Running Out of Clothes to Not Wear: Feminine Signaling in the Age of Hypersexuality

The cultural decadence of social media fitness culture

Seen at the Gym

I am so tired of seeing ass crack, and I’m not talking about the guys. If you go to the gym, you know exactly what I mean. Women are walking around in leggings contoured to their ass crack like it’s a second skin. Not just tight, sculpted. Saran Wrap. Purpose-built to frame every curve, especially from behind.

We get it, you like attention

But why? And that’s not rhetorical. I really want to know. At what point did workout clothes become indistinguishable from a Bang Bus audition? I’m not trying to moralize. I’m just trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

It’s not just one person, either. This isn’t some isolated Instagram influencer. It’s most of the women in there. You start to feel like the odd one out for noticing, like you're the weird one for thinking maybe clothes should still mean something.

Whatever this is, it’s more than just fashion. Something deeper is going on.

Hell Yea Bro!

I believe there is this reactive and naive “Hell yea” reaction from most of the useful idiots who think “Who doesn’t want to see that? Are you gay, bro?” to which I would respond you can go see that on the internet. It’s just as inaccessible there. It’s not like you actually touch it; The numbers are in: younger generations are having less and less sex than previous generations. So let’s not pretend that this has something to do with the number of hookups happening. There is a correlation between less clothing and people not having any hookups.

And now I see this in public places. Girls wear shorts that show the bottom crease of their ass cheeks. It’s not gross, it’s not even offensive, it’s just weird and garish. Girl: you look weird. Music festivals are awash with even more egregious examples, but honestly, what can you expect?

Fashion Industry Ruined by Crazy Liberals

It’s not surprising, the fashion industry is a landing strip for the radical fringe personality. I mean what in the fuck is this?

Of course it gets much worse, the above is just normal fashion week stuff. Below is some true horror. Honestly this is some Hunger Games shit right here. A quasi-mental-illness. I mean how can you honestly see this and not disdain the people who made it, simply on principle?

Here’s some stuff that looks kind of normal, on women who look like they’re from a horror film. I remember when they used hot models instead of holding casting calls at a Wednesday Addams look-alike contest.

For a long time, I wondered why people were just wearing t-shirts and shorts. But after seeing what the “fashion” industry puts out, how could you choose anything else? Just like every other creative industry that has been ruined by people with college degrees, the fashion industry has suffered the same fate.

Given how abhorrent these “fashion” choices are, can we blame women, and men, for thinking “I’d rather Just Wear a T-shirt than that monstrosity”.

Tons of Inspiration to Ignore

As always, we should give credit where credit is due, just as our brilliant college-educated students have ruined architecture, so have they ruined fashion.

Shoutout to Kallmann McKinnell & Wood for this absolute monstrosity in Boston. Only a college degree could produce this lunacy.

Much like there is an almost unending amount of source material lying around for architects to take inspiration from, so too is there a treasure trove of inspiration lying around for fashion. In fact, it’s more than amazing; they must be intentionally not trying. They have so much to work with. Currently, I’m living in Baden-Württemberg in Germany, so I just searched for traditional dresses from the surrounding areas. These are some traditional dresses from some German, Swiss, and Austrian areas of central Europe.

This is what real cultural diversity looks like. Of course I could find countless examples across the globe in China, Japan, Tunisia, Morocco, Spain, etc. and then if you went deep than just country, among the sub-regions, you could find tens of thousands of different cultural styles to base your fashion on. Nope, none of it the fashion industry doesn’t use any of this as inspiration. Instead you get the weird stuff that no one would ever wear like this below.

I mean isn’t this, according to feminist (Marxist) theory oppression of women? But this is what you get from the people who have an undiagnosed (or just as likely fully diagnosed and medicated) psychopathology who we have put in charge of our most important cultural institutions.

---

For most of human history, clothing functioned as a signaling system. What people wore communicated things like status, group identity, sexual availability, modesty, or religious adherence. These signals worked because they existed within a shared visual language. When cues aligned with cultural expectations, people could read intent with relative accuracy. This idea is grounded in signaling theory, especially the concept that reliable signals must carry a cost.

