Vox, and now Dalrock, have taken up the rebuttal to Susan Walsh’s challenge that men prove women’s solipsism exists, or drop it. I can add nothing to their comments, except to note a couple forms of it that really irritate me.
One of the most common forms of what we refer to as female solipsism (and I’ve argued is identical to Dark Triad traits) is women’s almost perpetual state of undress. If she’s wearing pants: they’re skin-tight pants. If she’s wearing a skirt: it’s a short, or high-slit, or very form-fitting skirt. If she’s not trying to be alluring: she’s wearing sweats. I’ve argued that this is abusive to men in the sense that they’re calling out, “You should want this”; the visual equivalent of a one-sided game of slap ‘n’ tickle.
The most common form of solipsism that “good” girls express is when they bring women un-dressed in such ways around their men. They are unconcerned and unaware of the most basic workings of the male libido. If wives knew how tempting it is for their husbands to lust after the wives’ friends, wives would shame other women into dressing properly, and never bring them around their husbands if they weren’t.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
I was on board with your comments until:
If wives knew how tempting it is for their husbands to lust after the wives’ friends, wives would shame other women into dressing properly, and never bring them around their husbands if they weren’t.
What you’re advocating is for someone else to bypass a husband’s authority to police them. At the end of the day, if a husband wants his wife to dress in a way which can be seen as tempting to other men, it’s up to the other men, or a husband, not the wife, to do the policing. If a man has an issue with the way another man’s wife dresses, he should be taking it up with the husband and not expecting the wife to try to convince or shame the other women that what they are doing is wrong.
What context are you talking about? At church? Just meeting up with friends over the weekend? At a party?
What I am saying is to follow the proper chain of authority– in this day and age if women attempt to shame other women into dressing better it actually serves as rationalization fodder and validates the way immodestly dressed woman thinks about it. When women find out from their husbands how unflattering a look is or how detrimental it is to her appearance, she is more likely to change it. Wives take their husband’s directions with care, but single women are an entirely different breed.
Lace: You don’t think there’d be anything at all odd about a man saying to another, ‘Hey, uh, your wife’s showing some serious skin, and I like it, and it’s distracting’ – especially considering how defensive men tend to be of their women? And you think women shouldn’t speak to their own friends about such things?
‘Not sure if serious…’
@Laceagate
Wherever Christians gather.
Think of it in military terms: There is the chain of command, and its word is law, right? However; even the military has Military Police, and they have legitimate authority, as well, within the purview of crime.
So, if Lieutenant Wife is dressing inappropriately, and Captain Husband is oblivious, or (inappropriately) afraid that Lt. Wife will commit mutiny, the MPs of the group have the responsibility and authority to charge her with the crime of dressing like a slut.
Women are better about doing this than men. The sort of man who will confront a woman who is not his wife (like myself) will say something along the lines of, “You dress like a slut.” I’m sure you can understand how this will generate a less than charitable attitude. Women tend to make the point in subtler ways; if they have a spirit of charity.
If a woman finds herself in the position that her husband says “Wear this”, and the women of that group say, “Don’t wear that”, then she should listen to her husband, and possibly separate from the group. It would also behoove the women to seek their husband’s council if this is the situation, and the men can talk to the (possibly) offending husband–who in such a case would be the true offender, as he is issuing the orders. The mis-dressed woman would be blameless.
This isn’t revolutionary thinking: It’s Titus 2.
@Cane and unger, it’s why I’m asking for context. I do agree with what you’ve said Cane, but one thing I should point out to you about women is that these things aren’t always done charitably (unfortunately). Often even gentle admonishments are seen as a “oh, my friends are getting jealous which means I should just ignore them and amp it up.” In this case, separating from the group would be a wiser decision but then again, it can also do with context.
I am one of those women who does dress modestly but if I were to police another woman gentle about her lack of modesty, it would be perceived as “well you’re just saying that because you dress like a frump,” or “you’re just jealous that I got goodies and you don’t.” It’s why I personally do not even bother with trying to correct another woman’s immodesty because as you’ve already mentioned Cane, separating myself does more than opening my mouth about it. My SIL has a tendency to show a LOT of cleavage (think inches) during inappropriate occasions and if I were to mention something to her, she’d brush me off. However, I could always mention something to my husband who could address it with his brother instead. Sure, my BIL might not like what he hears and could also brush off what my husband said, but in the end he will be the one to correct his wife with that knowledge.
I would think a husband could intervene along the lines off “don’t you think she’s dressed inappropriately/showing too much skin for the situation?” It doesn’t have to be telling another man off or telling him how to direct his wife.
@Laceagate
Not just you: You and the other women. You need to apply the power of the “hens” for good. There will be situations where you are alone. In such cases, we have to minimize our exposure (har) to those people.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/09/25 « Free Northerner