Walking to the train the other day, I was admiring the legs of a woman in a business suit. And I started wondering why western clothing styles developed such that in almost every setting, from business to casual, it is acceptable for women to show more than men in terms of skimpier and tighter clothing.
I understand that some time in the past, women revealed considerable decolletege, and men would display a shapely calf. But more recently, both men and women covered up quite completely, and it was considered “indecent” for women to wear slacks. When and why did this change? It strikes me that a move that may have initially been “freeing” of women, may have somewhat backlashed imposing unreasonable body-type expectations.
And when it became acceptable for women to show more, why did men not go to similar extremes? The beach is perhaps the only place I can think of where menswear approaches women’s in terms of exposure.
As a contrast, in Muslim countries, women are forbidden to show their form. Why?
Are there cultures where men and women dress similarly? Asia? Africa? The Artic?
If a woman is given a choice and has goods in stock she will advertise. Men flaunt resources and skills, women flaunt fertility and health. [Crocodile Hunter voice]Don’t interfere, it’s nature’s way.[/Crocodile Hunter voice]
There was a gradual trend in stages during the C20[sup]th[/sup] for women to wear more convenient clothing, which in turn was more revealing. The single biggest watershed was probably the mini skirt of the '60s, coinciding as it did with greater sexual “freedom” for women.
The reason why women show more skin than men is because it’s generally presumed that women’s bodies are better-looking than men’s. That’s also why women are supposed to cover up in certain societies where lust is discouraged.
There are some societies in Africa where the men dress to please the women, rather than the other way around (e.g the Wodaabe people of Niger, and I believe the Kikuyu of Kenya).
In a predominatly heterosexual society, would not women find men’s bodies more attractive?
Does this presumption hold in such things as:
women being able to wear open neck blouses where men wear suits and ties?
women wearing sleeveless blouses when men wear shortsleeves?
Women wearing shorts or skirts where men wear long pants?
It’s a passive means of displaying sexuality. Men don’t have to be passive about it. Wearing nylons in the winter isn’t exactly comfortable or practical.
Which presumption - yours or mine? The presumption that women are more attractive than men in terms of their appearance is backed up by the fact that men’s magazines (not porn) often have pictures of women on the cover, but so do women’s magazines.
No one would like to look at my dull body. Heck, I’m not even ugly. I’m just blah. Adapted for survival. Medium build, blond-brown hair, slightly shorter than average.
What a childish post. Try showing up for work in a halter top and pencil skirt and see if anyone looks at you then. Do you have any response to the OP?
I imagine trends in business wear may have evolved for different reasons. But generally women can get away with showing more. Dresses instead of suits. Necklines other than buttoned collars w/ ties. Are women’s throats and lower legs considered more attractive than men’s?
And in many casual settings, it is fine for a woman to go sleeveless. Whereas it would be tacky for a man. But a nice biceps can be quite attractive to man or woman, no?
And the calf/ankle exposed in skirts. Not an area I’d imagine tremendously high on most guys’ lists of features they look for in a woman.
I can imagine the covers of women’s vs men’s mags may be attributable to different causes than attire. I don’t believe the Cosmo/Glamour/Shape cover girl is intended to elicit similar reactions from those mags’ readers, and the Details/Playbor covergal.
http://alpha.furman.edu/~kgossman/history/directory.htm
I found this site interesting.
To my inexpert eye, the earliest Greek and Roman fasions exposed similar amounts for men and women.
Then European fashion gradually had women covering up, with men showing their silhouette.
From other sources, I gather women’s fashions changed, becoming more utilitarian, during WWI.
Originally posted by Dinsdale
I imagine trends in business wear may have evolved for different reasons. But generally women can get away with showing more. Dresses instead of suits. Necklines other than buttoned collars w/ ties. Are women’s throats and lower legs considered more attractive than men’s? Yes, that appears to be the case. Whether it should be is another matter but I’m not trying to endorse social convention, just describe it.
And in many casual settings, it is fine for a woman to go sleeveless. Whereas it would be tacky for a man. But a nice biceps can be quite attractive to man or woman, no? Objectively, yes.
And the calf/ankle exposed in skirts. Not an area I’d imagine tremendously high on most guys’ lists of features they look for in a woman. Not on the sexual shopping list, but as I say were not simply dealing with sexual attraction. Hence straight women’s favourable attitude to other women’s appearance.
I can imagine the covers of women’s vs men’s mags may be attributable to different causes than attire. I don’t believe the Cosmo/Glamour/Shape cover girl is intended to elicit similar reactions from those mags’ readers, and the Details/Playbor covergal. True. Same effect; different reason. But social convention about attire doesn’t generate social attitude to men’s vs women’s looks - it’s the other way round.
That’s right - no more compulsory long dresses. The shorter “flapper” style, with no wasp-waister corset underneath arrived immediately afterwards. Apparently this was a kind of social exhalation to a generation that hadn’t been killed in the Great War. Compare it with the post-WWII tight sweater, loose skirt style. While men’s clothing styles also varied during the last century there’s been far less emphasis on exposing or emphasising the body shape.
