How exactly is this NOT a dress!

[renesm1]

I have noticed that Asos has started selling dresses for men.

Now before you get all excited then disappointed. The retailer doesn't call them dresses.

For example.

http://www.asos.com/asos/asos-extreme-l ... e+longline

According to Asos, this is not a dress, but rather an "extreme longline sweatshirt".

So at what point does a dress become a rather long sweater? (I can already guess the answer BTW!)

R

[Caultron]

I suppose it's all in the mind. Wearing a long sweater is probably easier for some people than wearing a knit dress.

I used to have a size 6X black t-shirt that hung to my knees, and I wore it around the house the same way.

[MrNaturalAZ]

Also notice how the model is wearing trousers underneath. Perhaps that's why they call it a "shirt" instead of a "dress"? Or else the trousers are there just to reinforce the suggestion that it is a shirt -- an "acceptable" male garment -- instead of a dress, which many men would consider unacceptable.

Remember, they are there to sell high-profit garments; the more palatable and desireable they make them appear (to the mainstream) the more they are likely to sell.

Personally, I'd rather they included at least one or two photos without long trousers - after all, while that might make it look more like a dress, there might just as easily be shorts underneath (for those wearers so inclined) and nobody would be the wiser if they didn't extend below the hemline of the shirt, er, dress.

Actually, I've noticed that a lot in the fashion industry - if a man is wearing a dress or skirt, he is more often than not wearing long trousers underneath. Comfort is certainly not the goal, I'd assume.

[Caultron]

I, too, wish progress were faster but any step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.

Some of those pants are so tight they look more like wrinkly leggings. Maybe that'll progress to leggings, or tights, or knee socks, or why bother?

[RichardA]

I see they do a super longline one - mini dress
http://www.asos.com/ASOS/ASOS-Super-Lon ... gridsize=3

[Sinned]

I have one like this Super Longline Sweatshirt in Yellow with short sleeves and a bit more rounded neck. It's actually a t-shirt mini-dress but apart from the colour it's pretty much the same. Could this be the start of the revolution? Probably too early to tell - we'll have to see if there are any other suppliers follow suit.

[Grok]

Perhaps these garments could be referred to as....tunics?

[dillon]

I'm not sure what's in a name, but that doesn't have the tailoring I would associate with a dress. It reminds me of the one I made.

[Milfmog]

I see they do a super longline one - mini dress
http://www.asos.com/ASOS/ASOS-Super-Lon ... gridsize=3

Thanks for that link Richard. I have ordered one as I've been looking for a long shirt that will keep my lower back warm when I'm bent over. If it also doubles up as a dress I can use for slobbing around the house, which will help me to get Carole more used to that idea, then that would be a bonus.

Watch this space for a report back (it is scheduled for delivery by the end of the week).

Have fun,


Ian.

PS I have no plans to emulate the model's tattoos...

[skirtyscot]

To answer the original question - it is a dress if you take your trousers off.

I like the extreme (i.e. knee-length) one. Could see myself wearing it. However I'm not sure how well it would go down with my nearest and dearest, even if it is sold as menswear.

Another problem is that ASOS sound too much like that company who assess terminally ill people as fit for work so they can't claim benefits. Puts me right off!

[Davy]

To me the answer (is this a dress or not) is obvious. If its worn as a stand-alone garment, not over other outerwear, then its a dress; if its worn over shorts or pants, then its a shirt. The model in the ad appeared to have pants on underneath, so they obviously aren't selling as a dress.

Now I appreciate there is some ambiguity here, as now you have to define what is outerwear and what is underwear, which is often not obvious. Just do even a short survey of what women wear under what they surely consider dresses in winter.

[Davy]

If it also doubles up as a dress I can use for slobbing around the house, which will help me to get Carole more used to that idea, then that would be a bonus.

This is a big bonus of a shirt/dress like this. I often "slob around the house" in just a long t-shirt and underwear. Last year I got a very long polo shirt that is quite similar to the one advertised. My wife has no problem with me wearing that, even if I go out for a bit, but she would never be happy with me wearing a "real dress". She even said no one could really tell I didn't have shorts on underneath.

[Grok]

Perhaps some progress will come through ambiguity? In effect, sneaking these garments under the radar

[Sinned]

Indeed, there are a whole range of garments that come into the ambiguous category and I'm learning to use that in the clothes that I wear to slip things past MOH. Take the T-shirt. If the hem lands around the middle of the body then that's ok, could be male or female and it's the pattern on it that tends to differentiate. But if the hem lands at the knee or lower then that's a T-shirt dress and that's considered female. Nothing has changed except the extra material. But where in between the two is it conventionally accepted that the change over takes place? Could it be that the T-shirt dress with jeans/trousers underneath is acceptable as male but without the jeans/trousers it's not? I don't know and I suspect that MOH doesn't either. I think that when the weather gets a bit colder I will wear my yellow T-shirt dress with purple or yellow trousers underneath and a jumper ( cardigan, sweater, whatever ) on top. See what she says about that. There are lots of tops marketed to females that any man could also wear if the source was not disclosed. There are lots of jeans/trousers that are not obviously cut for the female figure that come into the same category. I know as I wear some of them. So yes, perhaps the answer is to slip in the odd item incongruously into the wardrobe and wear them with various other items, not just the same ones.

On the other hand the skirt though is perhaps unique in that you can't wear one by stealth, like you can with a top elongated into a dress. Yes, you can wear kilts but the move from kilts to skirts even via the UK is still a quantum leap and I don't really know of any way over that. I'm thinking of ways to get around MOH's antagonistic stance in this respect. I guess that it's just go for it or not. Sigh!

[pleated]

Indeed, there are a whole range of garments that come into the ambiguous category and I'm learning to use that in the clothes that I wear to slip things past MOH. Take the T-shirt. If the hem lands around the middle of the body then that's ok, could be male or female and it's the pattern on it that tends to differentiate. But if the hem lands at the knee or lower then that's a T-shirt dress and that's considered female. Nothing has changed except the extra material. But where in between the two is it conventionally accepted that the change over takes place? Could it be that the T-shirt dress with jeans/trousers underneath is acceptable as male but without the jeans/trousers it's not? I don't know and I suspect that MOH doesn't either. I think that when the weather gets a bit colder I will wear my yellow T-shirt dress with purple or yellow trousers underneath and a jumper ( cardigan, sweater, whatever ) on top. See what she says about that.

Next time she gives out to you put on one of these-
http://www.bigteeshirt.co.uk/cart/descr ... hp?II=6449