On Wednesday, ADN advice columnists Wayne and Wanda responded to a mother's concerns about her daughter wearing leggings. Overall, I agree with their responses, and the point that the problem is the bully, not the legging-wearing girl. However, in focusing their suggestions on the school reprimanding the bully, Wayne and Wanda missed an important opportunity to suggest educating the daughter about consent: Why it's important and how it's given.
Certainly, the daughter benefits from learning that people can interpret her clothes in ways she might not want or intend; she can consider that in her choices. After all, she will one day need to make decisions about choosing work or interview attire, going out attire, etc. The daughter would benefit more, though, from learning that it's not her fault if someone then takes his or her own interpretation of the daughter's clothes and acts based on those interpretations without her explicit spoken or acted consent.
Clothes cannot give consent, only the person wearing them can. Wearing leggings, short skirts, tight clothes, high heels, makeup, whatever, is not an act of consent, but rather a style choice. Wearing something is passive, even if it requires the act of getting dressed. That's not to say that wearing clothes doesn't come with implications, but consent is not given implicitly. Saying something or giving a physical cue -- those are acts that can be used to give or deny consent.
I get tired of people confusing clothing with an actual statement of anything more than fashion. That's why I am cautious about Wayne and Wanda's deferral to the school dress code because some schools across the country have deemed leggings (and yoga pants and tank tops) "inappropriate" because of the effect those clothes have on boys. But what about the effect of teaching girls that what they wear trumps what they say? Not only does that demoralize girls, but it also denies them a sense of their own agency, their right to give consent. Just as bad, it sends a message to harassers that they are allowed to act before they ensure explicit consent.
Unfortunately, some people put too much stock into implications when it comes to harassment, and even to sexual assault. When a woman is raped, one of the first questions people ask is "what was she wearing?" The common (mistaken) assumption here is that her clothes must have implied consent. A common excuse accused assaulters give is that the victim "didn't say no," the assumption there being that the mere presence of that person in the attacker's vicinity implied consent, since the victim didn't object. Here in Alaska, just being married is enough to imply consent to any and all sexual advances from the spouse, which in effect legalizes marital rape in state statute (AS 11.41.432). All of these assumptions are dangerous and wrongly blame the victim over the perpetrator. The difference between those assumptions and the assumptions of the mother writing to Wayne and Wanda that her daughter's leggings lead to more harassment is a difference only of degree.
Allowing a girl to wear leggings does not impede a boy's ability to act like a decent human being, but teaching a boy that a girl in leggings is asking for unwanted attention denies him a clear understanding of consent and further impedes his ability to be responsible for himself. What he should be taught instead is that he might have thoughts that, were they expressed, would make a girl uncomfortable, but he can choose not to express them, either in word or deed, unless he has her consent. Preventing a girl from wearing leggings not only teaches her that it's her responsibility to control how others treat her -- based on her clothing choices -- but, worse, it also teaches her that it's possible to control how others treat her, and that is completely wrong.
Giving people a false sense of security by directing their energy and attention to choosing clothes that meet some unspoken and totally subjective notion of "appropriate" or safe style is a complete waste of time. As anyone who has ever been harassed can tell you, no matter how much work you put into regulating your look, you can't stop another person from being a jerk about it. I've worn sweats and a big coat and been sexually harassed in a parking lot. People get harassed for sporting a purple Mohawk or for being black and wearing baggy clothes.
The point is that clothes can't protect any more than they can harm because apparel is not the source of the problem. The person acting outside the boundaries of consent is the problem.
So let's redirect the attention, and our energies, to consent, and the harm it causes when we act without it. Other states, like California, have clarified the definition of consent to mean "affirmative consent," where both parties explicitly (either vocally or through body language) agree to the act.
Alaska would do well to do the same and eradicate laws that rely on implication as consent. It is also imperative that we learn to place blame where blame is due and stop giving fodder for the defense of bullies and harassers, even in arenas as seemingly innocuous as dressing etiquette for young girls. We should teach our men and women, young and old, that every person is responsible for his or her own actions and that they have no right to assert themselves on another person without consent.
Allison Palumbo lives in Anchorage. She is a pursuing a doctorate in literature at the University of Kentucky.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.