Blogaround

1. Meet China’s High Heels King (February 24) Wow, I am really impressed about how this man actually understands how unworkable a lot of high-heeled shoes are, learning it through actual experience. And impressed at how well he's able to run and jump in heels.

2. Can pastors please stop salivating over women’s bodies in sermons? A response to Jonathan Pokluda’s objectification of the ‘perfect’ woman (February 24) "Women deserve better than to go to church and hear all that stops our pastors from having sex with total strangers is a Bible memory passage. We’re all for Bible memory, but we’re also for marriage vows, faithfulness and holding Christian men to at least the same moral standard as your average non-Christian husband at your local Applebee’s." PREACH!

3. Wall-E – Paradise Regained? Reflections on the Garden of Eden and Man’s Labor (January 23) "The movie causes us to ask, what do we think our future will be like? Wall-E, the movie, depicts a world that Man has destroyed through lack of stewardship, and in which they are relegated to living away from their home with technology serving their every need. At first sight, it may seem as though they live in a kind of paradise. Though they have been taken from the earth, they now live a life of pleasure. Is this heaven? Is this what some people, including many Christians conceptualize heaven to be like? No work, being served, just relaxing all the time?"

4. The Origins of the Parable of the Sower (and Other Seedy Riddles) (February 22) "This is not the parable you would tell if you were calling people to action, because it presents a deterministic view of humanity. ... However, at the meta-narrative level, this parable makes perfect sense if it is aimed at Mark’s community—especially those discouraged by a lack of success in their preaching and missionary work."

And another one from the same blog: Did Jezebel Murder Naboth? A Reassessment of Israel’s Most Notorious Queen (January 15) "This is not meant literally; we are not supposed to understand that anyone will actually be eaten by dogs and birds. Rather, such wording constitutes a curse of non-burial; telling someone that their corpse will be consumed by animals implies a shameful death and legacy. Such curses were 'a standard part of treaty and covenent formulas throughout the ancient Near East' (Cronauer, p. 26), and there are many examples outside the Bible."

5. 'Then' (February 28) "Whenever some people start talking about revival, other people will start quoting Isaiah 58." As they should. (This is another post from the Slacktivist about the Asbury revival. All of his posts on it have been extremely good.)

Why Don't I Want to Put My Baby Boy in a Dress?

A baby-sized pink dress. Image source.

Wrote this when I was 24 weeks pregnant

---------------------------------

In a previous post I talked about how in China they're not allowed to tell us the baby's gender until the baby is born. But I also heard that most international hospitals will tell you anyway. And then Hendrix and I went for our 2nd-trimester anatomy scan ultrasound and there was, ahem, some STRONG HINTING that it's a boy.

I'm convinced it's a boy. Hendrix, on the other hand, lacks confidence in our ability to correctly interpret the strong hinting, and insists we "don't know" what kind of genitals our baby has. At any rate, I'm committed to not telling anyone anyway. As I said in my previous post about the baby's gender, I'm really uncomfortable with people putting all these gendered expectations on my child before they're even born. Let them wait until the birth, and then they can bring their inevitable gendered expectations.

So anyway. One fun thing that happens when you're pregnant is people give you all kinds of baby clothes. So I'm looking through this huge pile of baby clothes that friends gave me, and there are a few dresses. Super frilly pink and purple dresses. And my feelings are "uh it's too bad we can't use this because our baby is a boy" and then "okay why do I think boys can't wear dresses, isn't that a bunch of patriarchal bullshit? what's wrong with me?"

Sooooo ... like how should I think about this?

Well let's back up and talk about baby clothes as a concept. This seems to be an entirely different thing than non-baby clothes. Because the baby isn't able to make choices about what they want to wear. They don't "want" anything; they don't have preferences about their clothes. They just need to be not hot or cold or too tight or scratching their skin. But babies don't know or care about the cultural significance of different colors or patterns or whatever. They don't know about gender or gender expression.

So really, baby clothes have nothing to do with the baby's preferences. Instead, it's the parents' preferences. Which makes this such a fundamentally different thing than what clothes mean for everyone else. For anyone over the age of, uh, 3 maybe (???), they choose their own clothes as a way of expressing their personality- and that includes gender expression. But babies don't.

