We dated the Zeros… so you don’t have to.


Why Are We Dressing Like Sluts?


When I first saw Pretty Woman, her transformation from hooker to um, paid girlfriend (?) was very much illustrated by what she wore. No more thigh high boots, a skirt two inches from her crotch attached to her barely there tank for this girl. She moved to long flowy dresses, red evening gowns and a pretty ugly walking shorts with matching jacket. But set aside some 1990 shoulder pads and polka dots, the idea was clear… skimpy isn’t classy. I’m not a prude (anymore) and I’m a fan of fashion and fashion forward ideas (I’m a huge Gaga fan – meat and all), but when did going out mean dressing slutty? Is it because of the Halloween shift from costume to slut-costume? Is it Kardashian-influenced? I honestly don’t know.
I still bartend (cue slow tear rolling down my face) at a fairly busy sports bar. Picture TV’s, huge selection of beers, burgers and chili, so it’s definitely not a club or bottle-service type of place. However, with its three floors, three bars, and music pumping, every girl walks in on a Friday night as though she thinks she’s at XS in Las Vegas. How this sports bar morphs into a club atmosphere is beyond me. But what amazes me more is how all the women  at my bar dress themselves. Each Friday and Saturday night, every girl is dressed like a Kardashian. You know the outfit: short tight dress, lots of leg and boobs, 4 inch high heels, and full-on Vegas hair and makeup.  Most of these women are barely 21. When I was in college (yes, it was the 90’s), unless it was a dance or a big event, going out meant your best jeans, a sexy top and great heels or boots. Even when I moved to Los Angeles, this was always a go-to fashion trend. Jeans still ruled for women – albeit ridiculously expensive jeans, and I became a slave to my Seven and Rock & Republic addiction. But cocktail dresses were saved for a special occasion.

Maybe this new trend wouldn’t upset me if men were wearing suits, dress pants or ties, but no. They are still in a college outfit of jeans, t-shirt and sneakers – maybe a modified version or a nicer level of these things, but casual all the same. (However, I’m ignoring men wearing Ed Hardy or Affliction type of clothes because the less I see of that the better.  Any man wearing jeans with back pockets with bling, excessive stitching or designs – well, I have no words for that man except stop. Just stop.)

Recently, the NY Times ran an article illustrating the disparity between men and women’s roles (including their attire) across college campuses. Despite huge advances in women’s roles (the writer used going back to her alma mater, Princeton, after 20 years to see it have a female president, an equal ratio of male to female students, and women studying in a majority of professional fields, etc) she noted,

“What stunned me was what was happening outside class, where women seemed not to have budged in decades.  In social settings and in relationships, men set the pace, made the rules and acted as they had in the days when women were still “less than.” It might as well have been the 1950s, but with skimpier clothing, fewer inhibitions and better birth control.”

Among the ways in which men set the pace, was in what they wore. Even at parties and social gatherings, men were dressed casually – jeans, tennis shoes, maybe a button-down, but almost always t-shirts, as opposed to the women who were in cocktail dresses, heels, full makeup and hair. The idea seemed to be that women dress to be sexually available. And though there has always been this element, but when did it get so skewed? Do the men not care about their appearance? Or do women have much lower standards?

I’ll freely admit that I love a reason to dress up. I own a lot of dresses and heels, but I’m usually wearing them at an upscale restaurant or holiday party. I’m not at a frat house drinking Natural Light out of a red solo cup in a cocktail dress. And I’m not at a sports bar. Every weekend, I see these women pour into the bar. What’s worse is how inappropriate and ill-fitting these outfits are.  These girls have squeezed themselves into a Bebe dress that is wrapped around their thighs like sausage casing. I’m not anti-fat, I’m anti-bad fashion. Know what to wear on your body ladies. They teeter around on 4 inch high heels while wearing enough eye-liner and mascara to open their own Sephora. It just seems like a lot of effort for a sports bar that sells $3 beer and pours a lot of Jager bombs. Call me crazy, but you don’t need to show full cleavage, full leg, a dress barely covering your crotch, and half of your back to get a man’s attention or to look sexy. You could show your neck and some guy will still want to fuck you. And anyway, is that what this is about? Is our goal now just to look simply fuckable?

Not that there isn’t a time for a killer cocktail dress.  This is me at a recent girl’s trip to Vegas. Was I in a short, sequined dress? Yes. But in I actually was at club XS in Las Vegas! Would I wear this dress out in LA? No way. When my boyfriend saw me packing for Vegas, he asked about the sequined dress and I told him “unless it’s New Year’s or Vegas, I doubt you’ll see me in all sequins.” Not that I think wearing sequins is wrong or necessarily always over the top. Sequins can be tasteful and fabulous. Nor are all short dresses slutty.  And in many ways, the whole word and connotation of slutty is antiquated. I don’t want to be a total hypocrite, I just think women’s taste and style has gone off course. I think how and where you wear a certain type of dress does say something about you… and sometimes what it is saying is that you’re lacking some style and taste.  There is a difference between sexy and slutty, between stylish and garish.

I was recently with my friend. She’s married with a newborn, and we were talking about this issue and what women (or young 20-somethings) wear when they go out. She said, “I don’t have anything like that in my closet. I feel like I missed that whole little, tight dress thing.” Maybe we liked the ease of good jeans, great top and heels. That seemed to be enough. Maybe I don’t want the pressure of owning a million little tiny dresses for each weekend.  Maybe there are some benefits to getting older, and knowing that you really don’t need to try that hard.


