[shantly]

> Men's fashion is truly horrible compared to women's fashion. Men basically have the choice of either a stuffy suit that look like it hasn't changed in a century and is completely impractical, or baggy pants and a baggy hoody. Women get all kinds of choices in clothes, including lots which show off their bodies, while men's clothes are basically designed to hide our bodies completely and look as boring as possible. I guess that's helpful if you're fat, but if you're athletic and toned, it's really not.

Strongly disagree—you may just not have been exposed to all the options in men's fashion. There are tons, without even deviating too far from traditional/normal.

[lidHanteyk]

Sure. Women are limited to painted-on pockets for pants, while men get the entire gamut from painted-on leghuggers to many-small-knapsacks cargo pants.

Right now, most men's fashion is terrible in terms of how it models the waist. Put on anything that you consider to be fashionable, and then see how well your hip-hinge and thighs-parallel squats do. No wonder the Scottish loved their kilts!

[llampx]

Women have a choice of what they want to wear. If they want to wear leggings with no pockets, they can. If they want to wear "boyfriend" cut jeans with exactly the same pockets as men, they can. If they want to wear a dress with pockets, they can.

A trip to a women's clothing store would disprove the notion that women don't have choices very quickly.

[magduf]

Exactly. If a woman wants to wear jeans, it's OK. Or slacks, or a skirt, or a dress, or shorts, or leggings/yoga pants these days.

What choices for bottoms do men have that aren't trousers? There's shorts if the weather's warm enough (though there seem to be a bunch of weird men out there wearing shorts in freezing weather for some reason), but that's it.

Don't forget the colors. Dress too colorfully as a man, and people think you're gay. So we usually end up sticking with darker, solid colors.