Furthermore, it seems like the gendering of baby clothes is mostly a way for the parent to communicate to other people what their baby's gender is. Because newborn boys and girls look the same. You can't tell their gender from looking at their face or how long their hair is or anything like that. I think this must be the explanation for why baby clothes in stores are so extremely gendered. I was in the US for a bit during the first trimester and when I went to shop for baby clothes I was just *shocked* at how over-the-top it was ... like everything "for girls" was obnoxiously pink and said "daddy's little princess" ...

But it must be because baby boys and girls look the same, and people get nervous if they can't tell what some random stranger's gender is, so therefore you have to make it really really obvious with your baby's clothing.

I, of course, think the whole thing is ridiculous. And I don't care if people think my baby is a girl, when he's really a boy... like, Baby doesn't understand gender, so why does it matter?

But. Does that mean I'm gonna put him in a dress? ... It really bothers me that I'll have to make decisions for him about his gender expression.

Gender is a social construct. What that means in this case is that the idea "boys can't wear dresses" is a cultural norm with no absolute objective reason why it "must" be true. If you look at different cultures around the world or different time periods in history, there are examples where men wore clothes that we might call "dresses," and everyone thought it was completely normal. So I might argue that in an ideal world, nobody would think it was weird for a boy to wear a dress, and therefore I'm totally gonna have my baby boy wear dresses sometimes.

But no. It's a social construct, but it's still very real. If my little boy wears a dress, and then people tell him he's doing something wrong, their criticism is real and his feelings about that are real. (This would not be when he's a baby; this would be when he's old enough to understand that people are criticizing him.) In an ideal world, people should accept it, but we're not in an ideal world, and we have to acknowledge that reality and manage it in practical ways.

Like how a woman might tell a creepy guy "I have a boyfriend" even if she doesn't have a boyfriend, in order to get him to leave her alone. In an ideal world, he should leave her alone simply because she has the right to be left alone if she wants, but that's not the world we live in. It sucks, but sometimes you have to invent an imaginary man, for your own safety.

And so I don't want to put my boy in a dress. Of course, if he says he wants to wear a dress, then I support that 100%. But if he doesn't state any preference- or maybe when he's too little to care- then I don't think I'll put him in the dress. Because yes, people *should* accept it if a boy wears a dress, and people *shouldn't* make fun of him, but that's not the world we live in. To even understand what's happening, my baby would need a whole lot of cultural and historical background information. He would need to understand why "gender is a social construct." I can't just throw him into that if he's not able to understand it. All he'll know is "Mommy is a feminist and now people are mocking me and it feels bad"- and those feelings are real and I care about that. So if he doesn't state a preference, then I won't put him in a dress.

I guess? I mean, if he's only like 1 month old then he doesn't care.

I'm thinking about when I was a little kid, and adults would tell me "it's great to see a girl winning awards in math" and I hated that. I was good at math because I'm good at math, and it has nothing to do with gender. Now that I'm an adult and a feminist and a woman working as an engineer, I understand where they were coming from when they said that, but as a little kid I didn't have any of the historical background information to understand it. As a little kid I didn't experience sexism in that way; my parents and teachers encouraged me to follow my interests in math and science, this felt completely normal and natural to me, and it bothered me so much when people would bring up gender, as if there was something *weird* about girls being good at math and science.

My point is, as adults we take for granted that everyone knows society has certain opinions and values, and then we communicate our own opinions and values by using those societal norms as a reference point when we state what we believe. But little kids are too young to even know what the societal norm is- because it's not obvious or objectively true. It's a social construct. You need years of experience living in the culture in order to understand it- and then you end up internalizing it without ever realizing it doesn't have to be this way. So when we tell kids "I think XYZ" what we're really saying is "I don't agree with societal norm ABC and instead I believe XYZ." And for a kid who isn't even familiar with societal norm ABC, it sounds completely bizarre for someone just to come out of nowhere and be like "I think XYZ."

It's like if I, an American living in China, told Chinese people "Here are a bunch of reasons I'm really glad I didn't change my last name when I got married." In China, there's no tradition about women changing their last name when they get married. It just doesn't exist, and people don't think about it, and it would come across as really odd for me to have so many *feelings* about *not* changing my name, because why on earth would someone change their name anyway?

(I'm trying to figure out how to teach my kid- who, by the way, is mixed-race and will grow up as an immigrant no matter where we live- what a cultural norm is, meanwhile conservatives seem to think it's impossible to explain to their kids that gay people exist...)

