"A feminist response to dressing sexy in the workplace" deserves a post of its own, IMHO.

There's a woman superior to me in my office who dresses VERY sexily. When she bends over you can see her thong and her top almost always shows the tops of her breasts.

As a happily married woman, I still have trouble not looking. I mean, she's going to so much trouble to show off, is it impolite not to look?

Other than the occiasional, whispered "Oh my God, shorts and pedal pushers?" no one in the office ever comments on her attire.

So I do my best to ignore it, but goodness, the men must find it difficult.



I think these guys just need to get laid.

As to the office chick who dresses scantily all the time, guys in the office get used to it. You see it every day. You might be reminded of the sight once in a while, but it gets boring. It loses its effect. The Fed Ex delivery boy might enjoy his daily visit to get a glimpse, but he's not there all of the time.

We often forget that modest dress can be sexy in the right setting. Also, what it is viewed as modest in an earlier time would have been viewed as scandalous. Our standards change over time. When bikinis first came out, they were shocking even though they actually covered a lot of skin. Now, many women were the equivalent of a g-string on the beach.

As for the boys mentioned in Happy's post, they want to place the responsibility for their guilt on others rather than take responsibility for their own feelings/urges/behavior.

[hmmmm, Happy is such a dirty little whore, a roll in the hay with Happy might be kind of fun]


"I mean, she's going to so much trouble to show off, is it impolite not to look?"

Happy told me not to look at her "that" way no matter how much skin she shows.


Chipmunk: I know that thought was meant to be funny, but it's not. If you're going to make such jokes, stick to comments about power suits or something, please.

The Happy Feminist

Thank you for the support Evil Fizz but I kind of "provoked" this thought (ha ha) by bringing it up in my post.

Joel Monka

Speaking just as one 50 year old man, I can say Happy got one thing wrong: even a female swampthing will produce at minimum idle erotic curiosity. And Chipmunk got one thing wrong: a guy never does get used to it- ten years later he'd still be looking. And you know what? That's not a bad thing. It's not a temptation from Satan, it's a perfectly innocent pleasure any reasonable man would just enjoy and not worry about. Why, of all matters of the flesh, is this one different? If I walk past a bakery and luxuriate in the smell of fresh baked bread, nobody blames the bakery even though gluttony is a "mortal sin". Nobody says the smell of bread was sent by Satan. Why shouldn't a woman enjoy looking nice if she wants, and why shouldn't a man who has enough self control and maturity to still behave like a gentleman look?

One other point: I have heard some women worry that be perceived as sexy will make it impossible for a man to take them seriously. I can assure you that it is not a problem for a man emotionally older than 14. I've always wondered if the woman saying that had problems taking a sexy man seriously.


"I've always wondered if the woman saying that had problems taking a sexy man seriously."

You can get your answer just by looking at how HappyF treats me!


First, I'm skeptical after reading the link that either "Kevin" or "Jack" ever really said what's attributed to them. Somehow I get the feeling the quotes where made up by the writer himself and reflect his believes only.

Second, men with viewpoints like the writer probably comprise something less than 2% of the nation's male population. Kevin and Jack are clearly freak stereotypes often promoted by the Left to color men with the aura of Neanderthal characteristics. The other 98% of men would roll their eyes and walk away from any guy who started spouting the idiocy of a Kevin or Jack. So yes, people like them probably do exist in the crevices of society, but I don’t believe they hold much sway with most men, and are almost not worthy of our consideration. (I say almost because every now and then it’s handy to put such people up to the light to remind us how far we’ve come from the 13th Century. ). However, women have far bigger fish to fry when it comes to misogynist characters.

Aside: I limit my comments to western culture men. In the Arab culture, for instance, I would reverse the numbers. 2% are probably modern thinkers, with 98% being crevice thinkers. “Honor killings” are just the tip of the iceberg in those impaired civilizations.

The Happy Feminist

Oh if only you were right, Richard! But unfortunately, I think we pooh-pooh this kind of thing at our peril. (After all, weren't we all pooh-poohing those who believe in "intelligent design" until they actually started to persuade vast swathes of people and came close to successfully implementing that curriculum in our school system?)

I can tell you that I have heard very similar message to that above touted in "Focus on the Family" radio broadcasts. These broadcasts allegedly reach approximately 28 million people per week (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/dobson.htm) The Focus on the Family organization (which, as I discussed in a prior post, also apparently touts the belief that women ideally shouldn't own their own homes) is an extremely wealthy and influential organization, able to mobilize throngs of people for letter-writing campaigns and whose leader (James Dobson) has the ear of the President.

I would love to dismiss these Neanderthal attitudes as the rantings of a random group of crackpots, but I don't feel we necessarily have that luxury. These ideas need to be exposed and critiqued or we'll be caught by surprise the way we were when we suddenly realized that an enormous percentage of the electorate believes in Intelligent Design and votes on "values" issues like homosexuality.

Shawna Bound

First off: Joel, thank you! I agree with everything you said.

As a former evangelical, I grew up with all this nonesense. The thing that gets me about this is the implications that only boys lust. Girls just lust different: give me a man in a suit, and oh baby! But we lust all the same. And as far as lust in church goes--back when I was a teenager in the Bible belt, it was still normal for men and boys to wear suits. So the two immature peons in the post just need to shut up their whining and deal with it.

Lust is going to happen both ways--when it needs to stop is when the appreciation for the opposite sex turns into making a member of the opposite sex into an object.

The comments to this entry are closed.