11 Responses to “Why Are We Dressing Like Sluts?”

  1. September 17, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Thanks to Toddlers and Tiaras the ‘Pretty Woman’ fantasy is all but out the window: http://bit.ly/nFexuR

    And yes, keep it classy girls, but more importantly keep yourselves warm. That little dress might be cute but watching you shiver as your teeth chatter takes away from the aesthetic. We just assume you didn’t realize it was 23 degrees out, which doesn’t say much for your intelligence. And while a gentleman should always offer his jacket, if you need one than we probably do to. After all, it’s 23 fucking degrees. Be an adult and bring your own.

  2. February 9, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    Girls everywhere and all you emasculated “men” who are trying so hard to be politically correct at the expense of your masculinity, listen up.

    Men and women are equals. This does not mean that they are equal in every single thing they do. For example, men are, on average, physically stronger than women. It is much easier for a semi attractive (even a 6/10) woman to go out and get laid. The same cannot be said about men. Men have to work at it, have some skill (game) and thereby get a woman to sleep with them. It is a LOT harder for an equally attractive man to get women than it is the other way around. This is one of reasons behind why we, as a society, naturally celebrate men who are successful in bedding multiple women; while at the same time shame women who bed multiple men.

    Let us briefly visit the topic of virginity from both perspectives. Virginity in a man is not a desirable state or label when it comes to an attribute that the opposite sex wants. This is because he has obviously not been preselected by other women. However, female virginity is not looked at negatively in the least by men. If she looks decent, no man cares if the girl is a virgin or not. In fact, a female virgin is often wanted more.

    Now don’t get me wrong, men LOVE sluts. We will never turn down an opportunity to sleep with a good looking slut. Partly because she’s good in bed, partly because it’s sex. But any decently intelligent, self-respecting man will know that it is a terrible idea to emotionally involve himself (i.e. date) with a slutty girl. That would be a very dumb move. Why would any man want to get emotionally involved with a girl who’s had 15+ sexual partners? We would just be setting ourselves up for failure. There are many nice worthy girls out there who don’t have daddy issues and haven’t slept with an entire fraternity house. But, by all means, fvck the brains out of sluts in the meanwhile.

    Most guys can detect when a girl is a slut by the first few dates and by what he hears about the girl from other people and from the girl herlself. We put this information together and figure out if she is dating material or not. If not, I like most guys, will still go in for the prize but have no intention of following through with dating the dirty little tart.

    To put it simply, a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock and of little worth. But a key that can open many locks is a master key and is valuable.

    • February 10, 2012 at 2:18 pm

      Whoa that is very judgmental to decide if a woman has slept with more than 15 people she is a slut. (& I bet a lot of people you know are lying to you about their number) & I would seriously like to know if this person is single because it sounds like they don’t give very many people a chance.

    • September 24, 2014 at 4:32 am

      what you say is right except that if a guy is a virgin, it could either be what you said or just that the guy holds such value highly and refuse sex from other women except for the special one. think about that.

  3. April 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    There are only certain a select few types of girls that can handle a friends with benefits relationship. And those are girls with family issues, daddy issues and just plain sluts. But without these misfits, there wouldn’t be so many happy guys out there who got to bang so many girls. These kinds of girls also happen to be the best in bed and the most adventurous. It goes without saying that dating one of these creatures is a terrible idea. I know quite a few of them and bang them whenever I’m bored, which is often. They know that I’m not interested in dating them and stop pursuing to save face. What a great deal!

    • November 10, 2012 at 10:10 pm

      hahaha.. I couldn’t have said it better myself!

  4. April 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Women complain about how unfair it is that men are called studs when they sleep around, yet women get called sluts for the exact same behavior. It’s actually not a double standard though, because both scenarios are pretty different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:

    First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.

    Second, women have potential to do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He’s definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only all these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage.

    If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it’s a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn’t his, he’s investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn’t carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint.

    Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or is secretly raising another man’s child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it’s no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it’s a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don’t believe me.

    Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.

    Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are “hard-wired” to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies.

    So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn’t mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven’t evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.

    Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She’s the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risk takers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.

    These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we’re up against millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals.

    Understand that I’m just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way. It’s just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.

    • August 20, 2012 at 5:15 pm

      Dave, your comment is hilarious.
      If men are hard wired to be promiscuous in order to successfully reproduce then they are also hard wired to want to provide for the children he has fathered. Otherwise tgeir offspring would hae no chance! Thats why men are hunters, providers. So it may be very fun for men to claim its in their biology to father many children but how exactly is that supposed to work out from the beginning of man to now? Hunting/providing for his 20 children that he had with 20 women in a matter of 20 days (I just added the day count for fun). If men are so hard wired to be promiscuous then you would think that women would be hard wired to have children from the time they start being physically capable of carrying a baby to full term (about 13 or 14 years of age) so why exactly are women the ones waiting until they’re in their late 20s or older nowadays to have children? Have women evolved while men have not? I don’t think so, I think men choose to follow the “science” other men have created and some women can see right thru it.

    • November 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm

      I usually dont read such a long comment, but this one is very good. It just makes so much sense.

    • September 24, 2014 at 4:38 am

      same here Rob :) i’d rather stick with traditions. thanks to feminism and liberalism, we are seeing a whole lot unhappier families.

    • Claudia Maittlen-Harris September 24, 2014 at 9:08 am

      I feel sorry for you that you think feminism hurts families. Equality for both sexes (because that’s all feminism is) is pretty amazing. It’s why we have women politicians, doctors, teachers, lawyers, business owners, etc. I hope you learn the real meaning and benefits of feminism as they improve your life everyday.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Comments via RSS