Yesterday I presented my theory on Pretty Girl Syndrome where a girl not only uses her looks to get what she wants, but eventually falls into the trap of not having and skills except manipulation with sex. It’s not really a new theory — Hollywood always has the snotty cheerleader or spoiled princess who finds out looks aren’t everything.
But there’s the other side of this coin — I’ll call this “Sexy is Bad Syndrome” and I think it’s far more pervasive than Pretty Girl Syndrome. There are those who judge pretty, sexy, girls as bratty, princesses who deserve scorn just because a woman is pretty. If you’re going to take the tactic that there’s more to a woman than pretty clothes, then don’t judge the pretty clothes.
Fiona has this problem; she goes to the hippy-dippy market and gets the hairy eyeball from the Birkenstock and Columbia Sportswear women who shun lipstick like radioactive waste. They see her blond hair, big tits, and cute clothes and they assume she’s floozy, a hussy, or whatever the devil it is they’re calling sexy women these days.
There is no sin in owning 100 pairs of shoes. There is sin in owning 100 pairs of shoes and never wearing them. There’s sin in buying shoes when you can’t pay the mortgage. But there’s no sin in spending money on clothes that you like if you can afford it.
And it’s not limited to women judging other women by the way they dress. I’ve had women assume I’m a pompous asshole out for cheap sex when I’m in a suit — I must be The Man if I get my shoes shined by a real human being at Nordstrom’s. I’m not saying I’m not a pompous ass, but let me open my mouth and prove it, don’t assume it because I had a meeting that day.
It’s like looking nice means sex and sex is bad therefore looking nice is bad. We’ve taken that warped view of “pretty isn’t functional” as far as to destroy the workplace — you can’t have form AND function. Offices are drab wastelands of functional spaces, but no style or class. It’s not that corporations would even spend more money making nice spaces for their employees, it just wouldn’t look like a “work environment.”
Personally I like my workplace, and my women, functional and attractive, I just don’t think I live in a culture that can handle that thought.
Comments
Hi Dump,
Are you one of those guys that goes by the intention of that song, “I like my women a little on the trashy side”?
I say that because it sounds like not only are these girls pretty but they dress trashy too. Or do I have it all wrong?
Oh, I agree on the shoe thing too.
I think the point I was trying to make is that there’s a difference between “girlie” and trashy. I like women who dress like women, but I like smart, complicated women, which is to say there isn’t a specific thing I can point to and say, “THAT’s what I’m talking about!”
But I don’t like “trashy” women — if by “trashy” we mean slutty but shallow. Shallow doesn’t work for my big brain or my big dick.
You’re a practical man then. I like honest and practical. I’ll take a wolf versus a jackass in sheep’s clothing. With a wolf at least I know what I’m getting and I can defend myself. Then again I try to stay away from the wolves.
Not saying that you’re four-legged or anything like that …
I’m not a wolf. I’m not a sheep, either. I’m a man — not a tame one at that… but then I guess tame men are sheep.
Analogies are terrible when it really comes to explaining the male condition… I’m impractical about some things, practical about others. I have great will power which I often choose to ignore. Incredible focus that drifts from one thing (and woman) to another.
I’m simply complicated. Or complexly simple…
“I have great will power which I often choose to ignore. Incredible focus that drifts from one thing (and woman) to another.” You are complex