rape culture" in the U.S.  
    
        And you are right.  There is a connection. That's why it's not
        so easy to simply thumb our noses at the rules of dress for women.
    
        >IF there is a connection between American culture's restrictions
    	>on women's dress and the "rape culture" which suggests that
    	>any woman who expresses any sexual interest/desire "deserves
    	>what she gets", THEN perhaps woman have in interest in
    	>questioning these morays? 
    
        What makes you think women don't question them?  We question
        them plenty.  It's pretty stupid, however, to simply dress the
        way you want in a culture that thinks this way.  Women would be
        knowingly setting themselves up for trouble in a culture that would
        only think "she deserves what she gets".  Would YOU simply defy 
        unwritten cultural rules that would set you up for sexual assault
        or worse with little no sympathy or recourse?  Do you think male
        prisoners should simply not worry about rape because they disagree
        with self-imposed restrictions required to help prevent it?  I doubt it.
        One may hate the rules, but it's best to be safe while you're trying
        to change them!
    
        Women in this culture do not dress "prudishly" because they ARE
        more prudish.  Wrong conclusion.  They dress more prudishly in
        mere self defense.  Until you've walked down an American street 
        as a woman dressed, (what you call), un-prudishly, you have no 
        idea how American men act toward them and how they do so with a
        feeling of total impunity - as if it is their total right to 
        insult, degrade and mistreat a woman because her clothes have given 
        it to them.

re: .18 (Jody Bobbit)

    power.  When one is trying to acquire power, it is important to
    be taken seriously.  It is hard to be taken seriously if one is
    dressed in a manner that, in one's own culture, is seen as sexy
    (where often, in America, sexy women are seen as superfluous). 
    Thus women will succumb to a less revealing manner of clothing if
    they wish to be accepted more for who they are rather than how they
    look.  When trying to gain a foundation of credibility in a culture
    which has denied them this in the past, it makes sense to don the
    attire which helps to remove some of the blatant femaleness from
    being female 

Won't it be wonderful when women achieve a status such that they can
dress to *accentuate* their femaleness, and maintain (or even increase)
their respectability by doing so?

In the spirit of such this, I do not wear "power clothes".  When I am
dressing up (usually I wear jeans anyway, in which case it's unisexual
and irrelevent) I like to wear things that show off my best features,
rather than hiding them.  Perhaps this will harm me in my search for
power in the work-place, but so be it...

In a different vein, it actually appears to me that men are also "not
allowed" to accentuated their masculinity, any more than women.  "Power
clothes" for men do not show off those features which are uniquely
masculine, nor are they especially sexy (IMHO).  A man wearing a muscle
shirt and neoprene biking pants would be no more accepted in the business
world than a woman wearing a mini-skirt and low-cut blouse.  Perhaps
the idea in business is for *everyone* to deemphasize their physicalness,
in order to emphasize their mental competancy.

D!    

    
    >In a different vein, it actually appears to me that men are also "not
    >allowed" to accentuated their masculinity, any more than women.
    
    >Perhaps the idea in business is for *everyone* to deemphasize their
    >physicalness, in order to emphasize their mental competancy.
   
    Men are generally, (not just in business), not expected to accentuate
    their sexiness.  In our culture men are the consumers of sex and not
    the objects.  It is not a particular rule of men in business at all.
    And the reason men are not expected to sexually "objectify" themselves
    is because it diminishes power.  Women haven't traditionally been ex-
    pected to have, need, want or deserve power so the objectification of 
    them, (either by men or by themselves to appease men), wasn't seen as 
    diminishing to them in any way.  But now that women are in business and 
    do want power, the symbolism of their clothing, (this skirt is for a
    tart, this one for a manager, etc), is becoming more evident and much
    more of an issue.  Maybe European women don't particularly care about
    personal power, or maybe European men don't see Euporean women's
    clothing as symbolic of her sexual availability and interest.  In
    America, her clothing is still read by American males like an open book
    into her sexual psyche.
    
    And conversely, men are dressing more sexy on occasion, (tight biking 
    pants as opposed to the more macho cutoffs of the past), because as power 
    begins to balance out between men and women, so does its opposite -
    sexual objectification.
    

    re .22-
    
    I agree with most of what you said.  Could you clarify this for me?
    
    > And conversely, men are dressing more sexy on occasion, (tight biking 
    > pants as opposed to the more macho cutoffs of the past), because as power 
    > begins to balance out between men and women, so does its opposite -
    > sexual objectification.
    
    Which occasions are you thinking of?
    
    [reason I ask is, when *I* wear neoprene biking pants its because they
    are the most effective garment when I'm biking.  I don't wear them on
    other occasions; do other people?  I don't remember seeing it.]  
    
    DougO

       re .16, Lorna

>               ... to enter a note in =womannotes= (a feminist notesfile)
>    to tell American, feminist, Dec employees that you don't think we're
>    as sexy as European women.
...
>    Well, like I said, have fun oogling those European women.

       Well, I HOPE I misinterpreted the tone of your note, to me it
       sounded a little like you were making the difference between
       American = feminist, professional and European = 'sexy' (for
       lack of a better word).

       The vast majority of the women I know take their job very
       serious, are hard workers and know very well how to act in a
       business environment. Although the percentage of women in
       technical or management positions is still behind the U.S.
       numbers, for different, unrelated reasons. I don't agree with 
       Jody (.18) that women in Europe are less fighting for acceptance 
       in business, they have a different starting position.

       I really think that 'sexy' is much more related to behaviour,
       which in turn depends on how you feel about yourself and not
       so much on what you are (not) wearing. 

       And in Europe, as well as presumably all over the world, some
       people judge from the looks, some try to talk and understand.


>                                       I recently read an article in
>    the National Geographic about how the French and Americans would
>    like each other more if they only took the time to understand each
>    other's different cultural behaviors.

       This note seems to be a good start. Generally, I like Americans 
       and I have some real good friends over there. And every time I 
       got to talk about differences with someone, the result was that
       the difference seemed much smaller afterwards and you could see
       more of the common ground.


       Viele Gr��e,    
                   Christine


       (Disclaimer: I don't work for Personnel in Munich :-) :-) )

    reply
    
    Doug,
    
    Spandex is the in look for MEN on the dance floor. And believe me,
    it leaves a lot less to the imagination than baggies did a few years
    ago. Personally, I prefer baggies... let me be pleasantly surprised.
    
    ("Baggies" refers to fully pleated pants for men.)

    RE: a few notes back
    
    Ithought I caught a flavor of "so you want power? OK, dress for success
    at work, but after work - hey! how about dressing 'sexy'?!"
    
    Women are not trying to gain power in one arena alone - the workplace.
    We are trying to gain power in the society as a whole. This means
    being taken seriously WHEREVER we are - work, home, on the street.
    
    In addition, women are now dressing more for themselves than for the
    pleasure of men, so more comfortable clothing is becoming de rigeur.
    Such clothing may or may not be 'sexy' to an observing male. Whether
    a woman is 'sexy' to random men is probably not as high on her
    priority list as it might have been in the past. (Non-random males
    are another matter, of course! :-) )
    
    --DE
    

    Re .24, no, Christine, I didn't mean to imply that European women
    are not as feminist or professional or serious as American women.
    I've never been to Europe so I can only make a personal comparison
    from reading, TV, movies, hearsay, etc.  I've been warned all my
    life about generalization so that tends to make me think that really
    there must be a mixture of all types of women imaginable in both
    Europe and the U.S.   I think that .0 just happens to, in general
    find the overall style of dress and mannerisms of the European women
    he sees more appealing than his overall view of American women.
     That could be just his personal taste.  Besides, he mentioned going
    to the French Riviera (sp?).  Now that I think about it it's hardly
    surprising that the women he sees there are sexier looking than
    the average woman in middle America.  I think that in the U.S.,
    as Dawn and others have mentioned, that a small part, or maybe not
    that small a part, of the women's movement has been for women to
    stop dressing in uncomfortable clothes and overly expensive clothes
    just to try to please men.  Women are realizing that they can be
    comfortable and still look attractive, and that since many of us
    are trying to support ourselves on less than adequate salaries, that
    we are sick of having to replace our entire wardrobes every year
    just because some fashion designer has decided that last years clothes
    are outdated.  (Maybe we want to save our money for tickets to Europe
    instead, and then we wind up going over there in ratty old clothes!)

    As far as telling .0 to have fun oogling the women of Europe, I
    was only teasing him.  Afterall, he did say it made his day pleasant
    to observe the attractive women he around him.
    
    Also, just because I referred to =wn= as being American, feminist,
    Dec employees did not mean to imply that I don't think that European
    Dec employees are not also feminists.  I meant to point out that
    he wanted to tell *American* women that he thinks *European* women
    are sexier?  Isn't that just a tad unflattering?  (I mean, nobody
    wants to be considered a "slut" but almost everybody wants to be
    sexy - to somebody.  That's how Crest toothpaste became so popular,
    etc.)
    
    Lorna
     

    DougO,

    > Could you clarify this for me?
    
    >> ... men are dressing more sexy on occasion, (tight biking 
    >> pants as opposed to the more macho cutoffs...
    
    On occasion as opposed to never, never, never.
    
