Too sexy, too loud, too strict
Dress codes may seem like harmless style rules at first glance, but in reality, they have been a rather effective instrument of power for centuries. While men primarily use clothing to signal status (suit? Check. Watch on the wrist that costs a month's salary? Check. Executive chair? Probably.), women are meant to signal something quite different with their clothing: restraint, conformity, controlled femininity. In short: men dress to display status. Women dress so that others feel comfortable.
Dress code bullshit from real life
Whether it's a gym, a construction site, or an executive suite , the standards that women are supposed to dress for rarely serve safety or professionalism, but mostly control over their appearance, their sexuality, and their social perception.
An example from German gyms: Men are sometimes forbidden from wearing tank tops because their muscular physique might be considered "too provocative." Women, on the other hand, are allowed to train with bare shoulders, because different rules apply there: Showing skin is okay, after all, men also want a nice view while they sweat.
Things get even more absurd in the workplace: In 2024, the Bad Urach Regional Labor Court ruled that a woman was entitled to €250 in compensation because a gender-specific dress code violated the General Equal Treatment Act. It's nice that discrimination sometimes at least provides enough pocket money for coffee and cake.
And what about on construction sites? Men are allowed to wear tank tops and shorts; ventilation is essential. Women, on the other hand, often have to wear long clothing so as not to appear too "sexy." This is perfectly understandable, of course, since excavators and shovels don't work when operated from a low-cut top.
Victim-blaming and how short was the skirt?
Whenever sexual violence is involved, the same absurd question reliably arises: "What was she wearing?" Sociologist Barbara Kuchler has been pointing out for years the problem that women are still led to believe that their clothing contributes to sexual assaults. This is a classic perpetrator logic that is still socially accepted and widely supported today. This is not only disastrous because it legitimizes the crimes, but above all because the underlying logic is completely unfounded.
The supposed link between revealing clothing and sexual assault simply doesn't exist. The international exhibition "What Were You Wearing?", supported by the UN, has been demonstrating this powerfully for years: The exhibition travels the world, telling the stories of people who have experienced sexual violence. Instead of shocking depictions of the crimes, it carefully curates and showcases the clothing the women were wearing during the assaults, giving them a voice through moving text fragments. A woman isn't raped because she's wearing a miniskirt. In the vast majority of cases, victims were wearing perfectly ordinary everyday clothes like jeans, T-shirts, and sweatshirts. Crimes aren't caused by outfits, but by perpetrators. Period.
The fixation on clothing is therefore not a legitimate need for information, but a cultural ritual of victim-blaming. It shifts responsibility, trivializes violence, and reduces those affected to mere accomplices in their own experience.
Clothing as a political issue
Women's clothing is not just fabric; for centuries it has been political territory. Those who dictate what women may or must wear are not merely regulating fashion, but power, freedom, and social participation. A particularly drastic example, one that has caused considerable uproar, especially in recent years, is the headscarf in Iran. There, it is not simply a garment or a religious symbol, but a state-imposed sign of female oppression . The recent protests, triggered by the death of Jina Mahsa Amini, demonstrate that as soon as women have control over their appearance, the regime becomes nervous. Because it is never just about hair, but about autonomy. About political equality. And about the fundamental question: Who owns the female body?
But you don't have to look as far as Tehran to see how clothing becomes a tool of power. Even here, more subtle but no less effective forms of this control exist: skirt-length policies in schools, dress codes in parliaments, and debates about "too revealing" outfits in public spaces. Women's bodies are often the stage on which moral, cultural, and social conflicts are played out.
Whether it's a religious headscarf, a short skirt, or a strapless top, the message is always the same: Society claims a right to have a say in women's appearance. It's never about the clothing itself, but always about who has the power to set norms. Women's clothing is a political issue because it's a direct barometer of how free or unfree a society truly is regarding female self-determination.
The only legitimate dress code: blindfolds for men
When a bit of skin completely throws someone off balance, the problem rarely lies with the woman, but rather with the way some men look, judge, and act.
Studies show, for example, that men find women more attractive simply because of the color red; the cut or the amount of fabric is irrelevant. This means that women can dress however they like, and men will still judge them. The real "problem," therefore, lies not in the neckline or the length of the skirt , but in the eyes, and sometimes unfortunately also the hands, of those who cannot respect and uphold boundaries.
Dress code
If you want to raise awareness of this issue, No Shit Shirts is the right place. Our designs humorously and confidently draw attention to these injustices. Clear statements to highlight the absurdities of dress codes in everyday life.
Takeaways
- Dress codes are power: historically, they serve to control female presence, while men primarily use clothing to demonstrate status.
- Rules apply – but often only for women: Dress codes for women do not regulate safety or professionalism, but aim to discipline their bodies.
- Victim-blaming has a clothing problem: The question "What was she wearing?" persists, even though it is neither logical nor fact-based.
- Clothing is political terrain: dress codes often serve to limit female autonomy and to legitimize social, religious, or state control.
Sources (as of December 13, 2025):
Amnesty International - Iran: Ein Jahr nach Beginn der Proteste ist die internationale Gemeinschaft in der Pflicht
United Nations - "What Were You Wearing?" Survivors of sexual assault speak up
Haufe - Diversity und Selbstbestimmungsgesetz am Arbeitsplatz
Verlag Das Höfer - Sexistische Kleidervorschriften am Arbeitsplatz
Universität Mannheim - ROT – JUNG – SEXY
Kanzlei Kotz - Kleidungsordnung Fitnessstudio – geschlechtsspezifische Benachteiligung