AFAICT these trousers for women were loose baggy trousers and were additionally covered by skirts of some sort. So they’re not at all comparable to the type of trousers worn in Western society.
Your point about men in those other societies also wearing skirts doesn’t seem at all relevant. Bottom line is that based on the style of clothing they wore, they would not have had the issue I raised here, which is specific to Western style trousers and dress.
People didn’t walk around dressed like that on a regular basis. Most of society never dressed like that at all. That was a tiny sub-culture on an infrequent basis. (Also, I think breasts were much less of a modesty issue than legs, in many cultures and eras.)
Sure but I think you’re missing the point. Trousers and skirts can come in a range of styles and neither is intrinsically more conservative. Furthermore, it’s not the case that trousers only for men, skirts only for women applies across all cultures or times.
No, the point is that in a particular society in which the type of trousers worn were less conservative, and where the society itself was relatively conservative as to women’s dress, that such trousers would be less likely to have been worn by women than by men. The suggestion is that Western society evolved from such a society, and that for these historical reasons women in Western society tended to wear skirts/dresses.
What misses the point is pointing to other societies where these conditions didn’t apply.
And yes, pads have been bigger than they are today even within my lifetime. I’ve seen the cloth pads they used to use with a belt, and those are bigger still. I will readily acknowledge my wild hypothesis that this had anything to do with skirts was just that, but you are quite wrong about this.
There’s more than one right answer to the OP’s question, some of which can be found through original research: wear pants, wear a dress, go about your business, see what you find out.
One reason skirts aren’t common for men is that they strongly, confrontationally emphasize the visual of the penis. The drape can make it look quite big, which might be nice I guess, but I think most people don’t want the eyeballs.
Huh? How does a skirt expose the penis more than trousers, except for peeping under it? Tight fit jeans are what emphasize the penis the most. (see the cover of the Stones’ “Sticky Fingers”)
Yeah. If a skirt is made of thin clingy fabric or is very formfitting then it can emphasize the “package”, but most of the skirt-like garments that guys actually wear (kilt, lungi, sarong, etc.) are not more revealing in that way than your average pair of pants.
I don’t, but I’ve spent a fair bit of time in cultures and subcultures where many men wear various types of skirts and skirt-like garments such as the ones I mentioned. I don’t stare at their crotches to try to make out the details, of course, but my consistent experience has been that the “drape” of those garments does not “strongly, confrontationally emphasize the visual of the penis” in any way that is noticeable or obvious in ordinary interactions.
Maybe it has something to do with choice of undergarments? I have never asked any of my male skirt-wearing acquaintances what they wear underneath, but I suppose if you’re going commando under your skirt then you might get more of an “outline” effect.
I possess both a penis and a kilt and I have no idea what you’re talking about. No one has ever seen the outline of my junk through 16 oz tartan wool, even when I wasn’t wearing a sporran.
Really. I’ve never worn a kilt, a sarong or a toga, but I often wrap a bath towel around my waist after showering and fix it at the waist or wear a bathrobe in the sauna, which both are very much like skirts, and in these cases I wear nothing underneath, and nonetheless my junk was always well hidden. I just don’t understand ALOHA_HATERS point.
Side note, but I suspect part of the reason women in Islamic countries wear trousers is the men in those countries are often quite “grabby” in crowds (and at any other time they can get away with it). They will absolutely grab women’s chests and genitals if they get close enough. I’ve seen it happen and it is quite disturbing.
Women will also often keep one arm and hand on the inside of their sari for this purpose. They can then use their inside hand to shield their crotch or chest as appropriate.
A lot of men in a lot of countries are often quite grabby in crowds, but I don’t think that’s got a lot to do with the skirts-vs.-trousers issue. Traditional female garments in some Islamic countries such as Saudia Arabia are long dresses/skirts, while traditional female garments in other Islamic countries such as Afghanistan are trousers with a long tunic over them.
? Are you referring specifically to Bangladesh and/or Pakistan? I don’t know of any other Islamic countries where it’s traditional for women to wear sari. Also, the sari is definitely more of a skirt-type than trouser-type garment, so I’m really not sure what you’re driving at here.
If I wear tight briefs under something (too) form-fitting then there’s a noticeable bulge, but you cannot actually make out a distinct penis shape.
If I wear baggy boxer shorts, or go commando, everything hangs down and you don’t see anything, even with quite tight trousers.
If I wanted someone to see an outline of the goods, I’d have to make a special effort.
Or have an erection (which is hard to conceal whatever you wear)
Either way, it’s not really a trousers vs skirt issue.
I kinda wish @ALOHA_HATER would return to the thread to further explain his notion that skirts highlight men’s genitals. As far as I know, the only garment that “strongly, confrontationally emphasize[s] the visual of the penis” is the codpiece. And that hasn’t been fashionable for about, oh, five centuries.