The only way to wear that without looking like you’re wearing a potato sack is to have absolutely no breasts, hips, or butt whatsoever.
Which brings me back to my (rhetorical) question to clothing designers: if you really wanted to make women look pretty and desirable, why wouldn’t you design clothing to emphasize an hourglass shape, which is what our biology tells us is sexy on a woman?
I don’t know why the question should be rhetorical, but as a noob/unskilled clothing designer and all-around annoying person I would say that overcoming stereotypes of both body morphology and sexual roles can be reason enough for trying this.
I think that “what biology tells us” has far more to do with reproduction than deliberately cultivated sexual behaviors, and that reflecting this distinction in what makes for aesthetic clothes naturally follows from that. An hourglass shape might appear sexy only because wide hips and ample breasts would indicate advantageous breeding stock. But many people resort to pre-programmed body criteria such as this even when they don’t intend to mate with the person. If you aren’t looking to make babies, that hourglass isn’t very relevant.
Beyond that, I think there is also a further distinction to be made between clothes or anything else having aesthetic appeal, and the pretense of desirability, but that’s a broader topic.
You are not wrong, period.
I acknowledge and respect that you view body types as needed to be dressed by function. It makes complete sense.
I view body types as a mix of form and function, and hope that you understand I derive satisfaction from both.
Neither standpoints are wrong. It becomes wrong when a person dictates how someone else should dress (or act, or speak, or think). And I know we both intrinsically know that.
On that note, I am going to a drycleaner, gonna get my hair’s cut, and find a new tailor 
I am 51 and I wear leggings every day. My wife at first didn’t like me wearing leggings in public but after a year or so she’s now fine with it. My advice for any men that want to wear leggings is “JUST DO IT”.
Just bring back hosen, codpieces and points at this point. Same effect, same principle, much more room for variation.
Wasn’t Otzi wearing something like this when he bled out and froze in the glacier?
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2006/00000034/00000001/art00009
But you don’t need a study; it stands to reason. You have millions of sperm a day on one hand, limited eggs and nine months’ gestation on the other; go figure. The rest follows.
What’s cultural is our standard of decency, and the luxury of being able to kid yourself that’s genetic.
This study explored both the self-reported frequency and intensity of sexual desire among an ethnically diverse sample of 676 men and women. As hypothesized, men reported experiencing a higher overall level of sexual desire than did women. Sex differences also were found with respect to frequency of sexual desire. Men reported experiencing sexual desire more often than did women and, when asked to estimate the actual frequency with which they experienced desire, men’s estimated frequency (37 times per week) was significantly higher than women’s (9 times per week).
I don’t read anything there that says anything about “ogling” or “bothering” or “based on how they dress.” All I see there is “Men feel sexual desire more often, and more overall, than women do.” Although, I haven’t read the full study (I have better ways to spend $39 and time), so if there is stuff on bothering and ogling or wardrobe, you can feel free to correct me.
A lot of things in genetics would “stand to reason.”
It would stand to reason that our eyes, like octopus eyes, would route the nerve fibers behind the retina instead of routing them in front of it and creating a blind spot. It would seem to be a huge evolutionary advantage, especially given how much we rely on our vision. That evolution never happened in humans.
It would stand to reason that the human mind would consider and incorporate new information to build the most accurate picture, instead of selecting only the information that already fits the picture you already have and rejecting the rest.
The study of the human mind is still in its adolescence, if not its infancy, and we keep overturning things that are “common knowledge” of how the brain works. You always need a study, because “common sense” ideas of how our minds work, especially ones based solely upon evolutionary biology, are so often inaccurate.
Not my reason, no.
All men from probably the same culture too…
As a slight digression, I just wanted to note that that’s five times per day, and six on weekends. Can that possibly be correct? I’m male, and don’t experience sexual desire with anything even remotely close to that frequency. I’m below even the numbers they cite for females (which was once per day, twice on weekends).
I guess what I’m saying is… I’d be interested to hear their definition for “sexual desire”. And to know the standard deviation of the responses. The average is so far off from my self-reported numbers, I wonder whether I’d be an absurd outlier in their data set, or whether the standard deviation is just huge.
I can appreciate that some consider gender essentialism to not be a dead horse as of yet, but I find it mostly uninteresting for reasons which are a topic of its own.
Perhaps it can be brought more on-topic with discussion of how those gendered expectations relate to clothing choices. Going back to the second post, @Kimmo pointed out that form-fitting clothes on females are certain to attract male attention, but did not get into how or why this results in a double-standard.
For instance, why assume that form-fitting clothes have an innately beneficial effect when worn by females, but detrimental effect when worn by males? How does this work?
This also unpacks to further considerations about to what extent one chooses clothes for themselves - as a consequence of personal aesthetics, comfort, practicality, etc - and to what extent those decisions are made based upon appealing to others. This relates to not only tights but also yoga pants and athletic wear generally, which seem mostly reviled despite being IMO extremely practical in most respects.
So, sure, it IS obvious to me that there are double-standards with respect to clothing and gendered expectations of such. But rather than simply accept that uncritically, I am interested in HOW and WHY people participate in developing consensus in these areas.
This study explored both the self-reported frequency and intensity of sexual desire among an ethnically diverse sample of 676 men and women.
Again, I haven’t read the study, but my first impression was to dismiss the study’s participants as WEIRD, before reading the above line.
Doesn’t seem to be too inaccurate. It’s certainly less absurd than the “every six seconds” or whatever it was from that previous study.
And I really need a translation here.
Hope this helps…
Tights:
Pantyhose:
Stockings:
Many thanks 
So stockings are something really different than I thought.
And these ones? (thights?)
Often cotton, sometimes wool, or a blend.
Confusingly, tights, pantyhose and stockings can be used interchangeably to describe the same thing - what @IronEdithKidd’s post shows as pantyhose. Tights are generally thicker or heavier material though.
Yep, I reckon they’re tights pictured in your second post.
Stockings are quite fetching and elegant. Their counterpart, garters for men’s socks are also quite nice looking. Sure, I put on elastic hosiery every day (when I don’t go barefoot), but I like the lines both types of clothes create.
Today’s choice is a blue and black argyle.
