Column: Womens clothes indicate intentions to men
Published on Monday, April 24, 2006
Ashley Burks/Collegian
Daniel Kirksey
Kansas State Collegian
It is unfortunate so many people believe the lie perpetuated by the "Take Back the Night" rally.
The aim, as stated in Bhagavathy Umamaheswar's article on Friday, is good: to raise awareness about the violence and sexual assault against women in society.
I have no desire, or reason, to stand against such a cause. The problem, however, lies in the lack of a common-sense approach to the issue.
Take the mantra, for example: "Whatever I wear, wherever I go, yes means yes, no means no."
In our world, declarations mean nothing by themselves. The declaration that something is, or is not, has no bearing on the reality of the matter.
This same principle can be applied to this mantra.
We all went to elementary, middle and high school and remember the many clothing rules and regulations.
The recurring and common consensus among all of us during those times was one of clothing as a form of self-expression. This hasn't changed.
Only under the rarest of circumstances are clothes viewed without attached meaning. Therefore, it is acceptable to say all clothes mean something. Unfortunately, the exact meaning is difficult to agree upon.
A woman might see a transparent camisole and a super-short mini skirt simply as a comfortable, yet stylish, outfit for a Friday night and nothing more.
But is this the meaning common to all of the slightly too intoxicated males she might encounter? Of course it isn't - and that does not need to be argued.
It is at this point a woman might say she is not responsible for how others might misinterpret her expressions. This is where common sense tells me otherwise.
The interaction between two people of the opposite sex can be broken into two categories: things that say "yes" and things that say "no."
All aspects of their interaction, from the words spoken to the physical distance between them, serve as communication.
It is the responsibility of each individual in the interaction to send signals that best match what is on his or her respective mind.
Clothes are one facet of this communication. It does not matter if the mind says no; clothes communicate by themselves, and women need to understand this.
It is irresponsible for a woman to rely on only one form of communication - in this case, the spoken word.
I guess what I am really arguing is that clothes are symbols, unaffected by a woman's mindset or intention.
I am not saying a man should not be held responsible for his oversight of the other signals she sends - the spoken word, distance, etc. But I am saying that he cannot be accused of misinterpreting the signal sent by the clothing.
A scantily clad woman is not at fault if she does happen to be sexually victimized. I am only offering a common-sense approach to fixing the problem.
My advice for women is to dress the way that will best match what they will be thinking in most situations for the evening.
If women are worried that this might ruin a chance with the Romeo in the corner, don't - never in history has a spoken "yes" been misinterpreted by man.
Daniel Kirksey is a sophomore in English literature and philosophy. Please send your comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
Ignorance is Bliss, I could have been ignorant of his views on the fact that it is women's dress that makes them victims before they even walk out the door for my whole life and been just fine in knowing that.
Seriously, I want to know how LONG my skirt has to be before it stops telling this man "FUCK ME" while the whole rest of me is saying "FUCK NO"
Published on Monday, April 24, 2006
Ashley Burks/Collegian
Daniel Kirksey
Kansas State Collegian
It is unfortunate so many people believe the lie perpetuated by the "Take Back the Night" rally.
The aim, as stated in Bhagavathy Umamaheswar's article on Friday, is good: to raise awareness about the violence and sexual assault against women in society.
I have no desire, or reason, to stand against such a cause. The problem, however, lies in the lack of a common-sense approach to the issue.
Take the mantra, for example: "Whatever I wear, wherever I go, yes means yes, no means no."
In our world, declarations mean nothing by themselves. The declaration that something is, or is not, has no bearing on the reality of the matter.
This same principle can be applied to this mantra.
We all went to elementary, middle and high school and remember the many clothing rules and regulations.
The recurring and common consensus among all of us during those times was one of clothing as a form of self-expression. This hasn't changed.
Only under the rarest of circumstances are clothes viewed without attached meaning. Therefore, it is acceptable to say all clothes mean something. Unfortunately, the exact meaning is difficult to agree upon.
A woman might see a transparent camisole and a super-short mini skirt simply as a comfortable, yet stylish, outfit for a Friday night and nothing more.
But is this the meaning common to all of the slightly too intoxicated males she might encounter? Of course it isn't - and that does not need to be argued.
It is at this point a woman might say she is not responsible for how others might misinterpret her expressions. This is where common sense tells me otherwise.
The interaction between two people of the opposite sex can be broken into two categories: things that say "yes" and things that say "no."
All aspects of their interaction, from the words spoken to the physical distance between them, serve as communication.
It is the responsibility of each individual in the interaction to send signals that best match what is on his or her respective mind.
Clothes are one facet of this communication. It does not matter if the mind says no; clothes communicate by themselves, and women need to understand this.
It is irresponsible for a woman to rely on only one form of communication - in this case, the spoken word.
I guess what I am really arguing is that clothes are symbols, unaffected by a woman's mindset or intention.
I am not saying a man should not be held responsible for his oversight of the other signals she sends - the spoken word, distance, etc. But I am saying that he cannot be accused of misinterpreting the signal sent by the clothing.
A scantily clad woman is not at fault if she does happen to be sexually victimized. I am only offering a common-sense approach to fixing the problem.
My advice for women is to dress the way that will best match what they will be thinking in most situations for the evening.
If women are worried that this might ruin a chance with the Romeo in the corner, don't - never in history has a spoken "yes" been misinterpreted by man.
Daniel Kirksey is a sophomore in English literature and philosophy. Please send your comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
Ignorance is Bliss, I could have been ignorant of his views on the fact that it is women's dress that makes them victims before they even walk out the door for my whole life and been just fine in knowing that.
Seriously, I want to know how LONG my skirt has to be before it stops telling this man "FUCK ME" while the whole rest of me is saying "FUCK NO"
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
i was a juror years ago in a rape case...he drugged her with a date-rape drug, and she woke up, powerless, in a haze, to him on top of her, inside her...his lame excuse was that she dressed a certain way and flirted with him. of course, the rapist got sent to prison. good...one less asshole in society.
[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 3:45PM]