No question that our physical appearance is a multichannel broadcast, but in addition to clothing that also means our hair, height, physique, skin tone, facial features, teeth, everything that's visible. I do feel this post is a touch overthinking things... not everything about clothes is about sexuality. Clothes have a practical side to them, as well as an expressive side that aligns with our identity rather than sexuality. We also can't worry too much about what we communicate to everyone bc we cannot control what others think. Granted, in certain heavily patriarchal societies, the women and girls are basically told what to wear (you can guess what I think about that!) But if I had to think about what others are going to think about what I wear I'd never leave the house.
Personally, I like to dress nice for me, first and foremost, whether I'm going out with someone or not. I also feel it's important to dress the part—if I go for a 9-mile hike like we just did, I wear my hiking gear, for safety and comfort. If it's a business meeting, a sharp-looking outfit. When I was working in the camera dept on Hollywood films, I wore a vintage pilot's overalls, military fatigues, and a tool belt. Think what you want about all that :)
I covered some of your first part in The Beauty Quandary a few months ago about the other features and you're right. They do matter. (That essay was linked near the top of this one)
As far as the other outfits I also agree. Some of it is practical but there are also a lot of stereotype signals we send. Take that hiking outfit. How many brand names were being worn? It's not sexual signalling (though with the form fit and cuts they have now you get both) but it is signalling other things.
I also think many of us really do know what we're doing and can own the signal responses. I'm just fascinated how many people seem willfully ignorant of the implications.
The brand names aren't visible but the gear is made specifically for hiking—convertible pants, three layers for the torso for moisture wicking and coverage against wind, good socks, sturdy high quality hiking boots. The key is comfort and safety for long hikes. It really isn't about signaling anything. Sure, you could say other hikers we pass by might notice what we're wearing but the intent is not to show off anything, it's literally to stay warm (or cool) as needed.
Well, maybe the bunnies and the deer did notice, and are now discussing our outfits amongst themselves... :)
Right, but wear that outfit off the trail and your certainly signalling. Just like yoga pants and a tank top are highly practical in a studio and signal differently elsewhere.
Going up a Carhartt was lightly practical winter wear. It also signalled a different culture than my snowboarding jacket which was just as practical for the winter.
That's where the blend of stereotype signalling blends with clothing and selection signalling. (think snow bunnies on the ski hill)
The skillful person adapts to all these nuances and understands the signals and has agency over them.
You're right that not everything is sexual and I hope I left enough wiggle room for that in this essay which was focuses on that one element.
Mmm I disagree Michael. I did wear the outfit off the trail... we went straight for dinner, in the same hiking gear. No overt signaling there... everyone else in the restaurant was wearing all sorts of different clothes.
Now, if a couple came into the same restaurant wearing fancy evening clothes, or wore an opera ball gown to go hiking, you bet your hundred bunnies that heads would turn!
In general, I would say here in America people dress down, or dress a lot more casually. I'm from Europe, and people always ask me "why are you so dressed up" when for my tastes, I'm actually not. Clothes are highly cultural, so that's really when the communication signals you're talking about come into play.
Given the topic, I couldn't resist clicking on your profile pic to see what you might be, intentionally or unintentionally, communicating. You wrote that you take pains with grooming and workout, and, looking at your photo, I see no reason to doubt that self-assessment. Your beard is nicely trimmed, muscles nicely filling out what might look like merely a conventional business shirt on another body. Am I a cad for saying so? Probably. As an older gay man I suspect I'm not the target audience of your fashion choices. But I think there's value -- and indeed morality -- in owning our own eroticism. Societal suppression of sexuality is a big driver of bad behavior and so much goes right when we allow ourselves to be who we are, to be, as you quote, "in our bodies." Thanks for a courageous piece.
