Are clothes getting more and more revealing?

[Anonymous]

I bought the dress on the picture for a private date night at home with my husband, I could never it anywhere else!!

But I notice that many shops only make things like this, things I would never consider wearing outside. Cropped, transparent, short, etc etc. Why is that, is that the new trend? What do you think about wearing revealing clothes like that?

Updates

+1 y

I don’t mean that I am considering wearing this outside.

I mean why is it becoming like this? Why is it more and more acceptable and what are the consequences, good or bad?

[SmartGirl92]

When in the early 1800s, a mere ankle was scandalous. Or shoulders... oh goodness! She’s showing her clavicles!

Everyone will have differing opinions on what’s too sexy to wear in public. I’m personally ecstatic that I live in an era where no one can control what I can & can’t wear. Within reason, of course. There are still indecent exposure charges within the law & places which have a specific dress code. Like I wouldn’t wear this dress to church, obviously. Although I am an atheist, so why would I attend church? You may think I’m rambling & getting off topic. But my lack of religion equates to why I feel no shame showing this amount of skin outside my house. I answer to no one & am in control of my own body. There are no consequences on my side for choosing to dress in a way I don’t feel guilty doing. Consequences will fall on those who feel they are entitled to touch my body without my consent though.

[goodlongman]

It depends on the country you are in. 2 years ago in Malaysia 2 girls were publicly caned for allowing the skin above the socks to be seen... the were ankle socks

[XRabbitHeartX]

Yes but that is because society is sex obsessed. The culture is about sexiness, hookups, having "fun" by being sexually provoactive. We no longer value other areas such as intelligence. It is all about sex, ass, boobs and looks. Sex sells. Dressing like that also means getting loads of attention for women (not the right kind imo) and that is why wome want to dress like that. Instant attention and looks for their bodies.

[Chaz269]

Yes. It's gross. Thongs for preteen girls should have been a major red flag. Nobody seems to care. Spare me the, "But it's more comfortable BS," they'd be making them for boys if that were true, and most women would give up high heels entirely if comfort was a priority.
Why is it becoming this way? Capitalism, end of story. If there's a profit to be made and no wealthy white man is on top of it, someone goes to prison or dies. Otherwise, wealthy white men are profiting and literally anything goes! Don't like it? Vote, but stop voting for capitalists and their puppets. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, because a complaint without action is just whining.

[SirRexington]

Well I agree with the capitalist part but considering white men aren't the predominant group in the fashion industry (women and queers being a lot more common) I'd say it's whoever is power. There are a lot of white people in power, but Asians out number them.

[Chaz269]

Check your facts. Gay men and women may be the prominent designers, but the owners of the companies they work for are mostly old white men. As is the case with most companies in western societies.

[SirRexington]

Why do you think that is? I'm not saying it is or isn't true at this point, I merely want your reasoning as to why this might be.

[Chaz269]

I don't know for sure. I suspect it's fundamentally natural selection. Caucasian men were historically more exploring, invasive, and conquering; mostly as a means to enrichment. Women have always liked valuable things, so they selected the most successful conquerors. Eventually industrialization supplanted agriculture and exploration as a means to enrichment, giving rise to capitalism. In turn, the conquering class of capitalism are captains of industry; the use of military descriptions of these men wasn't incidental. It stands to reason that white men would manage industrialization and capitalism the same way they handled exploration and agriculture in the past. But I digress, because I wasn't there and I haven't studied the matter much.

[SirRexington]

Alright, thats an interesting take. I didn't think of that. But capitalism as we know it today didn't really exist in America for awhile, it was pretty much a self managed agarian and artisan society.

[Chaz269]

Indeed, but you could argue that capitalism began with government backed currency. I think few people would argue that it was firmly the norm by the time we abandoned the gold standard. Once the value of a thing, including a person's own time and energy, could be given a value based on currency rather than real goods and services, capitalism became what we know today.

