Wait. Pants are underwear in the UK?
5 Likes
Is the thing that’s like a garter belt but knee-level to keep socks up still considered a garter belt?
If that were the case, then it would be really old-school but still accepted as male fashion.
Yes, that’s right. Underpants specifically, not an undershirt or bra.
5 Likes
That’s explains a few things. One of my internet/video game handles is Suckapants.
3 Likes
On the leg is a garter, around the waist is a garter belt. Which to use depends upon how tall the socks/stockings are. It is possible to use a leg garter on the thigh, but because of the taper of the thigh they don’t work very well. For shorter ones, the calf muscles keep the garter in place. But one might prefer to not wear calf-height socks with over-the-knee boots, for instance.
That’s the topic at hand - is it anybody elses business/right to accept or reject others choices of clothing? Acceptance is a loaded term. Accepted by whom? We are always participating in the negotiation of cultural norms. But many don’t even agree upon which culture is theirs - never mind what the consensus of its norms may be!
That’s what I was trying to say: that the only possible argument for tights to not be a “garment worn by men and women that covers the body from the waist downwards, covering each leg separately” is that they are worn by women more than they are by men; in which case, suit pants, which are worn by men much more than they are by women, shouldn’t qualify either.
Re-reading the sentence as I originally wrote it, it definitely does deserve a rather large {AWK} tag.
2 Likes
There’s a type of garter belt that goes around the knee and holds calf-length stockings in place, but I’m not sure what that’s called. It is very old school, and I’ve seen it maybe a handful of times in my life.
If I were to categorize clothing as male or female, I would be making that judgment. It may be meaningless or arbitrary, but it’s a judgment that’s made.
Yes, in the U.K. that’s a garter (belt) or sock garter (belt). “Belt” may or may not be used as part of the term.
1 Like
Nothing is obscure on the internet
6 Likes
WTF? No, it isn’t.
Please show me the peer reviewed study that says men ogling women and bothering them because of how they dress is genetic and not cultural.
7 Likes
To be fair, I should be able to go out in society without seeing people’s hairy dangly bits jouncing around or rubbing on the chairs at Starbucks.
I’ll happily return this favor.
I was scarred by being in a “skyclad” coven with 40 and 50 somethings when I was 18.
5 Likes
Do they make clear knee mom tights yet?
Can somebody work on that?
5 Likes
I’ll go stand in the corner. You know, the one with the small hydroelectric power plant. I’ll go stand in the damn corner.
(Why yes, my mother does sigh a lot, why do you ask?)
4 Likes
Sadly, already a thing (minus the plastic):
8 Likes
Too demure. Not enough knee.
4 Likes
Sure, people do make judgements, and ideally know why. But I notice that many people front when they do this, claiming to speak for unaccountable groups or qualities, such as “good taste”, “common sense”, etc - things it might sound churlish to question but might yet still benefit from deeper analysis.
My experience is that people often defer criteria for clothing styles to cultural consensus. But in a multicultural society, does anybody claim default status, that their traditions of dress are somehow more legitimate than others? And what would be their justification? I like to push to make these exchanges explicit.
1 Like
Dick Davenport, husband of Lacey Davenport wore them in some of the doonesbury strips.
Now, If you want to be really neat and tidy,I suppose you can try wearing shirt stays.
I’ve worn neither variety.
7 Likes
