Daughters

[Archbio]

or take away my individuality (as you claim it does)

I never said that. [Editor's note: on second thought it is true, though. Comforming is the intentional shedding of external signs of individuality.] I just fail to see why respecting something so crapricious [Editor's note: I meant capricious, but crapricious fits perfectly] trumps my own wants and my respect of them.

Of course there's a question of degree and context, but you're making it out as being pretty universal, so I disagree absolutely.

Editor's note: And actually I wouldn't be offended by someone telling me they think what I'm wearing is inappropriate as much as I am by your conception that I should (that it would be proper) obey such a request [without anymore reason other that they are thin skinned, tolerance-wise].

The reasons given here are not much more significant.

[Mobeus]

Originally Posted by Staizer

These boards are a prime example of people "asking" other people to take morals into consideration. You don't have a problem with it here because it is done respectfully.

That is my point, if it is done respectfully, I have no problem with changing something for a few hours, or changing whenever I am around that person or message board. Who I am is not defined by any specific action or apparel.

Adapting to what other people want does not make me less of who I am, or take away my individuality (as you claim it does). It just means that my personality is more adaptable to other people's needs. If I was asked to change out of my slutty clothing I would, because I respect other people, whether or not they respect me.

You're entirely right on the point that a specific action or dress does not define who one is. It IS, however, an expression of one or more aspects of that person in a way suitable to the wearer. Thus, the relationship is actually inverted from the one which you state - who you are (usually) dictates what you wear. Asking one to change or mask this expression, in effect, is asking them to change or mask that aspect of themselves from your eyes because you find it offensive. This is, I believe, malicious. You suggest that they would be in the wrong for refusing such a request to change, or at the very least, not "nice" (i.e. socially acceptable). In reality, accepting this request would ultimately be just as wrong, the damage is simply shifted from you onto them. Instead of their dress damaging your social senses, your request (if accepted) would be denying a part of their expression of the inner selves.
What you ask when you say "Hey, would you mind not wearing those clothes around me because I don't like them?" is, in reality, "Hey, would you mind temporarily killing a part of yourself to become more acceptable to my social standards?". You've only asked them to change their clothes, but clothes (or lack thereof) ARE, even unintentionally, a form of self-expression, as much as piercings, hairstyles, tattoos, or even protests or pieces of art are. You've asked them to deny a piece of their individuality because it doesn't conform with your own idea of such. This is not only as insulting, if not moreso, then their style of dress is to you, but also harmful.
This is why, ultimately, I side with those that tend to defy social conventions such as "manners", "politeness", and "properness". These are social structures that are ultimately harmful not only to a society, but to the individuals that are a part of said society. Self-expression, even in something as simple/volatile as an eight year old wearing short-shorts with "KITTEN" written across the rear of them, is not inherently harmful*, as opposed to the dehumanizing conventions society has concocted.
When you ask someone to change the clothes they wear, you are actively taking it upon yourself to change the way another human being works. You are ACTIVELY damaging another human being. When someone wears something they want*, they are not ACTIVELY damaging anything. Any damage done is done to the ones taking offense, it's true, but the difference is that in this case it is also done BY the ones taking offense. The clothing the other wears hasn't damaged anything, it has not actively attacked you or any part of you. Your own social inability to cope with their expression is what does the damage.

*Author's note - I am not saying ALL clothing (or lack thereof) is socially acceptable. Some articles of clothing, such as the aforementioned racist shirt several posts back, ACTIVELY attempt to damage other human beings. This is not expression of self, such as the clothing mentioned above is. This is an expression of political/social views that actively seek to harm another human being physically, mentally, or emotionally, just as much as someone limiting another's actions are. This is the effective equivalent of a uniform, though the damage is done differently. Just as uniforms attack a sense of uniqueness and individuality, such hate-threadz may attack one's sense of self and self-esteem. Therefore, as huge of a proponent I am for individuality and all this entails, I find this to be JUST an inacceptable as any amount of conformity a society induces upon it's members. It ACTIVELY attacks - the fault lies not with the viewer but with the article itself, unlike the examples listed in the arguement (non-Author's Note) above.

I apologize in advance if this fails to make a great deal of sense, but even at 6 AM I'm sure my arguement as presented here is fairly legitimate, or at least coherent.


On an offtopic note - Fairly large first post. Greetings NP Forum.

[Staizer]

What you say may be true. I personally am not offended by peoples' clothing or actions most of the time. I am merely stating how I behave when asked to change clothing myself because I find that treating people with respect and doing as they request gets me more respect in return. I don't believe that I am making myself the slave of other people's opinions because clothing does not matter to me. It does not express who I am.

Like I said, how I act or what I wear in general does not matter to me. However if someone asked me to kill, or do something that I did find morally wrong, I would be offended. That is what I am saying.