Clothing absolutely communicates a message, something I became hyper-aware of right as I was getting into punk rock. I chose to communicate a huge middle finger to sexual selection norms (T-shirts way too big, deliberate ugly piercings, brightly colored hair), and to everything else considered "societal." That's kind of what 18 year olds do, I guess: take everything to the extreme.
#MeToo applies to us too. I was a massive flirt when I was younger but #MeToo (and #HimToo) made me rethink things. Well, at my age I'm not as touchy-feely as I was when I was a cute 25-year-old belly dancer (and that was, erm, decades ago) and I don't think I ever grabbed someone's crotch but the rules IMO really do apply to us too, and no, not all female attention, overt or otherwise, is always welcomed. Not do I think men 'should be grateful for any attention they get'. Just imagine if someone said that about a fat, homely woman.
100% agree that clothing sends a message. My uncle, who was a professor of cultural anthropology, used to say that even though you may have to wear clothing for protection, what clothing you choose tells us something about you.
You say clothing (makeup, hair, grooming), sends complex signals. I don't see anything complex about it. You also say clothing advertises sexuality, (or lack of interest). The first commenter talked of hiking gear. That advertises (communicates), practicality, ability, and experience in hiking.
I think some of your observations come from your son and daughters. There is so much going on with adolescence, both before and after sexuality, that you have to take a very close look at it. Dressing sharp is part of the pecking order. Getting "hit-on" may be the score (points in the game) you keep with your peers, and not much to do with who is making the advances. (Just look at "how popular" I am.)
Boys might make their points by how sloppy they appear. I reject the whole social order of "you preppies", and I am provocative by the rags that I adorn myself with.
There are those who do not play any status games. They dress in a very neutral way with no obvious markers, no attachments to any group. I was always repelled by the first tier girls. I am not a buyer for your marketing ploys. I disapprove of your provocative diamond tongue piercing or ring in the nose as fake snot drooling down.
When a male talks about female tendencies or sexuality, I see a lot of assumption and fantasizing. At least it must be coming from centuries old biases. I would prefer reading it from a female author. The woman is also talking from those same male/female archetypes, but maybe she has an inner sense that has partially pierced it. You could ask your wife to make a guest post.
I have experienced several times a very sexual beginning, and then a "drying out" in a year or two. So, was the sex real, or just another part of marketing? Do women fake and orgasm? Ask your wife. When I say marketing, it means coupling not on the basis of love, respect, and sexuality. It is a business deal. You give me security, and I will satisfy your "needs". It is very very prevalent. Sex can be a mutual play, and lead deeply into mysteries. But if it is not mutual, it is ugly. This marketing business is human trafficking, only the lady is trafficking herself. I want nothing to do with it. And nothing says women shouldn't "choose to look nice", as they see it.
SEX CAN BE AUTHENTIC TOO, don't get me wrong. I know it both ways.
We met on ARGO, on my guest post "There are NO Unmarked Women". I don't know these things that I wrote, but I wanted to get a female response. I said:
"To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social presence of women, has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
This is the archetype. Repeat; "Women develop a presence AS A RESULT OF THEIR INGENUITY! under such tutelage". What is this ingenuity? Apparently developing it has become the most important part of being a western woman. The commenter Chantal replied that "Women have a different kind of power - a power men cannot have."
I asked her to say more about that. You said "females are also the ones who are the ‘peacocks’ and perform overt signaling more so than men." This has become the necessity in the modern western archetype. It's not in the female genes. In other words, it is programming. We can play out our programming, but who are we before the programming?
I am asking you to delve underneath these stereotypes. Who are we, as man and woman?
I love this comment. It proves my point better than I coul make it. It's perfectly signed to my point. If I could rewrite this I'd quote you. Love it!! It makes my point so well. Thanks for commenting!
