Monday, July 16, 2007

Purely Odd

So, revealing clothing is too sexual. Young girls need to cover it up and not be objects of sexual desire. Ok, I agree, to a point. Young women do not need to constantly be concerned with attracting young men. Clothing should not always look like you are in a music video. No argument there. But does covering up also have to relate directly to your sexuality? It looks like it.

The new trend is to "keep it pure." I'm not sure what it is, but I think it might have something to do with sex. Now don't get me wrong. I do not believe that it is any one's business what you do in your bedroom. Young women and men are free to express themselves as they please, and if that expression is to hold off on sex until later, then more power to you. I do, however, disagree with the mandate that young women must "dress pure" in order to "[reject] promiscuous 'bad girl' roles embodied by Britney Spears, Bratz Dolls and the nameless, shirtless thousands in 'Girls Gone Wild' videos."

I think that this idea of "covering up" is just another way to make women (and their sexuality) property of someone else. The Pure Fashion movement is focused solely on young women. It is their fault that men see them as only sexual objects, because they don't cover up their bodies. There is no "pure vision" movement for young men, in which the men might be taught to think of women as...I don't know...people. That would be something only a radical, lesbian, man-hating feminist would think up.

The point is, by telling women to cover up, you are still objectifying them. You are saying that they're at fault for the "impure" thoughts others have about them. In order to keep the moral fiber of the world intact, it is your duty to cover any part that men like. Because to do otherwise would make you a "bad girl."

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

My photo
Farmington, NM, United States
Old enough to know better, young enough to change.