    >reason I ask is, when *I* wear neoprene biking pants its because they
    >are the most effective garment when I'm biking.  

    Perhaps they are the "most effective" garment when biking.  Then
    I can only assume they always were.  Why, then, are they only recently
    being seen?  Because before, when men were men and women were chattel,
    men in tight, stretchy pants were not seen as being "effectively
    dressed for biking" or any other activity except, perhaps, cruising.
    You are now allowed the option of enjoying the "effectiveness" of this
    kind of attire due to the reasons I've already outlined.  If you were
    the first male to actually wear them, then I'd applaud your 
    individualism and dedication to your sport.  But I can't help but suspect
    that you didn't even consider them until you saw that they had become 
    fashionable for men - i.e socially acceptable.  
    
    And this isn't to attack you personally, you were talking about your
    personal attire and your personal reasons for your choice.  I am simply 
    addressing those comments.

    Conversely, there are many garments that are "most effective" for women -
    flat shoes vs high heels comes immediately to mind.  Woolen pants and
    warm socks rather than skirts and nylons in winter is another one.  But
    "effectiveness" has traditionally been secondary to the social rules of 
    dress.  You're enjoying a relaxation of one of the rules of male dress
    rather than being a maverick and wearing what's "effective" and damn
    the torpedoes.  If the rule hadn't been relaxed, and you tooled around
    town in your "effective" biking pants, you would pay the price of
    breaking that rule - jeers and hoots and whistles, possibly violence
    from homophobes, a defininte "odd" reputation among all - women included.  
    Would you risk it?  Or would you take the cutoffs, get chafed and be
    accepted?  Tell me you and/or your crowd never in your life laughed at 
    or said insulting things about male ballet dancers, who wear the "most 
    effective" attire for their art.  Maybe now you will begin to see that 
    what's effective must fall within the confines of what's socially allowed 
    or its effectiveness is irrelevant among the masses and the "maverick"
    will pay the social price.
    

    re .28,

    >     On occasion as opposed to never, never, never.

    Thanks for answering my question.

    > Perhaps they are the "most effective" garment when biking.  Then
    > I can only assume they always were.  Why, then, are they only recently
    > being seen?  

    Ummm...increasing availability?  They are an innovation, are you aware
    that they are 1) designed not to wrinkle to avoid chafing 2) skin-tight
    for less wind resistance and 3) chamois-lined for comfort?  I suspect
    that as biking has become more popular that designers have paid more
    attention to the problems of traditional garments.  Form follows
    function.  Other criteria also play a part, I'll grant you.

    > You are now allowed the option of enjoying the "effectiveness" of this
    > kind of attire due to the reasons I've already outlined. 

    [Dryly]  Yes, I suspect those reasons have something to do with it.  It
    also helps that I live in California where setting one's own fashion is
    so commonplace it doesn't even get mentioned anymore.

    > But I can't help but suspect that you didn't even consider them until you 
    > saw that they had become fashionable for men - i.e socially acceptable.  
      
    I only started serious biking in the last few months and so started out 
    from day one with what the experts recommended I wear.  Your speculations
    on my motives weren't really appreciated.

    > But "effectiveness" has traditionally been secondary to the social rules 
    > of dress.  You're enjoying a relaxation of one of the rules of male dress
    > rather than being a maverick and wearing what's "effective" and damn
    > the torpedoes.

    I recognize and agree with your point; see my 109.66 entered last
    August for the last time I discussed the objectification problem with
    someone named Ciccolini.  And I never claimed to be a maverick, merely
    a Californian (transplant, but I belong here.)
    
    > Maybe now you will begin to see that what's effective must fall 
    > within the confines of what's socially allowed or its effectiveness 
    > is irrelevant among the masses and the "maverick" will pay the social 
    > price.
    
    Oh, quit being so condescending.  I can't really see how my comments
    set this off.  You aren't wrong, but you're preaching to the choir.
    
    Regards-
    
    DougO

    re .25, (how come nobody tells me their names anymore?)-
    
    > Spandex is the in look for MEN on the dance floor. And believe me,
    > it leaves a lot less to the imagination than baggies did a few years
    > ago. Personally, I prefer baggies... let me be pleasantly surprised.
    
    I guess I go dancing in different places, I haven't seen this "fashion
    statement".  Last time I went dancing was in Santa Cruz, to reggae, and 
    most people were in beach-style attire; shorts, halters, loose dresses, 
    jeans, tshirts, sandals.  Made sense to me, I'd just spent the
    afternoon at the beach.  
    
    Apologies for deepening the rathole.
    
    ("Baggies", I love it ;-).
    
    DougO

    
    Regarding all men as strangers is likely to guarantee that they
    all remain strangers.
    
    Unless you are picking them from a lottery...

    Biking pants? Dress for success? Power? Bras? What a rathole this
    string has fallen into!
    
    I believe the basenote referred to the way European appeared "sexier"
    than women in the U.S.  I have been to Europe, I am an American
    female, not unattractive, and I have to agree that European (western)
    women DO in fact behave in a more sexual, sensual manner.  It has
    only a little to do with the way they dress.  It has more to do
    with the way they behave!
    
    Yes, when I was there (on vacation with a former boyfriend) I felt
    somewhat intimidated/inferior in my sexual appeal.  It was quite
    odd, at home I was quite comfortable with myself, while there, quite
    uncomfortable.  In my mind the reasons do have to do with feminism.
    European females are decades behind American women in challenging
    the traditional "female" roles - thus they still derive most of
    their power through men.  The "form follows function" statement
    holds true here:  because they still derive most of their
    power/status/success through the men in society, they thus act,
    dress, behave in ways to attract men to a much greater degree than
    American women. Thus the emphasis on fashion, the bralessness, the
    more "seductive" behavior, the topless beach going.  While I was
    there, I met quite a few of my former boyfriend's female cousins,
    most in their early twenties.  Their biggest goal, both to themselves
    and their parents, was getting married and having babies.  I'm
    certainly not saying there is anything wrong with getting married
    and having babies.  It's just that this was the ONLY thing that
    seemed to be important to them.  None of them could understand why
    my boyfriend and I WEREN'T married, and heavens why I wasn't pregnant,
    and good grief, why was I still working when I could simply be living
    with my boyfriend and having him take care of me!
    
    Anyway, discussing anything "feminist" was impossible at that time
    with them, this was in mid and late seventies.
    
    I also think though that European women are more comfortable with
    their bodies, and yes, feel a bit less threatened by the "rape culture"
    that pervades American society.  I believe American women by necessity,
    have to be much more careful about what they choose to expose of
    themselves in the U.S., because American men consider exposed female
    flesh and open invitation for rape.  America on the whole is a much
    more violent society, we have guns at will, crime appears to be
    more commonplace here.  So, women feel threatened, and do what they
    can NOT to attract the wrong kind of attention that may invoke harm.
    I think Europe is an older society, a more structured society, a
    more homogeneous society.  So people there know what to expect of
    one another.  The rules are more strictly followed in effect.  For
    instance, topless beaches are acceptable, breasts exposed are not
    to be construed as an open invitation for immediate sex.  That's
    the rule.  In America, an extremely heterogeneous population, a
    common set of rules does not exist per se.  Exposed breasts on the
    beach mean many things, because of the variety of cultures that
    form the backgrounds of most Americans: to some it's shameless,
    to others, it's wow she's asking for it let's go get her.  No woman,
    in her right mind would expose herself to that risk.
    
    And, it carries on down the line, to how American women behave in
    the workplace, how they dress, the things they respond negatively
    to, the things they respond positively to.  Yes, I believe European
    women, in general, are more sexual in their manner of behaviour,
    and of course that is very appealing to men.  Just as I also believe
    that European men are mmore sexual in their behaviour, and quite
    frankly, are much more appealing to me!  They are much less uncouth,
    they are more gentlemanly, more sensitive, more attentive to a woman,
    the list could go on.  Yes much more apppealing if the truth be
    known!
    

    Re:	.33
    
    I could write a book in response to your note, but it's 5:30 here
    so I will abridge...
    
    Suffice to say:
    (1)	Before you try to equate toplessness with sexuality for European
    	women, please read what the European women in this topic have
    	written about it (I believe it was between .9 and .16).  Just
    	because Breasts=Sex in the U.S. does not imply that this must
    	necessarily be the case in Europe -- toplessness in Europe does
    	not imply that European women are all "baby makers."
    
    (2)	Have you been to Europe?  There are over 12 countries in the
    	ECC alone now, and that leaves out Switzerland, Sweden, and
    	the other non-ECC members.  And I'm not even talking avout the
    	"Eastern" European countries.  There are almost as many languages
    	as countries, and Switzerland alone has 4 languages.  You can
    	surely say that Norway and Sweden are quite similar, but try
    	comparing Denmark to Spain or Greece or France!  Europe is
    	quite heterogeneous, recent press about the Common Market
    	notwithstanding!
    
    Keith

    re .34
    re (1) My point exactly.  Europeans don't seem to equate breasts=sex.
    Americans do.
    
    re (2) Yes I've been to Europe. In general terms, each country is
    more a homogeneous population than that occuring in the U.S.  There
    is a French culture, a German culture, a Spanish culture etc., Whereas
    in any given state in the U.S., you encounter many differnt cultural
    backgrounds that make up the population.  That is my point.  Women
    are more cautious in their behaviour, because the behavioural norms
    are less defined.
    