I think this is nonsense. The girl is communicating that she’s hot, she’s perfectly prepared for that to “land” and people to think she’s hot or press the like button - nasty comments from grown ups are not an appropriate way to communicate that they think she looks hot. If I wear a Star of David I’m communicating that I’m Jewish - I’m prepared for everyone to understand that. If someone attacks me, cusses me out and throws paint or acid at me - that’s them being violent and horrible not me communicating wrong. Additionally when it comes to women’s attractiveness there’s a decades, centuries long pressure on them that they Have to communicate that they’re attractive or they won’t be taken seriously professionally or treated well in everyday errands. For example, to me stilettos communicate sex and are impractical as fuck. But women not wearing heels have literally been told they’re not professional and it’s not random that Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris and Nicki Haley all constantly wear heels - they feel it’s the safe correct choice and not because they’re communicating that they’re looking for lovers or sexual compliments from everyone.
I see where you're coming from but I don't completely agree with the conclusion. The goal of this essay is to really ensure we ARE looking at all the communication implications.
More often than not, in my world, women who wear heels are not taken as seriously as those who don't.
As far as the girl in the video, she is prepared in part. But we aren't talking about nasty comments from adults, they are trying to protect her.
To your point of the Star of David, remember the number of times I caveated that I'm not victim blaming for bad behavior.
Yes you caveat but that makes the rest not make sense. Because what are they trying to protect her from except for bad behavior on other’s part? It only makes sense if the argument is that - communicating you’re attractive makes it okay for people to do X where X is unpleasant and bad behavior on someone else’s part.
That's not my goal but it is. You don't have the freedom to communicate anything divorced from interpretation. That's like covering yourself in steaks and jumping into a shark tank and being upset at the outcome.
What is that last sentence but victim blaming? Human beings aren’t sharks and are responsible for their own actions. I wouldn’t be surprised to be attacked but it would still be wrong, on their part, not mine.
Now actual interpretation - like “hmm, he isn’t dressed corporately enough for the image we want to project so we won’t hire him” is a real thing that young people should be taught but none of it is about inappropriate sexual advances or assault.
Mike, you and I talked about this the other night. So many areas to think about. One of the things that I gave thought about was young me at 21 in 1983. I was an engineering intern and my office group was located in a warehouse. I had to walk through the warehouse to use the restroom. I would get cornered by this man and he would grab my hands and hold them. As much as it seems like an automatic thing for us now, that I should have said "no, this makes me uncomfortable" I didn't know that that was an option. I'm hoping that my younger counterparts are equipped to communicate when they are uncomfortable. I can see how this does fit with what you wrote about. I was a professionally dressed female in a warehouse with ALL men. It makes sense that I would get a response. I'm happy you are raising your children properly. You are having them think. I'm really lucky that my 6 ft tall daughter is way more of a bad ass that I ever was (I wasn't LOL).
Right. Nothing you wore justified his response. A burka wouldn't have helped his behavior either probably. I'm glad we no longer think this is acceptable.
It communicates a lackadaisical approach, a modern rejection of social norms plus a clear tribal affiliation to a sport and sports teams. If your figure matches the profile of a soccer player it may indicate a level of physical prowess underneath.
If your figure does not match then it creates other questions.
Remember a burka or as one of the commenters pointed out, Punk clothing was intended to thumb their nose at traditional sexual signaling.
To the men, it signals that they'd be comfortably confident to comment on the latest match or footballer drama in the news.
No question that our physical appearance is a multichannel broadcast, but in addition to clothing that also means our hair, height, physique, skin tone, facial features, teeth, everything that's visible. I do feel this post is a touch overthinking things... not everything about clothes is about sexuality. Clothes have a practical side to them, as well as an expressive side that aligns with our identity rather than sexuality. We also can't worry too much about what we communicate to everyone bc we cannot control what others think. Granted, in certain heavily patriarchal societies, the women and girls are basically told what to wear (you can guess what I think about that!) But if I had to think about what others are going to think about what I wear I'd never leave the house.
