This thread is keeping me awake. I’m trying to get to sleep, I’m almost there, and up it pops, pissing me off. So this post is an attempted exorcism.
Firstly, I am of the opinion that what other people wear, be it sloppy sweats, bathrobes, potato sacks or nothing at all, is nobodies fucking business but their own. 'Nuff said there.
Secondly, the term “skank” bothers me. It bothers me in the same way “nigger” bothers me. It’s a mean spirited, nasty, arbitrary insult with no logical basis. It’s right up there with “slut”. Exactly what harm “skanks” and “sluts” actually do is never made clear - they are looked down upon because they are looked down upon, period.
Just a thought. “Skank” is what the Taliban thought of women who didn’t wear the burka, who spoke with men who weren’t their husbands or blood relatives. “Skank” is what the Algerian athlete Hassiba Boulmerka was considered to be for running “with naked legs in front of thousands of men”, the criticism becoming so fierce that she was forced to train in Italy. “Skank” is what the cultures that practice female circumcision think of uncircumcised girls - they are “dirty” for retaining the ability to enjoy sex. (That includes all you female dopers, by the way. Or at least I hope it does, for your sake.) It’s interesting to note that in most cases, female circumcision is performed by female relatives of the victim, no doubt anxious to ensure that she doesn’t grow up to be a “skank”.
I believe the concept of the “skank” is one we would do well to get rid of. It’s just a tool for pushing people around.
My cute shoes are comfortable! They are little bowling shoes, and for the record the guy I was dating when I bought them hated, hated, hated them, and it didn’t stop me from wearing them. I bought them because I thought they were cute on me, not because I thought anyone else would think that. My shoes came from Payless, my slacks are “Faded Glory”, not exactly high fashion and the shirt was a gift and I have no idea what brand it is. I’m not dressed like a slob, I’m dressed in a way that I think is appropriate for work, and in colors that I like to wear. When I dress, I dress in a way that I think makes me look good, for ME. I don’t get dressed every day wondering what everyone of the opposite sex, or even everyone of the same sex, is going to think.
And I rarely spend a LOT of money on clothes, the one exception being western style clothes actually. The reason I’ll willing to spend more money on these clothes is that they are very durable.
At any rate…the OP was justified in thinking that seeing someone’s thong in the library was not a desirable sight, regardless of how thin, fat, young, old, ugly, or attractive the girl was. It has nothing to do with either girl dressing fashionably, and paying the price of being uncomfortable all day, for men.
Maybe I do, but I’ll wait to hear from her. Do you see how I got what I got from that quote, though? She expressly says that the way she dresses helps her keeping her SO.
I can kind of see her point, though. In a perfect relationship, your SO would love you solely for what’s inside. But in the real world people are often shallow (to a degree). And in a long-term committed relationship, the SO will be able to overlook the sweats thing most of the time. But I also think that a physical relationship is needed for a healthy loving relationship (or at least in my case). And I want my partner to be attracted to me, and stay attracted to me. That doesn’t mean that I dress up all of the time. But every once in a while I’ll dress up a little nicer than the sweatshirt and jeans that I wear most of the time. I’d like to think that it pleases my SO when I wear something nice. I certainly don’t feel like I need to dress up in order to keep him, but I think he enjoys it when I look a little more put-together than usual.
I’m certainly not saying that one should never dress up for one’s SO. There’s a time and place for looking sexy when going out to dinner, or putting other items from the Victoria’s Secret catalog to good use. But I’m also perfectly fine looking like a slob in front of my SO, and I don’t feel that I risk losing him by doing so.
If that’s not what Indygrrl was trying to express, then obviously whatever criticisms I have aren’t valid and I hope she takes no offense to all of this.
Do you people even read my posts? Fucking christs sake. How many goddamn times do I have to say this???
I am not defending the GODDAMN fucking bitch in the OP, OK? Got that through your collectively thick skulls? Jesus fucking christ on a stick folks, my hijack was about comfort and was not even tangentally related to the OP, it was a hijack, I have stated this no less than three times already.
It is impossible to stay civil in an enviroment like this. Fucking get some reading comprehension skills. Damn.
