I have nothing to wear...
This quote from (but not representing the opinions of) the CBC:
No short skirts? What are they going to make them wear, ankle-length pencil skirts? Heck, boys, we keep telling you, length doesn't matter; remember all those poodle-skirt-wearing cheerleaders flashing their legs doing the Jitterbug? That was a lot of fabric, and I'm not even counting all those crinolines.
I suppose they could make them wear pants... which reminds me, there once was an era when women weren't permitted to wear pants.* Yes, because of that whole "we want to keep the genders visually distinct" thang; but it was also justified in part by claims that pants revealed the curves of a woman's bottom in ways that a skirt could not, therefore pants were more sexually provocative than skirts. Hence, pants on a woman were were vulgar.
How about those full~body unitards that gymnasts and ice-skaters wear? Or ballerina tutus? I haven't heard anybody complain about how sexually provocative those are. Lately.
Y'know, I think, when you come right down to it, the problem is not with what they're wearing. Adolescent girls are in the first flush of sexual bloom, and I think it would be darn near impossible to dress them in anything in which they're not going to look just yummy... really, if you want them not to look sexy, you're going to have to give them shots of something which makes them grow facial and dorsal hair.
If you don't believe me, try this: picture, side by side, Ms. Hilton and the Queen of England both wearing the same leg-and-midriff-baring cheerleading uniform. Are they equally sexually attractive? There, you see? It has nothing to do with the outfit.
I mean, for heaven's sake, it's all just such nonsense.
Isn't the point of the law to define crime, and the point of the church to define morality? And aren't people supposed to respect the separation of church & state? If it's a question of a sexualized portrayal of under-age girls, then shouldn't it be dealt with by the state's child pornagraphy department, rather than the State Education Agency?
I know, I'm having trouble with my own conclusions here too. On the one hand I'm saying, leave it alone; and on the other hand I'm saying, if you're *really* worried, hand it over to the Fed. I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive options; but it does seem to advocate both underreaction & overreaction at the same time.
Ah, well. If I can't say that my opinions are incisive, at least I can say they're true to who I am...
~ ~ ~
* I was thinking specifically of the 30's and '40's, but now I realize it actually pretty much describes a rather significant chunk of Western History... which reminds me, I seem to recall there was also an era when tables weren't allowed to show their legs either. Perhaps this is a myth; can somebody dispell or confirm this for me?
P.S. The Queen of Spain has no legs.
P.P.S. Psst -- here's a peek at what Havelock Ellis has say about that.
P.P.P.S Incidentally, I'd be willing to bet that if all cheerleaders were made to wear huge foam replicas of cheddar cheese wedges, adult clubs would soon follow suit. It's the strippers who are emulating the schoolgirls, not the other way 'round.
Posted by edgar at May 6, 2005 12:05 PM