I recently attended a holiday event at my apartment complex. And it was cool but I noticed something that I’ve been noticing for while now: which is that attractive women only go places with a chaperone, body guard, etc. This usually is male or a masculine female friend or (for outdoor spaces) even a dog. Further, if the occurrences were random I wouldn’t care so much. But when the probability that a woman will leave home solo or guarded correlates directly to their attractiveness one can’t help but be cynical about the sexual marketplace. Moreover, chaperone culture highlights how commodified the sexual marketplace has become.
For example, there were women, old and young, and mostly of average looks at the holiday gala. And with the exception of the group of old women who were at a table together and the ones who brought their kids, most females were solo. But I noticed every attractive chick that came through strategically was accompanied by a guy. The one girl who came with female a friend could be the exception. Though, her friend was larger in build and and less hot. In other words the friend fell closer to the masculinity end of the spectrum. So, that wasn’t that “exceptional.”
Further, I initially thought chaperone culture was a “southern” thing but now believe it’s more class based. To specify, I definitely observed this behaviour after years of living in Atlanta. But more recently I’m staying in Detroit and see it equally as much here. Also, I’ve visited NYC and was surprised at how little chaperoning there was. In other words, women in Manhattan moved freely through public spaces and rarely were coupled, not to mention most were highly attractive. However, it goes without saying that NYC is more of “premium” city then Detroit or Atlanta, per se given its cost of living. Thus, chaperone culture seems to permeate less in environments where the men are likely to be wealthy or famous: ie, of a higher class or even of a particularly race (given NYC is less black than the former two cities).
Truly, chaperone culture is Analogous to anti-theft/loss prevention practices seen in retail chains. On the surface both protocols seems altruistic: the former meant to protect women, the latter protecting commodities. But it’s when they are implemented so discriminately that things get hairy. In other words, if realising that Kroger locks down certain goods in one neighbourhood and not another makes you uncomfortable, then algorithmic guarding of women per their attractiveness or per the collective worth of the men in her environment should too.
With that said, thanks for reading and stayed pissed.
Comments
Post a Comment