What Are You Even Wearing?

Let's Talk Dressing Room Etiquette

I am not familiar enough with the cultural norms of other countries to offer insight into how societal etiquette has worked or exists now regarding dressing rooms in those locations.

Given my over 40-year history of utilizing dressing rooms in over 19 states and my experience with human behavior as a therapist, I am confident in my grasp of American cultural norms and societal etiquette with regards to dressing rooms. To be frank, I can't believe this even needs to be discussed. While neurodiversity is a thing, it doesn't render one incapable of understanding how sex segregated spaces work.

No, it is not a lack of social awareness that leads a man to enter a designated female dressing room. It is a lack of respect, decency, and adherence to societal etiquette. Whatever a man may tell you his reasons are, they are never out of respect for the women or girls in that space who rely on societal etiquette to feel safe and secure in their privacy during vulnerable moments of human existence. Such a lack of respect is a sign of willingness to violate boundaries regardless of who that violation may harm.

Whether it be out of egocentrism, adherence to a significant other's demands, or callous lack of sensibility; he has indicated he is not cognizant of or considering the security of women and children present. Such a man is a liability for women and children. He cannot be depended upon to be aware of and protect the needs of women and children. He has proven he is compromised and thus inefficient as a protector of the fairer sex.

It is precisely because males who are willing to violate boundaries exist that women fought for and won the battle to have sex segregated spaces and sports. If all men were willing to forgo putting women in compromising or dangerous positions, we wouldn't need to have designated single sex spaces. Men would choose to stay out of spaces in which women are vulnerable or uncomfortable in their presence. There has never been such a time in human history.

History of Sex-Segregated Spaces

Thus, in the seventeenth century, wealthy women began installing dressing rooms into their homes. We can see in paintings and literature throughout the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the battle of the segregated sex dressing room was being waged from the very beginning of its conception.

Male writers and satirists presented the female dressing room as a site of illicit and degrading acts. While female writers claimed the space as one of autonomy to pursue virtue, contemplation, and self-exploration as well as privacy from the male gaze amongst female social gatherings.

It seems from the very beginning, men weren't happy about women having dedicated space to pursue independence, privacy, and intimate female friendships. They struggled to conceive of a use for such a space other than sexually illicit activities they wanted to prevent women from pursing without them. Is it any wonder we have AGPs wanting to invade such spaces now? Men have historically seen dressing rooms as sexual in nature.

Legally, the 19th century saw the birth of sex segregated spaces in American architecture for public buildings. In fact, female specific dressing rooms were the first type of dressing rooms to make an appearance in department stores. Men were forbidden to enter them and had no dressing rooms of their own. It may have been the first “no boys allowed” clubhouse in America. The first statute regulating sex-separated toilets was in Massachusetts in 1887. (Who knew Massachusetts was the first transphobic state?) By the early 1900s, building codes for public spaces included sex segregated spaces.

While some have suggested sex segregated spaces were due to outdated paternalism that viewed women as a weaker sex unable to handle public life, there is biological truth to the physical differences between men and women that we cannot escape, even with hormones and surgery. Women’s reproductive cycles alone dictate a different set of needs than men have in toilets, locker rooms, and changing rooms. Our physical capacity is both far superior when it comes to gestating, birthing, and nurturing a child and far inferior when it comes to brute force. These differences are designed to complement one another, not compete. It is because women bear the children that we are to be protected by the men. You can fight off a hungry lion while breastfeeding, but it is considerably more complicated.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on various identity markers, including sex. While I would argue the law didn’t go nearly far enough to protect discrimination against women’s biology in the workplace (research pregnancy in the workplace for context), it did force employers to consider women for positions they never had before and gave women access to the court system to challenge sex-based discrimination. This essential piece of legislation gave women access to gainful employment and thus autonomy. While it is important for women to determine whether they want to work outside the home and not be forced to do so, women who do work outside the home deserve to be treated without discrimination based on their sex or biology.