If y’all want to comment amongst yourselves about how unclassy it is to show off your undies, then whatever. I don’t much like the exposed thong look myself, so I can follow you that far. But this “skank” label, it’s too much like “slut,” too much like you’re angered that she enjoys a nice dick when it suits her. I don’t know if that’s really the attitude that’s been showing up in this thread, but it’s been too close for my comfort. Taking a trip down memory lane (also known as the first page of this thread), I find this:
featherlou’s automatic assumption is that these girls don’t have self-esteem. At no time does it enter her head that these girls are indeed interacting with men on their own terms, that giving the boys what they want will, in turn, give them what they want. O lord no, because giving us guys what we want is somehow wrong. That little hussy should be in her tower, and should she ever one day happen to give a guy what he wants, even in the blessed union of marriage, her eyes should be closed and her thoughts on England.
Intentional or not, this is the attitude conveyed when questioning a girl’s motives for dressing as she does. Skank, with its heavy connotation, often does exactly this, and if the goal is to keep the issue solely focused on the aesthetic tragedy of the overly exposed buttocks instead of implying a prudish disapproval of a promiscuous lifestyle, I do not believe the word should be used.
How’s about you use “philistine” instead? I think it conveys the fashion failings of these girls quite nicely.
And there’s a difference between dressing comfortably and dressing for comfort. Dressing for comfort implies that comfort is the only reason you’ve chosen the clothes you’re wearing. Dressing comfortably means that, while still wearing appropriate clothing for the occasion (office, jogging, coronation, what-have-you), you are not in pain.
Most women don’t buy unreasonably pricey brand names, I think I can safely say. Most women don’t buy uncomfortable clothing just to be fashionable.
I’m in Ashland for the school year, but during the summer and breaks I’m in Portland. I’m usually at Nocturnal, although I’ve been to the Norse Hall a few times. And then in the summer, of course, the Park Blocks.
No, your phrasing of “*Well then tell Jennyrosity. She’s the one who said it.” * suggested a 7 year old. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
Re: dressing up for your partner. I agree that you shouldn’t have to do it all the time, but for me, I like to make the effort for him - I know he does for me.
Epimetheus, have you, out of curiosity, ever left Kansas City? Your constant references to local behavior and regional differences are…bizarre, imho. I’ve lived in three states in three time zones in the last three years and there are no appreciable differences between styles of dress in California, Michigan, and Illinois. I mean, yeah, you have to make adjustments for weather differences, but it’s not as though we have these huge regional fashion differences. I’m pretty sure I could wear my ordinary clothes in Kansas City and not have people point and stare at my weird Chicago outfit. I have a good friend in St. Louis and visit occasionally and I must admit to never having noticed anything particularly odd about the Missourian fashion sense. Although maybe in Kansas City, it’s really, really different from St. Louis.
I see this phenomenon all the time at the library where I work. Yes, I am a middle aged man (44 years old) and yes, the girls are young enough to be my daughters, but if they have a nice figure (and at Vanderbilt University, plenty of them do!), I feel obligated to at least give it a glance – it would seem rude not too! This is just one of the perks of working on a college campus!
No, I am not a dirty old man. Like I said before, I’m only 44!
Yeah, I have actually left KC. I have traveled quite a bit actually.
And my claims are not bizzare at all, you all are just not listening to my words and keep thinking I am talking about some sort of high runway model fashion when I say the word fashion. I have tried explaining this many, many times, but you all have something stuck in your “ears.”
Where did I say that I was at risk for losing my fiance if I don’t wear the right pajamas? I never did. Trust me. My looks are the least of my insecurities. You could jump on my multiple problems, but I got the looks thing in the bag.
I don’t feel comfortable “looking like a slob” in front of anyone. It’s my choice to wear a pair of pj’s that match. For the record, they’re cotton, and quite comfy, but they just happen to be a matching set. So, I’m not going home and putting on garters and bustiers for him every night.
The smiley, which is evidently lost on so many, was to indicate sort of a joking manner when I said he’s always impressed by me. Well, it’s the fucking truth. He is always impressed. Not because I try so hard and am insecure, etc., but because he loves me and sees a lot in me.
A couple of people in this thread are pretty defensive over a little comment, maybe you are the ones who are insecure and worried.
