I agree entirely. In fact, I've been spouting this view, for years. I'd be
interesteed to know whether anyone has any good arguments against it.
****
How 'bout that it's stupid and ahistorical? Or that it ignores straight or female
fashion designers --Hilfiger, Miyaki, Claiborne, Lauren? Or that it supposes they are
all dupes of the homogenous tastes of a cabal of gay men? Or that "asexual" isn't
itself a "sexual" commodity? Or that it ignores the fact that haute couture has a lot
less to say about men's and women's taste writ large than upscale retail fashion
(Abercrombie, GAP, Nautica, Tommy, FUBU etc.)? And that the latter's designers are
clearly heterophilic (even if they can be homo-friendly [witness the softcore
homoeroticism of the AF catalogue])? Or how about that it trades on the fetishized
idea of a "real" woman? (Who is a real woman? Debra Messing? Nell Carter? Linda Cohn?)
Uh, just for starters . . .
Christian
P.S. That you are bisexual doesn't mean you can't be ahistorical. Ideology is an equal
opportunity employer.