Title IX was born in 1972 out of the ongoing outcry by women for equal access to sports and public educational facilities. The anti-discrimination law was meant to reduce sex-based discrimination that occurred by systems that failed to accommodate sex-based differences in sports and education. In addition, the law prohibited sexual harassment, which it defined as sex discrimination. The number of women entering sports, higher education, and the work force grew considerably after women were assured, they would not be treated unfairly or with harassment. Allowing men into female sports and spaces is both unfair and sexual harassment. Women simply cannot be competitive against men in physical sports. There is not enough training or steroids to overcome the biological differences between male and female athletes. Women should not be forced to dress or undress in front of men or to see men dress or undress. To force women into these situations is to sexually harass them.

This has been clear legally for decades as indecent exposure, exhibitionism, and voyeurism have been illegal in various states since the 1960s. In 2004, a federal law forbidding video voyeurism (you know, those videos men who swear they are female take of women in restrooms) was enacted. For a more thorough examination of the legalities related to these concepts, see this wonderful 2017 paper by A Mr. Stuart Green, a student at Rutger’s law school at the time of writing.

So, given the history of dressing rooms and the biological/legal concepts of privacy, sex-based discrimination, indecent exposure, exhibitionism, and voyeurism; how are we to behave in dressing rooms in a way that best respects the privacy and biological needs of women/girls?

Types of Dressing Rooms and Etiquette Within

There are 3 types of dressing rooms that exist in America:

1. Single Stall

2. Multi-Stall

3. Communal

Single Stall Dressing Rooms:

If there is a single room designated for trying on clothing, it is often a unisex space. Thus, anyone can utilize it. It is still against etiquette to take someone into the dressing room with you unless:

A) You are in need of assistance with actually getting the clothing in or off.

B) You are assisting your young child in trying on clothing.

C) You are a mother with young children, and you are trying things on. (Bless you, my friend, because this is never not a stressful situation.)

In all other cases, there are 2 reasons not to take someone in the dressing room with you.

1st: No one needs to deal with the possibility of public displays of sexual intimacy. Keep your kink at home.

2nd: Employees have a harder time tracking theft with multiple people using the dressing room. Don't be suspicious and ruin it for the rest of us.

Multiple Stall Dressing Rooms:

Typically, multiple stall dressing rooms are designated as single-sex spaces. There is only 1 occasion in which it is okay for a member of the opposite sex to be in the women's dressing room.

- a mother with young male children (Again, bless you mama because this is always stressful.)

I hope we can get to the point in which every store has at least one single stall space for those who need assistance to try on clothes can go with the person they have chosen to help them. I get it. I can't always work zippers or buttons with my arthritis. However, that is not anyone else's problem. Until that time, choose someone of the same sex to help you or try things on at home.

No, men should NOT take their children into dressing rooms with them. Sorry fellas, but there will always be suspicions when a man takes a child into a dressing room. If you need someone to blame for that, blame the men who have sexually assaulted children in stores. If you don't believe that this has happened, go ahead and look up the receipts. I am not doing your work for you. Yes, women have assaulted children. It is far less likely to happen and nearly 100% of the time happens within the home. Or, blame society for continually promoting the idea that women are solely responsible for young children. That is a can of worms you DO NOT want to open with me. (See the failures of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act to protect women from biological discrimination in the workplace.)

There are multiple reasons for single-sexed dressing rooms.

1st: Members of either sex may feel uncomfortable with being in various states of nudity with members of the opposite sex present. They don't need a justification for their need for privacy. If you are demanding a reason why anyone would prefer not to get naked around a member of the opposite sex, I am going to assume you are either a deviant who disrespects the boundaries, needs, and safety of others or disassociated with your own nervous system and need therapy.

2nd: Should a man choose to violate the boundary of a female only dressing room, he has already proven he is untrustworthy. It is not upon women or girls to discern which men will go farther than violating one clear boundary. No, it is not appropriate to invite your husband, boyfriend, male BFF, or gay fashion guru into a female dressing room. I don't care how fabulous they are. You do not have a right to consent on behalf of the other females present. Should you choose to do so, I don't trust your judgement regarding privacy or safety. So, you aren't going to convince me your guy (who also chose to violate the boundaries) is safe.

