Ooh, Fay, I quite agree--the girl-versions of the boy-underwear are fun! (The actual boy-underwear I find not nearly so much fun at all, as it tends to be boringly colored and less comfy, which is unsurprising since it's made for people without hips, and with extra dangly bits).
Good question regarding the stats, Steph--I think the 1/10 gay people stat is similarly messed up (but convenient for making people think, eh?)
Daniel, I think shirts aren't quite so gendered regarding side the buttons are on anymore, but growing up I heard the same thing.
Was/is this still around?
I think it is. I can sometimes buy children's clothing, and I have a number of boy's jackets -- as far as my muscle memory is concerned the buttons and zippers are backwards from what I'm used to having on my female-gendered clothing.
Emily and I started South Beach today.
I think we're about to gorge ourselves on the rest of her birthday ice cream cake.
Hey, all. I remember the button-side thing too, although I haven't heard it in a long time.
Snargh. Slept till 4:30 today. Crazy. But I had little sleep all weekend, plus a lot of partying, dancing, drinking, and other forms of fun that made me tired. But happy.
Last night i dreamt I threw a party and some of my student came, and I was wearing a very revealing black dress and I was embarassed. Also, one of my students lost the gold from her tooth, and we had to replace it with pink plastic.
I don't like men's underwear, but I prefer men's undershirts...but mostly because they are comfy and make my boobs look juicy.
So not a boy.
Most of my shirts are chick shirts these days, because the idea of them fitting me is novel and wonderful, but my men shirts from as little as five years ago do button the other way around.
I don't have many clothes under which it's possible to wear boxers without it becoming a wrinkle issue. Boy short panties are very cute, I think, but it's a guaranteed wedgie-in-waiting for me, so I've given up on them too.
Undershirts, OTOH, I'm all over them. They're cool.
The reason that was given to me at one time was that women of means in the old days had someone dressing them, and it was supposedly easier to button for the servant.
Hmmm...
I thought guys had someone dress them too? At least that's what I seem to recall from Edwardian House.
Well, I think men could dress themselves easier; aristos may have had valets for men as a matter of course, but even middle-class ladies had to have had someone to help them into their corsets. Whereas middle-class dudes could dress themselves; they just had to learn how to manage the collars and ties themselves.
Course, I'm extrapolating so this could all be so much BS.
I was told the "women buttoned by someone else" thing too because women couldn't lift their arms high enough in old-fashioned sleeves.
I've not found that buttoning my own women's shirts is that difficult, which makes me wonder why someone else buttoning men's shirt had enough hassle that they switched it for the ladies.
