Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly dislike teenagers younger than 18 wearing tiny short shorts that make it look like they are not wearing pants when their shirts are hiding their shorts.

It looks so tacky and unrefined. 16 year olds are not supposed to look like they’re almost naked!

I'm in my 50s and this is exactly what we wore in the early 80s. Stuff got baggier soon after but for awhile, it was tiny rolled up jean shorts. Or the 70s jogging shorts like Farah Fawcett.

Anonymous wrote:I strongly dislike teenagers younger than 18 wearing tiny short shorts that make it look like they are not wearing pants when their shirts are hiding their shorts.

It looks so tacky and unrefined. 16 year olds are not supposed to look like they’re almost naked!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop the body shaming. Wear whatever you want. Let the Karen’s get into a tizzy.

We grew up with halter tops, no bras, Daisy dukes, mini skirts with no spandex underneath, short rompers with again no bras, low rise jeans with tiny tight cropped tops etc…..

And many of you turned into Karen’s judging this generation which is BY FAR the less showing skin generation. If anything they dress like absolute slobs.

I don't think asking people to wear clothing appropriate to a given setting is body shaming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some girls don't realize what their butts look like from behind. It's like that scene in Harry Potter where the characters time travel to earlier in the day and Hermione says Is that what my hair looks like from behind. But instead it's, Is that what my behind looks like from behind.

Case in point, Ariel Winter.
https://people.com/style/ariel-winter-response-to-short-shorts-photo/

This is what she was wearing.



Showing midriff or going without a bra doesn't bother me at all. But the butt cheeks showing are too far for me. Guess I'm old now.

.

At least the boots are nice

Anonymous wrote:The picture is such an extreme. I have never seen girls wear ones like that.

The typical daisy dukes that came from the Dukes of Hazards in the 80's is what I see. Most girls also wear the Lululemon 2.5" shorts or basic athletic and sweat shorts - sometimes rolled up - also like it was done in the 90's.

Conservatives always push one hard extreme (this picture above) to prove their body shaming and Karen-ness

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand most of this as "shaming." All clothing is basically a reflection of social mores. (And certainly, denim booty shorts can't claim to be functional.) If the social more is that you cover your head, you cover your head. If the social more is that you cover parts of your body that your society deems sexual and private, then you cover those parts. I don't see anything misogynist about requiring girls (as well as boys) to wear clothes that entirely cover their asses. I think the feminist problem is more when girls are held to disparate standards or where a body part is considered "sexual" or inappropriate simply because it is a female body--e.g. never understood problem with strappy tanks, esp. in the summer, where it is really just arms and shoulders that are "exposed."

Anonymous wrote:We were all young once but no one once to see your kids cheeks girl, boy or otherwise. There’s a time and a place for everything and there’s nothing misogynistic about teaching children how to dress appropriately, this includes tattered clothing, low hanging pants, or tees. You dress like that for parties, nightclubs etc. not at school, and everyday settings. You can be confident in your body image without subjecting the world to it. As my mother used to say, dress like you have sense. And I say the same to boys who go out in undershirts and flip flops. Save it for the beach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some girls don't realize what their butts look like from behind. It's like that scene in Harry Potter where the characters time travel to earlier in the day and Hermione says Is that what my hair looks like from behind. But instead it's, Is that what my behind looks like from behind.

Case in point, Ariel Winter.
https://people.com/style/ariel-winter-response-to-short-shorts-photo/

This is what she was wearing.



Showing midriff or going without a bra doesn't bother me at all. But the butt cheeks showing are too far for me. Guess I'm old now.

.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate middle aged ladies who complain that young ladies aren’t wearing enough clothes. It makes me think they are jealous fat girls all grown up. Me, I enjoyed my time as a young size 0 and got to participate in the cute trends of my time.

Your use of “jealous fat girls” and “size zero” revealed a great deal about your inner workings.

Yes, that I have no reason to be jealous and judgy about whatever is trendy for todays young ladies. If your were too day for cute clothes (let me guess, you never stepped foot in 579), it’s no wonder you might be jealous of todays thin young women. Leave them alone!

Anonymous wrote:Stop the body shaming. Wear whatever you want. Let the Karen’s get into a tizzy.

We grew up with halter tops, no bras, Daisy dukes, mini skirts with no spandex underneath, short rompers with again no bras, low rise jeans with tiny tight cropped tops etc…..

And many of you turned into Karen’s judging this generation which is BY FAR the less showing skin generation. If anything they dress like absolute slobs.