Personally, I like to dress nice for me, first and foremost, whether I'm going out with someone or not. I also feel it's important to dress the part—if I go for a 9-mile hike like we just did, I wear my hiking gear, for safety and comfort. If it's a business meeting, a sharp-looking outfit. When I was working in the camera dept on Hollywood films, I wore a vintage pilot's overalls, military fatigues, and a tool belt. Think what you want about all that :)
Great points.
I covered some of your first part in The Beauty Quandary a few months ago about the other features and you're right. They do matter. (That essay was linked near the top of this one)
As far as the other outfits I also agree. Some of it is practical but there are also a lot of stereotype signals we send. Take that hiking outfit. How many brand names were being worn? It's not sexual signalling (though with the form fit and cuts they have now you get both) but it is signalling other things.
I also think many of us really do know what we're doing and can own the signal responses. I'm just fascinated how many people seem willfully ignorant of the implications.
The brand names aren't visible but the gear is made specifically for hiking—convertible pants, three layers for the torso for moisture wicking and coverage against wind, good socks, sturdy high quality hiking boots. The key is comfort and safety for long hikes. It really isn't about signaling anything. Sure, you could say other hikers we pass by might notice what we're wearing but the intent is not to show off anything, it's literally to stay warm (or cool) as needed.
Well, maybe the bunnies and the deer did notice, and are now discussing our outfits amongst themselves... :)
Right, but wear that outfit off the trail and your certainly signalling. Just like yoga pants and a tank top are highly practical in a studio and signal differently elsewhere.
Going up a Carhartt was lightly practical winter wear. It also signalled a different culture than my snowboarding jacket which was just as practical for the winter.
That's where the blend of stereotype signalling blends with clothing and selection signalling. (think snow bunnies on the ski hill)
The skillful person adapts to all these nuances and understands the signals and has agency over them.
You're right that not everything is sexual and I hope I left enough wiggle room for that in this essay which was focuses on that one element.
Mmm I disagree Michael. I did wear the outfit off the trail... we went straight for dinner, in the same hiking gear. No overt signaling there... everyone else in the restaurant was wearing all sorts of different clothes.
Now, if a couple came into the same restaurant wearing fancy evening clothes, or wore an opera ball gown to go hiking, you bet your hundred bunnies that heads would turn!
In general, I would say here in America people dress down, or dress a lot more casually. I'm from Europe, and people always ask me "why are you so dressed up" when for my tastes, I'm actually not. Clothes are highly cultural, so that's really when the communication signals you're talking about come into play.
Given the topic, I couldn't resist clicking on your profile pic to see what you might be, intentionally or unintentionally, communicating. You wrote that you take pains with grooming and workout, and, looking at your photo, I see no reason to doubt that self-assessment. Your beard is nicely trimmed, muscles nicely filling out what might look like merely a conventional business shirt on another body. Am I a cad for saying so? Probably. As an older gay man I suspect I'm not the target audience of your fashion choices. But I think there's value -- and indeed morality -- in owning our own eroticism. Societal suppression of sexuality is a big driver of bad behavior and so much goes right when we allow ourselves to be who we are, to be, as you quote, "in our bodies." Thanks for a courageous piece.
And when I was younger I might have been creeped out by a gay man's attention. Now I realize my signal was landing. So thank you for the compliment. 😀
Beta slob here!
Clothing absolutely communicates a message, something I became hyper-aware of right as I was getting into punk rock. I chose to communicate a huge middle finger to sexual selection norms (T-shirts way too big, deliberate ugly piercings, brightly colored hair), and to everything else considered "societal." That's kind of what 18 year olds do, I guess: take everything to the extreme.
Great example! And people received that signal and reacted.
What is a male engineer communicating at work wearing cargo pants with zippers that convert to shorts?
A). Ready for retirement.
B). Confident and hard working.
C). Overweight and just doesn’t care because no matter what he does he’ll never be in the in crowd.
