AuroraOrodel wrote:What's the issue with women's pockets? If you want pants with pockets you can keep things in, buy cargo pants or women's work jeans. Woo. I'm more annoyed with the industry's mistaken assumption that all tall women are automatically curvy and all non-curvy women are Hobbit sized.
MeanMrMustard wrote:So where are the pics of the afflicted females posteriors in the the savage constricting denim garments? We must seem them to analyze the problem, and the aforementioned condom pocket. Which could be any pocket. Get on it ladies. Again, that's my take of this issue, which is just awesome with pics involved....uh for research.
The argument is a stupid argument. The reason no women have big pockets is a ploy by religious fundamentalism to get women to dress in skirts. Hence, increasing the pockets would really not be particularly effective, would it?
Skins wrote:I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but this thread confused me at first. To me, this is what the definition of pants is:
Due to that fact, I started worrying about girls wearing these. Then when you mentioned pockets and such, I became slightly disturbed. Then I remembered that pants in Americaland are trousers/jeans.As for the debate itself, meh, I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not sure what kind of pants/trousers/jeans they sell in America, but around my neck of the woods, the pocket sizes are very varied. Depending on the shop and style of the item, some pockest are big, some are small, some have five pockets, some have two, and some don't even have any. I definitely don't think that small pockets sugest sexual behaviour of any kind either. The condom thing weirded me out a little... When I see a small pocket, I don't tend to think condom.Besides, in the end, we can always just carry our things around on a donkey.
You can't keep stuffing cash inside your blouse or something.So in that case you have to rely on men completely, right?
76,456 Literary Works • 384,040 Reviews