So back to the question of dresses... My current thinking is that, when my kid is old enough to have preferences about clothes, I can take him shopping and we'll go to the "boys" section first, because I guess he would want to wear stuff similar to other boys. But also I'll tell him we can totally look in the "girls" section too. Really there's no such thing as "boys clothes" and "girls clothes." The store labels them that way, but that's just their opinion; it doesn't mean you have to follow it. Wear whatever you want.

But honestly, the issue of "yes, boys CAN wear dresses" is probably not that important in terms of how I raise this kid. He can live his whole life never wearing a dress and never wearing anything from the "girls" section, and there wouldn't be anything harmful about that at all. (Though I do think it's important that men are educated enough about women's clothes to know that the pockets are useless, the sizes don't make sense, high heels are not comfortable, and so on- just some basic facts that are obvious to all women. Men should know those things because this is the reality that half the population lives with every day.) "Boys can wear dresses" isn't the hill I want to die on, so to speak.

What's actually important is teaching him how to take care of his mental and emotional health. This is an area where societal norms about being "manly" are really harmful to men. Men are taught that they shouldn't be "emotional". They shouldn't cry. They shouldn't go to therapy. Women typically have a bunch of friends that they can talk to about personal problems, and get support, but men aren't "supposed" to do that. So this is what I'm most concerned about, when raising a boy. If he stays within the gender binary in terms of clothing choices, well, whatever, that won't harm him. But the mental and emotional health stuff, that's actually important.

So. I guess the point is, I totally support my boy if he wants to wear "girl" clothes, because I don't believe there's such a thing as "boy clothes" and "girl clothes" anyway. But I won't push him to do that; I'll treat "boy clothes" as the default for him, because I don't want people to make fun of him. Is that the correct, "feminist" way to approach this? I don't know.

-------------------

I guess I can post a bit of an update to this; I wrote the above post when I was pregnant, but now I have months of experience buying clothes for this child and dressing him. Basically we dress him in blue a lot. Like we're basically completely following the stereotypical "boy" baby clothes. Oh, wait actually he does have 1 pink t-shirt which is COMPLETELY ADORABLE and I love when he wears it. And he wore a lot of "gender neutral" [whatever that means] stuff when he was a newborn, because I didn't tell anyone the gender before he was born, so they gave us "gender neutral" baby clothes.

But basically this is much less of a big deal than I thought when I was pregnant. We kind of just have a certain gender expression in mind, subconsciously, and we dress him in clothes consistent with that. And it's not really a big deal. Definitely when he's older, he can choose to wear whatever he wants (as long as it's appropriate for the weather). But for now, we choose, and I guess we just chose to dress him in blue and there's not anything wrong with that.

-------------------

Related:
On Not Knowing the Baby's Gender

Blogaround

Koi fish. Image source.

1. The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You (posted October 6) "“Many people have the view that nothing can be done,” Zucman told me. “Our case is, ‘No, that’s wrong. Look at history.’”"

2. John MacArthur Told Beth Moore to ‘Go Home’ for Having the Audacity to Preach the Gospel and Help People (posted October 21) Ewww how will I explain John MacArthur to my children?

3. getting over modesty culture: a step-by-step guide (posted October 21) "Recognizing my wardrobe needs to meet emotional needs has been one of the most difficult parts of this journey, and I’ve never really heard anyone talking about this component."

4. Emmett Till’s Bulletproof Memorial: We Have So Far Still to Go (posted October 21) [content note: anti-black violence]

5. The tree said, "No, it's time we set some boundaries." (posted February 12) YES! I love this.

6. choose you this day whom you will serve (posted August 19) "The DHS agents, ICE personnel, and metro police who eventually put us in squad cars and then locked us in concrete room without any water or food for twelve hours clearly thought of themselves as cogs and sprockets."

We're Not Doing the Garter Thing

Wedding garter. Image source.

I had the following conversation with my fiance:

me: "We're not doing the garter thing."
Hendrix: "What is 'garter'?"
me: "It's this little thing a woman wears around her leg... [indicates with hands on leg] ... and at the wedding reception, the bride sits down in a chair... in front of all the guests... and then the groom comes... and puts his hand up her dress... while everyone is watching... and pulls out the garter."
Hendrix: "... That sounds like some kind of pervert thing."

