Search Results: short skirts

Bare thighs... considered somewhat relatively modest, and somewhat immodest at the same time. By definition bare thighs are not "modest", but in certain situations (ex: the pool, the beach, the gym, theme parks in the summer, anywhere super hot in general) bare thighs are perfectly appropriate, and more comfortable than anything else.

But bare thighs seem to be more acceptable for women than for men. Women's default shorts are thigh length, while men's default shorts are knee length. In slightly more formal but not super formal situations (parties and the such), women in mid-thigh length skirts and dresses are seen as perfectly appropriate, but men can only wear long pants and not shorts.

In general, people seem to think bare thighs on a man makes it look like "he forgot his pants." It's acceptable at the pool, but not much elsewhere.

We live in Florida, if that matters. Orlando in specific. Where outside, in all seasons except for winter, it's hot as fuck... but since it's so hot outside, indoor places like school and stores and such like to keep their AC ice cold cool. So it's rather understandable if someone wears long pants if they're going to be indoors for a long period of time, and shorts if they're going to be outdoors for a long period of time.

And that's pretty much what my girlfriend does... but she takes it a bit further. She pretty much makes it a staple rule: at school, long pants ONLY. Outside of school, short shorts ONLY.

By short shorts, I don't mean booty shorts, but just short shorts in general... they cover her bum modestly, and go down a bit. They don't show her butt cheeks, only a lot of upper thigh and bare leg in general.

But either ways, I've never seen her once wear short shorts at school, or long pants outside of school. It's always a staple rule.

The only exception is skirts/dresses, which she rarely ever wears except for more formal occasions, or a romantic lovey dovey date with me. I've only seen her in a skirt/dress about five times out of the whole year I've known her.

When I pointed this out to her, she just smiled and said, "Of course sweetie. The school AC is always cold as hell, while outside, it's always so hot, since it's Florida. So I wear pants indoors, and shorts outdoors, it's the logical thing to do. Plus, that way I get to wear both pants and shorts about an even amount."

So back when I was 16, we were at my ex-girlfriend's home, and she was having trouble picking out clothes for our first date. And she picked out a flowy, navy blue dress, that was about mid-thigh length. And she had decided that was what she was wearing to our date. And I was like, "It's nice, but isn't it a little short?" And she was like, "That's why we wear spandex shorts under these, silly."

And that logic stuck with me.

However, my current girlfriend (I'm 18 now), a few weeks ago, to our date wore a light blue dress, of about the same length as my ex-girlfriend's. Then when we went to her home after the date, she asked me what I thought of her new dress. I said it was a bit short, but extremely pretty. And I commented, "Good thing you had on shorts underneath, though."

Then she burst out laughing, and I asked her what's so funny, and she said she never wears shorts under her dresses. I asked her if it's not too risky, and she said no, since she knows how to sit and move in dresses, and only wears dresses when she knows she won't be climbing stairs or anything in the first place. She also said that shorts under dresses are really uncomfortable and take away the purpose completely.

Just basically, I had 2 girlfriends with completely different views on the subject. And there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm just wondering what MOST GIRLS typically think.

By saying "yes," you're secretly agreeing with my ex-girlfriend, and by saying "no," you're secretly agreeing with my current girlfriend.