81–90 of 204 posts
My wife (and most other modern women too probably) would add “pockets on everything” and “more than a single dimension on pant sizes”.
I've never understood this. If women want clothes that have pockets, why don't they buy clothes that have pockets?
A well-made corset is a snug, comfortable, supportive garment that doesn't impede movement.
A well-made corset is a snug, comfortable, supportive garment that doesn't impede movement.
"well-made" doesn't feel like the correct description TBH. Corsets can be made comfortable and unrestricting, but that was not the primary goal, nor the common use case. And yes, some corsets were made specially for sporty activities for instance. I feel this reaction around corset kinda mimic the "suits can be made as comfortable as pajamas" rethoric. Sure they can, but the primary reason this has to be stated is be…
Oh friend, it doesn’t. Not for men’s suits I mean; I don’t know much about women’s clothing.
I am a short but beefy guy, shopping is hell and always has been. I had resigned myself to the idea that if I wanted a comfortable suit, I would have to get it tailor made. I have uncomfortable suits I wore for funerals and what not, hated every minute of it.
Turns out, go in the right shop (boss in my case) and I was able to find a comfortable one, with a look I love, for 800 eur. And it is absolutely as comfy as pjs. I’ve never before worn a suit for fun; I am the kind of guy who wears sports clothes most of the time.
I did have to get the leggings and sleeves shortened but that doesn’t feel like a “tremendous and specialised effort”, more run of the mill 1m60 man woes.
There's nothing particularly rational about this. Like so much or modernity, it's just a set of aesthetic preferences dressed up in the mantle of rationalism.
> The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally yes, a woman has to cover her upper body while men do not. Where I am you can also control women more in the workplace by mandating impractical shoes like heels. Pockets, you'd be surprised! Quite often women's blouses, blazers and trousers will have "false pockets" which are just a seam made to look like a pocket, whereas the men's version has actual deep pockets. Makeup and the social expectations around th…
You haven't answered the parent comment's request for your country, which is very relevant as things differ a lot. Here in the UK (which is what the article is about), it is illegal for either (/any) gender to expose their genitals in public [1] - that is called "indecent exposure". Breasts are not genitals and it is not illegal to show them. Admittedly, it would be very unusual to see a topless woman walking down a…
That's not correct in England and Wales law (UK law varies between the nations). The current law (as amended in 2003) says:
A person commits an offence if— he intentionally exposes his genitals, and he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
It may well be different in practice though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The also limiting to men thing is a fair point and worth remembering but it's good to keep in mind that both men and women are here being limited by patriarchal social norms. Skirts are seen as less practical and preferable for aesthetics, which makes them feminine and therefore off limits for men who are pressured to be strong and practical.
It's so noticeable the way you guys always use the passive voice: "seen as less practical", "preferable for aethetics", "pressured to be strong". You never actually elucidate who is supposed to be doing these things - it's a Motte and Bailey tactic. Your argument would fall apart if you were forced to be explicit about the who, the what and the why is supposed to be doing these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood this. If women want clothes that have pockets, why don't they buy clothes that have pockets?
Have you tried to buy women's clothes which have pockets? My understanding is that they are not common, and if present are so small as to not be useful.
There's nothing particularly rational about this. Like so much or modernity, it's just a set of aesthetic preferences dressed up in the mantle of rationalism.
I dunno, it sounds pretty clear to me. > The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.
Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so.
Rationalism is absurd, and this is a great example of why.
Humans almost never do anything on a purely rational basis. Everything we do is directed by subjectivity, emotion, aesthetics etc. - it's better to be honest about this and embrace it, rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective.