Search Results: wearing a dress

My previous MyTake about business clothing differences between men and women got me thinking. In our society it's generally seen as acceptable that women wear pants (albeit only certain types like skinny jeans or leggings), except for certain situations like formal or business occasions. On the other hand, it is unacceptable for men to wear any skirt/dress at all.

Is this fair? I'd argue that it is. Traditionally women wore skirts, but this changed when women started to be recognized more equally in American city. Skirts aren't as practical as pants, so women started wearing them, and it became acceptable. Men, on the other hand, have no reason to wear skirts. They're just dressing in a more unpractical garment, when pants have always worked fine.

That's just my opinion though, what's yours? Should standards allow men to wear skirts, remain the same, *or* go back to the old standards of allowing women only to wear skirts.

I absolutely love wearing stilettos but I just can't last more than a few hours in them. I've got this gorgeous black and gold sparkly dress to wear to the club tomorrow night and I really want to wear my 4 inch sandals. I've tried all my shoes and none of my flats look good with it, besides I really want to wear heels and feel sexy.

It's NYE and the club's going to be super busy so I don't want to have to check in a bag, so I'll just have my clutch and it's too small to take a change of shoes, so if the heels can't go the distance I'm going to have to end up barefoot.

But it's NYE and I really want to make the effort, so is it worth it?

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.