You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say anything remotely close to that; my point was just that wearing low-cut tops and dressing for sex appeal are usually correlated.

I'm a straight guy, and no, I wouldn't find it sexually arousing if a co-worker came in to work topless.

Can you expand on this a little? It makes sense if the person was someone you didn't find attractive at all, but what if you did find that person attractive in normal work dress? Would you seriously not be aroused if they came into work topless? Or do you magically turn off your sense of attraction at work? I'm not sure I believe you, but even if that's true, it's clearly not for the vast majority of male society. Hence the plethora of advertising and marketing aimed at men that features scantily-clad attractive women.

Finally, it's obviously completely inappropriate to make those comments at work. But I don't think it's sexist.

Oh, did I get that quote wrong? Let's play the tape:

> Why do all the waitresses in Hooters wear low-cut tops?

Huh. It sounds like you're saying there that, because women selected for their sex appeal by a restaurant which is only a step away from a strip club wear low-cut tops as part of their required work uniform, it is reasonable to assume that a professional developer who chooses to wear a low-cut top is doing so to attract male attention.

Which part did I get wrong?

> Can you expand on this a little?

Here is a picture of an infant eating: http://www.breastfeedingchild.com/images/lying%20down.jpg

Here is a picture of a procedure which detects cancer: http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/271974/530wm/M4150542-Mamm...

Here is a picture of some people who aren't wearing shirts: http://gothamist.com/upload/2011/08/toplessdaya0811.jpg?882

Which of these pictures (if not all) causes you sexual arousal? Am I really so bizarre in my ability to look at these images, think "That is an uncovered female breast," and have my next thought not be "I would like to have sex with that person"? Because, you know, breasts (like the women who own them) don't exist for my sexual pleasure? Because context matters?

(For the record, my next thoughts, in order: "Awww!", "Oh man, that looks like it sucks," and "Wait, do I know that guy?")

Lastly, if you make inappropriate sexual comments about women, and not men, you are being sexist full stop. You are treating people differently, in a damaging way, solely on the basis of their sex. That is the definition of sexism. The justification is not relevant; in fact a lot of sexist behavior stems ultimately from insufficiently mediated sexual desire. (If you make inappropriate comments about both men and women equally, you are excused from the charge of sexism, though not from that of being a creep.)

Alright, look...those are pictures of people who are topless and are taken in non-sexual environments. Biologically speaking, there is nothing more sexual about those photographs than photographs of the same people wearing shirts.

Physiologically speaking, though, there is a difference. For most of us, chemicals in our brain respond instantaneously to those pictures, virtually shouting, "this is a naked woman". And its not just a male response, either (http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A3=ind9710B&L=AEJMC&E...). Nudity sells, and not because naked people look different. It's because our brains are tuned into paying attention to them, both by nature and by nurture.

The point of what I'm saying is that anyone wearing things that make you look good will ALSO make those who would otherwise be attracted to you pay more attention. It's not a choice, it is literally hard wired into our brains. Our brains respond chemically (http://jn.physiology.org/content/98/3/1374.abstract) to the pleasant, attractive things that we see. You have to understand that although you wear your jeans for yourself, anyone who is chemically predispositioned to do so will ALSO have their brains respond chemically.

This is no excuse for anyone who acts improperly in response to something that they see. We're all fully capable of controlling ourselves. Some of us have more practice in it than others, but society couldn't function if we couldn't control these reactions. The chemical response doesn't go away, though, it's just mitigated by other chemical responses.

We can (and most of us do) control our responses, but it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend that it doesn't happen. .

I'm sure there was a time in my adolescence when the mere appearance of a square inch of uncovered skin would have provoked a sudden involuntary orgasm like some Victorian gentleman, but I have seen enough breasts in enough contexts to realize that very rarely do they imply anything sexual.

For what it's worth, your sources do not support your point. They refer to sexual, erotic and romantic images, which I hope you would agree none of those pictures would be considered.

But if the article being posted is about the sexist treatment of a woman in the workplace, eventually the discussion will get to the absurd point where many of the men essentially claim that these biological sexual impulses literally don't even exist.

