Search Results: picture perfect

So a 32 year old friend I know who has a wife and child posted (on Instagram) a very cute family picture that I found absolutely adorable... what I didn't expect to find was all his friends in the comment section making fun of him for his "dad shorts" and "his shorts being way too short."

He himself seemed cool about it and didn't mind. He was just kind of like, "They're literally not that short though? But if I made you laugh, that's a good thing I guess, haha." His wife even came in from her account and started saying stuff like, "Noooo! His shorts are absolutely not too short! I literally helped him pick them out! They're the perfect length for men's shorts, whether you like it or not! Goodbye to long baggy cargo shorts! Haha."

Overall it seemed pretty lighthearted, and no one was truly offended, but... I was just kind of confused. Is this really the length of shorts people nowadays consider "dad shorts" or "short shorts for men?" That's literally just a few inches above the knee, like 3-5... I agree with what his wife said when she came to "defend" him, they're literally the perfect/ideal length for men's shorts and as inoffensive as it can get...

Back in the 1970s and some of the 80s they had real "dad shorts" or "short shorts for men." Shorts that barely covered their butt cheeks. A few inches above the knee is not nearly that short!

Back in the 1990s and earlier 2000s though they had some quite huge, baggy, long shorts... if you're used to these, then I guess my 32 year old friend's shorts could seem like "dad shorts" in comparison. They're still nowhere near the real dad shorts of the 70s though. They just simply aren't excessively long... which to some equals "dad shorts" or "short shorts" I guess.

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.