Hey now, I'm a male engineer and I love my cargo pants that convert to shorts! (though for hiking only) :)
I did wear non converting cargo pants for a very long time until I got senior enough that I switched to dockers and button downs.
Now I love rocking tapered jeans, starwars t-shirts, and a tailored sport coat.
#MeToo applies to us too. I was a massive flirt when I was younger but #MeToo (and #HimToo) made me rethink things. Well, at my age I'm not as touchy-feely as I was when I was a cute 25-year-old belly dancer (and that was, erm, decades ago) and I don't think I ever grabbed someone's crotch but the rules IMO really do apply to us too, and no, not all female attention, overt or otherwise, is always welcomed. Not do I think men 'should be grateful for any attention they get'. Just imagine if someone said that about a fat, homely woman.
I was honestly blown away when that double standard was thrown at me with zero jest.
100% agree that clothing sends a message. My uncle, who was a professor of cultural anthropology, used to say that even though you may have to wear clothing for protection, what clothing you choose tells us something about you.
"Dress for success." We also apply clothing to communicate group affiliation. Clothing has layers of communications.
Very cool read!!!
You say clothing (makeup, hair, grooming), sends complex signals. I don't see anything complex about it. You also say clothing advertises sexuality, (or lack of interest). The first commenter talked of hiking gear. That advertises (communicates), practicality, ability, and experience in hiking.
I think some of your observations come from your son and daughters. There is so much going on with adolescence, both before and after sexuality, that you have to take a very close look at it. Dressing sharp is part of the pecking order. Getting "hit-on" may be the score (points in the game) you keep with your peers, and not much to do with who is making the advances. (Just look at "how popular" I am.)
Boys might make their points by how sloppy they appear. I reject the whole social order of "you preppies", and I am provocative by the rags that I adorn myself with.
There are those who do not play any status games. They dress in a very neutral way with no obvious markers, no attachments to any group. I was always repelled by the first tier girls. I am not a buyer for your marketing ploys. I disapprove of your provocative diamond tongue piercing or ring in the nose as fake snot drooling down.
When a male talks about female tendencies or sexuality, I see a lot of assumption and fantasizing. At least it must be coming from centuries old biases. I would prefer reading it from a female author. The woman is also talking from those same male/female archetypes, but maybe she has an inner sense that has partially pierced it. You could ask your wife to make a guest post.
I have experienced several times a very sexual beginning, and then a "drying out" in a year or two. So, was the sex real, or just another part of marketing? Do women fake and orgasm? Ask your wife. When I say marketing, it means coupling not on the basis of love, respect, and sexuality. It is a business deal. You give me security, and I will satisfy your "needs". It is very very prevalent. Sex can be a mutual play, and lead deeply into mysteries. But if it is not mutual, it is ugly. This marketing business is human trafficking, only the lady is trafficking herself. I want nothing to do with it. And nothing says women shouldn't "choose to look nice", as they see it.
SEX CAN BE AUTHENTIC TOO, don't get me wrong. I know it both ways.
We met on ARGO, on my guest post "There are NO Unmarked Women". I don't know these things that I wrote, but I wanted to get a female response. I said:
"To be born a woman HAS BEEN to be born within an allotted and confined space; into the keeping of men. The social presence of women, has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage, within that limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self, being split into two."
This is the archetype. Repeat; "Women develop a presence AS A RESULT OF THEIR INGENUITY! under such tutelage". What is this ingenuity? Apparently developing it has become the most important part of being a western woman. The commenter Chantal replied that "Women have a different kind of power - a power men cannot have."
I asked her to say more about that. You said "females are also the ones who are the ‘peacocks’ and perform overt signaling more so than men." This has become the necessity in the modern western archetype. It's not in the female genes. In other words, it is programming. We can play out our programming, but who are we before the programming?
I am asking you to delve underneath these stereotypes. Who are we, as man and woman?
https://argomend.substack.com/p/10-wnt-there-are-no-unmarked-women
.