[Chaz269]

Furthermore, once a company or a bank could arbitrarily define a person's value regardless of real goods and services, rather than allowing a person to define their own value, capitalism became economic slavery. Too few people notice, and fewer care because we're indoctrinated to believe we're free just because we can eat cheeseburgers, buy smart phones and search the internet. In reality, most people do exactly what their employers and banks tell them to, nothing less and nothing more. All the good little producers and consumers, no different than an ant colony, mindlessly doing their parts without question. Meanwhile, the mavericks and outliers are marginalized, incriminated, or even killed.

[Chaz269]

But that's probably just me.

[SirRexington]

Well I want employees to have a seat on the board to help make decisions and act as a large business, instead of shareholders and representatives. Of course not all the employees would want to participate and should not be forced to. But unions and the ability to bargain with your employer is paramount.

[Chaz269]

I've seen a couple documentaries about co-ops, and done some reading on the matter after that. It's an incredible business model, and extremely successful fundamentally. The problem is that bigger, publicly traded companies will invest a great deal of time, energy and money getting co-ops shut down because the Bigs lose big time when working class citizens have equal stakes in the growth of their own business.

[SirRexington]

I would perfectly fine with a Social Democracy but the "ideal" end would be market socialism/mutualism.

[Chaz269]

I would be fine with a true democracy. I would be fine with Democratic socialism. I would be fine with socialism. I would be fine with Marxist communism. What I'm not fine with is oligarchy under the guise of anything else, especially democracy. I'm also not fine with profit coming before lives, livelihoods, and human rights. I'm not okay with my tax dollars funding countless, endless wars for profit, while people are homeless, hungry, and dying in the streets of the wealthiest nation on the planet.

[Chaz269]

I have a huge problem with ignorant and indoctrinated citizens making claims about the how the US is the only place people can "make it" due to the American Dream farce. Each year, thousands of US citizens lose everything. Tens of thousands lose their livelihoods. Many because of illnesses or accidents that they can't afford when their insurance companies drop them after a claim because... profits. Most can't afford college without loans, and it's increasingly difficult to earn a fair living without a college education or trade skills. The American dream is a hoax; one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. You gotta give THAT to the ruling class. They keep us bickering with each other about stoopid shit while serving their every whim for more money with less investment on their part.

[SirRexington]

There are some ills i have with true democracy as it would supersede the individual. And if not please enlighten me.

I also disagree in the labor theory of value being the main measure pricing instead of the subjective theory of value. I do to some extent agree with each according to his ability, each according to his needs. But I highly believe in the market. Though one based around cooperative and not competition.

[Chaz269]

You're a fan of labor unions but not democracy? Strange. The labor union is a staple of democracy; I would even argue inseparable. Both are about strength of common people in numbers. If you have one, you must have the other or you don't truly have the one, at least not for long.
Also, I think I already said that profits should never come ahead of lives and livelihoods. You can't value the market and arbitrary valuation, or actually devaluation of a human being's value AND value human beings. The "market" serves only one purpose, profit above all. There's never been a practical economy-first government system that didn't relegate thousands of people to poverty and death because they were deemed to have little or no value. I can't support that ever again, in any form.

[SirRexington]

The union needs to provide the needs of each individual or it will be majority rule, people will be left out and they will become bitter. Eventually they will no longer feel that the union or the community care about them and will leave or harm community, causing a bigger issue than anticipated. So we must meet everyone's needs. You are a stake holder in the business by contributing labor to it. If you feel like you aren't valued, it creates internal problems.

As for the market, it is nothing more than an exchange of goods and services. The emphasis on profit mostly comes from capitalism. Without capitalism, the market would truly be free as we'd be able to freely associate and cooperate with others agents in the economy to further our goals.

[SirRexington]

Even the clothes in Walmart are! It's like streetwalker clothing... I'm sick of it.

This sexual "liberation" bullshit has gone too far and the social order between men and women is suffering because of it. Women can be independent and career driven and empowered without being slutty. Apparently a lot don't know that. Or they are forced to wear these clothes because it's all that is being sold.

[RabuDam]

I think the reason for this is found in the core of our society.

The western or modern society is build upon the image of men. All what you see and do probably was an idea of some old man wearing a suit.