(Basically, to someone from another culture who's hearing about this for the first time, that tradition sounds super messed-up. And I hadn't even told him the part about throwing it to a group of men.)

First of all, in writing this post, my intention is not to criticize those of you women who did this at your weddings. There are a lot of wedding traditions that are based on very patriarchal, misogynistic ideas, and sometimes we choose to do them anyway. I'm going to talk about why I think the whole "garter thing" is incredibly effed-up, but if you chose to do that at your wedding, I don't think you're bad or sexist or whatever. I'm sure you had your reasons. I have a problem with the tradition as a whole, not with you. (Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world, and all that.)

The garter tradition is, at its core, a performance where the groom plays the role of an aggressor, full of passion and desire, and the bride plays the role of a passive object who waits for him to do it to her, to come and overpower her and take from her and emerge victorious in front of a crowd of onlookers. The man plays offence, the woman plays defense, and the man wins. I know that in reality it's consensual and unrelated to the couple's actual opinions on male and female sexuality, but that's the story they are acting: the man is the one who wants it, he initiates and she lets him do it.

In the weddings I've been to, I've seen brides suddenly look very awkward when the garter performance is happening. See here's how it works: Somebody makes an announcement at the reception for everyone to gather and watch the garter tradition. A chair is brought out and put in the middle of the room, and the bride sits down, surrounded by all the guests watching her. She sits down, and then what? She has to wait. She waits for the guests to all come over and find a place to stand. She waits for the announcer to talk about what's going on. She waits for somebody to track down the groom and get him to come over. During this time, there's nothing for her to do. She just has to wait for it to happen to her. And I've seen that look on a bride's face- like "I wanted to do this, but now that it's actually happening I feel so awkward."

I've seen grooms get really into their "aggressor" role. One guy put his whole head under his wife's dress, and pulled out the garter with his mouth, while we all cheered at how sexy and scandalous he was acting. While his bride just waited for it to happen.

It's effed-up, this image of female sexuality, where the woman doesn't have any desire, she just passively lets the man do things to her, and everyone cheers and calls it a success when he conquers her.

Let's re-imagine the garter tradition, but with the bride in an active role instead of passive. (Note: Though we're talking about a wedding with a bride and a groom, don't forget that same-sex weddings exist! And it's totally possible to be a bride and not wear a dress.)

Okay, how about this: The groom sits in a chair, holds his hand out, and doesn't move. The bride comes up to him, lifts her dress, and shoves her hips up onto him, to push the garter onto his hand. He holds on to it and then she pulls back so the garter slides off. We cheer for her success in giving it to him.

Or this: The bride sits in the chair, just like in the normal garter tradition. But this time, when the groom puts his hand up her dress, she thrusts her hips at him. They both move around a bunch, enthusiastically consenting, both working toward the same goal (passing the garter to the groom).

Or how about this: The groom stands there, and the bride shoves her hand down his pants- in front of all the guests- and searches around until she finds some kind of little trinket, and pulls it out. Then she throws it to a crowd of women.

It feels obscene to imagine those things happening in public, in front of a crowd of your closest family and friends, doesn't it? So ask yourself this question: Why is it a completely normal wedding tradition (and people will think I'm weird for refusing to do it) to have a performance where a woman is the passive recipient of a man's aggressive sexual desire, but it's unheard-of and inappropriate for a woman to publicly play a role where she shows strong sexual desire for her husband?

The second problem I have with the garter tradition is the exhibitionist aspect of it. But back when I was in purity culture, I was sure I was going to do the garter tradition. Because in purity culture, a wedding is an incredibly exhibitionist event.

Think about it: In purity culture, the most important thing about a wedding is that the couple is suddenly allowed to have sex. And make no mistake: when I say "the most important thing," I really mean that. Sure, purity culture advocates will deny this; they swear up and down that OF COURSE they're not saying that sex is the most important part of marriage, OF COURSE they're not teaching that you should get married just to have sex. But I challenge you to go read any purity culture book or article and find each time the words "wedding" and "marriage" are used. Over 90% of them will be in sentences along the lines of "don't have sex before marriage" or "on your wedding night, you will finally be able to give yourselves fully to each other." In purity culture, the most important thing about a wedding is that the couple is suddenly allowed to have sex.

