These days, hating Uggs has become a bit of a cliché. So one writer decided to kick things up a notch, by plotting the boots on a "Scale of Whoredom" from "Sorority Slut" to truck-stop prostitute. Apparently you can tell by a lady's footwear if she has breast implants, a history of sex work, or an STI.

RVA Magazine, which describes itself as "synonymous with youth culture and progressive ideas in a new Richmond," initially published Britt Sebastian's thoughtful op-ed on January 20. It's since been taken down, but a helpful reader sent us a screencap. Below is the full text of the article, with images. You're welcome?


DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect RVA Magazine editorial policy (that goes double for this particular article). Additionally, they are presented for humorous purposes, so don't take this shit too seriously.

It's kind of hard to pick out the most blisteringly offensive part of this piece. Is it when Sebastian implies that ladies who wear black Uggs are especially prone to (or perhaps even deserve) abuse? Or maybe when he illustrates claims about Ugg wearers' sluttitude, prostitution and STIs with photos of apparently underage girls? There's so much to choose from. One RVA commenter does a good job of summing up our reaction:


I just really want to thank RVA magazine for supporting such excellent content. I don't know how I went about my day not knowing that girls who wear ugg boots have sex lives I should judge them for and maybe even shame them for! I look forward to your future articles where you dictate the terms of what women "should" and "shouldn't" wear because how the hell was I getting dressed in the morning without your solid input!

p.s. get fucked, asshole and get fucked rva magazine for telling me to take a joke.

When I wrote RVA to ask why they chose to run Sebastian's rant, and why they took it down, publisher R. Anthony Harris responded,

Why we decided to run it? I like to give ALL the writers leeway to express themselves and say what is on their mind. I consider Britt a comedian and his articles albeit a bit crass — joke articles. These are not to be taken seriously. He made an observation and decided to pick on Uggh Boots. He has had some really funny articles in the past and then a few like this one that cross some invisible line and upset people. So as the publisher, sometimes you put it out and hope it has the right tone and catches readers in the "right" way. Obviously, that wasn't the case with this article and our disclaimer on at the bottom did nothing to protect ourselves from the backlash.

Why we took it down? The article created a lot of debate online and brought up some strong points to consider about our role in letting it be published and the validity of the writer's point of the article. Was it just plain hateful or a funny observation made in a blunt way? Was it insensitive and did it need to be that way for his point to be valid? Why this much interest in an article making fun of Uggh Boots and the people associated with them? We run dozens of articles every week promoting the good things of our city and then this one article about making fun of one the most superficial aspects of our culture caught fire and caused this much discussion. Too bad some of this firestorm couldn't cross over to supporting local music and art.

He added that in the future, "We will talk with Britt and see how we can tone down his rhetoric and be more mindful of the power of his words. I am not saying he write for us still but I think to be fair to him, we should sit down and talk about his writing with my editors input then make a decision." Sebastian is apparently in his early twenties; he owns a screen-printing shop and launched his own fashion line in 2010. It looks like his design skills are advanced for his age. Wish we could say the same for his judgment.


RVA Mag [Official Site]

Image via Anna Paff/