Search Results: girls usually right

I was inspired to ask this question when I came across the above photo on Reddit. It was apparently a post about a guy and his girlfriend who used to be very religious Mormons who always dressed "modestly" now becoming "ex-Mormons" who enjoy wearing "short shorts" together and don't pay attention to modesty anymore. And while I thought that was very sweet and "good for them," I couldn't help but notice the enormous length difference between the girl's shorts and the guy's shorts. And whether I liked it or not, it pissed me off. Not necessarily because of this isolated incident itself, but because of how common/widespread this phenomenon is in general. Even when it comes to children's shorts.

Like just look at the picture itself, it's a perfect example... her "short shorts" only have like a 2-3 inch inseam to them and stop at the very TOP of her thighs; while his "short shorts" have at least a solid 7-8 inch inseam to them and stop only SLIGHTLY above the knees, exposing only merely his very lower thighs.

Keep in mind these are supposed to be "short" male shorts too. Usually men's shorts don't show a few inches of thigh above the knee like in the photo. It's not uncommon for men's shorts to be knee-length or below the knee, with an inseam ranging from 12-15 inch inseam. So the length disparity is often even bigger than shown here.

Meanwhile, while the girl's shorts are indeed "short shorts" it's also hard to find shorts longer than that in the women's section, and as a result almost every woman wears that same length of shorts. So by female shorts standards they're not "short" but just "normal." And even the normal length women's shorts are short as fuck when compared to men's "short shorts"... you can kind of see the problem here.

It just feels like the fashion industry is unnecessarily sexualizing women and trying to get them to show way more skin/thigh than their male counterparts. It doesn't feel right.