OK, BD wrote the following on the Shuffle post:
“none of those young ladies were inappropriately dressed, ”
Not sure even the very liberal in such matters, Bestes Frau In The World, would have allowed our 12 year old daughter (thank god we never had girls) to go out the house in cut-to-crutch shorts- and when I say TBF is ‘liberal’ I mean she thinks women can wear short skirts so long as they cover the knee. But ‘appropriate’ is in the eyes of the beholder I suppose and I was born into the wrong century I guess.
It certainly raises an interesting question because with the most Mary Whitehouse demeanour I can muster, I fail to see how this girl [the one I presume BD refers to] has crotch shorts – they’re denim for a start, with no shape, the cloth not [cough] contour hugging:
She’s maybe around 12, maybe not, I wouldn’t know because I’m looking at the moves, as Amfortas was. The girls at the top of the post are clearly young, how young I couldn’t hazard a guess but again, I can’t see what’s wrong with their attire – covered from waist to ankle – is the issue that they’re showing some ankle and midriff?
As for midriff, what I’ve noticed is that there seems to be some sort of uniform for this dancing – crop top which secures bust and shows none of it, then some sort of leggings or shorts, sometimes trainers. Either way, it’s hardly high cut or showing anything in the chestal area. Nor are they sexual in any way – in some ways they’re sexless, everything is in the dance moves – the most important thing is that that’s what they themselves are concentrating on … and so should we.
Appropriate to watch? Why not? They’re really quite adept and the footwork is awesome, I’d just like to be able to do those steps.
Coming back to those shorts on that girl, when a girl is short, she needs to accentuate balance between head to hips and hips to shoes – this is what high heels are for, to increase the apparent leg length. When a girl is taller, it is the legs which are longer, not the torso, so she need not worry so much.
My mother [5’2″] in the 50s wore a one piece at the beach, with those ruffle thingies they wore in those days, the cut was straight across at the [ahem], it wasn’t highcut. She did wear a two piece I think but it was hardly immodest, unless you call midriff immodest.
Now maybe you do see midriff as immodest, in which case that’s your view and fine.
My mother was anything but “put it out there” but she was mighty proud of her “pins” all the same, as she put them and though I don’t care to dwell on this, she had everything pretty well in the right place, or so it seemed to a thoughtless boy at the time.
I do draw the line at highcut from the crotch, such as the athletes wear today and the swimmers – they are, frankly, obscene IMHO because they expose nether regions, especially over-scalloped. Also, when the whole bust is not covered and/or the cloth is stretchy and thin, then that is immodest.
The worst thing about the highcut one-pieces though is that they are so ugly – yuk! Those females think they’re being daring – no, they are aesthetically displeasing, the cut throws out the whole balance of the body. A woman should not have legs up over her waist if you see what I mean, it’s bizarre, it’s ugly.
So it does come down to the cut of the hem, does it not? A slight rise is Ok and any rise up to hip level does increase the length of the leg so fair enough. It’s when it’s cut above the hip, exposing it – a statement is thus being made and the statement is: “Look at me, I’m a slapper.” Same with plunging necklines.
Again, I strongly object to the crime against the aesthetic, rather than the crime against modesty. Necklines plunging to the waist are slatternly, there are no two ways about it. Again, one of the sexiest women going is that red dress girl in the violin Pata Pata – many commented on her, she was the goods. Immodest? Not in dress, just in her movements.
I’m not talking about a page three girl here, I’m talking about your own wife or daughter – that is the criterion. Your own gal. What will you allow her to show? Are you happy with your daughter showing “sideboob”? “Cameltoe”? Scalloped one-piece showing her bikini line to the world? Being leered at? And why on earth would she wish to? Her beauty is not in her shaven skin, it’s in her overall shape and movement, plus her niceness as a person.
Have these females never heard of “less is more”?
Seems to me there’s a lot of hypocrisy going on here as well among the men. What we won’t allow in our own gal we are happy about in porn. Someone else’s daughter, that, innit? Or is it?
As for us men, the old clingy speedos are a bit yuk to me, the best are the ubiquitous long shorts in men, modesty becomes men, they can still look good at the beach in those. A man who has to flash his equipment – well, methinks that guy has issues.
These are my knockabout clothes, the T shirt hangs over of course, not tucked in … and they’re pretty well my beach clothes too, with boat shoes:
And by the way, I don’t photograph my clothes for myself, that pic was sent to a female friend.
Finally, I think those girls were great with their dancing – if they can be heavily into that, then maybe they’ll be less into drugs and sex, keeps them off the nasties.
And BD – comments are open. 🙂