The media and political classes are going completely apeshit over what has been described by various internet wags as the ‘Flashgate scandal’ in which the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner has been accused of wearing a very revealing dress in order to ‘distract’ the Prime Minister. Some are criticising the Daily Mail and calling them ‘misogynist’ for concentrating on Ms Rayner’s clothing and alleging that Ms Rayner chose these outfits deliberately. Whether she did or whether she did not is a matter for debate but it is certainly very believable, bearing in mind Boris Johnson’s history of priapic sluttishness, to think that this is just the sort of man who would be distracted by a pair of shapely legs or what lies at the top of them.

Now of course I can see and understand the arguments that women should be able to wear what they want without worrying about what men think, but it is a sad fact of life that women and men choose clothing or create a personal image that will do them the most good or advance them the most. Women going out clubbing will often wear their best, most attractive clothes even if not going to a club with the express intention of attracting a member of the opposite sex, because women often dress in order not just to impress men but but also and sometimes mainly, to impress other women. Men dress well or dress attractively not only to attract women but to feel good about themselves and to keep up with other men who dress well in order to not be left out of the well dressed crowd.

Sadly looks and especially clothing matters. In my experience attractive women are good at closing out sales deals with men, since men are indeed distracted and likely to drop their guard in the presence of an attractive woman and might be less willing to aggressively argue with a woman about the potential sale than they would with a man. Similarly a bar that attracts a lot of young women wouldn’t do their business any disservice by employing male bar staff who would be sexually attractive to the clientele.

Like it or not people tend to like being around attractive people and there are some attractive people who not only recognise that they are attractive but use their looks as a way of advancement. By the way this is something that I’ve seen in both straight and gay environments. For example a straight bar might gain sales from having a busty and flirtatious barmaid working behind the bar and similarly a gay bar might believe that it will do better if it places attractive Twinks (young slim and muscular gay men) in a public facing role.

I saw the dress that Ms Rayner wore on the Parliamentary occasion at the centre of this row and I must admit that it did look good and made an attractive woman look even more attractive. However it may not have been completely appropriate for a front bencher. Sticking the boot into the Prime Minister might have been more effective had Ms Rayner worn something a bit more formal than what she wore as her dress did distract a little. Now I’m one of those people who believe that some degree of formality in public life is a good thing and that dressing well reflects well on the person doing it, which was my reasoning for wearing a suit and tie ^{(1) (2)} to my son’s playgroup as I didn’t want to be seen as a scruffy Daddy, I wanted to be the best dressed Dad in the room.

Looking good or at the very least looking correct and appropriate is something that we should be seeing in our MP’s. At least when at work, MPs should look professional whether the MP is a man or a woman, with a suit and tie for men or a dress, trouser suit or two piece top and skirt ensemble for women. Maybe just maybe Ms Rayner’s admittedly eye catching outfit, a dress with a front split from ankle to thigh, was not the best thing to wear in the circumstances.

Of course there has been nasty comments aimed at Ms Rayner on social media and elsewhere, comments that some say would not be aimed at a man, but if a man turned up in the Commons wearing a pair of ‘budgie smugglers’ on the bottom and a shirt that showed a lot of chest hair, then I’d reckon that they’d get the same level of negative comment. In that situation the comments that allege that Ms Rayner deliberately dressed to distract would also no doubt be also aimed at a male MP who dressed inappropriately.

It is quite possible that Ms Rayner did not deliberately and with potential distraction aforethought set out to tease Boris Johnson sexually by way of her dress style, although there are allegations out there that she did but these allegations have yet to be proven or given substance. In my view such a tactic would not be for the best as it would be all too easy for such a tactic to be discovered and pounced upon by her critics. I believe that is quite possible that she dressed for herself but made a particular choice that made it possible for her to be criticised in this way and therefore for this narrative to be created.

The real villains here are not Ms Rayner or her clothing choices but the mainstream media who have amplified this non-story when what they should have concentrated on are the massive problems that have been brought about by this government’s sometimes appalling choices. Whether or not Ms Rayner tried to manipulate Boris Johnson by her choice of dress is of much less importance than the mess that this government has made on national security, energy policy and the economy. If there is an element of distraction in this story it’s not in anyway connected to Ms Rayner and much more to do with the media not wanting to deal with hard or difficult stories and believing that what we the public want is more frippery like this ‘Flashgate’ story.

At the end of the day as well as individuals dressing for themselves, they also dress to impress others. It’s something that’s been going on for centuries. It’s why King Henry VIII was pictured in elaborate and richly decorated outfits rather than plain black ones and why actresses like Clara Bow dressed to attract the movie-goers who were in turn attracted to both her talents and looks. Dress matters and that’s something that not only applies to both men and women but is also currently and has historically been part of the human condition ever since humans first discovered that clothes didn’t just have to be functional.

(1) I love formal wear. I mourn for the days when I would be expected to wear a suit and top hat, a bowler or at the very least a trilby for synagogue and the Rabbi would have to wear something a bit better and more respectable than a pair of casual trousers and a casual shirt an ensemble that I’ve seen a bit too often for my liking. In my view a Rabbi should wear a suit if male and a smart office style outfit if female.

(2) My son looks extremely good in a three piece suit, better than me in fact. In a three piece suit and wearing his glasses he looks for all the world like a miniature Jacob Rees-Mogg, which I tend to think is a good thing.