*********************************************PAGE ON VIETNAM AND DEMOCRATS .******************************************

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Why Do Women Dress The Way They do?

These are my observations concerning how most women dress today, at least in America, in everyday circumstances. Women tend to dress so as to feature their female body. When they wear a dress, or a blouse, showing cleavage between breasts seems important. In addition, the bottom of the skirt is always a few inches above the knee. The “mini-skirt” is the vogue.  Generally, clothing is tight enough on the body to accent the female shape.  In more casual dress, especially that of young college females, the clothing is to show as much skin as possible. Showing their shoulders along with “cleavage”, showing a bare midriff, along with very short skirts or “hot pants”, with all clothing tightly fitting is the vogue.  On the beach, of course, many women cover the least amount of skin possible.  This modern mode of dress is in sharp contrast to the way women dressed in the first half of the past Century.
My assessment is not that the mode of dress today compared to the mode of dress in the first half of the Twentieth Century is any worse or better.  In a sense I am neutral on this aspect of a woman’s dress.  My purpose in bringing up this discussion of how a woman dresses is to try to determine whether or not a woman understands that how she dresses, generally has an effect on men in ways she may or may not realize or want. Generally speaking, all men react sexually to how a woman dresses in proportion to how much of the female form they see; the more skin, especially accentuating certain parts of the female anatomy, the stronger the reaction.  This is a man’s nature.  Of course a man of moral virtue must keep such reactions under control. 
My curiosity about how adult women feel about the way they dress was brought to a peak one day when I taught a Physics class composed of Junior and Senior students of both sexes at a private Christian high-school.  The students, especially the girls, were dressed in a manner befitting some special event later in the day. In other words they were not dressed in every day clothing. My normal mode of teaching was to pace back and forth in front of the room as well as to go up and down the aisles. On this occasion when I went down the aisles to emphasize certain points to particular students almost every girl placed her hand to cover the cleavage due to the design of her dress.
Upon noticing this, I was in a bit of a quandary because I knew there was a dress code for the students requiring that girls not wear such dresses that display this cleavage. I did not feel I could say anything to these girls, who I knew were girls of good character, in a mixed classroom setting. Nor could I embarrass the girls by asking them to meet me after class or outside the classroom. Nor did I say anything to school administrators responsible for assuring the dress code was followed because I feared being charged for sexual harassment (not an uncommon charge leveled by female students against a male teacher).  So I said nothing, and I never walked down the aisles again.
But I certainly learned something. These girls were embarrassed about the way they were dressed. They not only realized they were violating the dress code but they feared an adult male looking at this “cleavage” and reacting in some way that would make them uncomfortable.  Outside of the class, among their fellow students, male and female, I am sure they felt they were doing the “cool” thing following the mode of dress predominant in the society.
Curious about how a woman felt about dressing in this modern way, I thought it prudent to ask an adult female in my family why she dressed this way. Her response was that this way of dressing was the current fashion and she felt comfortable so dressing. She added that if men were bothered by the way she dressed, they should exercise self-control and not attempt to restrict her way of dressing.  Any attempt to restrict her manner of dressing was to behave like those who believe in sharia law which demands women cover their bodies totally, showing no female shape or skin at all.  
Certainly I agree with her in every regard up to a point.   This point can be most clearly expressed by my relating a story I once heard on radio told by a woman who had for some time dressed according to this modern vogue but experienced that dating men really moved them to be interested only in her body.  After some time she wondered what would happen if she attired herself in a more “modest” manner by not showing her cleavage, not over-exposing her skin, and not wearing clothes that were the incorrect size so as to be not too tight on her body.  On further dating, so attired, she expressed her experience in this way “I found men not just interested in my body, they were more interested in ME”.
In other words she found that even though she was not dressed totally in the modern way, men could still see the beauty of her figure without being unnecessarily distracted, while leaving them with more time to  appreciate a beautiful woman as a person and not just something to be toyed with.
Personally, I find it most pleasing, even feeling “romantic” emotions, when I see a woman dressed in a manner, not over-exposing her physical beauty; and I am left with a desire to know more about her as a person.  On the other hand when I see a woman who has “bought into the modern way” of over-exposure of her female physical attributes, I am distracted so as not to feel a respect for her as a person.  When I watch TV and see intelligent, knowledgeable and beautiful women who dress in this modern way, I can be distracted to the point of wondering why they feel a need to dress this way?  Do they just feel it’s just “cool” and are unaware of any men being distracted?  Or do they feel that their employers require them to dress this way?
Lastly, women who dress in this way can engender distractions in a man concerning their personal values, wisdom and judgements, which can result in a man not taking them seriously.  One example on TV is to watch “Fox and Friends”, a program I have always liked, made up of three contributors of news sitting on a long couch with a woman sitting between two men.  The woman always wears a skirt much too short which, when she sits, with legs always crossed, tends to expose much to much skin.  The woman always seems to be aware of this, tending to use her hands to at least cover her knees.  To see such a woman obviously in discomfort not change her attire (slacks, short slacks, longer skirt, shawl, etc) but to sit painfully for hours is not only distracting but makes one wonder about such a woman’s inability or unwillingness to rectify an obvious problem.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