In the current fashion landscape, distinct styles have been replaced by a mix of utilitarian basics, hypersexualized garments, and endless trend cycles. Consumers are often left choosing between bland uniformity or exaggerated attention-grabbing pieces. In signaling terms, this reflects a collapse in bandwidth, the range of expressive capacity through clothing, which limits people’s ability to communicate who they are in clear or nuanced ways.

This narrowing is stylistic and structural. When major retailers prioritize globalized trends and strip out traditional or regional styles, people lose access to rich visual vocabularies once tied to identity and place. The cultural and personal meaning embedded in dress is diminished, and much of what remains is commodified beyond recognition.

Overexposure to the same cues creates signal dilution. A visual signal, like revealing clothing, becomes ineffective when it saturates the environment. If everyone is using the same signal, it no longer conveys specific meaning. This has been discussed in evolutionary biology and consumer behavior, particularly in contexts where visibility becomes the primary objective.

As a result, people often escalate their signaling efforts. When subtlety fails, visibility becomes the fallback. This leads to more extreme choices in fashion, but often without an increase in social clarity or connection. What was once communicative becomes performative. The cost rises while the meaning fades.

There is also evidence that this saturation does not lead to more intimacy or connection. Research suggests that young adults today, despite being surrounded by sexualized imagery and clothing, report lower levels of sexual activity compared to previous generations. The environment has changed, but the outcomes have not followed the expected path.

Clothing has long functioned as a signaling system. What people wear communicates status, group identity, modesty, and more. As researchers in social signal processing observe, “clothing brings a clear communicative message in terms of social signals, influencing the impression and behaviour of others towards a person”

When meaningful options in dress disappear, fashion stops working as a social language. People might wear less or choose louder outfits, but the expressive content has become harder to read.

---

Honestly what hasn’t feminism ruined for women? Let’s just immediately drop the curtain and speak honestly, feminism is just a version of Marxist liberation theory. It is propagandized as if women were under threat by an omnipotent enemy, the dreaded patriarchy! (that has never existed). If you read a real 400 page history book you might actually understand that life was hard before electricity. Then you would know the reasons for men dominating one aspect of society that was both practical and necessary. From physical labor to defense of the realm, men got to do all the fun stuff that can get you killed. Meanwhile, women were also doing not so fun stuff that could get you killed. Rates of maternity death were very high, many pregnancies were lost, and on the less morbid side, there was a lot of work to be done in the home. Once again, the other work was extremely physical and just from injury rates in the military we know that the female frame cannot handle these physical stresses over an extended period of time. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So since women aren’t oppressed why do they insist on oppressing themselves? I often see people misdirecting their anger at the women themselves. I have seen countless posts, heard from countless women in person and second hand, that they don’t want to serve the corporate overlords. Even worse, most women with their $200,000 a year sales jobs assuming this is empowering. They tend to ignore how not empowering working at Dollar General is. The reality is most women would be happier in the roles their bodies are built for and not competing for status with men. What the hell good is a status competition with men? Research findings are pretty consistent: women don’t want to date men with lower status than them, and men don’t want to date women with higher status than them. Women are also happier when their men earn more than them. “Well we’re different” your relationship is the exception to the rule upper-middle class person reading this and thinking I’m a misogynist. No the reality is feminism is, and always has been, a misandrist religion draped over it’s true cross, Marxism. It is jealous of men because it wants to be us. Most women don’t want to be men, but yet here they are forced to do just that because a minority of women have doomed them to this life.

Okay, what does that have to do with the clothes? Well, women have been confined to wearing what the men wear, but that’s not what women want to wear. You get no other options, so what happens? You make it work for you. But it doesn’t look cute, it isn’t dignified. You just look you aren’t wearing anything and everyone has to stare at your back crack (and quite frankly the front one too).

---

Biology teaches us that humans, just like every other animal, signal sexual availability visually. This is basic biology, but I wouldn’t expect a biologist to know that of course. From brightly colored plumage in birds to scent-marking in mammals, the animal kingdom is full of organisms using visual and sensory cues to attract mates. Humans are no different. We just do it with haircuts, body language, makeup, and clothing. The difference today is that nobody wants to admit it. Social norms have made it taboo to point out mating signals. So now, you’re left with this absurd situation where someone’s dressed like they’re ready for a photo shoot in a porn magazine, but you’re expected to pretend like that’s normal. The signaling is happening and yet you must pretend it isn’t.

