Search Results: wearing underwear

So I pretty much just found these 2 pictures on Google, on some website talking about embarrasing skirt stories... apparently these 2 women both did a photoshoot of themselves wearing cute dresses... and then after the photoshoot they went to hang out with their friends on a night out, but had to go home to put on jeans and wear the dress as a sort of long shirt because apparently the dresses were too "short" and "embarrassing" to wear out in public. While they never flashed, they said they "almost did." They also said that while standing up the dresses were only a bit more than a hand above the knee, but rose up to almost their thighs as they sat.

But as for me, personally... they don't seem that short to me. Maybe it's because I live somewhere hot and women wear dresses that length all the time, but they just don't seem that short.

For the girl in black, if she's gonna sit like THAT than sure, it's too short... but if she sat normally, than no. As for the one in pink... she's doing it perfectly, even in the photo. Just sit with legs together, or crossed. It's miles away from actually flashing her underwear.

Also, when they wore jeans with the dresses, it did NOT look good. It looked so much better when they wore JUST the dresses as shown. Those dresses were made to be worn bare legged! Plus, if flashing was really that big a deal to them, some spandex booty shorts would've done the trick much better.

So my girlfriend is usually relatively modest. She usually just simply wears a cute blouse, or a tank top/sleeveless shirt with some sort of jacket/blazer over it; and some jeans/pants.

But some days, she wears shorts... it's usually whenever she shaves her legs, and she then wears shorts almost a whole week in a row to enjoy her smooth legs before her leg hair comes back in. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Her shorts aren't even that short. They don't have any legs to them, but they still cover her butt, and all the necessary things.

But the thing is, that though she's quite slim, she's quite curvy in her lower body... no, not fat in any way, but for her flat stomach and weight, she sure does have a big butt and some big thick thighs. Her legs are a lot thinner at the bottom, and then a lot thicker at the thighs. As a result, her shorts look a lot shorter, even though they're not indecent, and don't even show her ass... they almost look like underwear on her.


I've seen girls slim the way she is, but with a smaller butt, and smaller thighs, wearing the exact same style of shorts, same length, same brand... and on them, the shorts don't look like they're too short, nor like underwear. But with her proportions... they just look a bit too small.

But then again, it'd be REALLY wrong for her to not be allowed to wear an article of clothing every other girl wears just because her butt size and thighs are above average... so maybe I'm just overthinking it.

Plus, it's not like she's an absolutely shorts-crazed girl. She usually wears jeans/pants. It's just when it's hot that she wears shorts, or when she gets tired of wearing nothing but pants/jeans all the time.

When I came to GAG just over 4 years ago, this was a common question topic. These days you rarely read about it.
Girls would call various actions "going commando" but generally it was about wearing less or no underwear. From showing cleavage without a bra, to wearing a loose skirt or dress and no panty underneath. Or just a thin pantyhose without a panty.
The reasons for doing this also seemed to vary, from freedom / comfort to seducing guys.
I added a poll, feel free to comment as well.
Guys, you can certainly indicate if you like it or if you'd rather be seduced by your girl's charms.

So my whole life, I've always assumed girls/women had on small spandex shorts when they wore skirts/dresses.

However, me and my girlfriend went to the beach the other day... and after we were done having fun at the beach, we put on regular clothes over our swim wear. And she just whipped on a dress, above the knee length on top of her bikini in 5 seconds, and said, "I'm ready honey!" And I asked her, "Really? I mean you don't really have anything on under your dress. You have your bikini bottoms, but they just basically look like underwear. Are you really gonna go walk around in public like that?" And she laughed really hard, and said that you're not supposed to wear anything but underwear under a skirt/dress, and that she and all of her friends just wear underwear, and no girl she knows wears shorts or anything else underneath.

It was then that my fucking mind was blown... so every time I saw a girl in a skirt/dress, she most likely only had underwear underneath? It's especially weird in a skirt/dress that goes above the knees. Meaning if only she spread her legs out a bit more, everyone would see her underwear? Does the average women really not care about that type of stuff?

As a guy that's a pretty absurd thought, as the male equivalent of that would be whipping on a long shirt slightly above the knee, wearing only some boxer-briefs underneath, and just going out in public like that...

And as such, I'm here asking to see what the general thing REALLY is.

Is it just simply the way skirts/dresses are traditionally worn, but most women are still bothered and wear shorts? Do most women not care and just wear the underwear?

Maybe I'm just overthinking it. I'm trying to literally relate to girls who wear skirts/dresses with the long shirt thing, when I'm not even SUPPOSED to. Skirts/dresses are a girl thing. Just wearing underwear underneath for in specific girls is normal, and not something guys should relate to.

But maybe my thoughts are reasonable after all

So I’m going to the gym tomorrow
& I hate wearing underwear at the gym it’s really getting annoying
i get wedgies

the underwear is really annoying

So I decided to just go in my
compression pants... or male version of yoga pants
without any underwear
they aren’t see through, but could I still get in trouble?