The Sundress Gate

Sundresses: Adored by men.  Roundly condemned by the P_ssy Cartel.  Coincidence?

Readership: Men
Theme: Transactions
Length: 3,300 words + 33 pics of babes in sundresses to help you through it.
Reading Time: 16 minutes

Intro

Over the summer, there’s been a sundress trend on TikTok and X. Women are calling it the ‘Sundress Gate’ for some reason. Read on and you’ll understand why. Prolific photography is provided.

Here’s a few read-worthy headlines on the trend.

• Cartoons Hate Her: The Sundress Scandal Rocking Trad Twitter (2024/6/8)
• Evie Magazine: #SundressGate Took X by Storm because of Evie and the Comments are Wild (2024/6/8)
• Red State: What Is SundressGate and Why Does It Matter? (2024/6/10)
• Independent: How a sundress made by right-wing site Evie bridged the political gap – simply because it looked ‘cheap’ (2024/6/13)
• Evie Magazine: Rejecting The Value Of Sex Appeal Is Only Hurting You (2024/6/15)

Intersexual Competition

For a woman to maximize her hypergame of marooning the best mate she can get, she has to present a certain kind of image that showcases her character, personality, and of course, her reproductive / sex appeal.

Clothing, i.e. the classic sundress, is one of the most powerful monkey methods of pulling this off.

Why are Sundresses so darn Appealing?

Sundresses are breezy, comfortable, feminine, light, and simple. They’re attractive because they are both dignified and flattering to the feminine form; they provide a clearly pronounced nubility, but leave just enough to the imagination to remain interesting — a VERY important combination, regardless of a woman’s attire.

Sundresses in particular convey innocence, purity, youthfulness, and conservative traditionalism, and they inspire mental images of a simple, idyllic, country life.

Another prominent reason why Men are attracted to sundress clad ladies, is because a sundress is a dress that cannot be worn by a woman who isn’t thin or fit. IOW, only attractive women can wear sundresses. Therefore, sundresses are attractive by association.

The very practical reason why Men love a woman draped in a sundress is because of the easy access it provides for those impromptu moments of urgent desire.

Or as Brittany Martinez politely said,

“Husbands, buy this for your wives. Side effects may include an unplanned pregnancy.”

Taken together, all of these things are a Norden bombsight delivering a direct hit on what men find attractive in women.

Sundresses are a Nubial Gate

From an anthropological / evolutionary / socio-sexual standpoint, sundresses are a fecundity / nubial exposé. Or put more objectively and simultaneously more crassly, it advertises a fertile reproductive portal. Thus, a sundress signals a sexual gate that needs to be kept — and there is constant inter- and intra-sexual warfare over WHO will do the keeping — and the clash is as intense as the evolutionary imperative to promulgate bloodlines!

This is the reason why sundresses receive diligent attention not only from men, but also even more from women too.  The attention from men is quite warm-heartedly needy indeedy, but the attention from women is as frigid as a B!tches Wit, as I’ll cover below.

Intrasexual Competition

As I described in Herd Behavior : Apparel, women have two ‘modes’ of dress: (1) Dressing to Conform, and (2) Dressing to Compete. In general, women dress to conform, and on certain special occasions, they’ll dress to compete.

The more attractive ‘Compete’ mode comes in a few varieties, like…

• ‘Festive’ mode — When women dress up just to have fun and toss a splash.
• ‘Formal’ mode — When women pretend to be princesses.
• ‘Pick Me’ mode — When a woman is actively trying to impress or snag a man, or attract men’s attention.
• ‘Play’ mode — When women objectify themselves as meretricious mustangs just to make themselves feel sexy.

All of these settings are an ego stroking boost to their convivial ‘self-esteem’. 

In the traditional past, events like date night, prom, weddings, and other formal occasions were the typical outlets for these prancing and preening behaviors, but anymore, women are flashing their spares at the beach, the gym, nature trails, sporting events / games, and elsewhere.

These days, when women slither off to the bars or dance clubs they’re in ‘Festive’ mode. When they attend a wedding they’re in ‘Formal’ mode.  When they wear a bikini to the beach, or those bumper crack, camel toe, yoga pants to the gym, they’re in ‘Play’ mode.

Turning the Other Cheek

Covfefe Anon wrote,

“It’s more complicated than that though. Women will wear the most absurdly revealing clothing and ‘dare’ men to look at them as a dominance display. It’s not ‘alluring’ other than as a raw display of nakedness, but women agree to pretend that your labia in leggings isn’t a sexual display.”

