Why is it that wanting to feel beautiful has anything to do with inviting people to hurt you? That is where it takes a very sexist turn. That's where it's also bullshit, as women in burkhas get raped and harassed as well. This is a problem with how women are treated and viewed in society moreso than what our skirt length is on any given day.
There is absolutely nothing sexist about that at all. If I make the decision that today, to feel handsome, I'm going to wear a fireman's uniform with no shirt on and go to the store, I have a reasonable expectation that it's going to raise more attention, positive and negative, than going in jeans and a tshirt. Exactly the same as you deciding to wear see through pants. Right or wrong, that's gonna attract attention. But it's got nothing to do with being a woman (except perhaps for the fact that women have a broader range of "acceptable" clothes to wear to different venues, you can wear pants, jeans, yoga pants, short shorts, skirt, dress) and everything to do with what our societal norms are in different venues and situations. If I'm heading to Fantasy Fest in Key West, my fireman uniform will be met with barely a 2nd glance; wearing it to church will likely get me kicked out/shunned. I feel like reading this thread some people believe that I could stroll out of the house this morning with a sock on my junk and go to the supermarket and nothing would happen. Ugh, no, just like you, no matter how much I want to go for the "sock" look, and no matter how comfortable it might be, I can't or shouldn't wear it, because it's going to attract a ton of attention, and probably get my ass whooped at some point if I persist in wearing it. If anything, men's "social norms" for clothing are much narrower than a woman's, I often laugh when I'm in an office building, men are all dressed in "uniform", dark suit, light shirt, tie. The only difference is the size and the shade of gray, black or blue. But the women, some are wearing suits, some skirts, some dresses in every color of the rainbow and print. Great, good for you. I'm happy you have that freedom, but I don't.
I have never thought that a man looking good meant that I was given a green light to abuse him or invade his space.
It doesn't. But the reality is, good looking men get their "personal space" invaded more. If I dress like a hobo, people will give me a wide berth. If I'm wearing gym clothes and looking scary, men won't look me in the eye and women will sneak looks. If I'm wearing a suit, people automatically assume I'm "important" and change the way they treat me. And when I wear things and am going to see other people, yes, of course I'm choosing my attire based either mostly or entirely on the reaction that it's going to evoke in other people. I sure a hell don't find a suit comfortable. I'd rather be wearing my warmup pants and a tshirt, which, just like you, I can do, but it's going to get me a different reaction than the suit will.
If people didn't react differently to different clothing options, we wouldn't have the multi-billion dollar fashion industry, we wouldn't have 4000 different options for "pants", we'd just have "pants that fit". Why do you think that people spend 5K on a purse, or 1K on shoes, or a man 30K on a watch? Those veblen goods exist primarily as a way to signal, to other people, your wealth. Got nothing to do, for most people I know who own them, with the watch, it has to do with what wearing as much as a normal family makes in a year on your wrist says to other people.
Here's a thought exercise. Let's say that Gucci comes out with the absolute best dress in the whole world for you. It fits you perfectly, it's comfortable, it looks fantastic on you and makes you feel wonderful to wear it. For the sake of discussion, let's say it costs 5K dollars, which is a ton of money to you, it's a few month's salary, but you've never had a dress that you look this good in. It's perfect. You decide to buy it, and when you get to the counter the clerk looks and says, "Oh, the Homebody dress, EVERYONE loves that one and looks great in it. But, you know why we call it that right? That dress can only be sold along with this agreement that says you may NEVER wear it in public. You can only wear it at home and only when other people will not see you in it. We only sell that dress so that you can feel good about you, not so that others can see you in it".
Now, sitting there in the checkout line, getting ready to spend a few months salary on the most prefect dress ever that nobody will ever get to see you in; what do you do? Did the dress just lose value because you can't wear it in public and show it off to other people? If you're buying this dress just for you, why did it lose value? How much value did it lose, assuming you'll be the only person to ever see yourself in it, even though there has never and may never be another dress again that you look as good in?
If you're buying this dress for you, I'd argue it shouldn't have lost any value. You still look fantastic in it, and you can wear it whenever you want, it'll be there helping you look great in front of your mirror whenever you need the ego boost. But, IMHO, if we're honest, I think that most people would put it right back on the rack and pick something else that they don't look as good in but can wear in public. Because they are buying that expensive dress for other people, to virtue signal, because it shows their body off well, and because they want other people to react to the fact that they can spend so much on a piece of clothing. No matter how good looking "The Homebody" dress is, it's not going to sell well if you don't get to have other people see it and react to it.
The same thing for lots of items like this. I proposed this thought experiment originally (not here, years ago) for cars. Imagine if Ferrari released a vehicle that performed just a little bit better than everything that came before it, and the cost was in line with a typical new Ferrari release.. Oh, super awesome, right!! Well, thing is, for some unknown reason, while Ferrari built the entire inside of the car, hand stitched leather, dancing horses everywhere; the outside of the car was built by the same design team that gave us the Pontiac Aztek. In fact, it's a part for part copy of the Aztek, even badged the same; from the outside, there's absolutely NO way to tell this is anything but Pontiac's finest. Once in the car, it's nothing but Ferrari and performs like a Ferrari though.
So, you can now buy a Ferrari that has no "signaling" at all. Yes, RIO's problems are solved, I can now drive a Ferrari into the hood!! Except, well, there's no way in God's green earth I'm spending 300K on what appears to everyone else to be the ugliest vehicle ever made. Because the value of a Ferrari is two fold, it's the performance AND what it signals to other people. And for a lot of people, the 2nd is FAR more important than the first. It's not the performance of the Ferrari that people are after it's the reactions from other people. I personally am a huge car nut, so, yes, I would want the performance too, but, if I'm honest with myself, a lot of the value in a car like that is what it tells other people. I can get better performance spending a LOT less on something like Corvette, why 3-4X the price? And would you spend 3-4X if there was nobody to look at it or see you in it? The answer for me is "HELL NO", take away the signaling value of a Ferrari, and, well, it's a Corvette. That's a little slower. And that's not worth 300K to me.