These men are predominantly working with their instincts or left part of the brain. For example when they want to get from A to B they want to get there as quick as possible. (therefore the always faster getting transport)

Also the image of woman or how women should look like is mainly an idea of men. You think it's your decision how to look? Well, why then do you look like the girls in the magazins (who are planned and qualified by men)? Why do you compare yourself to girls who look "perfect" while they are just looking like a doll?

What I want to point out is that the way women and girls dress and act nowadays stems from the irrational belief to "please the man". (I know some may now be pissed off, but that's okay)

I mean if that's not true, then would you wear this dress just for your pleasure?

Well, I guess we know the answer.

So the reason why dresses are getting shorter and cloth getting more invisible is that men like to see more. They are not satisfied with the eroticism of the 50's 70's or 00's. They want more more more.

So that's my take on it. I hope it illuminated your point of view and maybe you can start to think for your own now and decide for yourself what you really want to wear. ;)

[DevilsAdvocator]

Well, judge for yourselves- are clothes getting more revealing, or not?

I'll let you make up your own minds.

[virginbish]

da hell... the first one. I can see all the guy's with mouths open in the audience xD

And the 3rd one... the poor girl had a terrible plastic surgeon. One nipple is higher than the other lol

[wingattebaby16]

yes, the fashion industry feels they have the right to dictate women's fashion.

In the 1970's high waisted pants were the in thing.

Waist bands came down to the navel in the 80's and 90's.

Early 2000's, high string on the hip thong panties with jeans that barely would stay up were in.

Then we had the ultra lowrise panties, shorts, and pants. I wore low rise so low that I had to shave my pubes smooth and nair them so no shadow showed. the waist band was like 1/2" above my hoohaa slit.

if i moved at all, my butt crack showed and once i stretched my arms above head and the pants pulled down so most of my hoohaa was showing.

now, waistbands are back up to above the navel.

So yes, fashion is more and more daring and made to show skin.

[Bribree18]

I feel like Kim Kardashian isn’t the best example for this idea. Like, I get it, but even when women dress up for the purpose of feeling sexy it usually isn’t as drastic as this.
But anyway, it doesn’t really matter if fashion is becoming more showy. It’s just a body, everyone has one, if you don’t want to see someone’s body... don’t look :) easy peas lemon squeezey people. Plenty, and I mean plenty, of stores offer clothing that isn’t so scandalous. Obviously in more mainstream stores made for generally late teens - twenty year old, the clothing is made to resemble what one may wear for a party... because that is what young people do a lot. However stores like Walmart, Target, Tjmaxx, Kohls... all offer everyday clothing. Actually, even H&M, Forever 21, Hollister, American Eagle, Forever 21 - all offer everyday clothing. I feel like very limited places offer this type of getup.

[DashboardLight]

I think women stimulate guys even more when they wear clothes like this, which is what they might seek for. However, I also think women will get sexually harassed more quickly by wearing crap like this.

First of, I'm NOT saying girls are asking to be sexually harassed, but when you walk out on the streets almost butt-naked anyways... like... that's like me leaving my front door unlocked for 8 hours straight whilst nobody is home.

Again, this is mostly attention-seeking, and girls like attention. However, people who wear stuff like what @DevilsAdvocator posted, or what you posted, are slutty to me.

[Koki11]

Yes n it's kinda saddening but if that's what a person prefers I'm not judging but I like more covers up but tight I follow my rules of like
1. If showing cleavage cover everything else
2. If showing legs be covered on top
3 no showing arms, legs n breasts / cleavage at the same time but if I'm going out coz I love my legs I always wear long sleeve tight short dress for night n I love a blazer on top works for nyt time n with flat pumps its day wear with heels its clubs lol

[BaileyisDarcy]

Why no showing arms?

[Koki11]

I like showing one asset it keeps whomever I'm into to wonder more coz they see less n i beliv everything is hot with the ryt clothes n that's just my preference.

[DRad123]

Yeah, probably. Have you seen how loose bikinis can be? I mean, it's almost like not having anything there. And some dresses I've seen worn come very close to showing underwear and maybe more than that. With the advent of heating and the climate getting warmer, clothes will probably get lighter and lighter as time goes on. I feel as though guys wear lighter and more revealing long-sleeve and short-sleeve shirts than they did in the past. Plus, tanktops, shorts, and all that.