    RE:34
    What's your point, Keith?
    
    I'm surprised that you are having such a tough time figuring this
    out, for someone, like yourself, who has grown up in the United
    States, should be intimately familiar with the cultural standards
    here. American women travelling in Europe will of course dress by
    their own American standards. They are, after all, Americans. This
    is simply a culture gap between the U.S. and Europe.
    
    You seem to be disappointed that American women don't dress like
    European women. Sorry to hear you're disappointed, but that won't
    change anything. 
    
    As Delisle pointed out, dressing European-style in the United States
    will get you harrased.
    
    And if you think Americans dress unsexy, you should check out some
    of the Japanese tourists. I saw a group walk on to a beach in 
    California. All, I repeat, all of the men were wearing black suits,
    and looked totally disoriented (no pun intended!). I only knew they
    were tourists, and not attending a funeral, by the cameras around
    their necks.                                                     
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                           
    

    
    re -1
    
    Thank you for standing up for Europe.
    
    Yes we are a very wide variety of people and NO we are not decades
    behind the US when it comes to women's rights etc.
    
    Most studies of women's rights refer to what has already been done in
    the Scandanavian countries, West Germany, the Netherlands etc.
    
    I would say that the visitor in .33 visited a certain group of people
    who are found anywhere in the world. 
    
    It was certainly not a "typical" European family!!
    
    Some folks want to stay home and make babies, some folks want to run a
    world-wide corporation and some of us what to do both!!
    
                         seals
    

    
    re .33
    
    A Power Bra..? 
    
    Haven't seen one of those yet....

    Navy blue wool blend, worn with rep tie....

      Well now, I rarely wear bras though I do usually wear tight tank
      tops under my shirts. When it's real hot I wear dresses with no
      nylons to work, usually I'm in jeans. Does this make me sexy or a
      unisex prude? Off work I dress pretty much the same unless there
      is some special ocassion. I dress this way because it's
      comfortable.

      America (especially new England) was populated by a religious
      group that had a fairly narrow definition of what was moral and
      right. I expect that explains a lot.

      I was cycle touring in England in 83 with an English friend. She
      wore skirts to ride in while I had on shorts. I was routinely the
      victim of catcalls and rude remarks from the English road workers.
      My friend said it was because of the shorts.

      As for the rest of Europe I've never been - certainly in places
      like Naussa (sp) and Jamaica I couldn't tell the Americans from
      the Europeans as everyone was in rather skimpy clothes. No
      harassment there either. I would say culture has a lot to do with
      this. Here in Colorado I've seen a little bit of everything when
      it comes to clothes. Maybe it's cause almost everyone here is from
      somewhere else. liesl

    I have read several but not all of the replies to this note.  I doubt
    that this was brought up, so here goes.  Speaking of women's breasts,
    the major difference between women's and men's is that women's are
    "fleshier". Both men and women have nipples.  So why is it okay to have 
    men's nipples exposed, but not women's, while it *is* okay to expose the
    "fleshier" portions of the womens' breasts?  Logically, this doesn't
    make sense, because the parts that are different between men and
    women aren't what's taboo for women to expose, it's the parts that are
    the _same_!!!  It seems then that the Europeans are much more
    consistent, and the U.S. culture is illogical.  (I hope this is clear,
    it's late...)
    
    Paula

    Re: Previous
    
    From reading the replies by American noters, I think I have a better
    idea of WHY the American mores persist as they are.  I was aware
    of WHAT the American "rules" were, but not of the reasons WHY women
    in the U.S. didn't seem to mind following them, even though they
    are (IMHO) rather restrictive.
    
    The general impression I am getting is that American women follow
    the "rules" because the current values would make it very difficult
    to change them, because they don't find the restrictions bothersome
    enough to be worth changing, and because they are sufficiently
    ingrained with American morality values that they feel uncomfortable
    with changing. (Please insert "some" and "many" where appropriate).
    Americans, please correct me if this impression is wrong.
    
    Keith

    re .35
    
    > re (1) My point exactly.  Europeans don't seem to equate breasts=sex.
    > Americans do.
    
    I thought about that one a little further... If you "stretch it"
    just a little and allow that breasts are a symbol of femininity,
    then you get Americans equating femininity=sex.  I think that also
    fits what has been written so far in this note.  Perhaps that is
    why I have a hard time understanding American women's apparently
    willing acceptance of the "rules"  -- the style of dress isn't really
    the point, it's a symptom of a cultural value which, IMHO, has certain
    implications about women's role in society.  In Europe, the "feel"
    I get is that femininity includes, but is not limited to, sexuality;
    to me, that "feels" like a natural way of looking at things.  In
    the U.S., I get the impression that "sexuality" and "person" are
    mutually exclusive:  a woman must remove all hints of sexuality
    or risk being treated as a non-person.  This  applies analogously
    to males as well:  as a mentioned in a reply to the swimsuit note,
    I am personally more comfortable in a small bathing suit rather than
    bulky trunks, but it is interpreted as strange/immodest/wrong by many
    Americans.  Perhaps that is why I have come across as "preferring"
    European women -- in fact, what I "prefer" is a certain aspect of the
    way people are considered in European culture.  If I am writing
    this in a predominantly American notesfile, it is get replies that
    may help me understand why Americans seem to prefer a value system
    that separates a part of that which makes us human from what is
    socially accepted as expression of humanity.
    
    Keith

Yes that was clear Paula, and I never thought of it, but it makes sense.

There is a note on Top-free Equality someplace here, which also has some
interesting comments on the subject.
	Mez

    Re .43, it takes a lot of courage to be a forerunner of fashion
    change, especially if you live in the suburbs and work in business.
     If we could get everybody in America to change their attitudes
    regarding sexuality, morality and dress, all at the same moment
    it would be a lot easier.  But, of course that's impossible.  Most
    people feel more comfortable dressing somewhat like the people around
    them, no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient, than drawing
    the attention that truly unusual clothing can cause.  
    
    Maybe something can be arranged on a nationwide basis, where at
    the exact same moment on a certain day, all American women can start
    dressing exactly as they want (sexy, sloppy, feminine, topless,
    you name it) and at that exact same moment all the men in America
    will stop judging the women they see by the way they are dressed.
     That would be nice.  But, until that happens I'll keep in mind
    what the clothes I wear might make other people think of me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .45
    
    You don't have to be a "forerunner of fashion" to try to change
    attitudes of "sexuality, morality and dress" any more than you have
    to walk alone late at night in dark alleys in order to advocate
    your right to do so, IMHO.  In the company of many women in the
    U.S., I can FEEL an anger against the sexual disparity in the right
    to go to certain places at certain times.  But I feel a complacency
    vis-a-vis the "dress codes":  women seem to just accept it without
    expressing any objection whatsoever.  Women still run great risks
    by walking alone in dark alleys, but there has been far more "noise"
    concerning rape and women's sexual rights than in recent years.
    That "noise", IMHO, goes along with a wider questioning of certain
    values and is a step in the right direction.
    
    Keith

    Let me see if I can verbalize this correctly.  My impression of
    Europeans, we're talking western Europe here, is that there is less
    taboo on expressing themselves with their bodies.  This includes
    their sexual natures as well as all the rest.  That is why toplessness
    is acceptable, men's bikinis are acceptable, women behave in more
    sexual ways etc.  Nudity does not equate with sex.  bared flesh
    is not necessarily a come on.  In the U.S., the last remaining bastion
    of Puritan morals, a nation with a highly Christian/Catholic
    background, the opposite is true. Bared breasts, or even partially
    bared breasts are a come on.  Bodily expression is much more reserved,
    i.e. breasts=sex.  
    
    Women do not live in a vacuum.  They live with and interact with
    men.  Women cannot help but "put up" with the cultural restrictions
    imposed on them by the culture they are living in to a great extent.
    As I said, the alternatives are leaving oneself open to bodily harm.
    You know the old expression "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
    In America, a female does not behave in a sexy manner unless she's
    conscious of the direct consequences: attracting male attention,
    maybe the kind of attention she doesn't want.  And the norms of
    "sexy" are much more restrictive in the U.S.
    
    For instance, I went on vacation with a man in St.Martins where
    topless bathing was quite common.  He loved watching all the other
    women, but God forbid I should go topless!  Much too threatening
    to him.  Figure that one out!
    
    It all evolves around sexual politics, and the interaction of men
    and women.
    

    The note on topfree equality is in this file, note 61.  
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .47, Exactly.  I agree.
    
    Re .46, I seem to remember you mentioning somewhere that you are
    20 yrs. old?  Is that right?  Since I'm a 39 yr. old woman and you're
    a 20 yr. old guy, does it occur to you at all that I might have
    had a lot more occasion to observe the reactions of women's dress
    upon men than you have.  You are of a different generation and a
    different sex.  (I guess that means I disagree with you and I think
    I know what I'm talking about.  Sorry.  .47 is right.  Until most
    or all men in America change their attitudes towards women, based
    on dress, the risk is just too great for most women.)
    
