Confused about our sexuality (From Bucks Free Press)

Confused about our sexuality

10:05pm Monday 27th June 2011

• Print
• Email
• Comments(12)

This story has all the elements of our muddled stance on sexuality.

Do we know what’s intentional, what’s vulgar, what constitutes flirting and what is just naïve?

I want to start with some Lauryn Hill lyrics from her genius 1998 album: ‘Showing off your a** because you’re thinking it's a trend…’ Please keep those in your mind while you read this.

Thongs came about I think to give a seamless, bulk-free look to tight clothing. They are not necessary underwear. They’ve been created to provide an aesthetic ‘finish’ to women’s derrieres. It’s possible to get other things to wear. The range is now vast. Including undies that are themselves vast.

I wear thongs. They’re not the most comfortable underwear going. I wear them for the reasons given above. As does probably every other female. We’d sooner be wearing those over-the-waist tummy-warmers available in Amersham market.

There is a handful of reasons why women wear these slicing, nylon/lycra/silk items and I don’t think I need go into them here.

The reported story involves a mother, a buggy, her exposed undies and a nearby man. In broad daylight. In the Eden shopping centre. In December.

In the first line of the linked article, the reporter makes it clear that the woman who exposed her thong was a ‘young mum’. Why are we being told this? Is it relevant? Does it matter that she’s young? Or a mum? Couldn’t she be cited as a ‘new mum’? Or just a woman? Isn’t this also a kind of titillation? Won’t some find this image appealing?

My first point is that the fashion for wearing exposed thongs is old (I knew it in West London more than a decade ago.) Girls know full well when they have underwear showing. You can’t not know. Same way the boys today know their boxers are on display.

I had to distract my daughter from a visitor’s very exposed thong in the British Museum recently as she too talked to her young one in the buggy while her hubby looked happily down at his family members.

Most of the contents of thongs are highly unappealing. And wearing one in December smacks of sheer bad planning.

Secondly, what’s dirty about the man? The fact that he took photos (totally idiotic)? Offered to help with the shopping? Looked at all? What man wouldn’t look? How can you not see when all is on display?

And if the photos are dirty, does this imply the woman is dirty? Are photos implicitly dirty? Or just photos of uncovered bottoms?

Is the human form dirty? Or just the female form? At this stage, I myself become confused.

The woman is painted as an innocent victim of a lewd act.

She was struggling with shopping. She was a ‘new mum’ who ‘had recently given birth’ (I thought that’s what a new mum was…) Is it possible that she got attention from the wrong sort of man and was suddenly (in her carefully put together jeans and thong outfit?) outraged. An extreme point of view perhaps.

And who discovered that the man had taken five photos? Did the public see him taking photos? Did the woman? Did she not object to one, but thought five was taking a liberty?

What are we to make of stories like this? The press offer us a warped picture of both victim and perpetrator. And I’m astounded that the phrase ‘dirty old man’ is still in use. I feel like I’m back in the 70s.

One comment on this article by Anna is spot on: ‘I actually consider the wearing of exposed thongs in public to be 'outraging public decency' too!’ Here, here.

I don’t want to see male or female body parts on display in public – Figleaves clad or not. Not a crack or a cleave or crevice I’m afraid. And I question why anyone would want to show – free of charge – their own body parts to anyone but a chosen partner in private.

This isn’t a fairly reported piece of news either. With the words ‘young mum’ appearing in the title, ‘dirty old man’ and ‘dirty photos’ cropping up too, the article smacks more of a piece written to tickle the fancy of like-minded men and send thong-wearing women into a frenzied, hair-tearing outrage that men can be so despicable.

I just don’t know.

And the truth is we don’t know. The young woman had children which denotes she was sexually active. Aware to a greater or lesser degree of how men and women behave in that setting.

The man was ‘dependent’ on incapacity benefit – £100 a week.

The particular details the report gives are not relevant to the story but more like a peep show.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and I’m left wondering who this article satisfies.

The £15 victim surcharge is an interesting point to end with. It will at least give the young mum funds to buy good, comfortable underwear – I recommend thermals for December myself.

See: http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/9105862.Charity_worker_convicted_for__dirty__photos

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here