How could this be considered okay to openly suggest?

[agt5]

I recently came across this article from L'officiel: https://www.lofficielibiza.com/fashion/no-underwear-celebrities-red-carpet-looks-bella-hadid

Please take a quick look at the article. This article talks about moments where celebrities were going commando on the red carpet. So in other words, they're insinuating that these celebrities were not wearing underwear. And it's due to the fact that their dresses had high slits or open side panels. I think it's inappropriate for such a reputable magazine like L'officiel to be suggesting that these celebrities were going commando.

1. That's because first of all, most of these celebrities never actually confirmed that they were going commando. So even if you're sure that they were, you cannot really write about it in an article as if it were a fact, right? In other words, you cannot openly assume anything, right?

2. Second of all, imagine the case where a woman is wearing low rise jeans. In this case, it would definitely be inappropriate to suggest that she was going commando. So why is there a double standard in the case of a high slit dress?

What are you talking about?

.

Celebrities wear dresses designed to get attention and people talking.
Celebrities get attention and people talk.
Mission accomplished!

Why are you worked up about it?

Well, they might be wearing high legged thong underwear but that's immaterial - they wear those slitted dresses to draw attention to their figures and they've got what they wanted, I doubt they are complaining.

Everyone discussing if they were wearing pants is one of the main reasons those dresses were chosen? Celebs do the red carpet for publicity, so court it, unsurprisingly.

I'm worked up about the second point I made in my post. About how when a woman is wearing low rise jeans, people would never suggest this kind of thing. So why is there a double standard?

Which part of my post was unclear to you?

The part where you don’t seem to understand what ‘double standard’ means.

“when a woman is wearing low rise jeans, people would never suggest this kind of thing”

Depends on just how low-rise they actually are - and whether no knickers is better or worse than the thong above the jeans look. Frankly, I really don’t know why you would care.

Oh they do, all the time! Unless of course you can see her 'whale tail' at the back 😂

What’s wrong with it being assumed someone isn’t wearing knickers?

Would you get bent out of shape if they assumed they weren’t wearing socks inside their boots?

They’re just knickers 🤷‍♀️

People probably would suggest it, actually, if they were minded to care about such things, but it would be objectionable if it was a photo of a random woman going about her daily business, rather than an outfit chosen for the red carpet.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with or even interesting about 'going commando' other than it must be very uncomfortable in jeans.

Have you tried writing to your local MP?

I don't understand what your point is actually.
These women chose to go virtually naked to these events. They want to be seen. So if people assume they dont wear any underwear it won't be an issue for them.

I think if there is any double standards it's women, and girls, wearing extremely revealing clothing and then getting upset when people look at them.

Well, it’s a brain-numbing article but no worse than any other puerile clickbait I’ve seen.

I really cannot think of anything I give less of a shit about to be honest. I wish I had the kind of life where worrying about celebrity’s undercrackers caused me so much consternation that I felt compelled to write on MN about it.

I doubt those celebrities are that fussed about people knowing they aren't wearing any knickers. They could always have tied a jumper round their waist if the felt self conscious about it.

But isn’t the point of those dresses that fact that it’s obvious you aren’t wearing knickers? The article isn’t insinuating they weren’t wearing underwear, for most of those outfits it’s obvious (some could have skin coloured panels but the purpose of those is still to look like you are not wearing underwear).

I think this is all just about getting people to click the link 🙄

Okay, I understand what you mean. But to play devil's advocate, let's say there's a woman wearing ultra low rise jeans. In this case, would you say it's also obvious? Or would you say it's not as obvious?

Why on earth do you keep comparing these two things? Why are you obsessing about underwear?

Why is it inappropriate or offensive go suggest someone is 'going commando' in an outfit designed for such a look?

Your low rise jeans comparison makes no sense.

Were you not around in the late 90s/early 2000s OP? Plenty of commentary on low slung jeans and underwear or lack thereof.

Very little commentary about that nowadays a low slung jeans are not the fashion (and please god lets hope they never are again!).

I think celebrities deliberately wearing highly provocative clothing to get the attention of millions of people is a bit different from a random woman wearing low-rise jeans.