fetishizing nudity: only I can give meaning to MY body
I recently overheard a conversation about how being "scantily clad" is a declaration that one wants sex, and it reminded me of being told that my clothing was "provocative" and more recently told that if I go naked in a public place, I am sexually harassing anyone who sees me, by drawing them sans-consent into my sex scene. In response to these ideas: "HELL THE FUCK NO."
The way a person chooses to cover or not cover their body is 1) not a declaration of any kind of desire 2) not inherently centered on the viewer and 3) not sexual in and of itself. People make these faulty and damaging assumptions because in our culture nudity is fetishized: that is, it is assigned sexuality. Thus "showing skin" is erotic: a sexual invitation or "provocation." It's not simply or inherently human to consider nudity erotic: if it were, the nudity fetish wouldn't vary according to culture. This is purely an individual fetish: one taught by culture but owned by each person. It being a common fetish doesn't mean that it is appropriate to assign other people's motives by, or to act on these assumed motives. If a group of people fetishizes tie-wearing, and they hang out with other people who say that tie-wearing is an invitation to choke people, that does not make it appropriate to assume that any person wearing a tie wants to be choked with it. Because people are never all the same; behavior and dress can never tell you anything unless the person who acts/wears explains those actions/clothing. Even if in all the world, there was only one person who ever wore a tie just for the look of it and everyone else wore it as an erotic choking device, you would still need to check with every person because choking a non-consenting person is a horrific act.
If my clothing or lack thereof provokes you, that's your fetish, not my behavior. When I go naked, I am not getting an erotic thrill out of it and I am not signaling a request for sex. I don't care what you think; you may call yourself aroused but you may NOT call me arousing (unless we have decided to have sex and are currently having it). You have the right to look away and the right to ask me to not be around you when I'm naked but you don't have the right to force me to cover my body. I wear clothes because the law will punish me if I don't (and occasionally for practical reasons), but I deeply resent this imposition on my bodily autonomy. Don't you dare assign my clothing (or lack thereof) any intention or meaning; only I get to declare my intentions.
Strange Children
(please click to see full size)
The way a person chooses to cover or not cover their body is 1) not a declaration of any kind of desire 2) not inherently centered on the viewer and 3) not sexual in and of itself. People make these faulty and damaging assumptions because in our culture nudity is fetishized: that is, it is assigned sexuality. Thus "showing skin" is erotic: a sexual invitation or "provocation." It's not simply or inherently human to consider nudity erotic: if it were, the nudity fetish wouldn't vary according to culture. This is purely an individual fetish: one taught by culture but owned by each person. It being a common fetish doesn't mean that it is appropriate to assign other people's motives by, or to act on these assumed motives. If a group of people fetishizes tie-wearing, and they hang out with other people who say that tie-wearing is an invitation to choke people, that does not make it appropriate to assume that any person wearing a tie wants to be choked with it. Because people are never all the same; behavior and dress can never tell you anything unless the person who acts/wears explains those actions/clothing. Even if in all the world, there was only one person who ever wore a tie just for the look of it and everyone else wore it as an erotic choking device, you would still need to check with every person because choking a non-consenting person is a horrific act.
If my clothing or lack thereof provokes you, that's your fetish, not my behavior. When I go naked, I am not getting an erotic thrill out of it and I am not signaling a request for sex. I don't care what you think; you may call yourself aroused but you may NOT call me arousing (unless we have decided to have sex and are currently having it). You have the right to look away and the right to ask me to not be around you when I'm naked but you don't have the right to force me to cover my body. I wear clothes because the law will punish me if I don't (and occasionally for practical reasons), but I deeply resent this imposition on my bodily autonomy. Don't you dare assign my clothing (or lack thereof) any intention or meaning; only I get to declare my intentions.
Strange Children
(please click to see full size)
It is so worrisome in our culture that dress (and various states of undress) is perceived as implied consent, without really knowing what that person is thinking or feeling having dressed the way they do. I don't view my naked body as a constant state of sexual invitation, therefore other people would be wise not to assume such.
Just ugh, I hate that consent at all seems to be the implied default and one must say no or clearly state one's intentions for others to get the picture (and often they still don't!)