You'll likely appreciate ths one too.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/rediscovering-the-goddess
I love this comment. It proves my point better than I coul make it. It's perfectly signed to my point. If I could rewrite this I'd quote you. Love it!! It makes my point so well. Thanks for commenting!
I think this is nonsense. The girl is communicating that she’s hot, she’s perfectly prepared for that to “land” and people to think she’s hot or press the like button - nasty comments from grown ups are not an appropriate way to communicate that they think she looks hot. If I wear a Star of David I’m communicating that I’m Jewish - I’m prepared for everyone to understand that. If someone attacks me, cusses me out and throws paint or acid at me - that’s them being violent and horrible not me communicating wrong. Additionally when it comes to women’s attractiveness there’s a decades, centuries long pressure on them that they Have to communicate that they’re attractive or they won’t be taken seriously professionally or treated well in everyday errands. For example, to me stilettos communicate sex and are impractical as fuck. But women not wearing heels have literally been told they’re not professional and it’s not random that Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris and Nicki Haley all constantly wear heels - they feel it’s the safe correct choice and not because they’re communicating that they’re looking for lovers or sexual compliments from everyone.
I see where you're coming from but I don't completely agree with the conclusion. The goal of this essay is to really ensure we ARE looking at all the communication implications.
More often than not, in my world, women who wear heels are not taken as seriously as those who don't.
As far as the girl in the video, she is prepared in part. But we aren't talking about nasty comments from adults, they are trying to protect her.
To your point of the Star of David, remember the number of times I caveated that I'm not victim blaming for bad behavior.
Yes you caveat but that makes the rest not make sense. Because what are they trying to protect her from except for bad behavior on other’s part? It only makes sense if the argument is that - communicating you’re attractive makes it okay for people to do X where X is unpleasant and bad behavior on someone else’s part.
That's not my goal but it is. You don't have the freedom to communicate anything divorced from interpretation. That's like covering yourself in steaks and jumping into a shark tank and being upset at the outcome.
What is that last sentence but victim blaming? Human beings aren’t sharks and are responsible for their own actions. I wouldn’t be surprised to be attacked but it would still be wrong, on their part, not mine.
Now actual interpretation - like “hmm, he isn’t dressed corporately enough for the image we want to project so we won’t hire him” is a real thing that young people should be taught but none of it is about inappropriate sexual advances or assault.
I'd recommend re-reading the essay. You're falling victim to logical fallacies. I don't play the 'so what you're saying is' game.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/steelman
Mike, you and I talked about this the other night. So many areas to think about. One of the things that I gave thought about was young me at 21 in 1983. I was an engineering intern and my office group was located in a warehouse. I had to walk through the warehouse to use the restroom. I would get cornered by this man and he would grab my hands and hold them. As much as it seems like an automatic thing for us now, that I should have said "no, this makes me uncomfortable" I didn't know that that was an option. I'm hoping that my younger counterparts are equipped to communicate when they are uncomfortable. I can see how this does fit with what you wrote about. I was a professionally dressed female in a warehouse with ALL men. It makes sense that I would get a response. I'm happy you are raising your children properly. You are having them think. I'm really lucky that my 6 ft tall daughter is way more of a bad ass that I ever was (I wasn't LOL).
Right. Nothing you wore justified his response. A burka wouldn't have helped his behavior either probably. I'm glad we no longer think this is acceptable.
half of my shirts are soccer jerseys. what does that communicate to my sex and the opposites sex?
It communicates a lackadaisical approach, a modern rejection of social norms plus a clear tribal affiliation to a sport and sports teams. If your figure matches the profile of a soccer player it may indicate a level of physical prowess underneath.
If your figure does not match then it creates other questions.
Remember a burka or as one of the commenters pointed out, Punk clothing was intended to thumb their nose at traditional sexual signaling.
To the men, it signals that they'd be comfortably confident to comment on the latest match or footballer drama in the news.