    I'll give you an example of a couple of things that came to mind.
     I recently saw the movie "The Accused" with Jody Foster (she got
    the academy award for it this year), based on the famous New Bedford,
    Mass. pool table rape trial.  At first I didn't want to see this
    movie because I thought it might be depressing or something but
    a friend's boyfriend made a comment that made me decide to rent
    the movie and decide for myself.  My friend's boyfriend is a nice
    guy.  He's a well-paid blue collar worker, high school graduate,
    29 yrs. old, who would never hurt anybody, isn't dumb, but probably
    hasn't read a book since the last book report in high school.  I'd
    say that describes a lot of men in America.  She told me that after
    he watched this movie, his comment was:  "Ah, she was askin for
    it."  Well,  after hearing that I had to decide for myself.  So
    I rented the movie and watched it alone.  The rape scene appalled
    me.  When they showed the room from her eyes and the men's faces
    from her eyes, I felt the repulsion and horror of her experience.
     I knew how she only wanted some innocent fun, to flirt and dance
    a little, and then the horror of the situation when the guys all
    forced her to do it.  I felt the fear as I watched the scene.  I
    *knew* she wasn't asking for it.  But, a really nice, average American
    guy that I know thought she was.  That scares me, and it should
    explain what women are up against here.
    
    Another minor incident from real life DEC, about 9 yrs. ago.  Myself
    and a younger secretary were talking to two managers.  She was about
    19 and really cute, with a somewhat sexy outfit on, but not too
    bad for work considering her age, borderline.    One of the managers
    said something to her, a line about her appearance.  It would probably
    be considered sexual harrassment today if reported.  (He doesn't
    work at DEC anymore, btw.)  She got really embarrassed and told
    him to F**k *f* or something.  He, who was a grad. of Havard Business
    School, turned to me, shrugged and said, "Hey, she shouldn't advertize
    if it's not for sale."
    
    Lorna
      

	Why do I keep getting the feeling that there is a (young) man
	trying to tell me (a woman from the United States) what I 
	need to do to fulfill his idea of what is attractive?

		1. I have been to Europe and I would not equate
		   "European" women with "sexy" dressers - some do
		   and some don't.

		2. I have been told (back when I needed to "dress"
		   up for work) that my style had a European flair
		   and this was from the people in the group who
		   were European.  I have never figured it out beyond
		   I where clothes that fit my mood - which can be
		   a little out of the norm.

		3. What the H%#l is a bra anyway??????

		4. I have found that the men I have met from DEC
		   who are "really" European are "creative" dresser
		   for the most part (this does exclude most of the
		   British men) and I find that "sexy".

		5. Finally, as I stated - I dress to fit my mood and
		   for my own comfort and not someone elses model.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			We each have our own comfort levels
			and that is the best measure of "sexy"
    

    Re .47, .49
    
    I get the impression from reading these and other replies that people
    are interpreting my remarks as meaning that I feel womem should
    change their dress tomorrow.  In fact, in .46 I compared being a
    "forerunner of fashion (i.e. starting to wear less concealing outfits)
    to walking alone at night in dark alleys:  I realize that in the
    present-day U.S., it would be ineffective and probably dangerous.
    What surprises me is an ATTITUDE.  To me, the phrase "When in Rome,
    do as the Romans do" implies that when one is foreign, powerless
    and transient in a culture, it is better to not try to change anything.
    If "Rome" is the U.S., then are women in the U.S. not "Romans"?
    
    Keith        

    Re .51, women in American have been trying to change their status
    for a long time.  Where have you been?  (being born? in school?
     I'm sorry.  Just kidding.  :-) Don't take it to heart.)
    
    What do you think this *file* is about, if it isn't women communicating
    to perhaps slowly change things for the better (for us).  If women
    in America hadn't been trying to change things for a long time,
    we wouldn't even have the vote yet.  (I think part of the problem
    is it takes so *long* to explain how we feel to *men*...)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    It's been interesting reading this note as I am English ! And as
    you might be aware, the English don't have a reputation for being
    as well dressed as for example the french. We're also more generally
    prudish about topless sunbathing etc, but that is probably because
    we don't normally have the weather for it ! One thing that I've
    noticed when in Geneva is thatmost of the women I've met seemed
    to be more stylishly dressed. I suppose this could be because they
    (as a general rule) spend more money on clothes (and expect better
    quality too ?) - I've always believed this to be true, but I don't
    have any hard facts to support this. But one thing I think is nice
    which I noticed with one high-powered lady I met in Geneva, is that
    you can dress more femininely (the right word ? ) without looking
    frivolous or  'sexy' in an overt way. The sort of thing I mean is
    wearing a dress rather than a suit - for example I have a dress
    for work that I really like, It's dark grey, long skirt, sleeves
    & polo neck top - very demure in one sense, but it's so flattering
    I feel very attractive in it, and I feel much more stylish than
    in a suit that's cut  the same as everyone elses. I think it's nice
    to be able to look like a woman  whilst dressed smartly for weork,
    and not have to emulate a man's style all the time.
    
    		Sarah.

    
    re:.49,.52
    ms. st. hilaire, you are terrific.
    

     Keith,
    
    >If "Rome" is the U.S., then are women in the U.S. not "Romans"?

    Technically, yes.  But since "Rome" is run with little regard for
    the opinions, thoughts and feelings of women, then we really aren't 
    "Romans" in the sense that we can easily affect the culture.  Generally,
    we're expected not to rock the boat the men have built without our
    input.  And since they are generally stronger and more aggressive than 
    most women, they can and do administer swift "justice", (or remind
    women that they CAN do so), to women who do rock the boat, a la the movie 
    "The Accused".  The men who believe she "was askin' for it" mean that she 
    was in a bar, (she should have been home where she belonged), she was 
    drinking, (a no-no for women), she was flirting, (she should wait to be 
    flirted WITH), and so on ad nauseum.  She was a "Roman" but "Rome" didn't 
    care.                      
    

    
    re:.55
    my thoughts exactly.
    well put ms. ciccolini
    

    Other thoughts.....
    
    I had a friend, an American woman travelling in Italy who took off
    her top on an Italian beach, only to be accosted by an angry Italian
    man who insisted she put it back on.
    
    I think different parts of Europe have different standards.
    
    Although America is more conservative, in general, there are such
    things as nude beaches, usually in out of the way places, and
    some topless sunbathing on the regular beaches. 
    
    Different Americans have different beliefs on this subject, and
    dress differently as a result. We are not all the same.
    
    -roger
    

      Keith, before you tell us we haven't tried to change things you
      need to see where we've been. Lorna and I are the same age and I
      can see by her comments that we've seen some of the same things in
      life. You barely have a clue.

      When I was 19 I took X-ray technician training in a hospital. It
      was a 2 year course, the second year, 1970 they allowed women to
      wear pants suits. It was forbidden till then. In all my schooling
      up to that point dresses or skirts were required for females.

      When I took my first hospital job (catholic hospital) I was sent
      home from my first day at work. I wore a pants suit. I was told "go
      home and change or you don't have a job".

      In 1972 I was working in Denver (presbyterian hospital) and was
      called aside by one of the male doctors and lectured for not
      wearing a bra. By that time I was fed up. I told him I'd wear a
      bra when he wore a jock strap. He never mentioned it again but I
      took a terrible chance with my career saying it. He could have
      fired me and I would have had no recourse.

      Don't talk to us about not fighting back. You just can't so it all
      at once. BTW, I presume you also find women not shaving
      their legs and under arms sexy? That's a very european style that
      women in America might like to emulate but to hear American men
      talk it's about as tacky as you can get. liesl
      

Re:  .58

>     BTW, I presume you also find women not shaving their legs and under
>     arms sexy?

Well, I sure do.  I wish more US women did it.  And I'm thoroughly American.
(And yes, I know it's a tangent to the discussion...)

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

	Re: repeated references to my age in this topic

	I feel that it is inappropriate to cite my age as a reason
	to discredit/ignore what I have to say in this topic.
	Discounting the views of people who are young is a well-
	tested and dangerously effective way of maintaining the
	status-quo.  People who are young have had less time
	to be ingrained with cultural values, and (on the average)
	tend to question them more.  This does NOT mean that we
	are necessarily unaware!  No, I haven't seen "The Accused,"
	but I followed the newspaper accounts of the event it
	portrayed, and I am aware of the cultural mores which
	allowed it to happen.  My awareness of them is heightened
	by the contrast with Europe -- that's why I wrote the base
	note in the first place!  If you reread .46, you will find
	that I did not suggest anywhere that women "should" start
	dressing differently a-la Jody Foster.  Nor did I suggest
	that women have made no efforts towards achieving a more
	equal place in American society.

	What I DID express, in .46 and other replies, was
	my surprise at the ATTITUDE of women in the U.S., which
	suggests that while power and equal pay are important,
	it is completely normal and acceptable to be REQUIRED	
	to cover every square inch of flesh, even on a hot day.
	I went on to suggest that acceptance of the "dress code"
	implies, to a degree, acceptance of the "rule" which states
	that a woman can have no sexual identity, that if she doesn't
	hide her sexuality then men have a right to take it.