With that said, we use how a person dresses as a measure of many things unrelated to sex. If you wear a yarmulke, burka, Catholic robe + collar, or any number of other particular types of dress, it heavily implies that you're affiliated with the religious faith in question. Wearing certain colors in the right(wrong) neighborhoods is a sign of gang affiliation. I might wear a suit and tie to work (which sends one set of signals) and old ratty canvas shorts + a T-shirt at home (which sends another).
You can take this back to ornamentation and evolution. Humans don't have fancy peacock feathers; we send signals via external adornment.
I agree 100% with what you've said regarding clothing NOT being an invitation, and consent not being something other people can take for granted. Sexuality itself, however, is only one thing people "dress" for.
Further, what happens in the courts is unimportant compared to the reasons that people rape. One of them is rape myths like "if a person dresses a certain way, it's because they want to have sex." Want to know why rape happens? ask rapists why they did it. They're pretty candid.
To understand rape culture, I suggest the anthology Transforming A Rape Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Rape-Culture-Emilie-Buchwald/dp/1571312048). There are many other resources but that's the best starting point in my opinion.
We do in fact use the way people dress to assume things about them. However that does not mean that wearing clothing can EVER be predicted as any intended implication. You're conflating two things. Your assumptions =/= others intentions. If some people intend to send signals, others don't. If I wear a sleeveless top, it's not because I want people to look at my arms, it's because I hate the feeling of sleeves, and I like to feel air in my armpits. I'm not sending ANY signal. You might be assuming one, but that does not mean I'm sending one. In your gang example, the colors are ASSUMED to be sending a signal but that does not mean that the person is actually flagging gang affiliation.
These assumptions are always a problem, but it becomes a crisis when these assumptions lead to rape; in the case of the nudity fetish, they do.
1) Rape / Rape Culture - Based on what you've written, I agree with everything in terms of how cases should be treated vs. how they are treated. I will check out the resource you linked, but I'm absolutely against the sort of scrutinization you describe.
I view what happens in the courts as extremely important. The reasons people rape tells us things about how they're thinking and why they think that way, but how rape is handled legally is an important component of changing how its perceived and treated by society in general.
As far as clothing and the conclusions that we draw, this is an enormously broad topic. The fatal flaw, again, is to assume someone is dressing to "Ask for it." But this is not in dispute. No one is asking for it, no matter how they dress.
I would say the following: Dressing and acting in a certain manner (in accordance with shared cultural understandings) can indicate interest in a person or encounter.
Signaling interest is never the same as consent, implied or otherwise. The line between the two isn't thin -- it's giant, and applied with a huge magic marker.
As regards your sleeveless top preferences: I'd assume you wore sleeveless tops because you wanted to wear a sleeveless top. If I discovered you hated sleeveless tops and wore them because it's the only tops you owned, I'd take you to the Salvation Army / Goodwill / TJ Max / Thrift Shop of Your Choice, and help you acquire something you liked more. If you were somehow restricted to sleeveless tops because of weight/size or some sort of skin issue, I'd go hunting on Google to locate something that would work for you.
The question of your armpits and their air-edness would not occur to me. :)
To me, even if you wanted to wear sleeveless shirts because your arms were particularly toned and you wanted to show them off on a warm day, that still shouldn't be read as an invitation to impose one's self on you. If someone has worked hard on hir physique and gets some validation from having people notice, to me that's all it is (it's freaking hard work, and in a sense your body is your "art"). I might comment favorably if I felt like it would be received favorably and not seen as aggressive, but there's no implication to me that anything further is "okay" just because of the amount of skin (s)he is showing.
And, I can't believe there are still people who think it's strange that I don't wear a bra when I am home and hang out in pajamas. Then, if I mention I take the pajamas off to sleep, it's like all hell breaks loose because lying in my own bed naked is something awful. I mean if I am doing that and I am alone I must be masterbating the entire time, right?
People are strange.
I keep clothes on when in public because I am modest and chicken.
At home is a different story.
I mean hey, I've known people who wear corsets to bed, so I guess I shouldn't judge, but that just doesn't sound comfortable.
Well put, O James.
When I ran the google search, different things came up if I spelled "sexualizing" with a Z or an S. Just in case you were gonna go lookin ;)
I LOVE this distinction. It really sums up the necessity of owning responsibility for yourself.