The Instigator
mackeeper
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

women should obviously be allowed to wear lipstick in the workplace

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 775 times Debate No: 119103
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

mackeeper

Pro

I would really like to debate a Jordan Peterson fan on the classic lipstick argument put forward in an interview with vice. I can't believe this is something that even needs to be argued but I see people bring up this point again and again and never seen it adequately debunked.

I argue that:

1) women should have the right to wear whatever they want in the workplace without being sexually objectified, Or harassed.

2) that lipstick is not inherently sexual - and that the desire to wear lipstick does not solely come from some subconscious desire to mimic the female sexual response or some bollocks like that.
Thoht

Con

So, We have discussed some things in the comments before I accepted this debate.

A few things should be known.

1. I am not a Jordan Peterson fan. He is either extremely dishonest or ignorant. The best word to describe him would be the paragon of the term "disingenuous. "

2. I'm disagreeing primarily with Pro's justification and the debate topic in general. My views are far more extreme than Pro's in the opposite way you may expect. However, His wording and justifications are bad enough to do a disservice to the position he seeks to prove. We arrive at our conclusions by different means. Pro has told me to challenge him along these lines, So I have. My views are more extreme than his, But his resolution(s) are misdirected enough to where I feel justified accepting. I will leave this up to you to judge.

So, On to my basic premises.

1. My opponent has many different resolutions here. I'll list them.

1a. "Women should obviously be allowed to wear lipstick in the workplace. "

There is nothing obvious about this. Dress code should be determined by the workplace in which the women work. There may be many examples of places women work where lipstick should not be permitted, The same as other articles of clothing or lack thereof. If we're trying to make our work environment less sexually charged lipstick may be among the things considered up for debate when determining dress code. More on this later.

The main point is there is nothing "obvious" about this determination. Pro would do his side a better service by leaving that particular word out of it.

1b. "Lipstick is not inherently sexual. "

Lipstick, Makeup, And clothing can all be sexually attractive. Teachers in schools who attempt to augment their beauty as much as possible are likely doing their students a disservice by distracting them from the lessons.

Form-fitting and revealing clothing such as negligee are not permitted in schools for this reason. Sexual paraphernalia is the same. Lipstick and makeup are not as directly linked to the act of sex, But they increase the attractiveness of the person who uses them, If they are done well or for that reason. I submit that beauty and attractiveness are the main reasons women use makeup, And that makes them more sexually attractive.

Pro has to submit evidence that there is a reason females wear lipstick that is not to enhance their beauty, Or to be more attractive for his point to be valid. He has to submit evidence that this beauty and sexual attractiveness are not increased by wearing lipstick for his assertion to be sound.

1c. "Women should have the right to wear whatever they want in the workplace without being sexually objectified or harrassed. "

Here is where we may differ the most. I believe sincerely that a woman SHOULD have the right to wear whatever they want in the workplace. I believe dress codes are silly things that prevent people from showing the world who they are. They limit the freedom of individuals and enhance stigmas of sexual activity. Constantly veiling our bodies makes them mysterious. People wonder what is underneath clothing. Some men have never seen a breast or vagina in reality, Some females have never seen a penis. Curiosity turns into sexual tension turns into sexual aggressiveness.

If we look at examples in reality of tribes where nudity is permitted, The men aren't constantly sneaking peeks at women's breasts and vaginas. These things aren't a mystery. They look at their eyes, Or other parts of their faces. The female or male forms are not a distraction.

By veiling ourselves, We increase the problem we seek to reduce.

Now, In my ideal society women would be able to come to work nude. They'd be able to come to work in full latex with nipple clamps, Strap-ons, Whatever they'd like. We condition ourselves to be distracted by these things by trying to hide them.

However, We're far from my ideal reality. Much would have to change, Likely slowly over time, For my ideal world to be a thing.

The problem I have with this resolution is you add "without being sexually objectified or harassed" to the equation.

Sexual objectification is not something people can control. We can mitigate it by reminding ourselves that the person wearing lipstick is still a person, And should be treated as such, But nothing can stop me, And many other people, From seeing a person and sexually objectifying them if they look desirable. Nothing can stop me from daydreaming about sexually desirable people I come across. My mind has sexually objectified that person.

If what you mean to say is "shouldn't be treated like sexual objects" then we largely agree. But, That would not be JP's point.

JP's point is this: "Women are more likely to be harassed at work if they wear makeup/lipstick. " This is true.

Pro is suggesting that every male has, Or even desires, Full control over himself. This is not true. I will sexually daydream about people like no one's business if they are attractive. I desire full control over myself, However, And will not act towards people based on those daydreams if they don't consent to said actions.

Not every male does. Not every male has the strength of will it requires. Not every male wants that strength.

Rape and harassment occur when people's sexual attraction overwhelms their control, Or they never sought to control themselves in the first place.

If lipstick does enhance sexual attractiveness, It follows that they will be more sexually desirable.
If they are more sexually desirable, If follows that more men will desire them.
If more men will desire them, It follows that more men will objectify and harass them.

SHOULD the men harass them? No. SHOULD women expect not to be objectified in the minds of men? No. SHOULD women be treated differently for being more sexually attractive? No. Will they be? Yes.

We live in a world where not everyone accepts our ideals. Some men don't see the reason they should deny what their bodies rage for.

