Something [Raz] was telling me about got me thinking.
Back in college, I remember that there were two distinct groups of girls. With the exception of a few, most girls in college would fall into either the category of:
– Preferring to do things themselves
– Having someone look after them/do things for them
There was something about the way they dressed that gave off this aura. Even if both wore similar clothing, it was easy to see which girl wanted to be looked after, and which one would prefer to do it themselves.
The ones who wanted to be taken care of were almost always the ones who had the most fashion sense/style. They were the ones who always wanted to look good
and professional. They are arguably, the women who took really good care of their appearance and surroundings. I’m not saying that they depend on guys to live, no. Rather, they are the women who had this aura of independence with enough feminine appeal to most men, especially those who are turned on by having a lady as their companion, someone who will defer to them yet rule them with a subtle hand.
Then there are those who don’t belong in that category. The women who dress for comfort, for practicality, for purpose. Women like me. For us, clothes are a matter of covering and practicality. It’s not meant to adorn, it’s meant to be practical. As long as we look presentable, is there really a need to be more dolled up to appeal to the other sex? A lot of times, we don’t appeal to the other side because we’re seen to be boyish; too close to their interests. Men who gravitate to these women tend to be the kind that aren’t threatened by a woman’s independence and confidence; they thrive on it.
I suppose it’s not so much as the comparison between a housewife and a mistress that I’m trying to get to. I suppose it’s the comparison between women who are willing to take the chance and the women they don’t.
Funny how a woman’s dressing can say so much about her.