Plus it demonstrates how female clothing is generally copying males of past ages. Including jeans.
Like most other things in fact.
Though lovelier, they are not an initiatory sex.
I think the more salient point is that what clothing is considered "masculine" and what is considered "feminine" is a fashion trend, not the immutable biology some people seem to think. For most of Christian Europe, blue was the color of women, since it was associated with the Virgin Mary, while pink was masculine because it was considered "just light red, and red is a manly, aggressive color". Although any lower body garment with a single hole for both legs tends to get considered a "skirt" or "dress" now, pants are mainly from countries that rode horses, as individual leg holes are harder to make, so everyone from the Greeks to the Scots to Japan to most of Africa will have togas or kilts or robe-like outfits for men.
Ruffled or baggy clothing was flexing wealth in medieval times, when cloth was so expensive peasants couldn't afford to waste any and often just kept cutting down and reusing old ones until they were stitching scraps together. Like with how sumptuary laws banning peasants from eating "noble's food" would show, nobles took pride in showing off how NOT like peasants they were in every possible way, from having ridiculous food just because it was expensive and unattainable even if it was gross and massively unhealthy, to considering being fat attractive because it means you have too much to eat, to deliberately poisoning yourself with arsenic to make yourself paler so you don't look like you work outside. Hence, all nobles wore as much excess fabric as possible, and silk has to be imported from China, so extra wealth flex.
Makeup, meanwhile, is because everyone had smallpox back then, so their faces look like Bill Murray without makeup does nowadays, and the makeup was to fill in the craters on their face.
“Sodomy was legal everywhere” not true, some places like the Assyrian had laws that were against homosexuality, also idk why this detail was included cuz Astolfo never had anal/gay sex, quite the opposite in-fact, and is a paladin, like the detail above said. Also he wasn’t “legendary” the man ain’t even get his own stories and plays like Roland or Bradamante, which is sad considering that canonically he’s a stud and a chad and I wouldn’t have mind seeing more of him and his wacky ass adventures.
That picture is a battering ram pounding the fortress of my heterosexuality.
No, it isn't. If you're a man and you're still very much attracted to women (esp. hot, sexy, beautiful young women), you're heterosexual. Stop trying to breed sexual confusion where none exists.
No, it isn't. If you're a man and you're still very much attracted to women (esp. hot, sexy, beautiful young women), you're heterosexual. Stop trying to breed sexual confusion where none exists.
I’ve come across more than my fair share of comments very similar to the one I responded to which were not jokes at all.
Mine was, though. I wouldn't have used such odd analogies if I was serious. Maybe it wasn't obvious enough, but I feared that saying "a thick, throbbing battering ram pounding and forcing its way in the delicate, sensitive, defenseless backdoor of the fortress of my heterosexuality" would've annoyed people instead of amusing them. Humour is always such a thin line, especially in a foreign language.
I think the more salient point is that what clothing is considered "masculine" and what is considered "feminine" is a fashion trend, not the immutable biology some people seem to think. For most of Christian Europe, blue was the color of women, since it was associated with the Virgin Mary, while pink was masculine because it was considered "just light red, and red is a manly, aggressive color".
And then American companies realized that they weren't selling enough pink and blue baby clothes so they started a "blue for boys,pink for girls" sales campaign.
If it ain't the Brits screwing things up,it's their biggest former colony...