Yes, because this is ‘Play’ mode.  They’re NOT dressing for men’s eyes (although they are).  It’s to air out her soggy thatch that has been repressed by ‘Conform’ mode, and to freely assert her fungible feminine aura in public.

All that talk geared towards policing the P_ssy Cartel changes to a different tune when they dress up to migrate to a bar or a dance club or the gym. At that point, it’s about seducing choice men from whom they can extract attention, resources, $$$, seed sop, etc., and dominating them if at all possible. Most all women will agree on this, unfortunately, although they’ll never confess it.

SCW explains the recidivism behind the rules of the implicit dress code as follows.

“The reason for the constantly churning fashion conversation among women isn’t to look good for men — that would be far too easy — but to navigate / define the permission structures whereby other women will refrain from punishing your appeal to men.”

IOW, “You might be a nubile sex nymph, but don’t let other women think that you’re signaling a willingness to be gate kept by a MAN (as opposed to the female herd), even if/when you’re NOT, or don’t intend to incite envy and/or turn men on.”

However, if a girl can find a trusted posse of like-minded cougars who will feed her ears with soul sucking sexed up moxies, then she’ll chase her hussie instincts to the full.

Sundresses are ‘Pick Me’ Attire

“Pick Me” is the polite version of what would be mansplained as “Marry ME and take me away” and/or “I’m DTF today”, depending on the social context and the character of the girl.

SCW wrote a very good definition of A ‘Pick Me’ girl.

“A ‘Pick Me’ is a woman who tries to bypass female consensus judgment by appealing directly to men. A ‘Pick Me’ betrays the pussy cartel by undermining collective female control of sexuality. This is why men aren’t encouraged to have opinions about fashion; men and those who would please them are interlopers.”

Sundresses are obviously ‘Pick Me’ attire, although sundresses could also just as easily fall into either ‘Festive’ mode or ‘Play’ mode, providing women with a small degree of plausible deniability. But they’re all ‘Compete’ modes that wage war against both ugly feminists and the persnickety gatekeepers of various peer clusters / Wheels.

Women are fully aware of what kind of apparel makes them attractive to men. So when a woman is wearing a sundress when other women are NOT, she’s not just in ‘Compete’ mode, she’s blaring her hornys saying, “Pick MEEE!” (For an example, see inset image of Michelle Ivana’s post.)

Even though a girl may or may not be competing for men and/or attention, she’s definitely competing against other women whether she intends to do so or not.  So whenever a girl is in ‘Compete’ mode under the auspices of Men, the envious fem-felines bare their claws and fangs to coerce the playful ‘Pick Me’ traitor back into ‘Conform’ mode.

This is the context in which the “Pick Me” label is brandished as a catty cope used by ugly women who are jealous of younger, better-looking, more appealing women.  As with all cartels / unions, they are most zealously defended by those who are least likely to prosper outside of its benefits and protection, i.e. their least competent members. (In this case, competence = sex appeal.) Thus, the perpetually covetous and envious hive will buzz endlessly about a woman donned in a transcendently fresh sundress outside of the acceptable social settings.

The Sundress Gate Police

Mr. Congratulations Here’s Your PhD (@wash_cloth) twisted the subject with this comment.

“You’re saying all this like it’s a bad thing, but society gets messed up when men do the (seemingly necessary?) s1ut shaming.  It needs to stay women’s domain.”

Nice attempt at Wh!te Knighting, but you can’t turn traitor by shutting men out of the equation. Besides, wimmin are much MUCH more cruel and vindictive in their S1ut shaming than men are.

However, Mr. Ph.D. is correct that women are policing a dress code amongst themselves, just as they did in the now glorified 1950s — but the reasons for doing so are much different now. 

In the past, Slut shaming was about policing sexual morality, and wearing modest clothing was just one facet of sexual morality.

But these days, the spirit of the law among women is NOT to enforce intersexual morality as twas in the past, but to crimp the sources of intrasexual envy. Hence, S1ut shaming is still used today as an effective tool in regulating clothing trends to enforce the P_ssy Cartel’s gatekeeping.

The Cat Fights

Now that I’ve covered the contextual in’s and out’s, let’s take a look at a few comments that illustrate why SundressGate has created a buzz.

Seasonal Clickfarm Worker (@ClickingSeason) tweeted,

“The thing to understand about sundress gate is that obviously men think women look cute in sundresses and most women (rightly?) find it threatening to their core sense of identity and agency if they overtly wear something men like. It’s much more important that their female friends like their choices, and anything Girly risks the wrath of friends for ‘Pick Me’ behavior. To appeal directly to male sexuality without first going through the filter of female consensus is traitorous to the sisterhood.

