[lbo-talk] Elegant Gothic Lolita

snit snat snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com
Wed Sep 29 14:26:48 PDT 2004


At 04:33 PM 9/29/2004, Thomas Seay wrote:
><<It could be that
>the pants are a feminist statement, demanding as they
>do an
>ecumenical embrace of body type by wearer and viewer
>alike, and as
>such, women are loathe to abandon them.>>
>
>Who is this person not to mention one of the obvious
>reasons that women wear this? Men (and perhaps women)
>find it sexy, or at least most of the men I know find
>it sexy. If there is a political statement being made,
>it is that women are not afraid to put their sexuality
>on bold public display. I suspect some of the people
>who wrote this kind of stuff are prudes.

That's my interpretation of the sentence: women are wearing them, even if they're not anorexics or models, insisting that "wearer and viewer" embrace their figure. You know, like the Indian teen I saw the other day. She was wearing them, even though her flesh was hanging 1.5 inches over the waist band and even though she had plenty of lower back hair. She knows that some men will find that attractive and, if they don't, fuck 'em: she likes it and finds it sexy or, at least, something she's not going to hide. She's not afraid to put her body on bold public display. It just may not be the kind of body you, or that guy over there, or the woman over there like. Heck, most hetmen I know find this stuff sexy even if they look at the body type and find it mostly repulsive.

What is feminist about it, most likely, is that women are advertising their sexuality without worrying if it's going to earn them an MRS degree. So, you think it's slutty? Sure, let's fuck. Bye.

Which, according to Doug's recent forward, is making some hetmen feel less than manly! :)

Kelley

"We're in a fucking stagmire."

--Little Carmine, 'The Sopranos'



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list