This is such an interesting topic and I actually don't think it has been discussed here in a lot of detail (if it has, I missed it). I have so much to say about this and I might go off on some tangents...
In the first place, "sexy" is an attitude. Most women I know describe sexy as a feeling and not a look.
One thing I have always known about myself is that most men are going to hate how I dress. I love things that hide the waist, I love androgyny, I like to minimize my bust, I adore volume, and I hate anything too form-fitting or revealing, even if it's considered tasteful and appropriate. You will never find me in a pair of "sexy" shoes with sky high heels and lots of straps. The article mentions something about looking sexy vs. looking awesome, and I would rather look awesome. For men, womens' clothes have an entirely different purpose. Men just see women differently (obviously I'm only talking about straight men). Their judgment is influenced by their erm, biological preferences.
I know most men would rather see me in a butt-hugging pencil skirt and low-cut sweetheart neckline any day of the week, but it's too bad for them. I do not expect that the men in my life necessarily dress according to my taste or style preferences, and I don't think they should expect that of me. It's all about looking nice to me. Looking nice, as I have mentioned, is tragically underestimated. A person can look nice and put together without necessarily being invested in fashion or dressing according to a specific person's taste. One has to be able to distinguish between what looks nice and what just isn't their taste. For example, I think Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, but it's light years from being one of my favorite movies. So if my S.O. is unable to do that, then to put it bluntly, it's hard for me to take their opinion seriously. I'd be lying if I said I didn't care what they think, but if what they think ends up being nonsense to me, then I'm not going to go against my own instincts. I like to think that is due to my own confidence rather than stubbornness...but it could be both.
So having said that, the major point of the article is interesting.
I think this statement:
"Very roughly, you could say that fashion falls into clothes to get you laid, and clothes that you wear for other women."
...is rubbish, and very insulting rubbish at that. It reduces women to catty, horny thugs. I think this article seems to appeal more to crazed fashionistas wearing outlandish, avant garde catwalk creations. I certainly don't expect to impress many people with the stuff I get from H&M.
They may be shocked to know that some of us dress for ourselves. I dress the way I do because it suits who I am as a person, allowing my personality to come through on the outside. I dress so that when I catch my reflection in a store window, I am content with what I see. My barometer for whether or not I like how I look is if I would be drawn to myself and want to get to know me better! That way I'll naturally attract the right kind of guy. If you spend so much time and energy worrying about what others will think, you'll never feel happy or satisfied, because there will ALWAYS be someone who doesn't care for it. But that doesn't mean you should just give up and not even try.
I'm not *so* self-centered that I would go out on a date wearing something I know my S.O. hates, or never ask for input on my outfit. I think my Shiny dress is a good example of something that I like and I think most dudes would like too. There is room for compromise.
At the end of the day, there are so many other things that influence attractiveness to the opposite sex. In a way, volume is really a blessing, since it gets the focus off my boobs and up where I want it (my eyes). Haven't had a single boyfriend who did not explicitly appreciate my eyes!
...don't even get me started on why I hate this article from a feminist perspective
