Posted 5/06/2004 10:07:00 PM by Douglas

This is truly a remarkable article. Remarkable in that generally people this stupid can't read, much less post an article in their school's paper.

I am not against dressing to catch someone’s eye. I know I dress differently if I am on a date versus going out on an average day. What I am against, though, is the idea that women always have to dress for the heterosexual male gaze, and that they should hide their bodies because they do not meet society’s standard of the thin body.

If a woman is comfortable wearing clothing that reveals what Fabian calls the “FUPA (Fat Upper Pelvic Area),” get over it.

I tried to find the article she was referring to, but apparently it got yanked from the paper's web site, presumably because it was as dumb as this one.

Back when people cared what they looked like, ass cracks were reserved for plumbers. Big fat hairy plumbers. But I guess the sexual revolution of the new millennium has revealed unto women everywhere that they, too, have ass cracks. And there was much rejoicing.

As for the “dressing slutty” argument, it needs to end. What a woman wears should not be read as a sign of her sexual conduct, nor should we continue to have double standards of sexual freedom for the sexes.

If you want to continue calling women sluts because of what they wear, then here is the deal I am willing to propose: All men who are equally sexually active must wear an orange armband at all times. After all, I deserve to know which men are sluts if you get to know which women are sluts. It is only fair.

Ah, the naïveté of youth. She probably honestly thinks this is a clever idea. Your appearance is the first thing people notice about you, and to all the people that see you that you don't know, it's the only thing. Attractive people don't need to wear a sign that they're attractive anymore than fat people need to let others know that they're fat. That's why it's called "an appearance."

An Armani suit is going to give a different impression than a NASCAR T-shirt and cut-offs, just like a Hitler Youth armband means something different from a Greenpeace button. The thing about this particular fashion, low-cut jeans, is that they look bad on just about everyone.

The idea that women would want to take the widest part of their body and accentuate it is totally contrary to the motives of every single woman I've ever known. But hey, if chunky girls, or anyone, for that matter, want to show off their guts, it's still a free country. For now.