April 19, 2001
5:36 AM Subscribe
The article fails to address an equally important, related issue: the viability of shorts as a clothing option and the resulting exposure of leg. Not to mention the traffic hazards exacerbated by these phenomena.
posted by harmful at 6:09 AM on April 19, 2001
posted by harmful at 6:09 AM on April 19, 2001
Ha, that is so dead-on about the real meaning of today's fashion choices. I'm surprised they didn't work in any references to the baring of midriffs, which is becoming nearly as important.
posted by aaron at 7:30 AM on April 19, 2001
posted by aaron at 7:30 AM on April 19, 2001
Would the traffic hazards from leg exposure be the result of viewers not having seen publicly-bare skin for months, or the resulting blinding glare off of pale, sun-deprived legs (from the melanin-challenged)?
posted by Avogadro at 7:37 AM on April 19, 2001
posted by Avogadro at 7:37 AM on April 19, 2001
Avogadro: you like your women with a tan. That's fine, lots of guys do. But I prefer my skin non-cancerous. I would hate to think that I'm causing some sort of traffic hazard by wearing shorts.
posted by hazyjane at 7:56 AM on April 19, 2001
posted by hazyjane at 7:56 AM on April 19, 2001
Ok, tiaka, you got me. That was a little pissy. I guess I'm a bit sensitive about it.
posted by hazyjane at 8:34 AM on April 19, 2001
posted by hazyjane at 8:34 AM on April 19, 2001
Forget the shorts . . . miniskirts, man, miniskirts! (gratuitous testosterone post.)
posted by sixdifferentways at 12:28 PM on April 19, 2001
posted by sixdifferentways at 12:28 PM on April 19, 2001
« Older Drug companies drop AIDS drugs lawsuit against... | I love 80's retro. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lia at 6:05 AM on April 19, 2001