College introduced me to some great things: keg parties, Midnight Cookies and a lack of dress code I had previously never enjoyed.
When I lived at home, my mom refused to let me out of the house wearing shorts that had holes or frayed hems. And my high school required my shorts to hit mid-thigh and my shirts to fully cover my shoulders.
So imagine my delight when I found out that I could wear anything, from pajamas to dresses so skimpy, they could count as lingerie, to class.
But some people are still struggling with dress codes and rules regarding what to put on their own bodies. Enter Clare, a home-schooled student from Richmond, Virginia, who was kicked out of her prom for wearing a dress that might cause “impure thoughts” from males, according to some of the male chaperones.
The dress was silver and fingertip-length, which met the one rule stipulated by the prom coordinators, according to a blog post Clare wrote last week. This, of course, is complete bull in how gendered it is.
It makes sense, though. Most dress codes are gendered, just as this one, which highlights the double standards against women in terms of clothes and body exposure.
Many dress codes or standards of dress are stricter toward women because women’s bodies are seen as public property. It’s more acceptable for men to dictate what is appropriate for women to wear and do, as the male chaperones did to Clare, than for a female to do the reverse.
This is apparent in many everyday, offhand comments. It’s a normal occurrence for men to judge women’s clothing — pause for a montage of men saying high-waisted shorts are unattractive — but I’ve never actually heard a girl say that cargo shorts are unappealing on men.
This issue also stems from the fact that female bodies are more sexualized than male bodies. If you don’t think that’s true, think of it this way — if a girl posted a picture on Facebook with a very low-cut top, you would probably sooner call her a slut than you would a boy who posted a shirtless photo, even if he was showing more skin.
Not to mention that the body part in question here, Clare’s legs, are not even a typically sexual body part. It’s ridiculous that we’re regulating the exposure of thighs or shoulders — if you are so turned on by my mid-thigh that you cannot focus on your schoolwork, or that you start thinking “impure thoughts,” then we have a bigger issue here.
And that’s what this all really comes to. Women are being forced to take responsibility for how other people view them. Clare said it well when she stated that this ordeal “(implied) that it is my responsibility to control other people’s thoughts and drives.”
If an individual wears a short dress or a low-cut top, sure, someone might find that attractive. But how that person reacts to that attraction is an issue for that person to handle.
It’s not our responsibility as individuals, or as women, to dress so that men do not constantly have erections based on what we wear.
Clare said it best when she ended her article by saying, “And if you think I am, then maybe you’re part of the problem.”
We need to stop judging the sexuality of others — whore, slut, prude — based on what they wear. We might not still have a dress code, but the repercussions of past dress codes still exist. Don’t let them make you part of the problem Clare warned against.
[Robyn Smith is a UF journalism junior. Her columns appear on Tuesdays. A version of this story ran on page 6 on 5/20/2014 under the headline "Your boner is not my problem, dude"]
