I’m not sure why Andrew Kirk decided to label some young women as sluts in his article (“I prefer mummies to Charlie’s Angels”, Oct. 31). It certainly didn’t seem to fit his argument. Usually if someone wishes to go wild in anonymity, he or she goes to Vegas, not to a party full of classmates and friends.
Unless these young women were going around propositioning man after man, I fail to how they would be at all deserving of this slanderous label. If their only crime was wearing some underwear as a costume, where is the condescension and derision for the young men wearing only some shorts and going shirtless? Or does Mr. Kirk belittle only women?
Since Mr. Kirk didn’t bother to talk to any of those he labeled, I am going to take the same liberty and make some conjectures without speaking to Mr. Kirk or his friends. It seems to me that he and his friends felt intimated and threatened by these young women who had the audacity to be confident in both themselves and their sexuality. Some people, Mr. Kirk, aren’t ashamed of their bodies. Also, from the article it seems that these young men were becoming frustrated in their attempts to ignore the beauty around them, and this probably boiled over in anger and spite.
It’s sad to think of this group standing around, thinking mean and petty thoughts about people they didn’t know, instead of actually enjoying a party.
John SmithAlumnus