vorosmccracken.com

I tell you, I don’t understand my fellow men sometimes. Such peculiar behavior.

Professional sideline eye candy Erin Andrews seems to be causing a stir yet again. I think what’s happened here is that sideline reporters are supposed to be “attractive” and Erin is considerably above that bar. And so folks like Rick Sutcliffe kind of lose themselves for a bit over her.

Most recently a Chicago columnist named Mike Nadel waxed poetic about Miss Andrews’ performance of her duties at Wrigley Field (without the good sense to actually post a pic, a mistake you’ll see I did not repeat). Then the folks on BTF launched into a discussion as to whether the above outfit being worn by Miss Andrews qualified as “whorish” or merely “slutty” or neither.

For the life of me, I’ll never understand my fellow man. If a woman who looks like Erin Andrews wears that outfit in my vicinity while I’m working, on the list of things I’d do in such a situation “bitch and complain” doesn’t crack the top 1,000. Yes it might be a bit distracting, but since it’s work I’d be distracted from, that’s fine by me.

Women should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever the hell they want without being called “sluts” by men. To tell the truth, as long as they aren’t married (or in a committed relationship) should actually be allowed to _be_ sluts without this kind of derision heaped upon them. Sex feels every bit as good to them as it does to us (sometimes more as I understand things), why shouldn’t they be allowed to have at it as they please? God knows when I’m on my death bed one of my regrets won’t be “had way too much sex”, why should women be any different?

Yes by not donning the attire of the fashionably amish she risks clumsy come ons by Rick Sutcliffe and others, but dealing with clumsy come ons is covered extensively in the coursework of “Being a Chick 101.” And sure such approaches qualify as low level sexual harassment, but such things are hardly one of life’s great tragedies. She appears to be smart enough to have figured out that being “eye candy” is part of her job description and she apparently doesn’t have a problem with it.

I can understand other women having a problem with it. Women are free to fight the battle of the sexes as they see fit. But men hopping on board? Is it so they seem enlightened or that they possess such a discriminating palette that they appreciate attractive women, but don’t like those “whores in the short skirts”?

Now maybe this all just too familiar a subject too be discussing in public like this, and maybe that publicness is where some of the angst about the hottitude of Erin Andrews comes from. But there’s hardly a surplus of honesty in the world, and it seems a little silly to get worked up over the very natural (and very necessary) effects attractive women have on men. I’m guessing since he has to wear a cup anyway, the presence of Erin Andrews’ legs isn’t going to cause Aramis Ramirez so much discomfort that he can’t hit home runs and play a mediocre third base (otherwise known as his job).