And therefore, for purity-culture followers, their wedding sends this message to the world: "HEY EVERYBODY! We haven't had sex yet, but we totally will tonight!" A purity-culture wedding is an extremely, extremely exhibitionist thing. There are even people who follow a stricter version of purity culture, who make a big deal out of how their first kiss is going to be the one up there at the altar in front of a crowd of people. (And if you want to see a saving-our-first-kiss-for-the-wedding couple really going at it, there are videos for that. ... Eww.)

I went to one wedding where the ceremony included a line about "he's very much looking forward to finally being united with her in body." Wow, TMI. (Why do they have to shove their heterosexuality down our throats?) But I don't really fault the couple for including that in their ceremony. I don't see it as an attempt to brag about their purity-culture success. I think it's because when you believe pre-marital sex is a sin, then sex is a hugely important part of what your wedding means to you, and it would be almost dishonest to not mention it during the ceremony. (It's pretty common for Christian weddings to include euphemistic references to how the couple is totally going to have sex for the first time tonight.)

Back when I was in purity culture, I totally wanted to do the garter tradition. Because I imagined that OF COURSE before the wedding I would be super-pure and not do anything as sexual as letting my partner put his hand up my dress. When the officiant says "I now pronounce you husband and wife," that's the moment all those sexy things go from "forbidden" to "a beautiful gift from God." I didn't want to wait til the reception was over. If there's a chance to do something sexual right there at the reception- even if it's in front of a huge crowd of people- then damn I'm doing it. That was my reasoning. In purity culture, a wedding is a way of broadcasting to the entire world, "WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX NOW." Of course it's natural for that to be followed by the groom removing an undergarment from the bride, in front of the whole crowd of guests. Of course.

So no, Hendrix and I are not doing the garter thing. I might wear a garter at the wedding, or I might not. It's none of your damn business. We might have sex on the wedding night, or we might not. IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

You know that whole "white dress means virginity"? Yeah, not actually a real thing.

A bride in a white wedding dress. (If you search "wedding dress" on google images, all the results are white women. What's with that?) Image source.

Good news everyone! When I was in the US a few weeks ago, I bought a wedding dress. It is TOTALLY AWESOME and I'm really excited about it. (Hendrix and I are getting married this summer.)

And yes, it's white. Let's talk about that.

I grew up in purity culture. The most important thing was you HAVE to be a virgin on your wedding day. Then you wear a white dress. (If you're a woman, that is. For men, the rules are exactly the same in theory, but in practice women's value is tied to their "purity" much more than it is for men.) There was so much talk about how that's what the white dress is supposed to mean. And how nowadays brides wear white even though most of them aren't virgins, and that's BAD, their dress is a LIE, and they don't value marriage. There's a well-known purity culture book called "And the Bride Wore White"- because that's the entire goal of purity culture; that's how success is measured. If you haven't had sex, then you get to wear white on your wedding day, and you get to wear it with confidence, as a sign of accomplishment, as your reward for working so hard to be "pure." Your white dress actually means something, unlike those other brides who wear white dresses even though they obviously don't value marriage or themselves, because they had sex.

And then on the other end we have the feminist brides who adamently oppose the entire concept of "white dress means virginity." The whole thing is based in patriarchy, with the pure white color indicating that the woman (and her virginity) is a high-quality piece of property being passed from one man to another. Feminist brides getting on internet forums and asking, "Is it okay to wear white, as a feminist?" They like the look of a white wedding dress, but they're worried about participating in a tradition which has such incredibly misogynist roots. (And my opinion on that is, it's your wedding, wear whatever you want. Maybe the white dress meant that in the past, but not anymore. None of your wedding guests are going to be sitting there thinking, "Her father is handing off a high-quality piece of property to the groom.")

I also see the idea of "white dress means virginity" referenced in TV shows and movies occasionally. For example, there was an episode of "Friends" where Ross's monkey was humping everything. Rachel, who is incredibly annoyed with this monkey, says, "I have a Barbie who's not going to be able to wear white at her wedding now." (This joke is pretty horrifying if you think about it- I'm guessing the Barbie did not consent, and wow that's messed-up, to imagine that somebody's choices about their wedding clothes should be restricted because of something that was done to them in the past without their consent.) The idea of "wearing white at her wedding" is referenced in TV shows and other media as a euphemistic or joking way to say someone has had sex.

