Strugr

Recently I received an advertisement for what was touted to be by its manufacturers a 'modest swimsuit' for women. The idea of 'modesty' seemed to proceed along the assumption that if the form, including the normally viewed parts of the body such as the nose and mouth, are covered, the woman is not enticing. I find this idea of modesty woefully inadequate.

For instance, the swimsuit, while impeding the female swimmer slightly by blocking her passage to air, still allowed for free movement of the arms and legs. I find this highly reprehensible in women. I would call it 'borderline Sarah Michelle Gellarism” to even demonstrate that one has two legs. I would suggest a completely impractical garment such as a unipod, or perhaps a garment with four or even five legs, to throw men off the track. This would involve the modest woman not only in the purchase of fake limbs (obtainable on the black market through Dissidens, who intercepts shipments of store dummies when he's not trafficking in hotel amenities: quite literally a small arms dealer) but also in the dragging around of them through the water, or perhaps the pursuit of them, with a blocked air passage, should the legs become disconnected and float away. The truly modest woman in such circumstances, will drown before she allows a possible rescuer to discover that she is a biped.

A unipod still poses problems, if the woman's form is followed at all closely. For this cause I would suggest some 'filler material' at strategic places. Throw pillows can be inserted under the arms, while the recycled blades of old ceiling fans might provide a diversion going forth from beneath. These could easily be piranha-proofed with foam flotation devices. The benefit of this suit is that it could easily get caught in an undercurrent and carry the female far out to sea, thus disposing of her from the eyes of landlocked men. However, the classic, clean-lined octopuisal multi-limbus seems to me a better option, in that it provides the thrill of a near drowning, if not the supreme modesty of an actual drowning, experience. Let no one attempt to recover the body. Let her form be ever equivalent to that of the great deep. Even this I find suggestive.

Labels: Dissidens, modesty

Dear Friends,

I am emerging from a long retirement to continue my series on feminine modesty, which was so helpful to so few people on a past occasion. It occurred to me with startling clarity while watching the female immodestly maneuver a lid off a peanut butter jar, that she is a pharisee. Or a publican. Probably both. She takes care to whitewash the lower half of her garments (ie, on this occasion, she had her lower limbs swathed in flowing raiment, like a tube, open on both ends like a hollow log, out of which her feet and upper body emerged), but has she ever extended the care to the upper portion? Is it enough I ask you, for women to conceal that they have two (2) legs while openly demonstrating both their arms? NO. Assuredly not. And yet when I stopped to consider, I realized that the female is not the only woman I have seen sporting a bi-limbed look for the upper body. Most, if not ALL women fall into this degenerate fashion. Does this excuse the female?

My vote is negative.

Realize, dear reader, that a woman is not to wear man's clothes. We are quick enough to apply this to the lower half of the body; but what bare-faced* hypocrisy does not extend the application to the upper half? Is it enough to keep the lower portion of the law, while with the upper portion, flagrantly devouring peanut butter (or other niacin-rich foods)?

I, a dog, have to live in the same house with this woman. (I don't actually, but it's where I'm currently hanging out. For the sake of the discussion, let's say I have no choice.) My honest eyes are everyday assaulted by her multiple appendages. What effect does this have on me, I ask you? What effect would such a constant battering of arms and legs have on any decent animal? I am distracted from sleep while she makes unearthly noise with the peanut butter.

In order to conceal the female from my sight and not to cause myself any further loss of sleep, I have constructed a garment for her, which I hope will soon become popular not only for its modesty, but for its feminine grace, and its potential to restrict movement entirely. In short, I have constructed a cotton habilment with three apertures: a T-shirt with a unisleeve.

The unisleeve would be positioned directly in front so that the woman's arms would be thrust out in an unnatural 'grocery cart pushing position', hugged snugly by the modest sleeve to the elbow, so that she would be forced to flap her arms uselessly in front of her should she ever, say, need to get a waiter's attention at a restaurant. Imagine her screaming 'garcon' while wearing this charming garment. Another advantage is that, in keeping with my last editorial, should she ever fall into a river she would almost certainly drown, not being able to keep herself afloat by any contortion of the affiliated arms, thus concealing her tempting form forever beneath the waves. 'The only modest woman is a drowned woman'. I think Ma says that in Little House.

But the greatest advantage of the Unisleeve is that no man in his right mind would wear it.

Of course she would be forced to never again open a peanut butter jar, unless she could contrive to do so within the narrow circumference, the 'limbspan' as it were, of movement of arms joined at the elbow. She would possibly starve, unable to use her arms to drive the car to the grocery store, where the apparatus would have come in handy. Pun intended. (Though probably lost on you, dear reader.)

(You dolt.)

The best thing we can hope would be for her to die quietly, without struggle, in my sleep. I have often longed for this supremely desirable outcome.

*We can deal with the topic of a bared face at a later time.

Labels: modesty