	If you disagree with what I have to say, fine.  Please
	continue to state your disagreement.  But please do NOT
	write off what I have to say by placing me in a "category"
	(young) -- this is a cheap tactic, and it has been used
	against many other groups besides the young...

	Keith

    [let's see if I can actually _enter_ it this time...]
    
    I have watched this discussion with some interest as I am an American
    woman who spent a significant portion of her life growing up in Europe.
    The education I received in Europe prepared me to accept without
    question the notion of a dress-code at work.  After all while on school
    grounds _every_ single item of clothing I wore, with the exception of
    my underwear, was uniform.  Saints preserve us, even my GARTERS had to
    be like everyone else's!!  [My schools were in the UK, Switzerland &
    West Germany].  The relative freedom of the 'uniform' in the American
    workplace doesn't trouble me at all as I have a whole life away from
    it. 
    
    Away from my job, I create myself anew every day with whatever comes to
    hand.  I have my Edwardian days, my Starmites days, my Junior League
    days, and my Granola days.  I like to be comfortable in my clothing. I
    dress to please myself.
    
    I am cautious in situations where I might place myself at risk, but I
    am not reputed to be modest.  I flaunt my _self_ rather than my body.
    
    I am VERY American.
    
      Ann

    Starmites is a musical, currently running on Broadway; it has
    a SF plot line; based on that, I'd guess that a "Starmite" day
    would be one where one's clothing would have a futuristic look.
    
    Granola is a mixture of nuts, dried fruit, and grains -- very popular
    in the 60's -- a "granola" day (again, guessing) would be natural
    fibers (cotton, linen) and comfortable shoes or sandals.
    
    					andrew

    Also, Starmites got its beginnings right here in hicksville, Milford
    NH.
    
    Marge

    [rathole, alert]  I like the NH production _much_ more than the NY one.
    Carpenter is a wizard!!
    
    The 'Starmite days' are characterised by cropped leggings and
    comfortable loose tank-shirt-like garments in bright colours with a
    high shine to them.  also back-pack or fanny-pack as required.
    
    Granola as hippie is close, but I've ever felt that the hippy look was
    un-necessarily confining.  I've modified it to be more sarafan
    oriented. [sarafan = a slavic jumper-like garment with lots of pleats
    and ruching worn with or without a flowing shirt]
    
    now back to our regularly scheduled topic...
    
    That many women in Europe dress in a more revealing fashion than one
    finds in America is quite true.  That many women in Europe dress in a
    manner that is almost all-concealing is also true. This concealing
    manner of dress renders the wearer almost invisible...as it was meant to.
    
    To say, in effect, that European women are sexier because one can see
    more of what they have on daily display does indeed objectify them.
    Why? Because it rather overlooks that most errogenous of zones, the
    Mind.
    
    The way one inhabits one's body is a window to the soul. To move
    to laugh, to talk ... these things are sensual beyond mere window
    dressing.  I don't think either continental has the lock on these
    commodities.
    
      Ann

	>What I DID express, in .46 and other replies, was
	>my surprise at the ATTITUDE of women in the U.S., which
	>suggests that while power and equal pay are important,
	>it is completely normal and acceptable to be REQUIRED	
	>to cover every square inch of flesh, even on a hot day.
	>I went on to suggest that acceptance of the "dress code"
	>implies, to a degree, acceptance of the "rule" which states
	>that a woman can have no sexual identity, that if she doesn't
	>hide her sexuality then men have a right to take it.

    Keith, read your last sentence for the answer to your question.  It's 
    already been stated that women dress covered-up or prudish or whatever, 
    not simply because they are required to do so by unwritten cultural rules, 
    but because of self-defense.  If men feel they "have a right to take it", 
    then dressing in a manner that men can misread as an offer is kind of dumb,
    no?  You're assuming it's due to passivity, ("implies, to a degree,
    acceptance of the rule"), and you're wrong.  It's due to a desire to
    live as hassle-free as possible.  You wouldn't swim in shark-infested
    waters simply because you believed you had a right to swim there, would
    you?  You'd swim elsewhere while working to get the sharks to go away.
    Same logic.  Sometimes, safety is more important than prinicples.
    

    During last week's heat in New England, a male co-worker told me
    he envied my 'freedom to dress appropriately to the weather'.  I
    was in an open-necked, short sleeve shirt and full skirt with hose
    and sandals.  He still felt compelled to be in tie, slacks and regular
    shoes.  
    
    That Puritan streak is working for both sexes.
    
    Alison

    re: -1  but the reasons are different.  He doesn't wear a tie because
    women would insult and possibly assault him if he didn't.  He wears
    a tie as part of the corporate game he willingly plays for the rewards
    it can bring him.  That's quite a different motive.  He's going for
    rewards - not trying to stave off sexual insult and/or assault. 

    I had an interesting experience this weekend...while out biking (yes, 
    in my neoprene shorts and a cotton tshirt) I ran across a nest of thorns 
    and suffered more punctures than I had patches.  I ended up pushing my 
    bike home, across sunny San Jose for 16 miles, all afternoon.
    
    Walking afforded me the opportunity to look around far more than I can
    do while riding.  And what I saw was that I got checked out any time I
    was waiting to cross at a street light and cars with women or girls 
    stopped nearby.  It was not something that caused me any fear; but it
    did make me realize that they were not treating me as a person with a
    mind of his own; I was just scenery for their visual enjoyment.  I
    didn't get any catcalls; I don't know if that's because the women in
    the situation weren't so bold, or weren't so insensitive, or I didn't
    inspire them, or what.  But I was visually swept, head-to-heels, every
    10 minutes or so for hours.  
    
    re .22, took::Ciccolini-
    
    > ... as power begins to balance out between men and women, so 
    > does its opposite - sexual objectification.
    
    As I said before; I agree...even though it had never happened to me
    before.  I detached from it, put on my observer hat; didn't let it
    affect me emotionally...which, now that I think about it, was probably
    a defense mechanism itself.  I'd sure have hated to have to deal with
    feelings of fear, too.
    
    Strange feeling.
    
    DougO

    I did not intend to suggest that dressing "safely" in and of itself
    implies "acceptance" of the rule.  I obviously did not express myself
    clearly, as most of the replies in this topic seem to suggest
    otherwise.
    
    I can understand if women in the U.S. dress the way they do for
    reasons of "self-defense."  In .46, I tried to express this by
    comparing being a "forerunner of fashion" (i.e. ignoring the "rules"
    for dress) to walking alone in a dark alley at night:  women have
    the "right" to do it, but dressing differently or walking alone
    at night is clearly an unacceptably risky way (to most women)
    of asserting this.
    
    What surprises me is that while there IS a reaction against the
    lack of freedom to walk alone at night (there is a general sentiment
    that this restriction is wrong;  there was a "Take Back the Night"
    march last spring in Ann Arbor where a large group of women went
    out at night without men to assert this right), there IS NOT a reaction
    against the "dress codes."  I have NEVER heard a woman in the U.S.
    so much as complain about the restrictions:  they seem to be accepted
    as normal!  (the comparison between the bra and the jock strap in
    .58 was, IMHO, an admirable exception -- and the ONLY exception
    I've heard of).  If the "dress code" remains "normalized" and is not
    questioned, it will not change -- and neither will the larger
    inequalities it implies.  If some people start to treat is as an
    unjust vestige of old cultural norms which are on the way out, then
    perhaps it can become just that.
    

>		there IS NOT a reaction
>    against the "dress codes."  I have NEVER heard a woman in the U.S.
>    so much as complain about the restrictions:  they seem to be accepted
>    as normal!  (the comparison between the bra and the jock strap in
>    .58 was, IMHO, an admirable exception -- and the ONLY exception
>    I've heard of).  If the "dress code" remains "normalized" and is not
>    questioned, it will not change -- and neither will the larger
>    inequalities it implies.  If some people start to treat is as an
>    unjust vestige of old cultural norms which are on the way out, then
>    perhaps it can become just that.
    



	Are we reading the same notes file????? The ONLY exception???

	_peggy

    
    Keith, I'm not sure that there is a connection between mode of dress
    and sexual identity.  I don't know any American women who cover
    every inch of flesh in hot weather... sounds like the middle east
    to me actually. 
    
    To dress in a sexy manner may or may not please a woman.  It more
    likely pleases men.  Lots of American women dress to please each
    other and not men.  Some women like sexy clothes and they wear them.
    Others find them uncomfortable, expensive, or hard to keep ironed_:-)
    and they wear jeans and tee-shirts like me_:-).
    
    Those American women who are happily engaged in a satisfying
    relationship are not looking for attention from extraneous men
    anyway and they tend to dress for comfort.  Those who are
    on limited budgets can't afford to buy whenever a designer says
    jump, and since Americans tend to be rather independent anyway, they
    wear whatever they want to wear.              
    
    In other words... I tend to think that your basic premise is flawed.
    Sexual identity and sexual clothes do not necessarily go together.
    One can dress in a burlap sack and still have a great sexual identity
    and a most satisfying sexual relationship.
    Clothes do not make the man....
    		er, ah... I mean woman_:-)
    
    Mary                                                                 
    

Re .73

> Sexual identity and sexual clothes do not necessarily go together.