Take a look at this image: What you have here are two warring social dominance strategies. One woman attempts to mog with a direct (cheap, tacky) appeal to male sexuality, and another woman mogs by stepping in to punish with consensus judgment of women and gays. Owned!”

Many rotten tomatoes were thrown by chagrined wimminz in the comments.

At first reading, this exchange was confusing to me, especially the part about “consensus judgment of women and g@ys”, because Brittany didn’t mention this. I can only guess that SCW is identifying Target, etc. as g@y, or maybe she’s calling out Brittany’s “stylish friends” as fluffies. Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but whatever the association is, a large number of commenters agreed with SCW’s take. Readers are welcome to correct me or offer alternate explanations.

It wasn’t until after I wrote the last few posts on female competition vs consensus and herd behavior when I really understood what the fuss was all about.  So here, I’ll explain the dynamics of this transaction and why ‘Sundress Gate’ is throwing chicks into a clucking tizzy.

Women Concertedly Deny Any Sexual Competition

The irony in all this is that, although fuglies will call out hotties wearing sundresses as ‘Pick Me’ poseurs, with the next breath they’ll vehemently deny that women dress to impress men.  In general, headstrong harridans feel they must deny the fact that bequeathed babes are inclined to betray the herd. Why? Because their allegiance to the herd must be regularly demonstrated to enforce the hegemony of the P_ssy Cartel.

An opposite-sex comparison would be like a room full of Betas, Deltas, and Gammas collectively ganging up on an Alpha to cockblock him and prevent him from making a good impression on any of the girls present. Meanwhile, they’re all bantering, “Did you see a Ch@d?”  “What Ch@d?”  “There’s no Ch@d here!”

In the Man Land of Testosterone, this kind of behavior would immediately instigate a fist fight. Similarly, a comparable result occurs in the Land of Glossy Lips, except through covert methods. The rationalization hamster will perform some amazing mental cartwheels to maintain this collective narrative of monolithic conformity.

To offer an example, take a look at this poetic comment from Intra-Stellar (@WindDustStars).

Clue: Her hot indignant attitude is the ‘tell’ that indicates something struck a nerve.

“No, that’s not it. What is at work here is a dispute over aesthetics. Women hold strong opinions on what is beautiful and appealing, plus we know what is flattering on our bodies. Women with more refined aesthetics are perhaps similar to wine snobs who understand excellence and can taste the difference between a mediocre wine and an outstanding wine. People who don’t understand wine, and to whom it all tastes pretty much the same, will not believe that people can care this much about something so trivial. So they will concoct other explanations. And those explanations will miss the mark, just like yours did. Look, we know guys would like to believe this is all reducible to intrasexual competition, with the male gaze as the ultimate prize. But you flatter yourself. Women care about what is beautiful, not just what is sexy. Refinement in taste is an outward expression of something elegant in the woman herself. So it can also be a form of status signaling among women. We know men don’t get this and we don’t care. This is not about you. Look again at the comments and notice the brand names mentioned. Zimmerman, Reformation. Those are fairly expensive brands. Dropping their names is code for “I understand elegance and refinement. I know good style. I am not an ignoramus who shops at Forever 21.” For the record, the dress does look like it belongs in the juniors section at Target. It’s fine for what it is — a cute, younger woman’s casual dress. But it’s not really that stylish or beautiful in itself, so I’m on the side of the women who looked at it and said, “Nah.”

When she writes, “we know guys would like to believe this is all reducible to intrasexual competition, with the male gaze as the ultimate prize”, she’s (1) denying the fundamental truth that women are male attention seekers, and (2) she’s arguing that women getting in thick with the P-ssy Cartel is of greater importance than women ingratiating themselves to men.

Moreover, she’s essentially undermining Male Headship / Patriarchal authority.

The Magical Tool of Solipsism

Comments containing bulverizing, solipsistic, warp-drive hamsterbations from women like Intra-Stellar are common.

• Comments attempting to reframe the intrasexual competition as an elite fashion show or women’s forever exclusionary domain (e.g. “[We are] women with more refined aesthetics … We know men don’t get this and we don’t care.”).
• Comments indignantly denigrating men and out-grouped women as ignorant or low class (e.g. the ‘wine snob’ analogy).
• Comments attempting to cover their figurative nakedness by sophisticated virtue signaling (e.g. brand names).

Comments like these elucidate how solipsism is a Magical Tool that can be regularly implemented by wimmin to lie and deny, to enforce V Cartel hegemony, as well as to delineate and signal the in-group and the out-group — and remember, ALL men are permanently out-grouped.