So the concept of "white dress means virginity" is very well-known in our society- either as a goal to strive for, or a sexist tradition to avoid, or an indirect way to joke about someone's sexual experience. But when I actually went and bought a wedding dress, nobody said a single word about it.

I was totally shocked. I went through the whole entire process- looking at photos online, picking styles I liked, going to a bunch of stores with my mom and sisters to try on dresses, narrowing the choices down as I got a better idea of what I liked, going to stores again to try on more dresses, and finally choosing one- and at NO POINT did anyone say anything about "white dress means virginity."

(And, not that it's anyone's business, but, I have had sex.)

I half-expected that there would be a salesperson at one of the stores, talking to me about colors, who would say, "Some women choose to wear white to show their virginity, I don't know what your opinions are about that, but it could be something to think about." That NEVER HAPPENED. And OF COURSE it never happened, because wow that would be an incredibly inappropriate thing for a salesperson to say to a customer. But when you grow up in purity culture, that's what the white dress means- it means you're announcing your sex life (or lack thereof) to the entire world. If you grow up in purity culture, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to imagine that a salesperson at a wedding dress store might ask about your virginity. But no, they did not. Of course they did not.

And at no point in the process did a Christian say to me, "Don't you think maybe you shouldn't wear white, because... you know..." (And I would like to point out how MESSED-UP it is that they would assume I've had sex, just because I live with my fiance. I will definitely be writing a post about that someday.) Actually, I avoid Christian culture as much as possible- maybe if I had more Christian acquaintances and I went to church, somebody might have said something like that. I don't know. But still, I'm astonished that I bought this amazing white dress and throughout the entire process of finding and buying it, not a single person said anything to me about "white dress means virginity."

Let me tell you what they did say, at the wedding dress stores. As it turns out, all the dresses at the store are white- or rather, an untrained layperson would call them white. Actually in the wedding dress industry, there are a whole bunch of different shades, like "ivory" and "champagne"- and there's one they call "white" which specifically refers to the brightest shade of white. (For the purposes of this post, I will use the term "white" to mean all the slightly-different shades that an untrained layperson would call "white", and the term "white white" to mean the brightest white, which salespeople at wedding dress stores refer to as "white.")

Here is a summary of all the things the wedding dress salespeople said about dress color:

• They asked what color I wanted, but they expected that my answer would be one of the shades of white, not like, blue or something.
• They said some women don't like to wear white white because it doesn't look good with their skin tone.
• I tried on an ivory dress, and the salesperson said that dress can also be ordered in white white, and she's seen it and it looks really good. Some of the dresses don't look as good if you order them in a different shade of white, so that's something to be aware of when you're trying them on and making a decision about color.
• I said I wanted white white, so before having me try a dress on, the salesperson checked to make sure that particular dress was available to be ordered in white white.

And that's it. I can't remember anything else that was said about color. The only recommendation that was given about choosing a color was the skin tone thing. And when I told them I wanted white white, they never questioned it; they took it very seriously and made sure to check that the dresses they picked for me to try on could be ordered in white white.

And now I have my dress. And nobody said a word about "white dress means virginity." And have I mentioned how totally shocked I am?

Maybe the only people who care about "white dress means virginity" are the ones who are way into purity culture and see it as the ultimate goal, the reward, the guarantee of a good, godly marriage, and the ones who are way into feminism and see it as a very very shady symbol of patriarchy. But for everyone else- particularly those of us who are buying and selling wedding dresses in the real world- "white dress means virginity" just doesn't matter and isn't true at all.

Wow. This whole wedding thing is so different from how purity culture said it would be.

I Had a Great Time Buying Man Shoes in China

A Nike store in Shanghai.

So recently I decided I need new tennis shoes. I wear size 9 in women's shoes, which is 41 for Chinese sizes. (Note: I am from a part of the US where we use "tennis shoes" and "sneakers" interchangeably. If you speak a slightly different dialect, please translate accordingly.)

The problem is, Chinese women have small feet. A size 41 women's shoe is unimaginable, seemingly impossible to find here. (At 5' 7", I'm taller than the vast majority of Chinese women and maybe half of Chinese men.)

Initially I didn't realize this. So I'm walking into shoe stores asking to try this or that shoe in size 41, and the employees are like, no we don't have that.