3rd: Dressing rooms aren't dating rooms, hangouts, or the closet you played spin the bottle in. They exist for the purpose of trying on clothing prior to buying it. That's it. If you want a super special try on experience for a special occasion, either find one of those formal wear specialty shops that will pamper the shit out of you (truly, they are amazing) or prepurchase the clothing and create a whole date night at home around it. (God bless any of you that find trying on clothes that enjoyable.) Return what you don't want to keep. The rest of us have not consented to being on your date, hangout, make out, or emotional rollercoaster with you. If you can't stand to be apart from your partner for the time it takes to try on something, you need therapy. Dressing rooms are filled with anxiety for all kinds of reasons, your relationship anxiety doesn't grant you special accommodations.

4th: It is difficult enough for employees to keep track of items going in and out of dressing rooms. If there are people in the dressing rooms not trying on clothes or with minor children, it is all that much more difficult. Dressing rooms are a privilege, not a right. If we enable theft by creating more distractions, stores have a right to remove that privilege.

Communal Dressing Rooms

These emotional torture chambers are more like YMCA locker rooms than dressing rooms, but without the access to a lower-cost gym. If you are lucky, there may be stalls with a curtain to pull across in hopes of some privacy while you are in various stages of undressed. However, even with that tiny fabric blessing (why are they never wide enough to cover the entire opening?), there is no mirror in the stall. You must venture out into the prying eyes of whomever else might be in that space, and vocal enough to give their unsolicited opinions. (There could never be an item of clothing I wanted bad enough to brave this level of intrusion. However, if you are that level of fashionista, brave, or masochistic; Mara Menachem wrote a very funny and uplifting memoir about her experiences growing up frequenting the Loehmann's communal dressing room.

Communal changing rooms are single sexed spaces. All the reasons of multi-stall dressing rooms apply here. There are a few additional ones as well.

1st: Neither I, nor my minor daughters, want to see your junk bruh, not in any state of undressed. Neither do most females. We are managing enough sensory input without having to worry about a random glimpse of your bare ass or bits. Trust me, they aren't impressive no matter how fabulous you think they are.

2nd: The constant drip of joy stealing comparison offered by media, influencers, female insecurity, and the male gaze is bad enough. Women and girls don't need additional layers of worry or discomfort in their dressing rooms. While I am well passed the days of stolen glances and random pick-up lines (getting older has its perks), my daughters are just starting to have to deal with that and they don't need to be dealing with some incel ogling them from behind a curtain. Sure, they may be hit on by another female. But they are significantly (96% more likely) to be harmed by a male than a female (with 1 out of 4 females being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and girls 16-19 being at the highest risk) unless they are incarcerated (in which case the potential likelihood of being sexually assaulted by another female is around 45%). While communal dressing rooms feel like cruel and unusual punishment to me, they are not filled with female perpetrators.

3rd: Women's self-perception changes when they are around men. Thus, having men in their dressing rooms will change how they perceive their experiences of items they try on. While a woman may typically shop for something she feels good in independently, the introduction of men into the dressing room changes her focus from how she views herself to how men view her.

An even more negative impact than changing what women may purchase is the heightened level of self-monitoring and criticism that comes from the objectification of women's bodies in relationship to men. As stated in an excellent 2024 paper regarding body perceptions and psychological wellbeing, "Moreover, the phenomenon of objectification, where women’s bodies are viewed and valued primarily for their appearance or sexual appeal, adds another layer of complexity to female body image satisfaction. This objectification can lead to heightened self-surveillance, where women constantly monitor their bodies and engage in comparisons with others, reinforcing a cycle of dissatisfaction and self-criticism [139]."

Conclusion

Single sex dressing rooms allow women to be free from the shift in perception that occurs when men are in the room. The lifting of this layer of self-scrutiny during the vulnerable time of self-perception in dressing rooms helps to minimize the constant need to compare to perceived male standards of beauty and the onslaught of negative self-talk that comes from such encounters. While women are often around the "male gaze", the inherent vulnerable nature of dressing rooms makes the experience riskier both physically and mentally. Men’s feelings regarding other men are not the responsibility of women. Should a man be afraid or feel uncomfortable changing around other men, regardless of how he identifies; he can try on items at home or utilize unisex changing rooms. There is no need for any man to outsource his issues with other men onto women. Females are not shields or emotional support blankets for men.