The paradox is that women will sing to the tune of “Men don’t matter” when they are in the company of other women … meanwhile, they’re all secretly fantasizing about that HSMV man and speaking in code.

Mathematically, we have the following relationship.

Denial + Posture Posing = Solipsism

Why Men Don’t Matter

Although men love sundresses, they’ll never get a positive response for complimenting a girl who’s wearing one.  This is because a woman who wears a sundress already knows she looks good.  But she is more concerned about…

• How comfortable her clothes are.
• How she feeelz wearing it in public.
• What she might lose by betraying the P_ssy Cartel.
• Navigating the heightened cutthroat intrasexual competition.
• Peer envy and any possible ostracization / punishment that may result.
• How to handle the constant, inevitable, unwanted attention from low-status men who crawl out of the woodwork everywhere she goes and do backflips to consume her attention, time, and energy.

All considerations and risks that men are totally unaware of, and frankly, don’t really care about.

Furthermore, men aren’t encouraged to state their opinions on women’s fashion because men’s estimations are invariably about the attractiveness of the woman in question rather than on the clothes she’s wearing.  Remember, a truly beautiful woman will look good in anything. Men are usually unaware of this fundamental bias because they’re boobsmacked, and women won’t point it out because it’s embarrassing to the lesser endowed women who are sure to inflict revenge.  Besides, those men who do have well-refined tastes in feminine attire are typically h0m0esque.

What boggles (straight) men’s minds is that straight women actually care what Tw!nks think about female fashion. From a (straight) man’s POV, any woman who either values the opinion of, or who keeps company with P00fs is damaged and/or low value. So when women get excited over a g@y man’s opinion on women’s fashion, they’re left wondering, “Why does she want to devalue herself?” And then comes the clincher, “Why does HIZ opinion mean more to her than mine?” The perceived disrespect is revolting.

Sundresses are R@c!st ?!?

Davey Snope wrote,

“There’s a r@ce angle as well. Christiana is either Wh!te or Wh!tesp@n!c, and Martinez is darker H!sp@n!c. Wh!ter women look better in sundresses and therefore Wh!te or Wh!ter women in sundresses are a treat to Martinez getting to ride the carousel of top 20% Wh!te men. One of those men might settle down with Christiana and exit the carousel, so the Br0wner chick must suppress the Wh!ter to keep her access to top tier Wh!te men.”

My first reaction was to ask myself, “Why is Davey r@c!@l!z!ng sundresses?  Is what he’s saying really true, or is this another fake narrative sponsored by the MGM?”  So I had to check this out.  Here are a few images for comparison. I’ve tried to pick out a few examples of every r@ce.  Readers can decide for themselves whether sundresses are only for Wh!te chicks.

Wow! They all look pretty … pretty fine to me!

I’m sure some women will argue that some of these dresses are not ‘sundresses’ per se, but to men, they’re all just ‘sundresses’, and they’re all just sunny and fine.

One thing to note is that darker women do look better in lighter or brighter colors. But overall and regardless of r@ce, the thinner the lady, the fuller her breasts, and the more pinched her waistline, the better she looks in a sundress. But of course, this is true no matter what a woman wears, as I’ve said above and before.

Behold the following beauties in bags, gags, rags, snags, and tags.

So now we’re back to rating women on their overall attractiveness, and NOT just their clothing. Oh well! Men will be Men.

Maybe that is precisely the draw.  If a woman looks good in a sundress, then she’ll look good in anything (or nothing really, to be completely dank). This is also true irrespective of r@ce, and to some extent, age as well.

H/T: Patriactionary and Info

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: Women Don’t Really Understand Male Attraction and Implications (2017/4/12)
• Christianity and Masculinity: Feminine Beauty is Highly Controllable – Theory and Analysis Part 2 (2017/4/20)
• Σ Frame: DTFCupid (2017/12/17)
• Σ Frame: Sexual competition continues after marriage (2021/2/19)
• Σ Frame: Revisiting the Beauty of Purity (2021/4/9)
• Σ Frame (Lexet): Gynapotheosis (2021/4/21)
• Σ Frame: Descriptors of Beauty and Attractiveness (2021/4/23)
• Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): The Influence of Pornography and OnlyFans on Women (2021/8/4)
• Σ Frame: Incentives for Bimbofication (2021/8/23)
• Σ Frame: Warning: New Ultra Conservative P0rn Trending (2022/6/3)
• Σ Frame: Ressentiment, Shame, and Accusation within Progressive Identity Politics (2022/6/20)
• Σ Frame: Lust (2023/2/10)
• The Fiamengo File: The Curious Case of the Self-Objectifying Feminist (2024/9/14)