And you've still got angst in your pants

From over at Pam's House an example of The New Prudes:

Junior Ryan Haecker of the University Of Texas At Austin wrote a commentary for the Daily Texan. He believes "dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world,"...

The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women - the form of a true lady - is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

What's not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the "new woman." Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something - in this case masculinity - through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.

Uh, Ryan? Shut up. Just, shut up.


I'll let Autumn get in the last word:

What? No obligatory reference of Deuteronomy 22:5? I'm disappointed. ;) Unbeliveable that someone would hold this viewpoint in this day and age, but more than that -- I'm amazed he expressed this thought in such a public forum.

(Added) If you go read the comments in the Daily Texan, our little Ryan shows up and makes a Dan Collins out of himself. Good fun. Good fun.