dmcdd wrote: I would think that a professional woman would choose office clothes that didn't look like she used Hooter's clothes sizing standards.
Some of those outfits are appropriate, some are not. We've got a woman in the office that IMHO is even better looking that that woman. She wears outfits that are professional, and don't resemble body paint.
I'd say 5,7, and 8 are professional. Ther rest make it look like she's fishing for sexual harrasment.
Is there a statement to the affect that those outfits were all worn to work? If not it is a major assumption on which to basis your criticism. BTW every assumption makes an ass out of u and me. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you an ass. I am recommending not to assume.
And because the written language is ope to manipulation through interpretation. This phrase " a professional woman" should I assume (no better not) she is a hooker? If so what should the choice of clothing be for that profession. :Whistle
dmcdd wrote: I would think that a professional woman would choose office clothes that didn't look like she used Hooter's clothes sizing standards.
Some of those outfits are appropriate, some are not. We've got a woman in the office that IMHO is even better looking that that woman. She wears outfits that are professional, and don't resemble body paint.
I'd say 5,7, and 8 are professional. Ther rest make it look like she's fishing for sexual harassment.
There is never a "pass" for sexual harassment! By a man to a sexy woman, or by a woman to a hot man. Period.
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
My work enviroment is much more casual but I have seen a lot worse that this woman's wear at my workplace. But on the upside, the woman may now get a modeling contract.
I didn't find any of the outfits objectionable at all, but then again, you have seen my avatar.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
SS109 wrote: My work enviroment is much more casual but I have seen a lot worse that this woman's wear at my workplace. But on the upside, the woman may now get a modeling contract.
I didn't find any of the outfits objectionable at all, but then again, you have seen my avatar.
:party :goodone: :roflol:
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
SS109 wrote: My work enviroment is much more casual but I have seen a lot worse that this woman's wear at my workplace. But on the upside, the woman may now get a modeling contract.
I didn't find any of the outfits objectionable at all, but then again, you have seen my avatar.
I can identify with such a statement. Visual satisfaction is well...delightful. Reminds me of a very old song "Vicky Doogan".
Rockdoc wrote: Is there a statement to the affect that those outfits were all worn to work? If not it is a major assumption on which to basis your criticism. BTW every assumption makes an ass out of u and me. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you an ass. I am recommending not to assume.
And because the written language is ope to manipulation through interpretation. This phrase " a professional woman" should I assume (no better not) she is a hooker? If so what should the choice of clothing be for that profession.
I didn't assume anything. I just offered an opinion on the pictures. If she did wear some of those to work, I'd say that Citibank has a legal leg to stand on. Given that we have no idea how she dressed day to day, I have no opinion of who's right or wrong in this case.
I'm pretty direct - if I meant hooker, I would have said 'hooker' and eluded to her having a UPC symbol tattooed on her butt.
Sunshine Girl wrote: There is never a "pass" for sexual harassment! By a man to a sexy woman, or by a woman to a hot man. Period.
I agree. In fact, I was in a company that fired a woman for sexual harrasment of her co-workers based in part on her inappropriate choice of how revealing her clothing was in a professional environment.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Is there a statement to the affect that those outfits were all worn to work? If not it is a major assumption on which to basis your criticism. BTW every assumption makes an ass out of u and me. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you an ass. I am recommending not to assume.
And because the written language is ope to manipulation through interpretation. This phrase " a professional woman" should I assume (no better not) she is a hooker? If so what should the choice of clothing be for that profession.
I didn't assume anything. I just offered an opinion on the pictures. If she did wear some of those to work, I'd say that Citibank has a legal leg to stand on. Given that we have no idea how she dressed day to day, I have no opinion of who's right or wrong in this case.
I'm pretty direct - if I meant hooker, I would have said 'hooker' and eluded to her having a UPC symbol tattooed on her butt.
Sunshine Girl wrote: There is never a "pass" for sexual harassment! By a man to a sexy woman, or by a woman to a hot man. Period.
