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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
