Cutter Fashion

"Arm socks" or "arm warmers" - you've seen these things, worn most often by females (though not exclusively so), *adorable* fashion accessories that usually go from the hand to the elbow and feature bright colors and|or patterns.

But let me clue you in. They are - or at least were - more than a fashion statement.

This is cutter fashion, people.

What do I mean by that?

Well, that's simple. I mean that, when these things were first being worn (by people like me in the Eighties) they had nothing to do with fashion or any "scene."

They had one purpose: to cover the wounds and scars of self-mutilation. Cutting, in other word. Usually, one used the mis-matched, partnerless or beholed socks that couldn't be worn otherwise on the feet. Very punk, but also necessary if one didn't want to have to bear the scrutiny and condemnation of peers and elders for this very personal habit of self-injury.

And now, in the fullness of time, it's become a niche industry of the fashion world, and every cute little precious snowflake wants a pair or two to prove they are unique just like the rest of the herd.

So, as a public service, I've outted this accessory - an accessory to self-assault, rather than wardrobe - so if your little darling suddenly sports a pair regardless of how warm the weather is, consider taking stock of your relationship with them and their relationships with their bodies.

Ruining some stuff for you

Just thought I'd put an end to some of those "unanswerable" questions:

Q: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
A: The egg. Chickens were selectively bred around the 7th century BCE, long after other birds were laying eggs. So even if you don't accept evolution (and dinosaur eggs), the egg came first.

Q: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
A: No. Sound is the ear's transmittal of energy waves to the brain. Without an ear (and brain), waves aren't sound. However, the falling tree does produce the same disruption in the air whether or not it can be heard.

Q: Can computers see more colors than the human eye can?
A: No. Firstly, computers don't "see," sight is a function of the eye and brain, neither of which is available to a computer. Secondly, colors are a human construct, a method the brain uses to distinguish variations of reflection of light received by the eye(s). A computer can theoretically parse more shades of defined variation, but the definitions must be programmed first, and how would we know it can parse them past subtleties we can see? Who wants to take a computer's word for anything?