Yeah peanut butter is delicious

Damn, need a red arrow pointing to the red text!

Glad someone added the red text, otherwise I wouldn’t know what to laugh at

It should fundamentally be deliberately stupid. It could be offensive, but if so it should be offensive in a stupid way.

Betting markets aggregate the opinion of people who make bets on them, weighted according to how much they bet. They are not an estimate of the likelihood of an event happening. This is a common misconception about how they work.

If they took bets from a representative sample of society and everyone bet the same amount, it’d be an aggregate opinion of the public, which is a pretty good way of trying to estimate such likelihoods (using the Wisdom of the Crowd principle) but this is not what they do.

So, I got it right, with the caveat that you’re not talking about all jeans?

But jeans that are not tight on your thighs may be tight on someone else’s. The bigger pockets on those jeans that benefit you will look worse on that person. Bigger pockets add a (small) cost - which is fine if it offers something of value. But to the many women who carry a bag by default, bigger pockets do not add value, only a cost, so you are also asking those to bear the cost.

So those are the two reasons.

Framing the complaint as, “I’m annoyed that jeans designed for women have useless pockets” leaves the space open for those reasons, those other people whose annoyance might also matter. The complaint in the original post, continued by you and others, would erase them.

If you don’t want the obvious replies, frame the complaint in a way that doesn’t invite them. The original post is someone talking about the “right to have deeper jeans pockets” which invites the point that women already have options for deep jeans pockets.

I’m not here telling you that all the choices you have are as good as the choice you wish you had.

Because women are not allowed to have choices.

You are right that they are loose-fitting enough on to have functional pockets, but I think there’s some more of my comment that still applies. How many women do you think are buying jeans that fit that loosely? A quick dredge through some photos (whether models or selfies) makes me pretty confident it’s a minority.

Your perspective seems to be that there is no reason not to make the pockets bigger, but there is, it’s just a reason that affects people other than you.

I saw a problem being mischaracterised. I’m so sorry that I had the temerity to point out the choices available to you.

Whatever would we have done without you??

Continued to complain you “deserve pockets” that you absolutely can have.

Take your horrible inaccurate assumptions somewhere else. I won’t be reading any replies.

You have the choice to:

• Buy a skirt
• Buy a dress
• Buy sweatpants
• Buy jeans from one of the retailers listed in this thread
• Buy jeans with unusable pockets and alter them
• Buy “men’s” clothes
• Carry a bag with you

You have choices. You are unhappy with the choices available, but are instead saying you have none.

If you complained “I am unhappy with these choices” instead of complaining, “I am not allowed to have choices” you would not get people replying about the other choices you do, in fact, have.

You, a man

No thank you.

There’s a world of difference between a complaint that acknowledges the privilege of even being in a position to complain about fashion and one which mistakenly or dishonestly mischaracterises what is wrong as something more severe.

Imagine if I complained I was thirsty all the time because the local shop stopped stocking coke, and that I deserved to have something to drink. Wouldn’t you roll your eyes and tell me to drink water? Wouldn’t you react differently if I said I was bummed because the shop ran out of coke and I just wanted some? Being honest/aware of what the actual issue is makes all the difference.

Bootcut men’s jeans:

Bootcut women’s jeans:

I mean sure, you may mean you prefer looser jeans even than those pictured, but do you see how much tighter the woman’s are than the man’s? That’s the current fashion. Even if you actually wear looser ones, the fact that the fashion is for tighter jeans means you might not be wearing the size the designer envisaged, and in any case, the designer imagines that the majority of people buying those jeans also own tight clothing, hence a purse, hence there’s no point putting in a functional pocket.

Yes, it’s annoying when fashion doesn’t cater to you, but it’s still important to recognise that as what’s going on.

You can desire whatever you want, and I can desire whatever I want. The only difference (assuming you are agreeing with the person I replied to) is that I don’t go around telling people I deserve what I desire when it is hard to get. There are innumerable ways the world does not cater to my desires - some overlap with the ways it does not cater to yours, some do not.

If your basic human rights are not being met, I’ll come out for you, just as, I’m sure, you’d come out for me. But this is about fashion.

Like, you know it’s pretty easy to get longer skirts and dresses with pockets, right? If it were about pockets, you’d just wear the clothes with pockets.

And men too!

But seriously, if I take what you’re saying at face value that this is a practical problem, large trousers and a belt will give you trousers that cover your legs and don’t fall down.

What I suspect you want is trousers that not only fulfill your functional requirements but which you also think look good. And that is not even an unreasonable desire, but it is clearly a different desire, and one which I don’t think is problem that needs urgently addressing on a societal level. The fact that there is a tradeoff between

• readily available
• suits you
• practical

is at the level of annoying.

My ex, a woman, complete with a woman’s hips, pretty much exclusively wore men’s trousers. Sometimes with a belt.

I get so tired of being told to go buy pants with pockets or buy men’s jeans, when that has nothing to do with the point. Women deserve pockets in our jeans. Period.

What you’re saying is not just that you deserve pockets in your jeans, but that you deserve them in the style that you want, as easily found as other pairs. Which doesn’t sound true to me. Who “deserves” a particular style?

The reason trousers are sold with small pockets is because big pockets look different, especially when full of stuff, especially on tighter-fitting clothing. Do you want to make it harder for people who want those trousers to find suitable ones? Why do your preferences for practicality outweigh theirs for aesthetics?

I don’t believe I did. I was always talking about whether it was necessary to offer incentives to do jobs like waste collection or if they’d be done anyway in an ideal society.

I dunno what “good at karaoke” means other than singing well.

Don’t get me wrong, I also find it annoying when a group goes to karaoke and there’s the one theatre kid who can actually sing and just embarrasses everyone else, but I’d still say they’re good

Why? Singing and making music is a worthwhile goal that you generally achieve by some other means than doing a lot of karaoke. But to get good at bowling you have to specifically have practiced bowling.