Bad Advice Women Get: Know Your Fashion Sex
March 16, 2010 11:00 am Posted in Fashion, Style Hillary - Columbia g+ page
As I was browsing Jezebel yesterday, I came across this post, which links to a weird article in Britain’s Sunday Times called “What is your fashion sex?” Intrigued, I clicked on the link and was immediately transported to a strange world where phrases like “aggro frog move” and “bodycon dresses” apparently mean something.
But the article’s vocabulary isn’t the only baffling thing about it. In the piece, author Shane Watson proposes that all women have a “fashion sex,” a sort of gendered style that comes naturally to them.
Confused? So was I. Watson tries to explain herself by pinpointing the “fashion sexes” of some celebrities: “Anyone can see that Scarlett Johansson is a Girl, who should stick to asset-flaunting bodycon dresses” (whatever those are), she writes, while Kristen Stewart is “a tomboy through and through” whose outfits should never clash with her “natural urge to look a bit rough, undone, cool and … boyish.” Madonna is another celeb who Watson classifies as boyish: her “DNA is probably 12% bloke — in a good way. It’s the reason she looks like a man in drag in a pussy-bow blouse, but fabulously hot in a pair of chaps,” Watson writes.
I guess what this really means is that, according to Watson, women are innately either traditionally feminine, a little more hard-edged (read: manly), or androgynous. These traits are “non-negotiable,” she says, meaning that an inherently girly girl should never wear “the leather trousers, jacket and peaked-cap look” that serves Catherine Zeta-Jones so ill in the picture that accompanies the article.
Of course, the thing is that in that picture, Zeta-Jones doesn’t look uncomfortable or inappropriate. She’s Catherine-frickin’-Zeta-Jones—even if she hasn’t made a good movie since winning a Best Supporting Actress for Chicago, one thing she does have going for her is that she’s still one of the most beautiful women on the planet (and a very lucrative deal with T-Mobile). I think she would probably look smoking even if she was wearing a burlap sack and one of those big, furry Russian hats.
The notion of fashion sex is totally ludicrous; having short hair or, in Stewart’s case, a curiously surly demeanor (does that girl just not know how to smile?) doesn’t make a woman un-feminine—look at a pixie-haired Halle Berry in that famous Oscars dress, for just one example of why Watson is completely wrong. Hell, even K-Stew looked pretty, classy and, dare I say, comfortably girly at last week’s Oscars. So-called “boyish” types can look great wearing frilly dresses, and so-called “girly” types can look amazing in jeans and distressed Chucks.
Every girl should wear whatever she wants without fear that she’s somehow going against “type,” whatever that means. There’s no sense in pigeonholing yourself to just one kind of look, especially if you’re only doing it because some crazy British lady thinks you should.
Tell us what you're thinking...

Amanda Bynes Arrested
Kim Kardashian Defends Her Sexy Maternity Clothing
What Does Your Favorite Sex Position Say About You?
Heavier Blogger Poses as A&F Model
The Secret To A Lasting Relationship
Cannes Misses
What Guys Really Think of Texting
Carrey Mulligan Nails It
Dita Von Teese is Fabulous French-Blue
Uhh.. Rhianna Likes Attention
Tasha says:
Tue, 16th Mar 201011:39 am
I totally agree that women should wear what they want, but I do think the article had something of a point. Some of the examples mentioned in the article do make sense, Kristen Stewart for example, DID look uncomfortable on BAFTA night; that might’ve been because she’s the shy type (I don’t really know who she is, so I haven’t a clue, I’m just speculating here) or that she was uncomfortable with her dress. In pictures, I’ve always found her to look better and more comfortable in a more casual set up. But maybe that’s just what I want to see in order to make my point.
I think it’s true that some people are just naturally more inclined to wear certain kinds of clothes. Me, for example, I don’t own a pair of jeans, and only own 1 pair of trousers. And so I guess that ‘suits’ me best. For others they might prefer wearing mostly trousers and tops. Whatever. Some of the stuff in the article was a bit too extreme for my taste (but then that’s probably why this woman was hired by the Times in the first place (she writes very eloquently, too), to voice her opinion.), but I guess you can kind of see her point as well?
Anyway, I’ve totally written enough, enjoyed reading the article!
Dia says:
Tue, 16th Mar 20102:52 pm
bodycon = body conforming
i think the article made a lot of sense some women either dress manish or girly, and to make them dress otherwise makes them feel uncomfortable.