So, I made the mistake of continuing to look to the “How To Sex Up Your Sweats” spread (FunFearlessFashion, page 96) for sartorial advice.
Before I went to my Voice for Performance class, I donned my Angry College Student Jacket (my substitute for their embellished motorcycle jacket), and my trusted shoe-booties.
Here’s how it looked:
What you’re missing from the ensemble are the black ski pants I wore as well, and no, I don’t usually look that ethereal.
Point is, this was an extremely ridiculous and impractical outfit to be wearing while walking to and from class. It was hot, uncomfortable, and was a pain to be walking several blocks in my heels, especially because walking from my dorm to the building I have class in is like playing Frogger. Needless to say, I did not feel “Sexed Up” in the slightest.
Speaking of which, why did Cosmo call this spread “Sex Up Your Sweats?” Wouldn’t “Dress Up Your Sweats” be a little more accurate?Why is it that gold jewelry/embellishment, sky-high heels, zippers, and shoe-booties automatically = sex? Did it ever occur to anyone on the editorial staff of Cosmo that flats, comfortable clothes, and a makeup-free face can also be sexy? The Stig has seen me when I’m not wearing any makeup, or wearing a “sexy outfit”, and yet, still feels compelled to tear off my clothes and do things normally found in the letters to Hustler magazine.
The “Sex Up Your Sweats” spread also implies that sweats, and the activities in which sweats or other activewear apparel may be worn are inherently un-sexy. So exercise/yoga/my voice class/lounging around and drinking coffee are all inherently un-sexy. Nice to know, Cosmo.