U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2014, 02:35 PM
 
857 posts, read 724,022 times
Reputation: 561

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
I completely agree. I don't know how we got sold on the ridiculous idea that the male leg is disgusting. It makes no sense.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that the revulsion of the male form results in an "anti-objectification" of men, which automatically results in the over-objectification of women? How could we expect otherwise when one sex is encouraged to be covered up at all times, and the other is encouraged to reveal as much as possible?

I'm not saying men used to wear actual hotpants, although these were marketed as a sort of novelty item. And men's shorts used to be longer even then, but the difference in length was like an inch or two. If you were a guy and your cheeks weren't actually hanging out the back, you were good to go. I remember also that workout/gym shorts, or actual shorts you'd buy in a store, were more acceptable that cutoffs. Cutoff shorts had to be longer, though often still scandalously short by today's standard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2014, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,530 posts, read 8,188,759 times
Reputation: 5765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm View Post
Is it unreasonable to suggest that the revulsion of the male form results in an "anti-objectification" of men, which automatically results in the over-objectification of women? How could we expect otherwise when one sex is encouraged to be covered up at all times, and the other is encouraged to reveal as much as possible?

I'm not saying men used to wear actual hotpants, although these were marketed as a sort of novelty item. And men's shorts used to be longer even then, but the difference in length was like an inch or two. If you were a guy and your cheeks weren't actually hanging out the back, you were good to go. I remember also that workout/gym shorts, or actual shorts you'd buy in a store, were more acceptable that cutoffs. Cutoff shorts had to be longer, though often still scandalously short by today's standard.
Realistically, men's shirts have to be a little longer than women's just to cover the twig and berries. So,that's just a practical requirement dictated by biology.

Interesting theory, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 04:05 PM
 
4,424 posts, read 5,205,303 times
Reputation: 6479
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
Realistically, men's shirts have to be a little longer than women's just to cover the twig and berries. So,that's just a practical requirement dictated by biology.

Interesting theory, though.
If thats the case then you need to buy your shorts a size up. If your "twig and berries" are showing through then your shorts are too small, not your shirt length. That or you simply need to wear a different style of shorts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,530 posts, read 8,188,759 times
Reputation: 5765
Quote:
Originally Posted by pythonis View Post
If thats the case then you need to buy your shorts a size up. If your "twig and berries" are showing through then your shorts are too small, not your shirt length. That or you simply need to wear a different style of shorts.
Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say shorts, not shirts.

I was just trying to make the point that the bare minimum length for shorts is a bit longer for men than for women because of the twig and berry factor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 07:22 PM
 
4,424 posts, read 5,205,303 times
Reputation: 6479
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzleman View Post
Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say shorts, not shirts.

I was just trying to make the point that the bare minimum length for shorts is a bit longer for men than for women because of the twig and berry factor.
i wouldnt say thats necessarily so. One can always find looser material to compensate. Not all women have huge chests and not all men have super huge packages. Wearing the right kind of underwear a guy can wear some extremely short shorts without ever revealing any hint of genitalia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Fairfield, CT
5,530 posts, read 8,188,759 times
Reputation: 5765
Quote:
Originally Posted by pythonis View Post
i wouldnt say thats necessarily so. One can always find looser material to compensate. Not all women have huge chests and not all men have super huge packages. Wearing the right kind of underwear a guy can wear some extremely short shorts without ever revealing any hint of genitalia.
True, looseness can compensate for shortness to a large degree. But if we're talking tight shorts, then the minimum length for a man will be slightly longer than for a woman unless you want to have an obvious bulge sticking out of the front.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 05:57 AM
 
71 posts, read 48,099 times
Reputation: 46
I cant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,370 posts, read 6,786,875 times
Reputation: 14412
Quote:
Originally Posted by pythonis View Post
i wouldnt say thats necessarily so. One can always find looser material to compensate. Not all women have huge chests and not all men have super huge packages. Wearing the right kind of underwear a guy can wear some extremely short shorts without ever revealing any hint of genitalia.
The "gym shorts" young men wore for Phys Ed until some time in the Seventies were very brief, and the "boxcut" swim trunks of the time had the same effect. To avoid displaying "the package" just about everyone wore an athletic supporter, but certain positions (sitting on the floor or the deck of a pool, for example) would reveal the jock almost as readily.

The "problem" finally resolved itself when young women adopted "boy shorts" as a cover up for a bikini, or just for warm-weather street wear, and the gents went for only slightly-longer shorts. And in those days, a Speedo (though not the ultra-skimpy types that emerged sometime around 1990) in a college pool or lap-swimming environment wasn't viewed as a statement of sexual orientation. But the current "mandate" for board shorts the size of a tent defeats the whole purpose of serious fitness swimming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 11:15 AM
 
Location: SWUS
5,414 posts, read 7,628,292 times
Reputation: 5781
I have a couple of pairs that I really only wear around the house.

Just got them and it feels wonderful, better than boxers or basketball shorts.

I'm not wearing them out of the house, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 07:15 PM
 
71 posts, read 48,099 times
Reputation: 46
of course i cant unless your in your own house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top