	I'm afraid I disagree.  As an aside, I think I mentioned in one
	of by replies to this topic that the issue I meant to bring
	up was "less concealing" clothes, rather then "sexual".  And,
	I still believe that the fact that a woman in the U.S. is
	NOT ALLOWED to wear "less concealing clothes" without running
	the risk of violence is a symptom of repression of women's	
	sexual identity.

> ...since Americans tend to be rather independent anyway, they
> wear whatever they want to wear.

	I also disagree with this.  Unless you claim that no American
	woman would ever like to wear a skirt without stockings and
	a t-shirt with no bra, reply .9 would suggest that at least SOME	
	Americans CAN NOT "wear whatever they want to wear" without
	being perceived as a "tart."

Keith
                                                 

    Re .74, as a matter of fact, Keith, I never wear a bra, and haven't
    for years.  Some people might think that it doesn't "count" that
    I don't wear a bra since I'm only a 32A.  But, the fact *is* that
    I am an American woman and I don't wear a bra.  And, I know I'm
    not the only one.  Other women have mentioned in this file that
    they, also, don't.
    
    As far as stockings go, it is my personal opinion that if a woman
    is wearing a dressy type dress, shoes with heels, and the appropriate
    accessories such as jewelry or scarf, etc., that it, frankly, looks
    like hell if she doesn't wear stockings.  Bare legs with an otherwise
    dressy outfit look like hell.  It just doesn't make it.  Now, maybe
    I feel this way because I have been brainwashed by my American
    upbringing to feel this way, but the fact is I now feel this way.
     Nobody makes me wear the stockings but I don't want to look like
    hell to myself so I wear them.
    
    Lorna
    

	>I still believe that the fact that a woman in the U.S. is
	>NOT ALLOWED to wear "less concealing clothes" without running
	>the risk of violence is a symptom of repression of women's	
	>sexual identity.

        Exactly.  Women are to be sexual only on men's terms.  On the
        strip club stage, in the pages of the boobs-of-the-month rags,
        (and always in male-determined positions with male-determined
        props and male-defined expressions), when HE'S horny and wants
        her, etc.  Female sexual expression *independent of male desire*
        is what is being repressed.

    <<< Note 709.74 by SHIRE::DICKER "Keith Dicker @Geneva, Switzerland" >>>

>	up was "less concealing" clothes, rather then "sexual".  

	Are you talking about only the women you have meet - because
	the women I know - do both - wear "less concealing" clothes
	and "sexual" clothes BUT not all of the time.  So what are
	you really trying  to say?

>				Unless you claim that no American
>	woman would ever like to wear a skirt without stockings and
>	a t-shirt with no bra, 

	Again I would like to know which women you are talking about?
	As, again, the women I know may in fact not wear stockings
	with a skirt or no bra with a t-shirt.

	Keith,

	The problem I see here is that you are only talking about
	the "women you see" not the millions of "women men never
	see" because they do not try to get your attention, or they
	are not young or they are not whatever it is that you are
	looking for.  What part of the US do you live in when you
	are here?  Do you ever travel in the US?  Which age group
	are you talking about? is it the same age group in both
	the US and Europe?  Where in Europe have you visited? are
	the demographics of both samples the same?

	There have been a number of American women respond to you
	in this notes file and you seem to be not hearing them, 
	could it be that if you were here talking to each of us
	in person that you would not see them either???

	You may not choose to believe this but I am not picking
	on you, just your attitude.  You make a very confrontative
	judgement (about both European and American women) and then
	take the stance of "since this is what I see this is how
	it REALLY is, why don't you people just agree with me since
	I see things so much clearer than you do."  And of course
	you get attacked, you just waved a VERY red flag at some
	very lively bulls.

	Now in an earlier note I had stated that I have found that
	some European men dress sexier than many American men that
	I know.  I did not say European men wear clothes that are
	less concealing then American men - though that is part of
	it.  And I did not say that American men were faulted for 
	not dressing like the European men that I find sexy - though
	that could be part of it.  The difference is that I live in
	the US no Europe and I am seeing everything through my 
	culturally biased eyes and I recognize that and give American
	men credit for being who they are and not get hung up on
	what they wear or don't wear.

	_peggy

                                                 

Re .78

> The problem I see here is that you are only talking about
> the "women you see" not the millions of "women men never
> see" because they do not try to get your attention, or they
> are not young or they are not whatever it is that you are
> looking for.  What part of the US do you live in when you
> are here?  Do you ever travel in the US?  Which age group
> age you talking about?  is it the same age group in both the
> US and Europe?  Where in Europe have you visited?  are
> the demographics of both samples the same?

	I am not selectively "screening out" women who are not
	"whatever it is that [I am] looking for."  I think that
	the phrase "women men never see" really means "women men
	are not romantically interested in";  it does not require
	romantic interest to notice how someone is dressed.
    	What are YOU trying to say?
    
    	I am, by necessity, talking about women in the parts of
	the country where I spend time.  I grew up in a small,
	fairly conservative town in western New York State. I'm
	studying at the University of Michigan/Ann Arbor, which
	is considered to be a fairly liberal place.  Most of the 
	travelling I have done in ths U.S. in the last 5 years has
	been in the Northeastern part of the country.  In Europe I
	have travelled more extensively.  Most of the observations
	I made on "Europe" apply primarily to countries in northern
	and ccentral Europe;  dress in England and southern Europe
	does tend to be more conservative.

> There have been a number of American women respond to you
> in this notes file and you seem to be not hearing them,
> could it be that if you were here talking to each of us
> in person that you would not see them either???

	I think that if you re-read this topic, you will agree
	that there IS a general consensus that women's dress in
	the U.S. is more conservative, on the average.  That
	you know women who feel comfortable wearing "less
	concealing" clothes when they want to is great.  But
	I think, FROM READING THE REPLIES IN THIS TOPIC,
	that there is also a general consensus that women in
	the U.S. WHO SOMETIMES WANT TO wear "less concealing
	clothes", GENERALLY ARE NOT FREE to do so without eliciting
	unwanted harassment or aggression from men.

> ...And I did not say that American men were faulted for
> not dressing like the European men that I find sexy...

    	Nor did I say that American women are faulted for not
	dressing like the European women I find sexy.  So,
	I guess we agree.

Keith

    I lived a total of 7 years in Germany during the '60s, roughly half the
    time in a small town on the North Sea coast and the other half in that
    most cosmopolitan of all places W.-Berlin.  Since my children were very
    young and I worked for my living, I couldn't travel about much; so my
    observations are largely limited to the german, american, and british
    women (the latter two groups virtually all connected in some way with
    the NATO presence in the country) in the two areas where I
    lived and worked. 

    The german and british styles were different to the american and,
    except in W.-Berlin, in most ways rather more, hmmm, "conservative" is
    not quite the right word..."less trendy" is closer to the mark.  

    It was considered perfectly reasonable to go about in summer bare-and-
    unshaven-legged wearing what americans would almost consider sundresses
    and while I never really signed up for the unshaven look, I go
    barelegged to this day because of it.  

    On the other hand, as someone has pointed out, wearing ordinary
    walking/bermuda shorts outside one's own garden was thought pretty
    uncultured!  

    At the beach, there was little noticeable difference between the
    germans and americans (I saw few identifiable british) apart from a
    tendency in german women to be more willing to sun themselves topless
    (albeit face down) and less willing to wear a two-piece swimsuit.

    Knifepleat skirts were popular with germans all year 'round, as were
    a-lines with the british; fabrics tended to be heavy, durable and muted
    rather than light or bright except in spring and summer when cottons
    were all one could find on the germans.  But even then, virtually all
    the print fabrics looked stodgy and dull to me...and I've never been
    one for splashy prints.




    Unless my experience of the place has been completely invalidated over
    the last 20+ years, Keith, then I think that you must indeed be seeing
    only the parts of the picture that look unusually interesting to you and
    missing the unusually dull bits.  Because in my day, at least, there
    was not much to choose between the two groups.

    						=maggie

    I think there may also be some circular definitions going on
    relative to what constitutes sexy or fashionable clothes.   Paris
    and Italy right now are in the lead in high fashion.  So people
    who dress more like "they" dress in Paris and Italy are perceived
    as more fashionable than the ones who dress like Americans or
    Germans, even if the people in Paris or Italy are just conforming
    to what all their friends are wearing.  
    
    If men in Italy are presently wearing, say, closely-tailored
    suits, then an American man wearing an Italian suit seems more
    fashionable and sexier than a man wearing an American suit.  If
    women in Paris are wearing short leather skirts because all their
    neighbors are wearing short leather skirts and high heels (I'm
    making this example up; I don't know what Paris women are wearing
    this summer), then an American woman in a short leather skirt
    seems more fashionable and less concealed than an American woman
    in a cotton pullover, a flared broadcloth skirt, and sandals.
    
    --bonnie

    reply .80 stirred up a few memories I forgot that I had.
    
    I spent two years on Guam and dress for work = mine.  Outside of
    work loose flowing styles were "in" because they were cooler or
    since on a cold winter day it would get *down* to 85 degrees with
    about the same % humidity - a lot of time was spent at the beaches
    after work.
    
    Then came a little over three years in London - actually we lived in 
    Ruislip Gardens - 12 miles from Marble arch.  That was a relaxed
    period as I could not work without a work permit and I could not get
    a work permit without working.  The only out was to fly (at my own
    expense) to New York and sign a teaching contract and I decided I was
    *meant* to be a housewife during this period.
    
    We deliberately lived our lives separately from other Americans and 
    made local friends - in fact my daughter returned home with no trace
    of an American accent.   We all blended in together.  I found that
    central heating meant the heat was in a central part of the house and
    the rest did without and perhaps not coincidently the prevelent style
    was layered clothing - very practical.  As far dressing up or down, it
    depended upon the individual's likes and dislikes.  The only glarind
    difference was went we went on a Sunday morning hunt each week and then
    we were truly set apart.  I seldom touch alcohol, but I loved the
    middle break when we would stop at a pub and all have a leomonage
    shandy wherever/whatever village we ended up at that morning.  (for
    fur bearing loving people - it was a drag hunt so no fox)
    
    I am not a beach person so I cannot comment there, but when we did go
    over to the continent (whenever leave could be obtained), we saw the
    usual mixture of people ... I have generally found people to be pretty
    much people the world over.  One exception was that when we went to
    Japan it was festival time and many women and children were in national
    dress and since Kim (my daughter) was so blond many people wanted her
    photo which was fine with me as I wanted their photo as well ( but the
    two rolls of %&^*% film didn't get exposed properly in the camera....
    
    (Make that not a cold water beach person - Guam spoiled me totally.
    What everyone else calls a heated pool makes my teeth chatter now.)
    
    Cathy

Note 709.74         
SHIRE::DICKER 

>	I'm afraid I disagree.  As an aside, I think I mentioned in one
>	of by replies to this topic that the issue I meant to bring
>	up was "less concealing" clothes, rather then "sexual".  And,
>	I still believe that the fact that a woman in the U.S. is
>	NOT ALLOWED to wear "less concealing clothes" without running
>	the risk of violence is a symptom of repression of women's	
>	sexual identity.
 
    Keith, "not allowed" by whom?  The clothes police?
    Women are not attacked in the supermarket for wearing shorts
    and a halter, women are not attacked at work for wearing a sundress.
    A woman who walks down the street at two in the morning in "less
    concealing clothes" certainly runs a risk of course, mainly because
    she is mistaken for a working girl (to coin a phrase).  
    
    I'd like to know why you think that less concealing clothes can
    be equated to a woman's sexual identity.  Does that mean that your
    grandmother and your mother have lost their sexual identity if they
    choose not to wear revealing clothes?  Does it mean that a very
    pregnant lady has no sexual identity if she chooses not to wear
    revealing clothes?  Why do you think this anyway?  Does baring one's
    breasts mean that one is comfortable being a woman or can one be
    comfortable being a woman without having to prove one is a woman
    to every man who happens to be in the immediate vicinity?
    
    
> ...since Americans tend to be rather independent anyway, they
> wear whatever they want to wear.
    >
    >	I also disagree with this.  Unless you claim that no American
    >	woman would ever like to wear a skirt without stockings and
    >	a t-shirt with no bra, reply .9 would suggest that at least SOME	
    >	Americans CAN NOT "wear whatever they want to wear" without
    >	being perceived as a "tart."
 
 Many American women wear skirts without stockings and t-shirts with
 no bra.  Why do we ALL have to dress this way?  Who made this rule
 anyway?   American women can define their own sexual identity.  If
 particular men don't agree with their definition, thats ok too.  But
 don't expect us to change to please you, we may just be quite happy
 as we are... thats why we are that way in the first place.

    Note 709.79          

>	I am not selectively "screening out" women who are not
>	"whatever it is that [I am] looking for."  I think that
>	the phrase "women men never see" really means "women men
>	are not romantically interested in";  it does not require
>	romantic interest to notice how someone is dressed.
>    	What are YOU trying to say?
    
    I get the impression that you are saying that YOU like to see
    the female body and so all American women should wear less
    concealing clothes to please you...  regardless of what American
    women themselves want.  And if American women tell you that they
    dress for comfort, for business, or to please themselves, then you
    tell them that they are quite wrong and if they had a "sexual identity"
    they would dress as you want them to.
    Gee Keith,... if we have no "sexual identity" does that mean that
    we don't have to use birth control any more?  Will we not get pregnant 
    if we have no sexual identity, does that mean we don't know if we
    are men or women?_:-)  Obviously you have never cuddled up to a
    warm heart on a cold night in Massachusetts or you would know that
    one's sexual identity has nothing to do with one's apparel.
    
     
    >    I think that if you re-read this topic, you will agree
    >	that there IS a general consensus that women's dress in
    >	the U.S. is more conservative, on the average.  That
    >	you know women who feel comfortable wearing "less
    >	concealing" clothes when they want to is great.  But
    >	I think, FROM READING THE REPLIES IN THIS TOPIC,
    >	that there is also a general consensus that women in
    >	the U.S. WHO SOMETIMES WANT TO wear "less concealing
    >	clothes", GENERALLY ARE NOT FREE to do so without eliciting
    >	unwanted harassment or aggression from men.

    Many American women have no idea how Europeans dress and are
    too concerned with feeding the kids and paying the rent to care.
    Because the first few noters expressed a similar opinion does not mean
    there is a consensus and doesn't prove anything.   We don't have
    clothes police in America Keith.  Men don't randomly attack women
    for not wearing stockings.  That really insulting to American men.
    American men are for the most part honorable, hard-working, intelligent
    guys and they don't go around attacking girls for not wearing bras.
    They might drool a bit but thats to be expected_:-)
    
    >	Nor did I say that American women are faulted for not
    >	dressing like the European women I find sexy.  

    Keith, you did suggest that American women had problems with
    their sexual identity because they did not dress the way 
    European women did (in a revealing fashion),... they way you 
    thought they should.  
    
    I doubt very much that any qualified psychiatrist would agree that all 
    American women have a sexual identity problem because they don't
    wear revealing clothes.  As a matter of fact, I think its a ridiculous
    statement and really rather amusing_:-).  But.... I do think that
    most American High School boys would agree with you one hundred
    percent_:-) and you could certainly find a consensus among teenage
    boys that will back up your assertions.   
    
    Mary
        

    re -.1, Mary
    
    Thank goodness you said it!!  I'm suprised it took us so long to get to
    this.  After all isn't it obvious?  Keith wants a more enjoyable show
    when he walks down the street, beach, so he writes a note.
    
    re. Sandy 
    
    She's baaaack!!!  Welcome woman!!  What *are* you doing here? Oh, and
    keep giving them he[ck].
    
    re. Clothes habits
    
    Ahem, I threw my last bra away a year ago.  Shaved/waxed my legs once
    or twice this year, too.  Stockings?  Have bought them on occasion this
    year.  I think your thesis on what american women wear is wrong.  Look
    again, though I doubt you need any encouragement on that...
    
    re. European clothes habits
    
    Hmmph.  The night I was raped in Paris, I wore a T-shirt (no bra),
    full-ish jeans-skirt, unshaven legs, and no stockings.  So, it seems to
    me that this is not the only country where women need to be careful
    about what they wear.
    
    Lee

	Re: .83,.84

	Okay, OKAY!  I confess!  I'm GUILTY!  

	I'm guilty of gross misinterpretation.  And of writing ambiguously.
	I don't think that's a reason to make derogatory assumptions
	about my motives or thinly veiled personal attacks based on
	categorization.

	I obviously read one thing when you meant another in

.73> Sexual identity and sexual clothes do not necessarily go together.

	I did not mean to suggest that a woman who does not dress in
	a certain way has a problem with her sexual identity.  If
	I came across that way, than I apologize for any offense taken.
	What I meant to say was that the right to dress as one wishes
	is tied with the right to express one's sexual identity.  That
	includes the outfit worn by the woman portrayed by "The Accused,"
	tank tops, business suits and burlap sacks.

.83> Women are not attacked in the supermarket for wearing shorts and
.83> a halter, wome are not attacked at work for wearing a sundress.

	From reading the papers, I would have to agree -- because
	I haven't heard many stories about women being attacked at
	work or in supermarkets for any reason.  Based on articles
	I've read, women aren't attacked for wearing certain outfits --
	but certain outfits are used as justification for harrassing
	remarks and worse.

.83> Many American women wear skirts without stockings and t-shirts
.83> with no bra.

	My limited experience in the U.S. must have kept me in
	conservative places, if this is the case.  In my
	limited experience, women in the U.S. who dress in
	an even mildly "revealing" manner get plenty of
	derogatory comments from men.  Maybe I'm just hanging
	out with the wrong crowds in the wrong cities, but if I
	were a woman in the U.S. I'd be afraid to dress that way
	in most of the places I've been to.

.84> After all isn't it obvious?  Keith wants a more enjoyable show
.84> when he walks down the street, beach, so he writes a note.

	In an American feminist notesfile in Massachusetts?  I doubt
	if I'll ever be there for more than a week.  To what end?

.83> ...I do think that most American High School Boys would agree with
.83> you one hundred percent and you could certainly find a consensus
.83> among teenage boys that wil back up your assertions.

	Another case of "Oh, you're _______.  You couldn't possibly know
	anything about that anyway."  It's well tested.  Fill in the blank
	with your favorite age group, social class, ethnic background or
	gender...