This creates a kind of signaling dissonance. The behavior is biologically driven, but the public script denies it. That denial only cranks up the signal. If people aren’t allowed to say what’s going on, the only way to be noticed is to make the signal impossible to ignore. And when everyone’s doing that, the signal loses meaning. So what happens? You escalate. You wear something tighter, shorter, more sculpted because otherwise you blend into the noise. It’s not that these women are consciously trying to mate with every guy at the gym. Most of them probably aren’t thinking about mating at all. But evolutionary reality doesn’t need their permission. It plays out anyway. And now we’ve got a generation of people locked in a subconscious arms race to be seen, while pretending they’re just “comfortable.”

The best example has been ridiculous t-shirts. Laser cat was a classic from the 2010’s. It was objectively funny at the time, just because it was ridiculous.

Stupid, but kinda funny at the time

But now? You’re gonna need to bring the firepower because every idiot is wearing something sarcastic with ten layers of ironic meaning to it.

Some t-shirts that scream please talk to me

---

WTF is a “Male Gaze”?!?!

I would be remiss if I didn’t conclude with a brief diatribe about the male gaze. Basically the male gaze just doesn't fucking exist, men have to be the initiators of overt flirting. Women usually give subtle cues, but avoid directly flirting. Men have to see if women are subtly interested in them, so of course we have to fucking gaze. But the people who made up the male gaze knew that, they just hate men so it didn't really matter anyway. Why negotiate with someone who is just going to shoot the hostage? Oh, and as an aside, remember man-spreading? That feminist gem. Yea we do that because there is something between our legs that we'd prefer not to squash. But again, they already knew that, they just hate men.

---

A Fresh Fitness Culture (But Still Narcissistic, Just Not Pathologically Narcissitic)

Women were told this was all about liberation, and freedom from the male gaze. About empowerment, safety and authenticity. What this delusional feminist rhetoric incubated was a culture that invites attention while pretending it doesn’t want it. Women are told to express themselves, but every signal has already been pushed to the extreme. Every outfit screams, and yet I can’t hear a damned thing. So what does authentic self-expression even look like when every signal is maxed out? We have to stop this absurd Leftist project of trying to socially engineer a contrived culture disconnected from past historicity and tradition. Such is the ethos of the eternal cultural revolutionary figurehead from Marx to Stalin to Mao, and to the new Democratic poster boy Zohran Mamdani.

The challenge at hand is to encourage and persuade a new generation of youth and public intellectuals to look to the past for timeless wisdom and inspire a renaissance of healthy cultural mores, sexual signaling, and sartorial etiquette. A return to deliberate courtship rituals and restrained elegance in dress. This doesn’t imply shaming Lululemons in the gym, but rather shaming ones that are worn as ultra-thin polyurethane condoms highlighting every crevice and crack on the bottom half of the female anatomy. Sexual signaling is a form of play, and it is exactly this type of play that is becoming degraded by a decadent culture in which human interaction—play—is becoming increasingly mediated on social media where the social currency is visual hyperbole and sartorial garishness.

Imagine Instagram feeds dominated not by lurid selfies and branded hedonism, but by dignified provocativeness and a latent, yet still potent, background seductiveness. Signals of internal order rather than external clamor and the latest visual slop. Social capital grounded in comportment, not virility.

Social media is not going away anytime soon, so what has to be changed is the nature of the social currency on social media. We—the dying breed of trad gym bros and broads—need to cultivate a social milieu where esteem is conferred not for outrageous display or performative peacocking, but for demonstrating self-restraint and a sense of aesthetic taste—qualities once associated with maturity. This change has to flow from the bottom up: from the masses—the regulars at the gym—to the public influencers to the ‘cultural elite’.

As sociologist Philip Rieff wrote in Freud: The Mind of the Moralist:

“The sense of political defeat that prevails in the West arises in part from a more general feeling shared by figures as different as Freud and Ernest Troeltsch: that fresh social energies can come only from the bottom of the culture-class hierarchy.”