The "Uplash" from the State vs. "social issues"

Rush Limbaugh has apologized today for using inappropriate language on his popular radio show against a female law student at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. And it is altogether right and proper that he should have done so.

Sandra Fluke had just given testimony before a special congressional panel of Democrats in which she lamented the fact that 40% of her female law students at Catholic Georgetown University could not afford her stated cost of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for contraceptives needed to ward off pregnancy in their pleasure-seeking promiscuous life style while working for a law degree. What a shock that must have been to Mr. Limbaugh! Could this be the reason that he momentarily lost his normal cool?

How many people realized before this revelation by Miss Fluke that our female college students at probably (almost certainly?) other Catholic, Christian and non-Christian secular Universities are similarly involved in these expensive activities? I doubt there are very many. So thanks to Miss Fluke, the cat is out of the bag!

It is unfortunate that Mr. Limbaugh does not appreciate the significance of this revelation, and does not see the "uplash" while being too engrossed in the deservingly reaped backlash due to his poor choice of words. In trying to divert attention from his embarrassment he does himself and those who might otherwise see the "uplash" a great disservice. He is not correct in assessing Miss Fluke's commentary as merely something private which should not be addressed in public. Miss Fluke is quite sincere in stating that she and many young women in school NEED government, and thereby taxpayer support, in living their lifestyle.

And indeed we must thank our President for phoning Miss Fluke, thanking her for her concern about women. Had he not done so, this revelation would not have had the "uplash" that it deserves. That is, unknowingly, our President has put this revelation front and center in the minds of Americans so that our Republican candidates should see the need and legitimacy of making the Fluke revelation the heart of the "social issues" controversy.

This is really an Andrew Breithart moment and were he still with us I am sure he would incorporate the Fluke revelation into his Democrat-Media-Complex view; indeed into a Democrat-Media-Abortion-Complex. Democrats love and need abortion to exercise control and garner votes; we can be sure that a further research into the Fluke revelation would reveal that contraception would not just involve condoms and birth control pills but a whole panoply of abortion of all types, morning after pills and all kinds of medications guaranteed to rid a women of an unplanned fetus.

It is important for Republican candidates to reject the falsehood that "social issues" have no place in the campaign for president in 2012. Those interested in the betterment of society and getting (Democrat) government out of the business of demanding taxpayers and Christian institutions, in a never before experienced government expectation of violation of conscience, pay for the egregious tip-of-the-iceberg lifestyles revealed by Miss Fluke, must not fail to see the need to address these "social issues" in the campaign for President.

Newt Gingrich Responds to Attack by Media on Rush Limbaugh After Apology

Source: Breithart TV