.84> So, it seems to me that this is not the only country where women need
.84> to be careful about what they wear.

	No kidding!  Women in just about every country I can think of
	need to be careful about a lot of other things as well.

    Boy I'll bet I open up a can of worms with this one!
    
    This is my opinion.
    
    All most everyone is sexest to some degree.
    
    I think that was all Keith was showing/saying. So don't beat him
    up for it. He has the right to be/express his feelings/actions.
    
    Ben

    Since females from preschool age up to their late 90's are all
    raped with about equal frequency*, I find it difficult to believe
    that clothing has much to do with it. 
    
    Unless murders, muggings, and other violent crimes are regularly
    triggered because the victim was wearing the wrong clothing?  We
    might be onto a new theory of crime prevention here.
    
    --bonnie
    
    *[Numbers I remember are:  slightly under 1/3 over 45
                               just about 1/3 of "childbearing age"
                               slightly more than 1/3 under 18 ]

    Re .87
    
    I've also heard that women aren't attacked because they are wearing
    certain types of outfits.  But I've heard that when a woman wearing
    a certain kind of outfit happens to be attacked (like in the
    Big-whatsisname's Bar incident) , the defense used is often of the
    "She was asking for it" style -- and the victim may be made to feel
    guilty by society's collective "You were asking for it."   That,
    IMHO, is just plain wrong.
         
    Keith

    RE: .87
    
    Yes, indeed, Bonnie, this brings up some *fascinating* ideas
    about Dressing For Protection!
    
    How about a full suit of chain mail and armor?! Why, the
    clanking alone would scare 'em off!
    
    
    
    Uh-huh. Right.
    
    A little tongue-in-cheek humor, there. But come to think of it,
    I can see some judge saying, "Well, look at how the sun glints
    so prettily off the metal! Why, she was certainly trying to
    attract this man's attention!"
    
    {urp}
    
    --DE
    

    re. .89 - dressing for protection:
    
    Don't forget the chastity belt -- required for all females over
    the age of 3 months.
    
    K.

    I think you'll find that full armor properly fitted doesn't clank at
    all.  It's surprisingly more comfortable and flexible than you'd think. 
    A bit warm in summer and cool in December but then Mom always told me
    that I had to suffer if I wanted to be beautiful.  
    
    Dondi
    

    RE: .91
    
    "brass", eh? [heh,heh]
    
    So, you were a knight, or what?
    
    
    
    Rook? Pawn? [hey! you started it!] ;-}
    
    
    This is beginning to remind me of "once a king, always a king...."
    
    :-}
    
    

    	Type of dress may not have much to do with attacks, but, colors
    do. Violent men who have been interviewed in rooms painted red have
    been very violent and non-cooperative. When interviewed in light
    blue or green (pastels) they have been much calmer, serene, and
    cooperative. Some studies claim that these lighter colors are less
    apt to draw the attention of the 'predetermined violent male' where
    bright reds or oranges catch they're eye and build up the anger....
    
    Can't remember the source..
    
    Ken

    COLOR:
    An interesting book about the effects of colors on our emotional states
    came out about 15 years ago...can't remember the name.  Based on color
    research, some prisons and holding cells are painted pink, because it
    has a calming effect.  Makes you wonder about why pink is supposed to
    be such the stereotypical "feminine" color, doesn't it?  :-)
    
    CLOTHES MAKE THE WOMAN:
    There's been a lot of amateur mind-reading about what the base-noter's
    "true" motivations and intentions are.  It's been a lot more virulent
    than I feel is warranted.  Go back and read the base note!
    
    My feeling is that his observation is basically true:  in some areas of
    Europe, such as Italy and France, women dress differently than in most
    of the U.S.  More "fashionably", if you use the term in its haute
    couture sense...  Two years ago, a couple I know spent two weeks in
    Italy -- the one thing they both commented on is that ALL Italian women
    wore sheer black stockings and black high heels!  In the winter!
    
    Many U.S. women would not.  We would wear boots or sneakers and change
    when we got to work.  (Like nobody sees us come in the front door...)
    
    You could see the European behavior as fashionable -- taking pride in
    how you look -- and the U.S. behavior as frumpy -- not caring how you
    look.  Or you could see the European behavior as a foolish kowtowing to
    outdated mores of proper dress and the U.S. behavior as a reasonable,
    liberating answer to the problem of having good (and uncomfortable)
    shoes ruined by the weather!  
    
    It's like those Escher prints where you can see more than one picture
    depending on where you concentrate on looking.  

Keith, in note 709.17, you said:
>"Societies change.  We try to "fit in" to the society we are
>born into, but... "traditionally," U.S. society is one where
>women stay in the home and men run the show.  Fitting in does..."

Point of information: traditionally working class and poor women worked.  This
has *always* been the case.  Only in families rich enough did the women of
those families not work.  And, if the women were not married and had no 
family to support them, they had to work.  Who do you think staffed the
textile mills or worked as phone operators or seamstresses or maids or
teachers (not professors) or principals of public schools (I understand this
held true for NY schools 20 years ago)?  Certainly women predominated for many
years in those areas and I am sure people can think of other such.
Women working with or without family around them is *NOT* a new thing.

About the topic at hand, to say that European women wear more revealing or
less concealing clothes than their American counterparts is simply not
true.  Or have you forgotten the comments of at least one person on how
Europeans view shorts?  I know from personal experience that they are
most certainly not accepted for general wearing in France, for example.

I believe the issue is more that Americans and Europeans believe in
different formalities at different times.  I see wearing stockings, bras
etc as an issue of formality, that is all.  Some Europeans may not see it
as such (you will allow that different cultures have different ideas of
formality?), or, if they do, consider wearing formal clothes to work
unnecessary.  But how likely are they to forget manners/rules of
politeness?  I would say less likely than Americans...  who see such as
not important (as long as you mean well?)...

Tamar

    
    >> ...   Who do you think staffed the textile mills or worked as 
    >>       phone operators or seamstresses or maids or
             
    your reference to phone operators probably answers this, since it
    indicates that your "traditionally" is limited to the twentieth
    century. But traditionally the staff of mills were single women,
    frequently living in company dormitories. There was even a strike
    in Massachusetts before the civil war when the women wanted the
    right to marry and keep their jobs...
    
    Similarly maids where traditionally live in staff and usually single.
    The butler's wife might be employed as cook or housekeeper, but
    the maids where usually unmarried.
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    Clarification: in .96 I am not in such violent disagreement to .95
    as may appear to be the case. Indeed it was one of the sadnesses
    of the society of the day that many jobs "disappeared" when women
    married (remember when airline hostesses were single and were fired
    if they had the temerity to marry?)
    
    I quite concur that in America (and England) the concept of the
    wife not having paying work (or only 'pin money' work) was an artifact
    of the middle classes. Upper class women of course never worked
    for money, whether married or not...
    
    /. Ian .\

>    your reference to phone operators probably answers this, since it
>    indicates that your "traditionally" is limited to the twentieth
>    century. But traditionally the staff of mills were single women,
>    frequently living in company dormitories. There was even a strike
>    in Massachusetts before the civil war when the women wanted the
>    right to marry and keep their jobs...

	What you are talking about is the 19th century specifically
	1830ish to 1950ish.  After that time it was the Irish emmigrents
	and then the Greeks and then who ever came next who worked in
	the mills and were the household staff.  And it was whole familes
	who worked men, women and children.  This was throughout the
	rest of the 1800's.  In the 1900's (twentieth century) child
	labor laws and laws to "protect" women came into use and women
	had to work less hours at "one" job.  I am only addressing
	the US situation here.  But back in 1600 and 1700's there was
	something called cottage industry that women worked at in 
	their homes in England.  When villages common land was taken
	away for the people a lot of these women could no longer work
	at home - they had no home.  Then as the industrial revolution
	got started, laws were passed that made it even more difficult
	for women to work out of their homes.  So what "tradition" are
	you talking about????

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			My mother, my mother's mother, my mother's
			mother's mother and my mother's mother's
			mother's mother worked for pay, outside
			the home, while married and after having
			children - mostly in factories in the United 
			States.  And this is only what I know for 
			about.  In the lower-classes everyone works
			for pay who can.

    quite so, though some of the earliest Irish emmigrants where single
    women recruited in Ireland and shipped over to work in the mills
    and as servants, notably after the practice of indenture serviture
    was abolished - earlier this had been one of the methods for the poor
    financing their move to the States.                          
    
    Incidentally the practice of single men and women living in dormatories
    at their place of work continued in Britain until this century -
    it was quite common for early department stores to utilise their
    upper floor as a dormitory wing.
    
    /. Ian .\

    When my mother married in 1945, she had to leave New England 
    Telephone and Telegraph Company (now NYNEX - ugh) because
    she was no longer single.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .100
    
    Only the good jobs do that to you.  No one ever questioned my
    grandmother's right to run a potato picker after she was married.
    
    --bonnie

I believe my major nit's point is clear:  women have been working with or
without family around them for more than the past few decades.  While mill
staff or operators may have been single, maids (as in charwomen)  or
potato pickers had no such requirement.

Any comments out there about the issue of how women dress to work being one
of formality?

Tamar