And another thing- nowadays, sneakers come in all kinds of awesome colors! Orange, yellow, purple, red, pink, etc. Is this a new phenomenon? I've only ever bought tennis shoes in boring colors like white. This is because I believed these 2 things: 1) it's socially required to wear shoes that correctly match one's outfit, and 2) I, Perfect Number, have zero ability to tell whether a given pair of shoes matches a given outfit. So I always just wore white and hoped I got it right.

But I don't believe that anymore- now I wear what I want. So I'm walking into stores like Adidas and picking up bright blue or bright purple shoes, and I'm excited! Until I find out, nope they don't have them in my size. (Seems like the highest they go in women's shoes is 39, which is 7.5 in the US, according to this chart.)

Anyway, for some reason, the first day I went out looking for shoes, I went into it with the assumption that because I'm a woman, I would be only looking at shoes which a store labels as being for women. That's an odd belief. They're tennis shoes. Is there any actual difference between what men and women (and non-binary people) need from a tennis shoe? Like, why did I even think that?

So I would ask if they have size 40, and they would say no. Then they would come up with a 39, or a size 40 of some other women's shoe that I really hate, and I would try them on and they would be totally not right.

That was the first day of shoe shopping. It didn't go well.

After this, I decided to quit fooling around on the outer limits of Chinese women's shoes and just shop in the men's section. WHICH MADE EVERYTHING BETTER. I'm size 41, and they always have all the men's shoes available in size 41.

But the colors are so boring.

Like I said, nowadays you can get sneakers in all kinds of fun colors. Well, it turns out the shoes with the most fun colors are all marked as women's shoes and therefore not available in size 41. So sad for men. And me.

In men's tennis shoes, pretty much every store had blue and black and some boring colors. Occasionally there would be some fun colors, but then again, maybe not.

I shopped around a lot. I went to all the big name-brand stores: Adidas, Nike, Sketchers, New Balance, Vans, Converse. I stuck with big name brands because I have very little experience buying shoes in China and I don't know if cheaper ones would be low quality. (Though I did happen across a tiny shop in some alley with piles and piles of fake name-brand shoes for 60 kuai or so- that's 10 US dollars. I didn't buy them. They seemed like they were about to fall apart.)

Anyway, here's how it pretty much went: I would walk into a store, go to the display which had less interesting colors (that was how I could tell it was men's), and see if I could find any in an acceptably awesome color. Then I would ask a store employee to go get me a pair in size 41 (they keep all the shoes in the back, you have to ask them for it). They would say, "this is a men's shoe." I would say "do you have any women's shoes in size 41?" They would say "no." I would say "okay give me the men's shoes." (This is all in Chinese by the way.) My "favorite" employees were the ones that were like "there's no way you could really need a size that big" and then I try it on and guess what, I really do need a size that big.

The shoes were all pretty expensive, around 600 or 700 kuai (about $100 or so). I spent several weeks considering whether I wanted to spend that much money on shoes. I thought about trying on shoes in a store, writing down the product number, and then searching for them online for cheaper. But the problem is, if you find them online for A LOT cheaper, then they're probably fake and not very high quality. So I decided the online route wasn't worth it.

ANYWAY, the point is, you guys look at my new shoes:

I bought them from New Balance for about 650 kuai and THEY ARE SO RED. I love them.

SO RED. I am like Dorothy. We are not in Kansas anymore.

And if you ask me "so are they men's shoes?" well, they are my shoes. I bought them and I am a woman. So does that answer your question?

Blogaround

Image source.

1. More Than 300 Sharks In Australia Are Now On Twitter (posted January 1)

2. January 1: Ecce Foreskin (posted January 1) "For medieval and early modern Christians, Jesus’ foreskin remained an object of peculiar veneration, with as many as eighteen different reliquary nubs of flesh competing for attention and honor."

3. A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown (posted December 31, 2013) Physics!

4. 4 Things I Learned from the Worst Online Dating Profile Ever (posted January 4) This is hilarious. Language is NSFW.

Adventures in Sexy Halloween Costumes

Of course I had never worn a sexy Halloween costume before this year. Because they are "immodest" and therefore evil.

But, you know, I'm on tao bao (Chinese equivalent to ebay) trying to pick out a costume for my school's Halloween party. (We teach the students English, and we also teach them a bit about Western culture, so OBVIOUSLY there needs to be a Halloween party.) There are so many cute costumes... and you know I'm thinking those women are so beautiful, and those costumes would look so good on me... I'm young and skinny and beautiful and I really love how I look. I want to wear stuff like that.

