One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

I like sports, but I'm not all that thrilled with golf. I used to play golf. I thought I hated it. Turns out, I only hated the guy that I was dating at the time who wanted me to play golf with him. Once I got rid of him, started drinking and rented a cart, golf had much more of an appeal to me. But I digress. The point here is that if there is a major tournament, I might check out a little bit of coverage, just to see how it's going. This week is the British Open and boy am I glad that I did check it out. If I hadn't, I would have missed John Daly in this photo of all of the previous British Open winners. Behold!

Uh, one of these things is not like the others. As confusing as the choice to wear that jacket is, John Daly looks even more confused. Is he back on the sauce? That's not the facial expression, nor the fashion statement of a sober individual. And I would really be doing the whole photo a disservice if I didn't comment on the Farmer Forehead tan that Tiger Woods seems to be sporting there. The guy on the other side of John seems to have the same affliction. But not Lee Trevino down there in the middle at the bottom. Granted, he is unnaturally tan for a 70 year old, but at least it appears to be uniform.

So I started looking back at some of John Daly's fashion choices throughout the years. Hoo-boy! While it was good to know that it's not all that unusual for John to make some interesting choices for what to wear, it still wasn't overly comforting that he chooses these things in the first place. Let's look at some of them, shall we?

Here's John early in his career. He doesn't look horrible. Granted, donning an Indian blanket as one's shirt isn't the most advisable wardrobe selection, but it's going to look tame compared to some of his later looks. (Look at how thin he was, too. Ahh, but those days were few and far between.)

In the photo below, he's still young, yet seems to be getting prepped for that humongous gut that he'll be dragging around with him for years to come. Again, it's not horrible. It's sort of a Christmas sweater sort of look. And it might be his last time looking somewhat presentable.

Yellow will play a part in many of John's outfits. Like here with this inexplicable tartan pattern. (I think that's tartan. I skipped textiles in high school.)

Here he is in more yellow...and apparently on a break from clown college.

Top to bottom yellow, not to mention a crazy hippie-dippy-trippy flower power pattern, never advisable. Ever.

It's even less advisable in orange.

Here he is looking like a pissed off and gay Bill Parcells. Nice man-hoots, John. Nice bright orange man-hoots. Good Lord...no one wants to see that. Er, those. Whatever. It's hideous.


Twister, anyone?

Whenever John can't find his own pants, he apparently just borrows some from the lead singer of Warrant.

Look, when John Daly is playing well enough that it doesn't matter how he dresses, that's fine. But he's really going to have to be on his A-game if he wants to be able to justify the ensemble below. Ever.

Single Children Put Some Clothes On It

The video below disturbs me in more ways than one. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against showing a little skin. It's not like I'm a member of the FLDS or anything like that. Skin is good. Let me rephrase that. Adult skin is good. Why must people insist on letting their children parade around like hooker-ific pole dancers? It's not attractive. It's disgusting and disturbing. Seriously, folks. When allowing your small children to re-enact Beyonce's "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)" (a fabulous little ditty, by the way), I think that the rule of thumb should be that they have to be wearing at least as much clothes as Beyonce was wearing. Would that be so bad?

Actually, now that I think about it, I have a couple of rules I'd like to implement. We've already gone over the first one, you must be covering the same ratio of your body as Beyonce is covering hers. Rule number two: Do not dress your children (especially those whose ages appear to still be in single digits) in something that a horny boyfriend would buy for his girlfriend after stopping by a 7-11 on his way home on Valentine's Day. What in the world are those girls wearing? I didn't know that you could get five dollar hooker outfits that small. If I can't see Beyonce's midriff, I don't want to see your seven-year old girl's midriff, either. Got it? For God's sake, I hope so.

Rule number three: If you do not have anything to shake, please don't try to shake it anyway. Clearly, these girls are not quite at the breasticle stage yet. There's nothing to shake. And that's FINE!! Yet, there they are, shaking their money makers when they don't even have change, let alone real money.

Rule number four: This one pertains mainly to this example only. The song basically talks about if some dude likes what he sees, perhaps he should "put a ring on it" if it's that important to him. Marry the chick, for cryin' out loud, is the message here. I don't know that you can have that message be spewed by little girls dressed in cheap lingerie who look as if they're all missing a brass pole or two. Seriously. Who are you people who are letting your kid do this and who are you people who are cheering these girls on?

Listen, the girls are talented. They have great dance moves. But why are they darn near naked? These are little girls! Where are their fathers? (Or their mothers, for that matter. But I'm really surprised that Dads would let their little girls prance around like that.) My Dad sure as hell would never have let me wear anything like that in public when I was eight OR when I was thirty, for that matter. I'd be a little afraid to wear anything like that now, lest he come back from beyond the grave and haunt me and my scantily clad booty for dressing like a ho. My brother (who is 3 years younger than me) is raising his step-daughter by himself (don't ask) and he's told her she's not dating until she's eighty. (He tells her that as he's cleaning his gun.) She certainly isn't walking out of his house looking like those girls do. She's kind of lucky he lets her walk out of the house at all (she's gonna be hot).

Seriously, why couldn't they have had on leotards or one piece swim suits or something? (After viewing that, I'm kind of leaning toward parkas, but they seem like they'd be rather bulky to dance in. See? I'm not unreasonable about the whole thing, nor impractical!) Why do they have to look like there is a midget hooker and pole dancer convention in town? Cover up your children when they're in public. Please. There's enough sexual exposure out there in all forms of media that they're going to be saturated with beginning at birth. Hypersexualizing the kids themselves by allowing them to parade their bodies in public when they are SEVEN years old can't lead to anything that's going to be great, I'll tell you that.

Again, I think that they're fabulous dancers. They're all very talented. However, the outfits that they are wearing are inappropriate and disturbing. And do you know what would have happened if they had wore outfits that were just a touch more modest (ie, I'm not looking at a 7-year old's belly button)? The ONLY thing that everyone would be talking about was how awesome the dance was. And that's how it should have been. Instead, the obvious talent that is there is lost and under-appreciated because all you can focus on is all of the sex that is there. It's sad, really. I can only hope that it won't be sadder for them as they get older.