My two cents !
I don't think one should make much of an issue out of what a woman does or does not wear never mind going on a border-line witch-hunt on this.
That said I do find it very interesting how femininity and emancipation has found herself defined in a manner, in terms of clothing, much different than its equivalent has for men. I often find it intriguing to see that men, by and large, don't wear low cut dresses, they don't wear back-less dresses, find the need to expose their legs, wear shorts that barely cover their butts or wear any piece of clothing that is very minimal in its nature and consider it as being stylish or modern. Heck even male athletes don't, always, wear such exposing clothes subject to some exceptions of course.
I wonder if its because of something to do with female physiology that requires them to wear a skirt instead of pants (like men do) when, say, playing golf or wearing a backless dress to a dinner instead of non-exposing dress (like a tuxedo) like men do.
Or is it a natural reaction to years of suppression that women have had to suffer at the hands of men and as a consequence they've, unconsciously, defined femininity and emancipation in defiant terms including an antithesis of what they were asked - nay forced, to wear !
Or have we men defined femininity in provocative terms whereby we've added sexual overtones to it and its also manifested itself in terms of dressing whereby men, through their demeanor - not words, have indicated that they'd notice a woman more who's dress is more minimalist than not. And that women have simply followed suite.
Or is it because of all of the above at once.
Hmmmmn.....it would make an interesting discussion if one were to deconstruct this in a scientific manner. I wonder what anthropologists and experts on gender studies have opined about this.
@krash @Jungibaaz @Hyperion @Gufi
