Skip to main content

stop the madness!

sure, i could just post this link (brought to us by dominic m) and have everyone make of it what they will, but this issue strikes me as being of too urgent a nature to be left without commentary.

so i'm going to say this and i'd like everyone to pay close attention : TIGHTS ARE NOT PANTS.

i swear to cthulu, if i have to stare at one more panty line or estimate the depth of one more person's butt crack on the metro, i'm going to go postal. i'm not a fan of mass fashion as a rule, but after withstanding years of baggy pants, belly shirts, the resurgence of bell-bottoms, lumberjack shirts (yes, i was alive in the 90s) and any number of other atrocities, i have to draw a line in the spandex.

it's not merely the fact that i am routinely forced to count pubic hairs on the people around me. nor is it the fact that people of all shapes and sizes insist on wearing these things. to me, what is most infuriating about this is the fact that it's held up as fashion at all. really, wearing tights as pants is about as fashionable as wearing sweat pants. they're something that you put on because you don't want to face the "demands" of regular clothing. in this case, however, the message is clearly that you are aiming for total comfort while still encouraging people to look at your arse. the fact that it accomplishes both aims does not make it fashionable.

one might argue that "fashion" is a sort of high-brow, outmoded term anyway, but perhaps i can explain my thoughts on it by way of a personal definition. to me, the way one dresses and presents oneself makes a statement about how one perceives oneself. dressing in very obviously in expensive clothing gives the impression that one wants to be seen as wealthy. dressing in very skimpy, sexy clothing gives the impression that one wants to be seen as a sex object (which is why prostitutes dress provocatively). dressing in stretchy jersey says that one is not really interested and takes no pride in one's appearance. make the jersey skin tight and the message becomes "i don't care what i look like, but i want you to notice me anyway". not exactly the kind of personality type we look for in friends, lovers or relationships.

this is really an over-complication of my essential problem : no matter how taut and trim your body, i don't want to be able to see details that should normally be reserved for your gynecologist. yes, the infestation has gotten worse and everyone in line with you at the grocery store knows it. now please, for the love of god, put on some pants. or at least a long top.

Comments

Martin Rouge said…
To me, it comes down to a matter of language: most people assume that all you need to assume a successful look (that is, one that will bring about the desired result) is to follow fashion, that is, to jump on whatever bandwagon the majority, or at the very least, the pop icons who "lead" that way.

The simple fact is, what most have not realize is that fashion is a mass movement, which thrives on making you look like everybody else. What is the primary mover of excellence in appearance is STYLE. Unfortunately, too many assume that being an ass is a successful attitude and will endear you to "the right people", while all it does is link you to your closest appearance-DNA dead end.
BITEWERKS said…
I haven't seen this fashion trend here but I feel the same when I see mountain bikers in spandex tights. Sure,they're light-weight, they don't hang up on the saddle & ya got some extra padding but it looks just AWFUL and ya ain't riding all THAT fast nor doing a epic 20+ mile ride.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…