I agree. In fact, I was in a company that fired a woman for sexual harrasment of her co-workers based in part on her inappropriate choice of how revealing her clothing was in a professional environment.[/quote]
All companies have a dress code. As an employee you need to abide by it. If not, there are legal steps they have to take to correct you. I don't find this woman's choice of clothing to be too revealing though. Her clothes fit her. In the case you mentioned that person might have been wearing something much more scanty. I've seen some men wear tight shirts leaving little to the imagination of their muscled torsos. Should they be fired? Of course not! It's my problem if I can't do my job because he is appealing. I guess I shouldn't be working there if I was such a useless employee and not able to control my feminine urges.
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
Is there a statement to the affect that those outfits were all worn to work? If not it is a major assumption on which to basis your criticism. BTW every assumption makes an ass out of u and me. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you an ass. I am recommending not to assume.
And because the written language is ope to manipulation through interpretation. This phrase " a professional woman" should I assume (no better not) she is a hooker? If so what should the choice of clothing be for that profession.
I didn't assume anything. I just offered an opinion on the pictures. If she did wear some of those to work, I'd say that Citibank has a legal leg to stand on. Given that we have no idea how she dressed day to day, I have no opinion of who's right or wrong in this case.
I'm pretty direct - if I meant hooker, I would have said 'hooker' and eluded to her having a UPC symbol tattooed on her butt.
Sunshine Girl wrote: There is never a "pass" for sexual harassment! By a man to a sexy woman, or by a woman to a hot man. Period.
I agree. In fact, I was in a company that fired a woman for sexual harrasment of her co-workers based in part on her inappropriate choice of how revealing her clothing was in a professional environment.[/quote]
rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol Good one.
Well, that makes you a lot like Sunshine, direct. Know that I was only having some fun with the English language. It is a Hobby of mine to pick out plays on words. Having said that, I can imagine that if that tattoo were visible in the office..... there would be no butt about her inappropriate dress code lol Enough fun for the time being. Got to get ready. Have a great day.
Sunshine Girl wrote: All companies have a dress code. As an employee you need to abide by it. If not, there are legal steps they have to take to correct you. I don't find this woman's choice of clothing to be too revealing though. Her clothes fit her. In the case you mentioned that person might have been wearing something much more scanty. I've seen some men wear tight shirts leaving little to the imagination of their muscled torsos. Should they be fired? Of course not! It's my problem if I can't do my job because he is appealing. I guess I shouldn't be working there if I was such a useless employee and not able to control my feminine urges.
The woman I was talking about violated the dress code... and maybe a couple of city decency ordinaces. She was good lookin, I didn't mind seeing her in the halls. :Whistle
What it comes down to is the image that a company wants to project. If I'm running a diner, the employees better dress clean. If I'm catering to a business crowd trying to project a neat, clean image, tattoos would be covered, piecings removed, and hair would be a shade normally found in nature.
I didn't read the article, but if Citibank didn't think that the woman dressed in a manner fitting their established image, they have every right to tell her to change. If she doesn't change, they have every right to terminate employment.
Y'know, it's kinda telling that I only looked at the pics and not the words, but I never claimed to read Playboy for the articles either...
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Sunshine Girl wrote: All companies have a dress code. As an employee you need to abide by it. If not, there are legal steps they have to take to correct you. I don't find this woman's choice of clothing to be too revealing though. Her clothes fit her. In the case you mentioned that person might have been wearing something much more scanty. I've seen some men wear tight shirts leaving little to the imagination of their muscled torsos. Should they be fired? Of course not! It's my problem if I can't do my job because he is appealing. I guess I shouldn't be working there if I was such a useless employee and not able to control my feminine urges.
The woman I was talking about violated the dress code... and maybe a couple of city decency ordinaces. She was good lookin, I didn't mind seeing her in the halls. :Whistle
What it comes down to is the image that a company wants to project. If I'm running a diner, the employees better dress clean. If I'm catering to a business crowd trying to project a neat, clean image, tattoos would be covered, piecings removed, and hair would be a shade normally found in nature.
I didn't read the article, but if Citibank didn't think that the woman dressed in a manner fitting their established image, they have every right to tell her to change. If she doesn't change, they have every right to terminate employment.
Y'know, it's kinda telling that I only looked at the pics and not the words, but I never claimed to read Playboy for the articles either...
LOL "decency ordinances!" Playboy has articles???????????
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