(You know, ever since I ditched modesty, I've been so happy that I'm free to say, "She's really beautiful" rather than judge other women for wearing the "immodest" stuff I wish I was allowed to wear.)

So, encouraged by my coworkers, who assured me I would look incredibly cute in many of those costumes, I picked one out and ordered it.

Here's what I bought, female Captain America:

Image source.

I mean, she's beautiful, right? (No no, she's totally evil for wearing that and being so inconsiderate to the men whose minds are being attacked by her sexiness, plus she doesn't respect herself, she just wants attention from men.) (Wow I'm so glad I ditched modesty culture so I don't have to think stuff like that any more.)

It came in the mail, I opened up the package and my first thought was "oh no, I ordered a child's size by mistake." Haha, no this is the adult woman costume, honey. "One size fits most."

Okay so I tried it on. Well goodness, I look freaking beautiful. I pretty much look like the woman in the picture- tall and skinny (and no cleavage). Put on my high heels and everything. Oh man I felt so good, strutting around my little apartment.

However. The skirt is incredibly short. My underwear might show when I sit down or move or whatever. So I reasoned that I had 3 options:

1. Wear something under it- shorts or leggings, maybe, so no one sees my underwear.
2. Make peace with the fact that people might happen to catch a glimpse of my underwear.
3. Be paranoid and careful throughout the entire party, avoiding any movement that might perhaps cause my skirt to move slightly.

And wow, I suddenly realized, every woman who dresses "immodest" (normal people use words like cute, hot, sexy, beautiful) probably thinks carefully about stuff like that, and makes a decision about what exactly she wants to show and not show. 

Of course I used to imagine she would just think "haha I don't respect my body, WHATEVERRRRRRR" and totally not care who saw what.

Like, you're already wearing this evil immodest thing, you have no right to set a boundary and not let people see your underwear. (Wow if that's not rape culture, I don't know what is. Asking for it...)

So I talked it over with my sister, who said the dress would be fine as-is just for a regular party, but since I was going to a party at my job, with my boss there and me being a teacher and stuff, I should get some leggings. She said if it was her, she wouldn't want her boss to see her underwear. (My boss is a woman- is that relevant here? No, still wouldn't want my boss to see my underwear.)

I've never had to think about stuff like this before, you guys!

I told my sister, "but I want to be sexy" and she said "if you get some tight leggings it will still be sexy." OH MY GOODNESS! Do you know how many rules I broke by saying "I want to be sexy"? And wow, the idea that tight clothing is good- completely mind-blowing. Completely immodest.

Okay so I bought some blue leggings. And I still look great, I'll have you know.

So the day of the Halloween party came. When students started showing up in costumes- my students are adults, mostly in their 20s and 30s- I went into the back room and got changed into mine. I came out and was immediately made aware of Captain America's Chinese name (美国队长 měiguó duìzhǎng) because the students were all impressed and telling me I was beautiful and such- I was turning heads. And everyone was taking pictures with their phones. (Not just me- anyone with a good costume got mobbed by paparazzi.)

I knew I was beautiful. And I totally didn't worry at all about "what if my skirt comes up" or whatever- actually I totally forgot about it. I had the blue leggings so no worries. So happy.

And there you have it. My very very first time daring to be sexy in public. My very very first time unashamedly, explicitly saying I want to look sexy. Sure, there have been formal dances I've attended, where I wore amazing dresses and looked incredibly beautiful- but I always felt guilty for indulging my desire to be beautiful. It's mean to the guys, you know.

My body is freaking beautiful and I want to look amazing- something totally not allowed in Modesty Land.

It feels so good to be immodest.

It feels so good to dress for myself, not for guys.

Awkward Question of the Day

Let's suppose your clothes dryer breaks, so you bring your laundry over to the neighbors' house to use theirs. Which option is more awkward:

1. Your neighbor folds all the clothes after they're dry- including your whole family's underwear. AWKWARD.
2. You first remove all the underwear from the laundry, so the neighbor thinks no one in your family wears underwear. AWKWARD.

It's a real dilemma. A first-world problem. What would you do?

Image source.

(based on a true story)