Recent comments in /f/Showerthoughts

PrettyText t1_j2dd2bh wrote

This is always so weird to me.

We're not living in the Soviet Union, where women's clothing don't have pockets because the communist party determines what kind of clothing gets made.

If women indeed desperately want clothing with pockets and if indeed it's simply not really available, then just start your own company and you'll probably be a millionaire in a decade.

This sounds to me more like women say they want pockets, but then when they're actually in the store they prioritize other things over pockets.

It's a bit like how people say that they want more leg room during their flight, but then in practice they always book the cheapest flight instead.

5

DitaVonPita t1_j2dcf8q wrote

What I'm gonna say is quite blunt, but... That's because nobody is trying to feminize/sexualize baby clothing, while womens clothing is automatically made to make us more sexually appealing, often removing pockets to accentuate curves or avoiding hiding them. We don't have back pockets because it makes our asses look malformed, don't have front pockets so that our hips don't look bulky. None of this is a concern with babies. And in all honesty, imo, it shouldn't be with women either. If she doesn't want the pocket to bulge she can just keep it empty. 🤦

4

AxialGem t1_j2dbz5j wrote

I mean, afaik DNA evidence is not the end all be all evidence it is often made out to be, right? It should be used together with other evidence. After all, if you find DNA of some person somewhere, what does that prove in and of itself? And then ofc there is the procedure itself that could go wrong like with anything, see the Phantom of Heilbronn for an example lol

6