[DesertCreature]

No one says you can't add your own layers as desired. Just have to pick something that matches the existing outfit.

As for trends I don't share your view, most American women I see dress like men usually. Perhaps one day we'll all converge and be wearing felt-lined burlap sacks with 100% shaved bodies.

[Anonymous]

If women continue on wearing revealing clothing all the time,.. then you'll have heads turning & looking at these kind of women with sexually lustful eyes. Women can't always assume men will always have self-control over themselves.

Plain & simple,... if women continue on wearing more revealing clothing along with tight clothing,... women WILL get that sexually lustful attention from men. Regardless if women do want that or not, & regardless if women want to look & feel "Sexy & confident"... again that is literally what they will have to be expecting regardless if women think men can control themselves or not.

[BaileyisDarcy]

"Women can't always assume men will always have self-control over themselves."

... um yeah we can, you're not animals, you're not ruled by your hormones, you're a human being in the modern world who is free to go jack off in the bathroom if you really need to. That doesn't mean women can't expect men to be half decent enough not to touch them.

[DevilsAdvocator]

@BaileyisDarcy Or you'll simply reach the point where men's heads stop turning altogether, and stop looking at women at all, because "meh, seen one, seen 'em all". Everything gets boring to look at if you're over-saturated with it.

[BaileyisDarcy]

@DevilsAdvocator Exactly. I dont know how guys like this think we got on before clothes were even invented. If you look up tribes that still exist most of them dont have clothes for the upper half of their bodies which, yes, includes the women as well.

In fact if you talk to them about it, they find it incredibly amusing that we're so concerned about something they see as so inconsequential. That being bare skin.

[Opinion Owner]

@BaileyisDarcy I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but my opinion still stands. Even if men were half decent human being with better control over ourselves and not animals ruled by our own hormones,... I'm sure women wouldn't appreciate them anyways.

[ATuairiscean]

Yes I think so but you know what else is on the increase, the private date at home and you can wear these things. Are there more revealing clothes on the street or more revealing clothes being bought is perhaps a better question. My girlfriend gets lots of things for private dates.

[11dog22]

This is nothing. Few years back at one of those high models. Top half was see through for men and women. Models walking the boardwalk. Pics taken. Classy look. Point was women have nothing to be a shame off. Breast is natural beauty plus fabric was interesting.

[MemeSupreme]

well if it's unnecessarily revealing then if you get attention from guys then don't complain it when it happens

[ChloeAlexandra]

Sadly, I wish but no. Unless you're grown woman shopping at Baby Gap anyone with half a brain could find some fabric long enough to cover their butt and high enough to not have to be constantly checking if you popped out of your top.. clothes are not getting more revealing girls are just getting slutier.

[Sabrina_gomez]

yeah I know! they are getting worse and worse to the point where there will be no more clothes! we'll be walking around naked! ugh

[MeatLoversPizza]

Is that such a bad thing?

[Northern_star]

yep its like that. look, there's nothing bad with dressing like that to your husband, its very nice.
but yes, its becoming popular to wear these out on public. its about showing off, attention seeking and, putting out what women offer on the market. its so strange.

[Jan_Classic]

[Anonymous]

No DA we are sending middle schoolers to school dressed like whores in the city streets.

With guy kids pretending to be girls and showing off thier dicks in the bathrooms.

We wonder why rape is so common these days.

[Dallsimo]

Its becoming more accepted and even starting to be the norm because of one main reason in my opinion ; just look at videoclips from last few years : Rihanna showing her seethrough nipples, Nicki Minaj having boobs popping out of outfit. Songs lyrics like : ohhh my god, look at her butt.. or having Iggy Azalea signing bounce in the mother fucking house while shaking her huge butt... I dont complain about it, but i think it gives a good startoff point to explain ur question..

[nojokecarmichael]

Let's not forget Miley cyrus

[Shookmango]

It honestly depend how you wear it. Short shorts, for example, can be worn with black or blue tights and crop tops can be worn with high waisted jeans or overalls. Best thing to do, is to avoid those type of clothing entirely.

[JSmuve]

Damn, that is one fat ass right there.

[Asker]

It is on meshki.🤪