If treating people differently because of their gender is wrong, does it apply to both positive and negative treatment? Because judging by the comment count whenever this subject comes up, nothing seems to fire up the HN crowd more than sexual discrimination. Other more serious injustices in life never invoke this much passioned discussion.

I don't know if it's the case, but I imagine the more serious injustices are more black and white, where as sexism is almost all gray. One person's "I can't believe he said that" is another person's "You should have heard my daddy talk to my momma".

As a man I dress well because I want to be attractive. No, it doesn't mean women should feel free to whistle at me at work, but it's not outrageous to explore the boundaries and decision making process on this forum.

Look at the original quote: "Oop, Katie's got the low cut dress on today! I know where I'm sitting!" A clear statement of sexual interest, which Katie clearly did not wish to receive.

The hypothesis we are being asked to entertain is that she probably was wearing the low-cut dress because she wanted to attract male attention, but that this comment was in some other way offensive. That is, she wanted this guy to think that, just not say it. Because women are touchy, or something. What an absurdly insulting proposal!

Is it really so hard to imagine that she might want to dress in a way which is gratifying to her, without intending to be the object of men's sexual fantasies?

Suppose that Katie is a very large, very unattractive woman, and the meaning behind the statement isn't, "I'm going to sit where I can take advantage of the low cut dress", but "I'm going to sit as far away from her as possible", is it still sexist?

One can imagine such comments causing Katie distress or stress. Employers have a legal duty (which has been tested in courts many times) to protect their employees from harm (and that includes stress) in the workplace.

It is quite possibly sexist; there's not enough information to say.

Sorry about the downvotes, it's a legitimate question to me.

Is it clearly not treating her the same as everyone else? Yes. But is it sexism?

It's pretty obvious if you take it apart a little.

You're singling out the one woman in the room, commenting on her physical characteristics, and saying that (presumably because of those physical attributes) you're going to sit next to her.

Now, why would you want to do that? Sit next to this person purely based on her gender and physical attractiveness?

Well, obviously you're not singling her out as the most expert person in the room, or anything else remotely related to your actual purpose for being there (I'm imagining this in a work environment).

Nope, you're sitting there to hit on her. You've already started, with the compliment. Possibly only very politely, but will she trust you to stop there? And will she now have to assume you're casting sidelong glances at her breasts when she points up at the whiteboard during the discussion?

And since this is a work situation (not a social one), she doesn't even have the option to excuse herself and go talk with other people if your advances are unwelcome.

Hope this helps make it a bit more clear.

Why would it make me uncomfortable? It would subtly remind everyone in the room, including me, that I'm different. And it would place an (unintended, I'm sure) emphasis on my physical attributes, which have nothing to do with my ability to design or program software.

I didn't start wearing low-cut tops and dresses until I started breast-feeding because they make it easier to pull out your boobs.

Which is why I sometimes wish for a nudist society, exposing clothes can be much more distracting than none at all.

> Probably because I'm not fifteen, and I've seen boobs before.

I'm neither fifteen nor in dire need of breasts, and a mini skirt in summer can still be enough to keep me from thinking straight (I won't comment on it though). Some of us can't be fixed, looking down on me won't help.

I actually agree with both of you, you simply sound as if you had different women in mind all the time. There are girls in all environments that dress up with intentions. It sucks, they cause prejudice, but the OP really doesn't sound like it.

This has always sort of baffled me. That is, the fact that there has to be a specific law/rule allowing women to appear in public without some form of upper-body garment.

Obviously, regardless of gender, it's all about context. I wouldn't consider it appropriate for someone to get around without a shirt on while at work (I suppose there could be exceptions, eg. certain manual labour jobs where employees are comfortable shedding clothing in an effort to stay cool etc.).

But in a situation where its natural to take ones shirt off, such as swimming, I don't see why women shouldn't be allowed the same 'privilege' just because they may have visible deposits of fat and muscle on their chest.

I know there are all sorts of longstanding social preconceptions that a lot of people would hold on this sort of issue, but isn't that something most people would expect to change over time?