Women can't demand a right that it is impossible for males to give. We have no choice but to objectify them. They can demand to be treated with respect, But the reality is the more attractive they are the less likely, And even able, We are to carry out that demand.

Should women wear makeup to intentionally make themselves more unattractive then? No. They shouldn't be expected to. Would it make them less likely to be harassed or objectified? Almost certainly.

JP's statement on this is that women who intentionally make themselves as attractive as possible are increasing the likelihood that they will be harassed. This is true. That doesn't inherently suggest by itself that there is a solution here. Over time, We have improved as a society. Not wearing makeup is probably not the answer. There may not be a good answer except to try to educate men better, Or come up with better arguments for why they should fight their internal desires.

Women's ability to wear what they want, Or lipstick/makeup in the workplace, Is NOT obvious. This is my conclusion. I can fight for their ability to wear whatever they want while simultaneously agreeing with the reality that makeup is nearly always used to increase sexual attractiveness, And that will probably result in them being harassed more often. I can say that not all work environments are optimally set up when women, Or men, Increase their sexual attractiveness as much as possible.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
mackeeper

Pro

mackeeper forfeited this round.
Thoht

Con

My points stand.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 2
mackeeper

Pro

mackeeper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mackeeper

Pro

mackeeper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Your opinion then has to be that nothing sexually attractive should be permitted in the work place. Where does this end? Are men not allowed to shave, Comb their hair, Wear suits, Wear cologne or any scents whatsoever?

Should we all be mandated to dress as ugly as possible? Do we make showers illegal because they eliminate BO?

The position that "Nothing sexually attractive should be permitted in the workplace. " Has so many problems we don't know where to begin. All of which impacts the freedom of everyone involved.
Posted by robertwilson5 3 years ago
robertwilson5
In my opinion I believe that women should not be allow to wear lipstick in the workplace as i could increase the likelihood of sexual misconduct in the workplace as it is design to make the women look more attractive for a mate same as a male peacocks tail is design to attract a mate.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
I'll post R1 after thanksgiving. Being kept busy yesterday and today, But I'll get to it Friday for sure. Apologies.
Posted by mackeeper 3 years ago
mackeeper
just debate me already

our opinions are not the same, I straight up disagree with this assertion:
"females put lipstick on inherently to become more sexually attractive. This makes them sell products better and improves relationships with clients. Ugly women without makeup can compete with women who are attractive without it. "
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Although to put it mildly, I'm not a JP fan. I think he is either 1. Excessively dishonest or 2. Extremely ignorant, And I find #2 to be unlikely.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
I'm willing to accept the debate as is, Just giving you an opportunity to edit it if you'd like.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
2) that lipstick is not inherently sexual - and that the desire to wear lipstick does not solely come from some subconscious desire to mimic the female sexual response or some bollocks like that.

Because females put lipstick on inherently to become more sexually attractive. This makes them sell products better and improves relationships with clients. Ugly women without makeup can compete with women who are attractive without it.

My opinion would be the same as yours, Arguably my opinion would be more extreme. That women should in fact be able to wear whatever they want within the limits of the dress code they accepted when being hired. In my world, Nudity would be fine if there were no dress code. Men who violate or harass them because of this though, Would still be punished. It is not an excuse.

However, If women were to work nude they would probably be more likely to be harassed. I doubt either of us has the evidence that would back that up other than feelings though. Females in general are harassed regardless of looks. It seems logical that if they are more attractive, They will garner more attention.

1) women should have the right to wear whatever they want in the workplace without being sexually objectified, Or harassed.

This is different from the topic's claim because you don't refer to sexual objectification or harassment in the title.

"Women Should be allowed to wear makeup in the workplace" is inherently different than "Women should be allowed to wear whatever they want without being sexually objectified or harassed. "

Sexual objectification will happen regardless of any of this. We as males are inclined to imagine them nude and imagine we are having sex. There's no way around that. If you make this debate you need to define sexual objectification or harassment properly. The initial question is a lot different. Should women have the freedom to wear what they please? Certainly. Harassment and Objectification are different questions after
Posted by mackeeper 3 years ago
mackeeper
how is my point 2 invalid?
how is my first point moot?
how am i making any argument other than 'women should be allowed to wear lipstick in the workplace'?

whatever, Tho, If it suits you better i'd be happy to change the topic to:

"if women are wearing lipstick (enhancing a sexual attribute) they are making it more likely that they will be abused in the office. "

I argue that - no they aren't
my thesis is that 1) men are autonomous agents that can choose to either harass or not harass someone and that 2) wearing lipstick does not necessarily "enhance a sexual attribute"
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
@pro i think you should have said ought, Also wouldnt that make your first point moot?
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Pro, Your point #2 is invalid, But it doesn't have to be for your point #1 to be valid.

In general, It is a question of freedoms for women.

That being said, Dress codes can be allowed via profession.

What Peterson would say is that if women are wearing lipstick (enhancing a sexual attribute) they are making it more likely that they will be abused in the office. This is not that much of a controversial point.

The problem with Peterson is he'll throw out a hundred statistics that all point in one direction but he refuses to point in that direction. He refuses to make the normative claim. This is why JP's fanbase defend him. Their views are supported and can't be attacked because JP himself refuses to make the claims.

I'm more than willing to take you up on this debate.

The problem is you are making a very different argument in your original title and your claims in R1. I can take up the debate if you'd like. I'm someone who very much agrees with you, But not the reasons you are presenting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.